Jim Stillman
Nevar
Mitt Romney takes a perilous position.
December 6th 2007 21:50
This morning, Governor Mitt Romney made a speech that had been anticipated as analogous to John Kennedy’s speech reassuring America that, if he (Kennedy) were elected, his being a Roman Catholic would not interfere with his responsibilities as president. There was, at the time, the perceived general “knowledge” that a Catholic could never be elected and that, if a person of that faith were elected, a danger existed that the doctrines of the Church would supersede the interests of the country as a whole.
Governor Romney, being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a Mormon, has been the subject of similar attacks, some evangelical Christians taking the position that Romney wasn’t perhaps a “true Christian” or, in any event, Christian enough.
The Mormon faith has had a troubled relationship with the Roman Catholic Church and with most branches of Protestantism. Some of its original tenets, such as plural marriage, have been discarded, but, in spite of attempts to join with other Christian groups in promoting a conservative agenda, there remains misunderstanding, non-acceptance and doubt in the conservative Christian movement with regard to Governor Romney’s religion.
So Governor Romney decided to make certain that people knew he was prepared to be president and that people had no reason to be apprehensive about his faith.
Part of his speech was, to me, a cause for concern.
Governor Romney stated:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”[
And, later:
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
Compare Governor Romney’s assertion that freedom requires religion, and vice versa, and his intertwining of the two, compares poorly with John Kennedy’s speech from 1960 in which Kennedy stressed his vision of a total and insurmountable wall of separation of church and state, a country where public policy determinations were not influenced or dictated by the theological positions of any faith. The use by Mr. Romney of the verb “requires” indicates an attempt to have it all ways. To evangelicals, he states that religion is a condition precedent to freedom; to others he asserts he will not be dictated to by the leaders of his faith. On the one hand, freedom will not exist without belief in God; on the other the individual articles of faith of LDS members are “off limits”.
Freedom of religion must, if it has any meaning, include those who simply do not believe, be they atheist or agnostics. That is why the use of the verb “requires” is so disturbing. “Freedom requires religion." That statement is historically wrong; ancient Greece and Rome, for example, offered freedom to their citizens while being non-monotheistic. But that’s not the most serious objection.
The objectionable point here is the ill-concealed notion that only those who are truly religious crave freedom. Secularists may, in Governor Romney's vision, give lip service to freedom, but when the chips are down, they will presumably sell out liberty for a pittance or a chance to rip the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall. That is the inescapable meaning of the sentence: "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
I understand the need to cater to the Republican base in order to capture that party’s nomination. But I would have hoped that the Governor had used this opportunity to explain that we all, religious or not, liberal or conservative, desire real freedom – including the freedom to worship or not, in private, silent, without the need to explain or justify ourselves to others.
Governor Romney, being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a Mormon, has been the subject of similar attacks, some evangelical Christians taking the position that Romney wasn’t perhaps a “true Christian” or, in any event, Christian enough.
The Mormon faith has had a troubled relationship with the Roman Catholic Church and with most branches of Protestantism. Some of its original tenets, such as plural marriage, have been discarded, but, in spite of attempts to join with other Christian groups in promoting a conservative agenda, there remains misunderstanding, non-acceptance and doubt in the conservative Christian movement with regard to Governor Romney’s religion.
So Governor Romney decided to make certain that people knew he was prepared to be president and that people had no reason to be apprehensive about his faith.
Part of his speech was, to me, a cause for concern.
Governor Romney stated:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
And, later:
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
Compare Governor Romney’s assertion that freedom requires religion, and vice versa, and his intertwining of the two, compares poorly with John Kennedy’s speech from 1960 in which Kennedy stressed his vision of a total and insurmountable wall of separation of church and state, a country where public policy determinations were not influenced or dictated by the theological positions of any faith. The use by Mr. Romney of the verb “requires” indicates an attempt to have it all ways. To evangelicals, he states that religion is a condition precedent to freedom; to others he asserts he will not be dictated to by the leaders of his faith. On the one hand, freedom will not exist without belief in God; on the other the individual articles of faith of LDS members are “off limits”.
Freedom of religion must, if it has any meaning, include those who simply do not believe, be they atheist or agnostics. That is why the use of the verb “requires” is so disturbing. “Freedom requires religion." That statement is historically wrong; ancient Greece and Rome, for example, offered freedom to their citizens while being non-monotheistic. But that’s not the most serious objection.
The objectionable point here is the ill-concealed notion that only those who are truly religious crave freedom. Secularists may, in Governor Romney's vision, give lip service to freedom, but when the chips are down, they will presumably sell out liberty for a pittance or a chance to rip the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall. That is the inescapable meaning of the sentence: "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
I understand the need to cater to the Republican base in order to capture that party’s nomination. But I would have hoped that the Governor had used this opportunity to explain that we all, religious or not, liberal or conservative, desire real freedom – including the freedom to worship or not, in private, silent, without the need to explain or justify ourselves to others.
| 65 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
