Mitt Romney did conservatives and people of faith a huge favor today, by using his remarks on "Faith in America" to make a widely-watched statement on what America has stood for in the past and what makes it a special nation to this day. His campaign could soar after this day; it could stumble to defeat. Either way, our national discourse is better for his speech.
First and foremost the speech was well-written, well-delivered, and eminently Presidential. Chris Matthews of all people said, "For the first time in this campaign, it's long already, I heard greatness this morning." When Chris Matthews agrees with Pat Buchanan something significant must have happened. Practically speaking, however, there are other voices of greater weight responding to the speech, but first allow me to extract just a few short excerpts worthy of mention. First:
As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' -- the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
That passage strikes the note of a fundamentally unique aspect of American society. Because of the nature of our founding as a country, unique in its form (especially in the late 18th Century), we have a civic culture that places particular and noble expectations upon our elected leaders. In one paragraph Romney encapsulated that long-standing creed.
Second:
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 above passage pierces to the core of a feeling widely held in many circles of faith, regardless of the theology preached in them. On the stump Romney talks about social, economic, and national security conservatives as part of the Republican coalition. The paragraph above speaks directly to a much broader audience of not only conservatives of faith, but also to others not of that label who share such sentiment as well. It is a statement that binds Romney to one of the most passion-inspiring issues among the religious faithful, even those who can in no way countenance the Mormon faith.
Lastly, there was the closing passage that demonstrated the crux of Romney's speech with fitting, historical elegance:
Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. "They were too divided in religious sentiments," what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.
Local radio talker and Fred Thompson contributor Kirby Wilbur was highly impressed by the speech, particularly that last section. Wilbur's attraction to those words is a function no doubt of his own love of history. I share that same sentiment and admit to misting up at the last line in the quote when I watched the speech (cheesy, I know, but that's the sappy history major in me coming out). If you have delved with seriousness into even a couple quality books recounting the personal sacrifice and challenges experienced by the Founders you can likely understand why.
Tellingly, it was the forthright discussion of faith in American civic culture that captured the most praise for the speech from key barometers of grassroots conservative and Evangelical thought respectively. Rush Limbaugh said it was "an inspiring speech about American values, " which "hit a bull's-eye." James Dobson said, "Gov. Romney's speech was a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message was inspirational." Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention - which has profound theological difference with Mormons - was quoted saying:
"I thought it was a remarkable speech, it was an eloquent speech," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who spoke with reporters in the auditorium after the address. Land, who said he will not endorse as a matter of personal policy and obligation to his church, added he thought it was "Kennedy-esque." Land said he thought Romney's points were right, and that discriminating against him on the basis of religion would be un-American, as Romney has said before. Asked if he thought there was anything he thought was missing from the speech, Land said he couldn't think of anything.
Undoubtedly, many secular liberals, among others, will not like Romney's message at all. Locally, Eli Sanders was left largely miffed by what Romney was conveying, in large part because Romney's allegiance to faith as a fundamental part of American public life stands in contrast with what Sanders thinks JFK said nearly 50 years ago. Likewise, local faith-based liberal Joel Connelly missed the memo that a defense of religious freedom by nature includes the freedom not to believe and not to practice, even if faith itself remains a fundamental element in our civic culture.
Also, some members of the media will miss some of the relevance found in key parts of Romney's remarks since the MSM will not soon be accused of being awash with religious conservatives. The worst such example I've seen is the Washington Post's obnoxious headline: "Romney Aims to Prove His Christianity." The speech was nothing of the sort and had Romney actually attempted such theological jujitsu he might as well have withdrawn from the race on the spot. Here at home, the Seattle Times offered a less than ground-breaking story previewing the reaction of local Mormons, as if the broader reaction from local Republicans or local citizens writ large to such a newsworthy address is immaterial.
Byron York highlighted one aspect of why many in the MSM won't capture the resonance of the speech in full: Romney's statements of belief as a conservative of faith resonate with like-minded souls, regardless of theological divides.
In the end, I think it was a speech that needed to be given, as demonstrated ironically by the critiques of two conservatives. David Frum lamented the mere mention of any element of Mormon beliefs as a foot-in-the-door for future queries on the topic. But weren't those topics already swirling in the media in and in assorted religious circles? Similarly, John Podhoretz says in effect the speech was too obvious, it covered no new ground for him. Of course it didn't. Most conservative pundits already embrace much of what Romney said. But given the mystery - most of it negative - surrounding the Mormon faith in the eyes of many in the general public, Romney's very statement of these principles is significant. Without it, too many people are left to extrapolate weird rumors onto Romney when considering his faith, rather than hearing from the man directly about his view on faith in the public square.
Until I read those last two critiques, I wasn't sold the speech needed to happen. Now I absolutely think it did. And it was powerful, no matter what its effect of Romney's campaign. Will it change the minds of those previously dead-set against voting for a Mormon for President? Not a chance. Will it give undecided or not-yet-firmly decided voters with an open mind about Romney a compelling look at him? Certainly. In the end, however, I don't think that was the speech's true strength. Its meaningful voice in our current discourse was.
Whatever you think of Romney, I encourage those that haven't to watch the address, available below, and I would most definitely like to hear from the reading audience on this topic in the comments.
Footnote: I'm a blogger who supports Romney. I try my best to be objective when covering Presidential issues, but prefer to be upfront with readers about who I prefer as a candidate. That said, Hugh Hewitt's descent into caricature touting Romney is painful to watch and a discredit to punditry in the blogosphere.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 06, 2007 10:17 PM | Email ThisBut, it's still an important condition of free self-governance that we have a basic civility and morality, and it's good to see Romney bring that American tradition back into the debate, even if it ends up sacrificing his own candidacy.
If I am forced to choose between Religious Right and Secular Progressives, I'll choose the right every time, because at least on the right, there will be some basic decency in accordance with Christian values. On the left, there will be all kinds of blabber about diversity, and compassion, but because there is so much tolerance, there is little expectation of personal responsibility, and thus there won't be much of any morality to keep the hedonism in check, and the welfare at bay.
And ultimately, that's far more destructive for the nation, for the spread of disease, spread of socialism, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 6, 2007 11:29 PMSome Mormons have some pretty wacky beliefs. I'm not suggesting that Romney has these as well, but if he does, it would be nice if they came to light...
"Under the Banner of Heaven" by Krakauer is a great book on the history and oddities of Mormonism. I reccommend it.
I know that at most LDS services, each person from the congregation who speaks says "I know mine is the one, true church..." and this does not sound like the statement of someone who supports religious tolerance. How many times has Romney uttered that line? How does that make you feel?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 6, 2007 11:46 PMOne criticism that has been made of the speech is that he only mentioned the word "Mormon" once. Please do not overlook the myriad references he made to "his faith" and "his religion" as he referenced those points of faith (not doctrine) that Mormon's share with our Catholic, Evangelical, Protestant, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist and other neighbors.
Some may be disappointed that he did not discuss the specifics of Mormon theology. He answers such criticism in his speech when he says that [n]o candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. To do so would have been inappropriate for any candidate and would only have drawn attention to differences and defeated the purpose of his remarks. He did exactly what he needed to do: He sought to establish common ground by stating his belief that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of all mankind" and acknowledging that his "church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history".
Does this statement of belief conflict with his assertion that he does not "define his candidacy by [his] religion? No. The reason being is that he had to address the question he gets everywhere he goes: What does [he] believe about Jesus Christ? Asked and answered, he moved on to the unifying points of his speech with the communicative skill reminiscent of Reagan, Kennedy or a select short list of others.
As a Mormon, I appreciate his conviction in asserting his belief in the faith of his fathers without apologies and irrespective of political consequence.
I would agree with others who have described the content and communication of Mr. Romney's speech as presidential. This was a defining speech for the governor with relevance for all Americans of faith and one that the political discourse should welcome whatever its impact on Governor Romney's campaign. Previously undecided, I will cast my vote with many of different faiths for the message of optimism, principles, values and unity that Governor Romney will bring to the office of the president and the people of America, whatever their faith.
Posted by: Andrew on December 6, 2007 11:53 PM"And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen"
In this sense, "catholic" refers to the "body of Christ" known as the Christian Church.
Face it Bruce, you would have just a much of a problem with any person of faith because your agenda is to totally remove religion from the public square.
Posted by: WVH on December 6, 2007 11:55 PMI listened to Romney's speech and it seemed more like a "I promise I won't turn America in to a Theocracy" speech. It wasn't very convincing.
Here are some of his one liners -
"Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us."
How is that going to happen? How are they going to destroy 300 million people when they're 10,000 miles away? The only way Islam is going to destroy us, the U.S., is if the firewall of separation between church and state is not kept intact. I don't want forced Christian prayers in school anymore than I want forced Muslim prayers kissing the floor. Keep the firewall up and we'll all be safe from radical Islam.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."
Freedom requires religion? Says who? Last time I checked freedom requires a Constitution and a President and a Congress and a public that wants to preserve it. It doesn't require religion.
Those were just 2 points that I found needed some explaining that Mr. Romney did not provide.
As a practical matter, when the Big One hits in Seattle you have to ask yourself, do you want a President who gets on TV and says, A) "My prayers are with the people in Earthquake-devastated Seattle?" or B) "I'm mobilizing every possible resource to help Earthquake victims?" I choose President B.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on December 6, 2007 11:57 PMI would agree with you in that Under the Banner of Heaven is a good book. It however is not about Mormons or Mormonism.
Posted by: Andrew on December 7, 2007 12:02 AMI hear the arguments you are making in regard to not only Catholicism, but Christianity in general. Christianity, at the core teaches there is only one "Way." Still, I find it stange that this nation which was founded by those predominately of the Christian faith and Western Europe are more tolerant of other religions than other areas in the world. There is the case of a young woman in Malaysia who converted to Christianity and now must immigrate because she cannot get her legal religious identification changed to Christian so she can marry in the faith. I hear many accuse conservative Christians of being the Taliban or worse. Do you know of any mainstream conservative Christians who advocate burning the houses of worship of other faiths? Do they advocate killing those of other faiths?
Finally, you say:
"A) "My prayers are with the people in Earthquake-devastated Seattle?" or B) "I'm mobilizing every possible resource to help Earthquake victims?" I choose President B."
I am not aware that a president can't do both. Many people of faith are just not the idiots that secularists want to sterotype them as.
Yes, it also talks about some of the members and their actions. These two Mormons come to believe that their faith requires them to commit a murder, and they carry it out. But that is just one small thread in the book.
So, is your church the one true church? Tell us.
Was Krakauer's book banned by the LDS church? I hear they do that. My first wife used to be in a Mormon ladies book group. I've seen how tight and insular the community tends to be. This has advantages... and disadvantages.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 7, 2007 03:05 AMI find plenty of reasons not to vote for Romney that has nothing to do with his mormonism/faith. If he beleives that his church is the one true church i think if anything that makes him more like every other christian. I would think lesser of him if he thought his church was not the best or one true church.
I think mormons have some pretty weird views probably more than morst christians but what i have found in growing up near alot of them is the mormon stereotype basically consists of a bunch of positives. I trust them more than any other religion in terms of knowing they are going to be honest, nice, helpful, polite, and self reliant group etc...
Unfortunately Romney is an exception to this stereotype and consequently I would never vote for him.
Posted by: Travis on December 7, 2007 05:52 AMGive me a person of Christ based faith over any non believer any day. Being one of Evangelical Faith, we pray for non believers, but belief is a choice not a requirement. No one can force you to believe in Jesus Christ! Although there are "religions" who will kill you if you don't belong to their belief--Islamic comes to mind.
I have been following the postings re the Presidential Candidates to find where they stand. The purpose was to find "my" candidate. However all I get is the negative from the Ronnie Paul group.
Eric, How about putting something up on the blog about the 2% candidate? Might cost you a few pages of Bruce & Travis writing their essays, but maybe they would get over it.
However, my reason for reading Sound Politics postings about presidential candidates, is to find out more about each. Mr. Romney is not my choice (yet) to be the GOP candidate, but after his speech, if he were, I would vote for him.
Romney would sellout his religion, his principles, and his mom to become president. Mr. Flipflop to the extreme.
Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, anyone but Romney in '08.
Bruce Guthrie December 6, 2007
" Some Mormons have some pretty wacky beliefs "
This comment made by someone who supports Ron Paul?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 7, 2007 08:41 AMDo Mormons believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan?
Do Mormon men become gods of their own planets peopled with virgins when they die?
I've heard these claims recently.
Posted by: Nancy on December 7, 2007 08:52 AMBeing religious is important because it shapes one's morality, helps one decide what is right and what is wrong.
BUT
My reliogn will have no effect in how I govern?
What is wrong here?
GO MITT!
Posted by: David Hoffman on December 7, 2007 09:16 AMI am very definitely devout Catholic and I worry about some of what Mormons teach, especially their radically male centered society.
HOWEVER, if a Mormon President Romney can show Americans the beauty of family and that more of America focusing on and dedicated to family will improve all of American lives, then I approve.
If you've got time to find faults with it...you've got too much time on your hands and are really missing the point.
I say this half joking so as not to group myself with the moon bats- but if Hillary gets to put her hand on that bible to make an oath- it's because she made a contract with the devil.
Posted by: Andy on December 7, 2007 09:48 AMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo
Posted by: Nancy on December 7, 2007 10:19 AM#18 Nancy December 7, 20007
" I've heard these claims recently. "
Really? You have " .... heard these claims recently. "?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 7, 2007 10:23 AMFor me, there are two issues:
I am stating my opinion:
a. Are Mormans Christians? I don't think so.
b. Does it matter that in my opinion they are not Christians if a Mormon is running for office. To me, no. I like people of faith who share similar values to me. I like Senator Lieberman who is Jewish and would vote for him. The whack job representative from Minn who is Black and a Muslim. I wouldn't vote for and I would campaign against him, not because he is either Black or a Muslim, but because he is a whack job. If there were a Muslim who shared my values, I would consider voting for them.
The issue for all candidates is what are their values and could they govern responsibily and effectively. I don't think that most people of faith want to shove their religion down some one's throat.
Posted by: WVH on December 7, 2007 11:02 AMPosted by: Noble on December 6, 2007 10:37 PM "
Romney wrote the majority of that speech himself. No speech writers were harmed in the making of that wonderful speech.
Posted by: Dave on December 7, 2007 11:11 AMFor example, don't you think it's a little disingenuous for Huckabee to be touting his Christian faith in just about every political ad his campaign has out there, and then be all taken-aback when the media folks start asking about the details?
Posted by: Splinter on December 7, 2007 12:17 PMI don't count that against him because he doesn't tend to use expressions of his faith in order to gain power and popularity, as Huckabee and Romney have done. Jesus expressly denounced this kind of "Pharisee" behavior.
I support Ron Paul, even though I am an atheist, because he would never try to force his religious views on others via the law.
I don't trust Huckabee or Romney in that regard.
It is the separation of church and state that gives us freedom of religion and conscience. In spite of Romney's words in this recent speech, I do not trust him to maintain this vital separation.
By the way, we also need, to the greatest extent possible, a separation of ECONOMY and state and a separation of EDUCATION and state. I think that the reason we have vibrant religion with nearly 90% participation in the US, but Europe has half that, is that in Europe they have state sponsored religion. I think the same vibrancy we have in the religious sphere could be achieved in the economic and educational spheres if we separated these more completely from the government.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 7, 2007 12:38 PM#25 Posted by Nancy December 7, 2007
" Yes, Brian, it's been in the news a bit recently for some reason. Should I have heard them earlier? "
Nancy, I closely follow the 'news' and I didn't see or hear anything about your '.... claims .....'. Do you think that is because we just have a different opinion of what is 'news'? Or is it simply because of the source of your 'news'?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 7, 2007 01:06 PMABR--ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY!!!
Theyll have a hay day with him, just like we had with Kerry.
Posted by: Jack on December 7, 2007 01:45 PMLook, a person's moral bearing is important in politics; it can tell you where they may stand on many social issues. To me, I do not care where the bearing came from, it is the actual stand they take that matters to me.
For example many religious backgrounds teach the same fundamental belief; Mormon, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Bhuddist all have the belief that an unborn life IS life. I don't care WHERE the candidate "got" their position, I care about the position.
Those who use Mormonism - or Catholicism, or Judaism, or other religous background - to disqualify a political candidate are really just using it as an easy out. They're too uncomfortable to actually state their opposition to the social positions the candidate takes. So will use the guise of "religion" to hide their actual positions.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on December 7, 2007 02:33 PM#34 Posted by Nancy December 7, 2007
" Brian, I'm not sure what news sources have to do with it, but these issues were mentioned to me by friends and family. "
Ah! No wonder I hadn't seen or heard anything about your '.... claims .....', I don't sit around the old wood stove whittling and jawing with the folks about " issues ".
As for " what news sources have to do with it ", you mentioned " it ", " it " being " Do Mormons believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan? Do Mormon men become gods of their own planets peopled with virgins when they die? ", having been in the news a bit recently for some reason (comment #25).
Really, " for some reason "?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 7, 2007 03:11 PMWhat I don't understand is, why the defensiveness (off the charts, in your case) and attempt to keep it secret? All religions that I'm aware of have some doctrinal aspects that are difficult to explain.
Posted by: Nancy on December 7, 2007 03:30 PMI have not bashed Mormonism, in fact I have praised it. I have not bashed people having faith either.
And lastly, Paul is not without faith. He is not a secularist. He just does not speak about his faith in a presidential election. I am not saying this as a negative torwards Romney. He for the most part has not either and I completly understand why he has to.
Mormons have been persecuted for no good reason in this country and are still discriminated against. I was listening to talk radio on the way home and heard some more mormon bashing. I am saddened by it. One thing I pride waashington on is it is fairly tolerant compared to the other state I have lived in (New York).
Because of this mormon bashing that is still present in our country I think Romneys speech was required and he handled it decently. I just wish he was more like other mormons I have met... I might consider voting for him if he were.
Posted by: Travis on December 7, 2007 04:20 PMNow Bruce, I know you want to try to put Ron Paul in the best light possible, but this is just silly. What do you think he is going to forcibly convert everyone to Mormonism? Make Mormonism the national religion? Or what?
We have moved much further the other direction due to the ACLU habitually suing municipalities for Christmas displays and crosses for veterens. I'm not personally all that religious, but I object to the cultural changes that the ACLU attempts to instigate (plus the fact that they seem to be socialists).
This country is at NO risk of becoming a theocracy or anything close to it and it would certainly not be Romney that moved the country in that direction.
P.S. As a constitutionalist, I'm surprised you use the non-constitutional phrase "seperation of church and state". The actual constitutional wording is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The difference between Romney and Kerry is that Romney is sincere.
Posted by: KS on December 7, 2007 08:32 PMWould anyone here trust a candidate who got such a huge amount of their campaign funds from trial lawyers? How about even from big companies, or just labor unions? Why is it that for someone who has raised so much money that UTAH is his second biggest supporting state, trailing just California? Check out the Mormon population maps and that will tell you.
If a candidate is bought and paid for by trial lawyers, then you can expect that candidate to do their bidding.....if so much Mormon money is flowing into Romney's campaign, doesn't that just make you wonder?
Posted by: Doug on December 9, 2007 10:05 AMYes it makes me wonder why I do not like Romney more. Mormons are good people as a whole so if they are behind Romney it says something. unfortunately Romneys positions say even more and so I do not support him.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 11:32 AMPlease. In religion there's just crazy and crazier (which religion? take your pick).
I loved Romney saying that the cathedrals in Europe are all empty. He's been to them all? He's likely right though. Europeans don't wear their religion on their sleeves like Americans. (John Kennedy's speech was actually about not wearing your religion on your sleeve and trying to stuff it down the next guy's throat. Religion used to be personal.)
At least he's honest. He has no use for Americans who aren't religious and particularly aren't Christians.
What an empty suit.
Posted by: westello on December 10, 2007 05:22 PMNote that while Land said he would not endorse, he was sitting in a seat reserved for "Fred Thompson Family" at the debate, sitting next to Fred's wife, Jeri. He's also from Tennessee and is a longtime friend of Fred's.
Posted by: pudge on December 11, 2007 01:10 PM