Romney Blew It
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Faith in America | JFK | Mitt Romney | religion — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted by Jeff. Ben's opposing viewpoint can be seen here.
I watched Romney's "Faith in America" speech.
It was mercifully short, it was decent and there was no point in Romney giving it.
As Romney said in advance, it wasn't a JFK-esque speech. So why give it? In essence all he said is that there should be no religious test for president, and we should follow the separation of church and state as designed by the founders:
Read on.
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.'
Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
The Associated Press reported Romney's speech under the headline, "No religious test for president:"
Republican Mitt Romney, confronting voters' skepticism about his Mormon faith, declared Thursday that as president he would "serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause," and said calls for him to explain and justify his religious beliefs go against the profound wishes of the nation's founders.
So if you aren't going to talk about your religion, why give a speech about your religion.
Romney would have better off not giving any speech related to his faith. All he accomplished was to reinforce the fact that that he is Mormon.
You can read the entire speech in the extended post at California Yankee.
Romney's speech should have been JFK-esque. In Kennedy's famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, he said:
I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me.
Kennedy also asked whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Catholic.
You can find the Kennedy speech here.
That's the sound of Romney's speech above your head.
Whoosh #1:
"So if you aren't going to talk about your religion, why give a speech about your religion."
Is that what his speech was about? Was JFK's speech about Catholicism? With what particularity did JFK discuss Catholicism?
Whoosh #2:
"Romney's speech should have been JFK-esque. In Kennedy's famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, he said: 'I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me.'"
If you don't think Romney covered that ground, you were really skimming fast when you glanced over the speech.
This speech was "Faith in America", not "Mormonism in America". Those who claim it should've been "Mormonism in America" bought into how the MSM hyped up the speech.
Personally, I think his speech was JFK-esque. Romney said,
Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
You missed the point of the speech. I can't believe this got promoted.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
He's given the speech; he's addressed the subject; let's move on to something more substantive. I'm clueless what the hell people want from this guy. They have beaten this non-issue to death, and they're still not satisfied. When Baptists, Protestants, Jewish, Muslim and Whatever other religions have candidates running, give their Religion Address, then we can compare it to the Mormon's address. Till then, get a grip and raise hell about something else.
in his speech, according to a report I've read, saying that it guides him. He never once said what "it" is.
I missed the speech.
I wouldn't mind having Mitt dive into details on his religion, but that goes against the whole point he was trying to make:
There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My 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. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
Now some folks feel this was a cop out. I'm fine if that's there opinion, but I disagree. This was a speech about "Faith in America" not "Mormonism in America". He did say how (or how not) his religion will affect his Presidential policy. That's something JFK did, and so did Romney today.
The Founders did not prohibit religion from being considered. And the fact that voters want to base their decision, in part, on the candidate's religious beliefs is not a religious test.
The religious tests that were prohibited were state-imposed religious tests. The state cannot promulgate a law barring a person from seeking office based upon his or her religion. Each individual voter can, however, have a personal religious test that bars certain candidates from receiving his vote. That is not prohibited - and I suspect that if we resurrected Adams, Jefferson, Washington and Madison they'd tell you as much - and that they fully expected people to consider such matters when choosing who to entrust with governmental power.
I agree that folks can have a personal religious test. It happens every election any time a religion of a candidate is even mentioned. I just think that we are better as a people when we take the spirit of the Constitution into our personal lives.
If people adhere to the principles embodied in our Constitution only in letter and not in spirit, our nation will be much the worse, and probably will not survive.
I think Romney hurt himself by not even making a passing attempt to address the differences between Mormons and other branches of Christianity. However, he did a pretty good job of reframing the issue in terms of "us versus them" ("them" being radical Moslems and secularists). And as rhetoric, the speech was pretty good.
Did the speech help him? I guess time will tell. I frankly doubt he will ever get close enough to the nomination to force his opponents (R or D) to really haul out the big guns wrt criticism of his theology.
The argument goes like this: "Romney is a hypocrite because he used a speech about religion to say we shouldn't focus on religion." The same people were saying earlier that Romney needed to address the alleged "religion issue" facing him viz a viz the right-wing Christian voters. So the people criticizing Romney for trying to have it both ways are themselves trying to have it both ways.
Changing directions a bit, I don't see the reason for such bias against Mormons. It doesn't strike me that Utah is a state that has a bunch of unstable nutcases running around. As a former New Orleanian, I recall seeing stories about some black "Katricians" getting great treatment in the Salt Lake City area. There is much to admire in the way Mormons lead their lives it seems to me. And as a Catholic, it seems anyone who sees Mormonism as a cult who believe in (whatever) should see us Catholics as a cult who believe in cannibalism with our Eucharist. I don't get it.
You may think that Romney would have been better off saying religion was immaterial, or that the LDS should not be discriminated against. But, given that there are evangelicals hesitant to vote for a Mormon, they don't agree with that. So this would have been a foolish approach.
To my mind, Romney got the job done. He acknowledged religion was important, but made it clear Mormonism wasn't part of the problem facing America. He said he wasn't taking orders from the hierarchy. And he pointed to his record.
He went further with this kind of gobblydegook: "I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God." I dislike such ecumenical silliness, but it shows Romney is a squish that's not going to stand up for the LDS. I think that's a bad move, in that being squishy is the biggest knock against him, and he's reinforcing it. But it serves his purpose here.
Save for finding a better way to show respect to other faiths, I think this was a good speech. How much weight it will have I don't know; I don't think religion is Romney's biggest problem.
Disagree without attacking the messenger, please!
1) Conservatives can feel more at ease with Romney because we don't have to worry about him making the WRONG speech where he says something Hatchian like "Why don't evangelicals like me? I'm a Christian JUST LIKE THEM" (emphasis mine).
We now what he will say about religion and we can feel better about it.
2) It frees Romney from having to have it brought up again. Look for a a lot "I've already addressed that in my speech in Texas."
3) It gets rid of a potential landmine/issue that COULD have come up later in the campaign.
I didn't see it either, but it sounds like it was a homerun to me as well.
But I agree with you. I don't see how this was politically or substantively a worthwhile speech or draw of attention.
He did not go into enough detail to convert (no pun intended) those who are against him for his faith (that is not why I am against him in any way) and I didn't hear anything new or moving to endear him more to the rest of the electorate.
I think he would have been better served simply saying that we don't pick a president based on their religion but on their values and I want to give you a closer look at my values... followed by something of substance on his values.
Gush was going gaga over Romney and his speech today.