Romney Reminds Us
Much has been said regarding Mitt Romney’s recent speech regarding “faith in America.” Many have wondered whether or not it was productive and accomplished its purposes. Others have compared it to Kennedy’s 1960 address regarding his Catholicism. Yet whatever you think of Romney’s speech and his Mormon faith, it did raise several issues which we might do well to consider.
Romneys address spoke to both the good and bad when it comes to “faith in America.” Romney pointed to the inclusion of religion in our nation’s founding, quoting John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
From the beginning of our country, there has been a place for religion. But this also is one of our inherent weaknesses. It seems that our country is accepting of religion, not because of respect for truth but because it promotes morality; it helps to make people more managable. In a Republic such as ours, all religions are equal so long as they control vices and encourage civic responsibilities. But this relationship between “faith” and “America” has never been quite clear. In trying to explain, Romney said:
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.
I have wondered why Romney would assert that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” To me, neither assertion holds true. After all, there are more Christians in China than in America and China certainly upholds no notion of “religious freedom.” It seems apparent that religion does not require freedom as the worldwide spread of the Gospel clearly demonstrates (in fact, Christianity often flourishes in areas of persecution), so it does not seem that “religion requires freedom.” It is ideal but certainly not necessary. But can we say that “freedom require religion?” Many European countries are testing this thesis, moving into what many are calling a “post-Christian” age.
Yet these notions persist in America. It seems precisely because, as Adams noted, along with religion, morality often follows. It would seem that nearly every government would want a country filled with “moral” people. However, morality is no friend of true Christianity, leading only to self-righteousness. Morality focuses on self while Christianity focuses on Christ. Americans love the idea of religion but not any specific religion, much like the Freemasons, who, coincidentally, have had quite a hand in shaping our own cultural views of religion. We are encouraged to believe in something as long as its not too specific and we keep it to ourselves. But while tolerating every religion equally, our country’s approach seems to undermine every religion equally. For example, 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.
Romney was, of course, echoing Kennedy, who said: “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope.” while on the surface these sentiments seem good, what they in fact mean, is that Kennedy then, and Romney now, face the possibility of standing in opposition to the church they believe holds their salvation. I’m not Mormon or Catholic, but it does seem apparent to me (and perhaps I need to be corrected here) that both Kennedy and Romney are willing to stand against those whom they believe to be mouthpieces for God in pursuit of some other ideal. After all, Mormon and Catholic doctrine both assert that church authorities have the power of God invested in them. Romney adds:
As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution — and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
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.
Romney is weaving around Kennedy’s sentiments, who said: “I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.” While on the surface, both are saying good things: that ours is a country that does not impose religious belief of any kind on any one, under the surface, there seems to be more going on, namely that our country’s system requires compromise at every level, even of one’s own religious convictions.
And here’s the rub. America has a place for religion as long as your religion is private, only peeking out its head long enough to make us moral people. And yet one thing Catholicism, Mormonism and Christianity all hold in common is the belief that salvation overtakes all other concerns, while America says that the concerns of religion are valid only insofar as they are subservient to “America’s political religion.” I for one am not comfortable with a candidate who says that his religious convictions will not color his decisions. And yet, this seems to be what the code of our country.
It is utter nonsense to hold that one can believe in salvation in the traditional sense of the term and then say that such beliefs will not affect a person’s decisions. Romney himself said that his oath to his country would over-rule his oath to his church, becoming “his highest promise to God.” Yes, this is cloaked in the veil of accepting all religions but it is delivered in the practicality of diluting all religions. While Kennedy and Romney both assert that they will respect all religions, they remind us that this also means the possibility of undermining our own.
Romney’s address reminds us that the issue of faith in America is more than we can solve in just one address. These issues have bubbled at the center of our collective consciousness since our country’s founding and they are not likely to dissolve any time soon. Romney’s address remind us that it is quite difficult for a person of sincere faith to hold office in this country because our very system requires compromise, even of your religious convictions.
We may be thankful that we live in a country that promotes and practices religious freedom while also being wary of the diluting effects that often comes with that same freedom. In all of this, I am well aware of the possibility that I have either misunderstood or misapplied some of these issues, but it seems to me that the very notion of “faith in America” is one of compromise, which is fine for America while being bad for faith.
- Watch Romney’s address
- Read the text of Romney’s address
- Watch Kennedy’s address
- Read Kennedy’s address
- Read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
- Read The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan Hatch
Great post. Beliefs tend to have corresponding actions. For instance, my belief that Phil Collins is a hack will keep me from the Genesis 401k tour ;)–. Regarding religious beliefs (who is God, what is our purpose for living, are there moral obligations, etc), why are they worth holding if they dont have any practical import into everyday living? I guess what I would say is that if your religious beliefs dont influence your everyday decisions, whether you are president or a mailman, then either (1) you really dont believe them or (2) you need new religious beliefs.
I have been surprised to find that so many people struggle with this line of freedom requiring religion and vice versa. The way I interpret it, it makes sense. Freedom without freedom of religion is not freedom at all. Religion without the freedom to worship as you choose is not true religion. Doesn’t anyone else see it that way?
Wow. I am so utterly blown away by this post that, although I know on your blog you will get the last word, I can’t let it go without expressing my opinion that you are way, way off base here. In the speech that I heard, Mitt Romney NEVER stated or implied that “his religious convictions will not color his decisions” or that they won’t import into everyday living. Neither did he say or imply that “his oath to his country would overrule his oath to his church.” What he DID say or imply was that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (to which his loyalty and his belief trumps his desire to be president) would never call him and say, “Mitt, we’ve met as a council and decided that God wants you to invade Iran. You have to listen to us because we are the Elders of the Church.” They would never do that! Would his religious convictions/value system influence his decisions? How in heaven’s name could they NOT influence his decisions? Will he utilize the presidency to make an edict that all men in the land should read the Book of Mormon or be taxed? Um, I don’t think so!
Another thing I had to read a few times to make sure you really wrote it: “Morality is no friend to true Christianity.” What!!? The Gospels are nothing if not replete with stories of Christ teaching morality. And the OT? The Ten Commandments, Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, Daniel in the lion’s den? Stories about morality in the Bible I read, every one of them. I am still kind of in shock that you think that.
And my final observation on your post is that I think the irony is very, very rich that you imply that you are not comfortable with Mitt Romney because he has pledged to not defer to his church in governing, yet if he DID purport to seek religious guidance on political issues from his Mormon church leaders–a religion with which you don’t agree–then wouldn’t you also have a problem with that? You can’t have it both ways, unless you are confessing to out and out religious intolerance.
You were successful if a goal in writing this was to get a rise out of (this) reader(s). Now I’m sure you’ll have plenty of points and counterpoints.
What else does it mean to say: “When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God” than that oaths to the church become subservient? That is the true nature of “faith” in “America,” is it not?
I suppose this quote is a little troubling to me, because for me, the oaths I make to my church are and always will be my highest promise to God. I wonder what he meant by that. Perhaps he doesn’t expect there to ever be a need to choose between serving the country and serving the Lord?
I imagine Romney believes there will never be a conflict between the tenets of his faith and faithful service to country. I hope he is right.
Also, I believe that his religious convictions will color his decisions, inasmuch as it has colored his character.The idea he is trying to get across is that Gordon Hinckley won’t be dictating public policy.
And the concept that religion in America is about compromise is the whole idea. The only thing I can imagine better than tolerance is a government of complete unity under a true faith. I don’t foresee that happening anywhere any time soon.
I don’t really see a problem with Romney’s words here. I think he was mere saying that there’s nothing about a Mormon taking the oath that would somehow require a later violation of the oath on order of his prophet.
Also, Brent’s right that Romney’s couplet is a bit flawed if analyzed from every angle, but I think he was hinting at the simple idea that a militantly secularistic state is the first to trample on religious liberty, whereas a state with Christian roots won’t. Of course, he didn’t say that, preferring to use the word “religion” which would include the so-called religion of peace.
The part of the speech that I found telling was this assertion:
The statement is a prime example of how our culture bristles at thought of Christ’s high priestly office and sole mediation between man and God.
Aside from that, it’s dripping with saccharin patronization. That’s been Romney’s struggle in the campaign, not being able to demonstrate himself as authentic. He just seems so controlled and contrived much of the time.
[...] Brent Thomas analyzes Romney’s speech. [...]