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
GUEST AUTHOR: Adam Groza
I was leaving the doctor’s office yesterday from getting my allergy shot when I saw a bumper sticker I initially couldn’t believe. In fact, I backed my car up TWICE to make sure I had read the sticker correctly. And it is a small parking lot and there was another car behind me trying to exit whom I sure was not pleased! What, you may be wondering, could have caused me such consternation? I’m glad you asked. The sticker read:
Today I was browsing Senator Barack Obama’s 
I have been thinking about politics quite a bit lately. Not because I plan to run for office or pursue that Political Science degree I started so many years ago before switching majors. I’ve been thinking about politics because politics need to be thought about, especially from a biblical worldview, especially now. We have before us, a possibility that many thought would never arise: we face the possibility of having to choose between a Pro-Choice Democrat and a Pro-Choice Republican for the office of President of the United States.
Some time ago I read 
Part of the reason that I blog is for the interaction and exchange of ideas. Part of the way I work through issues is dialogue, and blogging is a great avenue for that. This means that there will be times when I write things people disagree with. This is not necessarily a bad thing. We’re not all going to agree about everything. That’s part of what makes life so interesting.