I figured the presidential candidates would wait until after Christmas to start flinging the poo.
I was wrong.
Huckabee asks if Mormons believe Jesus and the devil are brothers.
Romney campaign releases a negative ad against Huckabee.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
This morning, Mitt Romney delivered his "Faith in America" speech at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
But most of you knew that, already.
I didn't get to hear it as it was being broadcast, but I have finally read the transcript.
I'm not sure what it's going to do for him, but it's interesting.
Overall I think it was a pretty powerful speech. The views he conveys, when it comes to religion in America, are very close to my own.
That's probably why I liked it.
He knows his American history, too.
The quotes and references to our nation's founding fathers struck strong chords with me. I felt that swelling of pride and patriotism that I'm sure Mitt intended.
As I read through the speech, though, there were a few things that struck me.
- I'm not sure that this is going to convince anyone who's already made up their mind about him. In fact, I doubt it will.
- It was a great piece of political theatre. There were strong elements in the speech that I think should be preserved as political history, but we'll just have to see.
- If there were any of the group that are seeking freedom "from" religion, as opposed to freedom "for" religion, that were "sitting on the fence" wondering whether to vote for him or not, this speech will galvanize them against him.
- My hope is that if there are any people of faith who were "sitting on the fence" because of his faith, that they will open their hearts to him.
Let's not pretend this speech isn't a politically motivated speech, though. His word choices were incredibly well calculated, as any good politician will do.
Let me give you a few highlights, and some commentary.
"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my presidency, if I were elected.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: '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.'"
This is bold. He's distancing himself from the current Bush administration (very bold considering where he delivered the speech), and bolding claiming religious liberty as a foundational principle of our country. He backs it up with a quote from one of the more fiery members of the Founding Fathers.
"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."
If you missed that fact that he's referencing John Kennedy, you've been sleeping. It's interesting to me that he can do this, as a Republican, and get away with it. It makes me wonder what the Democrats, and especially Senator Ted Kennedy, think about this situation.
"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."
Oh, oh. My own religious red flags ran right up their poles on this one. I don't think he meant to say that he would supplant the oaths he's already taken, as a card carrying member of the LDS church, but it could be interpreted that way. This may be what some in the religious right are wondering about. How can he have a higher oath than the one he's already made to his God? And what does that say about his character? Can we trust what he says, at all?
"Americans do not respect believers of convenience."
I hope not. The trouble is, I find way too many common voters to be 'believers of convenience.' They change their minds at just the whisper of an idea about nearly anything, no matter how much it may fly in the face of common sense and experience.
"Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
Nice Shakespeare reference, Mitt. Nice.
"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
He is so dead on, here, but I've met way too many people who fall into that. They think that as long as you believe what they believe, they'll be tolerant of you. If you don't share their beliefs, well, you're just a fool and the rules of courtesy and respect don't apply to you. As Orson Scott Card once said, "Doctrine is that which I believe. Dogma is that which you believe that conflicts with my Doctrine."
"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."
No kidding. The trouble is that anyone who actually practices their faith comes under the microscope of intolerance, presidential candidates included. Of course, that's why he's giving this speech.
"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."
Wow. This is soooo interesting to me, coming from a Republican. These causes have traditionally been fought by the Democrats. Another reason the far right may be having trouble with Romney. His political history allows for more liberal thought, when it comes to the word of law, than his religion does. Do we finally have a moderate Republican candidate?
"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."
Go get' em Mitt!
Oh ... erm ... sorry about that. I'm trying to distance my own feeling, here.
It's not working.
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency."
Nice. A very subtle jab at the other Republican candidates who have all suffered from divorce, extra-marital affairs, or other indiscretions.
"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
What an elegant description. "Symphony of Faith." As a musician I'm going to have to steal that one.
Now for the closing, patriotic rallying cry:
"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.
"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine author of liberty. And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed with freedom's holy light."
Amen, Brother Romney. Amen.
Posted by John Newman at 5:19 PM
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
As many of you know (and may have blogged about), Mitt Romney is going to give an address on Faith in America this Thursday. Unless you've been living under a rock, you also know that Romney is a Mormon - a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
All of this has come about because of a fumbled answer on the Bible during a presidential debate in Iowa, and the rising of Mike Huckabee in some polls.
Just out of curiosity, where is the ACLU in protest to that question? They were all over ranting about the LDS Church buying a very small section of main street in Salt Lake City just a couple of years ago. All in the name of "separation of church and state," of course, but I digress.
Getting back to Romney, let's ignore the fact that most polls show Mitt still in the lead of the Republican pack. Let's ignore the fact that the AP poll in Iowa shows them neck and neck. Only one poll I'm aware of that was mentioned on TV (and I can't even find where it came from to verify it) showed Mike Huckabee in the lead in Iowa.
I understand the problem all too well. I'm a Mormon and I was persecuted for it nearly every day when I lived in North Carolina.
The is has less to do with theology than with theocracy. I can understand, and agree with, the anti-theocracy line. I don't want a U.S. president acting as a puppet for his (or her) religion's leaders - even my own.
I don't think this is a real issue, just a percieved one.. The LDS Church has gotten politically involved in far less causes than many other churches have. They never promote one candidate over another in any election. At least during my lifetime.
I know many of you will find that hard to believe, given how red the state of Utah is, but trust me. The Church has never said, "Vote Republican." Instead, they encourage their members to vote their conscience.
So let me ask, when you consider the idea a Mormon in the Whitehouse (or a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Jehova's Witness, or a Wiccan, or a Buddhist, or ...), what do think? Do you worry about their faith, or their politics?
Posted by John Newman at 3:10 PM