Mitt Romney's Speech: "Faith In America"

The speech seemed pretty good to me. The New York Times had some serious criticisms in an editorial today. As I read it, the Times was mostly concerned that the Republican primary process made such a speech necessary in the first place.

A few things he said made my silent alarm go off. Why for example did he spend so much time on Islamic terrorism in a speech about religion in America, and if he had to deal with that topic why did he not do so in the context that there had been terrorism in the name of other religions in the past, and all religiously motivated terrorism, like all terrorism. is unacceptable.

Other examples:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.

This remark is made in the context of remarks that Europeans are less religious than the people of the United States. I hope Romney does not believe they are less free.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are.

I believe they are not. Of course, one can ask whether a candidate uses information well, makes good decisions, is of good character, or is unduly influenced by others. In some cases one may infer answers to these legitimate concerns by asking questions related to the candidate's religious beliefs, and only in this sense is it legitimate in our democracy to ask about religion.

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.

Of course, church authorities who are citizens have the same rights as other citizens to influence presidential decisions. Indeed, authorities by the very definition of the term should have more authoritative views on some issues, and thus be more credible in influencing decisions. His denial of this simple fact, in my opinion, detracts from the overall credibility of his speech.

When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.

Really? The highest promise? Are there no possible circumstances in which Romney would resign from office to deal with higher responsibilities to himself, his family, his church, his community or the nation? That seems a pretty glib statement to me.

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.

I also read about Romney:

The highlights of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's résumé are well known. But there's a fourth point that he does not advertise in his stump speech: 12 years in top leadership positions in the Boston-area Mormon community. For three years, from 1982 to 1985, Mr. Romney served as the bishop, or lay pastor, at his church in Belmont, Mass. After that, he served nine years as "stake" president, overseeing about a dozen Boston-area parishes.

It therefore seems to me that Romney is already a spokesman for his faith. (I don't suppose this disconnect will cause him to abandon his candidacy.) More seriously, I don't think a candidate should be asked to defend his faith, but if a candidate is on record for years as an official of his religious or other organizations, it seems to me that that record is fair game in the electoral process.

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God.

That sounds nice, but does Romney really believe that? Does he believe the faith of a megalomaniac in himself draws that person closer to God? How about the faith of a suicidal jihadist bomber? Of the faith of the leaders of the Davidian cult in the Waco massacre, or Jim Jones who lead his cult to mass suicide in Guiana? Perhaps Romney is going for well-sounding platitudes rather than a serious discussion of his beliefs.

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.

We should acknowledge the Creator in the teaching of our history? I don't think so. This sounds like Romney is supporting the teaching of creationism as if it were science. Would Romney really be happy with a Jew teaching the role of the Creator in our history (as the Jewish religion understands it) in public schools?

How about Kwanza symbols? What do we do about Muslims who find images of any kind inappropriate, and especially images of supernatural beings; do they have rights? Sure, our culture has all sorts of symbols we use at special times, and doing so does little if any harm and makes many people happy. But lets not go overboard.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family.

Who is this "we" white man? Some Americans are atheists, some agnostics, and I suspect that there are some believers who doubt that "every single being is a 'child of God'," whatever that means to Romney. I don't think that the statement is true, and I don't think that such a belief should be a test of commitment to the underlying beliefs of our country.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God.

Not the atheitsts among us, nor the agnostics. I am not sure that those who believe we should have a theocracy believe that. Indeed, does Romney want as president to tell citizens of other countries that their political systems are less admirable than ours because they are less well endowed by God?

Do we really want to try to come to understanding with the Islamic world? If so, it that understanding possible with a president who not only believes that the secular Government of the United States was divinely inspired, but who proclaims that belief in a major campaign address on religion in seeking that office?