My assessment: A mixed bag, some good, some bad.

The good: Romney’s statement 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. 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.”

I count that (and similar statements elsewhere in the speech) as good not because of any particular objection to the Latter Day Saint–it would be a good statement whether Romney were Catholic, Lutheran, Muslim, Wiccan or Scientologist. As someone put it earlier this year, candidates put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

The bad: Romney says he won’t describe his faith’s “distinctive doctrines.” because that would constitute a religious test for public office something banned by the Constitution. Then he goes on to say that he believes in Jesus as the Son of God–which is a pretty distinctive doctrine, since it’s not shared by anyone who isn’t Christian.

Saying “I won’t discuss my beliefs,” then discussing his beliefs means Romney does want to be judged on his beliefs, but only the beliefs that will help him: Conservatives should accept him for the beliefs they have in common, and just ignore all the distinctive views of the LDS Church. In a sense, Romney’s saying he doesn’t mind religious tests for public office as long as he can pass them.

The bad (again): JFK’s speech (posted below) was one I think would be acceptable even to atheists and agnostics (not being either, I can’t say for sure); not so Romney’s. Over and over again, he talks about Americans as a people of faith, the necessity of religion to maintaining freedom, on making laws and policies based on the moral convictions shared by all people of faith. No place for unbelief there, even though many American citizens are atheist/agnostic–more, in fact, than belong to Romney’s branch of faith.

I don’t know if Romney believes atheists can’t be real Americans–a view expressed by the first president Bush–or if he’s simply pandering by implying the same hatred of “secularism” expressed by many on the religious right. He did, after all, say we “should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge.” Neither “In God we trust” nor the Pledge of Allegiance were creations of the Founding Fathers, but both have become hot-button issues for the religious right.

But whether pandering or sincere, that aspect of his speech rubbed me completely the wrong way.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 10th, 2007 at 9:01 am and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.