At the university I attended, Mitt Romney gave a speech today. It sounds like it had some decent bits of word-craft:
And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.
Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.
Andrew Sullivan points to what he senses is yet another "flip-flop) from Romney:
"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," - Mitt Romney, at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum today.
"We need to have a person of faith lead the country," - Mitt Romney, February 17, 2007. Video here. A Mormon complaint about Romney's alliance with the Christianist right here.
Earlier this year, Tony Jones set off a mini-tempest in the blogosphere tea-pot when he wrote this:
OK, I'll be honest. I'm ambivalent about Mormonism, and, be it Mitt Romney or any other Mormon, I'm ambivalent about the idea of voting for a Mormon. And I'll bet that a lot of Christians, if they're honest too, agree with me.
My ambivalence stems, I suppose, from my ignorance. I'm skeptical of a religion that admonishes its adherents to wear sacred undergarments (Andrew Sullivan caused quite a dust-up when he blogged about this last December), that didn't allow non-whites to be clergy until 1978, and that follows the teachings of Joseph Smith, whose scriptures I find highly dubious. I don't agree with the Mormon teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct gods and that the Father and Son currently have bodies, nor with the teaching that only those who achieve the "Celestial Kingdom" will be united with their families in eternity. There's a lot to be dubious about.
While it pains my liberal, tolerant heart to say this, I sorta agree with Andrew & Tony. Mitt Romney wants nothing more than to be elected as a Republican in 2008 - like it or not, God talk is part of that equation, particularly in the Rovian geometry that looms large over that political party.
My own sense, as a lifelong Dem voter, is that Romney is the best candidate on the GOP slate - and is more likely than not the 4th most likely to get nominated (Rudy being #1, then McCain & Huck) . I admire what appears to be his competency in building businesses and in fixing things. I am disturbed by how nimble he is in adapting his POV to electoral necessities. I personally do not understand how Mormonism and mainstream U.S. evangelicals can share God talk.
But my biggest a-ha here is that the road that a GOP candidate must walk is laced with landmines - immigartion, fiscal responsibility & of course the conflict in the Middle East. The landmine that is God talk is uniquely explosive device - my own sense is that Romney tried to contort to avoid any damage and, in the process, missed a huge chance to say something that could challenge the conversation.
Comments