Romney to Give Religion Speech
Several people have called on Mitt Romney to give a ‘religion speech.’ A speech in which he explains to the American people what his religion means to him and how it will influence his policies, if at all. After having debated about it for months, Romney campaign team has decided that they can’t ignore the Mormon-issue since it won’t go away. He will give a speech about this Thursday at the Bush Library.
Halperin has the big news: Mitt Romney will take to to the Bush Library in College Station, Texas, on Thursday to give a long-anticipated, much-debated speech about his Mormon faith and the role of religion in American public life.
Mark Halperin quotes a Romney adviser: “The governor believes this is the right moment. He believes it is the right time to address the nation on the issue of religious liberty and how that principle is a fundamental part of our nation’s greatness.”
Kevin Madden - who is Romney’s campaign spokesman - sent a statement to the Page:
“This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected.
“Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.”
“Governor Romney personally made the decision to deliver this speech sometime last week.
“While identifying a venue for this address, the campaign consulted with President George H.W. Bush’s office last week about Governor Romney’s decision. President Bush was gracious enough to extend an invitation to deliver the speech at the presidential library.
This will be a major speech for Romney. If he does well, he will improve his standing in the polls. It’s a clear sign that he and his team are worried about Huckabee’s surge and about the fact that many American voters have indicated that they won’t vote for a Mormon. He - sadly - has to overcome this obstacle.
As I wrote in the past, I think that Romney is the best Republican candidate. Not because he always performs well in debates, but because he’s knowledgeable, reasonable and a conservative much like myself (although he has more conservative views on social issues). Furthermore, he leadership-style is very appealing to me.
Dr. e also weighs in, wondering whether the Mormon factor will hurt Romney or not. My guess is that if he delivers one heck of a speech, this will be one of the turning points in his campaign. It’s the biggest speech he has ever delivered. If he does well, you’ll see him fighting back in the polls. If he doesn’t do well, well, he’s in trouble.
I admit I’m curious to see how he handles the issue, though I fully expect to be irritated by the whole affair, since religious tolerance will be phrased in some variation of “We all feel the love of God and worship him in our own way”, thereby excluding, as always, around 10% of the population.
In any event, I’m irritated this is even deemed necessary. What your religion is is your own personal affair. I could honestly not care less whether you think your Messiah was born of a virgin, was visited by Gabriel on a mountain, or found golden tablets in his backyard. What matters to me is your policies and politics. Though there is a correlation between certain beliefs and certain religions, there is also considerable diversity. Candidates get asked about every single one of their positions on everything, rendering religion a fairly redundant piece of data.
Romney is simply dealing with the same thing JFK had to deal with, the notion that his religion will be his first priority, instead of the country. 90% of Americans are religious, and virtually none of those follow ALL the rules in their religion, conveniently ignoring those that are disagreeable, but suddenly if you’re a candidate people suspect you will become orthodox. It’s too silly for words.
Lynx: I agree completely actually. Sadly, however, it is what it is. Romney can complain about it, but that won’t change much.
He’ll have to deal with it.
I think opportunities to talk about the interactions between faith and politics should be welcomed. Those who don’t have value systems that are formed by religious faith can similarly talk about what it is that forms their own value system.
I disagree, Lynx, that knowing where the candidate stands on issues should be sufficient; we don’t have a system where the people vote directly for their preferred stance on any one issue- instead, we’re voting for someone who will decide future issues as they come up according to a certain set of guiding principles. Religion has traditionally been in part a shorthand way for groups of people to communicate about what values are most important and formative for them; while it’s true that most people don’t accept all of the nuances of their church’s positions, they can easily communicate what their primary positions are according to the faith community they belong to, and then explain any diversions from the church’s teachings. An atheist/agnostic would have to start from scratch and explain all of their guiding moral/ethical values on which they’d form their principles.
Granted that religion is traditionally considered a shorthand for moral stances, but the fact is that it’s a very BAD shorthand. Why? Consider Congress. With one Muslim, one (admitted) atheist and a handfull of Jews, virtually all members of Congress are Christians. Within this group there are people who are pro-life and pro-choice, pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty, liberal and convervative on immigration, with differing views on poverty, family, sexual orientation etc.
You could object that they all likely think murder is bad, children require special protection, and all races are equal. However, those are UNIVERSAL values in a civilized society. In the West, you can pretty much assume a very long list of moral values in a person just by virtue of them being of your same CULTURE, regardless of which religion, if any. For the things you might need to ask in order to know, because there is controversy, their religion would not suffice, since there is such a great diversity in what different religious people hold to be right in those areas. Hence religion becomes irrelevant in terms of the moral stances that can be doubted about. I’m sure that when you meet an atheist you don’t ask yourself “I wonder what their stance on child rape is?”. You almost certainly assume they oppose it, unless otherwise stated, because it’s a universal value.
You think that sense of morality is God-given, and I that it’s the result of a combination of our biological and cultural evolution, but the fact remains that there is a shared sense of right and wrong in all of us. Everything else needs explaining, be you an atheist or a Catholic or a Mormon.
linked to your article that linked to my article this am. Congratulations on your newest face and format!
dr.e