‘Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom”
Whose quote is that? If you guessed Osama Bin Laden you are wrong, though it sounds like something only a theocratic leader might say.
In fact, it was Mitt Romney in his speech defending his faith last Thursday. What was so astounding about what he said was the tortured logic in which he defended his own right to believe in his faith, by completely excluding anyone of no faith. “Freedom and religion endure together or perish alone,” he continued.
It was as if he were in a bubble, completely disenfranchising million and millions of decent moral patriotic American citizens who were doubters, agnostics, freethinkers or atheists.
Clearly Romney was appealing to Iowa voters in light of the recent upsurge in popularity of professed Christian candidate Mike Huckabee. Evangelicals are notoriously skeptical of Mormons and Romney was hoping to dispel their idea that Mormons are not real Christians. This was a speech to win the caucuses, not for the general election. It was billed as the ‘Jack Kennedy speech, where Kennedy, running as the first Catholic, felt compelled to explain that his Catholicism would not interfere with his governance.
Kennedy’s speech, given almost 40 years ago, was model of tolerance and and inclusion, compared to Romney’s.
“For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew-or a Quaker-or a unitarian (that was about as close as you could come in the old days of saying a nonbeliever)-or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim –but tomorrow it may be you-until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”
Kennedy then added, “I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end-where all men and all churches are treated as equal-where every man has the same right to attend or NOT to attend the church of his choice….”
Romney, on the other hand, talks about how, “in recent years, the notion of separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning.
"They seek to remove, “ he says, “ from the public domain, any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair, with no place in public life. It’s as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America, the religion of secularism.” They’re wrong.”
Isn’t that what this country is about? Separation of church and state. Isn’t one’s freedom to believe or not believe the most sacred idea of the founders of this country?. Isn’t it un-American to disavow those, not only who dismiss a faith other than their own but who dismiss those of no faith?
He talks about how “our greatness would not endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith.” Does he mean that he would eliminate any judge who did not profess to believe in God? Would he require religious tests?
How can he say that and in the next breath profess “to take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion….” And then add…” but I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty?”
He says the most important question to ask a” person of faith” who seeks public office is this: "Does he (and what about “she’?) share these American values – the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?"
Wouldn’t those same questions apply to a person of no faith running for office?
And there’s more.
“WE believe that every single human being is a child of God?”
Who is WE? It reminds me of the old cowboy joke about the Lone Ranger and his Indian sidekick Tonto coming up over a ridge and seeing a thousand Indian warriors in paint, ready to attack. “What are we dong to do, Tonto?” asks the Lone Ranger. Tonto replies, “What do you mean WE, paleface?”
“WE Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift from God, not an indulgence of government,” says Romney. Really? Which God is he talking about . Certainly not the Buddhist God or the Hindu Gods.
On the one hand Romney talks about “There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.”
Yet, "Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty has a friend and ally in me.”
What about any American, including those nonbelieving service men and women who are fighting and dying abroad ? Will they not find a friend in Mitt Romney?
Romney was introduced by former President Bush at the Bush library in Texas. He was surrounded by enthusiastic supporters. He looked good. One could almost say presidential. He gave a well crafted and sincere speech.
The big problem with the speech was that he completely contradicted his own message. He asked not to be repudiated by Americans because of his Mormon faith. “A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith.” And he added that "There’s some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his churches distinctive doctrine. To do so would enable the very religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution.”
Mitt Romney ended up by his words repudiating not only our constitution, our truly American notion of separation of church and state, but millions of his fellow countrymen and women.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
