Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office.
Mr. Romney spoke with an evident passion about the hunger for religious freedom that defined the birth of the nation. He said several times that his faith informs his life, but he would not impose it on the Oval Office.
Still, there was no escaping the reality of the moment. Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.
While reading this piece it occurred to me how much times have changed since the Old Gray Lady declared: MUSEUM WALLS PROCLAIM FRAUD OF MORMON PROPHET
(Front page, above the fold, Sunday, Dec. 29, 1912)
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/nytimes1912papyrus.htm
NYT invoking “just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off” is pretty close to KJS invoking “long-standing principles of catholic Christianity” – at best, mere expedience; and at worst, cynical posturing. Did Romney seem cowed, ashamed of his faith? Not to my eyes. He was making the case for the compatibility of his faith with that of many voters that matter to his campaign – one can disagree with his argument, but to find something shameful in the act itself seems absurd. And the sloppy language: “fundamentalists” get thrown around, again, though it actually means something and is not simply interchangeable with “evangelical,” “Christian conservative,” “Bible-beater” or whatever other pejorative the Times style guide indicates for Christian Protestants who live farther than 100 miles from the nearest coast; “impose” (invoked twice) is something that happens when people chose leaders (in a voting process) based on what the leader believes and why? At least Romney has the decency and fortitude to address the issue openly, instead of doing the usual wink-and-nod, and dropping of code words by folks whose faith appears to have been less formative and important as a guide to moral action.
TWilson: I was without words after reading the NYT article. Your clear-headed and spot-on comments helped clear my head and gave me courage to face the day.
[blockquote] . . . ““Bible-beater†or whatever other pejorative the Times style guide indicates for Christian Protestants who live farther than 100 miles from the nearest coast;” [/blockquote] Priceless!
As has been said before; there is no requisite for being a Christian in the Constitution. In fact it says that Congress WILL NOT authorize any church as THE National chrurch.