Reactions to Faith in America, Part 2

Mitt Romney

That some reports or reviews of Mitt Romney’s ‘Faith in America’ speech express a mostly positive response followed by one point that provides an opinion of why the discussion that singled out one candidate on religion will continue is another example of why this particular inquiry is just plain wrong. To extend rather than dismiss efforts to stir the pot of what amounts to religious bigotry should be denounced by both the ‘faithful’ and the ‘faithless’.

David Kuo at beliefnet is an example of sounding balanced but…..

Romney’s one paragraph gaffe, our big problem, a suggestion
Thursday December 6, 2007
I went into the speech thinking that if it were a purely political speech he’d probably done his job but if it were a spiritual speech he’d be hosed. As with all things political, it wasn’t quite either one.

He further expresses in detail what was positive about the speech and then drops the ‘let’s keep it going’ bomb.

But it was also a profoundly spiritual speech. He said he was going to stand up for his faith and that he wasn’t going to get into the business of theology. Then he did just that. In the middle of the speech was this:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

What Kuo may succeed in doing is giving the appearance of a ‘fair’ analysis but by injecting his own religious flavor to the piece rewrite what one should take at face value. Romney’s candor to express one of his beliefs about Jesus and then express the common sense and obvious fact that each religion has its own characteristics while he supports tolerance and rejects bias is lost on Kuo’s review. Was it an error or intentional?

From Kathleen Parker at realclearpolitics.com comes a review more closely in agreement with the opinion of this blog.

He made two important points clear: Freedom and religious liberty are inextricably linked. And, though Romney’s religion informs his life, leaders of his church will not inform his decisions as president.

This is my faith. This is the promise of religious freedom in America. There is a history and a connection between this country’s heritage and religion and the pursuit and preservation of freedom. Mitt Romney is entitled to his faith just as you and I and anyone else. To judge a candidate based on his religious beliefs and your beliefs in faith or absence of them should not enter into your decision to support or oppose a candidate.

He raised the bar by focusing on broad principles of religious freedom, rather than on the small details of doctrinal differences. In the process, he elevated everyone — even those not-so-deserving.

Using your own belief system to defend another’s right to their beliefs honors your commitment to American principles on which this country was founded. To ignore those principles or attempt to force your beliefs on others is neither genuinely religious or American. Whether your beliefs are ‘faithful’ or ‘faithless’ you should also appreciate that the founders provided adequate attention to checks, balances and other provisions designed to protect against abuses of power and undo influence of religion or other concerns. If you are attempting to circumvent these ideals with your own beliefs don’t assist those targeting Romney for his beliefs. There are many faiths represented in American government and the republic survives. Targeting Romney’s faith is just plain wrong.

2 Responses to “Reactions to Faith in America, Part 2”

  1. icrutchfield Says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion expressed regarding ‘faith’.
    I would like to add, that nobody should have to defend their ‘faith’ as Romney was ‘forced’ to do in some way.
    Faith shapes character, principals, integrity, honesty; many attributes of ones personal lifestyle, and treatment of others.
    It also should never be compromised to fit in, to achieve , and force a certain outcome, nor should it be flaunted, and appearing like a ‘wolf in sheeps clothing’.
    Would that be the case, Jesus would not have died; as he taught, “they will despise you, drag you into courts, ridcule you - but rembember, they ridiculed me before they ridiculed you”!
    In other words, for Romeny to have to come out in such a public way was wrong!
    Again, thanks for your making a great start for today!

  2. Stanford Matthews Says:

    I am optimistic that most people already held the opinion a candidate should not be required to defend their religion. Perhaps those of other viewpoints will reconsider.

    Thanks again for sharing your comments. I’m also glad you look favorably upon this blog.