Romney Gets It Right On Religion
December 6, 2007 – 3:18 pm“There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to G-d. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States. It is important to recognize that, while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.”
9 Responses to “Romney Gets It Right On Religion”
With all the important issues that need attention and thorough discussion — the war, the economy, health care, immigration, the growing national debt, the environment — it’s appalling that a leading candidate has to take the time to discuss something as irrelevant as religion.
Unfortunately, however, Romney is responding to the large number of narrow-minded voters who put this issue above all others and use it as a test of whom they will vote for.
Disgraceful — and one reason why we often get the kind of presidents we do.
By Steve Levine on Dec 6, 2007
I read (somewhere– I hope I have it right) that an elderly couple were asked their opinion of John Edwards after he gave a stump speech in Iowa.
They liked what he had to say, mostly, but they were unhappy that he had been so “anti-religious” when he said, “It is time to give these entrenched interests… hell.”
And this in the state whose students historically have performed best nationwide on their College Boards.
By Vince Williams on Dec 6, 2007
Steve,
I couldn’t agree with you more about the irrelevancy of religion in a presidential campaign. Unfortunately, for many Americans, religion is not only relevant, it’s the single most important issue (especially for many in the way too influential state of Iowa).
It was only twenty years ago (a time when religion was much less pervasive in the public square) when Pat Robertson, who said after 9/11 that liberal judges are a bigger threat to this country than Al Qaeda, placed second in the caucuses. So, it isn’t entirely inconceivable that Mike Huckabee could win this thing based entirely on his history as an evangelical preacher. If Huckabee’s candidacy hadn’t gained so much steam in recent days, Romney doesn’t make this speech.
By Joshua Rosenstock on Dec 7, 2007
When Mitt Romney gave his “Faith In America” address, he got it very wrong.
He said, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
This is utter nonsense, and I consider people who hold these views dangerous to our freedom.
By Vince Williams on Dec 9, 2007
Well observed, Vince.
There are those among us who espouse no religious convictions whatsoever. Where do they stand with respect to Romney “serving only the common cause of the people of the United States?”
By DAD on Dec 9, 2007
Of course Romney’s comment was nonsense — but very DANGEROUS nonsense.
With Huckabee wearing his religion on his sleeve, the Republicans have cornered the market on pandering to the religious right.
Should either one of them win next year, where do the rest of us go?
By Steve Levine on Dec 9, 2007
In that case, those of us without a religion will have to start one.
That’s where the money is, anyway– move over, L. Ron Hubbard.;-)
By Vince Williams on Dec 9, 2007
Perhaps we can persuade Don Imus to resurrect the Very Reverend Dr. Billy Sol Hargus of The First Church of The Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship!
If that predates y’all, you really missed the best of him.
By DAD on Dec 9, 2007
I remember the Very Reverend very well; a vintage Imus gem.
Thanks for the memory.
By Steve Levine on Dec 10, 2007