A quick thought about Romney’s speech . . .
I’d welcome Vox Nova readers’ reactions to this post, by my colleague at Mirror of Justice, Fr. Robert Araujo. He writes:
It is too early to assess Governor Romney’s speech at this hour. However, I think it is important that we who are dedicated to the pursuit of Catholic Legal Theory might wish to keep in mind that Kennedy, Romney, and, in a much earlier period, Thomas Jefferson were or are politicians who saw the need not to alienate voters. Thus, what is said about religion in one particular context may not and probably is not the only view held by someone seeking or holding public office. This prudential consideration would suggest that those seeking public office may at different times offer different perspectives on their views about the role of faith and religion in public life.
The rest of the post is here. Thoughts?
Comments are closed.
The connection between Kennedy’s speech and Jefferson’s letter is interesting. Jefferson, Kennedy, and Romney all faced the difficulty of holding religious views that were atypical of, and viewed with suspicion by, the larger public. Jefferson and Kennedy dealt with this problem by throwing up barriers (either between Church and State, or between Church and Self) to show that their beliefs would not have an impact on their policies. Given the, in my opinion, negative effect that both Jefferson’s letter and Kennedy’s speech have had on public life, I can’t say that the prospect of Romney’s speech inspires a lot of confidence. We shall see.
There’s going to be a lot of comments in the blogosphere – a lot. I’m not sure, however, if this will register at all beyond us political junkies.
The quotes I have read from Romney’s speech indicates he is going with the separation of church and state while saying this does not mean one involved in the state cannot have religious views>
“”We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hgpyO90kMMf6F_z97zY1wFFbTEtAD8TC029O1
I’m quite happy with a situation whereby public figures make no acknowledgement of God, not least to stop the situation whereby office-seeking candidates use and abuse religion simply to get elected. Best have no mention than this situation.
The real issue that dogged, Kennedy of course, was more serious: whether his Catholicism would influence his policy decisions. And that is exactly what Romney seems to be shirking– for what good is it to talk about God in public when you don’t act as if you believe in God? In a sense, the answer is deceptively simple: politicians must accept the natural law that is superior and antecedent to all positive law, which springs from reason and not any particular religious tradition. Then the question becomes how these believes become codified in positive law and government policy. On that, I would follow Murray’s example and stress the light touch: just because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal. But where do we draw the line? It would be wrong, for sure, for a Catholic politician to ignore abortion on some phony “church and state argument”. But it would also be wrong for him/ her to ignore the demands of social justice. The problem with the Romey approach is that he is avoiding all these hard questions by restricting the debate to simply talking about God in public– which is exactly the problem with the so-called religious right.
“Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”
Oh, the irony!
From Ron Paul:
” I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.”
I think he hit his target, which I pointed out before wasn’t going to be difficult. I’m afraid the embrace of cults and sects being a part of the all-American experience has more truth than I would like it to believe.
While his division between believers and nonbelievers is being spun as an accidental slight, I’m thinking it was an intentionally clever move. Time will tell.
Meh. I’m with MM on this one; Romeny’s answer, in a nutshell, is that his faith is important but it won’t cause him to govern any different than anyone else, and shouldn’t we all be tolerant anyway except for those lousy atheists? He’ll get a bump in the polls, but not enough to get near Guiliani.
I’d have been much more impressed if he said, “This is what my faith has to say regarding…”; at least Huckabee is up-front about how his beliefs affect his decision-making.
“I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”
- Sir Thomas More, “A Man for All Seasons”
MM points out what I also noticed. It’s amusing and unsurprising to me that the Gov. could straight-facedly say “Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”
I had such hopes, now revealed to be wholly delusional, that Romney’s speech would be a resounding attack on religious bigotry. But even in trying to defend himself against bigots, he still feels compelled to pander to them. While I don’t feel it would have been proper for him to give a full accounting of his Mormonism, I had hopes, now revealed to be delusional, that he would point to the history of anti-Mormon persecution as a way of shaming his detractors. But such hopes were predicated on the now-ruined assumption that Mitt Romney was a man of conviction, unafraid to stand up for his beliefs when defamed, Like Romney’s political beliefs, such hopes were wholly delusional.
I liked the speech a lot more than I thought I would. It benefits from close reading.
“It’s important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter, on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.”
I think the entire paragraph is very true and is an interesting twist on the stale church-state arguments.