Romney's Religion Speech Pretty Good

I think Mitt Romney's speech today did a pretty good job, from a political standpoint, of dealing with the issue of his Mormon faith in his bid for the presidency.

You can read the text of his speech from the UK Guardian.

I think he did a very good job of the speech. He addressed his Mormon faith, and the fact that most people are very unfamiliar with it. He even came close to addressing specifics of the differing beliefs about Jesus Christ as THE Son of God, but stopped short of getting so specific that people would be turned off when they knew what the Mormon church actually does believe. From a purely objective, political perspective, I think he hit a home run and handled it as well as humanly possible.

Given the amount of ignorance about Mormonism, he seems to have felt this necessary. A Pew poll released today would seem to confirm that ignorance: 51% say they know little or nothing about Mormonism, 52% say Mormons are Christians, and the favorability rating for Mormons is below that of Jews, Catholics and even the much-maligned Evangelicals and is tied with Muslim Americans (and much better than atheists, which came in at the bottom of favorability ratings). Further, 25% say they are LESS likely to vote for a Mormon.

Romney said some important things regarding religious freedom and the religious heritage of America:

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: ``We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution,'' he said, ``was made for a moral and religious people.''

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

And here's more:

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's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ``under God'' and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

Right on! Home run! Absolutely true! Despite the fact that I disagree with his religious beliefs to the point that I don't believe Mormonism qualifies as "Christian," Romney has my highest praise for pointing out this much-neglected truth about our American religious heritage, and how it works.

Here, he specifically addresses concerns about how his Mormon faith would affect his job as president:

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

I'll take him at his word that he will try to keep any particular Mormon beliefs from influencing his presidential decisions. However, no human being can approach matters of right and wrong (and we all face dozens of issues like this every day) without bringing their religious values to the table. Of course EVERY value and belief you hold doesn't come to bear on EVERY issue, but one or more of them are applied to every issue involving decisions that are either right or wrong.

A Baptist president should not try to press his particular beliefs about baptism or such on the American people; that's not the role of an elected official. But elected officials cannot and should not leave behind their religious values when they shed light on what is right and what is wrong with regard to criminal matters and human rights. To do so would make our leaders subject to the whim or political wind of the moment, which can be as dangerous for secularists as it is for religious people, and as dangerous for the law-abiding as for the criminal minded.

We could do much worse than Mitt Romney for president...but I believe we could do better, and I'm about to tell you why I think so.

Beyond the reservations I've already outlined (including uncertainty about his "conversion" to being pro-life), I also have one other important and I believe relevant (as a Christian) reason why I can't get behind Romney for president. It's a reason I addressed on this blog a few days ago:

I also believe America has been blessed because she has largely worshipped and given thanks to God. Mormons clearly believe in a different kind of god than the infinite Jehovah of Jews and Christians, and they have a radically different idea about the nature and origin of Jesus than what the Bible tells us. With a non-Christian president, one who believes in a different god and a different savior, can America expect Jehovah-God to still bless and protect us?

There's no "religious test" involved here, for those of you who have a phobia about religion, just my personal conviction. And while it's one that isn't in law and I don't believe SHOULD be in law, it is nevertheless my right to personally decide for myself what kind of religious beliefs I would like to see in a president. And I will.