January 2, 2007
The Romneys of Michigan V Posted by John Steele Gordon at 07:00 PM EST Joshua Zeitz quotes from an article in The New Republic as follows: “In the case of Mitt Romney, citizens have every reason to seek clarification about the character of his Mormonism. Does he believe, for example, that we are living through the ‘latter days’ of human history, just prior to the second coming of Christ? And does he think that, when the Lord returns, he will rule over the world from the territory of the United States? Does Romney believe that the president of the Mormon Church is a genuine prophet of God? If so, how would he respond to a command from this prophet on matters of public policy? And, if his faith would require him to follow this hypothetical command, would it not be accurate to say that, under a President Romney, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would truly be in charge of the country—with its leadership having final say on matters of right and wrong?” He asks if these are fair questions. No, they are not. Substitute “Catholic” for “Mormon,” and the doctrine of papal infallibility, etc., for the tenants of Mormonism listed above, and that paragraph could have been written in 1928 regarding Al Smith. I find it, frankly, obscene. If Mitt Romney were to ask my advice on how to handle the religious issue (and I am not sitting by the phone waiting for his call), I would suggest that he simply arrange to give a speech before some suitable group and then tell his speechwriters to take the day off, the speech is already written. John F. Kennedy gave it 46 years ago, on September 12, 1960, to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. . . .” Kennedy told the group. “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.” He added, “But let me stress again that these are my views—for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me.” He concluded, “. . . if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same. “ It’s a great speech, one that might well have tipped the election to Kennedy, and I recommend reading it in its entirety here. I’m not about to argue with a Nexus search. If the commentating on the “issue” of Gov. Romney’s religion has been more from the right than the left, that’s fine with me. But I am sure that Mr. Zeitz will agree that among the intellectual elite, of whatever political stripe, deep religious faith is not commonly found and, indeed, causes at the least a certain uncomfortableness and, often, sneers. I wonder if a Nexus search would bring up any articles written by evangelicals huffing and puffing over Mitt Romney’s religion. Is Jerry Falwell, or whomever, all bent out of shape on the subject of Gov. Romney’s religion? I don’t know, but my guess is no.
|
