January 3, 2007
The Romneys of Michigan VII Posted by John Steele Gordon at 04:15 PM EST Joshua Zeitz writes, “As a voter, I would like to demand more of candidates who vaguely profess the importance of their faith without explaining what exactly their faith tells them.”
I’m sorry, but I smell a political rat here. Mr. Zeitz, after all, will not be heading up the Upper West Side Romney for President Club. This seems to me to be an invitation for people of faith to get tangled up in public theological discussions that will win them no votes but might well cost them votes, especially if they make some misstatement or fail to express clearly some obscure point, providing an opening for their political enemies to twist it into something else entirely.
Mr. Zeitz provides a perfect example of the political perils here. He writes, “. . . in a campaign swing last year, Mitt Romney said, ‘Most people in South Carolina want a person of faith as their leader. But they [South Carolina voters] don’t care what brand of faith that is. . . . I believe Jesus Christ is my savior. I believe in God. I’m a person of faith and I believe that’s the type of person Americans want.’
“There is considerable ambiguity in this statement. Does Mitt Romney mean to suggest that Americans want a person of ‘faith’ to govern their affairs, or someone who accepts Christ as his or her personal savior? If he means the latter, then I beg to differ. If he means the former, then is it not fair to ask, faith in what?”
I do not see at all how Gov. Romney’s statement is in any way ambiguous. He is using the word “faith” simply to mean a belief in God. He says that the people of South Carolina want a leader who believes in God but doesn’t care about the details of that belief, and then he states that his God, as it happens, is a Christian one.
Mr. Zeitz writes that John F. Kennedy did not wear his Catholicism on his sleeve. He’s right, he didn’t. But neither does Gov. Romney wear his Mormonism there. It seems to me that some people, including Mr. Zeitz, want to pin it there for their own political purposes. Mr. Zeitz didn’t reply to my question as to whether a Nexus search would turn up concerns among the “religious right” regarding Romney’s Mormonism. I do not have access to Nexus, but I would be very curious to learn the answer to that question. My guess is that there is none, but perhaps Mr. Zeitz will be kind enough to run a search and report the results.
Kennedy said in his speech, “I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair.” Mr. Zeitz quotes Dwight Eisenhower as saying, “Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith [i.e. a belief in God]—and I don’t care what it is.” Gov. Romney says the same thing. Mr. Zeitz says that people of faith should be cross-examined by a bunch of intellectuals to find out exactly what faith and what tenets and what the pattern on their theological boxer shorts is. Mr. Zeitz’s offer for people of faith to sit down and discuss the details of that faith is one that can—and undoubtedly will—be refused. Can anyone imagine candidates without faith sitting down and discussing the reasons for their agnosticism at length, or even admitting that they are agnostic? I sure can’t. Does anyone care about Hillary Clinton’s opinion on transubstantiation or the importance of good works in achieving salvation? Then why does anyone care about Mitt Romney’s opinions on whether we are living in the latter days of human history?
I think it is perfectly proper to ask one question regarding a political candidate’s faith, the question that John F. Kennedy answered in his speech: If a situation were to arise where your faith and your public duty fundamentally conflicted, would you resign the office you hold? Kennedy answered that question unequivocally in the affirmative. I have no doubt that Governor Romney would too, but by all means ask him. Beyond that, his faith is no one’s damn business but his own.
|
