Thursday, December 06, 2007
The Romney Speech - Can We Vote for a Mormon President
So Mr. Govenor Romney gave “the Speech” today. What do I think?
Like a lot of people I really wonder why he gave this speech. It sounded like originally it was going to be a speech about religious liberty, but in the end it was more about civic faith - a general God consciousness that works to hold the bonds of society together. An interesting idea.
I used to be one of those people who was not particularly excited about the statement “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Two things changed that. First was reading Newt Gingrich’s book Winning the Future. In that he talks about the idea that we truly believe that all of the rights we have come from God, or as the Declaration of Independence says “Endowed by our Creator.” The second was spending considerable time in Europe and the U.K. (yes, I still hold that culturally the U.K. is not really Europe...though that might change). There the battle over the EU Constitution (defeated and yet recesistated by politicians who found a way around the will of the people). There God was, at least originally omitted (as was any discussion of Europe’s Christian heritage...as is democracy sprung whole cloth from a secular society).
Look, if our rights come from God, then they cannot be taken away (unless you commit a crime). But, if Government (intentional use of the capital there) is the one from whom all rights flow, well, if they decide you cannot smoke, own private property, marry a duck, become a doctor, or whatever else...well, that is the rule. There is no “appeal to a higher law” because the Government is the Alpha and Omega. But if God is the one from whole all rights come, well then we share a common notion that while I may not like that you do X or choose to become Y, then, well, we live and let live.
Okay, I know what you are thinking, aren’t you the one who disagrees with gay marriage? Well, yes, and that raises the issue of a sectarian God being the dispenser of rights (imagine if you will that the god who dispenses rights is the Unitarian Universalist god...as the Simpsons’s episode says, “But its empty. Exactly!"). But here we tend to look to a common heritage, natural law, and the difference between what private individuals decide (if you and your gay partner want to call each other husband and wife, I have no problem with that) and what government dispenses as privileged for the sake of society. In other words, the rights to be free to make private choices and act on them comes from God and is answerable to God. All are free. What we legally sanction with the power of the state is about what makes the state preserve and succeed. But the freedom to live free (yes, I am largely a libertarian) comes from God (though we will all have to answer to our use of freedom in the outcomes of our life and, for those who believe in an afterlife, when we see God face to face).
So, all of this is to say that religious liberty is essential in our society. God is the one who gives us our freedom, including our freedom to run for elected office and our freedom to choose our own President based on our personal set of criteria. Governor Romney is a good candidate - though I have always been concerned about his authenticity (it is the great thing about both Fred Thompson, Dennis Kucinich, and John McCain - they seem to speak and do as they really believe, like it or not). Today’s speech showed that one of Romney’s great passions is our civic faith - the non-sectarian belief that God is the giver of our rights, and that our duty to each other and thus to the state, is a response to the gift from God. In that sense, I think it was a good speech. Did it answer the questions about Mormonism and whether or not voting for a Mormon is going to give Mormonism, the faith, not the people (who have long since achieved mainstream acceptance, which is good for our society) mainstream acceptance? No. But does that matter?
Look, there is no governmental faith test. Actually, there cannot be (one of our great founders, a man whom is almost in the catagory of a hero for me, John Adams, wanted one, in part to keep out “Papists,” which shows that even the great ones make big mistakes). But, as I said earlier, people have the absolute freedom to make their own criteria for choosing a President. Do I find the idea of voting or not voting for a candidate simply because he is a member of a church deeply troubling? Yes. I would not vote for someone because he or she is a member of the PCUSA, my own denomination. I would not even vote against a Muslim simply because he is a Muslim. At some level we must, as Hugh Hewitt told me when he signed my book, remember that we are voting for President not Pastor, and that great Christians can make horrible and incompetent Presidents (hmm, like Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter and, uggh, Mike Huckabee).
Though, to be fair, if someone is to come from the Unitarian Universalist church, yes, it would inform my vote. But here the church or religious community that a person has chosen to align with themselves is important in giving us an insight into their picture of a healthy society. A Unitarian Universalist would probably like to see a world where God is marginalised, where preferences are made based on race, where standards are made to seem intolerant. Our choice of faith community (or no faith community) does mean something.
The secular idea is that faith, if it has a place, is only in someone’s personal life. The whole idea of “faith has no place in the public square” is an anathema. As if the fact that I believe in the fact that all human beings bear the image of God should not involve my views on affirmative action (which I see as ultimately demeaning that image), the death penalty (which I oppose in general because it gives us the power to destroy that image, which Jesus himself chose not to act upon - see John 8), or that injustice is an affront to God (which is why I oppose the United Nations, the protector of all corrupt regimes). My faith has helped to form my values, my desires for a better world, and cannot be left outside the voting booth or my checkbook.
So, if someone is a Muslim, I would want to know their view of women (yes, I know some Christians believe in what on some levels can be viewed as a subordinate role for women, my theological view and my denominations view do not believe this). Now, would I not vote for them because they are a Muslim? No. But I would want to know if they would be willing to uphold our equal protection of all genders despite the view of some of their religious scholars. Some have said that Mitt Romney needed to answer the question of whether he supported the restriction of blacks from the priesthood of the Mormon Church. Since that restriction has been removed I do not believe that was necessary (note that the issue of blacks does go to a view of public policy, the fact that Mormons believe in a different celestial world for the saints to preside as God is irrelevent to his being President).
What Romney did today was make the point that as President he would be motivated by our common civic faith. Good enough for me. His view, based on what he has shared today and previously, of the better world is in line with what you would expect from someone who is generally conservative however with a positive view of the role in government to cover the gaps of the free market. If I decide to vote for him it will not be either because he is a Mormon or despite it, but because what he views as the state of the Union 4 years from now is close to mine.
Earlier this year I admitted that I had concerns that we would vote Mormonism into a place of national prominence and thus many Americans would investigate it as a choice for their religious life. It is that still a concern? Of course, just like Madonna pushing her weird gnostic view of Judaism or Tom Cruise pushing Scientology. Do I not go see their movies or concert because of these facts? No - I don’t go see their stuff because their stuff stinks. Likewise if I choose to not vote for Mitt Romney, it is because quite simply I do not like his policy ideas. Enough said.
Was the speech today necessary? Only if you believe that Mike Huckabee was going to win the Republican nomination (or at least Iowa) because, while Christians love Mitt Romney as a candidate they cannot stand his Mormonism. I do not think that Mike Huckabee’s gains are because Mitt is a Mormon. It is because he alone of the big five Republican candidates is solidly and historically pro-life and pro-traditional marriage (though if Fred Thompson and John McCain are not pro-life enough for you, you have issues). I am going to write something on Mike Huckabee soon, but let me tell this to Mr Romney - I would vote for him today if he had never given this speech because I think he is a smart, competent and fairly visionary candidate. While I am still undecided it has not been because of his Mormonism but because we have four (sorry Mike H) good candidates and I am keeping my power dry.
So, great speech today Governor Romney. Now, keep on showing the authenticity to go along with your competency and good policy ideas, and you may well be our President on January 20, 2009.
