|
|
| |
| Mon, Dec. 1, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Romney's religion slice and dice Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 By John Brummett Because professed Christians among Republican primary voters and caucus-goers suspect that his Mormonism is different from what they believe religiously - and therefore wholly unworthy of their secular political tolerance - Mitt Romney gave a vaunted religion speech Thursday. This invited comparisons with John F. Kennedy's political distancing from his Catholicism in 1960. But it didn't measure up to that. Instead it was vintage slickness from this once-moderate governor of Massachusetts who now is a purely tactical social conservative. Romney's message, delivered at the library of the first President Bush, could be condensed this way: He should not be opposed politically because he is Mormon so long as he is religious in a general way that produces politically palatable values, because America is all about religion or the values emanating therefrom. But he should not be asked to account or explain any of his Mormonism, because that's simple faith, and lay people don't or can't explain faith. And his Mormonism is the faith of his fathers, from which he must not be asked to shrink and for which he must not be asked to apologize. For months Romney has been trying to recast himself to kooky right-wingers so that he might fill a socially conservative gap in the Republican field and get propelled to a viable shot at the American presidency. But then came the preacher, Mike Huckabee, of the Southern Baptist persuasion, one that formally considers Mormonism a cult. Huckabee wouldn't say on television that Mormons were Christians, which wasn't very Christian. Religious bigots got in behind the Huckster, and he surged to the lead in Iowa. So Romney surveyed the political landscape and decided it was time to confront the religious branding with his most precise slicing and dicing. Typically, he chose at once to try to embrace and distance himself from his religion. This guy does more contortions than Nadia Comenici. It's all quite unfortunate and inappropriate. America is supposed to be about religious freedom and separation of church and state. So we ought to consider our political candidates on political terms based on our assessment of them in a political context. We should not consider religious branding, because that's personal and distinct. One guy can be a professed Southern Baptist and be Bill Clinton. Another can be a professed Southern Baptist and be Jimmy Carter. Another can be a professed Southern Baptist and be Mike Huckabee. Another can be a professed Southern Baptist and be Ronnie Floyd. Those are four greatly distanced political figures. It would be impossible, and insane, to lump them politically for joint judgment according to the brand of their shared religious denomination. They don't share much in the way of political application on matters like abortion, gay rights, taxes and, oh, those little issues of what to do in Iraq and Iran. If Romney was breaking the secular law based on religious practice, maybe with numerous wives, that would be something to be dealt with politically, and, of course, criminally. But that he happens to be of a religious group that believes in a relatively modern American prophet who has something more to say than what Jesus said - well, I don't buy it, but, then, I don't buy what the Southern Baptist Convention says either. I don't have to buy it. It's not my religion. It's their religion. There was one particular Romney pronouncement that I'm not going for. It was that business about how he was bequeathed Mormonism by his fathers and owed his adherence to their respectful memory and legacy. Religion is a personal decision, not something you get in daddy's will and testament. I prefer a political candidate who thinks for himself. But I wasn't going to vote for Romney anyway. ------- John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699. |
