Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
YOU GOTTA HAVE FAITH.
The first 846 words were profoundly beautiful. There's something deeply touching that, in America, even a speech in which you leverage your faith for political gain and use devotion as a tool of division requires a lengthy preamble emphasizing that it is our Constitution, not our religion, which we hold in common and, in our politics, transcendent.
But after that, Mitt Romney worst instincts reemerged. As his speech began, Romney eloquently explained that "I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith." But Mitt Romney is not only an American running for president. He is an opportunist running for president. And so, after taking the principled stand that the specifics of his faith were not relevant to his pursuit of the presidency, Romney spat upon the bright line he had just drawn, and proclaimed himself safely within the bounds of the dominant religious groups whose votes he desires. "There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked," he said. "What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."
I don't know whether Mitt Romney believes that or not. I don't really care. But I don't believe that. My beliefs, or lack thereof, are less broadly accepted. And Romney, by prominently proclaiming his fealty to traditional Christian doctrine, just said, essentially, that they are illegitimate. That they should be a source of debate. That even in speeches where you tell the American people that "a person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith," you must profess a default belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
"We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust," continued Romney. I was never asked whether I was part of that "we." But according to Romney's rhetoric, the rhetoric of the man who would be my leader, I either accept that tenet, or accept that I am not part of the nation in which I was born. Indeed, if I "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," I display my intent to establish "a new religion in America – the religion of secularism."
And that's the heart of Romney's argument. Not the beautiful 846 words in the beginning, the words that assured me that my beliefs, or lack thereof, would not impinge on my prospects in this realm. "A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith," Romney had said. When I heard that the first time, I thrilled to it. Reading it again, I realize I'd simply misunderstood: You had to have faith for that faith to be irrelevant. In a speech Romney was forced to give because he feared unfair discrimination, Romney did not stand against intolerance. Instead, he simply asked that it not be directed against him, a man of faith. You can be intolerant, but do it to them, over there. They're even more different.
COMMENTS (1)
It truly was a bizarre speech. Bizarre that Romney even gave such a speech. Bizarre that so much media attention was given to it. Bizarre that he would juxtapose that first paragraph praising the Constitution with the second paragraph wedding himself to Christianity. As if it were a check list: 1) praise the 1st Amendment? Check…2) Vow to undermine the 1st Amendment? Check.
Advocating for freedom of worship when it already exists…I don’t know. I think it will not have any affect on those he sought to persuade (the evangelicals who are suspicious his religion is not “truly Christian”). For the rest, it either was a non-starter, or cements in my mind how much I truly do not want him in the White House.
Every one (the religions and the media) see obsessed about whether Romney wears the Mormon underwear. I wish they’d instead look further down and see the flip flops on his feet.
Posted by: BostonSatyr | December 9, 2007 11:10 PM