Five Questions Mitt Romney Still Needs to Answer

The speech was well written and might pass muster in an undergraduate class on religion and the founding fathers, though even there he made some glaring missteps.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

"In God We Trust" went on our currency in 1957, and "under God" went in in the Pledge in 1954. The Founders had nothing to do with them.

Elsewhere, this whopper jumped out at me.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

Um, saying that explaining his church's doctrine enables this religious test is a stretch at best, and makes me wonder, at least, what he's trying to hide. He voluntarily offered his answer to the test on Jesus, after all, suggesting that those who don't believe in Jesus would not qualify in this regard. He also volunteered to hold up his marriage to scrutiny, why not his belief system?

Which brings me to this passage, which is especially icky, and troubling.

"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self -same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency."

Is he proposing a Marriage Test for office?

But in general I'd say that the speech was an eloquent attempt at changing the topic. The riff about envying traditions of other faiths was well-turned, I thought. But those who wonder about Romney's -- or anybody else's -- religion and how it will affect their performance as president don't need lectures on freedom of worship in America. What we want to understand, at its core, is first, What the character of these men and women are? and second, How will their beliefs influence their actions as president?

Here, reiterating what I've written in the past, are five questions Romney should still answer:

1. Do you believe Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God? George W. Bush answered this question affirmatively in 2004 and was heaped with brimstone by the Religious Right. Today, given events in Iraq and Iran, and fears of terrorism, anti-Muslim sentiment in America seems even higher. Yet any attempt to address these issues depends on our ability to work cooperatively with the Muslim world.

2. With religion a dominant issue in the world today, wouldn't our children be more prepared for the 21st century if our schools taught them about religion? The 1963 Supreme Court Decision that outlawed using the Bible for religious purposes in schools explicitly stated that teaching religion in a non-denominational way was allowed. Since most religious institutions and families endorse one view of religion, teaching children to live and work with those who disagree is a defining challenge of the new century.

3. Do you believe that Israeli settlers have a God-given right to the West Bank? American politics has seen a curious alliance between Israel-loving Jews and evangelical Christians who believe Jewish residence in Israel is a precondition for the return of Jesus. Yet peace in the region depends on dismantling some settlements. Which voters are more important: Those who believe God should help determine the fate of Israel, or to those who believe that unrest in the Arab world is fueled by Washington's reluctance to push for a two-state solution?

4. Given the Bible's role over the years in defending slavery, repressing women and justifying violence, can you pledge that you will keep it out of policy decisions? American history shows that advocates on all sides of major debates cite the Bible to support their position, rendering it almost meaningless. Maybe the time has come to purge the Bible from policy debates entirely.

5. Is it our obligation to spread God's blessing of liberty to the rest of the world? President Bush evoked the spread of God's freedom when going into Iraq but balked at doing the same in Darfur. President Clinton intervened in Kosovo but failed to see a greater plight in Rwanda. Perhaps the most important question about God in politics today is whether Americans are in the mood to see our struggles with religion played out on an international stage.

Romney seemed to signal a yes to this final question, suggesting that his religion will inform his policies more than he is letting on. His invoking of the God of liberty to me suggests that he's more of an ideologue than he'd like to admit. Romney has clearly been reading up on the history of religion in America. (The tear in his eye on John Adams calling for a prayer at the first Congress was a masterful.) But if he learned anything, perhaps he learned that Americans in times of national anxiety are not particularly inclined to lead with tolerance -- as Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Masons, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Muslims, among others, have discovered over the years. Romney's at-times overwritten and awkwardly delivered talk does little to suggest to me that he is the man to change this pattern.

Comments

[madmaxwins]

Sloppy work, Bruce! Did you write this column based on the leaked excerpts? Because if you saw the speech or even read the transcript, you would know that Romney DID talk about Americans persecuting religious minorities. Example:

"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left."

Signed, an evangelical, non-Mormon, non-Romney supporter who nevertheless is able to analyze this speech rationally and see how inspiring it was!

[krissymax]

Having a great deal of knowledge about Mormonism, I know why he avoided talking about its doctrine entirely. At its heart, Mormonism depends upon the honesty and credibility of its founding prophet Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, for Mormonism modern historical documents, court records, and many, many verifiable sources show that Joseph Smith was a fraud, engaged in adultry (when he was caught by his wife he conveniently had a "revelation" about polygamy), who pretended to translate ancient Egyptian texts (the Book of Abraham - source check this you will find that it was undoubtedly a fraud) and magical golden plates that were magically taken to heaven (so no one could verify). They are good people at heart but their foundation is based upon a total fraud, which they will never acknowledge the real truth about. The last thing America needs as a President is another person who plays fast and loose with the truth, like W.

[waiguoren]

You have it all wrong.
Romney should not have to answer one damn question about religion, nor should any candidate running for any office, anywhere.

He is not running for Head Theologian.
This is supposed to be a democratic republic, and the founders made it crystal clear that religious tests have no place in such a society, no matter how loud the bible believers howl and lie about this.

[Zanti]

At first, I disagreed with your essay in regard to the five questions. They seemed like a violation of privacy.

But after a little more considertaion, I see nothing wrong with them. There's no reason a person of faith (whatever his or her faith) should be unwilling to answer those questions. Unless he or she has something to hide. As Romney seems to....

I can't agree, though, that his speech was well written--it impressed me as corporate drivel. He was trying to sound reasonable while appealing to those who think we live in the U.S. of God, which makes for an impossible spin.

Worst of all, he very sneakily equated the separation of church and state with the banning of public religious expression. Horse manure, and he knows it.

I'm a believer who values church/state separation. It's clear to me that the Founding Fathers intended to create neither a religious nation nor an irreligious (secular) one, and that they accomplished this by not endorsing either point of view. That's what the fanatics on either side can't grasp. Jefferson and Co. were interested not in catering to such folks but rather to holding them at bay. Imagine a land ruled by either extreme (Pat Robertson vs. richard dawkins) and we see what the FF's were intent on sparing us.

[realpolitic]

One question Mitt must answer:

1) Are you a robot?

[Lisette]

What happened to the First Ammendant?

[Qbear]

Thankfully I have ZERO questions for Mittler, cuz then I don't have to feign interest in what that lying homobigot would answer.

[caedmon]

Mitt Romney was disingenuous. He insists that questioning a candidate"s beliefs is intolerant. Then he declares that his faith has formed his character, Americans want a President of "faith" and religion has a rightful place in the arena of public influence.

When Romney went through the LDS temple endowment ceremony he would have promised before God, angels and witnesses to "accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Can we interpret this speech as a public disavowal of that oath?

The LDS church maintained a racist policy of prohibiting full membership to blacks until 1978. That means for a good portion of his adult life, Romney accepted his church"s teaching that blacks were inherently inferior. He admitted to the NY Times that he never protested this racist practice. Why not?

As a missionary, Romney would have insisted that the LDS church is the "one true church". He would have repeated Joseph Smith"s claim that God himself declared all churches to be apostate, an "abomination" before God and their creeds "corrupt". Yet Romney wants us to accept his new found tolerance for other faiths?

Romney criticized the empty cathedrals of Europe, but I have never been refused entry to one. I was refused entry into a Mormon temple and not allowed to be present at the marriage of my own daughter.

The "no religious test shall ever be required" clause is often misinterpreted. It means that the government cannot prevent someone from running for or holding office based on their religious views.

A Nazi, KKK member or Islamic extremist can legally run for President. It is your right to vote for someone else based on your own judgment. Questioning how religious views night influence decisions is not necessarily religious intolerance.

[mbaty]

I don't think people realize that "In God we Trust" was only added in the fifties as well as "under God" in the pledge. These religionist people want to pretend that our nation was founded on Evangelical principles instead of deist principles...the problem is that they don't need facts for their audience and they don't need to clarify anyone else's point. I once heard a preacher describe evolution as man evolving "from a rock," and everyone rolled their eyes at the crazy evolutionists. Now let's all go see The Golden Compass.

[saami]

Why does he assume that we all believe in a creator? We all do not believe in god nor do we want a requirement that a presidential candidate believe in god. Keep god and religion out of government. You don't need either to be an ethical or moral person. In fact because an atheist doesn't believe in a reward or punishment for doing good or evil perhaps when they choose to do good they are more moral and ethical.

[booker52]

When Mitt says he believes in the bible, what he really means is how his church chooses to translate it, meaning their book of Mormon.

[booker52]

Mitt may of given a speech today, but he did nothing to give the American folks a sense of his church or their beliefs. If he had of been honest in that respect, well it would of been a true eye opener for most folks not of his faith. It would of been a major turn off more so then what most folks think they know of his church. So once again Flip Flopper has danced around an issue and not given any real answers. Par for the course with this guy.

[kkuate]

I am a Mormon and would like to answer question #1... We believe Christians, Muslims, and Jews are all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Consequently, all three religious groups worship the same God.
the Mormon faith's First Article states: "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost".
Allah, Elohim, God, the Eternal Father, are all names of the same personage/deity.

[HighPlainsAg]

If a presidential candidate belonged to a religion that believed in sacrificing the firstborn child, would his religion be irrelevant? What is more fundamental to who someone is than their beliefs?

[godlessclif]

Romney can handle those Buddhist terrorists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dtMpjeAMtk&NR=1
Let's go after the Buddhists...Roy Zimmerman