Law Students

The Speech

There are at least three potential reasons for Romney?s speech on faith today; 1) to assuage doubts of undue influence by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2) to explain how Romney?s faith will influence his presidency, 3) to explain the church?s doctrines or precepts to the nation. I think a good speech today will fulfill two of these points, although I think the people clamoring for a speech on Mormonism want Romney to speak to the third point.

1) As a Latter-Day Saint, I don?t have any fears of my church exerting political influence. As I see candidates like Mike Huckabee meeting with groups of pastors throughout the country seeking their endorsement, I almost wish the church would exert more political influence. Can you imagine stake presidencies and bishoprics throughout the nation organizing the saints, 6 million strong in the US, for a political candidate? That?s a lot of power. But we?ve never been like that and we have no desire to be like that. However, despite the Latter-Day Saints being the fourth largest denomination in the United States, many people don?t know anything about our church and a speech like this may in fact instruct them that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for good or ill, is the most apolitical church in the nation.

2) I think anyone who has followed the Romney campaign will find that there will be nothing new here. Romney speaks about the importance of his faith all of the time. His faith in God sustains him, strengthens his family, and informs his values. His faith makes him a better man. He mentions this all the time, and he?ll likely hit it often in his speech today.

3) For people looking for Romney to speak to specific theological tenants of the Mormon faith will be as disappointed as those who look to Guiliani for an explanation on Catholicism. However, it?s those who ask for Romney to explain Mormon theology are the same people who deride Mormon theology. For example, I was listening to Christopher Hitchens on the radio yesterday and he said Romney absolutely has to explain Mormon theology vis a vis blacks and the priesthood. Now Hitchens is a renowned anti-theist who hates all religions and there is no explanation Romney could give that would satisfy him. The act of trying to explain theology by a politician as a politician would be seen as a win for all of those who hate religious freedom. If I was an anti-Mormon, I would think twice if I shared the exact same position as Christopher Hitchens on anything religious.

Reaction to the Speech:

It went just like I thought it would. Romney was very clear, if brief, on the issue of political influence. I think those who were weary of LDS political influence and didn?t have their concerns assuaged now are not likely to ever have them assuaged. The second point of how his faith influences him was well played, framing it in a ?common values? context?;

These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord?s words: ?For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...? 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.

Obviously Romney did not explain Mormon theology, which of course is a losers game. I would have liked to have seen him hit a little harder on those who challenge his beliefs. Romney only impliedly attacked them; our country is based on religious pluralism (though shared values) and therefore, those that oppose other religions are impliedly un-American. He should have said that they were ugly or something unkind about their mothers.

The real bright side of Romney giving this speech, and it is a bright side, there will be no more speculation about ?the speech.? You wanted it, you got it and if you didn?t like it you can eat it. Lets move on to real issues now.

Full post as published by SoapBox Law on December 06, 2007 (boomark / email).