Mitt Romney On Faith in America

I just finished watching Mitt Romney's speech on Faith in America. You can check out the video here.

Romney's delivery is very good. I had to give that to him. His delivery was crisp, clear and concise on the matter of his faith. I almost wanted to admire him for that. But the contents of his speech, as good as it was, is just so freakin' mythic. And I have a problem with a (potential) President who has (predominantly) mythic values (whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist). We've already had two terms under a U.S. President to learn valuable lessons from the unhealthy side of mythic values, thank you.

Now, just to be clear, I don't know enough about Romney to cast a judgment on his values. For all I know he could be playing a religious facade to get the sympathy of the religious voters (e.g. Christian evangelicals) to garner votes (ala G.W. Bush), but deep inside his values could be different from what he publicly profess (of course, this applies to all candidates). However, based on what I've seen so far, Romney is indeed a man of faith (see this debate video). His professed faith is mythic to the core. And his speech stretches the gap between believers, not-so believers (moderates, those with no religious affiliation, agnostics), and non-believers (seculars, atheists). It elevates the believers (faithful) above the non-believers (faithless). Romney's preference of belief over non-belief is more divisive than unitive--a reflection of his (predominantly) mythic faith.

Listen to Romney professing his faith (see the text of his speech here):

"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

"Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the saviour of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

"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."   

Notice how Romney appealed to people of all faiths while leaving out non-believers (those who have no religious affiliation, including seculars, agnostics, and atheists).

Romney continues:

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings."

Notice Romney leaving out people with Eastern religions (i.e. Buddhists, Hindu, etc.) His appealing on Christian and Muslim voters anyway.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Separation of state and church is a good policy. But in practice this separation is merely an illusion. In the U.S. the law takes precedence over religious freedom (e.g. if you're a Muslim, you can't implement the punishments of your religion (e.g. flogging) if it is prohibited by the law.) In the same sense, when the stakes are high, the religious faith of leaders, greatly influence their decisions on morally divisive policies (e.g. stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia, going to war, etc.). And why is it that secularism is called by Romney as a "religion"?

Speaking of secularism, as far as I know, some of the New Atheists don't necessarily want to "remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God." On the contrary, you have all the right to profess your belief in public. However, your religion should not serve as a "cover" and make it a taboo to criticize the irrationality of your professed faith.

"Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty?"

Is Romney implying that only people of faith can have these American values? Nonsense. What about the progressive European countries that are mostly secularized?

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away"

Huh? I'm not sure why empty Churches in Europe is an issue for Romney. Is he implying the U.S. is on a higher moral ground than secularized European countries based on the number of head counts in Churches? I might be missing something here.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilised nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed."

True. So how about taking it further? Daniel Dennett's proposal is actually not less religion, but more religion! Let's teach world religions to children at a very young age and give them the opportunity of making informed decisions.

If and when Romney wins this election, I just hope that he stick to his conviction.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

Heaven help us all.

P.S. David Brooks has an excellent op-ed on Mitt Romney's speech on the New York Times. Check it out. Below is an excerpt.

"In order to build a voting majority of the faithful, Romney covered over different and difficult conceptions of the Almighty. When he spoke of God yesterday, he spoke of a bland, smiley-faced God who is the author of liberty and the founder of freedom. There was no hint of Lincoln’s God or Reinhold Niebuhr’s God or the religion most people know — the religion that imposes restraints upon on the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings. He wants God in the public square, but then insists that theological differences are anodyne and politically irrelevant."