Ann Corkery, who directs philanthropy at Security National Servicing Corporation, introduced Governor Romney as he received the Canterbury Award from the Becket Fund.

As it turned out, the governor’s speech of December 6th last year was the high point of the entire primary season. It was one of those moments when a serious thought managed to break through the noise. What left an impression was not just the power of the words, but also the qualities of the man, and of the wife beside him.

One quality of note is surely their forbearance, at that moment and throughout the campaign. If you wonder exactly what it was like for Catholics, in other places and other times, Mitt and Ann could share some details from their own experience. At every turn, they had to explain their faith — to defend the good and venerable teachings of the Mormon Church. They were constantly called to account, even by people not usually interested in spiritual matters … and by others with creeds and churches of their own, but a lot less to show for it than Mitt and Ann Romney.

The reality is that when we meet people of their quality, the most relevant questions are the ones we ask ourselves — about our own beliefs … and whether we reflect nearly as well on our churches as they do on theirs. Yet somehow the governor always remained calm and patient. And this was not just a political instinct. It was the humility of the man, a trait that has somehow survived all his success. Listening to his remarks in College Station, Texas, it wasn’t hard to picture the young missionary who years before has gone door to door in Paris, explaining his beliefs and offering the hope of a better way.

Labels: religion

...Check this out.

This year the Becket Fund is honored to bestow Governor and Mrs. Mitt Romney with its highest honor, the Canterbury Medal, for their role in expanding the free expression of religious faith in the public square. Each year the Becket Fund awards the Canterbury Medal to someone who has "resolutely refused to render unto Caesar that which is God's."

The governor's extraordinary speech on the role of religion in political life was an important contribution to religious liberty and the national political discourse during this election season. Both Governor and Mrs. Romney have demonstrated exemplary poise and dignity in the face of all manner of provocations aimed at their faith. For these reasons and more, The Becket Fund is delighted to present the Romneys with the Canterbury Medal at this year's dinner.

The award will be presented Thursday, May 8, 2008 at The Metropolitan Club (One East 60th Street, New York City) The reception is at 6:30pm, with dinner to follow. Black Tie. To purchase a table or tickets, contact Ashley Samelson at asamelson@becketfund.org.

Labels: religion

I agree with Justin...to a point. Obama's speech was a rhetorical gem. It flowed naturally from one topic to the next and made a compelling case for his solutions. I was just left with one question after listening:

So what?

If the problem that Obama was confronting, and the need for the speech, had been general racism or discrimination, this would have been a masterful discourse. However, in my view, the problem was not generalized racism, but Obama's particular association with an extremist. It was the statements by one of Obama's closest confidants for the last 20 years that are particularly at odds with the premise for Obama's campaign. Thus, in addressing race rather than his voluntary association, Obama addressed an issue tangential to the reason for the controversy.

The big problem with his speech is that he either gave generalized denunciations to Wright's statements and then made the moral equivalence argument in several ways: equating non-family members to family members, saying all religious leaders make controversial statements, implying that all controversies are equal, etc. These excuses for his continuing association with Wright, in spite of the problems it has caused, makes me question his judgment more fully.

Don't get me wrong, Obama's campaign was smart in pivoting from Obama's particular associations to racism generally. The news, at least that I've seen, has been gushing over his speech about race and have generally forgotten why he needed to give the speech at all. Wright is glossed over and forgotten as the stations will likely do a week's worth of stories about race in America.

Labels: Obama, race, religion

I have to tell you... I found the speech very engaging and well crafted. We dismiss it blithely at our peril.

Don't get me wrong, there was plenty for conservatives to object to... but the argument which Obama framed up created a compelling narrative (especially during the first half of the speech). Obama's strong condemnation of Rev. Wright coupled with his refusal to cut off his pastor cold turkey cuts a very natural path between the black community looking for vindication and conservative critics looking to catch him in hypocrisy.

If I had to regurgitate it, this is what I heard: "This is the reality of what many blacks believe in America, I don't believe it, but you can't reach out to this group by ignoring them or lambasting them outright. Likewise, my fellow blacks need to condemn the ugly vitriol against whites and fess up the to their own messes. America is full of these contradictions. It makes us stronger when we deal with it."

"Contradictions" is a term that many people can relate to.

As others have noted, the last part of the speech was a liberal boilerplate of good intentions. No surprise there. But the overall tenor of the venue was positive in nature and disarming in effect.

I mean, ask yourself. What was his main goal going in? Dissolve the Wright issue and move it into the win column. Did he accomplish that? I think he did.

Labels: anti-american, Obama, religion

I find it interesting that Barack Obama’s continuing difficulties because of Jeremiah Wright are being framed in the context of two things it is definitely not about: race and religion.

This controversy is not about race. If anyone made the claim, and I have yet to hear it, that Obama is being criticized because of his race they are wrong. It is not the color of Obama’s or Wright’s skin that is the subject of controversy. No rational person would equate Wright’s anti-Americanism with the color of his skin, unless we are to believe that skin color determines nationalistic attitudes (which is patently absurd). It is Wright's inflamatory statements themselves that have engendered controversy and not his skin color. Perhaps Wright would say the two are inseperable, but, again, skin color does not determine the content of character. Thus, those who frame the controversy in the context of race are not navigating the facts, but are pushing a headline that is detached from the story.

Likewise, the controversy is not about religion. Wright’s comments are not theological, but are political. It is not the tenets of Obama’s faith that are in question. No one is asking about his belief in God or his belief in the divinity of Christ or any other doctrinal question. No one has suggested that Obama should be disqualified because of his beliefs in spiritual matters. This is distinct from Mitt Romney’s experience where it was doctrinal differences over such things as the nature of God or post-mortal life that were the subject of controversy. Wright’s statements cannot be resolved by resort to religious sources. The slight convergence with religion that this controversy has is because of Wright’s title and the location of the remarks. Wright is a pastor and the remarks were given in a Church. Those facts alone do not make the controversy about religion. The controversy is about religion only insomuch as Obama proclaims religious belief in the statements that Wright made, something that Obama seems unlikely to do.

Labels: Obama, religion

As I surveyed the campaign coverage of post-Iowa, mid-Wyoming, and pre-New Hampshire I found pretty much a mixed bag. Nobody really knows what’s going to happen, but everyone’s willing to hazard a guess.

Then I happened upon Michael Medved’s latest Townhall column and I started to get just a little miffed. I don’t really have an opinion on Medved – I’ve never really listened to his show, I don’t read his stuff and my only exposure to him has been via Blogfather Hugh’s radio show. Medved has now come out as a McCain backer, but his latest diatribe will most likely find its way to Team Huck for distribution.

Medved would have you believe there is no anti-Mormon bigotry behind Huck’s success in Iowa and in other evangelical heavy states. I’m not going to take Medved’s data apart here, simply because its not necessary to prove my point. I’d simply like to pose a question which turn’s Medved’s logic on it’s head:

But for religion, where would the race stand today?

But for religion, Mike Huckabee would be lagging back in single digit polling no matter what state he ran in. He’d be rightly labeled as a populist tax and spend governor of a state that – were it not for its alphabetical ranking – most Americans would never have heard about. His attitude toward and record on crime – demonstrated by his seemingly endless string of pardons – would subject him to an endless barrage of questions and commentary which would subsequently consign his campaign to the Dukakis Memorial Dust Bin. His Carter-esque foreign policy ideas would lead most responsible Republicans to run screaming from the room – to say nothing of his economic ideals which appeal to the masses but portend fiscal danger and disaster should they ever actually be implemented.

So what, pray tell, is Huck’s appeal? He plays the religion card and manages to convince some Iowans that he’s one of them. He brands himself as the “Christian Leader” thereby calling into question the religiosity of every other candidate – a not-at-all veiled jab at Mitt Romney. He then takes an even less-veiled broadside at Mitt specifically and Mormonism in general with his throwaway line to the New York Times Magazine specifically designed to put religious and not political differences on the front page – again.

While Huck may have apologized for that insult, and Mitt may have accepted said apology, the intent was clear. No, I don’t buy Huck’s explanation and I don’t accept his apology. After so many years at the pulpit, Huck knew exactly what he was saying and the publicity and religious furor it would generate. Huck’s “apology” is a bout as valid as Typhoid Mary’s would have been weeks after she came to town.

In short, but for religion, Huck would already be an also-ran.

On the other side of the spectrum you find Mitt Romney. Here is an exceptionally accomplished man – by any yardstick you choose to measure him. He has succeeded at nearly everything he’s ever even thought of attempting – be it professional, personal, or political. When the chips were down and conventional wisdom said it couldn’t be done, somebody called Mitt and the impossible got done.

Mitt has made over a quarter-billion dollars for himself, and untold billions for others in the private sector. Unlike any other candidate, he has created and saved untold millions of jobs for Americans. He enjoys new challenges, so he took it upon himself to save the 2002 Olympics and then serve his state. Having given Uncle Ted the race of his life and not being stymied by defeat he took a shot at the Governor’s chair and turned a state around. Most people would think Mitt had done enough and deserved a well earned early retirement.

In any other universe, Mitt would be so far beyond any other candidate – Democrat or Republican – this race would all but be over. He personifies the all American family man – married to the same woman for nearly four decades with five strapping sons all successful on their own merits. Norman Rockwell couldn’t have painted a better picture of a presidential candidate.

And yes, in case you were wondering, my picture does include all Mitt’s rightward shifts on the issues he takes hammers on. It wouldn’t matter – and in reality it doesn’t matter.

But for religion, Mitt would all but be sworn in. Were he Baptist, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Catholic, or Methodist the only questions in this campaign would be aimed at policy. But Mitt is Mormon, and evidently that changes the rules set down by over 200 years of American political tradition.

Were there no Mormon Question, the media might have to focus on issues that really matter rather than the actual location of the Garden of Eden or the actions of Mitt’s long dead relatives. They might actually have to work for a decent newsworthy story.

No matter what Mr. Medved claims, there is an undercurrent of religious bigotry which has and will continue to dog the Romney campaign. Bear in mind with the exception of the occasional reference to “faith”, Mitt has been fairly neutral on the subject of religion. He’s gone to great lengths to avoid bringing religion into a race for a secular office. Never the less, Mitt’s opponents and their surrogates seem to revel in reverting to religion at every opportunity.

What proof do I have of this undercurrent? I won’t bother pointing you to the surrogate blogs filled with a never ending diatribe of combined anti-Mitt and anti-Mormonism. I’ll just point you to Mike Huckabee’s officially sanctioned blog. What you’ll find there is just one example of many I could point you in what is fast becoming little more than a cesspool of anti-Morminism. Spare me the “Huck isn’t responsible for comments” excuse. It’s got his name on it, he’s responsible for it.

I’m not going so far as to blame all the woes of Team Mitt on religious bigotry – I’m not quite that naïve. What I am saying is that Mitt has one hurdle the other candidates are free to bypass – and it makes this campaign race much like Mitt having to run100 yard dash in knee-deep water while his opponents sprint down the track.

Even with that obstacle, Mitt is still running neck and neck with them.

That says more about Mitt that I ever could.

Labels: LDS Mormon Romney, mike huckabee, mit romney, religion

As I’ve browsed the blogosphere and listening to just a little talk radio today, a few questions keep popping up from reporters, pundits, and the general public. These are a significant minority of the overall reactions. Mostly they sound something like this: How can Romney invoke his faith and not discuss the details? How can he claim that America wants a man of faith, yet not any particular faith? How can Romney assert that faith is important in a secular nation?

One of fundamental values upon which our constitution is built is balance: balance between federal and state governments, between branches of government, between the citizens and the government, etc. We use several different phrases to describe this balance (federalism, separation of powers, etc.), but the underlying premise is the same. We want a government with enough power to enforce the laws, but not to tyrannize its citizens. We want a strong central government, but not complete or even significant concentrations of power.

All of these require balancing by embracing both values without rejecting either. It is sometimes difficult to find the precise balance, but that’s what we have to do. Through experience and maturity we increase our ability to find this balance and approach new situations.

Such is the case with religion in the United States. The Constitution specifically eschews the enshrinement of a national religion or religious test for office. On the other hand, the Constitution does not decry the practice of religion. Thus, we have a nation of religion without a national religion. The Constitution only sets the framework from which we begin to balance the two competing values. However, the wisdom of this framework is self-evident.

Taking either value to its logical extreme shows the fallacy of holding too tightly to one value at the expense of the other. There is no more wisdom in a theocratic Iran than an atheistic Soviet Union (back when it was such). But of course Mitt explained all this in his speech.

The questions asked above similarly seek for a logical extreme to facets of the religion question. They conclude that if Romney’s religion is known and going to play a role in his politics, he must fully explain it. However, this type of extremism is at odds with the types of balancing discussed above. The question, then, is what is the proper balance? How do we value the competing concerns of maintaining a proper distance from religion in politics without removing it from that sphere? Mitt has struck a balance as evidenced in his speech. He embraces religion and religious people, but will not exalt that religion to dominate his political life. Thus, it is important to be aware that he is religious while it is the specifics of his religion are not important. This is a balance.

Would other people have struck a different balance? Certainly. JFK’s speech concerned the almost complete rejection of religion in politics. Alternatively, former candidates like Pat Robertson would have exalted religion as the defining characteristic of their governance. Experience has proven to us that neither extreme is desirable. Where should the balance be struck? That’s an individual question and reasonable people can disagree. However, the extremist questions listed above are outside that range of reasonable disagreement. They exhibit a rejection of one value or another on the role of religion in the public sphere.

Labels: religion

The Romney speech will probably be broadcast on many of the major cable news channels. You can also watch it live streaming on http://www.mittromney.com.

Alternately, if you're on the road you can call in for the audio:

Phone Number For Listen-Only Program Feed: 866-866-2244
Participant Code: 9411758

Of course, be sure you tune in to MyManMitt.com for live coverage of the event.

Labels: mitt romney, Mormon, mormonism, religion, the speech

Douglas Kmiec, who I heard speak this year down at Pepperdine Law School (he's brilliant), says that Romney should give "The Speech" about Mormonism:

It’s too late — the governor and his faith have our attention. For better or worse, Mormonism is on the public table. The “good news” part, for Romney, is that the public interest signifies how important he has become in the presidential sweeps. Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he is now being taken seriously as a prospective nominee. The “bad news” part is that, despite Romney’s desire to think only the best of his fellow citizens — to think that no one would disqualify a person merely because of faith, 218 years after the promise of religious freedom in the First Amendment — such a vision of religious freedom is not yet a reality.

I personally disagree with Kmiec, but he makes a convincing case. I think that there is little to gain from such a speech. It will undoubtedly increase media attention on the divide between Mormons and other Christians. This does Romney little good and likely will do him much harm. I think the campaign has taken the right steps regarding religion, letting endorsements and endorsers make the case to voters. This is one of those areas where I think that actions (particularly those of evnagelical endorsers) speak louder than any words that Romney could utter.

Perhaps I'm wrong? Apparently a smart guy, and Romney supporter, like Kmiec thinks so.

Labels: religion

Jonathan Chait, that lover of the religious right, has a new article over at TNR, essentially proclaiming discrimination against Mitt Romney and his Mormonism to be the fault of the right's embrace of religion in politics. He concludes:

Not long ago, John McCain declared that, "since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know has a solid grounding in my faith." GOP Representatives Virgil Goode and Bill Sali, and conservative talk show host Dennis Prager, have railed against Muslims and Hindus offering their own prayers in Congress. I'm sure most advocates of faith-based politics would abhor this sort of discrimination. But it's really just the natural conclusion from the premise of faith-based politics: If it makes sense to support public figures because they share our religious beliefs, then it also makes sense to oppose public figures who don't.

Of course Chait misses many points, but, in particular, misses the sophistication of religious voters. Beyond the extreme views of Goode and Sali and the like, religious voters have been extremely tolerant of people of other faiths. Why else would religious voters back such a wide ranging field of presidential candidates whose religious backgrounds couldn't be more different? The reason is that religious voters endorse people of religion, not because of simplistic identity politics, but because of what a faith tells the voter about that person. It's a level of sophistication removed from the blunt treatment that Chait gives religious voters.

Chait, unfortunately, looks at religious voters as liberals look at any other demographic: monolithic and simple-minded, voting for someone because of association with that group. Blacks vote for blacks. Hispanics for hispanics. Women for women. This is not, however, how religious voters behave (and I would argue most groups don't behave that way, but I digress). Religious voters take a person's religion as only an indication of that person's character. It tells them something about faith in the face of the unknown, about commitment to shared values, and about service to one's neighbor, among other things. None of these things are religion specific, nor do they facilitate identity politics.

So, what does this have to do with Mitt Romney, the subject of this blog? Chait would have it mean that Romney's nomination exposes the hipocracy of the religious right. I, however, see it differently. This is the first time that voters have been confronted with the implications of Mormonism. Particularly with respect to those attributes that Mormonism imbues in its followers, voters are asking themselves what it is that Mormonism means to Mitt Romney's faith in the face of the unknown, his committment to shared values, and about service to his neighbor, among other things. Normally these questions are easily answered as voters are familiar with evangelical protestants, Methodists, Baptists, and Catholics and what those religions mean to character and values. The unfamiliar Mormonism warrants additional investigation, but voters are drawing conclusions based on the candidate. The results have been somewhat mixed (some voters prefering familiarity), but probably better than most would have suspected. This is to be expected given the sophistication of religious voters. Otherwise, denominations would have quickly lined up behind the candidate of their religion. Nothing so simplistic has occured, further refuting Chait's argument.

Look for the continued sophistication of religious voters, who are able to look beyond the simple label that religion serves for Chait, and will vote for Mitt.

Labels: religion

From the YouTube Comments:

theaustinpeay says:

Romney is very impressive. Even when he doesn't know he's being taped. He's very classy.

darthmills says:
wow, first time i have seen mitt get upset. refreshing. Go get em mitt! President Romney 08!!

5M1L3 says:
I wonder if all the people who complained that Mitt Romney's clips were to short will appreciate the length of this video? I do like the candid, off the air part, at the end.

SCOTTMSTER says:
I feel Jan Mickelson had a pre-planned agenda for Mitt Romney to explain his views on his LDS religion and make his religion an issue in his run for the presidency. It however turned into a GREAT off air and genuine perspective of how Mitt views his moral and religious convictions, how those morals and views intertwine to make him what he is and yet separate as a President.
Mitt wins again, what a classy Presidential candidate.
Scott Rasmussen
Gilbert. Az.

Labels: LDS Mormon Romney, religion