Search This Blog

About this Blog

During the semester, I shall post course material and students will comment on it. Students are also free to comment on any aspect of American politics, either current or historical. There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges. This blog is on the open Internet, so post nothing that you would not want a potential employer to see. Syllabus: http://gov20h.blogspot.com/2023/08/draft-introduction-to-american-politics.html

Thursday, December 6, 2007

"Freedom requires religion"

You can read or watch Romney's 'Faith in America' address.
In his speech, Romney stressed that as President he would not put his religious beliefs before his duties in office. It is interesting that he only mentioned his Mormon faith a little before halfway through his speech. Perhaps he wanted to sneak it in there but not bring much attention to it. Although he advocates religious tolerance, his speech makes it sound as if he would only tolerate religions with one God. He speaks about how he admires other faiths that "draws its adherents closer to God" and claims that we are a nation under God. What about religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism? What about atheism?
He seemed contradictory since he claimed that one's religion should not play a role in one's commitments to the law, but he believes that God "should remain on our currency, in our pledge, [and] in the teaching of our history."
Overall, I think he did a fairly good job in appealing to the Christian majority in America by emphasizing the importance of God rather than his Mormon faith. How do you think he did?

2 comments:

Victoria Din said...

When we talked about the speech before Romney actually gave it, I was under the assumption that he would focus on explaining the Mormon faith in order to assuage fears and combat stereotypes or misconceptions. However, he only mentions Mormonism once throughout the entirety of the speech and speaks of his religion in abstract statements instead of hard explanations. I understand that this might be a result of a fear of bringing too much attention to the differences between Mormonism and more standard forms of Christianity. But I also think it would have been wise to spend more time talking in concrete terms about his religion.

It was interesting to hear Romney directly acknowledge some of the themes we talk about in class, particularly religion in the political sphere. He quotes Lincoln in talking about a "political religion" and, as Takako mentioned, supports the existence of numerous religious symbols throughout our currency, pledges, and Constitution. This is evidence of the inseparable nature of faith and secular politics.

Charles Johnson said...

I'm going to have disagree with you on the whole Mormon thing. I think it's very astute that Romney doesn't mention Mormonism. As others have commented, Mormonism isn't well understood in America, but it isn't Romney's role to explain it.

When Romney was the governor of my state, his Mormonism was never an issue. I followed him in some detail when he was governor and I must say that I never really saw anything that would indicate his support for any tenet of Mormonism. As far I was concerned when I campaigned for him way back in 2002, all that mattered was his stance on fiscal responsibility.

If you remember earlier in the year, we talked briefly about Jon Meacham. Rommney, apparently, talked to Meacham about quoting Adams. What a pity that Jefferson didn't get a mention.