Romney is running for President as a representative of God and religion, but he refuses to explain his religion because the Constitution forbids a religious test for those who hold office.
He is trying to have it both ways. A vote for him is a vote for God, but don't ask him about his minority religion which many consider a non-Christian cult.
From
his speech:
Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
That's just a sample. That's running on the proposition that America should be led by someone who represents religion. Here is where he speaks directly to the evangelistic Republicans:
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs. [Snip]
"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.
"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.
He is stating how very important religion is to America. Then he shows exactly what he is promising the evangelical Republicans - religious, yes, but secular, no.
"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.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"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.'
So he'll give religious people their due, but for those who do not profess a Christian faith, he withdraws government. He is saying that America has only a religious - and Christian religious at that - history and no one else will be consider worthy.
That's exactly what the evangelical Republicans want to hear. He offers Americans
freedom for religions, but not freedom from religion. He just doesn't want to be penalized by the Christians for belonging to a non-Christian cult. He makes it clear -
he's one of them!The audience he is speaking to should remember, though, that he was pro-abortion before he became anti-abortion. Mitt has a long history of saying whatever his audience wants to hear, even when it conflicts with what he told previous audiences. But I'm sure that when he has watched all the lies Bush has told in the last eight years, Mitt feels that he is fully qualified to carry on that tradition.
Addendum 10:20 PM CST
Digby got it right.
The religious right has managed to make it an unspoken test that a president must be not only a person who claims an approved religion, but that they are personally deeply religious. (And Democratic advisors are working overtime to get their candidates to join them, unfortunately.) [Snip]
Kennedy successfully tempered a long standing anti-catholic bias held by a rather large number [in his 1960 speech that put to rest the fear many had that electing him would place the Pope in charge of American policy.]in this country by appealing to the fundamental American belief in a separation of church and state and by reassuring them that he would make decisions based on what his conscience tells him is in the national interest "and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates." Romney will be trying to temper an anti-Mormon bias among a sub-set of the Religious Right by assuring them (through coded conservative Christian language) that he is just as biased against other religions and non-believers as they are and will definitely bow to outside pressures or dictates --- from them.
Kennedy's speech was given 60 days before the general election and was designed to put to rest the fears of the general election voters. Romney was speaking solely the Republican radical evangelist reich-wingers because Huckabee has been making major gains among the likely Republican primary voters who don't want to vote for a Mormon. Romney's problem is that the rest of us heard him tell the Republican evangelists that he was their puppet.
If Romney gets the Republican nomination he will spend the entire campaign trying to dig out from under the promise he just made to the radical Republican religious bigots (also known as the Social Republicans.) Mitt might get the nomination, though, since the entire field of candidates for the Republican nomination seems to have fractured the Republican party to an extent that is hard to believe.
