Thanks, Mitt. Seriously. I am not a fan of former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He’s a demagogue on foreign policy and human rights, and he recently implied that Muslims wouldn’t be welcome in his cabinet. I
Thanks, Mitt.
Seriously.
I am not a fan of former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He’s a demagogue on foreign policy and human rights, and he recently implied that Muslims wouldn’t be welcome in his cabinet. I hope and believe that he will not win the presidency.
But he might make the history books for a positive reason anyway.
The speech that he gave last week at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library about his Mormon faith was critical for America. He bravely confronted what can only be described as anti-Mormon bigotry from liberals and conservatives alike. TV talk shows have legitimized this silly prejudice by acting as if it’s reasonable to debate, “is Mormonism a cult?”
For some reason, during this election it’s been taken for granted that we can ask Huckabee, Romney, Giulani, Clinton and Obama about the particulars of their religion. Do you take it literally? Will you listen to your church elders or the American people? Are you really a Christian? How Christian? What kind? For how long? How often do you pray? How often do you go to church?
Enough already.
In 2000, we didn’t ask the first Jewish Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman whether he literally believed in every word of the Torah, and CNN didn’t have talk show debates about what it would be like to have “a Jew in the White House.”
If that had happened, I would have rushed to join Jewish groups in expressing outrage at this thinly veiled anti-Semitism. Well, neither should Romney have to defend or explain the particulars of his beliefs. Every faith has the potential to look mythological, bizarre or odd when examined by outsiders, but that’s not the point. Religion is not rational, and public policy and leadership should be. As long as a leader doesn’t mix the two, we don’t get to ask them about the Holy Trinity, Allah, or the Buddha.
It’s not just un-American to disqualify anyone from office based on their religious faith. It’s unconstitutional. Article six of the United States Constitution says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Why is Mitt Romney apparently subject to a religious test by the American people? The solution to this isn’t, in the interest of fairness, to ask every candidate exhaustively about details of their faith. The right course is to ditch the foolish idea of selecting candidates based on religion.
However, there were aspects of his speech that didn’t further the cause of tolerance and Article Six of the United States Constitution, and they shouldn’t be ignored. Romney’s tendency to pander re-emerged at moments in the speech. Here’s the worst line: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” That’s just not true and he’s smart enough to know that. There are plenty of religious countries around the globe that aren’t free, and there are free countries that are mostly secular. By conflating these two concepts, he sucks up to a narrow swath of right wingers but undermines the premise of the speech n that one’s religious conviction must never again become a central political issue.
But never mind the details. Mitt’s speech was courageous and crucial, and my hope is that it ends this ridiculous debate in which people pay more attention to a candidate’s theology than his or her healthcare plan.
Thanks, Mitt, for your leadership on this issue.
And that will be the last time I ever say anything like that about Mitt Romney.
• Brian Schatz was a state representative for eight years and ran for the U.S. House in 2006. He is currently CEO of Helping Hands Hawai’i, one of O’ahu’s largest social service agencies.
