Sunday, August 05, 2007

Mitt's Mormonism

Saw this on the Politico and actually took a few moments to watch the video.

The situation is this: Governor Mitt Romney** is being videotaped while on the air at WHO, an Iowa talk radio station. In this interview, they go off the air and Romney is given a rather pointed recommendaton not to run away from his faith.

Fast forward to about 12:30 min remianing into the video:


Now I have a family friend who dated my mother for about 10 years or so... a Mormon who taught me as an adolescent a heck of a lot about family, faith, and being a man.

Needless to say, I'm dually sympathetic. Not just because I am watching someone pointedly challenge Romney for his faith, but because as a Catholic, I was taught very early about the tremendous significance of President Jack Kennedy being elected in 1960.

Kennedy's election meant that Catholics were no longer "other" in America, but had mainstreamed into the American narrative. We had a voice, were "American" enough to lead. Our values were no longer seen in the light of the later half of the 1800's, where NINA laws and anti-Catholicism was (and to some, remains) an acceptable prejudice.

Specifically in this video, Romney is being asked whether or not he will legislate as he believes... and off the air, is asked why he is "hermunetically sealing" (or dividing) his faith from his politics.

Romney (to his credit) handles the question very well, and in a similar fashion that Kennedy handled it when asked in 1960 whether he would legislate his faith. Kennedy's answer was simple: the moment he felt a conflict, he would resign.

Of course, Kennedy never had to grapple with questions we would consider "social issues". But once again, we are presented with the concept that certain faiths, certain beliefs, and certain ideas are incompatible with the American narrative.

In 1960, it was Catholicism. In 2008, it is Mormonism.

I have long argued that no one should be asked to check their faith at the door to public service. Likewise, government does have a responsibility to approve moral laws, reject immoral laws, and have the proper judgment to discern between the two.

Does this individual have the "proper judgment" to legislate? That last part -- proper judgement -- is the only question we have to ask of Mitt Romney, or any other political candidate for any public office.

When this kind of inquisitive needling of political candidates emerges, I cringe. We did this to Kennedy in 1960. We do it today to anyone who professes faith (or more accurately, is specific about what they believe) as part of their character.

America's strength has always been its ability to absorb cultures, opinions, and faiths. It has never been a smooth or formal process. Yet time marches on, and American culture continues to mature.

We should become aware when the rough patches occur, and be equally suspect when political candidates are stereotyped and broadbrushed into demagogues. That's what happened here, and its never an isolated incident.

** FOOTNOTE: Of course, this is not an endorsement of Romney's candidacy, or any of the Republican nominees for president in '08. It's a social commentary. You like social commentaries. Therefore, this social commnetary is eminently likeable and completely non-objectionable. Much thanks in advance!

3 Comments:

At 11:29 PM, Blogger Doogman said...
Great post! I heartily endorse this attitude. It should apply to *all* religions, don't you agree?

 

At 11:36 PM, Blogger Shaun Kenney said...
Sure -- so long as the "proper judgment" clause is intact, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (as Jefferson might say).

 

At 5:26 PM, Blogger trinitylaw said...
"I have long argued that no one should be asked to check their faith at the door to public service." I think that must be right, as our decisions and moral compass surely cannot be divorced from our fundamental views of right and wrong, views that are in large part influenced by the teachings of our religion.

The difficult issue would then be how would we feel about a Presidential candidate was, say, a member of the so-called 'Church' of Scientology, and thus someone who believed that the human race is being plagued by 'thetans' (the spirits of dead aliens who have been wandering the earth latching on to our race since they were dropped in to volcanoes millions of years ago by a Galactic Overlord). Would you agree that holding that sort of, frankly, bizarre and (I would say) mentally unbalanced belief would raise a very large question mark about the judgment and abilities of a candidate?

 

Post a Comment

Home

 

RedStormPAC

$

JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General?

1) John Brownlee
2) Ken Cuccinelli

View Results

About

ShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.

Contact

E-mail
RSS/Atom Feed

The Jeffersoniad

 

 


Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Powered by Blogger


Archives


March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
April 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009