Former Massachusetts Governor and current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is going to give a speech on “Religion in America” tomorrow in Texas.
I have been encouraging Governor Romney to give such a speech for over a year now, since I first met with him at his home in Massachusetts. He had invited approximately a dozen evangelical leaders to meet with him to have a free-wheeling discussion about his presidential candidacy and to allow us to ask him questions--and to allow him to ask us questions as well.
I took that opportunity to tell him that while I, as a matter of long standing policy, do not endorse candidates, I felt that if he desired to have the kind of appeal he would want to have among evangelical voters he needed to give a speech similar to the one then- Senator John F. Kennedy gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. I even gave him an advance copy of my latest book, The Divided States of America?, which has the complete text of JFK’s speech printed as an appendix. As I handed him the book, I told Governor Romney that President Kennedy’s speech was included in the manuscript and was a tone-perfect speech and a great example of what he should try to achieve in a similar speech.
I believed then (October, 2006), as I believe now, that such a speech by Governor Romney is even more important for our nation than it is for Governor Romney. Why? Because our nation needs to be reminded in such a high profile speech that we are a country that believes so deeply in religious freedom that we enshrined the prohibition for any religious test for office in our Constitution (Article VI).
We have been a nation that cherishes religious freedom and protects every citizen’s right to believe and worship as he or she pleases, or not to believe or worship at all, with no governmental preference or prohibition for any particular faith.
What kind of speech should Romney give? Should he seek to describe and define his Mormon faith? I would hope he does not do that. John F. Kennedy did not spend one sentence of his 1960 speech describing or defending the doctrines of Catholicism. He defended the right of a Catholic to run for president.
I would hope that Governor Romney would first talk about the positive and crucially significant role religion has played in our society from the earliest settlements through the era of the founding of the nation, continuing through the Civil War era down to the present day. We Americans have been, are, and give every indication of continuing to be, a very religious people with a multitude of differing religious allegiances with a common commitment of defending every person’s right to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences.
I would hope that Governor Romney would summarize the pivotal role that religious conviction has played in eradicating great evils such as slavery and racial segregation in our nation. Both the Abolitionist and Civil Rights Movements are inexplicable apart from the religious convictions that inspired them and the religious leaders who led them.
Then, I would hope that Governor Romney would turn his attention to the matter at hand, namely the question of his Mormon faith and whether it should impact the viability of his presidential candidacy.
I would hope that Governor Romney, invoking the spirit of JFK’s speech, would point out that when Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy came to Texas 47 years ago to address the issue of religion in a presidential campaign, he did not defend his Catholic faith nor should he have been expected or required to do so.
Then, I hope Governor Romney would say something like this:
“Just as then Senator and presidential candidate John F. Kennedy defended the right of someone of his religious faith to run for president, so I now seek to defend the right of someone of my religious faith to run for that high office.
“To paraphrase President Kennedy, I am not the Mormon candidate for president. I hope to be the Republican Party’s candidate for president. I do not speak for my church on religious matters and they do not speak for me on public policy matters. In other words, if you want to know what my church believes, call Salt Lake City. If you want to know the public policy positions and platform of the Romney campaign, call my campaign headquarters.
“As President Kennedy said those many years ago: ‘whatever issue may come before me as president … I will make my decisions … in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to do otherwise.’
“Let me be clear however, that as John F. Kennedy said in 1960, ‘I do not intend to disavow my views or my church in order to win this election.’ And, I might add, it would be both un-American and unconstitutional to ask me to do so.
“I do not intend to discuss my religious beliefs today or in this campaign. My relationship with God is personal and private. I ask that you respect that personal, private, and constitutionally protected space. I do not believe that questions about religious and theological beliefs belong in a presidential campaign and I don’t think the vast majority of Americans do either.
“Now, my faith does inform my conscience, shape my character, and guides me as I formulate the policy positions which I believe are best for our nation and our people.
“I ask that you, the American people, judge me based on my character and my record as a public servant and Governor of a great state, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. While serving as Governor, followers of my faith tradition received no special favor or consideration from me. I evaluated people on their record and their performance, not their religious faith, and that is how I ask you to judge me.
“Evaluate me on my character as a husband, father, businessman, citizen, and public servant. Judge me on my public positions on the issues that face our great nation–not on my personal religious faith.
“As President Kennedy said in 1960, ‘What kind of church I believe in … should be important only to me’ – it is ‘what kind of America I believe in’ that should be important.
“I believe in an America that understands its great religious heritage and cherishes both its religious freedom and its religious diversity. I believe in an America that is committed to continuing its quest to live out the ideals espoused in its founding documents.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
“May God bless you and may God bless America.”
For more on Romney's "religion speech" and his Mormonism, check out New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III's essay on how Mitt Romney's 'Mormon speech' could connect with evangelicals, our What Do Mormons Believe? Guide, and Political Editor Dan Gilgoff's Casting Stones post on whether Romney has blurred the lines between Mormonism and traditional Christianity.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Diana Butler Bass is a religion scholar and author of Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith. She blogs at 
Tony Campolo is Professor Emeritus at Eastern University and author of The God of Intimacy and Action: Reconnecting Ancient Spiritual Practices, Evangelism, and Justice, with Mary Darling. He blogs at 
Rod Dreher is a columnist for The Dallas Morning News and author of Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots. He blogs at 
Bruce Feiler is the author of seven books, including Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses. He blogs at 
Dan Gilgoff is Politics Editor at Beliefnet and author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War. He blogs at 
David Kuo served as a special assistant to President George W. Bush and is the author of Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. He blogs at 
Dr. Richard Land is president of The Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and author of The Divided States of America? What Liberals AND Conservatives are missing in the God-and-country shouting match!
Michele McGinty is a mom and a student at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. She blogs at 
Brian McLaren is a pastor, musician, and author of Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope. He blogs at 
Steven Waldman is co-founder, CEO, and Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet. His book Founding Faith will be published in March, and he can be reached through 
Jim Wallis is executive director of Sojourners/Call to Renewal and author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. He blogs at
There is no need to be mindful of people like Speedzzler who's only defence is to attack with no basis to back their arguments. Who only have hatred against any religion that is different.
Ah, a punt!
And, "Who . . .", does that mean you now admit LDS is a different religion from biblical Christianity?
ThorN: "I'm sick and tired of religeous biggots [sic] with mob and witch-burning mentallity still trying to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with their particular brand of religion. It's time to leave Salem, and enter the twenty first [sic]century."
It's sad that biblical (and extra-biblical) theology cannot be debated anymore without resort to such over-the-top rhetoric.
No one is disputing that LDS followers have the freedom to deceive themselves and "exchange truth for a lie." But they shouldn't complain so much when their heretical beliefs are displayed in the public square.
I guess this means I won't be invited to ThonN's or Who's planet in the afterlife . . . .
To Speedzzter: If all you have to do is listen so attentivaly to a speech only to find that things where worded in a certin way, you clearly didn't get the idea of the speech. What is it about people dislikeing Mormons anyway? You say our beliefs are inconsistent. Go to goole, search up BYU FARMS and read all the devotionals given, and you'll find one to suit your obeseqious ignorant comment on the book of Abraham. Book of the dead?? your a true intellectual let me tell ya! I'm not one myself.
you guy think that God, Jesus, and the holy ghost are one person?? So Christ talks to himself while he's in the garden atoning for our sins, because that's where the atonement started, and ended on the cross. God being a man of flesh and bone, and having a spiritual wife, who dose not pop out spiritiual babies, but by the Father collects matter, or intelligence and makes it self aware to existance. Then we become aware of ourselves as literal children of God. Why is it so wrong to believe, that the God head is one in purpose, and Christ created the world by the instruction of his father, and is therefore the father of this earth, while God is the Father of all. O and it even says that Satan, or lucifur is the brother of Christ, check the bible for me, and then check Abraham.
Heretical beliefs?? We believe in Christ as the son of God, and that is all that should matter. Like the other guy said you have no facts to dish out except what you pissy minister says to you on Sundays about how Mormons are evil, when he should be teaching you about Christ. Don't try and get smart and beat around the bush, and say "he teaches us about Christ, he says that Mormon believe this and we believe this so thats why where going to be saved, and there going to HELL!! Lets not forget that however many people attend the ministers church makes thier paycheck. Thats called priestcraft, Paul says thats the work of the devil, none of the apostles took money, and I can't remember who it was but I think it was Elisha who saced the king from leporsy and his purpil took the money when Elisha refused it and was cursed by God. Not saying your minister is going to hell because he's not. That is his livley hood, and he probebly dosn't really look in on that part of scripture any how. The only way to go to hell is to deny Christ after once having a true testimony, or murder in cold blood, and even then during the 1000 years of the millenia they have a second chance. To me thats more consistent than orignal sin, because they could sin, if they had no knowledge of good and evil untill after they portook of the fruit, it was a transgression, wich is differnt. So there is no original sin, but there is imperfection, and the ability to know good from evil at a certin age, the age of accountability to the law, which is pretty much 8, but I'l have to look that up a little more- about the age thing. O yeah and in Rev.Which you might actually think there will be horses with lions heads and fire comming out of there mouths to display almighty Gods power which we cannot fully comprhend. But if your an intellectual you would know thats not the case. And that where it says "if anything be added to this book, he shall be cursed" or something like that. Rev was not the last book written, it was actually one of the first when paul was imprisoind, and he got out, then he wrote the rest untill his death it mearly compiled in that manner to help the reader to understand the gosple principles.
On Gods unexplainable power, we cannot "fully" explain, or understand, but we can partially. We know the earth was not created in 6 days, or even 6000 years. It took billions of years, but in Abraham and even more vaugily in Genesis, it says he created things spiritually. According to quantam physics, there are different staes of matter, and God being great would dwell with the finer state of matter. Meaning that he could in his own time with these more radical particals create the earth and universe in a spiritual state, and send them out through the other dimensions, causing two to merege causing the big bang, causing the creation of the physical earth. While Adam and eve are on the spiritual earth in the garden of eden, the physical, and imperfected earth has the time to evolve, with ameba and dinasuars, because we don't know how long they where in the garden. So when they fell from the garden, to earth, it was ready and prepared for them. Now if you know you stuff you'll understand that there where other huminoids is what I'll call them, or homo species. This might explain some of the wars that occured so soon after Cain and Able, and eventually, the homo sapiens or humans where the only ones left. Therefore we never evolved we where always in this human form in the likeness of our Father in heaven. Now this is no longer a letter to bash on you, as that is what was in the beggining. While writting, I came to a conclusion, that we both believe in Christ, and this theory I wrote about the earth being created, is not fully Mormon docturine, but my own belief in hope to bring the world to an understanding of how God works. God is a man of Science, who created the laws of science to shape this universe. Nothing is unexplanable but nothing is fully understandable either. So these are my beliefs, and yes my statements to a little ignorance, but I hope I take something away from a response sometime soon. Its funny how it stared political, and became spiritual.
T Butler, We never said, that there wans't anyone else on the contenent. Yes I spelled it worng big deal. seeing that somany of you waste your time being grammar fanatics.
"And that where it says "if anything be added to this book, he shall be cursed" or something like that. Rev was not the last book written, it was actually one of the first when paul was imprisoind, and he got out, then he wrote the rest untill his death it mearly compiled in that manner to help the reader to understand the gosple principles."
Paul wrote the Book of Revelation? Who knew?
These Mormon rants seem to make the point well about how unorthodox LDS beliefs are.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.