
By Richard Land
Mitt Romney gave an eloquent defense of the positive and crucial rule that religion has played in our nation’s history from the first settlements down to the present day. In that regard, Gov. Romney performed an important service to the nation, because this speech was even more important for the country than it was for Gov. Romney and his presidential prospects. Why? Because he reminded Americans, in a high profile venue with the focused attention of the media and millions of citizens listening, of our priceless heritage both of religious freedom and religious diversity.
I had been urging Gov. Romney to give such a speech for more than a year, ever since I was among several Evangelical leaders who met with him at his home in Massachusetts in October 2006. During that meeting, I gave him a copy of JFK’s September 1960 speech and urged him to use it as a guide to addressing the issue.
Sitting on the second row in the auditorium of the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M, as I was, one could clearly see the heart-felt passion with which Gov. Romney delivered this address. Two of his senior staff members assured me that Gov. Romney wrote the speech himself, not speech writers. He was clearly speaking from his heart, and from the second row, you could feel the emotion, not just see it. One staff member told me that he had worked for the Governor for six years and he had “never heard him be more eloquent.” I responded, “Nothing generates more eloquence than heart-felt conviction.”
And he followed the JFK script on some crucial issues. Referencing Kennedy, he said near the beginning of his remarks: “Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”
Like JFK, he reminded the American people we have a constitutional prohibition of a religious test for office. Also like Kennedy, he addressed concerns that the officials of the church might dictate, or interfere with, his presidential decisions. In 1960, President Kennedy said that he would be guided by his conscience in his presidential decision-making “without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates” and that “no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise,” clearly referencing the Vatican’s power of excommunication.
In 2007, Romney said, “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”
Also, like Kennedy, who said that he would not “disavow my church in order to win this election,” Romney said he would be true to his faith even if it cost him the nomination.
Romney then made a statement which has been largely misunderstood by the secular media. He said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.” Then he said, “my church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history.” In the first statement he was taking care not to offend fellow Mormons by avoiding the issue of their beliefs about the Son of God. The second statement, following immediately upon the first, offered Evangelicals and other conservative Christians an acknowledgement of an important “degree of separation” of their theological understanding of Jesus Christ and that of his Mormon faith. It was also significant that he used the phrase “other faiths,” not other denominations, acknowledging yet another degree of separation. He then underscored this by immediately saying the term “religion” in referring to “different faiths.” “Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history.” In other words, for those Evangelical and conservative Christians who believe his faith is not Christian, he acknowledged and respected their right to maintain the distinction between their faith understanding and his, and he wasn’t going to pick a fight about it.
Like Kennedy, Romney spent no time trying to define, describe, or defend Mormon beliefs, just as Kennedy similarly did not do so for Catholicism. Instead, he said, his faith shapes his character and conscience, informs his public policy positions, guides his performance in public service and inspires his vision for America’s future. He asked Americans to judge him on his character, his record, his public policy views and his vision for the nation’s future—not on his personal religious beliefs—that would be un-American, unconstitutional—and unfair.
All Americans of religious faith have a significant stake in the principles Gov. Romney articulated and defended in his speech. As JFK reminded us 47 years ago, while then it was a Catholic who was the victim of “suspicion,” “in other years, it has been, and may some day be again, a Jew—or a Quaker—or a Unitarian—or a Baptist.” Indeed, as JFK reminded the nation, it was persecution of Baptists in 18th century Virginia which inspired Thomas Jefferson’s “statute of religious freedom.” In other words, discrimination against a person of any faith opens the door to discrimination against people of all faiths.
Whatever the outcome of the 2008 election process, and I do not endorse candidates as a matter of policy, Governor Romney helped himself yesterday. More importantly, he helped the country and the cause of religious freedom even more.
For more Beliefnet reaction to Romney's "Faith in America" speech, check out J-Walking with David Kuo, Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con, and our God-o-Meter.

Add to Newsvine
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
Amen to Mike. I am very tired right now, and so I think I'll have fewer reservations about stating my mind. I have been turning my darned cheek to every snide comment made about my faith in the public square, by people of all walks of life, to the point that I have to remind myself that it is wrong. I was not certain which candidate I supported before hearing this speech, but my mind is now set. If any were to suggest that 'belief in unreliable myths' were a valid and proper test for candidacy in reference to a Jew or a Catholic, this entire website would be up in arms. I only hope I live to see the day we have a Muslim president.
"belief in unreliable Myths" is one of many ways to judge the fitness of any presidential candidate...
and this should be done with equality...
it shouldn't matter if the candidate holds to the unreliable Myth of a Mormon or a Jew or a Catholic etc...
the bottom line is the same...
if a candidate can't grasp the unreliability of the supernatural stories of superstitious ancient men...
then...
there should be concern for how well that candidate grasps the political reality of the world...
otherwise...
if any candidate follows the Religion of their personal choice and doesn't think that their Myths are literally true history...
then...
that candidate passes one small test on how good is their grasp of Reality...
faith hope love joy peace to all...
Why wouldn't Mr. Land think Mitt Romney's speech worked so well considering that he offered all the talking points needed in order for the candidate to make his appeal to the Christian Right.
Romney should remember the old saw of being careful what one wishes for.
As the power of the Christian Right wanes with many Evangelicals realizing there's more to the Word of God than the Gospel of Wealth and an anti-abortion-only pro-life stance(Jesus did comment on the moneychangers, and would surely include a stance against the death penalty and proactive war, and support of the poor, homeless and ill as part of His view of pro-life), Land and his narrow-view cronies will not be able to deliver the votes as they allegedly had done previously.
Let's stop making a candidate's interpretation of religion (specifically the way he views Jesus) as the litmus test for whether the person would be a competent president.
After eight years with a self-proclaimed uberChristian allowing free markets to run amock, crusading into the Middle East, and driving a wedge between the U.S. and the rest of the world, perhaps we should heed a more respected President. Thomas Jefferson said that a man's faith is between himself and the Creator.
Sadly, Dr Land has relegated his Kingdom Citizenship to that of his USA Citizenship. With preeminence to our Heavenly King’s laws and ways, royal ambassadors should have a minimal threshold that must be met before we choose or assist candidates for public office. Based on God’s higher standard in Exodus 18:21, Moses was advised how to select leaders…”Able Men of Truth that Fear God and Hate Covetousness”. We should raise standards not lower them as worldly voters. Spiritual leaders should be searching the Holy Scriptures rather than speeches given by JFK, one of our country’s most adulterous Presidents! As for advising and encouraging candidates like Romney or Hillary, the only wise counsel we should be giving (in a spirit of love) to an enemy of the Cross of Christ is “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”. To help their agendas amounts to SPIRITUAL TREASON! As for me and my family, it’s a big “Deal Breaker” if a candidate is not under our King’s Rule.
Mike West
“Faithfulness in representing Christ at the ballot box does not hinge on our candidate’s probability of winning the election. God will place whoever He wills and against whatever odds”
Check out this site for a better understanding of what is happening to our country. www.massresistance.org. Aslo google Boston's Children's Hospital sex change clinic.
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.