The Romney speech: two thumbs up!

I am about to be tied up in a two-hour meeting, so no detailed blogging on the Romney speech for some time. I did want the room to start a thread on it, though. My quick take: it was a very good speech, probably the best that can be expected of a presidential candidate seeking to lead a pluralist democracy. It won't solve his problem with evangelicals and others who find his theological beliefs disqualifying. But he made a respectable -- and to me, quite persuasive -- case for why their concerns are misplaced.

More details later. Here's a link to the text of the speech. Discuss.

UPDATE: OK, my random thoughts on the speech.

1. As I've said all along, I don't think the doctrinal particulars of Romney's faith have anything to do with the way he'd govern. It would have been foolish for him to have gotten into the details of Mormon theology. He was on far stronger ground saying, as he did, "Look, Mormonism is part of the broad moral tradition shared by religions the world over" -- see C.S. Lewis on this implicitly natural law point in "The Abolition of Man" -- "and you're not going to have to worry about me pulling any funny stuff." As he has been governor of Massachusetts and pulled no funny Mormon stuff, I see no reason to doubt him.

2. He was also wise to focus on religious tolerance in an atmosphere of religious enthusiasm as a uniquely American accomplishment. I thought this was the strongest part of the speech, frankly:

I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood.

It was so effective, I think, because it posited the creative tension in American life generated by our religious settlement with the sterile, dead faith of laicite' in Europe, and the religious maximalism in Islamic countries. While I generally hate the whole "our diversity is our strength" approach to anything, I believe it has some merit here. Romney was pointing out that America thrives not in spite of religious tolerance, but because of it. The health of our democracy depends on welcoming religious believers of all kinds into the public square, as long as they accept religious pluralism. This is not to say, of course, that all religions are equally true (which would be absurd) or equally beneficial to public values and political discourse (which would be naive -- hello, sharia-heads!). It is to say, though, that the nation's tradition prescribe tolerating religion, even odd religions, as long as its adherents accept the constitutional arrangement. As Mormons certainly do.

3. I don't think Romney will have changed the minds of people who are bound and determined not to vote for a Mormon because they don't like the religion. But he certainly gave those folks enough reason to question the fairness and wisdom of their conclusion.

4. Romney said, "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."

This is wrong. The religious test prohibition merely dictates that no religious test shall be required of a citizen seeking to hold office, as a matter of law. It does not mean that nobody should ask a candidate to talk about his faith. That's a dodge.

5. This is controversial, but wouldn't have been at any other time in US history:

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.

He's mostly right. What's he's saying here -- what John Adams was saying -- is that a people unmoored from an authoritative, binding belief in transcendental values, will not be able to govern themselves. If a people are to be free from tyranny imposed from without, they must be able to govern themselves within. Religion -- which might be sociologically described as a moral code given the force of metaphysical certitude -- is the only sure way for most people to bridle their passions for a higher good, social and otherwise. Yes, yes, there are highly moral atheists, and rotten religious believers. But as a general matter, given human nature, a free people will have to be a religious people, or in time they will cease to be free.

What he didn't discuss, and rightly so, was how the conception of human freedom he has in mind is specific to the Jewish and Christian traditions.

6. An angry Mormon reader has written to express his frustration with me for saying that Mormons are not Christians. Let me clarify. I accept it as true that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the divine Savior. But that is not enough to qualify one as Christian. Rather than get deeply into this, I wish to associate myself with Father Neuhaus's remarks on the subject here. Excerpt:

Asking whether Mormonism is Christian or Mormons are Christians (a slightly different question) is thought to be insulting. "How can you ask that," protests a Mormon friend, "when we clearly love the Lord Jesus as much as we do?" It is true that St. Paul says that nobody can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). But that only indicates that aspects of Mormon faith are touched by the Holy Spirit, as is every element of truth no matter where it is found. A Mormon academic declares that asking our question "is a bit like asking if African Americans are human." No, it is not even a bit like that. "Christian" in this context is not honorific but descriptive. Nobody questions whether Mormons are human. To say that Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists are not Christians is no insult. It is a statement of fact, indeed of respect for their difference. The question is whether that is a fact and a difference that applies also to Mormonism.

The question as asked by Mormons is turned around: are non-Mormons who claim to be Christians in fact so? The emphatic and repeated answer of the Mormon scriptures and the official teaching of the LDS is that we are not. We are members of "the great and abominable church" that was built by frauds and imposters after the death of the first apostles. The true church and true Christianity simply went out of existence, except for its American Indian interlude, until it was rediscovered and reestablished by Joseph Smith in upstate New York, and its claims will be vindicated when Jesus returns, sooner rather than later, at a prophetically specified intersection in Jackson County, Missouri.

I don't care if Mormons believe that my form of the Christian faith is badly deficient. All I care is that they would leave me alone to practice it, and that they would treat me with the same respect and fellow-feeling that I would extend to them. I have never met a Mormon who wouldn't do that, nor do I expect to. It is not necessary for us to agree on religious doctrine to be decent to each other, and to work together in the public square on issues of mutual concern.