God-o-Meter doesn’t know how much stock to put in the opinions of religious/political/academic elites in judging how Mitt Romney fared in this morning’s “Faith in America” speech. After all, this is an instance in which only polls can truly tell if Romney changed minds about his candidacy, particularly among those 36-percent of evangelical Republicans who have misgivings about supporting a Mormon candidate.
Still, God-o-Meter has been working the phones in religious/political/academic circles nonetheless. The early verdict is that Romney did about as well as he could have given that he is battling deep-seeded historical and religious forces as he tries to convince his party’s base–not to mention the rest of the country–to overcome their prejudices. Of most note to God-o-Meter was that Romney cut the evangelical speak and acknowledged that Mormonism is distinct from traditional Christianity:
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. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
Did Romney delve into the nitty gritty of Mormon doctrine–or even the basics, for that matter? No. But Mormon scholar Richard Bushman, himself a Mormon who has criticized Romney for trying pass as a traditional Christian, says Romney’s speech struck a new, decidedly non-evangelical tone:
He used the word Mormon only once, but he also said that no one admired a religious of convenience. So in that sense he did distinguish himself briefly, only for a moment, but I though it was fairly effective. He put [his critics] in a corner by saying “If you cant’ tolerate Mormonism, than what does toleration mean?”
While it was lost on God-o-Meter’s ears, Bushman said that Romney’s speech even included decent-sized helping of “Mormon talk”:
I’m not a big one for thinking the country was founded on religion, but that’s how Mormons talk. His affirmation that he would not abandon his faith, that’s an ongoing Mormon issue, because we’re an isolated group and look a little weird and there’s such a temptation to trim your sails and look like the rest of the world. So the idea of “I’m a Mormon who stays true to my faith always resonates with Mormons.”
Evangelical activist and one-time presidential candidate Gary Bauer, meanwhile, says Romney’s few lines about Jesus would go over well with evangelicals:
If he would have said today that Mormons believe that Jesus is the son of God and path of salvation there would have been a lot of evangelicals who would have bristled at that, because it’s perceived that that’s not what Mormonism teaches. But in saying that he believes Jesus is the son of God will be reassuring to many of those voters.
Bauer added that, though he’s still got the most affinity for Fred Thompson, Romney’s many lines forcefully advocating for religion’s place in American politics and history will be a big hit with evangelicals:
I think secular voters might find the speech very offensive for the very reason that I and other evangelicals liked it, in the sense that he drew a very clear parallel between American liberty and the faith of the Founding Fathers.
Boston College religion scholar Alan Wolfe who, like Bushman, had discerned earlier attempts by Romney to come off as a traditional Christian, says the candidate today “hit a triple, if not a homerun”:
I was worried that Romney would say ‘I’m a born again Christian, too. But what he did instead was pick every single bullet point from the evangelical understanding of America’s civic religion, like that it was born out of religious conviction, and say it. And that is much more effective in trying to persuade evangelicals that he’s one of them.
According to Bushman, those bullet points also constitute “Mormon talk.” So God-o-Meter concludes that in genuinely articulating an orthodox Mormon view of government, Romney might have ended up striking a chord with some evangelicals. Still, GOM wants to see those polls.
6
posted December 7, 2007 at 5:34 am
I am a conservative Christian, lived in Iowa all my life, not part of a campaign, and I watched the speech. I opposed Romney before, and some suggested the speech was aimed at people like me to change our minds. It didn’t. It was insulting and shocking.
The part about “jesus christ” was the worst part because he’s pretending that he has Christian beliefs when he doesn’t, he has Mormon beliefs (that many, many different gods exist). He should have just explained his Mormon beliefs and been done with it.
It is fine for Mormons to say those “Christian-like” phrases because Mormonism redefines all the words that Christians have used, like “salvation” or “god” or “son of God” or “Jesus Christ.”
It seemed like the speech was an attempt to energize Mormon voters and assuare the media and the political leaders, not people like myself. If it was, it backfired.
posted December 7, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Aiowavoter’s hostility to Latter-day Saints is a clear example of what separates true Christians from Christians in word only.
posted December 7, 2007 at 12:08 pm
aiowavoter, What was the man supposed to say? He really does believe that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of mankind. Do you want him to deny that?
I am one who thought that Romney should not give the speech – precisely because bigots like aiowavoter wouldn’t accept it no matter what he said. However, after watching the speech, I was extremely impressed – particularly because he wrote it himself. I’m not convinced I will vote for Romney, but he was correct in one point: Anyone who votes against him simply because of his religion doesn’t accept the Constitution. He didn’t say this, but I will: Any evangelical who imposes a religion test on him and refuses to vote for him because of it has no room to complain if non-evangelicals do the exact same thing to them.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
posted December 8, 2007 at 12:04 am
Muslims claim that Christians are polytheists. Christians claim their beliefs in a Triune God made up of three persons that are of one being do not raise to the level of polytheism and that Christians in fact believe in one God. Who is right? I assume the Christians can define their own religion without the Muslims to help.
Evangelicals claim that Mormons are polytheists. Mormons claim that their beliefs in a Triune God made up of three persons that are one in purpose do not raise to the level of polytheism and that Mormons in fact believe in one God. Who is right?
Am I missing something here? It sure sounds like this is the same argument. Since I’m not even sure what the difference between “one of being” and “one of purpose” is, I’m not even sure how to begin evaluating the point Aiowavoter was trying to make.
If Aiowavoter refuses to accept the Muslim criticism of his religion I do not see how he can rationally continue to hold his criticism of Mormon beliefs here.
In fact, it really seems like bonefide bigotry to me to hold such a double standard against a minority group.
posted December 8, 2007 at 2:30 am
Ray wrote above that Romney wrote his speech himself.
Contrast that with the September 1960 speech at Rice University in Houston by John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
“The speech — co-authored by Kennedy speechwriter Ted Sorenson, a Unitarian — was one of the finest of Kennedy’s career, and by all accounts it accomplished its intended purpose.” (Ted Sorenson also wrote the Kennedy Inaugural speech and is responsible for the laudable “Ask not…” statement.)
The quote above is from NBC’s Brian Williams Blog of December 5, 2007 at this link: http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/05/501024.aspx
C-SPAN2 showed the film of the Kennedy 1960 speech, and the question and answer period following it, the night of December 12/07/2007 following their replay of Mitt Romney’s speech earlier in the day. The Kennedy speech was good. However, I felt a sadness in remembering that history has brought to light that some parts may not have been as much from the heart as was Romney’s.
posted December 8, 2007 at 9:47 am
Aiowavoter
I’m tired of contemporary Christians assuming that they get to define what Christianity is and who gets to be a Christian. Where do think you get the authority to do that? How do you know what counts as a “Christian belief?” Who decides? Who decides what counts? Your pastor? How do you know that Romney’s statement that he believes in Jesus Christ doesn’t count as a Christian belief?