Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Isn't any politician who claims to be religious, but then says religion will not impact his ability to lead, hypocritical?
The way I heard it, Romney's message wasn't that "being religious" will not affect his decision making, but that being of one particular religion will not compromise his ability to lead as compared to him being of another religion.
In other words, the manner in which Romney anticipates leading the country would be perfectly consistent with a Protestant, Catholic, Muslim or Jewish belief system.
The following quote from his speech is telling:
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.
As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
Notice he draws the line between the authority of LDS church leaders and presidential affairs, not between his own personal morals and decisions.
As for being either a devotee or a poser, I think it's obvious from his church service and current standing that he's the former. He addresses this concern in his speech, too:
There are some [who] ... would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs. Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.
Where do you see the tap dancing?
Actually, I think there really is a middle road, there. The one candidate I know who's taken a stance on religion of which I can approve is Obama, who said in his biography:
What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy demands is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Democracy isn't supposed to be dividing up into factions and seeing who can muster enough votes. It's supposed to be reasoned debate, in which we convince each other of the merits of one stance over the other. The religious stance - where one invokes scripture or dogma and refuses to budge - subverts the goals of democracy.
RSS
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk
Where exactly is Romney being hypocritical?
Isn't any politician who claims to be religious, but then says religion will not impact his ability to lead, hypocritical? I would at least respect him if he'd say, "yes, LDS drives my moral reasoning and my moral reasoning drives my decisions." Or if he said, "well, I'm an LDS poser, i.e., just like most 'religious' Americans who go to church because it seems like a good thing to do." At least those two statements are honest and make sense. But this constant rhetoric that implies he can flip a switch and somehow go from faith mode to politician is nonsense.
Being religious is like being pregnant, either you are or you aren't. He ought to choose what he is and stop tap dancing all the time.
View Full Discussion