Should He Have To?
By now most of us are aware that Mitt Romney will deliver an address Thursday entitled “Faith in America.” If I were a skeptic, I would say that this is Romney’s not-so-sneaky way of stealing back the early lead in Iowa by convincing the Evangelical Christians that the two faiths aren’t as different as they think. If I were a sympathizer, I would say that Romney is merely defending his faith, which has been unfairly attacked from day one. But I am neither a skeptic nor a sympathizer.
I understand the importance of faith to many Americans. My faith is important to me and has directly influenced decisions I have made in business and politics throughout my career. To that end, I feel that there are certain instances where it is appropriate to consider a political candidate’s religious beliefs. First, a candidate’s faith should come into play when those beliefs dictate his/her position on certain political issues i.e. abortion, separation of church and state, etc. And second, Americans need to know that nothing in their president’s personal life, including faith, will conflict with his/her loyalty to the office. These, however, are the exceptions; how a candidate chooses to worship is, in all other instances, beyond the purview of the platform. This should be the time that the debate focuses on specific issues and gives America a clear understanding of how any person who seeks the office of president would make difficult and complex judgments.
Howard Baker used to say that it was critical for a senator to have their own internal moral compass. The decisions that need to be made on a daily basis by the President of the United States are often difficult, are often complicated and very seldom have a single correct answer. It is important for the American people to understand how our next president comes to those decisions and to have confidence in that process. Clearly Jack Kennedy felt a similar need to deal with his personal religious beliefs publicly. His decision was understandable then and Romney’s decision is understandable now. But it is not the quintessential issue.
I realize that it is impossible to separate one’s religious beliefs from the personal moral framework. But the question has always been whether or not those frameworks can be universalized enough to gain the support of those who do not consider themselves of the same faith. And right now many of us are asking: Can Romney extrapolate his Mormon values to a universal moral framework that will put non-Mormons at ease? But I think the bigger question is: Should he have to? Is there really a difference in our approach to weapons of mass destruction that is singularly Mormon, Catholic, or Evangelical? I have to believe that there is a universal framework consistent throughout all religious faiths that embody similar principles on this and other decisions the president would make. As constituents, we should recognize this and move on. Candidates should be held accountable for what they believe, not why they believe it.
Related posts:
Once again, atheists are left in the cold. There’s apparently no way to have a personal moral framework unless it’s been dictated in book form.
Comment on December 9, 2007 @ 9:23 am
I believe that this is a very important subject that is brought to the forefront of politics far too much. It is not important to examine the very origins of a persons belief and scrutinize a decision that they made at one point in their life. Religion and lack thereof provide for the basis for all people in all places and it is important for people to look at the candidate and his beliefs and opinions on issues and not merely label them as a specific religion’s spokesman/woman.
The United States is made up of people from all different walks of life which is the most beautiful characteristic of our great nation. And it is important to embrace these differences such as religion and appreciate them for what they bring to our nation as opposed to criticizing their mere presence.
Comment on January 21, 2008 @ 3:11 pm