The Speech Heard 'Round the Nation

Mitt Romney on faith in America

Editor's Note: Thomas's commentary is in blue and Marcie's is in purple.

On December 5th, Mitt Romney made a speech to the nation. The speech's focus was on faith in America. Indeed, that was its title. Critics claimed that it was a "dud," a "flop," and an "unnecessary romp" through history. Pundits, such as Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh lauded Governor Romney with praise at how eloquent and passionate the speech was. Governor Romney came close to tearing up more than once when he delivered this speech, and viewers could easily tell that this issue was important to him. Chris Matthews declared that this was "the best speech of the campaign." that says a great deal about this speech. Did it convey the right message? We believe it did, and even though we have misgivings about Governor Romney giving such a speech, it is clear that it had a significant impact on his campaign. Like many pundits, we believe this was a spot-on home run for the Governor.

What the speech wasn't

Pundits and commentators were salivating at the prospect of this speech. They wanted a speech on his theology -- his core faith-based beliefs. Much to their chagrin, that wasn't what this speech was about. And may we say shame on them for thinking he would betray his core beliefs. We both know more about the Latter-Day Saints than what we should. We're not Mormon, but yet our research into Mitt Romney's faith is wide-ranging. We know a good deal about what they believe, what their rituals and rites are. In the LDS church, it's forbidden to discuss such things with non-members. The pundits should have known better than to even anticipate a speech like this. Mitt Romney wasn't going to discuss specifics. The focus of the speech was faith in America, not what do Mormons believe. Given the fact he announced it on his campaign site the week before, and he stated plainly for people he wouldn't discuss theology, those that were salivating over the possibility of raking him over the coals betrayed their true nature about Mitt Romney; they wanted to bash him for his religion, not give him the benefit of the doubt and understand the point he was coming from.

Differences in faith

Without going into too many details, there are significant differences between the LDS faith and other religions. In fact, one could say that the LDS faith is pretty" weird." But in that respect, are not all faiths weird to outsiders? Case in point, both Thomas and I are Catholic. To an outsider our reverence of the Holy Virgin Mother, Mary, is extremely weird for most because they do not understand that this is simply acknowledging her contribution to our faith, and not worship. Most outsiders have no idea what a rosary is about, or what it is for. Many cannot comprehend Good Friday services where we walk the Stations of the Cross; remembering Jesus' suffering on the way to his crucifixion. The same goes for Mormons. No one outside their church will ever truly comprehend many of the rites and rituals they perform during their services. So the meme presented that they should be open and forthcoming with all of their practices is foolish and uneducated. Confession in the Catholic Church is not open to all, so why should the Mormons reveal what to them is sacred and private?

What the speech was about

The speech not only acknowledged there were differences in religions, but it also noted that this is the only nation that openly accepts ALL religions. Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Jewish, Lutherans, Muslim, Buddhist, and a host of other religions that column restraints makes it impossible to cover them all, but the fact they exist here is a serious point not to be taken lightly. It was a gamble when it was first proposed for the fledgling United States. Back then States had the right to discriminate based on religion, but the federal government couldn't be allowed to make such distinctions. After the drafting of the Constitution, such practices were dissolved, and each and every elected official stood equal in all eyes. This had to occur lest this nation be torn apart with the possibility of a newer form of the Inquisition. (The Inquisition wasn't formally dissolved until 1834.) By including Article Vi in the Constitution, and given the First Amendment's protections of religion, the Founders proclaimed that all faiths would be welcome and respected here.

Religious liberty

It is one of the most treasured rights we have in America, and it was the main reason why the colonists fled the "Old Country," to quote Mark Steyn. As Mitt Romney pointed out, the state-run religions in England did no one a favor over there. The state had, in essence, created a flexible, secular faith. He credits the Europeans for their great architectural works in the faces and interiors of churches there, but criticizes the fact that they are "empty." They lack not only the faithful worshippers, but the faith itself. In America that is not the case. Go to any place of worship in America, and you will see a most faithful set of flocks. That comes from the ability of people to worship as they believe, and prohibits any sort of interference from the government in said worship. It was a founding principle that, to this day, still exists, and it is why Mitt Romney has the ability to run for president without any sort of religious backlash.

The right to disagree

We do have a right to disagree with him on his faith. We can act like the bigots speaking up now, and denounce him because, in their opinion, his religion is a "cult." Or, we can be sensible, mature people about this, and recognize his right to worship in his own way. We prefer to allow the man to run, and refuse to question him on his faith. That's something private to him. If we want to criticize him, he has an official record that can provide plenty of firepower. And both sides of this particular argument can agree to disagree. Those that question the intricacies of his faith can do so, but just like we did ourselves, we prefer they do so in private. Don't make a spectacle of yourself, and attack a candidate on such a private level. In our opinion going after Mitt Romney for his Mormon faith is no different that explicitly, deliberately attacking a candidates family. It's improper, uncouth, and anything but Emily Post. We're better than that, or at least we'd better before we open up a Pandora's Box we'll never close again. While Mitt Romney didn't acknowledge it, if this isn't stopped the bigots are going to make is acceptable to wage this sort of attack.

Like it or not, Mitt Romney's point was made in spades. We are a very tolerant nation, and nothing shows that better than our melting pot. We have an ethnic melting pot and because of that we have a "symphony of faiths." Without the Founding Fathers' wisdom we would not have such. Creating a Constitution that protected our rights so explicitly was a gamble; a veritable crap-shoot that could have failed miserably. For two hundred thirty one years we have proven to the world that this experiment succeeded, and that the republic is not going anywhere anytime soon. As long as it exists, so do the freedoms we own. Most importantly that includes our freedom of religion. "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," was a true statement that he made in the speech. Without freedom, we have no religion, no place to gather together -- openly -- and worship. Without religion, there is no moral guiding compass for freedom to follow. The two are intertwined here, and our existence as a nation proves it time and again. We should not be tearing at one another over our faith. We should support one another by respecting their right to worship as they see fit. For those that this is the singular point of contention, they can take his promise to the bank. Just as President Kennedy assured the pastors in Houston that the Vatican would not run America, he has pledged the same about Salt Lake City. Yes, he is a Mormon, but that will not be the highest oath he upholds if he's elected. That will be his oath of office.

He is a scholar of history, especially American history, and the United States Constitution. She has finished her undergrad studies, graduating with a BA in English and history and will move onto law school this fall where she will specialize in Constitutional Law. Together, Thomas and Marcie form the vanguard of conservative opinion at Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- a blogging site devoted to advancing the conservative cause by challenging the liberal lies and deceit spread by the media, and espoused by the Left in general. Both are expert debaters, and have beaten many liberals into submission with their collective wit, and unmatched knowledge. The pair is married, and resides in Arizona

Archives of "Throwing Down the Gauntlet"

Send an e mail to Thomas Clark and Marcie Packard

Check out Thomas and Marcie's blog: Hamilton, Madison, and Jay