The Religions of Candidates

George Rebane 

We now see Mitt Romney having to explain the relationship of his faith to its non-influence on his public policy decisions.  And, of course, Hillary is already wearing the Christian cross at opportune engagements.  But when pressed, both will swear on a stack of Bibles that their Bible will have no effect on how they deport themselves in public life.  So what does it mean to have a faith that can be left at the doorstep of the statehouse?  Some quotes from Romney’s speech and comments.

“A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”  If a person’s faith contains the core tenets that inform his interpretation of the world around, and guide his subsequent behavior, then what alternative tenets are we to extract from the candidate and trust that he will be faithful to them instead of his core beliefs?

“If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.”  The common cause of the people is simply the intersection (the overlapping part) of the sets of their individual causes.  This intersection or common cause, taken across the land, will be very small indeed, reducing itself down to defense of the nation from outside aggression, settling disputes between the states, regulating basic transportation infrastructure, … . It most certainly does not include today’s intrusive participation of the state in our lives and along with its arbitrary programs of wealth redistribution.  Is this Romney’s intent as president? 

“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.”  Double hah!!  See above comment on faith.

“Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty?”  Not sure what any of these fine sounding values are anymore.  Bastiat said it better in stating that security, liberty, and property are the three fundamental co-dependent rights that establish and maintain a free people.

“We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.”  Amen!

Comments

[Bob Callan]

George, you are absolutely spot on with your observations of Romney's remarks. It is akin to being in the Twilight Zone with modern politicians that feeled compelled to defend their religious beliefs vigorously while at the same time offering up the denial that in fact these beliefs will influence them.

[Mikey McD]

I agree wholeheartedly with Bob Callan's remarks (and thus George's) and I add to them... tis a man with weak faith who's actions do not reflect the values of his said faith. However, in the political climate of today where you are unable to tell a red from a blue or a Christian from a Morman what difference does it make. Maybe all faiths direct politicians to spend spend spend and decrease liberty? or maybe the only faith subscribed to in Washington is that of one's own ego?