First off, I am the Andrew Miller of whom Doug speaks. As for “Mitt and Religion,” I thought he did a great job. Inevitably, the speech has been compared to JFK’s 1960 speech about his Catholicism. This comparison is useful to a degree, but the speeches differ in some significant ways, not the least of which is the speakers’ views of the role of religion in public life. Indeed, one of JFK’s aides who worked on the speech said that the President and Governor have different views on religion. While both JFK and Romney believe in a separation of Church and State, Romney does not advocate divesting faith from the public sphere. Rather, he called for tolerance and ecumenical brotherhood in public service. The solution to the “problem” of Church and State relations is not the absolute exclusion of all religion from the public sphere, but the inclusion all religion with the mutual interest of bettering society.
Every other news article about the speech fixates on the fact that word “Mormon” was uttered only once. Well, I think Romney made a good argument as to why, as a public figure, he should not be the spokesperson of his Church. With today’s abundant and readily available information, not to mention the Church’s aggressive missionary efforts, it is not hard for those who want to know learn more about the Church to do so without having it served up via prime-time media. Of course, people will hear what they want to hear, but that would be the case if they heard it from Romney, too. Better to hear it from a neighbor or co-worker than a political aspirant or talking head.
On a related topic, a recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_7664219) reminds us that before Romney, and even before JFK, there was Reed Smoot—an LDS apostle who sought a seat in the US Senate amidst bitter religious bigotry. On Feb. 19, 1907, a day before a vote was taken to possibly unseat the Senator, Smoot gave a speech on the floor of the Senate defending his concurrent rights to religion and civil service. The full speech, as well as some historical context, was published in the Spring 2007 issue of the Utah Historic Quarterly (http://history.utah.gov/history_programs/utah_historic_quarterly/documents/Spring2007.pdf). (A book will be published, too, for all you history buffs.) I haven’t taken the time to read the journal article yet, but it promises to be an enlightening history lesson that informs the present. Smoot kept his seat in the Senate, by the way, but a century later our great nation still struggles with religious bigotry. Whether or not Romney wins the nomination, he is advancing the social acceptance of the Church. Go Mitt!
2 comments:
First off, I am the Andrew Miller of whom Doug speaks. As for “Mitt and Religion,” I thought he did a great job. Inevitably, the speech has been compared to JFK’s 1960 speech about his Catholicism. This comparison is useful to a degree, but the speeches differ in some significant ways, not the least of which is the speakers’ views of the role of religion in public life. Indeed, one of JFK’s aides who worked on the speech said that the President and Governor have different views on religion. While both JFK and Romney believe in a separation of Church and State, Romney does not advocate divesting faith from the public sphere. Rather, he called for tolerance and ecumenical brotherhood in public service. The solution to the “problem” of Church and State relations is not the absolute exclusion of all religion from the public sphere, but the inclusion all religion with the mutual interest of bettering society.
Every other news article about the speech fixates on the fact that word “Mormon” was uttered only once. Well, I think Romney made a good argument as to why, as a public figure, he should not be the spokesperson of his Church. With today’s abundant and readily available information, not to mention the Church’s aggressive missionary efforts, it is not hard for those who want to know learn more about the Church to do so without having it served up via prime-time media. Of course, people will hear what they want to hear, but that would be the case if they heard it from Romney, too. Better to hear it from a neighbor or co-worker than a political aspirant or talking head.
On a related topic, a recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_7664219) reminds us that before Romney, and even before JFK, there was Reed Smoot—an LDS apostle who sought a seat in the US Senate amidst bitter religious bigotry. On Feb. 19, 1907, a day before a vote was taken to possibly unseat the Senator, Smoot gave a speech on the floor of the Senate defending his concurrent rights to religion and civil service. The full speech, as well as some historical context, was published in the Spring 2007 issue of the Utah Historic Quarterly (http://history.utah.gov/history_programs/utah_historic_quarterly/documents/Spring2007.pdf). (A book will be published, too, for all you history buffs.) I haven’t taken the time to read the journal article yet, but it promises to be an enlightening history lesson that informs the present. Smoot kept his seat in the Senate, by the way, but a century later our great nation still struggles with religious bigotry. Whether or not Romney wins the nomination, he is advancing the social acceptance of the Church. Go Mitt!
It was great.
Post a Comment