This Page

has been moved to new address

Romney and Kennedy...two peas in a pod

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Wide White: Romney and Kennedy...two peas in a pod

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Romney and Kennedy...two peas in a pod

Religiously, that is.

Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Governor who's likely to run for president, still can't get people to look past the fact that he's a Mormon.
BOSTON (AP) -- Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, often questioned about how his Mormon faith would affect a potential presidential run, said Wednesday he envisions mimicking John F. Kennedy and explaining his religion to the public.

The Massachusetts governor said he imagines a speech evolving out of inevitable curiosity about his faith and its potential impact on presidential decision-making. He has already said that while his religious beliefs are integral to his life, they do not unduly influence his political judgments.

"I think if I decided to go national that there will probably be a time when people will ask questions, and it will be about my faith, and I'll have the opportunity to talk about the role of religion in our society and in the leadership of our nation," Romney said.

Kennedy, then a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, took the same approach in September 1960 when he was attempting to become the first Catholic president. He told the Houston Ministerial Association, "I do not speak for my church on public matters and my church does not speak for me."
This concerns me. What does your faith mean to you if it doesn't influence your political judgment?

Romney has made other comments regarding religion that concern me, and this is no different. The comments he's made say to me that he sees religion as simply being a brand. It's a title that you write in the "religion" box on biography questionnaires, but means little more.

If your faith doesn't influence your political judgment, then what does it influence? What does it really mean to you?

Labels: ,

posted by Joey at 5/04/2006 08:53:00 AM

8 Comments:

Blogger Dad29 declared,

You could ask Jim Doyle, a "Catholic" abortion-supporter.

5/04/2006 10:10 AM  
Blogger kristi noser declared,

AAAAUUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!

5/04/2006 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous declared,

YYYIIIKKKKEEEESSS!!! I can't even begin to imagine what he might say and influence people about the mormon faith, I can barely call it a "faith" how about...could it be...satan!

5/04/2006 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous declared,

I agree! If your faith doesn't affect your political choices then what does it affect? On the other hand, does this leave any (enough?) room for the separation of church and state? I struggle with this balance- take for example public education...I know that our schools need a LOT of improvement. They often do students a disservice and as a result more and more parents are choosing to homeschool. Many would argue this is a way to love and serve their child. Now, on the other hand I realize that most parents will choose to send their kids to a public school, so this the debate: Say I am a Christian homeschooling parent (and for the sake of this argument education is a form of love) and I decide that to homeschool him/her is to give my child the best education I can. Yet, I realize that other children need to be educated as best as possible and for them the best possible is the public school system. Do I vote 'yes' to proposals that appear to better our education system as a way to be loving to those around me? Or do I vote 'no' because I'm wasting money on a failing system? ...This is not the best example/argument, but hopefully you get the idea.

5/05/2006 1:02 AM  
Blogger Jeff Fuller declared,

I can assure you that Mitt Romney is a man of deep personal conviction and life-long faith. Romney has lived the tenets of his faith his entire life (not an easy thing to do given the many restrictions that entails) which is why it is offensive to me that he be compared to any Kennedy as far as religion goes.

Romney is also a pragmatist and realizes that most of what people know about Mormon's is second-hand and "weird" stuff. He's just trying to remind the public that they should look at his record of not being a religious "fanatic" as an executive in business or in politics. His faith will always guide him to do what is most moral and right.

Check out my blog at www.fullersfield.blogspot.com for some more info.

5/05/2006 1:25 AM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Jeff, your assurance doesn't do much for me. Romney was quoted as saying that "Americans don't care what your brand of religion is." That's unacceptable to me. I do care. Religion isn't simply a brand. On top of that, there are a religions that I believe are not only wrong, but I'd never vote for an individual who subscribed to them because a person's religion says a lot about themselves.

I don't think Romney is a "fanatic." I just think that if he sees religion as a brand and he spends all his time making "excuses" for why he's Mormon and trying to explain himself away, he's not someone I can support.

Jamie, ditto to how your faith has to affect everything.

Regarding separation of church and state, that's a phrase that's not in the constitution. It's a phrase that was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend explaining why he felt he shouldn't have any say regarding the interpretation of the constitution. He specifically said that because he didn't write the constitution, he shouldn't be explaining it. Yet, people have taken the phrase he used - "separation of church and state" - and have applied it to the constitution.

There has to be some separation. Separation was initially brought on during the Great Awakening of the 1730s - Jonathan Edwards' and George Whitfield's days. Puritanism had been the standard in the country. Now, there were Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians...previously, the colonies' governments had supported the churches. You didn't tithe. You paid taxes, some of which went to the Puritan church.

Now, there wasn't just a Puritan church. There were multiple churches. So, to solve the problem, the government ceased to support the churches. People had to do so privately. The government wasn't going to endorse one brand of Christianity.

However, that did NOT mean separation of God and state, and there's a distinct difference.

(I have my history major to thank for this, so if there are any holes in this theory, let me know and I'll go back and let my History 103 professor know!)

Regarding public education, that's a mixed bag. There are some like my dad who think all education should be privatized. I don't think that's realistic. I home schooled, and then spent two and a half years as an education major and have siblings in public high school, so I've seen both sides. Obviously, there are plenty of problems in the public education system. The biggest reason I got out of it was the over-regulation from the state. I don't want to worry about being fired because I said something positive about Jesus Christ or because I said something that contradicted what the school mandated should be taught.

Okay, that doesn't answer your question...do you vote "yes" or "no"?

I don't think there's a clear-cut answer. I have voted "no" to any tax increase that I've seen because I think there's a lot of waste in the education system, and I don't want to keep wasting my money until things are more efficient. I could go on about what I don't think is efficient and what over-regulating I'd get rid of and...but that's another issue. The bottom line is, I don't think it's wrong to vote either way. There are equally valid reasons for both, and it all really just depends on the situation.

A lot of school districts have dug themselves in holes because they've given teachers pension plans they can't afford, so they've not really paying for teachers who are currently teaching, but they're paying for teachers who retired after 20 years and have really good pension plans. But like I said, every district is different and each one has its own needs.

So, I guess my short answer would be, I don't have an answer. My general inclination would be to vote "no" because I don't know of many schools that can't afford to cut something.

(Sorry for all of the riff-raff in getting to that point. I was more or less thinking as I typed...dangerous....)

5/05/2006 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous declared,

That's super interesting! Thanks for your thoughts. However, now you've got me thinking about tithing. I didn't realize that the puritains got money from the government. Would it be fair to say that they tithed to the government? In general you've sparked my curiosity about church practices, particularly tithing, during the early years of our country. Unfortunatly, I know so little about this time period. I really have no concluding thoughts, nor do I expect you to have the answers either, (although it would be really sweet if you did!) but hopefully there will be more thoughts on tithing and whatnot in the near future.

5/05/2006 2:12 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

There are some interesting thoughts on tithing on Wikipedia's page here. Of course, it's Wikipedia, so I don't completely trust everything on it. Additionally, when it talks about the United States, it's not talking about the colonies.

This article supports the fact that the English colonies levied a tax to support the Church of England.

The comment at the bottom of this blog post talks about the fact that American colonies exercised mandatory tithing.

And there's a little bit here on the forced tithe that Britain put on the American colonies to support the Anglican Church.

I'll stop there. I just found those doing a simple Google search. I'm sure there are more and much better sources, but I thought I'd give you a start.

5/07/2006 2:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home