Via Sullivan, it says something about contemporary politics that it’s sort of astonishing to hear a Republican candidate, Ron Paul, say something so mild and reasonable on the subject:
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.Our nation was founded to be a place where religion is freely practiced and differences are tolerated and respected. I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. At the same time, I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans.
The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Adam // Dec 6, 2007 at 11:21 am
Perhaps it makes me a simp, but I really do have a soft spot in my heart for many of the candidates who can’t win. Even ones, like Paul, with whom I largely disagree on the merits of his policy proposals.
It would be lovely to think that candidates like Paul help to provide a conscience to the horse race proceedings. Unfortunately, I’ve never really detected that to be the case. I wonder, in fact, if the converse isn’t true. Do second-tier candidates mostly provide a way to domesticate the opposition?
2 Dr. Kenneth Noisewater // Dec 6, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I hate to disagree with Dr. Paul, but…
The church one attends is a conscious choice made by individuals. To choose a church is to choose to, if not always strictly abide by, at least pay lip service to, a set of beliefs. I would say that to judge the church one attends is a part of judging one’s character.
I appreciate Ron’s thoughts in the first two paragraphs of the excerpt. But when it comes to vesting one man with as much power as the modern Presidency affords, I don’t think taking a critical peek at that man’s religion is out-of-bounds. The current guy thinks he’s been chosen by God to bomb the f*ck out of the heathen sand-ni**ers. We might have been better served if we had known this back in 2000.
3 Julian Sanchez // Dec 6, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Sure, I agree that it’s totally legitimate to ask candidates about core beliefs that are likely to influence their decisionmaking, and there’s no exemption for core beliefs that happen to be religious. But that’s not really what’s going on here, is it? It seems like what’s centrally at issue isn’t how the tenets of Mormonism might lead to unwise policy, but the belief of part of the GOP base that Mormons aren’t “real” Christians and that this is, in itself, a disqualifier.
4 Kevin B. O'Reilly // Dec 6, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Exactly, Jules. All the other Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are Christians, which Romney may or may not be depending on how one chooses to classify LDS. But does that tell us anything meaningful about what their core political beliefs and values are? I really do not think so.
5 John Goes // Dec 7, 2007 at 1:59 am
If you read the rest of that excerpt (if it’s the same one I’m thinking of), he does mention the caveat that in extreme cases religion may be relevant, if it substantially informs ones policy decisions. If Huckabee, for example, believes that another Holocaust of the Jewish people is coming and that the four horsemen are galloping across time and space and are just around the corner, inquiry into his specific beliefs might be of interest to the rest of us.