Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Mitt Romney gave his long-awaited "religion speech" the other day and it was full of howlers. This one stuck out to me:
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you. Utter nonsense. The Constitution says you can't legally forbid anyone of any religion from taking office. It does not mean people cannot consider a candidate's religion when deciding whether to vote for them. And then there's this:
There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
In other words, religion is absolutely crucial to the very existence of this country, but don't you dare think about my religion in any negative manner. You are not allowed to judge the nature of my religion or how it may affect my policies, you may only consider that I am religious, in a very general sense. I wonder if Romney or his credulous followers would buy that argument from, say, a Muslim? Yeah, not likely.
And I love what DA Ridgley, a new contributor at Positive Liberty, had to say while fisking Romney's speech:
I'll stop quoting at this point - holding a politician's own words against him, after all, is hardly sporting - and note simply that if Romney believes what that speech contends, then he is a moron. Of course, that doesn't disqualify him from high office, but still...The gist of the 'argument' is the candidate's contention that just about any theistic religious faith is better than no religious faith -- the absence of which makes being moral highly problematic if not outright impossible -- that his own religious faith (selectively described where it happens not to disagree obviously with orthodox Christianity) in some undefined way significantly infuses, shapes and guides his personal ethos, but that its doctrinal positions (i.e., the assertions it claims to be true) properly have no influence whatsoever in the performance of his public duties.
Somehow this is supposed to be reassuring?
I find nothing about Romney reassuring. I'm one of those folks who thinks electoral politics is mostly a joke in this country and that we generally elect frauds and idiots to office, but even by my own cynical standards Romney stands out from the crowd. I fear that if you shook hands with the man you would withdraw a limb covered in oil, likely of the snake variety.
I'm quite accustomed to politicians changing positions, but they usually do so in a manner that maintains some minimally plausible deniability so that they can claim to have only slightly modified them; Romney doesn't bother with such subtleties. The audacity of his reversal on gay rights and abortion is simply breathtaking even by my cynical standards. This man doesn't merely have two faces, he wears them at the same time, looks at you with both sets of eyes and dares you to question him about it.
Comments
Romney's speech was a blatant pander to the religious right-wing extremists. His first mention of religion in that speech was Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us.
Posted by: mark | December 9, 2007 9:53 AM
I don't get how they contend that non-religious people have no morals when the majority of those in prison, both currently and historically, claim to be religious. I would hazard to guess that the number of atheists in prison to be well below the national average. Does that mean atheists are simply better people? Of course not, but it sure shatters the myth that religious people are better, more moral people.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 9, 2007 10:12 AM
Ed writes:
Quite right. The current presidency is prosecuting an unnecessary invasion, endorsing torture, undermining science, ignoring environmental devastation and conducting numerous cover-ups. This is by a president who is a self-professed man of faith who says his actions are sanctioned by his god. Based on this example, it seems to me that a candidate's religious convictions should be part of voters' decision process.Posted by: Ex-drone | December 9, 2007 10:45 AM
Poor Mitt. He can't get anything right. The "religious Test" referred to in Article VI, paragraph 3, is a test oath Note that it is in the "oath or affirmation" clause of the Consitution.
What that provision is saying is that nobody can be required to take an oath affirming allegiance to any particular establishment of religion in order to attain office. That is what a "test oath" refers to.
Posted by: raj | December 9, 2007 11:27 AM
I read Romney's speech transcript in the light of the Kennedy speech, which has been the frequent comparison and rightfully so IMHO.
Kennedy convinced the nation that his being a Catholic would not compromise his ability to work for the national interest and that his catholicism didn't prevent his supporting America's founding ideals. I believe Kennedy for the most part kept that promise and when he broke it, it wasn't his religious beliefs that impeded him.
Romney on the other hand effectively communicated that his being a Mormon would not compromise his willingness to support the religious right agenda even when their agenda opposed American ideals and the national interest.
I also find it disengenuos that Romney, like Huckabee, wants continued protection from the media to not dig into their sects' wacky beliefs while at the same time allowing them to wear their religiousity on his sleeve.
I'd love to hear Romney reply to Mormon claims that native Americans descended from Israelites or his church's dogmatic claims regarding differentiation in skin color. I'd also love to hear Huckabee, who claims the Bible is the word of God, explain his support of citizens stoning gay people to death, or if not, how he can explain that away while continuing the claim that the Bible is God's infallibly revealed words. The media continue to be chicken-shits on the the topic of religion to the detriment of voters and to the benefit of the politicians running.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2007 11:50 AM
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | December 9, 2007 12:54 PM
Shorter Romney: There IS a religious test, but I pass, trust me.
Posted by: joli | December 9, 2007 2:49 PM
Let us not forget that he has plainly stated before that we need a person of faith to lead this country. There is one word that fits him perfectly:
HYPOCRITE.
Posted by: Tanya | December 9, 2007 3:23 PM
Engineer-poet: The point isn't that it's controversial. It's not. (Though your, possibly innocent, reduction of "radical violent Islam" to "Islamists" is highly questionable.) The point of content is that Romney is a hypocrite. He says, "Judge THEIR religion, but it's wrong to judge me by mine." You can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | December 9, 2007 3:35 PM
So, was the religion of millions of black slaves in America worthless because they weren't free? Romney says some real purdy words, but he really doesn't know what talking about.
Posted by: tacitus | December 9, 2007 3:55 PM
Romney and Huckabee, like others, want to be able to use their religion to get votes and put themselves on a morally higher plain, but that's about as far as they want to go. If you start talking about the age of the Earth, or Jesus's brother being Lucifer or any other details you risk losing a segment of that very vote you want to get. But everyone can agree that agnostics, atheists and Muslims are bad. You can't be as upfront about Muslims because they are believers, and you want others to accept you because you're a believer without getting into too much detail. Also, there are abundant videos on-line showing that Muslims don't fuck around when offended, and they will cut your head off. But everyone knows that, so it doesn't have to be stated.
Posted by: soboco | December 9, 2007 4:07 PM
Michael Heath said:
"I also find it disengenuos that Romney, like Huckabee, wants continued protection from the media to not dig into their sects' wacky beliefs while at the same time allowing them to wear their religiousity on his sleeve."
And Soboco said:
"Romney and Huckabee, like others, want to be able to use their religion to get votes and put themselves on a morally higher plain, but that's about as far as they want to go."
I agree with these assertions. I would be happy, in fact would prefer it, if all candidates would keep their religious beliefs to themselves. If they won't do that, if they insist on reaping whatever benefits they believe accrue from their claims to be people of faith, then they themselves are the ones who are opening their beliefs to public scrutiny.
My message to all of them is this: If you don't want me to question your beliefs, then don't shove your beliefs in my face. If you expect me to trust you because you're a person of faith, then I have a right to investigate the content of that faith. Candidates may not like this, but I happen to believe that the content of their faith probably does influence the characters of the candidates. And I don't automatically assume that such influence is benign or beneficial. If you don't want me to hold your faith against you, then don't ask me to accept your faith uncritically as an indicator of good character and good sense.
Posted by: the chaplain | December 9, 2007 4:29 PM
All I can add is--Amen and amen.
BTW I have zero intention to ever run for office-and if I do, y'all will know I've finally lost my mind!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | December 9, 2007 7:58 PM
Others have noted that the Constitution only bans a religious oath as a prerequisite for office, not religious tests imposed by voters. However a political religious test is, in general, distasteful at best. I would not refuse to vote for someone simply because they are Mormon. The key message of this speech is that Romney fervently believes in a political religious test--you must say you believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and savior of mankind or you are unfit for office. That's a despicable claim.
Oddly, Romney's dad was both very highly placed within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but also a reasonably good governor of Michigan (we had a few good ones in the 60s and 70s, but haven't had much luck lately). However his religious beliefs didn't play much of a role politically. In fact he was a traditional northern moderate Republican. Tying that in with his prominence in the LDS, it's clear that being ultra-conservative politically is not an inevitable outgrowth of being Mormon.
And given that Mitt once upon a time supported abortion and gay rights, I'd say that deep in his heart he's actually a lot like his father. Unfortunately, even deeper in his heart he's a two-faced shit who'll say anything to get elected. And that's the real test in this case.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2007 9:27 PM
"Freedom requires religion" That quote is making me shudder. Is he implying no religion no freedom? Is that some kind of threat?
Posted by: pesny | December 9, 2007 9:31 PM
I would probably refuse to vote for a Mormon. There's a level of craziness in that religion that sort of says something about who you are as a person if you believe it. And I like my Presidents to be at least nominally rational.
Posted by: Brian | December 9, 2007 9:34 PM
Duh! That's why we enslaved them--to make them Christian.
Posted by: Skemono | December 10, 2007 12:34 AM
Brian says:
I would probably refuse to vote for a Mormon. There's a level of craziness in that religion that sort of says something about who you are as a person if you believe it. And I like my Presidents to be at least nominally rational.
Sooo...our current leader, err, being led directly by God... is nominally rational? Man, some voters somewhere shit the bed on that one.
Posted by: Heather | December 10, 2007 1:26 PM
That has an uncomfortable "New Speak" ring to it, doesn't it? "Freedom requires religion." Also, "War is Peace."
Posted by: Chris | December 10, 2007 2:16 PM
I also find it disengenuos that Romney, like Huckabee, wants continued protection from the media to not dig into their sects' wacky beliefs while at the same time allowing them to wear their religiousity on his sleeve.
I'd love to hear Romney reply to Mormon claims that native Americans descended from Israelites or his church's dogmatic claims regarding differentiation in skin color. I'd also love to hear Huckabee, who claims the Bible is the word of God, explain his support of citizens stoning gay people to death, or if not, how he can explain that away while continuing the claim that the Bible is God's infallibly revealed words. The media continue to be chicken-shits on the the topic of religion to the detriment of voters and to the benefit of the politicians running.
Well said.
Not that this is any different from normal, but there is simply no one on the GOP slate I could vote for and then not feel the next morning like I had to commit ritual suicide for betraying the future of the country.
Posted by: Josh | December 10, 2007 2:50 PM