Tomorrow Mitt Romney will give “the speech” that will allegedly help put to rest discussion of his Mormon religion as it pertains to his fitness for office. Taking the issue of his religion out of political debate is a daunting task, and there has been much speculation about what he will say. Romney has since said that the speech will emphasize religious liberty over his Mormonism and that JFK’s speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association regarding his Catholicism prior to his election “makes sense to me.” An approach like this makes sense to me:
My fellow Americans: By now you know that this speech is about religious liberty as it relates to my religion, a topic I approach humbly. Given the challenges we face as a nation, we need to come together as Americans. Facing global jihad, we are presently at war; there are 47 million citizens without health insurance; entitlement spending is out of control; the country faces record level deficits — these are but a few of the problems that we presently face. I have great faith in the American people that any suspicions, misunderstandings, and disagreements about my personal religious beliefs can be addressed so that we can roll up our sleeves and together address our difficult challenges when I am president.
I believe deeply that when the brilliant Founders of this great nation made it explicitly clear in the Constitution itself that there would be no religious test for office, they were sending a message that public discord over private religious beliefs in the context of public service would ultimately undermine religious freedom for all. A diversity of religion is the backbone of American civic life. When DeTocqueville visited America, he observed that what made this country so great even in its infancy were its “voluntary institutions.” In no other nation in history have citizens so freely formed associations to improve their safety and civic life.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
First among those civic institutions are America’s churches. It’s my firm conviction that our places of worship have done more for the citizens of this country than any other institution — whether it’s feeding the homeless, building our
unparalleled hospital system, or teaching in religious schools. If belonging to a particular church were to suddenly become a test of one’s fitness for public office, the public pressure would amount to a backdoor attack on our religious freedoms. Expressions of private faith would be weighed and measured as a result of their popularity, not judged as a matter of one’s conviction. As a result, America’s civic life would suffer.
But we must also recognize that as much as churches are woven into the fabric of American lives, the purpose of churches and the purpose of government are not to be confused. Throughout history humans have struggled to determine the proper roles of God and government, particularly in relation to one another. America’s founding emphasis on religious tolerance has allowed friends, neighbors, colleagues, and even family of different creeds and beliefs to interact peacefully with each other in ways that were previously unprecedented. Such an emphasis on religious liberty is necessary not just to protect the state from the influence of the church, but perhaps more importantly, to protect houses of worship from encroachment by the state.
As such, Americans have long understood the necessity of keeping these two realms conversing but separate, lest they corrupt each other. But it is interesting to note that while the First Amendment and the modern justifications for religious liberty come from the secular realm, they have their roots in the religious realm. In the gospels, Jesus says “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” St. Augustine later spoke of how we live in two cities that run parallel to our lives — the sacred city of God and the secular city of Man. Martin Luther built on Augustine and discussed what he referred to as the “two kingdoms.” Luther, and later John Calvin, understood that though Christians are citizens and many citizens are Christians, operating in either the political and religious realm often requires different vocational emphasis, though not at the exclusion of God’s law governing basic morality in both realms.
