WASHINGTON (ABP) — Mitt Romney's Dec. 6 speech on faith and public affairs elicited both praise and criticism from a broad spectrum of observers, but it may not have sealed the much-coveted support of evangelical Christians.
The highly anticipated speech by the Republican presidential contender was designed to allay the fears of those evangelical Christians, who make up a large proportion of GOP voters in Iowa, which hosts the primary season's first round of balloting. Recent polls have shown that churchgoing evangelicals are more likely than any other major group to harbor doubts about electing a Mormon president.
Romney has built his strategy for winning the Republican nomination on coming in first in the state's caucuses. The former Massachusetts governor long had avoided discussing his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the campaign trail. But continuing questions coupled with a recent surge in the state by formerly second-tier candidate Mike Huckabee — a Baptist minister — forced Romney to confront the issue.
However, the speech's oblique references to Mormonism annoyed some conservatives, who wanted Romney to be more specific about its significant doctrinal differences from orthodox Christianity. Others complained that the speech did nothing to allay their fears that he was truly on their side on social issues, given his recent conversion to social conservatism.
But the speech heartened other conservatives, who contended that Romney should not have to discuss the details of his personal faith, while noting that his faith-informed values would come to bear on his decisions if elected to office.
Response to the speech didn't always break down along traditional right-left lines.
Some moderates and liberals praised the speech's ringing endorsement of religious liberty, while others criticized Romney for short-changing atheists and other non-religious people and for his critique of those who support strong church-state separation.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council – one of the most influential conservative evangelical groups – said in a Dec. 6 e-mail newsletter that Romney's remarks were “well-delivered” and, at times, “offered many compelling thoughts.” Perkins, the group's president and a Southern Baptist, particularly praised the speech for its endorsement of the idea that American freedom and democracy stem from, as Romney put it, “a common creed of moral convictions.”
Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the speech – which he had been advising Romney to give for a year – was “an eloquent defense of the positive and crucial rule that religion has played in our nation's history” and would elevate the entire nation's level of political discourse on faith and politics.”
“Why? Because he reminded Americans, in a high-profile venue with the focused attention of the media and millions of citizens listening, of our priceless heritage both of religious freedom and religious diversity,” Land wrote in a Dec. 7 column for Beliefnet.
The Interfaith Alliance — an organization that espouses strong church-state separation and often battles conservative religious groups — also gave the speech a cautious thumbs-up for its endorsement of religious freedom.
“Governor Romney should be commended for taking religious liberty so seriously,” said Welton Gaddy, the group's president and a Baptist minister, in a statement released shortly after the speech. “This speech is exactly the kind of conversation that we would hope candidates running for president would have with the American people on the role of faith in public life. While I may disagree with some of the points made in the speech … I appreciate the overall tone.”
But other groups that endorse strong separation of church and state found fault with a section of the speech in which Romney claimed, “in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square.” He also endorsed government religious displays during holidays.
Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said that view was misguided.
“Church-state separation actually ensures our vibrant religious landscape and in no way strips the public square of talk about religion and matters of faith. Church-state separation simply requires that official government action have a secular purpose and have the primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion,” Walker said in response to a question in a Dec. 6 discussion on the Washington Post/Newsweek online “On Faith” feature. Walker is a regular panelist for the discussion.
“Gov. Romney should also understand that ‘secular' is not a bad word,” he continued. “While our culture need not be secular, our government must be — not in the sense of being hostile to religion but being religiously neutral.”
Some conservatives also criticized Romney's speech, including New York Times columnist David Brooks. Romney's claim that American democracy requires religious belief, Brooks said, left non-believers out in the cold.
“Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not,” he wrote in a column published Dec. 7.
Brooks also said that Romney's distinction between religious Americans with common values and non-religious ones itself diminished the importance of religion.
“The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand,” he wrote. “In Romney's account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?”
Other conservatives said Romney's speech failed to convince them that the social conservatism he now embraces is heartfelt.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Romney's past political and business activities are a far more trustworthy measure than any campaign speech of whether the faith he professes is likely to have much if any influence on his future behavior,” said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association chapter in Romney's home state of Michigan, in a Dec. 6 statement.
Glenn is a longtime Romney critic because, in previous campaigns for senator and governor of Massachusetts, Romney embraced a pro-choice position on abortion rights and was strongly supportive of gay rights.
Noting that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes homosexuality and abortion in most cases, Glenn said, Mitt Romney's credibility problem is not that he's Mormon. It's that politically, on core values such as protecting life and traditional family values, he hasn't been Mormon enough.”
-30-
Read more:
Romney claims no candidate should be faith's spokesman (12/7)
'Values voters' prefer Romney, Huckabee; Giuliani finishes disappointing 8th (10/22)
Theology, attitudes hinder Mormon entry into Christian mainstream (10/3)
ABP compares faith-based positions of top-tier presidential hopefuls (4/13)
GOP presidential race again features faith, but new dynamics (4/10)
A Mormon for president? Poll says probably not; pundits not so sure (7/25/2006)