LET ME PUT THIS as delicately as I can: Anyone who values religious liberty, anyone who is alarmed at the secular assault on religion in the United States, would be foolish not to give former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney serious consideration as a candidate for the U.S. Presidency simply because of his Mormon religion.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not calling anyone a fool for supporting another candidate. I, myself, am not sure at this point that should Romney decide to run again in 2012, he would my first choice in the primaries, although if he wins the Republican nomination he will certainly have my whole-hearted backing in the general election. Nor am I suggesting that there may not be other more valid reasons you may not want to vote for Romney. If you happen (for some incomprehensible reason) to be a Big Government Republican, for example, you might differ with Mitt on his position that the federal government taxes too much and spends too much. If you don't like government-run health care, you might fault him for his record on that issue as the Republican governor of a very liberal state and lean more toward the likes of New Jersey's Chris Christie. Or you may just not like the way Romney ties his tie.

But to write him off as a potential presidential candidate simply on the basis of uninformed religious bigotry would be foolish indeed. If you do nothing else, I urge you to read the complete text of Mitt Romney's December 6, 2007 address, "Faith in America," before deciding whether he merits your support, and not just rely on the few snippets you've seen quoted in news articles, columns and op-eds (including this one). If you approach the ballot box from a position of faith, you may be surprised to discover how closely aligned Romney is with values that guide your vote.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADS
(The following ads are furnished by Google. Perspicacity Press does not select and does not necessarily endorse these ads.)

The question has frequently been asked in newspaper headlines: "Is America ready for a Mormon president?" A Google search in December 2007 turned up 1,680 instances of that exact question. I repeated the search in December 2010 and got more than 12,800 responses. I find it appalling that the question would even be asked. In the middle of the last century, it was "Is America ready for a Catholic president?" A few years ago, it was, "Is America ready for a Jewish president?" Then we heard, "Is America ready for a black president?" and "Is America ready for a woman president?"

What I would like to know is whether America is ready for an American president. That should be the primary consideration, and by that, I mean a president who has a deep commitment to fundamental American values and to the principles on which this nation was founded. And that is not restricted to white male Evangelicals, thank you.

I am not suggesting that a person's religion is irrelevant. It would certainly make a difference, for example, whether one's deeply held religious beliefs are in harmony or at odds with the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it was designed to protect. (Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith, incidentally, taught that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by God. In contrast, Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others of similar persuasion have vowed in the name of their religion to destroy America, and fealty such as those would surely not be a desirable trait in a U.S. president.)

No constitutional guarantee is more sacred than freedom of religion, and none today is more execrably under assault. But all of our freedoms are being methodically eroded, and the sovereignty of the United States is being sold down the river of global oligarchy.

Before Mitt Romney gave his "Faith in America" speech early in the 2008 campaign, I personally had been quite dispirited with regard to the field of candidates then running for president -- not because of any religious bigotry of my own, but because I had not yet heard from any of the candidates in that campaign a clear articulation of some key principles that I considered essential for a United States president to understand.

I heard them from Mitt on December 6, 2007 and subsequently from some others, and they bear reiterating today.

"Americans," he said, "acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government."

Romney continued: "No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom-loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom." (Emphasis added.)

"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator," Romney said. "We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.... The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed. In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day."

There are millions upon millions of Americans who believe those things. But among the candidates in the 2008 campaign,  it was Mitt Romney who first stood up and said what needed to be said and what every candidate worth considering for office should be saying today. In doing so, he raised the bar for the other candidates, as several commentators and columnists have observed. Among them is Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group.

If John F. Kennedy's speech given nearly 50 years ago, assuring voters he would not take orders from the Pope, "was an important landmark in American political history, Romney's was surpassing," Ms. Parker wrote in a December 9, 2007, commentary. "With heartfelt humility and poetic eloquence, he tracked the nation's struggle with and for freedom."

Romney "held up a mirror and, for the first time in a long while, Americans did not have to avert their gaze. They could see themselves reflected and be both proud and humbled by their country's unique beauty," she continued. "That may be the most valuable result of Romney's speech. He raised the bar by focusing on broad principles of religious freedom rather than on the small details of doctrinal differences. In the process, he elevated everyone – even those not so deserving."

There are, of course, those who took strong exception to what Mitt Romney said. The most vicious attacks came from the crowd that loathes religion and seeks to remove all vestiges of faith from public view. They claim to have been deeply offended by his statement that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." They wrongly interpret that to mean that in Romney's view only religious people have (or deserve) rights. I am certain that Romney would agree everyone has a God-given right to believe or not to believe, as they choose. But the point he was making was exactly on the mark. It was a succinct expression of a fundamental, undergirding principal of religious liberty, a principle that is anathema to militant agnostics: There is no freedom if people are compelled to keep silent about their religious beliefs any more than if they are compelled to conform to a certain officially sanctioned religious belief.

But Romney made another key point as well, which the anti-religion crowd cannot countenance, although it is an historic fact. In the words of John Adams, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and a religious people."

Are there moral people who are not religious? Yes, perhaps quite a few. But those who would deprive others of their freedom of religion are not among them, and governments that have banished religion have abysmal human rights records.

By the same token, there are nominally religious people who are also not moral, and that includes anyone who in the name of religion would seek to deprive others of their freedom of conscience. Compulsion was not the doctrine of Christ. "Come unto me" was and is a loving invitation, not an edict delivered at the point of a sword.

It is ironic that some of the stiffest opposition to Romney's candidacy in 2008 came not from the anti-religious far left but from some on the religious right with whom his political views are in almost perfect harmony. The two main objections were his Mormon religion which in their view is not Christian and, more defensibly, the fact that his position on certain social issues has not always been to their liking.

Neoconservative columnest John Podhoretz wrote in 2007 that "as far as minority religions go, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [the official name of the Mormon church] is one of the minority-est." This he said of this sixth (some say fourth) largest church in the United States. Noting that "around 74 percent" of Americans "openly profess to be Christian," Mr. Podhoretz opined that "someone whose fellow believers number 1/55th of the population of the United States is someone who is going to have trouble closing the deal with voters" and that Romney made a mistake in giving his speech because now everybody will know he's a Mormon.

Notwithstanding the fact that Mormons are among the 74 percent who "openly profess to be Christian," the bigotry is there. Many do not consider Mormons to be Christian, and for some that is sufficient to disqualify a person for elective office.

Romney said he did not feel that it was his place as a candidate for political office to "become the spokesman" for his church. But because he has so often been asked what he thought about Jesus Christ, he gave a straightforward answer to that question for the record: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind." I have a hard time seeing that confession of faith as unbiblical.

With regard to social issues, some have accused Romney of flip-flopping, but they misuse the term. To flip-flop is to switch back and forth. Romney's views on certain social issues have indeed shifted over time, but as yet there has been no recidivism. It's a flip with no flop.

In a post on thehill.com dated December 5, 2007, the day before Romney gave his speech, David Keene, chairman of The American Conservative Union, explained why he had decided "to support Mitt Romney in his quest for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination." He wrote that Romney's "positions on a number of important issues have matured ... and I welcome the movement I've witnessed on issues of great importance to all conservatives." Romney has, "in every area where he has changed, moved to the right," Mr. Keen wrote, "and he's done so in a way that I find credible."

Mr. Keene noted that "Ronald Reagan followed much the same path ... beginning as a pro-choice governor and eventually morphing into a staunch pro-lifer."

Mr. Keene also pointed out that Mitt Romney is "intellectually inquisitive and comfortable enough with himself to welcome divergent views from those around him." He also thought that "Romney ... might just have the ability to unite conservatives and is their best chance to advance our policy goals should Republicans hold the White House. His commitments on a variety of issues have struck me as credible as he strives to put together a coalition of Republicans that will give him a chance to win both his party's nomination and a general election."

I admit to having been a little less optimistic than David Keene about Romney's ability to unite conservatives, at least in the primaries, and in fact he failed to do so as the record now shows. But I do believe that if the party had united behind him in the Republican primaries, he would have been the candidate with the best prospect for victory in the general election. I also believe that his values and his proven organizational skills make him well qualified to serve as the nation's president, but I am happy to say that the field has strengthened, and as we look ahead to 2012, we appear to have more good prospects to choose from than we were offered in 2008.

"You can be certain of this," Romney said in his December 6, 2008, address: "Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me." In today's world, with militant atheists working tirelessly to make secularism the official American and global religion and radical Islamic Jihadists seeking fanatically to impose their virulent brand of religion on every nation, does anything matter more in a U.S. presidential election than choosing a capable and qualified candidate who understands those dangers and who is committed to preserving and protecting America's freedoms? I think nothing matters more.

Source: www.PerspicacityPress.com. Copyright © 2010 Rand Green Communications.
Do not repost without written permission (usually granted on request) or without this notice. Do not extract quotes without proper credit. Plagiarism is a crime. You may link to this page. You may also print copies of the entire page, including the Perspicacity Press banner and this notice, for your own reference and in limited quantities for free distribution to your friends and colleagues.