Romney garners praise, criticism for church-state views in speech

Posted: 12/14/07

Romney garners praise, criticism
for church-state views in speech

By Robert Marus

Associated Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (ABP)—Mitt Romney’s speech on faith and public affairs elicited both praise and criticism from a broad spectrum of observers—and it didn’t always break down along traditional right-left lines.

The highly anticipated speech by the Republican presidential contender was designed to allay the fears of evangelical Christians, who make up a large proportion of GOP voters in Iowa. Recent polls have shown churchgoing evangelicals are more likely than any other major group to harbor doubts about electing a Mormon president.

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 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 Romney should not have to discuss the details of his personal faith while noting his faith-informed values would come to bear on his decisions if elected to office.

Meanwhile, some moderates and liberals praised the speech’s ringing endorsement of religious liberty, while others criticized Romney for short-changing atheists and other nonreligious people and for his critique of those who support strong church-state separation.

Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council wrote in an 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 what Romney called “a common creed of moral convictions.”

In a column for Beliefnet.com, Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the speech—which he had been advising Romney to give for a year now—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.”

The Interfaith Alliance—an organization that espouses strong church-state separation—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 some people have taken separation of church and state too far.

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 a response to a question in a discussion on the Washington Post/Newsweek online “On Faith” feature.

“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. New York Times columnist David Brooks noted Romney’s claim that American democracy required religious belief 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.

Brooks also said Romney’s distinction between religious Americans with common values and nonreligious 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.