Loading ...Romney defended church’s ‘good and venerable teachings’
flockwood“At every turn, (the Romneys) had to explain their faith – to defend the good
and venerable teachings of the Mormon Church,” former U.S. diplomat Ann Corkery told a New York crowd, which watched as Mitt Romney was awarded a medal for “courage in the defense of religious liberty.”
[You can read all about the award by clicking below.]
The claim that Romney explained and defended “the good and venerable teachings of the Mormon Church” is revisionist history. In his “Faith in America” speech at the George Bush Presidential library on Dec. 6, Romney unambiguously stated that he would not explain or describe — let alone defend — his church’s unique doctrines.
“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. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths,” Romney said. [To read the entire speech, click here.
Romney defended his membership in the LDS church, but -- like JFK -- declined to become an apologist for his church's doctrines. He was widely praised for taking this stand.
Professor Randall Balmer of Columbia University told inthefray.org that Joseph Lieberman was a good example of someone who did not hesitate to explain his beliefs. "Unlike Romney, who grew testy whenever anyone asked him about his faith — “I’m not a theologian; I don’t speak for my church” — Lieberman faced those questions directly and without evasion," Balmer said in an article posted April 8.
By the Becket Fund for Religion Liberty
Citing examples from George Washington and John Adams to Pope Benedict
XVI, former presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney clarified and reiterated
his staunch belief that "freedom requires religion" in a speech yesterday (May
in New York.
"I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that "national
morality" as Hamilton put it, "require[s] the aid of…divinely authoritative
religion.” Or as Washington put it, morality cannot prevail “in exclusion of
religious principle.” I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against
moral relativism-which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable
that it can label “evil good, and good evil;” in the words of Isaiah and “put
darkness for light, and light for darkness,” said Mr. Romney.
Speaking before friends and supporters of the Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty at the Metropolitan Club in New York, Mr. Romney and his wife Ann
were celebrated and awarded the Becket Fund’s prestigious Canterbury Medal
for “Courage in the Defense of Religious Liberty.”
“At every turn, (the Romneys) had to explain their faith – to defend the good
and venerable teachings of the Mormon Church,” said Ann Corkery, a former
U.S. diplomat and current director of philanthropy at Security National
Servicing, Corp, in conferring the award. “The Canterbury Medal is awarded to
those who refuse to compromise their principles and faith, and do
so “resolutely.” If there were additional honors for graciousness in defense of
their faith, for modesty and sheer decency, we would be conferring those
medals as well on Mitt and Ann Romney,” she said.
Mr. Romney told the hushed audience that he missed an opportunity in
December when as a candidate he gave a speech to address questions
regarding his Mormon faith, his presidential campaign and the role of faith in
politics in America. At the time, Romney critics said that non-believers are
missing in Mr. Romney’s vision of America.
Last night, Mr. Romney rejected this, saying that in a free society atheists
enjoy all the freedoms of religious believers and non-believers have just as
great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.
In a coercive society “it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be
condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we
are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the
words of God. “We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of
thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion,
that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation,” he said.
The Washington, D.C. based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a civil rights
law firm founded by Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, to defend the rights and practice
of all religious faiths. The Canterbury Medal is awarded annually to the public
figure who “resolutely and publicly refused to render unto Caesar that which
is God’s.” Past recipients include Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel, Mary Ann
Glendon of Harvard Law School and current U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See
and Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
He might not have defended the church during his speech in December, and well he should not have because it would have placed all the emphasis on the church and not his campaign, but I will guarantee you that he has had more questions and concerns raised by this faith than any other candidate in my lifetime, including Mr. Lieberman.
I will also guarantee you that he spent more time defending his religion, and teaching it, starting with his mission to France and then as a leader in the LDS church, than any of the other candidates during this election cycle.
It might not have been when the media would have liked it, but to say its revisionist history to say he has not defended his faith is simply not true. Like it or not, the campaign trail is not the place to answer questions like, “So, Mr. Romney, can you explain to us why you believe Joseph Smith saw God and can you explain why there are 4 different accounts of that vision…?” That is no more necessary than asking for an explanation by a Catholic, “Do you really believe in Transubstantiation…? I mean, do you reeeally believe that the bread and wine become literally the body and blood of Christ…?” (I’m not speaking lightly of that belief. If you believe that, you have every right to do so.)
No offense to you Frank, you know what I think of you personally, but if Romney would have opened that can of worms to the media he’d still be answering questions at the Bush Presidential library.
I spent a lot of time in high school, as someone who will never know the limelight that Mr. Romney has known, defending my beliefs to fellow students and teachers to a degree that my friends of other religious persuasions never had to do. Because people simply don’t have any idea how the actual doctrine is disseminated by the LDS church and they ask Joseph Smith to pass “tests” that no prophet, from Adam to Malachi or any of the New Testament apostles could have passed if we knew about them what we know about Joseph, anything written or said by Joseph or his predecessors is automatically thought to be “doctrine” and questions are asked about things that simply don’t matter and aren’t important. “Joseph said there were men on the moon, so he’s a false prophet….”
I would have done the same thing as Romney had I been in his situation.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Frank replies:
First of all, I’m not criticizing Gov. Romney or second-guessing the way he responded to questions about his faith.
Yes, Gov. Romney certainly defended his church and his faith, but he did not explain and defend the church’s teachings in 2008, because he said it would be inappropriate to do so on the campaign trail. As a presidential candidate, he said, it wasn’t his job to explain and describe his church’s distinctive doctrines. Most professional political observers said this was precisely the right stand. My point is that the diplomat is factually incorrect when she says Romney defended and explained his church’s TEACHINGS at every turn throughout the campaign.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
If Ms Corkery was speaking exclusively about Romney’s words during the campaign, then you’re absolutely right, but if she was speaking about his entire lifetime, then I stand by what I said.
The quote is, “At every turn, (the Romneys) had to explain their faith – to defend the good and venerable teachings of the Mormon Church…” There is no mention of just the 2008 campaign. I would suppose that could be inferred she was speaking of just the campaign, though, and don’t argue that point. I guess I would have had to be there to make that judgment.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I think Frank is technically correct, that is, that Ms. Corkery was factually wrong. But I think it’s because she didn’t quite say what I think she meant. I think she meant that the Romneys were good public examples of Mormonism. And she’s right. While the Mittster had his moments, he generally handled issues about his religion in a gracious and thoughtful way. I agree that his decision not to get involved in issues of doctrine was correct, and I suspect this decision lends him the air of having weathered the storm that he has. If he’d had to go into that whole Jesus is the brother of Satan thing on national tv, he’d have been sunk. Ditto the whole tribe of Levi thing. Anything he says on these issues is going to alienate someone, and he was quite right to sidestep the whole thing.
In a way, he has become the public face of the Mormon church, bad or good. And I think this medal kind of acknowledges that.