Mitt Romney and Religion

I found this bit as I went through my older writings this morning and, feeling lazy, quite honestly, I decided to use it here today. I think it worth your time, and as I did at some point put a good effort into it, and the issue being timeless, well, I offer it to you today.

-Marty


Mitt Romney, one of many Republican candidates for President last election season, spoke out during his campaignon the subject of religion and politics. I gathered that his overriding point was that without a Deity of some sort we cannot truly comprehend the moral needs of civil society. If that is what he meant, I have to agree with him.

Everyone either believes in something beyond himself or they do not. The Jew, the Christian, the Muslim, and so on, believe in a Deity which instructs them on behavior. The secularist, I presume, does not. On what, then, does the secularist base his creed? His own affirmation? Well, why should I, as a human being who is a moral equal to him, accept that as a basis for human development? It’s simply circular. Without a Deity above it all, where do we appeal for affirmation (or, to be true, negation) of what we think should be done with, not only our laws, but our own direct dealings with those around us?

That said, the seriously religious need to understand that they cannot make people without faith have faith. If it is coerced, it is of course without value. Yet that does not mean that our faith cannot enlighten even our public will. The trick is to know where to stop: I, as a Catholic, cannot legislate to make you believe the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, as that is wholly a tenet of faith. But on issues which involve more than faith, and I will use abortion as an example not to inflame but as it’s an easy and obvious political issue with moral implications, I can legislate, for it does not require faith alone to see a human life as a human life requiring government protection.

Is there, then, a religious aspect to my politics? Of course. But that does not make my politics wrong. The secular world needs to understand that distinction if it is to understand us at all. The real question is, does it want to? If not, then I may fairly ask who's the one being unilateral and non-inclusive in our political arena. Is it us on the right, or those whose religion is themselves?