Aren't They Into That Polygamy Thing?

There's something you have to know about Mitt Romney. It's something scandalous, earthshaking, and it just might freak you out of your pants. You see, unlike the devout men who've sought the nation's highest office in the past, Mitt Romney refuses to adhere to an orthodox flavor of Christianity.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

Please, feel free to snap out of that state of shock anytime you like. Really.

Not surprised? Then you're not alone. Even your distant, generally non-political relatives you sometimes see during important holidays have probably heard something about Mitt Romney's unusual "faith tradition", and what it means for his candidacy. All this discussion is certainly warranted, considering the fact that there are polls showing that over 50% of the important evangelical voting bloc won't even consider voting for a Mormon candidate -- even if he lines up with them on the issues. Unfortunately, one particularly important voice has been missing from the discussion: Mitt Romney's.

While it would be unfair to say that he's completely avoided the issue, Mitt has displayed a tendency to skirt around the so-called "religious question", refusing to confront it head-on. Up until now, just about all the statements Mitt's made about Mormonism have come as responses to often hostile questions from potential voters, which pop up frequently at "Ask Mitt Anything" events across the country. His typical formula for answering such questions looks something like this:

(A) Emphasize the importance of religious tolerance
(B) Assert that Mormonism is the same thing as Christianity
(C) Avoid any follow up questions.

This is hardly satisfactory. Whether he likes it or not, the questions surrounding Mitt Romney's religion matter to thousands of key voters he'll need to win over in the months to come. By refusing to talk in detail about his faith, and the role it plays in his personal life and public service, Mitt has insulted the intelligence of voters across the country, and made himself look like a weasel.

So, when the news broke last week that Mitt would be giving a speech specifically addressing the religious question, there was enough speculation to fill the Great Salt Lake Basin. Would he try to explain the oft-confusing doctrines of the LDS church? Would he reassure everyone that polygamy would remain illegal under a Romney administration? Would he plagiarize Kennedy's "Running as an American, not as a Catholic" speech? Would he merely repeat the same things he's been saying for the past year, but with more words?

On Thursday, we finally got all the answers, and there weren't a whole lot of surprises in the bunch. The speech was essentially a juggling act put on to win over evangelical voters, with Mitt Romney trying to advance two seemingly contradictory main points: that his Mormonism does not define his candidacy or dictate his policies, but that "faith" is an integral part of American life, and should be allowed to shape activities in the public sphere. For anyone who was expecting a lengthy discourse on the location of the planet Kolob, the speech was a massive dissapointment:

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
...
There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
...
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

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.
...
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But 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. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
...
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. And you can be -- You can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

Obviously, there were a few noticeable flaws in Romney's logic -- like all the talk about the validity of all faiths, while consistently referring to a singular Almighty, which almost certainly offended all the Hindu Republicans out there. But overall, Romney's message came out loud and clear: "Yes, I'm a Mormon, but it's totally cool. I'm not controlled by a bunch of nuts in Salt Lake City. I share your values, and I like Jesus. I also like religious freedom, and keeping God in the pledge of allegience. Please vote for me instead of Huckabee. Please."

Will this message impact the presidential race? Probably not. Most of what was said in the speech had already been said during previous events. Evangelicals who view Mitt Romney as an evil cult member with awesome hair will be unswayed by high-minded rhetoric about the importance of religious freedom. It might even hurt Mitt Romney, by drawing attention to one of his weakest points so close to the Primary season.

What do I think of it all? To be perfectly honest, I think Mitt Romney has so many problems besides his religion, that the "religious question" ain't worth a sack of potatoes at this point. Even if Mitt Romney had enough born-again cred to put Huckabee to shame, he still wouldn't be the right man for the job, for reasons previously alluded to on this blog. Enough said.