I missed the Romney speech live.  I read it the afternoon after it was given.  I thought it was thoughtful.  It was a sort of trip down memory lane for the American people.  Ah, the good old days - Christmas trees in the town square, the Ten Commandments above the judge's bench, the public prayers of good people for the sake of the community.  Romney reminded us the wonder of our nation's creation and the devotion to liberty that it required and the necessity of convincing the people that our rights are gotten from a power greater than ourselves.  Only if our rights come from a higher power can we protect them from the worst of ourselves.

As an aside, last Thanksgiving in 2006, my family joined some friends at their house.  I do not know the friends' beliefs, but I do know they do not pray before a meal.  However, as the hosts, they had the privilege of saying thanks before we enjoyed the feast.  They gave a toast - to family and friends - and gave thanks that we were all together.  It was nice and considerate.  I appreciated the sincerity.  However, I was disappointed with the lack of acknowledgment that the very fact that we were gathered around the table giving thanks for each others' company and for the enriching year which we were closing out could only be due to a divine power which put us there in the first place.  It was as if they failed to acknowledge a guest at the dinner table.  To avoid disturbing the comfort of the peaceful gathering of a diverse crowd, I kept my individual prayer for thanks off of my tongue.  It struck me odd that vocalizing my appreciation for God's works would send a ripple of discomfort around the table, but then that is the world in which we now live.  We all now are required to learn to play the appropriate, flowering chords that include the sensitivities of everyone, and only in our privacy, hidden behind the curtains in our windows, can we perform the B-sides that are the rich, deep roots firmly planted under the surface.

I have to write about my problem with Romney's speech.  He claims that religion should not be used as a trump card in politics.  His faith is not a mainstream faith, but it is a faith nonetheless.  Without his faith, he would be a different man, likely a poorer man.  He reached out an olive branch to various faiths and did not intend to exclude any faiths by not mentioning them, though I heard the inane criticism that his failure to mention Hinduism must prove his intolerance for certain faiths, perhaps polytheistic faiths.  But in making his point, he failed to acknowledge whether or not faith was a necessity at all.  By not mentioning the possibility, one could take from the speech that a candidate with faith in no god is not fit for government.  Personally, I agree with that outcome.  I could not elect an atheist to represent me because, by necessity, an atheist must believe that my liberty is a product of an agreement between myself and my society and not something I hold despite my society, and I believe the vast majority of the American people would agree.  It is a fundamental difference that I cannot overcome when choosing a leader.  However, that implicit suggestion is unimportant to this analysis.  My point is that, if I can properly make the choice that an atheist is unfit for office by virtue of him being an atheist, which I propose is a fair and non-bigoted position, I should not be admonished for choosing a candidate whose beliefs about God are closer to my own and disapproving of another for his faith which may diverge from my own.  It may be that the God of the Mormons and the God of the Catholics and Evangelicals is, in the end, the same God.  But the particular tenets of each faith require a different idea of God's role in this world and therefore a different conception of man's particular responsibilities to his God.  Does Romney's Mormon faith require such a disparate set of values and duties owed to his God than my my own faith requires of me to my God that it is impossible for me to give him my vote?  As far as I know, no.  And at this point in the cycle, I will likely vote for Romney, in part because I believe that his values match my own as far as his responsibilities to the office of President are concerned.

But Romney's speech declared the a person's religious views should be off limits when being sized up for office, and with that point I disagree.  His was a piece of politics only, not a sincere call to beckon the revival of the religious traditions of this country.  He had one goal - to call the anti-religion, anti-Mormon dogs off his campaign.  Whether it was the right piece at the right time, at least in terms of his campaign, is unclear.  But I don't believe his speech was meant for some greater public good.  It was his attempt to convince the people that his religion should be of no consequence to them, it being important only that he have religion.

The speech was a feel-good speech.  I felt good after reading it.  I thought less of it after I watched him give it on video.  But it was a good speech that would have been perfectly on display if given by Jimmy Stewart at the intersection of "It's a Wonderful Life" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."  But summed up, it was an appeal to not allow his religion to affect my choice.  In practice, it was unnecessary for me because, knowing enough about Mormonism before ever hearing of Romney, I never thought twice about it.  However, after being undressed of its ornaments of historical quotes and sweeping rhetoric, it was an offense to the core of liberty.  Any person may make any choice about a candidate based upon any set of characteristics including religion, and that to do so does not necessarily make such person out to be a bigot.

When looking at John Kerry in 2004, his Catholicism was a plus for me, but his failure to adhere to his stated religious beliefs when reviewing legislation destroyed any notion that he was a man of genuine faith.  Why would a candidate bother letting people know about his faith if he is not going to refer to it when determining what legislation is appropriate?  It becomes of no consequence.  I want Romney to adhere to his Mormon faith while serving as President.  I want Romney to make policy choices, and I want him to wield his veto pen with the tenets of religion in mind.  Those tenets are what informs his values.  It is ridiculous to say, "As President, I will not let my faith decide my actions.  It is the common values I share with the American people that will inform my decisions."  That is the same as me saying that I will not allow the fact that I was mugged in New York City prevent me from returning there in the future, but that I will allow the fear caused by that mugging to prevent me from doing so.  Were Romney's faith to include some beliefs that were perverse in such a way as to estrange his values from my own, I would not take that variation lightly.

So, a real analysis of his speech reveals that it was nothing more than your average "Vote for Me!" campaign appeal, not a great moment in American history.  It had style and it had substance.  The style was uplifting but the substance, stripped of the style, was shrewd politicking.  I hope his speech does not hurt him in the long run, because I believe in his stated policies and I believe he will do what he says, despite his broken record.  I'm not quite sure why.  I guess its just a matter of faith.  But I don't blame someone for thinking my mind less fit for having such faith - and I have no reason to declare such person a bigot for thinking so.

I am taking my first shot at blogging on Townhall.com with this post.