The editorial, as well as an article that ran that day on Page A5, addressed the role that Mike Huckabee and his Southern Baptist supporters had in using Romney's religion as a wedge issue. The Republican Party has been using religion as an electoral wedge issue for the better part of 30 years now.
That The Tribune is suddenly surprised that Republicans would use it against one of their own in a primary is what's surprising.
For a majority of voters in the Republican Party, religion is very important. While I agree with The Tribune that it goes against the very foundation of this country to set up any kind of religious test for office seekers, the editorial portrays Romney as the victim. While Romney did bear the brunt of the curiosity and inquiry, he also argued that religion should be vital in choosing the president.
At a Florida campaign stop in February when he was accused by one concerned Republican voter of practicing a "pretender" religion, Romney countered by saying, " . . . the nation does need to have people of different faiths, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country."
In his Faith in America speech, Romney said that, "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."
The irony, of course, is that Romney would be so quick to exercise Article VI of the Constitution (". . . no religious test") when anyone questioned the particulars of his religion, yet violated the article himself by insisting that the president needed to be a person of faith.
But as long as candidates want to keep talking about how necessary faith is for our leaders, it seems logical that the content of that faith should matter. From Romney's own mouth, his faith is important, but not its particulars. Does that mean that the faith that a Muslim has qualifies as acceptable under Romney's requirement? How about a Scientologist?
Most people would not grant that a Muslim's faith and Romney's faith are equal. But that is because the content of their respective faiths is different. If the vague and ambiguous idea of "faith" is going to be important, then the particulars must also be important. Otherwise, why in the world would these candidates continue blathering on about it?
Sadly, Romney had a tremendous opportunity to strike a blow against those who would use religion as a major litmus test for candidates. But he chose to side with the snake charmers in the GOP only to have them turn around and cast aspersions about his faith.
Even in his concession speech, Romney showed no corrigibility on the matter, claiming that the radical Islamists think "democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God, shape the law." Yet this is the same man who laments the fact that we seem to be forcing God out of the public square in America and believes that our Constitution is a divinely inspired document.
Romney's no more a victim of religious discrimination than any of us who hold no religious belief but are treated like second-class citizens by both Romney and Huckabee. They're both well-versed in the religious test. Now if we could just get them to pass a civics test.
---
* MARK BOGGS is a golf professional in St. George, and lives in Washington City. He can be reached for comment at meescat@msn.com.
