THE FITZGERALD GRIFFIN FOUNDATION E-PACKAGE
At a Distance
December 21, 2007
THE CULTIST IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE
By Chilton Williamson Jr.
At the core of Governor Romney's well-written and
intelligent address on December 6, 2007, at the George
Bush Library and Museum in Collegeville, Texas, was a
desperately devious attempt to discourage voters,
commentators, and other politicians from making
potentially devastating inquiries into his theological
beliefs and what he described as "unique doctrines" of
his church. Romney is hoping those doctrines in
particular that relate to the nature of Jesus Christ --
which, he conceded, "may not be all the same as those of
other faiths" -- will escape discovery by the gentiles,
that is, non-Mormons. (The Beehive State of Utah is the
only place in the world where a Jew is a gentile.)
Indeed, they are not the same. The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints, although it says it believes
Christ is the Son of God, in fact teaches that he is
really "a son of God," in the same way that Chilton
Williamson is a son of God. It is a well-known fact that
Mormons are not Trinitarians. What seems far less well
known -- so little known, in fact, that I have yet to
read of it in the press or on the web -- is that Mormons
do not believe in the divinity of Christ. Jesus Christ,
for them an important prophet in a line of prophets, is
of lesser stature than Joseph Smith, the founder of their
religion. In truth, Mormons are not Christian heretics,
as worried evangelicals have been claiming. Mormons are
not related theologically to Christians at all.
Otherwise, Romney's talk was a dignified and
intelligent piece of work. Unsurprisingly, it drew an
undignified and unintelligent response the day after on
the editorial page of the NEW YORK TIMES. The gist of the
address was simply the common-sense proposition that
"while differences in theology exist between the churches
in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.
And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it is
usually a sound rule to focus on the latter, on the great
moral principles that urge us all on a common course."
While insisting that he did not define his
presidential candidacy by his religion, Romney wished his
hearers to know that, as a man who adheres to "the faith
of my fathers," as president he would not attempt to
separate the country from "the God who gave us liberty."
The Founders of the United States, Romney said, did not
intend to eliminate religion from the public square. In
recent times, the doctrine of the separation of church of
state has been taken too far, to the point where religion
is treated as a purely private matter and secularism has
been raised to the status of a religion.
American moral values, Romney asserted, are not
unique to any single church or denomination. Rather, they
belong "to the great moral heritage we hold in common."
And Romney pledged not to try to separate the country
from that heritage, while implying that he would, indeed,
seek to bring the two together again.
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, "Even by the low
standards of this campaign, it was a distressing
moment...." The editors professed to be shocked by the
spectacle of "a presidential candidate cowed into
defending his way of worshipping God by a powerful
minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a
test for holding public office." "Religious testing," the
TIMES claimed, "has gained strength in the last few
elections." But Governor Romney did not sound in the
least cowed. Indeed, he invited voters whose
disagreements with him were irreconcilable to vote for
someone else. Nor does the demand of a constituency to
know where a candidate stands, on religion or any other
issue, amount to a "test."
Presumably, liberals who contemplate voting for
Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama wish to feel assured that
these candidates really are liberals. As it happens, the
whole of the primary season thus far has been about which
Republican candidate is the most conservative of them
all, and which Democrat the most liberal. What is wrong
with an aspirant to office who wants a religious
constituency to know where he stands on religion? A
religious test is a legal qualification to stand for
office, as imposed by the Test Act passed by the English
Parliament in 1673 that required holders of public office
to deny the doctrine of transubstantiation and take
communion in the Anglican Church. One presumes the
editors of the TIMES understand that.
The TIMES complains that, unlike the Founders,
Governor Romney in particular and conservative Christians
in general fail to understand, as the Founders did, "the
difference between celebrating religious faith as a
virtue, and imposing a particular doctrine, or even
religion in general, on everyone." But the burden of
Romney's speech was precisely that he had no intention of
imposing doctrine on anybody.
His argument really comes down to this: The public
square is not just for politics, if only because politics
is always about so much else, including religion. As far
as the poor agnostics and atheists are concerned, they
are the victims of their own self-imposed separation from
the human mainstream going back hundreds of thousands of
years. Individuals may survive, and even flourish, as
atheists. Societies, however, cannot -- more important,
they will not. Governor Romney, to his eternal credit,
has said the thing that has needed saying for a long time
in the upper echelons of American politics.
Still, we have the Mormon business before us. In the
weakest, most evasive, most dishonest paragraph of his
speech, Romney astonishingly took a leaf from what would
be the NEW YORK TIMES's brief against him. "There are
some," he said, "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." If I were
running for the office of president of the United States,
I certainly would not care to have it known that my
church believed that Christ, though carnally begotten by
Our Heavenly Father, was not divine. Nor that Satan and
Jesus are biological brothers. On the other hand, if I
did truly believe in the faith of my fathers, I wouldn't
attempt to hide my beliefs by arranging an elaborate
media event to deter people from finding out about them.
Mike Huckabee -- by stopping just short of calling
Mormonism a cult -- called Mormonism a cult. Is it?
Some years ago, when I was living 90 air miles from
Salt Lake City -- in the shadow of the Mormon Temple, so
to speak -- a friend told my wife and me a story. This
friend had a Mormon acquaintance who was preparing to
give birth to her 15th child. (The Church urges every
Mormon family in good standing to produce 12 children.)
The woman had nearly died giving birth to her 14th and
had been warned by her doctor against further
pregnancies. Shortly before the child was due, our
friend, in conversation with a Mormon lady who was a
friend also of the expectant mother, expressed concern
for the outcome of her labor. "Oh," this woman replied
reassuringly, "if Mrs. X dies, the Church will find Mr. X
a new wife."
I wonder what the Huckabee-for-President crowd would
make of that story?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/fgf/williamson/2008/cw071221.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2007 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation,
All rights reserved.
Chilton Williamson Jr. is an author, columnist, and
editor. He was history editor for St. Martin's Press and
literary editor for NATIONAL REVIEW magazine. Since 1989
he has been senior editor for books at CHRONICLES
magazine, where he also contributes a monthly column,
"The Hundredth Meridian," recording his life and
adventures in the Rocky Mountain West.
A more detailed biography can be found at
http://www.chiltonwilliamson.com/.
Write the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation at
FGF@vacoxmail.com to obtain permission to reprint this
article.