NBC's Gregory, Lauer didn't challenge Romney's claims on religious test
SUMMARY: On NBC's Today, David Gregory stated that, in his speech, Mitt Romney "urged voters to reject a religious test for his candidacy," then aired clips of Romney saying, "I will serve no one religion," and "[a] person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith." Similarly, Matt Lauer did not challenge Romney's claim that he "do[es]n't believe that the people in this country are going to choose a person based upon their faith or what church they go to." Neither Gregory nor Lauer noted that Romney has asserted, on several occasions, that Americans "want a person of faith to lead them."
During the December 12 broadcast of NBC's Today, introducing his report on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's faith, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory stated, "[Former] Governor Romney [MA], as you know, urged voters to reject a religious test for his candidacy." In his subsequent report, Gregory aired clips of Romney saying, "I will serve no one religion," and "[a] person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith." Later, during an interview with Today co-host Matt Lauer, Romney asserted: "I don't believe that the people in this country are going to choose a person based upon their faith or what church they go to." However, neither Gregory nor Lauer noted that Romney has asserted, on several occasions, that Americans "want a person of faith to lead them," as Media Matters for America has documented.
Additionally, in his December 6 "Faith in America" speech, Romney attacked unnamed people who "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," claiming: "It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong." Romney further claimed that "[f]reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," and "[f]reedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Later, Romney said, "[W]e 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." After asserting that "[a]ny believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me," Romney stated, "We do not insist on a single strain of religion; rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
As Media Matters noted, after Romney gave his speech, Washington Post reporter Sally Quinn said on MSNBC Live: "I'm really stunned because I think it was an obliteration of the idea of the separation of church and state. He eliminated anybody who was a doubter, an atheist, an agnostic, a seeker. It's like, if you believe in God or Christ, you're on my side. If not, you're not."
As Media Matters has also noted, several news outlets have uncritically reported Romney's comments on faith in politics. For instance, on the December 10 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric asked Romney "why he didn't spend more time explaining the tenets of his Mormon faith in his speech." Romney replied: "I can't imagine doing that in a speech as you're running for president. ... [T]hat would really open the door to the kind of religious test where people would listen and say, 'OK, do I believe that?' " He further stated that "[n]o religious test should ever be required for qualification for office in these United States."
Similarly, The Washington Post reported on December 10 that Romney "repeatedly asserts his firm belief in the separation of church and state." In a December 6 article, the Associated Press reported Romney's complaint that a "religious test" to become president was "prohibited in the Constitution." Further, on the December 9 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, panelists praised Romney's December 6 speech, with syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker claiming, "New Englanders tend to respond to religion more in terms of liberty and tolerance than in terms of emotional responses."
From the December 12 broadcast of NBC's Today:
GREGORY: Matt, good morning. Governor Romney, as you know, urged voters to reject a religious test for his candidacy, but questions surrounding his Mormon faith have not gone away.
[begin video clip]
ROMNEY: I will serve no one religion.
GREGORY: Romney's speech was designed to quiet concerns about his Mormon faith once and for all, and stop the rise of former Baptist minister Mike Huckabee, now the front-runner in Iowa.
ROMNEY: A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
HUCKABEE: Faith doesn't just influence me, it really defines me.
GREGORY: Huckabee has sold himself as a Christian leader in Iowa, where many evangelical voters don't consider Mormons to be true followers of Christ. And now there is this from an upcoming interview in The New York Times Magazine: quote, " 'Don't Mormons,' Huckabee asked in an innocent voice, 'believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?' " Mormon scholars insist that is a misstatement of the church's belief. Romney has stood by his church.
[end video clip]
[...]
LAUER: And here we go again, Governor, this subject that we started talking about months and months ago on the campaign trail is back again. Let's talk about this interview that Governor Huckabee gave to The New York Times Magazine. It'll be published this weekend. Asked if he thought the Mormon faith was a cult or religion, he said, "I think it's a religion," he said. "I really don't know much about it." And then he asked what the reporter termed "an innocent question." Quoting from the article: " 'Don't Mormons,' he asked in an innocent voice, 'believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?' " So, two questions, Governor: First, would you like to comment on the question? And, second, do you think it was an innocent question?
ROMNEY: Well, I'll tell you, of course the church has already come out and clarified that and set the record straight on that. And that's been something that's been leveled at our church over many, many years, and of course that's been set straight now. But, you know, I think it's totally appropriate in a political process for people to contrast their own record with the opponent, to talk about their differences on issues, but I think attacking someone's religion is really going too far. It's just not the American way. And I think people will reject that. I think, fundamentally, Americans don't --
LAUER: So, would you say there was nothing innocent about the question? That it was designed to send -- almost speaking in code, that Mitt Romney -- saying to evangelicals, "Mitt Romney is not a true Christian"?
ROMNEY: You know, I have the highest respect for Mike Huckabee and I'm certainly not going to go after him on his campaign. I can tell you, I think he's a good man; he's trying to do the best he can. And I don't believe that the people in this country are going to choose a person based upon their faith or what church they go to. I think they want to see a person who has beliefs and convictions and the kind of character and experience that can lead the nation in a very difficult time.
LAUER: Although you realize, of course, that it's -- it is an issue because you felt the need to go out and make this speech on your faith last Thursday, and I'm just curious about it. Here you were directly discussing your faith, and yet, you only used the word Mormon one time in that entire speech. Why?
ROMNEY: Well, actually, we prefer the name the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormon used to be a nickname, and I don't use it a lot, but now and then I do, because people know what faith I'm referring to. I talked about my faith a number of times. And I don't imagine anybody is confused about what faith I have. I'm proud of my faith. I'm not going to distance myself from my faith in any way. If that sinks my candidacy, so be it. But I don't believe this is a campaign about which church you go to. I think it's a campaign about what direction America is going to take. We face extraordinary challenges and I think I've got the skills and the vision and the experience to get America on the right track.
LAUER: One of the subjects a lot of people are concerned about is immigration.
From Romney's December 6 speech:
ROMNEY: Over the last year, we've embarked on a national debate and how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I'll also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my presidency, if I were elected.
There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they're at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution" he said, "was made [sic: only] for a moral and religious people.' "
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I'll answer them today.
[...]
ROMNEY: 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.
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation under God, and in God we do indeed trust.
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 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.
Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray, but there were objections. They were too divided in religious sentiments, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
the founders did not put god on "our currency" or "our pledge". those were later acts of congress.
two quarters from the 1840s-50s. no in god we trust.
http://www.collect1.coinsandstamps.com/uscoins/Seated%20Liberty%20Quarters/seated_liberty_quarters.htm
Romney did not ask voters to reject a religious test for office. He asked voters to apply a test and find him to be the great christian candidate.
"[a] person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith."
I strongly disagree with the second part. First, in my opinion, a person's religious beliefs may very well reflect on that person's judgment. For example, to use an exaggerated example, if a candidate's religion teaches him that Jesus Christ resides in a space craft orbiting the moon then I would like to know if that candidate subscribes to that belief because, in my opinion, that belief is so peculiar that it reflects poorly on that candidate's judgment and his use of his intellectual powers. I would find it hard to vote for a person with any supernatural beliefs that I consider unacceptably irrational.
Secondly, if a candidate's religious belief's might affect his decisions in matters such as in foreign policy in such a way that I would consider those beliefs dangerous to world peace and the survival of mankind I would not vote for that candidate because of his religious beliefs. For example, if a candidate's religious beliefs dictate the establishment of international boundaries and claims of ownership of land based upon ancient religious texts then his religious beliefs would prevent me from voting for him.
But, does Mitt Romney really believe his own campaign rhetoric? I believe Mitt Romney is on record indicating that he would not see fit to appoint a Muslim to a Cabinet level position in his administration. I'm sure Romney would not say out loud that Muslim candidates should be rejected because to say that Romney would undermine his own argument that people should ignore his own religion beliefs. But if it is acceptable to question candidates'qualifications because of their belief in Islam then it is fair, in my opinion, to question all candidates of strong religious faith, regardless of the particular faith. No splitting hairs...
IRONY,
You are right on!
However, I tend to believe in what Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said about organized religion.....
That it is for the weak minded.
But, I would add that though I believe that is the case, I don't think that a personal belief in a savior or higher power makes one weak of mind...... just blindly following supposed leaders of it!
In other words, I don't think one has to go to church or pray to God for God to acknowledge that you are there.
In politics, especially politics in what is supposed to be a free country, religion based within a church has no business holding hands with politics......
I do believe that ones faith in something like God shouldn't automatically disqualify them from public office, and I'm an agnostic saying this!
But the church or religion they follow needs to be put into their pocket or left at home while they are in office for the duration!
There was a reason our founding fathers put the words Seperation of Church and State within the Declaration and said that the people of America would have a freedom OF religion (or no religion at all!)......
So that what was happening in England at the time (religion having much to do with government), wouldn't happen here! PERIOD!
So much for factual history..........
Aye, aye Captain!
Cap, I just finished a quick reading of the Declaration and although I find the word "Separation", I do not find the words "Church", "Religion" or any closely related. A quick scanning of the Constitution (which I think you were referring to above) leaves my still searching for the word "Separation", although "Religion" is mention in the 1st Amendment which says there will be no State Church, but we are free to practice our religion, or lack of, as we see fit. This has not happened at various times in our history and may not again in the future, which may give rise to another Timothy McVeigh or the like.
Irony, I have to disagree with you on this one. EVERYBODY'S religious beliefs are ridiculous to at least some other people, but that doesn't make either party inherently less worthy.
I would have absolutely no problem electing an official who believed in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, PROVIDED s/he would not in any way allow The Noodly Appendage to meddle in matters of state.
No matter how irrational someone's personal beliefs are, if s/he runs their administration on sound, evidence-based policy, encourage valuable and accurate science, and respect others' rights to practice their religion (or lack thereof), whatever a candidate purports to believe is none of my business, just as what I believe (or, more to the point, what I don't believe) is none of their business.
Of course, if a candidate does have a history of lunatic, mystical raving, I would probably scrutinize his public actions and voting record very very carefully before I could be convinced that he would act rationally.
All supernatural beliefs are irrational. Just because science has not come up with an explanation yet does not mean the answer isn't out there.
Isn't it awful that a man who wants to be the leader of our country not only believes in a supernatural being but also it's alleged offspring (who probably never even existed at all, even as a mortal man) AND a con man who claims to be a prophet ? To me this is complete insanity ! I would prefer to not have an insane person as a President. F*ckabee is only slightly less insane, not believing in the con man prophet.
This religious stuff scares me, why do these people not remember we are not a theocracy, this is not Iran. We do not have Ayatollahs. After 7 years of Bush it better end in this election.
I say keep religion in the political spotlight. The bottom line is some candidates want to reap the benefits of being regarde as religiousand all that is implied by that, but yet are fearful of an examination of the particulars of some of their religious beliefs that may turn off other voters.
Mitt Romney's approach is seemingly lifted from an episode of South Park about a nauseatingly wholesome Mormon kid. In the end the kid says he doesn't care if Joseph Smith was a fraud and wasn't able to read secret scripture inside a hat. What matters to him is that his family is full of goodness. Fair enough...
However, when we are electing the most powerful man on earth I want to know more than whether he's considered to be a good person. Does this person's religious faith cause him to ignore science in favor of the supernatural such that true scientific progress will be retarded? All because his literal belief in ancient religious texts conflicts with science? Is this person capable of exacerbating violence in the Middle East because of his beliefs taken literally from ancient scripture? In my opinion, scrutiny of a candidate's religiosity is very important.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men [meaning mankind] are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights: that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
From the abolition movement to the civil rights movement, religious leaders in the US have always been in the forefront of promoting liberty and freedom. In my view, Romney's position is pretty well established.
In terms of "challenging" Romney, why do secularists always think that people of faith are so uniformed that a simple question will bring them to their knees? I'm sure that Romney is well prepared.
But then, so was the Rev. Martin Luther King, jr.
"From the abolition movement to the civil rights movement, religious leaders in the US have always been in the forefront of promoting liberty and freedom"
Yea? Like in the days of slavery before the Civil War when many preachers justified slavery from the pulpit? As I recall, didn't that provide the impetus for the establishment of the Southern Baptist Convention?
But I won't argue that some religious people haven't done good things. I just think you are overstating their contribution.
As for Romney he is a totally opportunistic fraud. I lost what little respect I had for him when he groveled for, and accepted, the endorsement of an Evangelical leader who had characterized Mormonism as a cult. Romney won't even defend his religion against slurs like this. If I was a Mormon I would have been insulted.
Because Secularists actually believe in the constition, Article VI, and the first amendment. We believe that religion has no place in the government, not because we're not religious, but because we don't want the government favoring one religion over another.
Article VI states that there shall be no religious litmus test for ever holding office, yet that is exactly what has happened. We believe in JFK's argument that religion is ultimately a private thing. Just as you wouldn't want other people pushing their religion upon you, you shouldn't push your religion on others.
And before you get into things, I am a Christian. I am a member of an American Baptist Church. However, part of our history is that Church and State remain ultimately seperate. The church cannot become the government, and the government cannot become the church.
And your statement that Romney's view is pretty well established is not true. First off, fundamental to his argument is that freedom cannot exist without freedom. So, what he's stating is that a bunch of atheists cannot get together and write a constitution that protects the rights and freedoms of the people under them. That is something that I just cannot accept.
But the ultimate thing is whether or not a particular religion should disqualify someone from office. I say no. The Constitution says no. Most of Americans say yes.
"But the ultimate thing is whether or not a particular religion should disqualify someone from office. I say no. The Constitution says no. Most of Americans say yes. "
Keep in mind the distinction between disqualification and rejection. I absolutely agree that religious affiliation or the lack thereof should not and does not, as provided by the Constitution, disqualify anyone from public office. However, I am becoming more attuned to the notion of rejecting a political candidate (by not voting for him) because of what I perceive, in my judgment, to be disturbing aspects of that candidate's religious beliefs.
In my opinion, the notion of voter rejection because of religious beliefs is simply a logical progression from the increase in candidates now using their religious faith to attract voters.
The flip side is prevalent as well, perhaps even more so. In 2000 and 2004 how many times did we hear voters interviewed who said "I support George W. Bush because he shares my Christian values." I recall hearing that a lot.
dunstvangeet,
I will only disagree with you on one point......
You said that a group of atheists couldn't be able to produce a Constitution that would protect everyones liberties or freedoms of religion?
I wholly disagree on this.......
If anything, a group of non-believers might very well be more willing to allow others to follow whatever it is they believed in! And put it in writting.
I don't doubt they would be like any other group and try and convince you otherwise but they wouldn't be doing it for a God they thought was tougher than any other God, they'd be doing it for more down to Earth reasons......
Other than that....... your right on!
You two are actually in agreement. Here is what Dunstvangeet wrote, he was attributing the claim about atheists to Romney, not himself:
And your statement that Romney's view is pretty well established is not true. First off, fundamental to his argument is that freedom cannot exist without freedom. So, what he's stating is that a bunch of atheists cannot get together and write a constitution that protects the rights and freedoms of the people under them. That is something that I just cannot accept.
ATHEIST,
Your right...... I missed that.....
I guess it was the using of 'freedom' twice instead of 'freedom' and 'religion'.....
My only excuse is that I had just gotten home from work last night and was really tired.....
I don't, in fact believe that freedom and religion need each other to survive!
Mitt is wrong on that!
So, it is at least two points that I don't agree with! I'll re-read it again and re-post as needed!
"why do secularists always think that people of faith are so uniformed that a simple question will bring them to their knees?"
Because most religious people tend to get informed by their crooked, lying, millionaire church leadership....... James Dobson, Pat Robertson, or Ted Haggert to name a few
You seem to be an exception to that rule as your presence here kind of proves?
I don't believe most religious people take their cues from the men you mentioned at all. Most religious people go about their daily lives with little regard for Dobson or Robertson. They are TV personalities as much as preachers, and they are far more political than most "religious" people.
The mainstream media loves to lump all people of faith in with these characters, and act as though they all follow their word and preachings on all things political. They are very vocal, but that's about it.
I agree totally. It's stereotyping based on the extreme bad example of some of the people in a particular group , how well do I know that.
I don't believe most religious people take their cues from the men you mentioned at all.
I don't believe you researched your statement and are just automatically defending the religious and attacking the "liberal media".
Or do "those men" not have MILLIONS of followers?
all Men [meaning mankind] are...
And you added something that changes the meaning of the text. The original certainly did not have the that "meaning mankind" editorial comment, nor was men capitalized; many "men" were excluded from the public sphere at that time as were women.
Romney: But I don't believe this is a campaign about which church you go to.
Hahaha ! He wishes !! Like a true wingnut, he wills something to be true simply by claiming it. Sorry Willard, but your Mormonism IS an issue among the wingnut base who are very fervent members of their non-Mormon cults. And as we all know, the various cults do not get along well.
ARE YOU SURPRISE? THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA WANTS RUDY OR ROMNEY. THATS WHY THEY GET A PASS. BUT MATT AND THE REST OF THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA ALWAYS LOOKS THE OTHER WAY IF IT'S AN REPUBLICAN.
Please stop yelling.
"the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests."
What a load of crap. This is a myth perpetuated by the Troglodytes who have been trying, for decades, to erase the Separation of Church and State in this country. These are the same cretins who insist that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. It's bullsh*t.
Mits hoping you all do not find out more about the morman faith. Mit thinks some mystic con artist was a prophet of god. (Joseph Smith)
The Spalding Enigma - Who wrote the Book of Morman. Enough said.
I'm going to give you all a little insight to the Mormon religion that most do not know. Also these points happen to be major problems I have with the Mormon religion.
1. Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, made specific prophesies that never came true. This is a fact. There is no wiggle room about it. The Old Testament clearly states that if a prophet predicts something and it does not come true, then he is no prophet of the lord.
2. The book of Mormon has been edited since its original publishing several times to correct discrepancies. Fact (Early 1800's)
3. Joseph Smith was a known conman. Fact. There actually exist records of court proceedings that describe Joseph being charged with theft because he was telling people he could find treasure with his magic stick if they pay him. His own mother even writes about Joseph and his wild imagination.
4. Joseph Smith committed adultery and had more than one woman many years before it became known to the overall church in his time. Brigham Young was quoted as being very devastated once he found out about Joseph and his practices with woman. In the long run, although Brigham put up a fight, polygamy was accepted as all right because Joseph received a revelation from GOD.
5.The United States Govt. passed a law in the late 1800's outlawing polygamy. With this law they went after the Mormon Church and nearly bankrupted it. Soon after the Mormon Church disavowed this practice. (Although many within the church kept their current wives. Some lived with several wives well into the middle 1900's.)
And that’s just getting started. Mormons are deceived. I don't want my president being that damn naive and blind.
i like the great mark twain's description of the book of mormon as "chloroform in print". he notes that whenever the person who wrote it got too much into modern language, he would throw in something like "and it came to pass". the link is from twain's "roughing it", his nonfiction account of life in the west. just as good is "life on the mississippi".
http://steveandersen.com/?page_id=66
http://thenonsequitur.com/?p=522
<i>how could Romney claim with a straight face that "freedom requires religion" constitutes a premise in argument for religious liberty? It’s obviously anything but, since it denies what it’s trying to prove. Any serious thinker on this matter might tell you that, however.</i>
Btw, I want to say that I am utterly and completely sick of the term "person of faith", and I want to puke every time I read it or hear it. Ugh. Person of faith = hypocrite who accepts or rejects science based on personal convenience. What's worse is that it's uttered as if it's a badge of worthiness. I'm special, I'm a good person because I'm a person of faith. <hurl>