Romney's giving "the Mormon Speech" on Thursday. Should Huckabee have to give one first?

Question

I just read a pair of articles by Richard Cohen that were very enlightening. He basically says that if Romney and Kennedy had to give speeches about how their religion won't interfere with their abilities, and how their personal faith won't influence U.S. policy, then why doesn't Mike Huckabee, or anyone else who runs on their "faith" have to do the same? After all, this isn't an entirely Christian country. But under George W. Bush, we've had any number of policy decisions directly decided by his "Christian" views.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120301620.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111901187.html

Mike Huckabee is making himself the "Christian candidate" in Iowa. Should he have to promise all of the Muslims and Jews and Pagans and Atheists in America that he won't impose his beliefs on them?

Answer 1

i don't know that anyone MADE kennedy or romney give such speeches. i imagine their political advisors felt it was a savvy move to make such a speech, since their religious views are not in line with the majority of people in their party. (most republicans aren't mormon, and most 1960s democrats weren't catholic.)

if romney was REQUIRED to make this speech, then you'd have a major double-standard. until then, this remains another example of political posturing.

Answer 2

I think that people see Huckabee as belonging to mainstream Christianity and for some reason Romney and Kennedy aren't/weren't seen that way. Catholicism and Mormonism tend to have something of a stigma about them. There are many misconceptions, unfounded rumors and unjustified biases. Huckabee's religion gives him a political advantage because the bulk of the "Christian Right" identify with it. Romney's religion is politically more of a disadvantage. Romney is competing not only with the other Republican candidates, but also with the stigma that his religion seems to have. Because Huckabee is not fighting a similar stigma, there is no reason for him to make a similar speach.

Answer 3

Richard Cohen is extreamly anti-Huckabee (somewhat because Huckabee does no longer settle for the concept of Evolution as actuality-->As a side note, Huckabee's position is many times overstated the following--He has been on the record and suggested in debates that the Bible is of route no longer meant to be interpreted actually in all aspects) Cohen and has writen a number of articles bashing him. i have examine a number of those articles and they don't look to make an exceedingly logical arguement. i might want to take his opinion with a lot skepticism. with reference for your question, neither Kennedy or Romney is/change into "compelled" to make a fact about their beliefs. Kennedy chosen to finish that because many voters were unfamiliar such as his faith -- and were somewhat in contact no matter if his faith might want to require him to obey orders from the Pope in Rome, the top of the Catholic Church. This woudl be an issue for voters because the Pope's judgements may contradict with the structure (and the President's oath to maintain and preserve). Romney is attempting a similr, yet nonetheless diverse problem. He has determined that sufficient everybody is unfamiliar such as his faith and they human beings should carry close if his loyalties and duties lower than his faith might want to contradict such as his loyalties and duties as president. For Kennedy and Romney, this is about explaining the function of their non secular leaders and their duties lower than their faith. Huckabee is a Baptist, and we've had a good number of Baptist presidents. i imagine that individuals's information about the function of a religious chief contained in the Baptist faith is slightly better understood than that of Mormanism. If it wasn't, then Huckabee too may opt to make a speech. the base line although is that Romney and Kennedy chosen (or are figuring out on) to furnish a speech because they experience it may help their campaign. they are lower than no legal responsibility to finish that in the adventure that they do no longer want to.

Answer 4

It's just that most people don't know about Romney's faith.

I think most people know that Mr. Huckabee believes the universe to be 6000 years old, that the earth was created before the stars and that outerspace is full of water.

Answer 5

If Huckabee is elected, I may have to move. Luckily, there is no way in hell he will be.

Yes, he should have to if Romney does. Romney is at least somewhat sensible about his religious beliefs, Huckabee thinks the world is 6,000 years old. In order to do so, he must reject science. In order for someone that intentionally ignorant to be able to run our country, he needs to promise that he will listen to his science advisors on everything. In order for me to consider him even semi-competent, he would need to cede all decision making power to his advisors. With his views, I wouldn't trust his understanding of foreign policy, energy conservation, tax reform, or anything else.

Answer 6

I have to say it's interesting how we went from Kennedy saying faith *wouldn't* interfere with his politics to most current candidates saying it *will*.

The Romney thing will be interesting. Part of me has to wonder -- can he really, really believe that stuff? And will he talk about it?

Answer 7

Politics is a numbers game. Those in the minority always have to jump through hoops. :-)

Answer 8

He is going to have a speech about it.

The Washington Post is liberal trash too.