Romney's faith

At the Findlaw site, constitutional-law expert Prof. Doug Kmiec (who is, as he discloses, an advisor to Gov. Romney) has an essay called "Religion and Public Life:  Why it's a Good Choice for Presidential Candidate and Governor Mitt Romney to Specifically Address the Topic of his Faith."  Prof. Kmiec writes:

Romney's faith is actually his greatest strength. It defines him as a person of integrity in interpersonal dealings, of service to the nation and community, and of fidelity to his family. These are things that cannot be said about every candidate in the race.

I agree that not "every candidate" for the President is a "person of integrity."  But, I admit, I have some reservations, or at least some questions, about the statement that Romney's faith is "actually his greatest strength" because it "defines him as a person of integrity[.]"  If this means that, in Gov. Romney's specific case, what has formed him to be the "person of integrity" that he is is, in large part, his religious faith (which means, I hope, more than just his subjective dispositions but includes his formation in a particular religious tradition), fine.  But, is the statement intended to suggest that what identifies, or marks, or "defines" a candidate, as a general matter, as a "person of integrity", is his or her "faith"?  Such a statement would strike me as more problematic.  And, I suspect that Prof. Kmiec does not intend this latter suggestion -- to suggest that integrity and faith wax and wane together.  There is a danger, nonetheless, that some will hear it. 

Prof. Kmiec also writes:  "Romney's faith is also the best refutation of the flip-flopper indictment. Being a member of a faith that is constantly under public scrutiny necessarily invites one to check one's presuppositions at the door."  The claim, as I understand it, is that Romney's religious affiliation, and his experience of being an outsider, has made him the kind of open-minded person who can (and has) change his mind when convincing reasons for doing so are presented.  This is interesting; is it plausible?  Don't get me wrong:  I much prefer Gov. Romney's current position on, say, abortion to ones that he has endorsed in the past.  And, I certainly hope the reason for the change is that, out of open-mindedness, he heard and embraced new, better, pro-life arguments (and not that he came to appreciate the fact that, particularly with Mayor Guiliani in the race, a pro-life governor of Massachusetts was more likely to have success in Republican primaries than a pro-choice governor of Massachusetts.)

With respect to the inescapable "Kennedy Speech" comparisons, Kmiec writes:

Kennedy, however, had a special burden that Romney does not bear.Catholicism, prior to the Second Vatican Council, saw itself as entitled to be recognized as a state religion. . . .

The Mormon Church has never claimed that it is entitled to be an established faith of the United States. Moreover, there is no sense in which the Mormon Church could be said, through its leadership, to be seeking to control public decision-making. Indeed, quite the opposite, it would be entirely appropriate for Governor Romney to point out that his faith has been a persecuted faith.

It is not clear to me, actually, that the Roman Catholic Church has not been, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a persecuted church, at some points in our history.  Obviously, the Catholic Church has not been "persecuted" for a while, but I'm not sure the LDS church has, either.  Nor is it obvious to me that the LDS church has not, in the past, and in particular contexts, taken the position that it may and should be "established", in some sense.  (Am I wrong about this?)   

Finally, Kmiec writes, by way of criticism of Kennedy's speech: 

. . .  Kennedy made it clear that in presidential decision-making, he would not be taking instruction from the fathers of the Church. That is as it should be. What was uncomfortable, however, was Kennedy's suggestion that his faith could somehow be separated from his most important life commitments, from caring about the less advantaged to pressing forward on civil rights. Romney, unlike Kennedy, should not hide the virtues of his faith under a bushel.

I share this reservation about Kennedy's speech.  But then, Kmiec says, "Governor Romney is calling America to its better self. Whether the speech he will make about his faith ultimately benefits the Governor as a candidate will depend more upon us than on him -- that is, upon whether we are prepared to judge a person not by the religious book he reads, or by how often he calls himself a Christian leader, but rather by the quality of his words and his work."  It seems a fine line:  On the one hand, Romney's faith is his "greatest strength," and its "virtues" should not be hidden "under a bushel."  On the other hand, Americans are challenged to judge Romney "not by the religious book he reads", but by the "quality of his words and his work."

In any event . . . read the whole thing.  And, I'll look forward to hearing (and to others' reactions to) "the Speech."