The Romney speech: two thumbs up!

An excellent speech, I especially enjoyed the inspiring conclusion. I'm not so sure everything he says is true, religion and freedom are not mutually inclusive (if that be the opposite of mutually exclusive!) Christiany thrived under persecution at its beginnings. However, I do think that freedom of religion is a much better choice than established religion. If you are free to worship (or not) then it is a matter of conscience and free will, and not merely of complying with law. Besides, as we have seen recently even in our own country - religion and power do not mix well.

A good ending, but as Andrew Sullivan (and AntherBeliever, I think) point out, this speech divides Americans into two camps: those who have faith, and those who do not. Those of faith are lauded; those who do not profess their faith are dismissed. Sorry, but it's not that easy. Heck, back in l960, when JFK was challenged on his belief, he had the courage to say:

"I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end — where all men and all churches are treated as equal — where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice."

In contrast, Romney believes that freedom "requires" religion. Talk a religious test for public office! By this standard, Thomas Jefferson, who left all miracles out of his version of the Bible, could never be elected President.

His speech barely touched Mormonism. I thought it smelled a little more like a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" meme to religious conservatives.

Anyone who believes that there is no religious test (unofficial as it may be) for the presidency is delusional. Hell, the only reason this speech was given was to pass a religious test. And I think it is unfortunate that he had to even make it. But, you know, Republicans have been trying to marry politics and faith for a long time (if you want to get specific, they've been trying to marry the GOP and Jesus). And now they are all out of sorts when the media and voters start quizzing them on it every other day. Sorry, kids, you made that bed, now you gotta sleep in it.

Wait, people really think this speech was something more than a zzzz-rific litany of pious platitudes?

So Romney would be the President of all the Monotheists in America.

jaybird has the best and most succinct analysis so far.

I just wish he'd have done it in the evenings so us cubicle dwellers could have heard/seen it live.

franz:

I note that in your rebuttal, you point to the actions of prominent Founders involving them speaking on the importance of religion in society -- not government.

I have no problem in giving to church, to strengthening the bonds our little platoons of democracy or encouraging church attendance. Mitt Romney's cynical words on how only "men of faith" (and whose faith, exactly?) can become President is something else entirely, and should be an alien concept to a nation of 300 million citizens of differing faiths or lack thereof. Let that be the operative words of an Islamic Republic of Iran or a Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Let's agree that what's good for society isn't necessarily good for government.

DU

The question is not whether there is a separation of church and state or if Romney has a constitutional right to run. The question is ethically from a Christian perspective can I vote for a Mormon whose doctrine leads millions to hell according to my belief. I respect the fact he is sincere in his beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact I believe he's seriously wrong. My allegiance is ultimately to God and He informs by by scripture and general revelation, not to the republican party, conservative principles, or my country. I just don't see how I can vote for a man who I believe is a member and a follower of the world's most dangerous cult.

"I just don't see how I can vote for a man who I believe is a member and a follower of the world's most dangerous cult." Joseph

The world's most dangerous cult is Homosocialism; look what it has done to the Democrat Party here, and to Canada, Briton and Europe, and ALMOST to the Catholic Church in the last 50 years. Romney would fight it more than any electible GOP candidate.

"[W]orld's most dangerous cult," Joseph? You must live in a much safer world than do I.

Be it noted that the equivocal epithet "cult" has been thrown around a lot in comboxes here lately. I grew up believing Mormonism to be a cult because its Christology was wrong. I still believe that - more than ever, actually.

But over the course of my lifetime, "cult" has taken on a sociological meaning that predominates over the theological. As Wikipedia puts it, "A group's populist cult status begins as rumors of its novel belief system, its great devotions, its idiosyncratic practices, its perceived harmful or beneficial effects on members, or its perceived opposition to the interests of mainstream cultures and governments."

In temporal terms, it seems to me that Mormonism is anything but harmful ("dangerous") to its members.

Cleveland, all due respect, of course, but I think you might be forgetting that Romney was governor of Mass. when gay marriage was legalized there; in reading some of his statements at that time, and looking at the way he handled things generally, I don't really have any confidence in him on this issue. People tend not to realize that Romney originally ran as a "moderate" in Massachusetts, and has wavered back and forth on the issue of gay marriage almost as much as he has on abortion.

While I generally hate the whole "our diversity is our strength" approach to anything...

But....our diversity is our strength. Unanimity, especially in "churchy" matters, is the mother of intolerance and persecution. (If we were all united in the teachings of Jesus about how we ought to love one another it would be different, but that idea has not yet penetrated the collective consciousness of ANY culture.)

Romney: I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

Mitt's been to Europe, and he was paying attention when he went. His observations here coincide with mine. He's giving them maybe more credit than they deserve when he says there are "many" people of strong faith in Europe. Depends on what you mean by "many." There are some. But the churches, Catholic and Protestant both, are empty.

My reaction (HTTP://)

community.beliefnet.com/blogs/3582

BTW, on a side note, it will be of note to CC comboxers infuriated with my liberalism that I just received this vicious attack FROM THE LEFT on David Kuo’s blog:

“I've checked around. Ridiculous and grandiose appears to be LP's stock in trade.

“The CC crowd don't give him any quarter because he's to the left of them, so he gives grief to those left of him because they won't twist their minds up to believe his brand of what he calls "logic."

“Give it up, LP. Stop trying to suck up to conservatives by playing the good Uncle Tom Liberal. Though it may garner you a few more clicks on your yawn-fest of a blog, you're not winning any points.”

And no, I don't know what an "Uncle Tom Liberal" is, either.

Don't often get a chance to agree with David Brooks, so it's worth quoting him when I do:

"When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics."

Precisely. In his own prim A+ student sort of way, Romney is as binary as Bush, as irritating as O'Reilly: either you're one of the faithful, and with him on the glory train, or you're Godless, and bound for hell.

A lot of Americans don't fit into those neat little boxes. One of my favorite examples: Woody Guthrie, who one minute could call himself a Communist, and the next write a song like "Airplane to Heaven."

"Them's got ears, let them hear
Them's got eyes, let them see
Turn your eyes to the lord of the skies

Take that airline plane
It'll take you home again
To your home behind the skies..."

"The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches."

That's an interesting point. To what extent do you think state religion leads to irreligion?

Cleveland:

Objectively, you haven't been paying attention to the Democratic polls about the surge of a certain Senator from Illinois (or, for that matter, the GOP polls about the surge of a certain former governor of Arkansas -- or the enduring popularity of a certain Senator from Arizona, at least in New Hampshire).

But then again, to willfully ignore him, you probably think that Obama, as Gene Robinson of the WaPo brilliantly described Hillary Clinton's reaction to him today, is an "uppity black." Regardless of your objections to his politics/policies.

Mitt-o-Bot: "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."

Um, has Mitt ever heard of, oh, Saudi Arabia? Plenty of religion, not so much freedom.

Freedom and religion work in the United States, because religion was brought to heel on our shores.

The Gospel Jesus lived in Galilee. The Mormon Jesus lived in Albany. (Where he fought the Indians. Because he wasn't just the Lamb of God, he was also the Last of the Mohicans.) Mormon Jesus? Three wives, a planetful of kids. Gospel Jesus? Living alone and loving it.

The Mormon Jesus lived in Galilee. Born in Bethlehem, grew up in Galilee, three year ministry in Jerusalem and its environs, betrayed by Judas to the Jews, crucified by the Romans on Calvary, dying there for the sins of all mankind, laid in a tomb and resurrecting on the third day, speaking with his apostles for a while and then ascending to his Father. Its a common story. Surely you've heard of it? The Mormon addition is that at some time after his resurrection, Christ visited the Americas in some unknown location to proclaim himself, preach his gospel, and institute baptism and the sacrament of communion. I'm pretty sure your first sentence--"the Gospel Jesus lived in Galilee"--is the only one you have any basis for?

Mitt: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Matt: "Um, has Mitt ever heard of, oh, Saudi Arabia? Plenty of religion, not so much freedom."

Thank you for making Mitt's point: Saudi Arabia is an example of people having not much freedom in general because they have no freedom of religion, and vice versa. You are free to worship your religion of Secularism because the U.S. grants you freedom in general.

Kit:

I know you just misspoke, but during Hanukkah of all times, let us be clear that the Holocaust was more than an "attempt" ...