Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Local GOP Chairman Amends Gaff... | Shit's In the PI »

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Romney’s Speech on Mormonism

posted by on December 6 at 9:45 AM

I’m still listening to the big speech Mitt Romney gave this morning in Texas in an effort to allay people’s concerns about his Mormon faith. (You can watch video here.)

But there’s already some interesting analysis up on the east coast blogs. In his speech, Romney pronounced that he believes in Jesus (“I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind”) and had a lot to say about the role of religion in politics, including this:

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.’

Jonathan Martin hears that as a “War on Christmas” shout-out.

Joe Klein parses Romney’s statements on the relationship between religion and freedom:

I do, however, have a substantive problem with statements like this:

Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.

And this:

Liberty is a gift from God, not an indulgence of government.

Certainly, freedom of religion requires freedom…although I’m not sure that the Church (or the Mosque) has been a bastion of freedom over the centuries. And freedom would, presumably, be available to a nation of secular humanists who didn’t much like religion (as the vibrant state of democracy and comatose state of religion in western Europe, which Romney referenced, will attest).

And as for liberty being a gift from God—why didn’t God give it to everyone? He didn’t like the Chinese? In fact, liberty is no indulgence, but the hard work of government.

And Sullivan strikes a similar note in his take on the speech:

It has two deep flaws. The first is the absence of any notion that religious freedom includes the freedom to have no religion whatever. A president of the United States does not just represent people of all faiths, he also represents those who have none…

The second flaw is that he simply cannot elide the profound theological differences between the LDS church and mainstream Christianity. Since I’m a secularist - a Christian secularist - this doesn’t make a difference to me. But if you are appealing to religious people, especially fundamentalists, on the basis of faith, you cannot logically then ask them to ignore the content of the faith…

I think it’s a tragedy that a man of Romney’s obvious gifts should be reduced to this. But he asked for it; and the petard he has been hoist on is his own. If you want a religious politics, you’ll end up with one. That’s why Huckabee is the natural heir to the Rove project. And why Romney is falling behind.

RSS icon Comments

1

It is kind of sad. Not saying I'm a Romney fan, but he MUST have some kind of respect for people with little to no faith and their choices otherwise he would not have been so successful in Massachusetts (fuck I grew next to the state and I forgot how to spell it). With his flip flopping on the prochoice thing ... I thing I doubt he will get the vote from Mass.

I just wish these douchebags would stop believing that because they are Christian they are morally superiour. (One I miss about CT politics and CT republicans ... none of them really buy it) This might sound totally Nizche of me, but I'm willing to go to eternal hell if it makes the world a better place and other people. Why? because in hell I doubt they can take away my concience.

Take that fundys!

Posted by OR Matt | December 6, 2007 10:00 AM
2

"Freedom requires religion" ???!
He has no chance in general election after this.
Go Romney!

Posted by Karl | December 6, 2007 10:04 AM
3

Oh how I love stories like this, please mormon god, christian god, buddah, etc... let this man get the GOP nomination. I want to see him spanked like a kid who shit on the carpet.

Take the analogy as you may.

Posted by Homo Will | December 6, 2007 10:09 AM
4

"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.’"

He will NOT, however, take care to separate the affairs of religion from government.


Posted by monkey | December 6, 2007 10:10 AM
5

The GOP has lead us down the road of Theocratic Government and this was going to happen at some point. We have officially entered full force into religious tests for the highest office in the land. The only debate left on the right is what the actual type of Christianity is acceptable. In other words our politicians are determining issues of doctrine that will be appropriate for governing the country. And are you wondering where that leads to? Take a look at 16th century Europe and the religious wars. Will this one be violent? Probably not but the damage will be unfathonable.

Posted by Just Me | December 6, 2007 10:12 AM
6
Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.

Actually, just the opposite is true. Freedom does not require religion in any way. It is obviously possible for people to have freedom in the complete absence of religion. And if religion requires freedom, what were the Crusades all about? Or the Inquisition?

What an ass.

Posted by SDA in SEA | December 6, 2007 10:24 AM
7

Valid critiques, but so predictable, and with 70% of Americans being just fine with what Romney said it won't get us very far.

Why not insead take what he said that we sort of agree with and turn it againsthim?

He said the fundamental principle is that every life has value.

So why not gays, Mitt?

Why not people without health care, Mitt?

Why not Iraqis, Mitt?

He said a fundamental principle is service.

So why fire thousands of people when you take over their companies, Mitt? Is that service?

He said as Americans we all have deep moral values.

I believe this to be very true as everyone, left or right, has deep values of right and wrong.

So say Mitt, if you are so moral, why the flip flops? Is it moral to say one thing in Masschusetts and another when funning for the GOP nomination?

I am as atheistic as the next fellow in Seattle but it sems protesting his hypocrisy and that of other Christians gets us farther than trying to tell them to recognize atheism is wonderful.

The sermon on the mount and the golden rule and though shall not lie should be our weapons. that's what most Americans believe in religious and atheist. That's how we build a consensus, that's what leads to health care, a better foreign policy, helping victims of Katrina and victims down in Chehalis.

Posted by unPC | December 6, 2007 10:25 AM
8

The thing is, if pressed on this topic I don't think any Dem would say much different. With the vast majority of Americans being religious, there would be no point in taking such a risk.

I read The Audacity of Hope a while ago, and the part that really turned me off was the obligatory section on his "faith." it seems he actually had a time where he turned away from any kind of church, and might have even been an atheist. I'm paraphrpasing, but his argument for going back to whatever church he went to was more or less the argument that he believed people should be good and do unto others and so on. That, and he liked the community of the church. Wow, thanks for calling me an immoral, self-centered piece of crap, Obama!

Posted by Levislade | December 6, 2007 10:35 AM
9

@1,

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

Posted by keshmeshi | December 6, 2007 10:49 AM
10

Anyone else think we should dump out typical innagural ceremony and have a coronation in the National Cathedral? The next president can be named not only the President but HEAD of the American Church (whatever that maybe). GOD SAVE THE PRESIDENT!!

Posted by Just Me | December 6, 2007 10:50 AM
11

i think there are many people who will not vote for romney because he is mormon. he had to say something. it was not as elegant as JFK's speech (posted earlier). JFK's speech made me not care if Romney was a mormon!

i take freedom requires religion as a way of saying "if there is no freedom of religion, there is no freedom." it makes sense in this way. not that religion makes freedom, but that without freedom of religion how could you say you had freedom sort of way.

he should have mentioned something about people who have not religion (atheist or otherwise). i guess that segment of the population is still too small.

and levi? what happened? why so immoral lately?

Posted by infrequent | December 6, 2007 11:11 AM
12

@3 - nice one.

I think that people should not criticize Romney's religion. He's just as Christian as the Muslims are, since they both regard Jesus as a prophet but not the final Prophet, and both have additional texts after the Old Testament beyond the New Testament.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 6, 2007 12:11 PM
13

why are we even talking about romney? just for kicks? ok...well, the discussion he elicits is interesting, anyway.

Posted by ellarosa | December 6, 2007 12:44 PM
14

As a guy who grew up Mormon, spent some time at BYU, then turned atheist, here's my take:

1) It sucks that any candidate has to participate in what John Edwards calls a "theological beauty pageant." If you're gonna run, you better go to church!

2) I *love* it when other religious groups, especially the evangelicals, say "Hey, this guy believes in a bunch of wacky bullshit, let's not vote for him!". Christ, what irony.

As per Sullivans blog:
"But if you are appealing to religious people, especially fundamentalists, on the basis of faith, you cannot logically then ask them to ignore the content of the faith…"

I have to disagree -- You can appeal to a group because you have a policy they agree with. And they believe in that policy to a large extent because of their religion, to be sure. However, if I were an evangelical, I'd vote for the guy who best represents me, not sit around and argue over how often Jesus clipped his fingernails.

Posted by BobHall | December 6, 2007 2:55 PM
15

Thanks Bob -

All the shit about how strange the Mormon faith is compared to ....... is just a crack up.

I left the Mormon system 30 years ago, and do not intend to be active again.

But this silly bashing and silly baiting is just beyond the pale.

Romney's politics suck, his church is fine when compared to the real CHURCH trash out there.

The Mormon bashing is un seemly from principled political people.

Oppose Romney because he is an out of touch Republican.

Interestingly, I have always thought he might make it to the nomination. He likes to win and has the money.

Posted by MUST STAY SECRET | December 6, 2007 4:18 PM
16

" In fact, liberty is no indulgence, but the hard work of government"


Total bull.
Govenment brings you the TSA, licensing, monitored e-mails, border restrictions, taxation, censorship, and any and all other possible methods of control, coercion, and manipulation.
Liberty is a function of the people, which is why it is in such decline.
The people are asleep.

Posted by observer | December 6, 2007 10:52 PM
17

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a baptist minister. It is not a founding document of our country. It was meant only to convey patriotism. CONGRESS added the words "under God" in 1954! To me, this is a symbol of the erosion of our founding principles. It does not bode well for Romney to invoke it. Simply historical revisionism.

Posted by davidLBC | December 7, 2007 9:29 AM
18

sujviwkl hvrgzbejd ybzvmw goiyec kzgqh bozagx zwmjf

Posted by gbjrxdvsm sintd | December 13, 2007 7:03 AM
19

oacz fpdkn acvfe xtly qpev wqzulcyrg ygwuon http://www.fhuov.swygatuk.com

Posted by yzofarls kjqms | December 13, 2007 7:05 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).