Mitt Romney gave his speech on religion today at the George Bush library. Read it here. It's filled with the usual horseshit that one might expect from a man like Mitt:
"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.Really? Freedom requires religion? What a novel concept. It always appeared to me that religion suppresses freedom. Does anyone really need to subscribe to dogma in order to "discover (their) most profound beliefs"? If anything, I think it would serve to stunt the process.
And then we have this:
"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 is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.Ah yes, the religion of secularism. Here we are, back to "Not eating is just another kind of sandwich".
"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.Well, 'Under God' since the 1950's anyway. And apparently, he's never read Tom Paine.
There are the usual platitudes about not infecting the office with his religion, but they strike me as hollow. They appear to be designed to assuage the fears of the clumsy middle while the remainder serves to give the wink to the true religionists.
Comments
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" is a hell of a phrase to hear from a man who said, just a couple of weeks ago, that if he were president he wouldn't have any Muslims in his cabinet.
Not so much fun when one is on the receiving end of bigotry, I guess.
Posted by: Warren | December 6, 2007 11:01 PM
Governor Romney seems to be getting a lot of press mileage out of this, and his non-sensical ramblings have inspired a few gems:
"Mitt Romney's problem, as a Mormon, is that he belongs to a transparently fictional religion." http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/12/mitt_and_the_sacred_constituti.html
Because of course other religions are not "transparently fictional"??
Posted by: hopper3011 | December 7, 2007 6:29 AM
Because of course other religions are not "transparently fictional"??
Sure! For the typical believer, the fiction of the mainstream religions has been so fuzzed-out and pixelated over the course of centuries that it is no longer plainly apparent to them, compounded by the fact that blind, unquestioning belief is sold as a virtue.
Romney is a bigot and a simpleton.
Posted by: JimFiore | December 7, 2007 8:32 AM
It makes me sick how much Romney is trying to prove to the fundie voting base that he's the "right kind" of Christian despite his belonging to what they largely, and ironically, perceive as a fictional religion.
Anyway, I would be extremely interested to hear him explain in depth, not using sound bites, exactly how freedom requires religion.
Posted by: fannie | December 7, 2007 3:40 PM
OT, but where's Kevin been?
Posted by: PhysioProf | December 9, 2007 6:51 PM
Well Mitt Romney sounds just as insane as Mile Huckabee does. That man is a total disaster.
"Mitt Romney's problem, as a Mormon, is that he belongs to a transparently fictional religion."
Bush is an evangelical, a belief that from a whole big book selects parts that suit their goals the most. That is just as a fictional religion as the SLD are if you ask me. Personally I can respect the SDL more than evangelicals who at their turn seem to cherry pick things they like, ignoring things they don't. Life doesn't work that way, SDL are more honest in that respect.
Secondly there are many republicans out there that are convinced that acknowledging global warming is a religion, or atheism for that matter. So I think that that group has big issues defining religion anyway while mudslinging.
religion of secularism
Can someone please explain in very simple language to Mr Romney what secularism means, because it goes hand in hand with the constitution (which he obviously violates himself by stating he doesn't want people to work for him when they have a certain religion, which is just utter discrimination).
Posted by: Rhapsody | December 10, 2007 9:45 AM
Well, of course freedom requires religion. That's why we supported the Taliban, and that's why we support Iran, because of their obviously strong religious beliefs, and the obvious freedom it brought in their countries.
Posted by: Mark P | December 10, 2007 11:34 AM
Well, we'd be good to remember that Mitt isn't an idiot - He's got a history of various levels of success that an idiot just can't obtain.
The problem is the batshait crazies hold the keys to the kingdom. And the Mormons are considered competition for the batshait crazies, not allies. And he's trying to bridge that gap claiming to be on the same team.
It's probably going to come down between Huckabee and Romney , but only Romney could win in a general election.
The advantage of Huckabee wining the GOP and losing the primary, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Southern Republicans power structure. Much like how the loss of Goldwater killed off the "paleo-conservatives" once and for all.
Posted by: Dervin | December 10, 2007 10:45 PM
Well, we'd be good to remember that Mitt isn't an idiot - He's got a history of various levels of success that an idiot just can't obtain.
Mitt has been labelled, rightfully so, as a politician that turns and cannot stay put to one stance: he flip flops when he can. If you want that in a president, by all means go for it.
There are more candidates in the race for the republican nod and I don't think Huckabee is going to get it, unless the party is planning on destroying itself.
It's probably going to come down between Huckabee and Romney , but only Romney could win in a general election.
I honestly thought this for a while, because Guiliani would loose because he's a democrat in disguise, Huckabee is well a liability especially for international affairs. Ron Paul is the dream candidate for libertarians. John McCain well he blew his chances a while ago, but nice try. Duncan Hunter and Tom Cancredo are not amounting to much. So what is left? if you really wish to vote Republican? Your best bet to even with is with Fred Thompson, without a doubt.
I Guiliani gets the nod: Democrats win, if Romney gets the nod; democrats win because the evangelican vote will not be there for him. Huckabee.. not even going to think about that.
The advantage of Huckabee wining the GOP and losing the primary, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Southern Republicans power structure.
Fred Thompson is still there: solid, good programme and his approach to this race might be silent, but it's nice. Mike Huckabee is just asking for lawsuits and trouble, but oh well, that is the US too. Don't forget that Huckabee will destroy any credit the States still have outside its borders, so if you like isolation and being mocked. Vote on him.
Posted by: Rhapsody | December 11, 2007 3:26 AM
Mitt has been labelled, rightfully so, as a politician that turns and cannot stay put to one stance: he flip flops when he can. If you want that in a president, by all means go for it.
As opposed to somebody who holds a position that will doom him/her to failure?
Do you know what made America Great? Other than the immigration from Catholic Countries (you know your nation is a backwater when Italians can improve the quality of your life).
The "theory" of Pragmatism.
When America adopted the simple question of "Does it work?" We began kicking ass and chewing bubble gum.
What used to be "Can this motherf*cker do the job" now becomes "What does he really believe? Do I like him? Is he true?"
Posted by: Dervin | December 13, 2007 3:02 PM
you know your nation is a backwater when Italians can improve the quality of your life
Some of my ancestors might not have taken too kindly to that comment. I can't say I do, either.
But, in all seriousness, aren't "What does he believe?" and "Is he true?" (I assume you mean honest) part of answering "Can he do the job?"
Posted by: JimFiore | December 13, 2007 5:16 PM
As opposed to somebody who holds a position that will doom him/her to failure?
I am sorry, but the flip-flopping of Romney shows that he simply has no backbone. Like for example during the debate in Iowa where the question about global warning was asked, that was a darn good example why Romney is just slick. Thompson refused to raise a hand for a question that complicated (and rightfully so), Romney however sucked up and try to ride along Thompson's great moment with his fakeness. Just eeuw. You might see that as an example, I don't. Strong leadership means having strong opinions, knowing what you are talking about and not sucking up to everyone who has a point. That is just following a smell. America deserves a leader, a true one, and Romney doesn't fit the bill.
The "theory" of Pragmatism.
When America adopted the simple question of "Does it work?" We began kicking ass and chewing bubble gum.
I am sorry, but I am hard pressed to find people living in the States who embrace this. Surely waterboarding, torturing people or claiming that believing in Global Warming is a religion doesn't sound to me like pragmatism. Instead they also say that most part of my country are ruled by Sharia law and that we will surrender to dhimmyhood soon. I ceased asking if they actually knew where my country was in Europe. Pragmatism? One person once put it to me so greatly: Don't you know that we Americans shoot first and ask questions later? If that is your view on pragmatism...
Other than the immigration from Catholic Countries (you know your nation is a backwater when Italians can improve the quality of your life).
Well I don't live in the States and a big part of my family is Roman Catholic. Yet they are all native born and don't have a single drop of Italian blood. Right now the people immigrating from Poland and Bulgaria (mostly Roman Catholic) are not really giving improving the quality of our lives over here.
Posted by: Rhapsody | December 15, 2007 1:14 PM