Mitt Romney's "Mormons are Christians -- really!" speech ("I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."), also established that non-believers are not Americans -- really!
And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.
And what about those of us who don't kneel in prayer to the Almighty? We don't have friend and ally in Mitt Romney, I guess. Considering he was introduced by non other than the atheists-aren't-citizens former President George HW Bush (father of the current President), who could be surprised? If you don't know or have forgotten, here's what Daddy Bush said while campaigning for the top job in 1987:
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush.Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
I won't bother to deconstruct Romney's insolent affront to American values. It speaks for itself. Read it yourself if you have the stomach.
But of course Romney is not alone. Even Romney's Republican enemies are the kind of people that give religion a bad name. Like good old likable Mike Huckabee, the Baptist Pastor who is busy trying to hang Romney out to dry as a Mormon while pretending to be "not a hater." I don't know if he is a hater or just an opportunist in the Romney matter, but when it comes to religion in public life, by their friends you shall know them. Here is a well known Huckabee endorsement commercial featuring nut case Chuck Norris:
Sort of tongue in cheek, right? Now look whose cheek Huckabee's tongue is in:
If you want to see how far we haven't come in 47 years, here's an excerpt from John Kennedy's address to the Baptist Ministers, suspicious that his Catholic religion would influence him once in office:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, 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 attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
I want a Chief Executive like that, too. Mitt and Mike aren't on the list.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
We have no need to worry, We can count on DIVINE INTERVENTION.
Newsweek's web site reports:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/74469
In a recent speech at Liberty University, the Baptist school founded by Jerry Falwell, Huckabee said his surprise surge in the polls was the result of divine intervention.
Newsweek reported this with out any sarcasim.
What is this country coming to?
Darwin
Posted by: Darwin | December 9, 2007 8:46 AM
It's a shame Canada is so cold, as the political climate there is looking better all the time...
Posted by: abc | December 9, 2007 9:34 AM
Even better was the unscripted Q&A that Kennedy did afterwards with the Protestant ministers. You wouldn't find too many politicians today that can take hostile questions unprepared like that without folding like a cheap tent.
Via Mellissa Rogers.
Posted by: hardindr | December 9, 2007 9:48 AM
and I thought, USA had been a free country until 2001.
Can't you declare Atheism as a religion ?
Philosophy,Ideology,Religion - what's the difference ?
That gives you the same rights as the Mormons,Buddists,
Rebaptists,Freemasons,Huguenots, etc.
Posted by: anon | December 9, 2007 10:15 AM
To overshadow Huckabee, Mitt should have gone all the way and declared that he will choose Jesus to be his Vice President.
Posted by: Ex-drone | December 9, 2007 11:11 AM
In a few days the Fri night McLaughlin Group should be available to watch on their site. At the beginning is an interchange about Romney and his religion. Buchanan the Christian likes Romney's speach. Then on comes Larry O'Donnell (Presbyterian I think) -normally a pretty laid back commentator he gets incensed at all this approval of Romney given that he says Mormons are a racist religion. And officially they were until a few decades back. He says that if Romney supports the faith of his fathers then he must be racist. Forgetting for a moment the awful past (and present in many cases) of Christians, it is funny to see Buchanan an openly christian politician who believes in evolution be open to someone of a faith so different from his own (do some research on this, Mormons have some beliefs that certainly should give Christians pause although to atheists they look no more foolish than Christain beliefs). At any rate in a few days you should be able to watch O'Donnell transformed.
http://www.mclaughlin.com/
Posted by: K | December 9, 2007 12:32 PM
anon: "Can't you declare Atheism as a religion ?"
In one way, that would be like declaring Theism a religion -- lumping into it many different religions which (besides worshipping one or more gods) have nothing to do with each other.
Are (say) Hinduism and Christianity both the same religion, by reason of being theistic (i.e. worshipping gods), despite all their other differences?
Are (say) Buddhism and Humanistic Judaism the same religion, by reason of being atheistic (i.e. not worshipping any gods), despite all their other differences?
In another way, declaring atheism a religion would be an even worse fallacy than doing so for atheism, since theism is at least a religious belief, while atheism is the absence of that belief. So what happens to the people who have no religion whatsoever? Must they get lumped into one anyway?
Posted by: Pyre | December 9, 2007 1:18 PM
Geh. "... an even worse fallacy than doing so for theism ..." (minus a-).
Posted by: Pyre | December 9, 2007 1:47 PM
I think that it's enormously entertaining to watch the Republican contenders attempt to "out Jesus" each other.
Romney, who has to be just about the sleaziest creature that I've seen in a very long time, would be my first choice as "most likely to occupy the Larry Craig Memorial Stall," when the Republican convention lands in Minneapolis. That guy is absolutely a first-class scrote. He oozes the most despicable sort of unctuous, noxious pretense from every pore on his body. As Gunnery Sergeant Hartman so famously put it, while addressing a Marine recruit: "You make me wanna puke, you slimy twinkle-toed-little-cocksucker!" A year from now, I suspect that no one will even remember this guy's name. After he spent six million dollars, and had his five sons canvas every square inch of Iowa, he is about to have his ass handed to him by Huckabee. And I really believe that no one on Romney's staff saw it coming. Least of all Romney, who clearly believes that he has an inherent right to be President, simply because he is so much better than everyone else. Just ask him.
And Huckabee? Jim Nabors, doing his "Gomer Pyle" shtick. His avuncular, impish, smarmy "good-old-boy" routine is truly nauseating. He's smarter than Romney, though, and I'll bet that he gets a huge kick out of proving that. He's taking a massive shit all over Mitt's coronation parade. The only way out, that I can see, would be for Romney to pay someone to snuff Huckabee, because once this abomination rolls out of New Hampshire, and heads south and west, Romney is a dead fucking duck. But, since he has a gargantuan amount of money, he'll likely hold on until Super Tuesday; after that he should be left with nothing other than his Mormon Underwear. Huckabee, on the other hand, has cavalierly tossed aside the non-Cuban Hispanic vote, by articulating his intention to construct a fence on our southern border; this is designed to keep out all of the Catholics, who want to swarm over our border so that they can seek employment on Romney's property. That could mean no California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas for him. Not a very wise move on Huckabee's part. Maybe he thinks that all of those lazy Southern Republicans can take up the slack?
And the high-profile groveling being practiced here is worth the price of admission alone. I really don't remember anything in past pre-convention antics that quite matches this particular display. It's just brilliant, in my opinion. It's got just about everything, so far; and I absolutely love the "Jesus likes me better than he likes you" routine. This is some really savage, infantile, "My father can whip your father's ass" insanity. I am having one hell of a good time, here! Who says American politics cannot be meaningful? Keep up the good work, guys!
Posted by: Dylan | December 9, 2007 2:14 PM
It is of course Romney's ill-conceived quoting of John Adams that got me riled. Why you would ever be audacious enough to quote the president who gave us the alien and sedition acts in a speech about freedom is beyond me.
This idiocy should not be in our presidential race.
Posted by: Michael X | December 9, 2007 6:27 PM
Please try to imagine that the religious nut Romney becomes president. And please imagine the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act becomes law. It has already been passed by the House, and will soon be passed by the Senate and signed by Bush.
This law criminalizes what you think. For a religious fanatic like Romney, atheists will be a perfect target. It is one thing to state you are not in love with atheists, as Bush has done. But this law goes much further. It has been called a thought crime bill.
The law attempts to stop Americans from causing destruction by acts of terrorism. In order to do this, it must locate anyone and everyone with deviant thoughts. You do not have to commit a violent act to be arrested. All the government has to show is that your thoughts are deviant, and could lead to violence.
Since everyone knows atheists have deviant thoughts, since they do not believe in God; it is possible they might become violent.
For example, participants in protests against US policy could be designataed as terrorists if the conduct or intent of any individual in the group was alleged by police to be violent. In other words, protest will be criminalized. If only one atheist can be shown to be involved in those protests, all atheists had better think about being arrested if they belong to an atheist group.
And do not even think about what may happen if you are a registered Muslim, and attend a Mosque.
If you think what I am saying is nonsense, please read about this law. We have arrived at the point of thought crimes, believe or not.
Posted by: herman | December 9, 2007 7:06 PM
The entire Republican political strategy is built around the Us vs. Them false dichotomy. The anti-gay strategy is worn out. The anti-Muslim strategy still works to some extent, but people are getting tired of it, too. The "immigrant problem" turned out to be a minefield, politically. Next up are the atheists.
Ever wonder who they'll bully next?
Posted by: Joseph j7uy5 | December 9, 2007 7:10 PM
joseph j7uy5,
People are about to find out what it means to have the Bill of Rights destroyed by anti-terrorism laws. If an atheist feels repulsion when he or she reads about the violence during the Spanish Inquisition, in which non-believers in Christianity were tortured; just watch what happens under the modern version: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
You probably laugh when you read about the Salem Witch Hunts, in which 20 individuals were executed as being witches in 1692. But when this law is passed you will stop laughing.
If you want to see a real witch hunt for Americans who may be terrorists, just watch what happens when this law is passed. And it will pass, because no politician who is sane will dare vote against it, and then be accused of being soft on terrorism. Those enforcing this law may consider atheists to be possible terrorists, since they could be considered nihilists or anarchists. And certainly all socialist party members, and those who opposed the war in Iraq will be investigated. And if you are a Muslim, do I have to tell you what lies in wait under this law? For aMuslim, it will be a photocopy of the Spanish Inquisition.
Please remember waterboarding is now the national sport.
Posted by: herman | December 9, 2007 7:41 PM
herman: You just cannot arrest all of the atheists, here, simply because if they are all behind bars who would then remain to do the real thinking in this fucking place? The Republicans? The priests? Chuck Norris? Oprah Winfrey? The atheists are the most dominant strain of legitimate, creative thinkers on the entire goddamn planet, just as they have always been...for good reason, too, of course.
Posted by: Dylan | December 9, 2007 8:14 PM
herman/Juan/william: I have been forgiving about your return here under yet another name but please stop incessant hijacking of threads. Leave some space and room for others and try to stay on topic, more or less. I am tolerant but as you know, my tolerance has limits. I've known who you were for some time.
Posted by: revere | December 9, 2007 8:30 PM
you can circumvent that new law by lying.
You needn't admit you're an Atheist.
Lying is OK in USA.
Posted by: anon | December 10, 2007 1:14 AM
I think that religion should be the last thing we judge these people on for President. The system itself corrects to the middle for the better part. Stances on abortion, stem cells and that kind of thing did GB senior in against WJC.
Personally I think that Hilary goes to church when its expedient... so judge her on what? Certainly not belief in God. How about flopping back and forth? We already have that on the Republican side too and Huck did pardon a child molester. Facts are facts. I can safely say that I wont be voting for a Democrat but when whacking Hilary one has to be fair. Barack OBomb and strafe me is way too inexperienced but I think in the future he'll be a good contender as soon as he gets those RELIGIOUS issues taken care of. British tabloids are also about to spring the "lesbian trap" on Hilary too. I saw a picture of the alleged "partner" and zowie! Everyone has issues, everyone has a record.
My suggestion is that you look at how things are explained away when they are put to the test in the media. Thats a very left wing media too for the better part and pick the guy/girl that keeps it pretty much down the center. Hilary is going to have as much baggage as Mitt Romney ever had and her "You are screwing with me because I am a girl" in the debates got nasty repercussions at NBC. I am for one glad someone put her against the wall and started hammering her guts in. No hard questions for Hilary until that debate. That came from Russert and it was good, and from a lefty organization. The media I think suddenly realized then that she might NOT be the best choice from the Dem side and all of the others moved up. Presidential? Not by my estimation.
I'll give it to Revere automatically about the religion thing. Being President or even King is NOT a religious job. I think we dumped that idea in about 1600 with Pope Clement. Very likely this is one of the reasons we have the United States today. Religion and its persecution for having it, not having it or being a ho-hum participant put a group onto a tub heading west. Good riddance was the thought from England. Then we landed and immediately started converting.... the Indians. Go figure.
I always say as an election official that you should vote on the issues. I say that to everyone who votes. My job during the election is to ensure its fair and none of this horsecrap that happened in Florida goes on. I proved my point when I had a Republican political supporter inside the poll trying to wag votes. I asked him to leave and he said "Whose side are you on anyway?" I told him Americans first and the Republican Party second and had him escorted out by a deputy. The Dem poll workers applauded.
Preferences in voting and what to vote on? My mother who had a Phd in Journalism voted and freely admitted it for JFK as a Republican, "Because he was so good looking." My Dad was a Democrat and he voted for Nixon because as a Chicago German, "Those Boston Mick's are buying the election."
Yo, vote on which one is the best looking.... screw religion. Maybe my mother got it right. Toss out all references to religion and put in good looking. Huck is on his ear, Fred is trailing and Mitt is in. On the Dem side Barack would trounce Hilary. But she would go get botoxed and come back looking like Chelsea.
Yeah, the light is bright at both ends of the tunnel. We are all going to have to wade thru a lot of bullshit in there to get to the end of this one. Vote your conscience, the issues and if the last gig on the great railway of life for you is religion, use that as your tipping point. GWB pissed me off to no end when he was not inclusive of atheists, gays and my Bishop let him know that when he visited Jackson Ms. It was wrong, it was a personal belief and one that the President of the United States should only bear in his heart, not in his actions. Its like saying I am the President of only a selected few in this country and that is the religious right and to coin a Revere term, "The Halliburtons"
Hey, I dont like the gay lifestyle and I say so. But I wouldnt ever say they couldnt teach school unless they got caught with their hands down the pants of a ten year old. Nor would I treat ole Jonny diff down in Oz. They for the better part keep to themselves but I have to restrain myself when there is a gay pride parade. But thats just me. They are citizens and people just like atheists are. Not having a God, or having a different sexual preference isnt on my checklist for who to vote for. I want the Ten Commandments out on the front lawn of my courthouses, not in them. I want a President that is going to appoint Dems, Republicans and Independents as judges based upon how they rule upon the laws and not whether they hit Mass this weekend, or that they feel the pull of "divine power." Those issues will of course be there but thats when simple conscience should be in play, not if the Pope says Nope. I want a President that will decide whether with impugnity someone should be bombing the piss out of a schoolyard that has a terrorist bomb factory under it, or a church, synagogue, or mosque and not whether its a religious site.
Hard choices for our next President and whomever we elect, they had better be one of the best we have ever had or we are going to be in deep shit and fast. First 100 days? I think they will get about the time to drink a cup of joe before the first crisis hits.
BTW Revere... hope you are feeling better. Just coming off of a nasty bacterial pneumonia myself that even ten days of Azithromycin had a problem knocking out. I lost 8 pounds. Lose that much and you would be amazed at how good a steak smells and tastes.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | December 10, 2007 1:18 AM
Romney's Renaissance
From liberal Massachusetts where Romney campaigned on what the electorate wanted to hear, i.e. religious and social tolerance re gays, abortion, etc, to Philadelphia, thoughts of enlightenment heralding reason and science were the philosophical backbone of a great new country.
Voltaire on hearing Romney's new mantra invoked in his "Freedom requires religion" line sat bolt upright. Actually he bumped his head which vexed him all the more.
"Theese Romney fellow is such a slut" he said. "He makes the liar, Karl Rove, seem pristine and chaste in hees willingness to throw the Constitution under the tumbrils."
Labels: enlightenment, flip flop, religious freedom, romney
Posted by: cognitorex | December 10, 2007 8:16 AM
Watch hards video from above. I was only 6 at the time but I do remember watching it. I think this is the reason that Kennedy WAS elected. Answer the question, move on. The was a flip flopping a bit on the attendance of a service in honor of some fallen priests on a ship from WWII and how he would represent himself as either Catholic or as a Senator.
This is the reason that when you elect a President you should use religion as a last criteria. Good looks, whether he is a jerk, prior military service (does anyone of them have it?), positions on Iraq, Iran, destabilization of Pakistan, Bird Flu all carry more weight than their religion.
Cog-It is our diverse respect of other peoples religions or lack of them that has indeed gotten our country forward. Revere upon his announcement of there is no God in Teheran would be arrested by the religious police (yes, they have them) and put thru a lot more than waterboarding. Now personally I would have a problem with that instantly. Not because he didnt believe in God, but because he wasnt allowed to express his views and NOT have to believe in God.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13124
Oh shit Revere got caught playing music and DANCING! Which one of the candidates ballroom dance? Now there's the new criteria.
Kennedy played it straight down the middle and all of them could pick up votes by watching that video. And for the better part Kennedy was a middle of the road guy with a sympathetic Congress to tax reform. They also looked at UHC then and said uh-uh... About face. Why? Because abortion was going to be part of it. Then the religious people said they had to pay for spiritual care. Then the Cuban missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs and all of this good feeling stuff went down the tubes. it should be interesting to see how it plays out.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | December 10, 2007 8:57 AM
I particularly like this excerpt: "I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair". Yeah man...I wish atheists and beleivers alike would simply shut the f*ck up about religion. Believe what you want.
I have a mixed opinion about Kennedy, he was a war hero and intelligent but I don't rank him that high on the judgement scale. Nice quote though.
The field of Republican and Democrat candidates is the worst I've seen for a long time, my choice will be who will cock it up the least rather than choose one who can actually do something.
Posted by: stu | December 10, 2007 3:15 PM
god must be losing it if this is the caliber of people he deems fit to run this place. Why doesn't he appear and just fix things? As I've said before and will surely say again, if G. Bush is demonstrating xtian behavior..I want nothing to do with them.
Posted by: R.Schauer | February 3, 2008 2:07 PM