DISQUS

keemo · 2 years ago

I was moved by Mr. Romney's speech today; especially these portions:

"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be
seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us.
If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our
nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator.
And further, they discovered the essential connection between the
survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In
John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our
constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

<These are very powerful words; words that have meaning in my life's experience.>

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political
religion' - the commitment to defend the rule of law and the
Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of
office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate
to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no
one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common
cause of the people of the United States.
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that
it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or
another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon
faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers
- I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

This man has integrity, and will not alter our course based on "which way the polls are shifting" on any given day. I'm so sick of politicians that talk out of both sides of their mouths; politicians that tell us what they think we want to hear, but when it comes to action, they let us down time after time.

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence
of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as
much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons
and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve
freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world.
America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from
Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's
resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It
has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never
falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived
in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God
and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I
saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to
people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national
volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an
hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I
was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'



<For the record; I'm not a member of any church or a particular faith. You find me at church every other Tuesday night as a member of my local Boy Scout program as an adult leader; that's the extent of my time spent in church. However, I can't imagine what this world would look like if humans didn't have spiritual guidance from whatever sources they can receive from. I do consider myself a "spiritually healthy" human, with a solid foundation of spiritual principles in my tool box. Mitt's religion has no bearing on my feelings for his campaign; his words most certainly do as long as the words match-up with his actions.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

>John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable
>of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...
>Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

I have a hard time getting past John Adam and his "Alien and Sedition Acts" that he used to imprison newspaper editors. He was quite the power-mad little git,and his policies led to the extinction of the Federalist party. Food for thought.

Sentry · 2 years ago

That's right. The Founding Fathers were all slave-owning idiots and had nothing of value to contribute. We, today, are all so much more intelligent and wise. Might as well scrap everything they said.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Adams was basically playing to the 35% who wanted to return to having a king by asserting that the Executive is all powerful, and it led to the electoral massacre of the Federalist party. Do I need to draw you a picture?

Sentry · 2 years ago

Seems to me that no matter what Romney said, someone would have a problem with it. But the word 'inclusive' isn't going to win friends and influence people among conservatives. Inclusivity too often means having no standards whatsoever, making no judgments, to avoid giving offense to anyone--which is, for people with moral principles, offensive in itself. If atheists are upset that Romney didn't ignore the history of our country and the principles on which it was founded, theists would've been equally upset if he had. There's not much middle ground in the God divide.

Second, Romney never pledged he was going to act as an apologist for the Mormon religion, anymore than Rudy should be required to be an apologist for Catholics, or Hillary to be an apologist for whatever religion her focus group tell her she should be this week. Do Americans really need their presidential candidates to defend their religious beliefs? Excuse away any crimes of their religion's history, real or imaginary? I don't think that's a discussion we want to demand from political candidates. It's not as if the LDS espouse cannibalism.

It's one thing to discuss religion in the context of, "these are the moral principles that he stands by, based on Catholicism, Methodism, Judaism..." whatever -ism is in that blank. We know how a Catholic candidate is likely to govern based on his religion. I find it offensive to demand an explanation on behalf of that Church from a political figure. It's not Elder Mitt or Reverend Mitt or Father Mitt. He shouldn't be obliged to justify his religion to anyone. JFK wasn't the Pope and didn't try to speak for him. Nor should Romney try to speak on behalf of his Church, especially when we're not demanding anything similar from the other candidates.

He did what he set out to do. He pledged to govern as an American, not as a Mormon. His faith defines his personal principles and beliefs, but isn't going to run his presidency. He won't be a puppet for the LDS, and that should be all the reassurance anyone needs on the matter. Whether you agree with his politics is something else altogether.

Where he won points from me--and I'm an Irish-Catholic Thompson supporter--is in speaking about secularism becoming the default religion of the US, and the original intention of separating Church and State. The Constitution meant that there would be no official state religion like the Church of England. The words so often quoted-- "wall of separation" between the two--are a letter from Thomas Jefferson, and he meant that the government isn't allowed to meddle with religion, not the other way around. Secularists and militant atheists have tried, by citing the Inquisition, Salem witch trials, and God only knows how many frequently exaggerated and/or downright false 'crimes' of Christianity, to make it seem like the Church is the danger. They use that as an excuse to ban all expressions of religion from the public square. The founders wanted Christmas trees next to menorahs in the center of the mall, not removal of both. Why do atheists get to dictate the ceremonies of other religions?

That Mitt Romney took that on was an important point, and not many other politicians have the guts to say it. His other line, "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government" is brilliant. That's the foundation of our country. The Constitution or the Bill of Rights didn't give us those rights. God did. No man can take away a gift of God. We forget that at our peril. As soon as we start looking at the government as the guarantor of those rights, we give government the power to take them away. That's why liberalism is so dangerous in this regard.

There were quite a few other points in this speech that were worth mentioning. Militant Islam. Defense of America as a defender of freedom, and if anyone else was inflicted with the idiocy of the Demcrat NPR debate, hearing that washed the nasty taste out of my mouth. I want a President that believes in America, and doesn't condemn or flagellate us when we so, SO obviously have the moral high ground in this war. This speech didn't turn me around and make me a whole-hearted Mitt supporter, but I think the punditocracy, after all its dire predictions about this speech, was looking for things to nitpick. There was a lot of red meat for conservatives in that speech, and Mitt should've knocked any concerns about his religion aside with it. That was his goal. He succeeded.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

"............That Mitt Romney took that on was an important point, and not many other politicians have the guts to say it. His other line, "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government" is brilliant. That's the foundation of our country. The Constitution or the Bill of Rights didn't give us those rights. God did. No man can take away a gift of God. We forget that at our peril. As soon as we start looking at the government as the guarantor of those rights, we give government the power to take them away. That's why liberalism is so dangerous in this regard......"

So where was God before 1776?

Sentry · 2 years ago

Where was democracy before 1776? Was there any country in the world that believed that men were created with these rights, and based their whole system of governance upon it? Our founders were wise enough to recognize that truth.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Nobody believed it before 1776. If the Bible had said anything about voting,for instance, or free speech, or free press, or freedom of assembly, or the right to petition for redress, these ideas would have been more common. Oh, and freedom of religion - not in the Bible either. There's stuff about killing any family member that leaves the church and anyone practicing fortune telling, but nothing about freedom of religion. The Founders believed in God, but otherwise they were more like Jefferson who took a straight razor to passages of the Bible that he thought had been added for the convenience of the ruling class.

Sentry · 2 years ago

Oh, Lord. "Ruling class"? If you think I'm going to debate the Bible with you, you're about to be disappointed. That's not germane to the discussion. The Founders, you admit, believed in God. They believed God gave us certain rights that no one can take away from us. If you've got a problem with Christianity, there are countless others who've defended it as well as or better than I could. If they failed to persuade you, I'm not going to.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

I think the best summary of Willards speech is "I'm one of you, and it's us against them."

Regards your comment:

>" If you've got a problem with Christianity...."

Wow, just wow. Maybe you'd like to talk to my dad. He's near 80. I'll buy you a plane ticket. He'll talk for hours to Mormon missionaries and Jehova 's Witnesses, but if you say " If you've got a problem with Christianity........" he's pound you into a grease spot. Actually, Mom (who's been on the boards of a couple churches) would probably want a shot you also. Wow.

But what I hear in Romey's speech, is this: "I support religious freedom,but I reserve the right to decide whether or not other peoples religions are valid or good enough." . and probably also "If you question my politics, you aren't a Christian." Talk about just not getting it.

Regards the Founders beliefs of the role of religion in freedom, Jefferson wrote the most (although Thomas Paine was a lot more explicit). As Jefferson said, Christianity is the "purest religion," but it is always prostituted and corrupted when mingle with politics.

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes (Jefferson)

History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. (Jefferson)

"this loathsome combination of church and state" that for so many centuries reduced human beings to "dupes and drudges."


But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer [Jesus] of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State. (Jefferson)

History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.(Jefferson)

he Book of Revelation, in a letter to Alexander Smyth of 17 January 1825: it is "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."(Jefferson)

Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear...... If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in it's [sic] exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. (Jefferson)

Rovin · 2 years ago

Excellent synopsis Sentry,

I would add that only those who have a preconcieved bias against Romney will continue "nitpicking" and take portions of his speech out of context to fit their arguments.

Sara · 2 years ago

I am old enough that I remember 1964 well. I was a sophomore in college. My Mother marched in civil rights marches in Montgomery, AL and in Buffalo, NY. Twenty years earlier, in a small town in Pennsylvania, she started the first Girl Scout troop for African American girls and while she was pregnant with me, was pelted with eggs for starting the troop.

When racism comes up and people try to tie it to the LDS church, I ask: what church did those white men go to who were beating blacks in the South, riding the night in their hoods? Could you find a white Baptist church in the south prior to the late sixties that would allow a black thru their doors? When the guard and the police lined the streets and sidewalks and blocked the door to the school, trying to deny those young black students entrance into a white school, what church were all those law enforcers and politicians attending on Sunday? How many grew up in towns where Jews were barred from joining clubs or holding office?

When I was three years old, my Mother took me to the city mission where she was conducting a class for young girls of poverty. My Mother and I were the only two white faces in the room. The next day our Presbyterian pastor came to talk to my Mother about exposing her young daughter to "those people." My Mother never set foot in that church again.

So, when I hear the claims that the LDS church is racist or was racist, I want to laugh or throw up.

Bigots are bigots and an awful lot of them go to traditional mainstream churches every Sunday.

Jon · 2 years ago

You hit the nail right on the head!!!

Dwyn Hart · 2 years ago

I can see all your points, and I accept them even though I may not agree with all of them. While I did not notice that Romney didn't include people who do not believe in God, I can see Christophs point. Just a few words, and those people would have been included, rather than excluded. This is my first election that I am participating in, so I am really excited, and have no idea what I am doing. So I am looking at what other people say so I can see the candidates from all sides, not just my own view. I will never vote on a candidate because of such silly things as religion (yes, it does make the person who they are, I will never judge someone because of religion, I don’t' even look at that.) I will never vote based on Republican or Democrat or anything else, I vote on the person and their actions. Romney's speech was good, yes. I was entertained for a bit, and was sort of in awe. But when I looked into his eyes (even through T.V) I could see the passion there, and that he cared about what he was talking about, that while it seemed scripted, he actually meant what he was saying. I think it was an oversight, that he forgot to mention non-believers and can't hold it against him. We are all human and we make mistakes. Now, I have no idea, not even a glimmer of who I will actually vote for, I would love to have a one on one conversation will all the candidates, but I know that will never happen. I have talked to Jim Nussle, and Tom Vilsack before, and I wasn't sure about them before I met them. But after actually talking to them and asking them questions, I decided that they were actual people, not just those puppets talking on a stage. SO, I would love to meet the candidates and get a chance to talk to them...but instead I have to read about their voting records, and read things like this, so I can see how other people think, and they just might point out something that I missed. (I know my thoughts are all over the place, but hey, it is honest and how I feel :)

Bikerken · 2 years ago

I think it was a great speech but I have never really been concerned about his religion. The only religions that scare me are Islam and government. Islam only scares me because it is also a form of government, an unchallengeable iron-fisted totalitarianism. Government is the god of leftists and they worship it. It solves everything in their eyes, if we could only get more of it. I was a kind in Michigan when Mitt's father George was Governor of Michigan. At that time, it was one of the most thriving strongest economies in the US. Look at it now after many years of democrats running it. It is a mess. That is what concerns me. These socialists democrats are going to force us down a path of government taking over everything it can and that is the bottom line for me. As for the atheists, I am fine if someone chooses not to accept the idea of a god or supreme being in their life, I'm fine with that. What I don't understand is their aggression in trying to stiffle any public representation of any religion in any public place on any piece of non-private property. The moron Micheal Newdow who is right now as I type this arguing to take, "In god we trust" off of all our currency is making an ass of himself and why? Just because one person doesn't endorse or believe in something doesn't give you a right to have it erased from the landscape anywhere you may roam. I think Romney addressed this idea very well in his speech and it's about time we have a president who has the sand to stand up to these opportunists and bullies and tell them to shut the hell up and go live your life while I live mine!

Mike M. · 2 years ago

The only religions that scare me are Islam and government.

That, and I would personally add in the new religion of extreme exradical environmentalism that has sprung up in the last several years, with the utterly absurd Al Gore apparently playing the Jesus role.

SoldiersMom · 2 years ago

Biker - Couldn't agree more. I'd only add that if the Newdow's (aka athiests) of the world were 100% comfortable in their non faith, they wouldn't be as defensive as they are. Something about religion obviously disturbs them. It says alot about them.

Math_Mage · 2 years ago

Nah, those are Atheists. atheists (little a) aren't that nuts. At the same time, atheists and theists both take a leap of faith in deciding whether or not to believe there is a God, and both sides are defensive about it. Agnostics are the ones who can claim not to have made any leaps of faith (not that that makes them better or worse for it).

Dave · 2 years ago

I'm a "secular Republican" and I couldn't care less. This is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, and is being propagated mainly by the Left as a wedge issue.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Just like the Left used the issue of Keith Ellison swearing in with Jefferson's Koran. Damn those liberals and their wedge issues.

Dave · 2 years ago

What does that have to do with Mitt Romney and the issue at hand?

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

Just agreeing about how liberals use religious wedge issue

Christoph · 2 years ago

Theflyman in the previous thread said this:

"The God who gave us Liberty"....which God was that? So I can't believe in Liberty without God, especially a Christian God?

The speech was a disaster. Here's why.

Twice he had opportunity to be inclusive and also reach out to Americans without faith and say he was their President too. Twice he spurned them.

If he can be the president of Muslims and Jews and Quakers, why not people who don't (yet) have faith or who are not sure?

I think this will hurt him with libertarian and secular Republicans, quite badly. And unnecessarily. He could have made himself look bigger by just saying, "I believe in God, and yet I will be the president for all Americans whether religious or not, because it is our common values and beliefs that unite us most. And all Americans of all faiths or none share a love for our families, our communities, and our country."

Instead, he pissed on them.

Here's an excerpt from an instant messaging conversation I'm having with my friend (an Iowa voter) about the speech. It sums up my point well:

[8:11:45 AM] Christoph says: The whole point of the speech was inclusiveness and to get people to include Mormons within the mainstream politically.
[8:11:57 AM] Christoph says: So, what does he do? Pointedly exclude anyone who doesn't believe in God.
[8:12:02 AM] Lauren says: yep
[8:12:35 AM] Christoph says: Basically, they're not even real Americans according to Romney's religiously founded America.
[8:12:51 AM] Lauren says: oops...that is a huge blooper
[8:13:01 AM] Lauren says: he just dug himself a grave
[8:13:06 AM] Christoph says: Atheists, Deists, Christians, and Jews all founded America.
[8:13:08 AM] Lauren says: and was the first to throw dirt in
[8:13:26 AM] Christoph says: I'm not saying it's fatal, but what a wasted opportunity and a completely preventable mistake.
[8:13:41 AM] Christoph says: Most people won't notice... but like the fellow you quoted, Theflyman , and myself, some will.
[8:13:48 AM] Christoph says: And it was TOTALLY unnecessary.
[8:13:53 AM] Lauren says: but it may have been fatal for his support from people who may not beleive in God
[8:14:03 AM] Christoph says: Could have pleased us both with a sentence and displeased nobody by including it.

 

[Comments crossposted and combined into one from previous thread to this more appropriate one.]

Andw · 2 years ago

Oh, c'mon. The amount of secular Republicans that were "offended" by this speech will be zero to none. They already knew that Mitt was a religious candidate (as all the Republican side say they are). If they were offended then they must be ignorant of not only Romney as a person, but our country as a whole. As Romney cleary stated in the speech, the religious roots in our country run deep and that is something vital to the success of our country's freedom. I thought he did an outstanding job.

rbj · 2 years ago

Hate to burst your bubble, Christoph, but I'm a libertarian & not religious. I do not feel excluded by this speech. I really do not care about Romney's religious beliefs. I do care about what policies he's proposing.

Christoph · 2 years ago

Well, rbj, you seem to have missed the obvious. I believe you.

That's right, you're correct. You weren't offended. However, I was and I'm more a theistic Deist than an atheist. Theflyman was offended. We weren't the only ones.
Offending us was pointless.

He offended two people in a thread which, last time I saw it, had at absolutely most 26 comments on it, three of which from yours truly. So probably in the final analysis about 6-10%. And why? For what purpose? It was a speech about inclusiveness.

Politically, it was dumb as.

rbj · 2 years ago

Well Christoph, then you must get offended pretty easily. Or is it that you don't want Romney to be president to begin with (I'm not sure I want him as president) and thus you're just using this speech as a pretext, or just a way to slam him and put him in a negative light so others won't vote for him?

Christoph · 2 years ago

No, but I'm glad you added a question mark at the end of it. See below.

rbj · 2 years ago

Which "no" is it, not easily offended or not slamming Romney?
You are the one saying theat Romney blew it with offending us non-religious people, yet Myself and Dave here are pointing out that you are wrong.

Question, would you vote for any of the Republicans for president?

Oh, and as for the "Theflyman in the previous thread said this:

"The God who gave us Liberty"....which God was that? So I can't believe in Liberty without God, especially a Christian God?"

I would suggest that you read the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by there Creator with certain unalienable rights"

Creator = God, though for me I just note Creator = nature.

Christoph · 2 years ago

"Which "no" is it...

This one: "Or is it that you don't want Romney to be president to begin with" -- I never said that and have extolled leadership virtues -- heck, even his physical fitness and self-discipline -- under many a thread.

I would suggest that you read the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson...

You mean the Thomas Jefferson who believed in God and was a Deist and disciple of the teachings of Jesus Christ, like myself? One of the three Thomases (the others being Thomas Paine and Thomas the disciple from the New Testament) I want to name my first son after?

By all means click the link.

rbj · 2 years ago

Gosh, you're being obtuse:
Romney stated that (he believes) God gave us liberty. Which is based on history. The founding fathers believed God gave us liberty; theflyman now is saying that as he doesn't believe in God + Romney believes God gives us liberty that he 9flyman) doesn't get to believe in liberty either, according to Romney.
It seems to me that you guys are afraid of Romney, afraid that he's got a good shot at president.

Personally I prefer Fred or Rudy. I'd only go for Romney if the Dems nominate someone other than Bill Richardson.

Christoph · 2 years ago

YOU are obtuse. I'm saying I oppose Mormonism just like I oppose mainstream Pauline Christianity and many other religions for that matter.

As I state here I could support him and I think he should have given this speech. Plus, love many individual Mormons who are good friends of mine and am more likely to agree with them than the general public on moral issues.

BUT... and try not to be so obtuse you don't get this... like Ramesh Ponnuru, Jonah Goldberg, and Mary Katherine Hamm and others, I believe him leaving out people who don't have a faith was an oversight.

Since I've said that about half a dozen times, is that really too difficult for you to understand or something?

WHETHER YOU LIKED HIS SPEECH OR NOT ISN'T THE POINT. It's that others like myself, my friend Lauren, abc, Theflyman, etc., wouldn't have been offended by it or found it lacking had he just added this huge segment of the population into his speech. And in doing so, he would have offended no one.

It was a gaffe.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

I guess it comes down whether you believe in "God" like the Founding Fathers or whether you believe in the Bible.

The Bible is real specific about killing people that are members of other religions, and just like Islam, if a family member leaves your faith, you are supposed to kill them as an apostate. Likewise anyone that practice magic or sorcery, like Harry Potter, who should be put to death.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

"Creator" does not equal the God of the Old or New Testament, both of which endorsed slavery. "Self evident" because they came from reason and are not from scripture.

In the 1600's this was exactly the sort of thing that got people burned at the stake for heresy.

In rebelling against the king, who ruled by divine right, they were rebelling against God.

Otter · 2 years ago

Dumb as what?

Christoph · 2 years ago

It's an Australian expression. It translates to "very dumb". Took me a month of being in Australia to catch on.

Christoph · 2 years ago

Oh, and don't repeat the Captain's B.S. about secularists not supporting Romney because he's religious. Huckabee's religious, Guiliani claims to be a Catholic, McCain's religious, Thompson says he believes in God. Bush is a Methodist and quite a religious one and I greatly admire him. My liking for Romney is about his competence in his work with Staples, the Olympics, and being a governor. Lauren, my friend, is a Catholic and she thought he made a bigger mistake in this than even I credited it as.

My point is, and you've missed it, one damn sentence and his speech wouldn't haven't irritated the three of us (two personally, and one just as a faux pas she recognized would bother others) for no reason.

Philosophically -- why would he announce he's president of Americans of all faiths including those he has major theological differences from, but not also state clearly he'll do his best for people who don't -- currently, subject to change after all -- have a faith?

Jon · 2 years ago

Did you actually listen to the speech? The speech was about "Faith" in America, not "Faith and No Faith" in America. The point of the speech was to address religion and its role in our society, not the lack thereof. The speech was clearly a master piece. I cannot possibly take your argument against the speech seriously because they gush with obvious bias against either Romney personally or people of faith generally.

HNAV · 2 years ago

well stated Captain...

i believe he did quite well.

i never understood the conception of some of the Elite Bloggers - Pundits who suggested he should hide from discussion.

a President will be asked to deal with everything, and more discourse, expression, conjecture should be encouraged, not strategically avoided.

Romney served himself, this Country, and the GOP quite well.

he is a very impressive Candidate.

Christoph · 2 years ago

"a reproach to those who continue to talk about the historical racism of the Mormon church"

How dare they reproach the Mormon church for its racist history, ended officially in 1978, while Mitt Romney was an adult and a practicing member of the Aaronic priesthood, which, incidentally, I know you're not going to personally read about, from the Mormon church's own scriptures, are you, Captain?

Why, those black people and others who oppose racism, and who were alive when the Mormon church was officially practicing racism, and who may have been personally discriminated against by Mormonism, should be ashamed of themselves for bringing it up. And the fact the Mormon scriptures themselves are clearly racist (see previous link)? A trifling matter, not to concern oneself with.

Christopher Hitchens had a great op-ed about some of this today. Since it's FREE, you should read it.

Tom · 2 years ago

I don't care much for Hitchens but you bring up a very good point. All too often the Mormon church, its members and apologists dismiss discussion about topics like racism and polygamy by saying that it's in the past and of no current relevance. What they don't mention and what people unfamilar with Mormonism don't know is that the underlying doctrines on these issues have NEVER been retracted.

Blacks may become priests and enter Mormon temples today but the Mormon Church never
disavowed the teaching that black skin is a curse. The curse was merely lifted. No apology has ever been issued by the Mormon Church. Racist teachings such as the curse of Cain are still
taught to Mormon children to this day.

Romney said his father marched with MLK. This actually causes more problems than it solves. Great he marched for civil rights, what did he do about racism in his own backyard? Did he publicly speak about it? Obviously not because the Mormons excommunicated anyone who did. Romney served as a missionary and a bishop while the ban was in place.

For those who think religious views are of no importance, I ask how many of you would vote for Romney if the Mormons still actively discriminated against black people today? Do you want to say it has no relevance? I'd like to see how many would go on TV and say that.

For those who say that Mormon doctrine did not impact his performace as governor I reply that it's about principles. If you choose to overlook it that is your choice but do not demonize those who do not want a president who thinks dark skin has its origins in various curses from God. Romney may not believe in it but if not he needs to say so and I dont think it too much to expect him to give a straight answer. A follower's belief and his church's belief are not always one in the same. For now, I will take Romney's insistence to look to his church's teachings as meaning he believes and backs 100% all of what his church teaches and has taught.

abc · 2 years ago

When Mitt Romney says:

"They are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism," he says. "They are wrong."

He's just trying to deflect the issue of his own Mormon faith by pointing a finger of blame at "those" atheists. That's not leadership, it's pandering to religious prejudice of another sort, and as such it's anti-American.

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

OOoooo that's a bad one. You can't claim to protect religious freedom and then set yourself up as the judge of whose religion is "legitimate" or not intense enough.

I think Revelation says that mixing religion and politics is the work of the Beast. What part of that don't you see? The Anti-Christ is a politician that mixes politics and religion. The Bible is very explicit. Mixing politics and religion is the ultimate heresy.

But to say that not wanting to mix religion and politics makes someone less religious, well I'd just slap the taste right out of their mouth.

KarenT · 2 years ago

Is he against allowing people to organize as secularists, or against secularism becoming the official, "established" religion of the United States?

BurfordHolly · 2 years ago

There was a really funny piece on theonion.com about the religion of secular humanism and how the opening day of baseball season was now a federal holiday. Maybe Willard saw it and didn't know it was satire.

But his speech had an unfortunate us-against-them tone, and it reminded me of another great piece of satire - Sheriff Bart's speech to the towns people about how they all had to live together including the (Chinese) and the (Blacks), but NOT the Irish.

AngryDumbo · 2 years ago

I am angered that we say we are fine with Jews now, fine with Catholics now, fine with Muslims now, fine with Mormons now, but when the rubber meets the road, the candidate's religion becomes the ultimate stumbling block.

The religion issue is a red herring. Mitt blew it at the last debate. He appeared stumbling and unsure of himself. To say that his religion has anything to do with his failure to climb in the polls is backfill from his political consultants who are already looking to jump ship. Mitt is and always has been a weak candidate. His faith has nothing to do with his candidacy. I doubt he will even win New Hampshire.

Teresa · 2 years ago

I agree with you in part. I think in general Mitt is a poor candidate because he comes off as plastic and phony. No one criticizes Harry Reid for being a Mormon. (They criticize him for every other thing, but I've never heard anyone on a right wing blog even mention it.)

Maybe Mitt is the nicest guy in the world. He just looks slick like an insurance salesman. I keep waiting for him to tell me he can get me a better rate.

As a lib, I disagree with all the GOP candidates on the issues, but at least you can look at Rudy, McCain, Paul, and Huckabee and believe they would bleed if cut. With Romney you have to wonder.

AngryDumbo · 2 years ago

Everybody is congratulating Mitt today much like everybody was taliking nice about Sam Brownback a few months ago. Mitt is political road kill. He can't help himself now, but perhaps he can send a few votes to a more viable candidate.

Susan · 2 years ago

Good speech but I think people are already set in their opinions and not apt to listen.

I am against Mormonism, it goes too far away from the bounds of legitimate christianity.
But I respect Mormon lifestyle, morality, and people individually.

That said, I think Romney is the best candidate among the pack.
I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him over huckabee, giuliani, etc..

AngryDumbo · 2 years ago

Good speech but I think people are already set in their opinions and not apt to listen.

Agreed Susan. I am glad that you are honest. Sadly, we are more interested in debating theology than debating the issues. Mitt was a weak candidate who was strong on the issues. I don't think he will ever make the mistake of running for political office again. His temperment is better suited for running a non-profit.

Jon · 2 years ago

Christoph:

Are you done venting your spleen yet? Do let me know when you're finished spewing your anti-Mormonism so I can see if you have an actual point. I'm not holding my breath.

Mitt hit all the points he needded to and did so with a masterful speech. The political religion of America, as stated by Abraham Lincoln, is reverence for the law. The sooner we get around to debating the actual issues facing this nation the better.

I agree with the Captain - this will be a net positive for Team Mitt.

Christoph · 2 years ago

I am definitely anti that fraudster who started mormonism with his 34 wives, only one of whom is acknowledged or even searchable on JosephSmith.net, run by the L.D.S. church. I am almost equally opposed to Paul from the Bible who, I believe, distorted the teachings of Jesus in opposition to James, as the historical record makes clear. But anyway. That doesn't stop me from liking George Bush and many Trinitarian Pauline Christians and Mitt Romney's Mormonism doesn't stop me from liking parts of him and his record. You think it does, but you are mistaken.

It does bother me he was so dumb in his speech designed for inclusiveness and to show he would be president for all Americans, that he left off a huge percentage of them. Not only those I previously mentioned, but also abc above would agree, I am sure.

Math_Mage · 2 years ago

I guess I, with the view that marriage should be between any number of men and any number of women, or at least handled privately and not by the government, completely miss the point of your 34 wives schtick. It's kind of annoying that he only has 1 on register, tho.

lexhamfox · 2 years ago

Jon, I like Romney's politics. Americans can and should have legitimate concerns about senior leaders of the Mormon Church being President of this country. Is it anti-Mormon to question a candidate about race and the law when that faith has obvious issues on both counts. His speech was interesting... I want to see how he handles questions on the fly. I will be less than impressed if he ducks them or feels that this speech somehow ends an important debate.

MLynnEH · 2 years ago

I'm not sure that Mitt's main purpose to win over evangelicals or make them more comfortable. He certainly wasn't trying to convert the anti-Mormon zealot wing to his cause. Quite the opposite. He made a principled, forthright statement of his views, appealed to the moderate middle ground, and implicitly disavowed the support of religious bigots. And in doing so, he not only looked and sounded presidential, but also threw down a gauntlet for Huckabee on his wink-wink-nudge-nudge "Christian" candidacy. Huckabee may well win the Iowa caucuses, but it will be a tainted victory after today's speech.

TBinSTL · 2 years ago

There are many better reasons to oppose him than his religion or this speach. Mormonism never was a factor and remains so for me.

sashal · 2 years ago

Yes,TB, I agree, his religion has absolutely nothing to do with why I despise him.
His policies and convictions seem to be awfully mallable.
I don't believe anything that comes out of your mouth. Does poll driven political whore mean anything ?

Devildog666 · 2 years ago

The speech was brilliant. He said exactly what needed to be said and gave me the confidence he wasn’t going down the PC path.
I was for Thompson, but Romney is getting my vote now. He’s the only one with real cojones.

Christoph · 2 years ago

As Allahpundit points out, Ramesh Ponnuru, Jonah Goldberg, and Mary Katherine Hamm all questioned why people without faith were left out of Mitt Romney's America. They won't be the only ones.

Jonah Goldberg has a particularly good take on it and, obviously, I agree with him.

sashal · 2 years ago

I do not object to religion in public life. That is reality. Always has been, always will be. I, and others, strenuously object to religion having a place in governmental affairs.
That is a difference,Mitt

harleycon5 · 2 years ago

I believe Mitt did much to remind us all that we are a nation of many religions, not just of one. We have more in common with each other than we have to separate us. Our nation is a great one because it is one where we have Freedom to worship as we wish. In the end, we are a nation of good people who just might be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, ect.

But Mitt also made it clear that he believes that the heart of our nation IS religion, although he will not directly apply any one religion to his basis for thinking. I can understand this considering the foolish notion by some religious people that we need to "care for the world" by having an open border. Decisions of country and govt cannot always be ascribed to any one religious belief. Should we "turn the other cheek" to Islamofascism? Of course not.

Religion holds a very strong place in the heart of America, and it should be noted that God, in modeling us in his own image, gave us the power of reason and logic.

Just as some refuse to use these God given talents to refuse to vote for Hillary "because a woman should be President" Conservatives should also use reason to know that electing a RINO cloked in evangelical garb is counter productive to the Reagan legacy.

dwynhart · 2 years ago

I can see all your points, and I accept them even though I may not agree with all of them. While I did not notice that Romney didn't include people who do not believe in God, I can see Christophs point. Just a few words, and those people would have been included, rather than excluded. This is my first election that I am participating in, so I am really excited, and have no idea what I am doing. So I am looking at what other people say so I can see the candidates from all sides, not just my own view. I will never vote on a candidate because of such silly things as religion (yes, it does make the person who they are, I will never judge someone because of religion, I don’t' even look at that.) I will never vote based on Republican or Democrat or anything else, I vote on the person and their actions. Romney's speech was good, yes. I was entertained for a bit, and was sort of in awe. But when I looked into his eyes (even through T.V) I could see the passion there, and that he cared about what he was talking about, that while it seemed scripted, he actually meant what he was saying. I think it was an oversight, that he forgot to mention non-believers and can't hold it against him. We are all human and we make mistakes. Now, I have no idea, not even a glimmer of who I will actually vote for, I would love to have a one on one conversation will all the candidates, but I know that will never happen. I have talked to Jim Nussle, and Tom Vilsack before, and I wasn't sure about them before I met them. But after actually talking to them and asking them questions, I decided that they were actual people, not just those puppets talking on a stage. SO, I would love to meet the candidates and get a chance to talk to them...but instead I have to read about their voting records, and read things like this, so I can see how other people think, and they just might point out something that I missed. (I know my thoughts are all over the place, but hey, it is honest and how I feel :)

(Sorry if this is on here twice...I discovered I had to sign-up, or something, so sorry this is taking up a lot of room :)

G. Moore · 2 years ago

I was disappointed in Romney’s speech. I was leaning in his direction, but now, given the cleverness of the speech, I am leaning away from him.

Oh, he said many fine things. But he spoke past what I had assumed he would address. He did not share with us his beliefs or his values, nor did he describe the beliefs and values of his church.

These topics are important as even he suggested. He said, "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

But then he excuses himself from having to tell us what those beliefs are. "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.”

So, we remain in the dark about the beliefs to which he would be “true.”

Yes, he assured us that he would do what is best for the country. But those sorts of decisions are, bottom line, value judgments determined in part by experience, knowledge and one’s understanding of what one’s God expects.

Rush's gushing notwithstanding, Romney told us virtually nothing about his moral compass and what he would do when faced with tough choices that make their way to the Oval Office. What, in his judgment, would be the best interests of the United States? We still do not know.

Romney’s speech was more of a foul ball than a home run, and I’m deeply disappointed. I had hoped for more.

Mark · 2 years ago

So, you want to know what Mitt and the rest of the Mormons believe and were hoping that Mitt would tell you. Well, quit whining and go look it up. It isn't that hard to find: http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/t...

Rob · 2 years ago

I have no clue how this will sit with the Evangelicals or even the more moderate Christians. Personally, one thing stood out for me. The theme of his speech seemed to be that we are a nation built on important judeo-christian beliefs but we should not discuss the differences among judeo-christians. So, it's alright for Gov. Romney to discuss his opinion about Jesus Christ, but we cannot ask him about the Garden of Eden? We can ask people if they are Christian, but not if they are Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, or Mormon? Someone help me with that understanding of the Constitution. I always read it to be a seperation of church and state not a seperation of chirstian denominations and state. Then again, my problem is a matter of character, not religious conviction.

Stephen · 2 years ago

I am a voter who would have been inclined to support the Governor Romney of a few years ago. I am pro-life and pro-military. I believe that I should be able to invest privately for my retirement years as opposed to giving the government my money to invest in Social Security. I believe that our taxes are too high, and that national security is the most important problem confronting our nation. I believe that despite the recent NIE, Iran is still a danger to this world's security. I attend Catholic mass weekly. I am also a gay man, who donated money to President Bush's reelection campaign. My problem with Romney is that he decided to run as the evangelical candidate. He decided to be the "uber-socially" conservative candidate, thinking that would earn him the Republican nomination. It seems that Mr. Romney now realizes that may have not have been the smartest tactic because an actual evangelical is gaining traction. Thus, Romney delivered the speech dealing with religious tolerance. Count me as not too impressed. In this primary season, Romney is reaping what he sowed -- both on this issue and the immigration issue.

kevin P · 2 years ago

"No one critcizes Harry Reid for being a Morman". That is because he is a Democrat and they are allowed to claim their religous choice without having to explain or justify their choice. No one asks Senator Kennedy to state that he believes that when he receives Communion he is eating wafer that has turned into flesh through the miracle of the Mass. And he shouldn't be asked. The media would consider this bad form and rude. The exception seems to be for Republican Mormans. No one is clamoring for Dems who state they belong to a Religous faith to explain the more supernatural aspects of their belief system. They are afforded this privacy.

Zoomie · 2 years ago

Seems to me that no matter what Romney said, someone would have a problem with it. But the word 'inclusive' isn't going to win friends and influence people among conservatives. Inclusivity too often means having no standards whatsoever, making no judgments, to avoid giving offense to anyone--which is, for people with moral principles, offensive in itself. If atheists are upset that Romney didn't ignore the history of our country and the principles on which it was founded, theists would've been equally upset if he had. There's not much middle ground in the God divide.

Second, Romney never pledged he was going to act as an apologist for the Mormon religion, anymore than Rudy should be required to be an apologist for Catholics, or Hillary to be an apologist for whatever religion her focus group tell her she should be this week. Do Americans really need their presidential candidates to defend their religious beliefs? Excuse away any crimes of their religion's history, real or imaginary? I don't think that's a discussion we want to demand from political candidates. It's not as if the LDS espouse cannibalism.

It's one thing to discuss religion in the context of, "these are the moral principles that he stands by, based on Catholicism, Methodism, Judaism..." whatever -ism is in that blank. We know how a Catholic candidate is likely to govern based on his religion. I find it offensive to demand an explanation on behalf of that Church from a political figure. It's not Elder Mitt or Reverend Mitt or Father Mitt. He shouldn't be obliged to justify his religion to anyone. JFK wasn't the Pope and didn't try to speak for him. Nor should Romney try to speak on behalf of his Church, especially when we're not demanding anything similar from the other candidates.

He did what he set out to do. He pledged to govern as an American, not as a Mormon. His faith defines his personal principles and beliefs, but isn't going to run his presidency. He won't be a puppet for the LDS, and that should be all the reassurance anyone needs on the matter. Whether you agree with his politics is something else altogether.

Where he won points from me--and I'm an Irish-Catholic Thompson supporter--is in speaking about secularism becoming the default religion of the US, and the original intention of separating Church and State. The Constitution meant that there would be no official state religion like the Church of England. The words so often quoted-- "wall of separation" between the two--are a letter from Thomas Jefferson, and he meant that the government isn't allowed to meddle with religion, not the other way around. Secularists and militant atheists have tried, by citing the Inquisition, Salem witch trials, and God only knows how many frequently exaggerated and/or downright false 'crimes' of Christianity, to make it seem like the Church is the danger. They use that as an excuse to ban all expressions of religion from the public square. The founders wanted Christmas trees next to menorahs in the center of the mall, not removal of both. Why do atheists get to dictate the ceremonies of other religions?

That Mitt Romney took that on was an important point, and not many other politicians have the guts to say it. His other line, "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government" is brilliant. That's the foundation of our country. The Constitution or the Bill of Rights didn't give us those rights. God did. No man can take away a gift of God. We forget that at our peril. As soon as we start looking at the government as the guarantor of those rights, we give government the power to take them away. That's why liberalism is so dangerous in this regard.

There were quite a few other points in this speech that were worth mentioning. Militant Islam. Defense of America as a defender of freedom, and if anyone else was inflicted with the idiocy of the Demcrat NPR debate, hearing that washed the nasty taste out of my mouth. I want a President that believes in America, and doesn't condemn or flagellate us when we so, SO obviously have the moral high ground in this war. This speech didn't turn me around and make me a whole-hearted Mitt supporter, but I think the punditocracy, after all its dire predictions about this speech, was looking for things to nitpick. There was a lot of red meat for conservatives in that speech, and Mitt should've knocked any concerns about his religion aside with it. That was his goal. He succeeded.

Gull · 2 years ago

The speech Mitt Romney delivered today will (and should) go down in history as one of the most succinct overviews of the American SPIRIT written in decades. If not ever written.

Be ye political operatives for Hillary, far-right tent revivalists or Rudy apologists who want to confound Mitt's message by taking phrases out of context ---- admit it --- no candidate for POTUS in recent history could have delivered this speech with the authority, clarity or sincerity which Mitt demonstrated. 'Tis the season for political posturing, but today, MItt Romney delivered the REASON for his willingness to take the criticism and attacks that will come his way.

Godspeed, Mitt Romney.

And thanks for acknowledging that agnostics and atheists are also capable of experiencing and sharing "faith" in the American spirit.

Nate · 2 years ago

At this point I dont care what anyone thinks. As for myself, I liked it. Glad I was born in the United States.

johnk860 · 2 years ago

anyone who firmly believes that the leader of his religion is a prophet and speaks directly from God cannot ignore what the prophet says. If his GOD says to war with Israel or abandon Social Security, can he risk his salvation on disagreement?? Unlike Kennedy's religion, believing that his religious leader's directives will not affect his decisions is not credible.

MikeA · 2 years ago

Well, I was impressed. I am an Evangelical life long Republican, and I spent the last week researching Romney and the idea of a Mormon as President. And I was psyched up to reject Romney outright. But I found his speech to be something that I might have said myself, if I had his grace and charm.

To Christopher, who ranted so much about the speech insulting non-believers, may I just say “NUTS”. If Romney had made any effort to make a statement that said he accepted the views of atheists, he might have gained their few votes but would almost certainly have lost millions of others like mine. I would find that type of pandering to people who I and weary of hearing whine about being offended by any mention of God, to be very offensive myself. The numbers are on our side, so Romney made the smart choice.

I’m not sure I’ll vote for him yet, but I can now say I will not vote against his faith.

Steve-o · 2 years ago

I believe in God, and I have a rich spiritual life. I didn't listen to the speech and have no intention of reading it. If Romney gets the nomination he will get my vote.

Everybody. Shut. Up. About. Religion.

unclesmrgol · 2 years ago

Read the speech. It was good -- and the best part of it was when Romney declared that he wasn't going to be one of those who dropped his religious tenets as he grasped for high office.

Unfortunately, he's still pro-abortion (in this, he is consistant with current Mormon teaching). That's too big a religious difference for me to overcome.

newton · 2 years ago

Nice speech, Mitt. Not bad at all. Your points should be obvious to all.

Religion? Mormonism vs. Whateverelse-ism? I'll deal with it when those nineteen-year-old "elders" knock on my door, OK? That's where such discussion belongs, not in the Republican Presidential Primaries.

Now, let's discuss your flip-flopping. Or the stuff that happened in MA during your term, such as gay marriage... Hello?

Christoph · 2 years ago

There's also how the man treats a dog.

harleycon5 · 2 years ago

Some points on MItt Romney:

The marks of religion are more than just what church you go to, or if you walk around with a Bible, or if you say the right things to the right people. Being truly religious shows it's signs in your own family, and I challenge you to look closely at Romney's.

I saw a photo of a young Mitt Romney while he was doing as his religion demands, helping others overseas, where he was seen next to a message he had drawn in the sand, "I love you, Anne". He still loves the same woman today, having seen her through her own personal battle with Multiple Sclerosis. Love is at the heart of religion, or at least it is supposed to be.

Isn't a man's own personal character reflective of his religion? I think so.

On his own conservatism: I was watching Mitt on a Glen Beck's show last night, and he was speaking of how America can do whatever is needed, for it is the goal of our nation and the heart of the people that drive the greatness of our country. Ronald Reagan couldn't have put it better. Beck at one point said Mitt's words "set his heart aflutter" (I presume he doesn't hear true conservatism being espoused often;)

Things he touched on:

Mitt does not agree with any plan for a "North American organization" ala the European union. American sovereignty is tantamount. Can it be said that Rudy Guliani or Mike Huckabee feel the same way?

On energy independence: Mitt says American can be energy independent if we only bring together sensible environmentalism and conservative fiscal responsibility. My take was that he did not want to damage our economy for the sake of environmental illusion. He spoke frankly that we needed to focus on Nuclear energy just as France does, something that is both brave but also logical.

Something tells me that Romney is the real deal, I can't define how exactly. There is something about the ease in which he speaks of conservative ideals that makes me think he is speaking from the heart, not just telling us what a poll is telling him to say.

Right now, I am in the Romney ranks.

tommo · 2 years ago

Romney's genuine warmth on the dais? He's as warm as a Ken doll.

Why can right-wingers be so wrong about EVERYTHING?

David · 2 years ago

For those who are worried that the Mormon Church will try to run the country from Salt Lake City, or somehow control Washington, they need not worry. That's not their goal. What the LDS leaders would love to see is Mitt Romney get elected and then govern the US as a first class president garnering respect from all quarters (at least most quarters—including the Captain’s). Those that are worried about Mormon Church control should worry more about how well Romney will use his exceptional skill, brainpower, communication and leadership ability (as clearly demonstrated Thursday) as president in the faithful the performance of his office.

Case in opposite point, Harry Reid. Ninety-eight percent of Mormons wish he had grown up to be a truck driver (no disrespect intended to good truck drivers) rather than a politician because he's such an embarrassment. Virtually all Mormons cringe when they hear his name. We are looking for exactly the opposite out of Romney.

James · 2 years ago

In the rare instances that I consider the historic racism of the Mormon church to have bearing on the issues, I look to McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and such passages as 2 Ne. 5:20-25. Whether or not individual Mormons know or believe these teachings of their church is another matter. The only religious question we should ask of any of these missionaries running for the Republican nomination is whether he or she can sit down with a Muslim and negotiate in good faith.

We have a serious and significant foreign policy problem as a consequence of the Bush Doctrine. Christian missionary ideology (whatever the theology) exacerbates this problem. Neither Huckabee nor Romney show any evidence that they will orchestrate a foreign policy that will mitigate the damage done by Bush; rather either one would magnify it with further errors. The "symphony of faith" that Romney conceives is an integral component of this problem: the failure to see beyond the illusions of American exceptionalism.