Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, December 7, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments |

Document Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

by Guardian

Thanks to everyone who sent this in.

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/mittromney/story/0,,2223389,00.html

WATCH THE VIDEO of this speech here:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/05/the-romney-speech-on-ustream/

Romney

"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.

"It is an honour to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the first lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the president as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavours to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil and the breakdown of the family.

"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my presidency, if I were elected.

"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.'

"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.

"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution - and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

"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 endeavour to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the saviour of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

"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. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.

"It is important to recognise that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

"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.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty'.

"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

"We believe that every single human being is a child of God - we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'

"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

"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 honour God and love my neighbour. 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 ...'

"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

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

"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom ... killing Christians, Jews and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilised nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. 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.

"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumours of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty'. And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light'.

"God bless the United States of America."

Comments 1 - 50 of 61 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #94903 by Bertybob on December 7, 2007 at 1:30 am

 avatarA nice long diatribe on how to pitch to US "patriots", but does not seem to answer any of the issues of his Mormon faith.

In short - "trust me, I'm a patriot, being a patriot I do not have to answer for my religious beliefs".

He does not answer the questions about how, if he is sincere in those beliefs, they contradict with the political office of President.

Other Comments by Bertybob

2. Comment #94907 by Davybuoy on December 7, 2007 at 1:46 am

 avatarSo Mitt,

"Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance."

What about my faith in a naturalistic world, lets not argue over numbers but your speech ignored the large numbers of people/voters who do not believe in a god. Will you practice your belief that religion should not dictate to the state by preventing the reaching of religion in science classes and the passing of laws and the direction of policy informed solely by religious dogma. Will you appoint judges based solely on merit, rather than their religious views?

Other Comments by Davybuoy

3. Comment #94911 by gcdavis on December 7, 2007 at 1:52 am

 avatarConfusing the Tigris and Euphrates for the Mississippi and Missouri is an easy mistake to make; after all they are all rivers.

From: No Man Knows My History: the life of Joseph Smith, by Fawn Brodie
"Shortly after his arrival Joseph rowed up the Grand River to Lyman Wight's ferry to explore land on the north bank in Daviess County [Missouri]. On a high bluff overlooking the river someone in the party discovered the ruins of what seemed to be an altar and excitedly led the prophet to it. After examining it Joseph stood silent, his eyes sweeping over the prairie that rolled away beneath him....The glory of the scene made Joseph heady as with new wine. 'This is the valley of God in which Adam blessed his children,' he said, 'and upon this very altar Adam himself offered up sacrifices to Jehovah....we will lay out a city which shall be called Adam-ondi-Ahman. Here Adam, the Ancient of Days, shall come to visit his people....'


Mormon: moron, more like!

Other Comments by gcdavis

4. Comment #94918 by alfonso on December 7, 2007 at 2:02 am


I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims


Nevertheless, they are all going to hell.

Other Comments by alfonso

5. Comment #94920 by k1mgy on December 7, 2007 at 2:07 am

 avatarWillard Mitt, failed former Massachusetts (absentee) governor, promised that he would keep his bizarro beliefs at the mormon temple rather than have them dictate his policies. Hence, to be electable here, he assured voters that he would not be anti-gay nor anti-abortion.

Then, as he was beginning to hack around the country pandering to become the next bush, we had this:

http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=v&t=26957&m=92826

Romney is a liar and a fraud.

Other Comments by k1mgy

6. Comment #94925 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 2:27 am

It is telling that to begin he quotes Adams, who enacted the alien and sedition acts, which are the height of unconstitutional (un-american as some would say today...) as Jefferson pointed out at the time.

A later quote: "A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."
Correction, a person should be rejected by his faith if he professes all the passages that are inhumane and unconstitutional.

Another telling remark "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."
This of course assumes that none of the churches matters overlap with those of the nation. Maybe any fans of NOMA should advise him on how to work out such blatant conflict.

He of course then goes on to quickly contradict himself saying "My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
Frankly, you either follow you elders or you don't. Either you follow the council of the church or you don't. But if you don't, how then can you call yourself a member? I can touch the dissonance. Or worse, the bullshit.

" Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism..."
This of course speaks for itself.

I will also comment on the ignorant display of the use of "the founders" next to comments about our money and pledge. These things came about in the 50's. Let's not be more ignorant than we need to be for political reasons.

I'll end with something quite opposite to the ending of this speech. Thomas Paine and Sam Adams once shared a correspondence that I'm sure good Mitt has never read. It is again telling that Mitt quotes Adams, for in correspondence with Paine he says says, "I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet (after Common Sense) upon the principles of your "Age of Reason."
Do you think that your pen, or the pen of any other man can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?"

I believe I can see through Mitt rather well. He has failed to convince me of anything. Quoting historical religious figures be they patriot or not, will get you no further with me than defending slavery by pointing out that the founders all had slaves.

NIce try Mitt.

Other Comments by Conrad

7. Comment #94932 by room101 on December 7, 2007 at 2:46 am

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.


Good f****** christ...Is it separate or not, dickwad???

Don't you love how he absolutely covered all his bases with this speech?

PS: Notice how he didn't provide answers to anything anyone really wanted to know about his faith (ie, do you really believe the garden of eden is in Missouri, etc.)

Other Comments by room101

8. Comment #94949 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 3:23 am

 avatarI watched the speech twice last night.

In a way I thank him for it; at least I am in no doubt now that with Romney as President I as an atheist in America will become a second class citizen.

Quote: "any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me"

So where does that leave us?

I'm wondering what the equivalent of the yellow star will be that I will have to sow on my clothing.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

9. Comment #94958 by Nefrubyr on December 7, 2007 at 3:50 am

 avatar
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.


I think Mitt's idea of what constitutes a gift is very much different from mine.

Overall, a pretty mixed speech. He says a lot of the right things regarding separation of church and state and freedom of religion, but stops short of the much-needed acknowledgement that those traits he ascribes as common to all faiths are in fact common to all humanity (except for belief in gods, of course, the absence of which he fails to acknowledge at all).

Other Comments by Nefrubyr

10. Comment #94962 by eno on December 7, 2007 at 4:13 am

The country is doomed.

Other Comments by eno

11. Comment #94965 by CJ22 on December 7, 2007 at 4:27 am

 avatarAmericans, you have my deepest sympathy, and my best wishes in these troubled times. I fear for you, genuinely.

Other Comments by CJ22

12. Comment #94966 by Flavius_Josephus on December 7, 2007 at 4:29 am

 avatarThank you CJ22, because we are screwed.

Other Comments by Flavius_Josephus

13. Comment #94971 by Mark Till on December 7, 2007 at 4:42 am

 avatar"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."

Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!

I think I feel sick...

Other Comments by Mark Till

14. Comment #94983 by RickM on December 7, 2007 at 5:22 am

 avatarMr. Romney says. "…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."

Then he says, "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."

First we have Mr. Romney declaring the constitution prohibits a religious test, which makes it a secular constitution. Then he claims secularism is a religion (which it is not) and implies it is not expectable.

There's something wrong with this picture. May I suggest Mr. Romney has his head up his ass.

Other Comments by RickM

15. Comment #94984 by stephenray on December 7, 2007 at 5:22 am

It's a goldilocks speech!!

"Over there in Europe, they are a godless bunch with empty cathedrals. And over there in raghead land, they are so enthusiastic about their beliefs that they're gosh-darned killing each other. But over here in the good ol' US of A, the porridge is just right, not too hot and not too cold."

Brigham Young had to flee to Utah because the Mormons were a bunch of self-serving credulous twits who liked being able to marry as many wives as they liked and the local christians didn't like that one bit.

And gues what? It turns out that polygamy is not an essential tenet of Mormonism after all, because they dumped it in order to gain statehood for Utah. So those early Mormons weren't, as Romney suggests, persecuted for their religious beliefs at all.

Other Comments by stephenray

16. Comment #94985 by stephenray on December 7, 2007 at 5:27 am

Dig the stuff he says after the bit about what Americans have sacrificed in the name of liberty.

'We got no land, no treasure, no oaths of fealty.'

Um. That's - what's it called - a half-truth, right?

Other Comments by stephenray

17. Comment #94986 by Philip1978 on December 7, 2007 at 5:36 am

 avatarUSA_Limey
I'm wondering what the equivalent of the yellow star will be that I will have to sow on my clothing

Why not just get an Out Campaign T- Shirt? :)

Dear old Mit, what can I say?

"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

Ermmm am I reading this wrong or is Mit thinking that the founding fathers didn't want to separate religion and state?

These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example,

Oh but you do huh Mitt? Preaching is not reasonable in a any religion as far as I remember

Incidentally, I wonder what a radical Mormon would do- I MUST MARRY MORE WOMEN, I WILL, GOD SAYS IT SHOULD BE LIKE THIS, INFIDELS MUST LET ME HAVE THEIR WOMEN, I'LL MARRY THEM ALL MWWWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This election is a bad one kids, my sympathies are with you - at least we have a good Prime Minister over here to keep the future American President in check if over steps the mark....oh balls!


Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

18. Comment #94989 by RickM on December 7, 2007 at 5:49 am

 avatar"Freedom requires religion…", Wrong!

"…I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion." Excuse me, you just did.

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. …. I will serve no one religion…" Ah, what?

"We are a nation 'under God' and in God, we do indeed trust." Bull shit.

And it goes on …

Other Comments by RickM

19. Comment #94995 by CruciFiction on December 7, 2007 at 6:17 am

The Rev. Barry Lynn (Americans United for separation of Church and State) was interviewed on CNN about his opinion on Romney's speech:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0H3W_7n-ZIU

And Keith Olbermann's take:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJaX9rDugFQ

Other Comments by CruciFiction

20. Comment #94996 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 6:18 am

 avatarI listen to alot of talk radio in the States because I am a news junkie. Talk radio in the USA almost exclusively means conservative talk radio. I can tell you from a fair sampling of all the main hosts, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al that this speech is universally being hailed as a great and wonderful thing.

If they can get the christians on board with Mitt, and it looks like they are trying, then this guy might actually have a shot at the nomination.

A president Romney would mean my departure from the USA. I just couldn't take it.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

21. Comment #95003 by Murray Keedis on December 7, 2007 at 6:30 am

I don't think Mitt has much of a chance, but the Dems and Reps are fielding some silly, silly people.

And our PM in Canada is an evangelical godbot. At least many of us scratch our heads and feel annoyed when the PM ends his speeches with "god bless Canada". Or, we feel that way for now. It used to be that one's political campaign was doomed if faith was professed on the campaign trail.

Other Comments by Murray Keedis

22. Comment #95007 by espadre on December 7, 2007 at 6:46 am

This is a letter I sent to my local newspaper in response to this horrible speech. It really flabbergasted me that he spent so much time saying so very little. And the implication that nonbelievers should not be afforded the same rights as others really offended me. I am not sure the dolt knows what he's actually saying. I think he is just beating the proverbial drum...


"Based on the sheer volume of irrationality that Mitt Romney espoused in his "Faith in America" speech, I believe he was being intentionally equivocal. I also suspect that he is delusional."

"Mr. Romney asserted that religion should be seriously considered "in the context of the weighty threats that face us". But then, in an apparent contradiction, he claimed religious worldviews, which he called faith, should not be an issue in one's candidacy. Furthermore, he neglected to tell us anything at all about his specific religious beliefs. I was left to seriously consider nothing. This is blatant equivocation."

"Mr. Romney also avowed that, if elected president, he would not put church doctrine "above the plain duties of the office…and the authority of the law". This implied that he is somehow able to separate his own sense of morality from the moral instructions inherent in the particular ideology with which he is indoctrinated. How deluded must one be to believe such a thing is possible?"

Other Comments by espadre

23. Comment #95008 by irvine.intervention on December 7, 2007 at 6:51 am

 avatar'...so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer.'

So Mit thinks 'enlightened' is a dirty word - ignorance is bliss.

I was expecting him to end his speech with a rousing 'Allah O Akbar'.

Scary shit.

Other Comments by irvine.intervention

24. Comment #95010 by jimbob on December 7, 2007 at 6:55 am

I read Romney's speech, and I read JFK's

Mitt, you are no John Kennedy!

Why? Because JFK actually appeared to understand the 1st amendment.

While everybody in the USA should pay more heed to the prohibition on religious tests (Article 6 of the constitution), it's probably about time US voters started asking for a different test for those running for public office:

A test of their actual knowledge of the content and application of the constitution.

Maybe, then they'd note the difference between "One nation under god," and "We the people."

Other Comments by jimbob

25. Comment #95011 by Russell's Teapot on December 7, 2007 at 7:04 am

 avatarOl' Mitt is certainly no JFK.

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

26. Comment #95013 by detox on December 7, 2007 at 7:09 am

 avatarReligious fuckwittery I can put up with but the delusion of American Narcissism is nauseating.

"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."


I'm not sure which is more obnoxious: the god delusion or the america delusion.

Other Comments by detox

27. Comment #95018 by espadre on December 7, 2007 at 7:17 am

Check out Christopher Hitchens response here: http://www.slate.com/id/2179404

I love it when Hitch stays on topic and target. Unfortunately, it seems to be a rare occurrence these days. Latley, he tends to wield his razor-sharp wit rather like a blunt butter knife. He does some damage - but it takes forever and the wounds are pretty shallow. I am beginning to think the man is stricken with self-loathing and may even have a death wish. Or maybe it's all that whiskey he's purported to consume...

Other Comments by espadre

28. Comment #95020 by cowalker on December 7, 2007 at 7:20 am

A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.


Really, Mittens?

I shouldn't reject a candidate because he or she is a Spiritualist or a Scientologist, or because he or she belongs to a cult like the ones started by David Koresh or Jim Jones? All "faiths" are equally sacred?

Let's face it. Not all faiths are equally unhinged in their relationship to reality, even if their mythologies are equally incredible.

Other Comments by cowalker

29. Comment #95027 by Rtambree on December 7, 2007 at 7:30 am

Bait and switch. A discussion on Mormonism was switched to the untouchable religion of nationalism which no American can question.

Other Comments by Rtambree

30. Comment #95028 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 7, 2007 at 7:34 am

 avatar
I'm not sure which is more obnoxious: the god delusion or the america delusion.


Its all part of the same complex of delusion.
Nationalism, Racism and Religion. America is unlucky enough to have been infected with two of these ideological viruses, the nationalism and the religion. They seem to have recovered from the racism though, so thats good.

Poor bastards.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

31. Comment #95030 by Rtambree on December 7, 2007 at 7:39 am

Hyperpatriotism seems to be the glue that keeps together the class, race, and ideological divides... just.
Keep their eyes on The Flag, and they won't notice they're being fleeced.

Other Comments by Rtambree

32. Comment #95033 by savroD on December 7, 2007 at 7:48 am

 avatarThis is a disgrace. An even bigger disgrace are these media bozo's painting it as statesman-like.

Disgusting!

Other Comments by savroD

33. Comment #95037 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 7:59 am

 avatarComment #95028 by briancoughlanworldcitizen was:

America is unlucky enough to have been infected with two of these ideological viruses, the nationalism and the religion.


Brian, you are so spot on with that. In many ways gushing patriotism is a bigger problem for the USA than religion. At least there is a debate on the latter and somewhat of firewall against religious influence through the constitution. Question the flag though? That is much tougher. I just don't think there wil be an end to it until America has its 'fall' just like every empire before it.

Shame because America was a good idea in theory.

:-)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

34. Comment #95046 by thirdchimpanzee on December 7, 2007 at 8:24 am

I actually want Mitt to win the Republican nomination - then I won't have to worry so much who the Democratic candidate will be. The story of Joseph Smith will get dragged out - and hopefully begin to overturn the absurd presumption that a Candidates specific religious beliefs are any less relevant than their worldview in any other domain.

One other observation - as Chris Hitchen's piece in Slate picked up - his weaselly attempt to brand non-belief as a religion.


It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism.



The use of "It is as if..." is a depressingly transparant dodge - depressing because the majority of media in this country seem incapable of detecting this kind of bullshit. Come on Mitt - is the mindset of consumerism (presumably the target of his secularism - since he's probably unaware atheists exist) a religion or not? This is tough one, since this mindset is responsible for 70% of our economy - and currently taking something of a battering thanks to falling house prices.

The final irony is that the loudest critics of any social activity that doesn't genuflect to God are usually "free market" conservatives. How about a simple free market in ideas - let your children read "His Dark Materials", or better yet - read the Bible without "guidance" from adults, a sure-fire way to create more non-believers.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

35. Comment #95052 by jetdriver on December 7, 2007 at 8:56 am

 avatarThis is one of the scariest political speeches I heard since I arrived in this country in 1998. I wouldn't put past Romney that he actually means what he said this time and did not just do it to get the evangelical votes.
His line about the Courts is exactly what E.Tabbash is warning everybody about: 1 vacancy filled by the likes of Romney in the Supreme Court and Hitchens' wall will never be built.
At this point I will have to leave the country; I can't live in a theocracy. "There is no freedom without religion" What???? The guy is nuts...

Other Comments by jetdriver

36. Comment #95054 by robonstormymonday on December 7, 2007 at 9:01 am

What in the hell!? Why did he switch from religion to patriotic rhetoric. Does he really think his audience is that stupid.

Other Comments by robonstormymonday

37. Comment #95059 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 9:14 am

 avatarComment #95052 by jetdriver was:

This is one of the scariest political speeches I heard since I arrived in this country


Couldn't agree more. I was horrified by this speech. Others may say I am over reacting, that Romney has little or no chance of getting the nomination, no chance of becoming president. But this I think is missing the point. That a presidential candidate can say this kind of thing at all in 2007 in the USA is the point. It shifts the Zeitgeist of what is acceptable political discourse at the highest level in America just that little bit further toward theocratic lunacy.

The actual risk of a Romney presidency is irrelevent. It's the overall trend that scares the crap out of me.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

38. Comment #95074 by 82abhilash on December 7, 2007 at 9:55 am

This speech is a disappointment. He has completly side-stepped the issue of his membership in an organization that was officially racist until 1963 which barred black members from higher office until 1978.

In 1963 he was 16, which means for most of his childhood he was indoctrinated into the then official dcotrine which included racism. In 1978 he was 31, blacks where still not equal in the eyes of his church. What was he thinking then, what is he thinking now? Does he think for himself or change his mind whenever his church changes its policy?

Other Comments by 82abhilash

39. Comment #95079 by thirdchimpanzee on December 7, 2007 at 10:23 am

Here's why I think Romney's candidacy is going to air some very dirty laundry. In the recent CNN/YouTube Republican debate, a questioner held up a Bible and demanded to know which candidates believed every word of the book. As the questioner put it, their answers would tell him everything he needed to know about them as candidates. Here's a link to the transcript:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript.part2/index.html

Guiliani got some heat later for declaring the Jonah story allegorical, but Romney and Huckabee do their best to weasel around the issue of accepting the literalism of the Bible. As an atheist, I don't necessarily care that much whether Jesus every really existed or not. I'm OK in principle with people using the religious texts as personal inspirations, but I think we all have a stake it separating the literalists from the allegorists (if that's a word).

I'm not the only one - that's precisely why the YouTube question was asked by the fervent believer. For the practical purposes of helping determine who is fit to lead, the question is probably more important than whether or not the person has faith in anything.

For an educated, wealthy politician to say they believe every word of the Bible (or Koran, Mormon texts etc) they would

a) Be lying
b) be dangerously credulous
c) actually not read the book(s) in question
c) all of the above

There's no way such a person should be given nuclear codes! So hat's off to the YouTuber who asked the question, and let's have more like that.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

40. Comment #95093 by ScarSick on December 7, 2007 at 10:43 am

Check out Christopher Hitchens response here: http://www.slate.com/id/2179404

I love it when Hitch stays on topic and target. Unfortunately, it seems to be a rare occurrence these days. Latley, he tends to wield his razor-sharp wit rather like a blunt butter knife. He does some damage - but it takes forever and the wounds are pretty shallow. I am beginning to think the man is stricken with self-loathing and may even have a death wish. Or maybe it's all that whiskey he's purported to consume...

I'm a little puzzled by these comments. Hitchens' was quite good, I thought. He raised some valid criticisms about Romney and his shady tactics.

Can you clarify what you actually mean by 'shallow' and 'self-loathing'? Perhaps I'm misreading you or misunderstanding, but I get the impression that you believe Hitchens criticisms were out of bounds.

I don't believe that to be the case, and I think you should elaborate more on this before you make such personal attacks.

Other Comments by ScarSick

41. Comment #95104 by al-rawandi on December 7, 2007 at 10:58 am

 avatarHe didn't address the fundamental issues that people object to about Mormonism.

Brigham Young's marriage policy (I call it "Bring'em young")

And the no 'darkies' policy they had until 1979.

His speech sounded a lot like Khomeini's theory of 'vilayat i-faqih' (governance of the religious jurist)

Other Comments by al-rawandi

42. Comment #95109 by savroD on December 7, 2007 at 11:11 am

 avatarI just read Hitch's response. It was good.

I just wish these religious nutcases of the world would get the Declaration of Independence right. I can't stand the illiteracy. It says, "...endowed by THEIR Creator". They keep replacing "THEIR" with "THE". The placement of this word is a millions times and ways more important than the word Creator. When will these flunkies learn to comprehend what they read. No wonder they believe the bible is literally true!

disgusting!

Other Comments by savroD

43. Comment #95120 by espadre on December 7, 2007 at 11:39 am

Scarsick,

Sorry for the confusion. No, that's not what I meant at all. I agree with you completely. This particular essay by Christopher Hitchens is lucid and cogent.

What I was referring to was Mr. Hitchens' penchant for polemics. I have watched several of his debates and read a number of his essays where he goes beyond just making the rational argument; where he seems to relish antagonizing his adversaries - sometimes at the expense of the point he was trying to make. That's what I meant about the shallow intellectual wounds he inflicts on them. I think he is more effective staying on point - like he did in this essay. Plus when you antagonize fanatics you never know what harm they may try to do...

As far as the self-loathing comment: I have read some biographical stuff and watched him on CSPAN where he seemed remorseful and somewhat pained by his personal life. It was just my impression; I may be totally mistaken.

Other Comments by espadre

44. Comment #95132 by Northern Bright on December 7, 2007 at 12:18 pm

 avatarWhat's the view in the US about the likelihood of this guy getting the Republican nomination?

Who's the front runner at the moment?

Other Comments by Northern Bright

45. Comment #95139 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 12:27 pm

 avatarNorthern Bright,

The smart money is generally on Rudy Giuliani because of his 9/11 hero status and because he is seen as a viable candidate against Clinton or Obama.

However, the religious vote in the Republic party have serious problems with Rudy because of his perceived liberalism on several social issues not to mention his own personal history.

If Mitt Romney can get the Christians on side he might really be a viable nomination in my opinion. Others will disagree, but the way the conservative talk show hosts have been talking him up since his 'faith' speech I really think he now becomes a possibility.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

46. Comment #95142 by Northern Bright on December 7, 2007 at 12:35 pm

 avatarThanks for that, USA_Limey - scary though.

Mind you, pretty well all the candidates strike me as pretty scary, one way or another.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

47. Comment #95147 by thirdchimpanzee on December 7, 2007 at 12:54 pm

I don't know about the "smart money" on the Republican side. I think we tend to forget that 2000 was the beginning of the Cheney presidency - which is itself a weird payback from Bush senior, who suffered a humiliating loss at the hands of Bill Clinton.

As various insiders have attested, the inner circle of Cheney and Rove have barely tolerated the Religious Right "nutters" - they leave that to the front man - aka George W Bush. The farce played out on the world stage was to see Tony Balir sucking up to the monkey, while the organ grinder was making war.

I can't see that the "smart money" in Republican circles can view the last 7 years as anything but a disaster - but they're in a bind. The really can't talk up any of the supposed non-religious virtues of conservatism like their economic performance - certainly not while millions of voters are facing foreclosure. Polls are showing the that fear tactic is losing its bite - with social issues such as health care and the environment rising in the public consciousness.

The only reliable buttons they have left to push are the social and religious ones (gay marriage and who's more godly). Even stem cell research is rebounding against them.

The Cheney machine plucked George W Bush from Texas to be the "aw schucks" face of a grim assault on American democracy - and that machine has no obvious candidate in this race. With all respect to USA_Limey, I think Rudy Giuliani will prove as toxic to many conservative voters as Hilary Clinton is to far liberals and conservatives. Rudy might win against Hilary, but I think he'd lose to Barack Obama.

I don't know - but its possible a number of moderate Republicans might cross over to the Dems if anyone but Giuliani or Ron Paul (a libertarian) wins the nomination. The culture war everyone talks about here is probably going to be played out in earnest during the Republican primaries.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

48. Comment #95165 by USA_Limey on December 7, 2007 at 1:28 pm

 avatarThirdchimpanzee..

I don't disagree with any of that. I probably should have put 'smart money' in inverted commas in my previous post as you did!

We agree that Giuliani is a big problem for many conservatives.

As I stated on the Chapman thread though, I feel totally disenfranchised by the whole damn lot of them.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

49. Comment #95173 by al-rawandi on December 7, 2007 at 1:53 pm

 avatarRomney will get the nomination.

Rudy has had the NYFD turn on him. He is on like his 8th marriage. He is an adulterer and one of his colleagues has just been indicted. He is pro-choice, and that just won't fly.

Romney looks like he is from central casting. Has the 'presidential look'.

He will lose to Hillary in the general election.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

50. Comment #95190 by NormanDoering on December 7, 2007 at 2:31 pm

al-rawandi wrote:
He will lose to Hillary in the general election.

No. He will lose to Obama.

Other Comments by NormanDoering
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: