Romney Re-Launches
Just saw part of his speech HERE. Now he is being congratulated by George H. W. and Barbara Bush.
Earlier this morning, I read excerpts from the speech he planned to give and concluded that Romney does not sufficiently respect the necessary separation of Church and State. MSNBC First Read comments on the excerpts.
According to Political Wire, Robert Novak says Romney’s advisers opposed giving this speech at this time.
As a religious Jew, it is obvious to me that religion (yours, mine, anybody else’s) does not belong in the public square. Romney would have us keep the nefarious 1954 interpolation “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and fill public property with Nativity scenes and menorahs (but probably not Muslim crescents or Wiccan ceremonies). Oh, “The legend, “In God We Trust,” became a part of the design of United States currency in 1957 and has appeared on all currency since 1963.”
So, Romney would have us restore a faux-1950s generic Protestant Christianity to American citizenship.
Romney “stresses that Americans are bound by moral convictions that transcend any single denomination or faith and says those beliefs are what should guide a president.” There is little that transcends denominations or religions – that’s why we have different religions. When it comes to moral convictions, Americans do NOT agree.
AP Coverage of Romney’s Speech
CNN – Romney: ‘Freedom requires religion’
For a Round-Up, read my full post continuing below…
SOME WEB-LOG REACTION:
Rather than focus on being defensive, Romney talked expansively about our best traditions in ecumenical faith, perhaps only souring those who profess no faith at all — and who likely wouldn’t support Mitt anyway.
Andrew Sullivan posted this before the speech – still quite interesting and informative.
MSNBC First Read: Mitt mentions ‘Mormon’ just once
Ron Paul on Mitt Romney (earlier)
Chris Cillizza’s The Fix: Romney’s “Faith in America” Speech: What Worked and What Didn’t
Mona Charen at National Review’s The Corner:
That was perhaps the best political speech of the year. It was well-crafted and delivered with conviction and — this is unusual for Romney — considerable emotion. I thought his contrast of the empty cathedrals of Europe with the violent jihadis was particularly adroit. He managed to make this a speech about patriotism as much as about religion. Brilliant.
MSNBC First Read on Conservative Reaction
MSNBC First Read: More reaction to Mitt’s speech
The New York Times ‘The Caucus’
TNR’s Isaac Chotiner at ‘The Plank’: Mitt Speaks!
Romney just quoted John Adams saying, “Freedom requires religion.” This is a pretty radical statement, and something the candidate should be asked about later.
TNR’s Michelle Cottle at ‘The Plank’: Romney Hits the Sweet Spot
Mark my word, “the Religion of Secularism” will resonate. Nothing revs evangelicals’ engines more than the notion that smug, pointy headed secularists have launched a war on the values and the very way of life of good, God-fearing Americans. Points must be awarded to whichever of the governor’s speechwriters came up with that bit.
TNR’s Naom Scheiber at ‘The Stump’: Quickie Reaction to Romney Speech
Bottom line: This was a pretty well-constructed, well-executed speech. Skeptical religious conservatives should feel somewhat reassured after watching it. But it may nonetheless cause Romney problems, since it gives the press license to elaborate on the less-savory particulars of Mormonism. CNN’s graphic was kind of the reductio ad absurdum of that, but I suspect you’ll see more than a few MSM accounts noting that he didn’t get into any particulars, then giving examples of what went unmentioned.
John Aravosis at AMERICAblog: Romney wishes his faith were more like Islam
Shakespeare’s Sister makes some of the same points I did
Petulant at Shakesville: Romney Willard’s Faith-Based Snoozefest
Melissa has a great analysis of ONE paragraph of his speech. That is all you need to know as all the others are equally BORING and full of generalities about faith. He is a politician. Always keep it vague!My favorite part of Willard’s speech was the CNN coverage. When Willard started talking (not really) about his Mormon Faith, CNN popped-up a handy-dandy Mormon Church History Box beside Willard. Ahhh… Joseph Smith blessed CNN with the courage to inform the masses with basic information about his creation
Hugh Hewitt / Townhall.com: “A Common Creed Of Moral Convictions”
Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece. The staging and Romney’s delivery, the eclipse of all other candidates it caused, the domination of the news cycle just prior to the start of absentee voting in New Hampshire on Monday –for all these reasons and more it will be long discussed as a masterpiece of political maneuver.
John Podhoretz at COMMENTARY: Mitt Romney’s Boilerplate Mistake
Many commentators on the Right are praising the speech, but I fear they’re grading on a curve; strictly as a matter of rhetoric, it tended toward the bland. The only genuinely novel aspect of it was the addition of the Mormon trail to a brief account of the history of religious intolerance in America
David Frum: That Dog Won’t Hunt
Once Romney answered any question about the content of his religious faith, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith.
Giuliani also said he agreed with everything he heard in Romney’s speech in Houston Thursday.
“I thought Gov. Romney said everything I agree with,” he said. “Everything he said, at least the parts that I heard, I think I heard most of it, I agree with.”
He used the question to showcase his view on religious tolerance.
“I guess it would be better if he didn’t have to do that,” he said. “This is no reflection on Gov. Romney, he did what he thought he had to do. But from the point of view that you would wish that everybody would move beyond that. I believe his talk helped to put that issue to rest.
“There is no religious test for office,” he said. “There shouldn’t be any religious test for office.”
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said some Americans are taking the concept of the separation of church and state too far and railed against those who would establish “the religion of secularism” in a speech Thursday aimed at reassuring voters about his own religious background.
Romney backed public holiday displays including Christmas nativity scenes and hanukkiot and urged the country not to remove references to God from US currency and the Pledge of Allegiance.
A debate is raging in America about the permissibility of such references and the permissibility of religious displays, a debate which traditionally intensifies in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Romney has also been the subject of a more personal religious debate – whether his faith as a Mormon will affect his chances of winning the Republican nomination.
The Bilerico Project – When Faith Dies: My Reflections on Leaving the Mormon Church
The Bilerico Project – Gay Mormon Women: How Oppressed Can You Get?
The Bilerico Project – Gay Mormons: Not an Oxymoron
Romney called for religious tolerance and stated that he “will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office [of the Presidency] and the sovereign authority of the law.”
“As an organization that respects faith and its role in our society, we applaud Governor Romney for pledging not to exert his religious beliefs, and those of other faiths, on the will of the American people.
“Romney’s assurance that ‘no one religion, no one group, no one cause’ will supersede the rights of the American people is commendable. However, we encourage Governor Romney to apply these convictions to his policy positions. To date this remains a hollow promise, as evidenced by his positions on full and equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.
“Religion-based bigotry should not be disavowed on a case by case basis, and religious tolerance is more than a rhetorical position. It is a value that should be applied equally to all Americans. Romney failed to use today’s speech – and last week’s debate – to acknowledge the harm caused by religion-based bigotry against gay and lesbian individuals and their families.
“We call on Govenor Romney to assert policy positions that would ensure a world in which reason and religion no longer conflict with the liberties and freedoms guaranteed to all Americans, including gays and lesbians.”
NPR: Romney Seeks to Allay Concerns About His Faith
This was not the “moral values” address that many had expected, although Romney did mention perhaps the most appealing aspect of his persona to religious conservatives: His marriage of 38 years, and his loyal, photogenic five sons. (This is also his greatest advantage over his Republican rival Rudolph Giuliani, who is on his third marriage.)
But Romney made no mention of hot-button evangelical issues, such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research. Instead, he emphasized shared religious values.
-SNIP-
Shaun Casey, an expert on religion and politics at Wesley Theological Seminary, called this emphasis a weakness in Romney’s address.
“This was a generic religious freedom speech, and it could have been given by any number of politicians,” Casey says. “But that’s not the problem he faces. It’s not what he needed to do. I don’t think it will comfort the red-meat types in the Republican Party.”
Americans United Press Release:
Today’s speech by Mitt Romney on the role of religion in American politics reflects an inaccurate understanding of the constitutional relationship between church and state, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“I was disappointed in Romney’s statement,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “The founders of our Constitution meant for religion and government to be completely separate. Romney is wrong when he says we are in danger of taking separation too far or at risk of establishing a religion of secularism.
“I was particularly outraged that Romney thinks that the Constitution is somehow based on faith and that judges should rule accordingly, “ Lynn said. “That’s a gross misunderstanding of the framework of our constitutional system.
“I think it is telling that Romney quoted John Adams instead of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison,” Lynn continued. “Jefferson and Madison are the towering figures who gave us religious liberty and church-state separation.
“I was also disappointed that Romney doesn’t seem to recognize that many Americans are non-believers,” Lynn continued. “Polls repeatedly show that millions of people have chosen to follow no spiritual path at all. They’re good Americans too, and Romney ought to have recognized that fact.
“I am an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, and I believe in my faith,” Lynn added. “But I believe just as strongly that non-believers are good Americans too. I wish Romney had said that.”
Don’t Forget: This week’s edition of the PBS newsmagazine program RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY (distributed Friday, December 7 at 5 p.m., check local listings) will feature the following report: Response to Romney Speech on Religion — Kim Lawton talks with Dr. Shaun Casey, an associate professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary and author of a forthcoming book on religion and politics in the 1960 presidential campaign, about reaction to Mitt Romney’s speech on “Faith in America.” This week on the show’s “One Nation: Religion & Politics 2008 Blog” available at http://www.pbsorg/wnet/religionandethics/blog.html, hear an extended version of the studio discussion between Kim Lawton and Dr. Shaun Casey focusing on reaction to Mitt Romney’s speech about “Faith in America” and watch video clips from the address. To access the transcript and streaming video of the Cover Story and Feature segments, use the Web links listed above. For a transcript of the conversation about Mitt Romney’s speech on faith send an e-mail to schultzm@religionethics.org or visit the show’s Web site at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics after 8:30 p.m. on Friday where both the broadcast and extended version of this interview will be posted.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Something America and China Could Do Together
Posted on Apr 22, 2013
-
North Carolina Lays Groundwork To Establish State Religion
Posted on Apr 3, 2013
-
Disrespect for Mao Exposes Truth about U.S. ‘Free Speech’ (Huanqiu, People’s Republic of China)
Posted on Apr 1, 2013
-
Sunday Sermon: Cornel West
Posted on Mar 31, 2013
One of the books I am currently reading is Jim Webb’s “Born Fighting” – you might find it interesting.
Thank you, Holly. I was already motivated by you to go visit his Web site. What a wealth of good information and goals! (Not just to reclaim a better life and dignity for “his people” — I have seen others from that area burst into tears speaking of their plight and expressing the desire to help them — but on foreign policy as well.)
I have read somewhat about “his people” and the Appalachians (and the Ozarks) and what I read (life in a harsh, dangerous environment required kin to stick together, and an attack against one was seen as an attack against all) reminded me of the Israeli Jews and the Arabs (who are remarkably similar).
Readers: His Web site is here.
(jameswebb.com)
Thank you, again, Holly.
Thanks DLS! There do seem to be some commonalities between Scots & Jews other than the “miser, cheap” stereotype.
Check out Stephen Prothero (see above) too!
Elrod. From the official records of the Virginia colony.
In their unfamiliar surroundings, the settlers found solace in their familiar prayer book of the church of England whether or not a minister was present to lead them or not. Smith summarized services during the first few years: We had daily common prayer morning and evening, every Sunday 2 services morning and evening and the holy communion every three months till our minister died, But our prayers daily with an Homily on Sunday and we continued two or three more years till more preachers arrived and God did most mercifully hear us.
To even suggest that those coming over on the boats no matter the year or the time in history were not men and women driven of religious faith is a leap in logic that is not supportable.
This nation was founded by men of faith on tenets of faith and Im not even going to get into the reformation and Martin Luther and the chaos that was exploding within the Catholic Church and the types of men and women that were daring to come to America to work for companies such as the London Company.
Some were religious and some were not. Some of the first refugees fleeing religious persecution were Dutch Jews who were living in Brazil when the Portuguese took over.
Chapters in American Jewish History – #55:
OK, I’m still up:
About the First Amendment
MORE
Americans United FAQ:
Thanks Holly. It seems any “originalist” would have to listen to the author of the religious freedom clause – Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson actually wrote the religious freedom statute for the state of Virginia that was placed into the First Amendment by George Mason and others. Jefferson’s letter to the Baptist minister is the origin of “Separation of Church and State” and is pretty explicit on what it means.
Someone,
I didn’t say that the early founders were not religious people or that John Smith and co. didn’t pray to God. I merely said that the purpose of their voyage to Virginia was not to “escape religious persecution.” It was to make money, and to bring people along that could help them do it. Churches outside the official Anglican Church never established a foothold in Virginia until the 1740s with the Great Awakening. Who might have been persecuting these Anglicans in John Smith’s colony in England? The indentured servants who came over were primarily young men kicked off the land in the enclosure movement and often tricked into signing an indenture. Religious freedom had nothing to do with their decision to come to America.
DLS,
The Puritans weren’t persecuted in England except insofar as they had failed to “purify” the Anglican Church by 1629. They’d struggled to turn the Church of England into a Calvinist body since the 1560s (when the Church of Scotland was established under Calvinist precepts). The Puritans (who called themselves Independents or Dissenters) had a strong following in Parliament and in East Anglia from the 1570s right up through the Interregnum of the 1650s. The emigration to America was more a frustration at the failure of Puritans to remake the Church of England and a desire to establish their own Calvinist utopia. They never claimed “religious freedom.” Not for themselves or for others. They believed there was only one acceptable interpretation of Christianity and if they were not going to be able to mold the Church of England into their own Calvinist institution, then they were going to go abroad and set their own up under congregational auspices. The King of England was plenty happy to be rid of them. The Puritan “Great Migration” only lasted from 1629 to 1641, when the Civil War began.
Holly is right that some Jews were early settlers of New Amsterdam – later New York after 1664. Many traced their routes to expellees from the Portuguese and Spanish Inquisition or traders through Amsterdam. But the first large-scale religious migrants to America – whose primary purpose was to escape religious persecution – were German Anabaptists (Mennonites usually) who settled in Philadelphia (Germantown) in the early 18th century.
Er … did any of you actually read the speech?
Aside from mentioning God 20 times, Jesus Christ 4 times (there’s a sneaky “Lord” in there), and the Catholic Church another 3 times, the FUNDAMENTAL thrust was “Us” versus “them.”
“Us” is “Christians” (and, two token mentions of Jews and Muslims.) “Them” is “jihadists” and “secularists” (and, seemingly, everybody else).
“Mormon” is mentioned precisely once (unless you want to count “faith of my fathers” as a reference to Mormonism and not as a moldy old hymn to give the impression that Mitt’s just like anybody who goes to church. (He’s not).
Mitt-Gott-Uns creates an astonishing little fallacious false, specious dichotomy by suggesting that ANYBODY who doesn’t accept that he’s a “Christian” is being religiously intolerant, mentioning Jesus Christ three times in the paragraph, and, therefore, it is implied, Mitt must clearly be a “Christian.”
This is a matter of astonishing theological ‘controversy,’ (er, NOT, since nearly all sects agree that the Mormon creed is a Bible-derived religion but NOT Christianity, just as Islam accepts the Bible but adds additional elements of ITS own).
But the REAL viciousness of the fallacy is that the “argument” is that if you do not accept their/Mitt’s self-definition, you are guilty of religious intolerance.
Gee, I don’t know. (I’m a Buddhist.) But isn’t there a HUGE difference between allowing people to practice their religion freely (religious tolerance) and being forced to accept the tenets and/or presumptions OF their religion (religious bullying)?
Why, if Mitt’s such a groovy guy, would he attempt to foist such a monstrously false dichotomy off on his listeners?
As for whatever y’all are arguing about: while it is certainly very interesting, I am not at all sure that it has anything to do with Romney’s carefully tailored sophistries: Us versus them.
He wants to include YOU in his “us” and we can all then fight “them.” Where have we seen this political gambit used before? Hmmm.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” George Orwell, Animal Farm
dear harto. Yes, I read Gov Romney’s speech. 3x. Though I could understand many of his remarks today, several remarks today lost me… wherein he indicated that he was tolerant of other religious views (You can see my take on his leaving out
people who do not follow a religion over at the other post on Gov. Romney) and then said Secularism is the new religion… and THAT cannot be tolerated.
Wait, didn’t you just say the word ‘tolerance’ for other religions? But wait, didn’t you just say ‘the new religion’ couldn’t be
tolerated?
There, he lost me.
At my post on Romney here on TMV a short scroll
back, was trying to understand, after listening to and then reading his speech:
I like what H.H. the Dalai Lama says: “…for it is the inherent nature of all human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and dignity, and they have an equal right to achieve that.”
He was speaking about human rights and what he calls “universal responsibility.
Some would say they dont want anyone of any religious anything, near politics. Others say no non-religious people in politics, no no no. I keep thinking the same simple, no doubt dull-minded thought, what about just a good person, regardless of religion or not?
dr.e
Dr.E-
Your concerns about the speech are also my concerns.
Especially, this:
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
That statement alone pretty much amounts to establishing a theocracy and a very strict religious test, indeed.
He’s softening the blow only by allowing a few outsiders (Jews, Muslims?) into his exclusive club.
But the door of the club is firmly shut against those who don’t meet his religious requirements.
I try to remember that it was a political speech, and maybe it was just a case of romancing the fundamentalist evangelical vote. Still, as the words of a possible president, his words were extreme enough to be frightening.
The case for keeping religion out of politics, while not keeping religious people out of politics, is made pretty evident by this speech, IMO.
Carter, a devout evangelical, was elected without fuss or bother, precisely because he didn’t make his candidacy about his faith. Faith was just one factor of his life and personality that was there for all to see, but no one was challenged to either accept his faith as one’s own or to reject him because of it. That’s the kind of attitude to which I’d like to see this country return.
The day faith was brought to the WH and installed in its own special office, was the day faith became a reason for us to fight with one another instead of cooperate with one another on the very human issues that concern us all, the rich and the poor, the priests and the godless sinners.
Elrod I understand what you said. It was late.
You are making a mistake in timing. You are assuming that the founding of this nation occurred in 1607 in Virgina.
The founding of this nation was a PROCESS that took almost 300 years from 1492 until the Declaration of Independence through to the Creation of the Articles of Confederation on to the Constitution of the United States of America.
The founding of This country was not 1492 or 1607 but was indeed a process that included as Holly pointed out the arrival of Jews…………..Not in the same breath or meant to impunge our Jewish ancestors but also Thiefs, thugs, Muslims and on and on. But predominantly those arriving on our shores were driven by a religious faith.
Seeking relief from the State sponsored churches all accross Europe and wishing to have the FREEDOM to choose where to live and WHAT faith to choose. Such was America in its founding. A nation with many different offshoots of Protestant Christianity as a direct result of the Reformation that had taken place under Martin Luther in Europe during the 1500′s and a Catholic church that was desperately trying to maintain a hold on its souls.
What I teach and have been taught is that the founding of this nation was a process and not a single event.
Therein lies the difference in agendas. It is very easy to look at Virginia 1607 and say nope they came for loot and treasure therefore America was founded on greed and avarice. Or you can look at the process which is certainly a more inclusive approach and determine that Religion and more specifically Reformation driven Protestantism was the driving force behind a VAST majority of pilgrims coming to our shores.
There is also no doubt that there are many different reasons why people came to America yet the driving force behind everyones faith stepping onto these shores was Christianity. And those coming to America were seeking Hope and while they might have been stepping on these shores with the idea of feeding their familes first and foremost these ideas were still enclosed in Christian bodies and Christian minds.
No matter how you guys try to nitpick the truth and chip away at its foundations the process of Americas formation was steeped in Christian roots and not Deism or anything else.
The Great Awakening happened during the critical time in our history. Perhaps had not this event happened the formation of a separate nation from England might never have happened. Because it was this Awakening that caused men to start challenging events, authority and even god. It led to the Deists that had the guts to stand up and be Radical and rebel. Yet despite a nation whose constitution was written by Deists this was a nation that was as a whole driven and highly influenced by the religious and more certainly Christianity.
In this historical context then the founding was 13 states or colonies coming together and saying we will join your nation if you give us certain things. States rights. It was here that the influence of Christianity and religion is never more pronounced then in the FIRST AMENDMENT the founders included RELIGION and its place in America.
I dont think many argue that religion should be separate. The argument comes that Religion is being systematically removed from America despite 600 years of traditions. This is the argument and it certainly is the stance that Christians take when those of you who want to remove OUR RIGHTS in favor of yours get out your hammer and chisel and begin chipping away.
So, there’s only room for your rights?
The idea that other people having their rights somehow takes away from you having your rights is one that slaveowning southerners (including some of my ancestors) fought for, and lost. I like Eugene Debs’ idea:
That is a more Christian statement–at least as my Baptist Granny would have recognized it–than what I hear coming out of the mouths of so called Christians these days.
Somebody, please learn about the REST of the story.
Btw, DLS, I was born and raised in Oklahoma. I was raised as a Southern Baptist. My family has been percolating west across the deep south from the Carolinas since a forefather arrived there in the 1740s. I am a white southern male descended from slave-owners with lots of black cousins due to promiscuous behavior of said slave-owning good Christian ancestors with their ‘property.’
I do not come to the ‘bible belt’ as an outsider. I know my native ground and my brothers and sisters and neighbors quite well, thank you.
That whizzing sound you are hearing is Thomas Paine spinning at high RPM in his grave.
Somebody-
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that you are correct about the predominance of Christianity in the early years of the country, what does that say about the principles by which the Constitution was written and the principle by which the country has developed since and is continuing to develop?
Your argument hinges on an implication that the PROCESS stopped at some point. Consequently, if Protestant Christianity was the predominant religion then, it should continue to be the predominant religion in perpetuity?
The Constitution codifies a guide for the future, and it is not merely a mirror of the country’s past up to the point of its writing. All the basic tenets for governing in the future (checks and balances, etc) revolve around guarding against the worst tendencies of HUMAN NATURE as the country develops and changes. So does the Bill of Rights.
I can only conclude then, that the Founders were quite aware that the PROCESS would continue.
Your anguish about your Christian rights being taken then, is a false anguish, because the role of Christianity is part of the PROCESS, like everything else.
The Founders were also all white men of property
It was a long and arduous PROCESS to incorporate women and people of other races under the same system of rights and freedoms.
At every step, what emerged was an outcry that granting rights to more, and different, people somehow takes away the rights of those who already have them.
Yours is the exact same reaction and argument.
Rights do not depend on a finite number of people having them.
No one is taking away the rights of Christians.
It’s just that others want to have the same rights as they do, as the PROCESS results in a more varied society.
Those like you just need to adjust to sharing the public square, instead of claiming it as your exclusive space.
Somebody,
Even if you look at the founding of America as a process and not as an event, you still can’t argue that most people came to America to escape religious persecution. Sure, some did – like the German Anabaptists and the Jews and some French Huguenots. But most came over for economic reasons.
As for 1492, the impulse there was clearly colonial hegemony and the rivalry between Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, France and England. The rivalry was partly religious, between Protestant Holland and England and Catholic Spain, France and Portugal. But it was also very much about economic rivalry.
That the vast majority of the people who came to America were Christian is irrelevant, unless their Christianity was the DEFINING objective for their emigration. Yes, they had a sense of hope, which they may have understood in Christian terms. But that seems a far cry from the original point that people came here because of the religious freedom (not written into law until the late 18th century though culturally possible in NY and PA before that).
Rights do not depend on a finite number of people having them.
No one is taking away the rights of Christians.
It’s just that others want to have the same rights as they do, as the PROCESS results in a more varied society.
I find this truly fascinating. I was not aware that Christians were taking away rights of people in this country. What rights do Christians have that Non Christians do NOT have in this country?
Also careful Doma it sounds as if you are saying the constitituon is a living breathing document which will have you falling out of grace with those you are trying to defend.
The Terri Schiavo case was a real eye-opener for me, setting a precedent for Congress intervening in what should have been handled by the Courts and imposing their religious beliefs on the secular.
Somebody,
George H.W. Bush, 1987
Christians have and are working hard taking away the rights of Gays and Lesbians, of women and children, of families that do not conform to their dogmas, in the legislature, in the workplace, at school, in the family, and in society.
Since you’re so concerned about ‘counting,’ I suggest you go and count the ways in which ‘good Christians’ have denied rights to others that they zealously claim for themselves.
Start with all the hateful bills, referendums, and amendments put forward by Christianist state legislators and voted in by good Christians.
I don’t think you can count that high.
Somebody, your awareness is un.
South Carolina gay rights advocates hailed Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws nationwide as a ruling that they hope will end all discrimination against gays and lesbians.
All 50 states had sodomy laws as of the 1960s. But states began abolishing those laws with the emergence of the gay rights movement, and about half had done so by the early 1980s.
While nearly all states now have laws banning same sex marriage is it your contention that these laws were passed entirely by Christians?
If so that only further supports my contention that this country is a Christian nation who prides itself in Christian laws and fundamental principals.
And going back to my very original post…….those on the outside looking in…IE…Jews, Atheists,Gays etc…..have to get out the old hammer and chisel and begin chipping away at the foundations of this nations established laws and traditions one brick at a time. Much as the above two examples I pointed out.
Its interesting that this phrase “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom” is a cause of concern for so many. Its not Romney, Its John Adams.
Tonto- Doesn’t matter who wrote it- it still makes no sense. Why does freedom require religion?