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.
78 Responses to “Romney Re-Launches”
There is no “separation of church and state” as has been claimed for years by activists. The federal government may neither promote nor suppress religious practices; that is what is in the Constitution. As for state and local governments, it is up to them, their communities, their laws, and their desires.
* * *
Text of Romney’s speech
Religion is a HUGE part of who we are as a society, nation and individual. Even if we are not religious at all….non religion or atheism plays an important part in that persons life.
To seperate God/Religion/Church from the individual is a futile attempt by those who feel they are on the outside looking in. IE…….in this country that would be Atheists and non Christian type religious people including the Jewish faith.
This is a nation that was founded by those fleeing religious persecution. It is a nation that moved forward for 200 years with God as a common ground for nearly all Americans. In the last 20 or 30 years the push is on to remove God from Christian America by those on the outside looking in.
I have to agree with DLS. Telling Chugwater Wyoming residents they cannot put a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn is absurd and goes way beyond anything the constitution Im familiar with is all about.
Again the assault on religion in this country comes from the “Animal House” left who want to party, do drugs and have uninhibited freedoms to “Party on Dudes” and to do so means the surpressing of religion which is the prime opposition to their agenda.
They do that by dehumanizing religion and God. Making a Mockery of it.
As the Bible says. My bible. The bible that has been the focus and the center of America for 200 years…..God is not mocked…….whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.
I wont vote for Romney but good for him……The minute we stop telling it like we see it because its not politically correct is the moment in this country that the truth is subject to censorship because other people dont like what you have to say.
The truth must not be mocked.
Romney’s speech was double-speak of the highest order.
While making the case for ‘no religious test’, he put forth a very strong test of his own. Apparently, this is a country only for people of faith.
I’ve just been told I don’t belong here, and I’m lucky to get a seat at the back of the bus. It felt more as if I were told to catch a bus out of the country.
Part of the “Animal House” left? Please, go educate yourself in both religion and history.
No religious test… agreed. But the philosophy, religious or otherwise, that drives a candidate’s thinking and behavior — especially when they parade it around as part of their public persona — is very much on the table for discussion and evaluation. It’s simply too integral a part of who the candidate is.
Religion may be a huge part of some people in this country, but it certainly isn’t for all of us. I guess those of us who don’t specifically believe as all you “holier than thou” so-called Christians dictate are nothing more than dust in the wind (yea I’m talking to you “Somebody Said”).
As an American, I am so SICK and TIRED of you Christian hypocrites acting like you are the salt of the Earth. Anyone who has seriously studied the history of religion and the Bible (not to mention the Torah, Koran, etc.) knows that they were conceived and written by MEN, NOT GOD. They were conceived to CONTROL people. To manipulate them.
If believing those lies helps you get through the day, then fine, but please spare the rest of us who actually have a brain and are able to think for ourselves the indignity of listening to your unhinged view of the world.
The very sad thing about this upsurgence in religious litmus tests in this day and age is that you so-called Christians can’t even follow the dictates of your supposed savior Jesus. Didn’t he say to love your neighbors and your enemies? Didn’t he say to turn the other cheek? Isn’t one of the commandmandments “thou shall NOT kill”? Christian nation my ass!
You hypocrites all need to remove the log from your own eyes, instead of looking at the speck in other people’s eyes. STOP trying to force your decrepit world view on everyone else! TRY, just this once, to do what Jesus told you and remove yourselves from the public square where you gesticulate and pander to God and move it into your own house, behind closed doors.
Maybe if you did that, we could have a REAL country where the problems of the people get solved and laws are passed that engender what’s best for the entire country, not just those of you who think you are SAVED merely because you mouth the words you have been fed since the day you were born. You are so filled with fear; try thinking for yourself for ONCE!
Yet, jcbrap, one must know NT allusions just to understand your comment!
Salt of the Earth
Luke 6:41 (American Standard Version):
ETC…
Unfortunately (including on this site), it exists here, today.
It’s not only hedonism at stake (98%+ the childish and the demented who have inherited the attitude and sometimes the lifestyle of the radical Left, the rest being developmental retardates or the small fraction of so-called “libertarians” who aren’t true libertarians, but something more anarchic when it comes to personal behavior, peers of the radical leftists). It isn’t just pathological self-love and conceit. It also, sad to say, is often hatred at work, which also comes out of the radicalization of the Left. Beyond illogical, improper guilt and self-and-society-and-civilizational loathing is a more evil, destructive form of behavior. Religious and moral-code-following decent, honest, white middle-aged males in the South (itself an object of pathological hatred) is especially singled out for hatred, for attacks, for suppression — for persecution. There is much hatred accompanying the nihilist and hedonistic impulses on the far Left, and the religious (unless they choose to behave in a PC manner, and better yet, be leftist-activist) are especially sought as objects for that hatred.
Holly,
You made a great point, which actually illuminates the problem with religiosity in America.
One must have some familiarity with Christian concepts in order to understand much of American literature, as well as political commentary.
I would argue, though, that destiny need not copy history. While acknowledging our heritage and learning from it, we need not get stuck in it. I would hope that we can learn as we go along, and broaden the basis for understanding, instead of repeat the past like trained parrots.
That, in a nutshell, is why I didn’t like Romney’s speech. That, and the fact that those with the faith badge of honor, were represented as some sort of elite, insiders’ club.
DLS, you think we’re persecuting you?
I recommend these two books by religion scholar Stephen Prothero:
American Jesus (which I’ve read)
Religious Literacy (which I plan to read)
Somebody-
“This is a nation that was founded by those fleeing religious persecution…”
Yes, and then they proceeded directly to persecuting each other.. New states were founded precisely because some Christians were fleeing the persecution by the religious freedom of other Christians. There is only a hair’s breadth between religious freedom and religious intolerance, bigotry
and persecution of others.
I have no problem with those clutching a bible to their breast, I have a problem when they wave ii in my face and my space.
Distinguish, please, between the freedom of religion and the domination by religion.
DLS, ah yes, the abhorrent behavior of these radical lefties! If only we’d cleanse society of these people, we’d be pure! Except for, well…
Bob Barr, Mr. Family Values himself who paid for his former wife to have an abortion and had an affair with his third wife while still married to his second.
and
Bush advisor extraordinaire Ted Haggard’s who apparently had an affinity for male prostitutes, coke and later — thankfully — hetero-restoration therapy.
and who can forget
Senator Larry Craig, whose “wide stance” obviously wasn’t wide enough to include those excluded under the Federal Marriage Amendment.
and of course our dear friend
Rep. Mark Foley, whose crusade against child abuse got a little too, errr, hands-on.
but you can’t blame him, since he was obviously taking cues from
some of our children’s mentors at the Catholic Church.
My point in bringing this up isn’t to whitewash religious people or even conservatives. It’s to point out the HYPOCRISY of the very people who would love to legislate “moral purity”.
DLS, I agree that there’s plenty of wonderful, hard working, decent, religious people in America. But please spare me the “hedonist radical left” bullsheisse when there’s clearly enough questionable behavior to go around…
No. I’m not a religious or social conservative. I know who is being persecuted, though, despite any dishonest denials of it.
Non seqitur. (It does not follow, for Holly’s fellow Democrats.) That’s despite the irony that something Romney is relying on in his campaign is his appearance and something like what you describe (the officially-squeaky-clean 1950s, that is). His smile won’t work with smarter voters any more than Obama’s or Edwards’s.
* * *
Not evenly or equally. You lose.
I don’t care who a politician ruts with in private, but, as I commented to Clarissa, no candidate who ruts with God in public will ever get my vote except at the very last resort as the least of manifold evils.
I prefer this Non Sequitur!
I agree that there’s plenty of wonderful, hard working, decent, religious people in America, that spent the past 7 years sitting on their hands while usurping self-righteous god-licking true believers wasted that precious time on cruel and disastrous sideshows, whilst water-boarding the Bill of Rights and giving the Medal of Freedom to any spook or crook willing to wipe their ass on the Constitution.
LMAO!
DLS, you’re not a social conservative? I don’t understand how. What exactly constitutes social conservatism to you then? Cyncism aside, just trying to figure out where you stand. And I’ll play. Socially, In my own personal behavior, I’m pretty conservative. Some might accuse me of being prudish at times. That’s my choice. But when it comes to social legislation, I’m quite liberal and/or hands-off — especially when the pontificating and legislation is being pushed by creepy hypocrites. Religious bashing? Not really. You’ll even find me in a house of worship more often than some. Faith and spirituality can be wonderful. But I don’t think that religion as a codified system is a sacred cow that grants it the right to go unquestioned any more than any other set of beliefs or ideology.
The religious debate in this country centers around one Huge Fallacy.
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. If YOU look to MAN…a person….as our guidepost to god and religion then we will most certainly fail and be let down.
All of the people that you point to are mere mortals. Men. They sin and fall short of the glory of God. That is why salvation depends upon God and not man.
It is always the way of those antiChristians to point to men and say………see they failed therefore Christianity is false.
Yet even Christ Failed as a MAN. Because he did not convert the masses. He did not bring about a new world order. Religion is freedom of expression. The new left wishes to take that expression from me because it infringes upon their space and yet…..they in return infringe on my space by demanding that people be allowed to do certain things that “Upset me”.
I do not count in their world. My religion does not count in their world. My being Upset does not matter to them. There response is “Deal with it.” My faith is meaningless in their world because their world is all that matters. Mine is flawed because they point to failures of men who tried and failed to be holier then thou.
Christians are not holier then thou……We are in fact sinners who fall short of Gods Glory. We only want you to stop demanding of us our Constitutional right to practice our faith openly and overtly just as the left is demanding that they practice their life styles openly and overtly.
Where is the difference? Why should Christians be forced to give up their rights (We are continually told its okay as long as we practice our faith and belief at home behind closed doors in a closet)
Yet the Anti Christians/Anti Religious group demand to be allowed to dictate to society what is and should be the right way to live life??
DLS, you think we’re persecuting you?
Part of the “Animal House” left? Please, go educate yourself in both religion and history.
Yes I would agree with DLS.
The minute we stop telling it like we see it because its not politically correct is the moment in this country that the truth is subject to censorship because other people dont like what you have to say.
SHUT UP!!! They screamed.
Jesus ain’t God and too many “Christians” practice idol-worship.
Touche’. Riposte:
Romney, you (and DLS) hurt the Left’s feelings and owe it an apology.
Bush, you (and DLS) have hurt Iran’s (and the Left’s) feelings and owe it (them) an apology.
* * *
> SHUT UP!!! They screamed.
When not laughing, hysterically (literally). [scowl]
Kill the messengers who tell the truth. [sigh]
You asked for truth, I gave you truth. I’m not-at-all PC.
The answer is: Standard libertarian English-heritage American with a more conservative, rarely authoritarian bent when libertarian theory is ineffective, unrealistic, or otherwise out of place, sometimes indifferent or even liberal on issues.
(I follow the normal process of becoming more conservative as I grow not only older but wiser.)
I defend social conservatives because their conduct is usually normal and decent, unlike that of so many of their critics. As to the radical Left and the toddler’s refusal to accept “no” and demanding to do whatever one wants and scoffing or worse about the issue that what they do often is offensive, there really is no argument. We’ve seen this for ages since the late 1960s in the decay and decline of behavior in public, on the street, in motor vehicles, in airplanes, everywhere. It’s bad enough that teenagers engage frequently in rude, stupid behavior (taking offense to it is an early sign of maturity in an adult), but when older people often do this, it’s disappointing to disgusting depending on the circumstances. It extends into politics and it’s ironic given the nature of the attackers to see such people attacked for being socially conservative (or worse, religious, following a good moral code — maybe that’s the real reason for the attacks).
Jesus ain’t God and too many “Christians” practice idol-worship.
Who cares when we are talking about personal expression of personal liberties. It does not matter how you define god or Christ.
What matters is that many of you want to dictate to Christians what we can and cannot do in public. While in the same frenzied state of fanaticism declare that YOUR wants, needs and desires should take center stage and should receive the highest national importance in congress.
I don’t believe that ‘faith and belief’ is what most self-professed public Christianists are doing at home behind closed doors in a closet. But sometimes they do it in Public Restrooms.
“Animal House Left?” I don’t think I’ve ever met a frat boy that was a Democrat, much less a leftist. I don’t think that’s allowed. Frat boys certainly behave like Republicans…
.
I don’t dictate, and I don’t take dictation.
I think you describe quite perfectly the behavior of political ‘christians.’
Somebody,
No one is saying Christians can’t appear in the public square. Many of us, non-Christians, though have the nerve to think that it’s our public square, too. It seems to me you are confusing a resistance to the public square being dominated by Christians with being told to ‘shut up’.
I actually think reasonable compromises in sharing the public square are possible. We just have to come up with a way to share, instead of vying for domination.
Judging by the controversies that have swirled around the PBS, one major public square, compromises don’t come easy. There are always those who confuse ceding the seat of dominion is the equivalent of being told to shut up.
Dr. Omed.
There are many, many of those on the left who are Religious and believe in God. Most assuredly a VAST majority of Democrats are Christians.
The difference revolves in where the priority lies. The attack on Religion in this country does not come from “DEMOCRATS” It comes from the far left who are in a world of their own.
Most, in fact a staggering majority of Democrats are Religious and most likely Christian. The attack on moral values comes from the small but highly vocal percent of the left. They are the ones that I am referring to.
No where did I refer to Democrats. I only referred to Left/Atheists which actually could include some on the right as well.
I am a Left/Atheist. Morals are what people acquire when they can’t afford an imagination. If I was living in my own world, I’d hire different management.
Explain to me again how a ‘staggering majority’ can be persecuted by a small (no matter how loud-mouthed) minority?
Omit the vibrato of frottage with the dashboard Jesus.
I actually think reasonable compromises in sharing the public square are possible. We just have to come up with a way to share, instead of vying for domination.
A moderate approach and one that I would agree with.
Romney said Religion matters and that it is a meaningful experience for the vast majority of Americans.
I agreed and pointed out the historical significance of religion on this country. Statistics support his assertions. Unfortunately the far left immediately showed up screaming about……..well what they always scream about. Any mention of God and Politics and they go hysterical.
That is the conundrum we as a nation faces. Because it is the far left fanatics which are doing exactly that. Telling me to shut up. I on the other had do not recall ever telling anyone here to shut up.
What I have consistently tried to do is to make them aware that they are trying to force upon me “THEIR” values while telling me that mine dont count because mine are based in religious tenets.
I reject that argument and have consistently tried to point out the error of their reasoning and how radical their ideas are in a nation who percentage wise is along the order of 90 percent Religious to some degree and in the western world more Americans go to church then any other country.
Yet Im told that We dont matter. We are to shut up. We have no say in Social and political matters?
Huh??
Explain to me again how a ’staggering majority’ can be persecuted by a small (no matter how loud-mouthed) minority?
I do not believe that Christians are being persecuted.
Therefore I can’t answer your question.
However to open up another can of worms I do believe that the ACLU founded by an Atheist Communist with the stated goal of turning America to communism is a very valuable tool in removing political and social freedoms from this country thru the court system.
When you tear down a giant brick building it is much easier to get a giant wrecking ball and start smashing. But when you cant do that you can get a hammer and a chisel and remove one brick at a time. Eventually the house will be torn down and remove.
That is and always has been the goal of the ACLU strongly supported by the far left.
As for my personal reference above to being persecuted. That was directed at a certain person who know who they are and most likely what I was talking about
Somebody,
The ‘attack on religion’ that you claim is not an attack on religion at all. It is a push-back against the domination by religion and the religious.
Why is the presidential campaign so much about who has Jesus in his heart? Will God be sitting in the WH? We should be concerned with who will be the best president, not who prays more times a day.
To the non-religious, the way religion dominates the public square is a distraction, at best, and an insult, at worst. We could claim being told to ‘shut up’ with more reason than the religious.
What respect would those fine Christians show to an awowed atheist making a speech about national policies? How much of the public square would you cede to him?
How far left are you? College students are mainly liberal to radical (it’s a phase most outgrow). Most so-called “independents” (including those in polls) are college-age youth who view registering as Democrats with disdain or party affiliation in general with disdain (it’s for old folks) or feel the Dems aren’t far enough to the left or idealistic enough. And it’s not out of thin air that so many liberal to radical faculty members at colleges (along with other “scholars”) give academia in general the liberal reputation it has long earned.
We moderate, center-left types belong to the ACLU also, although we don’t always agree with them (or anybody else).
Actually, when I went to college most students and professors were conservatives.
Rejecting uncivil, poor, offensive, hedonistic, decadent behavior does not make me a social conservative or “far right,” except to those so far left their view of reality is grossly distorted.
I prefer to refrain from harming and often offending others (other than those who are unreasonable and cannot help but be offended by whatever I write that is reasonable), and expect others to do the same. I don’t like to see social conservatives or the religious wrongly, cruelly, viciously, evilly attacked — my sympathy for the victim and the “underdog” in this PC-degenerated world is due to decency and a carry-over from my earlier, naive, liberal days.
Unlike so many on the Left who have inverted right and wrong and so many other things, I know the general direction of cause and effect and who the offenders are here and who are their victims.
My animal-loving, cat-adopting radical friend in DC is a PETA member and tries to remind people that PETA isn’t only about the nuttier things it has done once in a while. That’s all that makes news.
I certainly hope you don’t agree with all the ACLU does, Holly, because there is much that it does wrong. (For example, the letter C may not stand for Communist so much as for “cafeteria,” given how selective that organization is about what rights it chooses as well as purports to defend. It is more selective [politically-based] than your behavior-scolding policy on this site.)
When “black and white” hadn’t yet been used to refer to race relations, just to television and movies, or did you go to Bob Jones University or ORU?
Just kidding.
I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma, across the street from Tulsa University. My daughter attends TU. TU Frat boys lived in the house next to us, until they graduated. Judging by their behavior and the bumper stickers on the large expensive automobiles their parents bought them, they were both Christian and Republican. That did not prevent them from peeing in our privet hedge at 3am after they had drained the keg. Liberals are very thin on the ground on that campus.
My coworker attended ORU and his wife worked for Oral Roberts. We have some enjoyable discussions.
I wish academia had earned, much less lived up to, its liberal reputation. The medieval scholastics didn’t call ‘em the seven liberal arts for nuthin’.
I believe you do feel persecuted. If you believe that ‘far left fanatics’ like me are forcing ‘THEIR’ values on you, telling you that your beliefs ‘don’t count,’ then you believe you are persecuted.
I simply don’t see how forthrightly expressing my opinion somehow forces you to do anything. If you truly and wholeheartedly believe what you say you believe, what I say and believe shouldn’t bother you in the least. Be strong in your faith.
My humble belief that God is unbelievable shouldn’t ‘count’ to you at all.
I watched a one hour question and answer session between John McCain and students of the University of Southern New Hampshire. Only about 3 minutes was given to religion, after a question asking McCain to talk about his faith. The rest of the time was spent on issues like torture, education, war, health care, etc. So when this thread says that issues of faith dominate the campaign, I wonder if they’re watching the same events I am.
It currently dominates the media and the Left with the Huckabee and Romney campaigns. To the Left they are especially rejected because they are religious.
Policy plans? Cabinet choices? Noooooooooo…
Please bring back the common sense sensibilities this country once had. At least JFK had an understanding of what the concepts of church and state actually meant. I see us moving backwards here, and I don’t mean that in a good way. By all means, worship the god of your choice, that is your right, and it is protected! But try harder to understand the US Constitution, what it means, and how important it is to the health, vitality and intellectual credibility of our country. We are not a budding theocracy, nor were we ever meant to be. Beware of those pious sounding voices who try to create false divisions among us, and who would make a mockery of the foundations that made this country strong, fair, smart, and free in the first place.
Another comment: As a largely secular person, I resent the suggestion by any wannabee president or anyone else that I am any less moral, free, or valid in my humanity or citizenship for not tumbling to the idea of faith in any supernatural force or formal religion. My sense of wonder at the universe, my belief in the power of love, and my sense that we are all brothers and sisters who ought to work together to improve our understanding of each other, to improve our potential and to preserve and appreciate the natural gift of this planet is as strong and true as any believer of any religion, but I hold us accountable for our actions and if we blow off that accountability I believe that an attitude that we are going be bailed out by anyone or anything is an utter copout.
I see an awareness of this accountability as something that can spur us toward improvement and add incentive to achieve a salvation in the real world, not an imagined one. Thomas Jefferson understood this concept and his own use of the word god was not limited in the way that some ideologues and revisionists would like to imagine. Indeed, many of the opinions he expressed to others in the many letters he wrote made it clear how he felt about religious dogma and theocracy in general when taken too seriously. The following quote is one of many examples:
“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 civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” -Thomas Jefferson
I’m fine with freedom of religion and think it can be a force for good, but only when it is seen as one component out of many that help to inform a free and thriving democracy. I am not happy to see it being thrust to the fore the way it has been in recent years as though it can be any kind of substitute for rational and reasoned planning and policy.
As a Jew living in the Bible Belt (East Tennessee) let me offer these two comments:
1) That Christianity does not DOMINATE the public square is a laughable claim. For example, I opened up the phone book this morning looking for a heating contractor and noticed at least two ads in the Yellow Pages with Jesus fish symbols on them. One of them even had a big statement “Christian owned and operated.” This is the Yellow Pages! This guy was prostituting his faith to sell heating services. I can’t get away from Christianity in the public square here.
Now I’m all for folks being proud of their religion. Faith is a central part to people’s lives and all. And around these parts that’s going to mean evangelical Christianity (just as it mean Judaism when I lived neared Skokie, IL). But there’s a time, place and manner to express one’s faith in a plural society. And some (not all) folks around here tend to go beyond reasonable bounds on this score.
2) (This comes from being a historian and not an East Tennessean) America was NOT founded by those fleeing religious persecution. The settlers of Virginia 400 years ago arrived with the express purpose of making money and getting rid of some of the wandering fools enclosed out of their farms in England in 1607. The vast majority of early Virginians were indentured servants and members of the Anglican Church (if they were churched at all). The same was true of the planter elite. As for the Puritans in New England, they did not come to America to escape persecution but to establish a theocracy – a “City on a Hill” untainted by the wicked and Popish Church of England. Not surprisingly they persecuted anybody and everybody that did not subscribe to their brand of Calvinism (thus leading to the Colony of Rhode Island).
The first people to come to America to escape religious persecution were German Anabaptists – mostly Mennonites and Amish people who refused military service in the various German armies. Later people escaping religious persecution include Russian Jews fleeing Russian pogroms in 1881 and 1905. All of this was possible because of the separation of church and state and the freedom to practice religion in America. Colonies with no official state church – like Pennsylvania (founded by but not officially Quaker) and New York (founded by Dutch Reformed but not officially so after 1664) – not surprisingly attracted the most non-traditional religious groups.
At the writing of the Constitution, Unitarians and Deists like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ensured that the American Republic would never establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of it. By the 1810s, Connecticut was the last state to apply this doctrine of non-establishment at the state level too. Clearly, the founders intended for no governmental entity – Federal, state or local – to officially establish religion (despite occasional “Days of Fasting, Prayer and Thanksgiving”). One of the reasons the Mormons came in for so much criticism was their rejection of this church-state separation principle.
In practice, many small communities chose to ignore the warnings of the founders over the years. Their homogeneity lulled them into thinking everybody believed and prayed equally. And every time establishmentists ran into opposition – usually from rival establishment quarters. Church-state separation was not designed to encourage atheism or to prevent Americans from proclaiming their religion. It was incorporated into the Constitution to protect the church from state interference and to ensure that no religious view received official state sanction.
That principle is no “myth.” It’s the very basis of American freedom. Without the separation of church and state, I, as a Jew, would feel threatened by majoritarian impulses to use the arm of the state to force an alien religion on me. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has discovered the real nature of religious freedom: separation of church and state.
1. They often did flee persecution in England, but then practiced the same thing in their new home.
2. Cavaliers vs. Roundheads — the Civil War had deep roots.
There’s more than one location out there that qualifies as Bible Belt, and to varying extents (if you’ve been to these places, as I have, and others).
In addition to traveling through east Tennessee when I lived in Atlanta, in DC, and in St. Louis, when I lived in St. Louis (and now in Iowa, after a stint in Upstate NY), I’ve frequently traveled southwest out of St. Louis, and the stretch from Rolla onward past Springfield (MO) and Joplin into Oklahoma, past Tulsa to Oklahoma City (the logical place to relocate the federal government if truly planning for this nation’s future, and its future population distribution and center of population in 2100), and south of Oklahoma City toward Dallas and south (Waco, where Beatles records were burned), is true Bible Belt country (as in frequent interjections when speaking as follows: “…, praise Jesus, …”).
These are places where (in addition to the last time I was there, ironically, Washington, DC metro) you can still hear the “Dr. Laura” show on the radio.
No, not every male there beats their wives and children, even if it’s a phenomenon that is predictable, as I found it to be. (I once spoke with someone in STL about Arab wife-beating and for some reason I predicted exactly what this guy would say: “Hey, I’ve been in southwest Missouri and they do that there.”)
OK, so no place is perfect…