Posted on 12/12/2007 9:37:48 AM PST by meandog
Mitt Romney is worried about religious intolerance. He fears religious and nonreligious people will unite to punish him because of his Mormon faith. He thinks it would be much more in keeping with America's noblest traditions if Mormons and other believers joined together to punish people of no faith.
On Thursday, Romney showed up at the George H.W. Bush Library in College Station, Texas, to announce that even if it costs him the White House, his Mormonism is non-negotiable. That came as a relief to those who suspected he would defuse the issue by undergoing a Methodist baptism.
Like John F. Kennedy, who said in 1960 that the presidency should not be "tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group," Romney said there should be no religious test for this office. "A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith," he said.
Rejected because of his faith, no. But rejected for his lack of faith? That's another question. Romney evinces a powerful aversion to skeptics. "We need to have a person of faith lead the country," he said in February, which sounds like a religious test to me.
In case anyone doubts his inhospitable stance toward freethinkers, scoffers and Sunday-morning layabeds, his speech confirmed it. Nowhere did he make the slightest effort to suggest that anyone unsure of the existence of God has anything to contribute to our democratic dialogue. In fact, he went out of his way to denounce decadent European societies "too busy or too 'enlightened' to . . . kneel in prayer."
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
So do you think the liberal Chapman is right to critique Romney for not being nice enough to atheists?
“In case anyone doubts his inhospitable stance toward freethinkers, scoffers and Sunday-morning layabeds, his speech confirmed it. Nowhere did he make the slightest effort to suggest that anyone unsure of the existence of God has anything to contribute to our democratic dialogue. In fact, he went out of his way to denounce decadent European societies “too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to . . . kneel in prayer.”
As he sees it, any American who doesn’t worship at least one god is eating away at our democratic structure like a hungry termite. He quoted John Adams: “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.” Romney went further: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. . . . Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
He ignores evidence that the framers thought otherwise.
...” - Chapman
The new Pharisees are found here at FreeRepublic. It's interesting to observe.
Mitt Romney is on solid, historic and patriotic American ground when he espouses faith in God. That’s what this country was founded on and that is what keeps it strong.
The European countries with majorities of unbelievers espouse the other god, Socialism. Our God works. Socialism never does.
They just do not have the right to make their religion into the defacto state religion. And while I have other policy differences with Mitt Romney, he is quite correct here. And he is also quite correct to use the neutered example of Europe as a model of what we do not want to become.
[Mitt Romney is on solid, historic and patriotic American ground when he espouses faith in God. That’s what this country was founded on and that is what keeps it strong.]
Except that’s what you heard, not what he said. He also took pains to talk about how he would not make his decisions based on his religion. In other words, he straddled a picket fence and no one noticed. Great speech, zero meaning.
Proof that Chapman is an idiot:
“If the founders thought religion was indispensable to a free republic, why does the national charter say “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office”? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to include a religious test?”
So Chapman doesn’t understand the difference between a sectarian established church and the concept of a people infused with religion, in particular Christianity, but practicing such religion freely along multiple sectarian lines.
Chapman is completely *not* getting Romney’s point, nor the point of religious liberty. We have freedom to come to these religious beliefs and worship as we wish, but freedom without morality cannot long succeed in society. And religion is the proper foundation of morality. Our religious faith - freely practiced - is an essential ingredient in our freedom, and vice versa!
“”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.
Mitt Romney hit it exactly right when he said:
“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.’” - Mitt Romney
It chaps Steve Chapman no end that we have an articulate defense of the role of religion in public life - and from Mitt Romney no less. These liberals want the society secularized, and are distressed at Romney’s standing for religious involvement in the public square.
“Except that’s what you heard, not what he said.”
What did you hear him say?
Mitt Romney took pains to explain that he would be President for all, not just one sect:
“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.”
And he also spoke of how his own personal convictions and faith in God has influenced his family and his own behavior:
“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
“These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...’
“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.” - Mitt Romney
That’s not straddling a fence at all. That is playing it straight and doing it right. He will be an American President for all of us and not be making decisions for his church or because of LDS doctrine, but his faith and personal values ‘will indeed inform my presidency’.
“And he is also quite correct to use the neutered example of Europe as a model of what we do not want to become.”
Yes, he is, and Chapman is wrong to take his comment out of context. Romney’s point is that religious liberty is the *right model* for organizing our society - better than a Taliban-style theocracy, and better than a ‘neutered’ secularist-style European country ...
“”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 civilized 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. “ - Mitt Romney
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Faith_In_America
I think most (if not all) religious fundamentalists (and that includes Romney AND Huckabee along with Pat Robinson, Bob Jones and others) have very little tolerance for anyone who questions the validity of all Scripture (i.e. the world created in six earth days, the earth being only 10,000 years old, Noah swallowed by a big fish, etc.) instead of looking at Scripture as symbolism together with truth.
It is also my opinion that when you disagree with such people, they become disagreeable.
They claim to love sinners but are more like the Rev. Phelps when it comes to 1. gay people, 2. adulterers, 3. any addicted person, 4. gamblers, 5. and, especially, any who question their religious beliefs.
I still don't plan to vote for Mitt in the primary, and I would debate him till kingdom come on doctrinal issues, but I do admire this stance.
“I think most (if not all) religious fundamentalists (and that includes Romney AND Huckabee along with Pat Robinson, Bob Jones and others)”
huh? The hit on Romney was/is that Mormonism isn’t Christian enough. I’ve never heard him get called fundamentalist. lol.
“It is also my opinion that when you disagree with such people, they become disagreeable.”
Some people, maybe. Huckabee has a bit of that when he inserts Jesus into political discussion (but even Clinton does that).
I dont think you are seeing it in a man who says:
“Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree. “
It’s my opinion that Mitt Romney’s speech hit exactly the right tenor on how religion and politics should interact. He was emphasizing two points - one, our excellent heritage of religious liberty in America that has strengthened us, and two, our ‘common creed’ of values infused by our religious faith; we’d use the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ values.
I think you are falling for the same myths Chapman is falling for in mis-characterizing the Romney (and mainstream conservative) view on religion in public life as more theocratic than it really is. This is a typical hysterical reaction from the ACLU types like him, who see an inquisition following every public manger scene. It aint so.
If anything, we can be *more assured* of *true* religious freedom and liberty from a guy who is asking for a bit of religious tolerance than we can from any other candidate.
Romney said: “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.”
That’s about as far from the Rev Phelps mentality as you can get, while at the same time lining up with the conservative view that free religious expression in the public square is healthy and positive.
The author of this piece, Mr. Chapman, is obviously on the side of the secularists.
Romney may not be my first choice for President, but at least he's on my side, as well as being a competent and experienced executive leader, unlike the Marxists and empty suits contending for the Democrat nomination, who are none of these.
Chicago, and most of Illinois, is run by Pharisees.
Well, I for one am somewhat of a Christian universalist, but I do see some, IMHO, bizarre belief in LDS philosophy. That said, I don't (also IMHO) hold the rock-hard snake-handling Pentecostal or (extreme hard-line) Southern Baptist philosophy to be any more plausible when it comes to Jimmy Carterish "born again" beliefs that only they can truly know Christ.
I do agree with the Romulan that the Creator is the God of all, and (again IMHO) a truly loving God is not going to condemn someone to eternal damnation for not knowing His son.
He also does not need defending from puny humans, because if God truly is God then he is truly also omnipotent. Nor does he need to be advertised and sold like some commodity. A more reasonable approach (IMHO) is to do what Jesus said and "Let your light so shine so people will see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." At least in this respect, the Mormons have it all over most other Christians. But it is confusing for me to understand why the necessity of constant "missionary" work when well done is always better than well said.
Okay, would you accept this Pentecostal practice as a Christian practice under Romney's "Big Tent"?
This thread and other FR Romney threads always seem to dance around the real issue. Its about where you draw the line.
Due to 9/11, secular (and religious) Freepers would, almost to a man, go ballistic if there were someone of the Islamic faith a possibility to win the Repub nomination. Secular Freepers have no problem drawing a line in the sand when it comes to Islam.
We religious Freepers, however, when it comes to spiritual AUTHORITY don’t see that great a difference between Islam and Mormonism. Both believe in spiritual authority, however, it derives from something extrabiblical, an authority they hold higher than the Bible. In Islam, its the Koran and Hadiths, in Mormonism, the Book of Mormon plus two of their prophet, Joseph’s Smith’s books (Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants).
Both Islam and Mormonism have their own particular prophet whom they look to as greater authority than the Bible itself – in Islam, Mohammed, in Mormonism, Joseph Smith.
Not to mention the outright contradictions against the Bible taught by both Mohammed and Smith. Nor the gross immoral and cultlike conduct of both Mohammed and Smith. I.e., their promiscuous and even adulterous affairs, etc.
To religious Freepers such as myself, having someone in the white house who believes in religious authority higher than the Bible, and follows a prophet of higher authority than the Bible, this is akin to having a Muslim in the white house.
Most of you would be aghast at the idea of a Muslim in the white house, but were you not so irreligious, and read your Bibles more, you would be drawing the same line in the sand we religious Freepers do. Having a Mormon in the white house is unthinkable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.