Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion

[BVS]

If he wanted to, he could have referenced JC till Kingdom come, since statistically his biggest audience is Christians. If he had, your point would have been proven. I'm surprised (and pleased) that he didn't. His restraint seems to address exactly what you're talking about -- the need to recognize that we live in a pluralistic society where many different faiths are celebrated. And he specifically did reference menorah candles etc in the public square, so these cries seem to fall on deaf ears.

Here's a question -- is pluralism the same thing as secularism? [/B]

But if he referenced JC any chance of Jewish voters or non-believers would be out the door. So he played it smart. He said all religions but spoke in CC code. The Europe bashing the taking our nativity scenes these are all whinigs of the CCs.

Is pluralism the same as secularism? No but a truly pluralistic society would treat all religions equal and not treat them based on percentages. You honestly think those people who get pissed off at 'Happy Holidays' or 'Season's Greetings' want to live in a truly pluralistic society? Hell no. They want theirs and that's it.

 

[nathan1977]

But if he referenced JC any chance of Jewish voters or non-believers would be out the door. So he played it smart. He said all religions but spoke in CC code. The Europe bashing the taking our nativity scenes these are all whinigs of the CCs.

Damned if you do mention religion, damned if you don't, right? And since I spend time in Europe every year, I think he described it quite accurately. Churches are empty. Christianity is on the wane. Islam is on the rise. It is what it is, but there are a large number of people here who don't want that. Are you going to tell them they can't?

Is pluralism the same as secularism? No but a truly pluralistic society would treat all religions equal and not treat them based on percentages.

Welcome to the curse of representative government.

 

[melon]

Churches are empty. Christianity is on the wane. Islam is on the rise. It is what it is, but there are a large number of people here who don't want that. Are you going to tell them they can't?

So is this more of an issue of nativism than anything else? After all, the "rise of Islam" in Europe is attributable to immigration, rather than "white Europe" converting to Islam.

For those looking to "keep things the same," it is always a losing battle. The nativist American "Know Nothing" Party in the 1850s tried to keep "everything the same" through virulently anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant polemics, failed miserably, and is a historical laughingstock today. Yet, nowadays, we look at all those descendants of Irish, Italian, German, and Eastern European immigrants today as "American" as anyone else. The same, rest assured, will happen for future generations of Americans.

Change is a constant, not a variable.

 

[nathan1977]

Actually, Turkey is staunchly "secularist," due to the nationalist ideology of Ataturk, while having noted problems with both religious freedom (putting on lots of restrictions on the Greek Orthodox Church, and closing their seminaries, due to bans on private schools) and tolerance of ethnic minorities (fining Turkish Kurds for using the banned letter "z," which doesn't exist in Turkish, but does in Kurdish).

Turkey has its struggles, due to its geographical as well as political situation. However, it's a far better (and probably more realistic) goal than Saudi Arabia (or Iraq, for that matter) becoming a "democracy."

I don't support this extreme, which very obviously does not exist in the United States. That's why I tend to equate conservative Christian complaints about being "discriminated" in America to be the equivalent of "crying wolf," because they do not suffer from any legal discrimination at all.

Those who grow more affected every year by being refused the free practice of religion would probably disagree with you. It's not just a Christian thing, either. In college I campaigned on behalf of Jewish and Muslim students to have prayer rooms and gathering places on campus, and the strongest opponents weren't Christians -- it was people who wanted to take away the chapel too.

This is why I state that much of this is much ado about nothing, except for those who want Christianity to take a higher place in American society tantamount to theocracy. And, as a matter of principle and pragmatism, I believe that to be a mistake.

Here's the beauty of the thing. The enlightened few who would stop at nothing to create a Christian theocracy balance out the enlightened few who would stop at nothing to remove all religion from America, replacing pluralism with secularism. Thus the rest of us, somewhere in the middle, are allowed to live, work, and pray in peace.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yes, and now they are even asking for building mosques and tomorrow they are taking us over!

Seriously, the reasons for why our churches are empty and religion doesn't play such a role anymore (and yet we oppose any kind of torture) are so many it would fill books easily.

I really wish to know what exactly Romney is trying to say there, but I guess the people this was aimed to did understand.

 

[BVS]

Damned if you do mention religion, damned if you don't, right? And since I spend time in Europe every year, I think he described it quite accurately. Churches are empty. Christianity is on the wane. Islam is on the rise. It is what it is, but there are a large number of people here who don't want that. Are you going to tell them they can't?

No. I think there have been many canidates that have mentioned religion without making people's skin crawl.

Am I going to tell them they can't what?

Welcome to the curse of representative government.

Oh please, do you really think Christianity is being represented properly in this country?

Why is it so hard for people to accept that if I ran for president next time around(for that's when I'd be elgible) and got elected, that they would have a president that believed in God, but:

wouldn't push for creationism being taught in science classes, because it's not a science.

wouldn't push ammendments denying rights to certain people because some people of my religion interpret that some people are sinners.

had no problem with nativity scenes on private property, but they don't belong in front of a courthouse.

All humanity is equal. I don't care if you are white, black, straight, gay, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, athiest, etc you will all have an equal playing ground and all have the same rights.

Why is that so fucking hard for people?

 

[INDY500]

That's funny, since people like Obama, Hilary, Bono, etc seem to equate "people of faith" with progressive, compassionate, caring, active people.

Right, that reminds me of this part of Romney's speech.

I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually."

 

[nathan1977]

No. I think there have been many canidates that have mentioned religion without making people's skin crawl.

Am I going to tell them they can't what?

Are you going to tell them that they can't want something different -- that they can't want (and vote) to have things like public nativity scenes, etc.

Oh please, do you really think Christianity is being represented properly in this country?

By whom? Certainly not the government, but the whole point of representative government is that the voters have the right to elect the candidate that most aligns with their views. And until the Democrats' amazing turnaround after the spanking in the 2004 elections, where they all as one seemed to see the light and push religion back into their language, Republican candidates tended to speak the language of the majority of Americans.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that if I ran for president next time around (for that's when I'd be elgible) and got elected, that they would have a president that believed in God, but...

Go ahead. But if your views don't line up with the majority of Americans, don't complain when they don't elect you. You have the right to run, to speak your views, etc. You don't have the right to have everyone agree with you.

Why is that so fucking hard for people?

Because people have the freedom to disagree with you, BVS.

 

[melon]

Are you going to tell them that they can't want something different -- that they can't want (and vote) to have things like public nativity scenes, etc.

A mature democracy balances the interests of the majority, along with strong protection of minority rights.

Take that for what it is, but the majority isn't always right. That's usually where we end up with "democratatorships" and ethnic cleansing campaigns in certain nations.

 

[BVS]

Are you going to tell them that they can't want something different -- that they can't want (and vote) to have things like public nativity scenes, etc.

You can put them in front of a church, your house, hell you can even put them on the roof of your car for all I'm concerned, but they have no place in a town square or courthouse.

By whom? Certainly not the government, but the whole point of representative government is that the voters have the right to elect the candidate that most aligns with their views.

Fine with me, but your "views" start screwing with my education and my rights, you are in the wrong and you views have no place in the political spectrum. If your religion says red-headed people are the devil's spawn and should have rights, so be it, believe that all you want, but you don't have the right to push it into legislation. I don't care if you make up 99% of the country.

Republican candidates tended to speak the language of the majority of Americans.

And mostly in false tounges.

Go ahead. But if your views don't line up with the majority of Americans, don't complain when they don't elect you. You have the right to run, to speak your views, etc. You don't have the right to have everyone agree with you.

Who said I did?

Because people have the freedom to disagree with you, BVS.

Of course they do, but you don't seem to understand something. You have the right to disagree all you want, but you don't have the right to not make another human being equal. You don't, I don't care what your views.

 

[Irvine511]

This has to be the most ignorant thing I've read in FYM in quite some time.

Are you really so blind to reality that you can't tell the difference between this speech and a jihadist call to action? Did he say one thing about Christ? About the founder of Mormonism? Or did he repeatedly call to the common threads of religion in this country?

ETA: this thread really astounds me in its utter disregard for people of faith -- who constitute the vast, vast majority of people in this country. You realize that you're disregarding the deeply felt perspectives and beliefs of about 95% of American citizens, right? Regardless of whether they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

BVS - just because you don't care about religion, does not mean it does not matter to others.

And the line about America being in the 11th century -- cute.

i will plead guilty to some hyperbole, but i will not plead guilty to the parallel between the stated Al Qaedian restoration of the caliphate to the evangelical call for a "Kingdom" on Earth.

it's the same thing. and it's 11th century.

and 95% of the country are not white protestant evangelicals, and the speech was heavily Christian in tone, even if not explicitly about Christ.

and it did say that there's no room in America for people with no faith. i think as faith goes and how deeply you claim to feel it, you'd find that you're probably in the minority.

this was a Red Meat speech meant to align himself against the "secular humanists." he could have used the word "communist" or whatever polemical noun in whatever historical context and it would have amounted to the same thing.

 

[Irvine511]

Here's a question -- is pluralism the same thing as secularism?

pluralism is impossible without secularism.

 

[Irvine511]

That's funny, since people like Obama, Hilary, Bono, etc seem to equate "people of faith" with progressive, compassionate, caring, active people.

and i'd say that all of them are using the term to mobilize self-identified people of faith in order to achieve their own ends.

it's as loaded and specific and test-marketed and focused-grouped and polled a term as "soccer mom."

and, finally, i find it funny, this defensiveness that "people of faith" seem to have, when they then turn around and claim 95% of the population.

 

[phillyfan26]

This has to be the most ignorant thing I've read in FYM in quite some time.

Are you really so blind to reality that you can't tell the difference between this speech and a jihadist call to action? Did he say one thing about Christ? About the founder of Mormonism? Or did he repeatedly call to the common threads of religion in this country?

ETA: this thread really astounds me in its utter disregard for people of faith -- who constitute the vast, vast majority of people in this country. You realize that you're disregarding the deeply felt perspectives and beliefs of about 95% of American citizens, right? Regardless of whether they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

And the line about America being in the 11th century -- cute.

OK, I'm a Catholic who goes to church every Sunday. And I completely agree with what Irvine says. So, it's not a "disregard for people of faith."

I agree with what Melon said: Romney's tone was "I hate the same people you do, so it's OK to vote for me!"

 

[anitram]

Now that we've come to equate "people of faith" with "far-right, anti-intellectual conservative Republicans," there is the very realistic possibility that future generations of Americans will reject religion en masse, because they will be unable to separate the political connotations of "people of faith" with the reality that religion, at its core, does not necessarily conform to any one ideology nor does it necessarily demand that one hold preposterous, anti-intellectual beliefs like "young Earth creationism" or "intelligent design."

There is a better than realistic possibility given the strong precedent.

On our continent, you have a very good example of Quebec, which reached a high point of religious hysteria with Duplessis who legislated as if he was presiding over a theocracy. For years, secularists and minorities (particularly those who were Jehovah's Witnesses) faced anything from mild discrimination to blatant discrimination. Eventually the courts got fed up and began to interpret the Constitution correctly, and with that Duplessis' end really began. Now you have the most secular society on the continent resulting from a quasi-theocracy. Eventually self-rejection kicks in and when I look at factions in the US, I often think of Quebec and I often think that the religious right is very shortsighted in failing to see how they may be sowing the seeds for exactly this type of response. That would be, the great irony, of course.

Usually, secularism is borne of extreme religiosity. It is as it has always been.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Romney Spokesman Won't Say If Atheists Have Place In America
By Eric Kleefeld - December 7, 2007, 9:48AM

A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday

It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/...r_athiests_have_a_proper_place_in_america.php

[/q]

 

[nathan1977]

OK, I'm a Catholic who goes to church every Sunday. And I completely agree with what Irvine says. So, it's not a "disregard for people of faith."

Equating Romney's comments about our common humanity regardless of our religious differences with "the streets will run red with the blood of the infidels" is about as ignorant a comment you can make.

I agree with what Melon said: Romney's tone was "I hate the same people you do, so it's OK to vote for me!"

Really? How so?

 

[BVS]

Really? How so?

I hate Europeans.
I hate those liberals who don't think this is a Christian nation therefore they are stealing you nativity scenes from our courthouse yards.
I hate atheists, those bastards are telling our children they came from monkeys.

ETC, ETC...

 

[Irvine511]

Equating Romney's comments about our common humanity regardless of our religious differences with "the streets will run red with the blood of the infidels" is about as ignorant a comment you can make.

the caliphate = Kingdom Here on Earth

unless, of course, you think that there's something particular to Islam that makes it more prone to violence. after all, historically, Christians have made many streets run red with blood in the name of Christ.

 

[nathan1977]

I hate Europeans.
I hate those liberals who don't think this is a Christian nation therefore they are stealing you nativity scenes from our courthouse yards.
I hate atheists, those bastards are telling our children they came from monkeys.

ETC, ETC...

Huh. You know, I just went and checked the transcript of his speech, and I don't see where he said any of that.

 

[Irvine511]

Huh. You know, I just went and checked the transcript of his speech, and I don't see where he said any of that.

Romney clearly positioned himself against "the secularists." he identified a common enemy with the white evangelical protestants, and thusly attempted to forge a union of distrust, if not hate, that will gloss over their rather large theological differences.

 

[BVS]

Really? You don't think these are all concerns of this paticular audience? Please.

 

[nathan1977]

the caliphate = Kingdom Here on Earth

unless, of course, you think that there's something particular to Islam that makes it more prone to violence.

One can judge a movement by its interpretation by its earliest followers.

In the first hundred years after Christ, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire through word-of-mouth. When persecuted, Christians willingly became martyrs.

In the first hundred years after Mohammed, Islam spread throughout the East by the sword. People were either converted or murdered. (Including many Christians.)

You tell me.

 

[Irvine511]

You tell me.

you just answered my question.

and this is why we have secularism, and this is why you can sit so comfortably with your understanding of your own exceptionalism.

you have the secularists to thank for your own deeply felt religiosity.

 

[nathan1977]

he identified a common enemy with the white evangelical protestants, and thusly attempted to forge a union of distrust, if not hate, that will gloss over their rather large theological differences.

Gosh, I went and read his speech, and there was a surprising lack of hate in his words. Where do you see hate?

And encroaching secularism is more than just a concern to white evangelical protestants.

 

[Irvine511]

Gosh, I went and read his speech, and there was a surprising lack of hate in his words. Where do you see hate?

And encroaching secularism is more than just a concern to white evangelical protestants.

i see the hate in the exclusion of the agnostics and the atheists and the only mildly religious -- in fact, anyone who views religion as anything less than something to center one's whole identity around. and there was the clear identification of a common enemy. something to say that you're both against, since if Romney pointed out commonalities, the WEP's would be quick to point out the differences that seem to be so earthshakingly important to them.

there is no encroaching secularism. there's only maintenance. secularism does not encroach, it merely maintains boundaries against the wildly self-absorbed "War on Christmas" folk.

 

[BVS]

One can judge a movement by its interpretation by its earliest followers.

In the first hundred years after Christ, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire through word-of-mouth. When persecuted, Christians willingly became martyrs.

In the first hundred years after Mohammed, Islam spread throughout the East by the sword. People were either converted or murdered. (Including many Christians.)

You tell me.

You just proved every point I've been trying to make. You ignore your religions own past. And you really don't believe that this speech was about all religions, you judge the other religion, they aren't equal in your eyes.

 

[Irvine511]

his speech wasn't about other religions.

it was about Christianity, with a shout out to God's "special people" who just need to be "perfected," the Jews. and the Jews are super-important to the WEPs, 'cause they've got to build the temple and all.

 

[melon]

One can judge a movement by its interpretation by its earliest followers.

In the first hundred years after Christ, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire through word-of-mouth. When persecuted, Christians willingly became martyrs.

In the first hundred years after Mohammed, Islam spread throughout the East by the sword. People were either converted or murdered. (Including many Christians.)

The only trouble with this logic is the fact that we're dealing with a religion that started as a minority that later became hegemonic, versus a religion that started a hegemony, more or less.

Once Christianity achieved hegemony, however, it was most certainly prone to intolerance and murder. The Christianization of the Germanic tribes, in particular, was noted as quite bloody, such as Charlemagne's massacre of Saxons that refused to convert to Christianity. In fact, Jews were, more often than not in the Middle Ages, happier to live in the Muslim empires than in Christian Europe.

 

[nathan1977]

You just proved every point I've been trying to make. You ignore your religions own past.

I said nothing about my own religion's past. What's there to say? Christianity's own sordid past is out there for all to see. I merely made the point (which neither you nor Irvine have yet to refute, by the way) that the earliest followers of a religion are the best judges of that religion's principles, and the earliest followers of Jesus and the earliest followers of Mohammed are two radically different groups of people. I'm not surprised Irvine doesn't think that's legitimate, since in the past he's tried to make the point that religions are all basically making the same point (a point which has been refuted by myself and others). But am I wrong?