Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion

[phillyfan26]

Probably the right strategy for the GOP nomination.

But a horrible speech from an independent standpoint.

 

[Bluer White]

Independents don't have some sense of natural law?

 

[INDY500]

But what if these exact words were said by a Muslim?

I'd say he was a plagiarist.

But, quoting another line from Romney's speech.

Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

If an American of Muslim faith can answer these questions in the affirmative, what makes you think I'd somehow object if he said the other stuff?

What would you think about Romney's exact words being said by a Muslim?

 

[phillyfan26]

I'd say he was a plagiarist.

But, quoting another line from Romney's speech.

If an American of Muslim faith can answer these questions in the affirmative, what makes you think I'd somehow object if he said the other stuff?

What would you think about Romney's exact words being said by a Muslim?

LOL. The plagiarist line is funny.

But I think his point is about the religious stuff. What if a Muslim said all the same stuff about his own religion?

 

[BVS]

Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

If an American of Muslim faith can answer these questions in the affirmative, what makes you think I'd somehow object if he said the other stuff?

What would you think about Romney's exact words being said by a Muslim?

But Romney is a liar. Romney doesn't want equality. And it's laughable that some of you fall for that.

My point is that Romney mention not taking religion about of the public square. He didn't say the cross he said religion, so would you be as excited about this speech if a Muslim said this? Be honest.

I mean he should be able to put his religion in the public square as well, and you should be just as excited.

 

[BVS]

Independents don't have some sense of natural law?

Are you saying natural law = religion?

 

[phillyfan26]

Independents don't have some sense of natural law?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[INDY500]

Probably the right strategy for the GOP nomination.

But a horrible speech from an independent standpoint.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the JFK, in who's footsteps Romney is walking here, speech on his faith in 1960?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/40/story_4080_1.html

In regard to today's speech, are you disagreeing with the timing or politics of this, Romney's tone or just religious messages delivered by public officials in general?

 

[phillyfan26]

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the JFK, in who's footsteps Romney is walking here, speech on his faith in 1960?

I have in fact.

Kennedy says:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

Romney did not.

 

[yolland]

While it was written before Romney gave his speech, there was a news analysis piece in TIME yesterday comparing Kennedy's situation to Romney's (coemgen already posted the complete text of it in Irvine's Romney thread).

...Like Kennedy and his Catholics, Romney presumably has a lock on the Mormon vote. But that bloc is much smaller, perhaps five or six million strong. And instead of being concentrated in swing states, Mormons reside largely in intermountain states that for the most part are already solidly Republican. In the key states where Romney faces an early test, he isn't likely to find many Mormons, no matter what he says on Thursday.

Then there are the differing thresholds. For one thing, Kennedy needed to lower the fears of Vatican control of American policy, so he could flatly state that he would not be taking orders from Rome and that his faith was a private matter. Romney at a minimum needs to do that—to say that even though Mormons believe that the head of their church is a prophet who receives God's living word, he would not be taking orders from Salt Lake City—but must do more. Kennedy could wall off his private beliefs from his public policy and be fine, since Democrats especially were happy to keep the two apart. But Romney is in—let's not forget—a Republican primary fight, where base voters want to know that your faith informs your policy. It's almost a disqualifier to say it has no real influence on you.

Kennedy and his team thought the problem they faced was ignorance, which could be addressed by educating voters. But Evangelicals believe Mormonism is a faith that views the Bible as requiring revision, and that when Romney says Christ is his Saviour, he doesn't mean it the same way evangelicals do. Those aren't misunderstandings, they are real differences of faith. As a Romney-backing Evangelical told me in October, "Some of my people—a lot of them—are just never going to go there."

And that brings up another crucial difference between Romney's predicament and Kennedy's. You could call it the fervor gap. Like the Southern Baptists, Mormons are a professing religion: they want to spread the word, win converts, save souls. This isn't a problem for a lot of Americans. But it is a problem for many conservative Christians. Many of them believe that if the G.O.P. nominates Romney—much less if the country elects him as President—Mormons will gain a stronger hand in the all-important business of saving souls. To them, the stakes of that struggle are as great or greater than any fight about a political office.

 

[INDY500]

I have in fact.

Kennedy says:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

Romney did not.

Actually, I believe he did.

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.

Which, actually, begins the paragraph which ends with a part of the speech which I singled out as one of my favorites. The part that addresses the, forgotten by some, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion of the First Amendment.

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.

 

[phillyfan26]

And that section you quoted at the end I disagree with. He defines the public domain differently than I do.

 

[INDY500]

x

 

[INDY500]

And that section you quoted at the end I disagree with. He defines the public domain differently than I do.

Which candidate most closely mirrors your view of the public domain or square?

 

[BVS]

So what about the Muslim or the Scientologist that want to put up in the public square?

 

[phillyfan26]

Which candidate most closely mirrors your view of the public domain or square?

Probably Dennis Kucinich, since he's the only one who believes in full gay marriage.

I mean, my belief is that religion should be public for the individuall. But it shouldn't be in things like law and politics.

 

[yolland]

"...and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."

Uh oh, he said holiday season...

The loadedness of "public square" is what most of the contentiousness in interpreting his speech comes down to; unfortunately, he really didn't venture to elaborate on that beyond safely minor illustrations, e.g. "In God we trust" appearing on currency and the like.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I mean, my belief is that religion should be public for the individuall. But it shouldn't be in things like law and politics.

Exactly. Be religious all you want, express it in public if you wish. But don't use your personal religious beliefs as a means to dictate the laws of the land. That is pushing your religion onto those who don't share your views, and that is wrong.

I really don't give a crap that Romney is Mormon. Seriously, I do not care at all. I'm not any more bothered by that than I would be if a presidential candidate was Catholic, or Muslim, or atheist, or whatever. All I'm concerned about with whomever becomes our next president is that they are qualified for the job and that they run the country in a fair and just manner. My problem with Romney and his religious beliefs is that I think he's too connected to them to keep them out of politics, and that is one reason of many why I can't vote for him. But I'd say that no matter WHAT his faith was.

And yes, there are people who have reservations about electing a Mormon for president-I saw some polls on MSNBC tonight that, if they're anything to go by, stated that people tend to associate the Mormon faith with things like polygamy, bigamy, and a cult-like status, and therefore are uneasy of letting a Mormon become president. But EVERY faith will be subject to assumptions and accusations of being "cult-like" and things like that. The Mormon faith is no more or less likely to be singled out than any other one.

MrsSpringsteen is right. Romney talks about how one's personal religious beliefs shouldn't be a factor when it comes to voting for them, and he's right. Which is why it doesn't make sense for him to keep harping on that. HE'S the one making it an issue, not anyone else (or if they are, they aren't doing it nearly as much as he is).

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

all Romney did was say to the evangelicals, "i don't like those snooty, european-esque, educated, snotty east coast liberal intellectual secularists either."

and what's so funny, is that it's precisely those people who's rigorous defense of the public domain from the incursion of religion has created a country where something like Mormonism can flourish unfettered by anyone.

 

[Irvine511]

Which, actually, begins the paragraph which ends with a part of the speech which I singled out as one of my favorites. The part that addresses the, forgotten by some, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion of the First Amendment.

but "the free exercise thereof" does not mean that you get to put crosses up in the post office and the 10 Commandments up in front of the state Supreme Court.

it means you get to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't infringe either upon the rights of others (which would include freedom from religion, insofar as the "public square" is concerned) and doesn't become a state endorsement of a particular religion.

but if you want to live in Christian Iran, just go ahead and say so.

 

[coemgen]

Uh oh, he said holiday season...

Happy Hanukkah, yolland.

 

[BVS]

So what about the Muslim or the Scientologist that want to put up in the public square?

I knew this one wouldn't get answered...

 

[INDY500]

but if you want to live in Christian Iran, just go ahead and say so.

Well, the violet to your red in this vastly overstated spectrum of belief systems would be me asking if you would prefer to live in the equivalent of the old secular Soviet Union.

 

[phillyfan26]

Well, the violet to your red in this vastly overstated spectrum of belief systems would be me asking if you would prefer to live in the equivalent of the old secular Soviet Union.

Uh ... no. That's a horrible comparison.

 

[yolland]

I think INDY's point was that both are hyperbolic.

However, that's no argument for dismissing the differences within our own considerably narrower political spectrum--they're still plenty far apart enough.


p.s. Thanks coemgen.

 

[INDY500]

I knew this one wouldn't get answered...

I thought I answered. If a Muslim, Scientologist, Hindu or Atheist for that matter, could give Romney's speech (minus the small bit of theology), at the least, I would have less of a problem than some seem to be having with the public faith of Romney, Huckabee or President Bush.

 

[phillyfan26]

There's a difference between public faith and faith that gets mixed in with policy.

 

[INDY500]

There's a difference between public faith and faith that gets mixed in with policy.

What public policy of Romney's as governor of Massachusetts was influenced by his Mormon faith.

How about Senate Majority leader Harry Reid? Any concerns with his Mormonism?

 

[BVS]

I thought I answered. If a Muslim, Scientologist, Hindu or Atheist for that matter, could give Romney's speech (minus the small bit of theology), at the least, I would have less of a problem than some seem to be having with the public faith of Romney, Huckabee or President Bush.

Not what I asked. Speech aside, what about their symbols in the public square? Shouldn't their religious symbols be in the courthouses and government buildings along with yours?

 

[BVS]

What public policy of Romney's as governor of Massachusetts was influenced by his Mormon faith.

Well what about his stance on gay marriage? It's purely religious.