Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion

[phillyfan26]

And how do you know that Romney is attempting to alienate groups of people in his own country due to their religious views with this speech? I don't think the goal of this speech was to alienate anyone. Its rather easy to take what someone says and claim it means their intolerant of people with certain views.

Are you blind to the fact that the goal was to pander to the evangelicals and slam seculars?

 

[phillyfan26]

When did Romney use his faith as a justification to start a war or ban gay marriage?

Can you honestly say that no politician is ever impacted by their religion or where ever they get their sense of morality or other beliefs when making policy? Plus, how would you ever be able to objectively determine that independent of what the candidate actually says?

When it comes to this, is Jimmy Carter really any different from Mitt Romney or George Bush?

He's against gay marriage. What other explanation could there be?

 

[Strongbow]

1, I was saying "someone like" Romney-somebody who has beliefs similar to his could do, and has done, things like that (Bush has certainly used his faith as a means to justify those sorts of issues, after all).

2, he hasn't started either of those things, but he sure supports them. And I feel he would likely continue to support them should he become president. The question then is whether or not he'd enact laws based on his beliefs in regards to those issues. If his speech is any indication, I'd say he would.



I know full well many politicians are impacted by their religion when making policy. What we're saying is that that needs to stop. They can use their faith to determine their own personal views, but when it comes to making laws, they have to look beyond that and realize that what they do will impact people who may very well not be of their faith, and judge whether or not what they decide to do is fair and works for the country as a whole or not.

As for how to determine it, well, I guess I'd say I'd pay attention to their actions. If I see a pattern of their religion influencing their law-making process, I'm going to determine that this is a common thing with them.



I wasn't alive when Jimmy was president, so I can't comment on how much his religion influenced his policy-making. I know it was a factor, as I've heard him reference his faith in the past in the few things I've observed regarding him, but to what extent, I'm not sure.

Angela

Where did Bush explicity say that he invaded Afghanistan or Iraq because his paster or his spiritual feelings told him too? There are certainly people who are not religious who support both of those policies as well. The same could be said about nearly every policy issue as well.

Regardless of what someone believes, your never really going to know to what degree those beliefs(religious or non-religious) impact their policy decisions. Its apart of who they are, and your unlikely to be able to fully seperate thoughts and idea's that originated somewhere back in the individuals upbringing, from how they make decisions today.

 

[Strongbow]

He's against gay marriage. What other explanation could there be?

Well, that would mean one would have to be religious to support a ban on gay marriage.

Did the USSR allow gay marriage?

 

[phillyfan26]

Was the USSR a democracy that claimed to give everyone equal rights?

 

[Strongbow]

Are you blind to the fact that the goal was to pander to the evangelicals and slam seculars?

Are you blind to the fact that many people who oppose Romney want people to believe that is what the speech is all about. Does he actually say in the speech that "seculars" are not Americans or are lower class citizens?

 

[BVS]

Did the USSR allow gay marriage?

Wow, you're not very good at comparisons.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Where did Bush explicity say that he invaded Afghanistan or Iraq because his paster or his spiritual feelings told him too?

Uhhhhhh...there's many instances out there where he's talked about God speaking to him in regards to these issues. He even alluded to this whole thing as a "holy war", or something similar to that.

There are certainly people who are not religious who support both of those policies as well. The same could be said about nearly every policy issue as well.

Yes, but they aren't the president and aren't the ones ulitmately responsible for allowing these issues to go forward. And their reasons for supporting them are entirely different from the issue at hand. We're talking about people of faith dictating laws. Those who aren't religious but still support those policies, we'd have to discuss the other factors that led them to supporting that stuff. And that's a whole other topic.

Regardless of what someone believes, your never really going to know to what degree those beliefs(religious or non-religious) impact their policy decisions. Its apart of who they are, and your unlikely to be able to fully seperate thoughts and idea's that originated somewhere back in the individuals upbringing, from how they make decisions today.

I disagree, I think you can definitely tell to what extent religion plays a role in what people do. Romney stated as much in his speech. He made it very clear that he was going to continue on the tradition of those leaders before him who've used faith to influence their political actions.

You're right that it's hard to separate one's beliefs from their actions. Again, the problem comes in when people who are unable to separate their particular religious views from their actions are running a country where there's a wide variety of belief systems.

Angela

 

[phillyfan26]

Are you blind to the fact that many people who oppose Romney want people to believe that is what the speech is all about. Does he actually say in the speech that "seculars" are not Americans or are lower class citizens?

What is it with you and "actually saying" or "explicitly saying?"

I don't have to read him say those exact words to know exactly what he means.

 

[BVS]

Are you blind to the fact that many people who oppose Romney want people to believe that is what the speech is all about. Does he actually say in the speech that "seculars" are not Americans or are lower class citizens?

What would you think if someone made a speech that had lines like this:

"It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of Mormonism. They are wrong."

 

[Strongbow]

Wow, you're not very good at comparisons.

Hey, I'm just noting that even a non-religious government could have views like that.

 

[phillyfan26]

But they're not a democracy...

 

[BVS]

Hey, I'm just noting that even a non-religious government could have views like that.

For completely different reasons.

In a democracy I haven't seen one secular argument against gay marriage. Not one, just those of narrow religious interpretations.

 

[Strongbow]

Uhhhhhh...there's many instances out there where he's talked about God speaking to him in regards to these issues. He even alluded to this whole thing as a "holy war", or something similar to that.



Yes, but they aren't the president and aren't the ones ulitmately responsible for allowing these issues to go forward. And their reasons for supporting them are entirely different from the issue at hand. We're talking about people of faith dictating laws. Those who aren't religious but still support those policies, we'd have to discuss the other factors that led them to supporting that stuff. And that's a whole other topic.





Angela

I believe Bush called it a "crusade", I don't recall him saying that its a holy war.

Peoples beliefs, faith or non-faith, are the same in this respect. Both could be seen as influencing policy on different issues by people.

 

[BVS]

Strongbow, would you support someone who wanted to make it a law that you couldn't lay with a woman who was mensturating?

Does that have a place in our political environment?

 

[Strongbow]

But they're not a democracy...

Their not a democracy, but certainly claimed to give everyone equal rights, although in reality that was not the case. Just because a country is a democracy does not mean all of its citizens have equal rights.

 

[BVS]

Just because a country is a democracy does not mean all of its citizens have equal rights.

And you're fine with that?

 

[MadelynIris]

He even alluded to this whole thing as a "holy war", or something similar to that.

If our enemy thinks its a holy war, is it?

 

[Strongbow]

For completely different reasons.

In a democracy I haven't seen one secular argument against gay marriage. Not one, just those of narrow religious interpretations.

Well, what are the two different reasons, and how do you know that both have not been expressed in a democracy before? Was slavery and the slave trade justified through religion?

 

[phillyfan26]

Just because a country is a democracy does not mean all of its citizens have equal rights.

I think you need to clarify this statement.

 

[indra]

I have to say I didn't personally detect any generalized animosity towards religious people in the thread. Perhaps if I were a moderate or progressive evangelical some of it might have hit unpleasantly closer to home; I'm not sure. What melon actually said was that people of faith "has become a loaded term" for reactionary zealot, yet that in a "connotation-free world", he too would feel fully comfortable labeling himself a person of faith. In other words, in evangelical conservative political rhetoric there's a pattern of invoking a symbolic, 'person-of-faith' Everyman voter who embodies not just the presence of religious belief, but a commitment to a political agenda of getting certain specifically religious goals important to evangelicals enshrined in legislation (keeping gay marriage illegal, making abortion illegal, opposition to sex education in schools, getting creationism into school science curriculums, etc.). That goes a bit beyond what the rather innocent-sounding phrase 'influenced by religious beliefs' suggests in that it's highly organized, and organized along openly religious lines at that. I think it's a bit misleading to analogize that process to, say, African-American or women's groups hosting forums in which candidates court their votes by promising to prioritize certain issues important to those groups, because it's quite possible (and, indeed, the norm) for the candidates they ultimately throw their support behind to not be black/female at all--just someone whose platform they like on "our" issues, which is all they were hoping for to begin with. I really don't think you can credibly say that's the norm for evangelical conservative groups, both because the candidate's personal faith really does matter to them, and (relatedly) because the prioritization and framing of those issues is so intimately linked to an evangelical conservative perspective that any candidate who doesn't fit that description themselves is unlikely to satisfy. While it would be hyperbole to equate the realization of those goals with established state religion per se, I think one can understand the concern--after all, had established state religions not had the history they did (and do) of circumscribing personal liberties for the sake of religious-mandated imperatives, they probably wouldn't hold anything like the disreputable place they generally do in the Western mind.

While Romney's speech, as several posters have already noted, was clearly looking to play up what Romney has in common with evangelical conservatives ("There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind") while offering a few feelgood nods in the direction of certain affinity-inspiring traits associated with some religious minorities (the "ancient traditions of the Jews", the "commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims"), I can certainly understand why nonreligious Americans might have found it particularly alienating, on account of the "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" theme running throughout it--wholly uncountered by anything resembling e.g. GWB's "good people of no faith at all" nod, which Irvine cited earlier. Taken literally, it would appear to suggest that nonreligious Americans are innately less capable of cherishing and preserving "freedom" than religious Americans--and, after all, who wants someone who doesn't value "freedom" influencing politics, let alone holding public office? And while Romney doesn't explicitly say so, it's difficult not to get the impression that when he invokes the "establishment" of a "new" (state?) "religion" of "secularism," he means that to be taken in light of his "freedom requires religion" theme...ergo, opposition to the agenda of those whose support he seeks, and in particular to its explicitly religious-based nature, constitutes an attack on "freedom." Effectively: You're telling me it violates others' personal liberty to deny marriage to gay people on the grounds that our religion says homosexuality is wrong...well, right back at ya: you're violating our personal liberty by protesting that that's an illegitimate basis for defining the law of the land. It's a clever rhetorical maneuver, because it dances around the loaded question of just how different the tailoring of laws which affect everyone to suit the explicitly religious agenda of some particular religious group really is in practice from having an established state religion.

Damn. Now that's a hell of a good post!

 

[BVS]

Well, what are the two different reasons, and how do you know that both have not been expressed in a democracy before? Was slavery and the slave trade justified through religion?

Actually slavery was justified by religion by many. Same as interracial marriage ban.

We are living in a democracy, you bringin up the USSR is just a diversionary tactic to avoid the fact that you can't discuss the actual topic at hand.

If we're discussing women's rights, would you bring up the Middle East? I mean come on, pal.

 

[Strongbow]

Strongbow, would you support someone who wanted to make it a law that you couldn't lay with a woman who was mensturating?

Does that have a place in our political environment?

No, and Mitt Romney is not going to make a law that you can't lay with a mensturating women. This is the governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the Union, remember. You would find out a lot more about how Romney would govern by examining his record in Massachusetts rather than this overreaction to general religious comments in a speech.

 

[Strongbow]

And you're fine with that?

Uh, no its a statement of fact.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

If our enemy thinks its a holy war, is it?

As pointed out by Strongbow, I got it wrong, "crusade" was the word I was thinking of (thanks for the correction, Strongbow).

But either way...so, we're basically agreeing with our enemy? If they want to use religion as their reason for the war, that's their problem to deal with. But we should be above that and just not go there.

Peoples beliefs, faith or non-faith, are the same in this respect. Both could be seen as influencing policy on different issues by people.

I fully agree. But we're talking about people of faith right now, since the whole topic is about the influence of religion on politics. If we were talking about an atheist's influence on politics, then talking about the non-faith based reasons for making laws would make sense.

Angela

 

[Strongbow]

Actually slavery was justified by religion by many. Same as interracial marriage ban.

We are living in a democracy, you bringin up the USSR is just a diversionary tactic to avoid the fact that you can't discuss the actual topic at hand.

If we're discussing women's rights, would you bring up the Middle East? I mean come on, pal.

I was not the one who claimed that being against gay marriage derives only from a purely religious point of view.

One can support a wide variety of policies without being a religious person.

I think there is little to get all excited about in Romney's speech, unless your fishing for it.

 

[BVS]

No, and Mitt Romney is not going to make a law that you can't lay with a mensturating women. This is the governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the Union, remember. You would find out a lot more about how Romney would govern by examining his record in Massachusetts rather than this overreaction to general religious comments in a speech.

You missed the point. The point is if you allow something that is strictly a religious view to become law, you open yourself to this law as well. These types of views need to be kept within the private lives, not the law.

 

[BVS]

Uh, no its a statement of fact.

One that some of us are trying to change, I'm sorry you aren't.

 

[BVS]

I was not the one who claimed that being against gay marriage derives only from a purely religious point of view.

You didn't have to claim that, it's fact.

Like I said there isn't one logical secular reason for it.

 

[BVS]

I think there is little to get all excited about in Romney's speech, unless your fishing for it.

Or if you put it in context with the political environment of today.

No one's fishing, just putting it in context.