Romney's "faith" speech

Religion should remain private and in whatever chosen church.
Politics should remain in the appropriate offices.
The two should never mix.

When anyone in charge begins spouting religion, I become scared. I don't care if you carry around The Star of David, A cross, a fat bellied Budha, the Koran, or whatever deity makes you feel warm and fuzzy, when you start spewing your religion's righteousness in an environment not of a religious setting, you're coming off as a little fanatical to me.

Wanna be the President? Talk to me about your plans for this country.
All your church stuff? Save it for your flock.

CNN talking head Glenn Beck, who has in the past year publicly questioned the religious commitments of a Muslim U.S. Congressman and a Jewish U.S. Senator, has dismissed questioning Romney's religious views as meaningless and inconsequential.

Glenn Beck is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. No connection, of course.

Click to expand...

Romney has successfully kept Mormonism a taboo subject in this race. The media is giving him a pass on this subject, and that's not right.

The tenets and the practices of the religion are quite important to understand when the population is expected to vote for or against a candidate of that religion.

There are still folks in the US who fear the Pope's influence on Catholic public servants.

Seems only right that we understand the influence and beliefs that a possible President's church could put on him or her, or if some voices will be ignored because of those beliefs.

Most of us have a pretty good understanding of the Christian religions. I doubt many have a clue about Mormon beliefs and practices.

I'm sure I'm not the only voter that doesn't let a candidates religion affect their vote.

But there are plenty that do. Romney's going to have an uphill battle simply because of his religion.

I have studied the Mormon religion, back in 85-87.
Not much in the way of grey area, it's very black and white.
It has the potential to be beautiful; it has the potential to be VERY, Very all or nothing in one's life. There are factors of this religion that would scare the shit out of most; there are factors that would put most religions to shame. Mormons truly are a 'we take care of our own' (those that are struggling medically, financially, spiritually), and their children are usually at a college level, educationally, by age 15.
Like any religion, it has its zealots and its realists. I will say, however, true members of the Church are owned by the church. And THAT is what shied me away from this religion. It's a very all or nothing denomination. I also found it infuriating their opinion about women. We are the bearers of children.
Period.
Not allowed to hold a position in the church other than daycare.
The man is reverred in the home and in the church.
Birth control forbidden.
It's a VERY male dominated religion.
Some locations even go as far as to forbid their womenfolk from associating with other women outside the church.
Like I said--zealots and realists. I always just happen to meet the fanatics.

I heard excerpts from Romney's "explanation" yesterday while I was driving down a road with impoverished people on porches that looked like they had been sitting there since the fifties. I was lost, and a little anxious in the deep south. I'm not sure whether it was the association, but I actually found him revolting. I'm so tired of belief systems that reward bigotry - yes, bigotry and male domination. When a man passes away, he gets his own planet? They are welcome to believe it, and who am I to say it's not true. However, I don't want a president seeking his own planet. I don't know where Romney sits in terms of the fundamental to loose interpretion scale, but the point is, he's on it. He's a Mormon.

Edit: I should add it was NPR, commenting/explaining with a question and answer about the faith.

I think it was a fine speech, and probably earned him a lot of votes.

His religion doesn't bother me at all, and I can't recall the last time the LDS church instructed their missionaries to convert me or kill me.

Though he is not my first choice, I would vote for him if he is nominated.

Personally, I think it was a speech very much in the Kennedy/Pope model. I don't think he'd be swayed by his religion any more than, say, the current President.

However, he's still not getting my vote.

inked09012 said:

Religion should remain private and in whatever chosen church.
Politics should remain in the appropriate offices.
The two should never mix.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't see how someone can limit their religion to one small corner of their lives. I think if you truly believe something is right then you have to live it in every way. If you preach equality of the races in our church you have to talk about it in the diner and vote for those who share you belief. Likewise, if you believe women are subordinate to men on a Sunday (or whichever day you espouse this claptrap) then you should be living that way all week.

And that's where I'm with you. Religious nutjobs (my personal definition, yours may vary: anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, thinks Mary was actually a virgin, you get 70-odd virgins when you die, or you get your own planet when you die) should not be leaders of huge and powerful nations.

it's inevitable that we're going to get a president in '08 who, at least in terms of rhetoric, laces public policy with religion.

sad but true.

William Haskins said:

it's inevitable that we're going to get a president in '08 who, at least in terms of rhetoric, laces public policy with religion.

sad but true.

Click to expand...

But I'll take lip service toward the ultra-religious right versus the real thing any day. The left doesn't harp on God. Romney is terrifying. His faith is a blatant rebuke of women's rights inculcated with discrimination and very peculiar ritual. I think it's justifiable to set as a priority a president firmly planted in reality.

Bird of Prey said:

But I'll take lip service toward the ultra-religious right versus the real thing any day. The left doesn't harp on God. Romney is terrifying. His faith is a blatant rebuke of women's rights inculcated with discrimination and very peculiar ritual. I think it's justifiable to set as a priority a president firmly planted in reality.

Click to expand...

I agree with you entirely. Problem is, of course, that he and those of his faith are unshakeably sure that they are grounded in reality. The same way Christians, Muslems, Jews etc are positive they know the one true reality. That's what makes them so disturbing to me, there is simply no real room for freedom because, in their eyes, if you do something they don't agree with you are flat wrong (and maybe going to hell for it). Part of the responsibility of a religious person is to convert those who do not believe, right? So to pretend that you can be wholly religious and yet not want to impose your beliefs on others seems fundamentally disingenuous. Tell me if I'm missing something, I think this is an important subject.

MarkEsq said:

I agree with you entirely. Problem is, of course, that he and those of his faith are unshakeably sure that they are grounded in reality. The same way Christians, Muslems, Jews etc are positive they know the one true reality. That's what makes them so disturbing to me, there is simply no real room for freedom because, in their eyes, if you do something they don't agree with you are flat wrong (and maybe going to hell for it). Part of the responsibility of a religious person is to convert those who do not believe, right? So to pretend that you can be wholly religious and yet not want to impose your beliefs on others seems fundamentally disingenuous. Tell me if I'm missing something, I think this is an important subject.

Click to expand...

In the purist sense, you're not missing anything imo. But faith plays a strong role in humanity, so I think the key is to seek candidates that - regardless of their faith - take personal responsibility, human responsibility for their decisions and their actions and are willing to prioritize the laws of the country and the well-being of the nation's citizens in practical terms, over what they may perceive as their religious mandate.

I think we are already getting a pretty good sense of who those candidates are.

I heard the NPR story, there were sound bytes from both Romney's and Kennedy's speeches. For reference here's a link to a transcript of Romney's speech:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16969460
And here's a link to a transcript of Kennedy's speech:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

I like Kennedy's speech a lot better, and there were several things Romney said I didn't like. Kennedy was emphasizing that his religion would NOT dictate what he would do as President, but Romney was trying to say he believes in the same God as his Protestant audience does ("I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind"), so they (Protestants, certainly the the plurality if not the majority in the USA) should have no worries about him being President. I'm a bit worried that he would SAY this - he's implying he shouldn't be discriminated against, NOT in spite of the differences, but because of a commonality with Protestants. What does this say about his opinion of other beliefs where this commonality does not exist?

Here's a quote I like from the Kennedy speech:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Click to expand...

Here's the NPR story from yesterday afternoon (transcript of the audio story):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16982216
Here's a pertinent part including a Romney quote:

"In recent years, the notion of separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning," Romney said. "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."

That message resonates with religious conservatives, an important Republican constituency.

Click to expand...

This is slippery talk where he uses the word State for Government, then the word Public to mean the same thing - there's a big difference between religious expression on Government property (in the Bible Belt some courthouses still have the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall) and religious expression in public life. Any religious entity is as free to take out ads in newspapers or on TV as is any secular group.

Separation of Church and State means separation of Church and GOVERMNENT, not separation of Church and Public.

benbradley said:

I heard the NPR story, there were sound bytes from both Romney's and Kennedy's speeches. For reference here's a link to a transcript of Romney's speech:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16969460
And here's a link to a transcript of Kennedy's speech:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

I like Kennedy's speech a lot better, and there were several things Romney said I didn't like. Kennedy was emphasizing that his religion would NOT dictate what he would do as President, but Romney was trying to say he believes in the same God as his Protestant audience does ("I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind"), so they (Protestants, certainly the the plurality if not the majority in the USA) should have no worries about him being President. I'm a bit worried that he would SAY this - he's implying he shouldn't be discriminated against, NOT in spite of the differences, but because of a commonality with Protestants. What does this say about his opinion of other beliefs where this commonality does not exist?

Here's a quote I like from the Kennedy speech:

Here's the NPR story from yesterday afternoon (transcript of the audio story):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16982216
Here's a pertinent part including a Romney quote:

This is slippery talk where he uses the word State for Government, then the word Public to mean the same thing - there's a big difference between religious expression on Government property (in the Bible Belt some courthouses still have the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall) and religious expression in public life. Any religious entity is as free to take out ads in newspapers or on TV as is any secular group.

Separation of Church and State means separation of Church and GOVERMNENT, not separation of Church and Public.

Click to expand...

Great post, Ben. Great points.

MarkEsq said:

I agree with you entirely. Problem is, of course, that he and those of his faith are unshakeably sure that they are grounded in reality. The same way Christians, Muslems, Jews etc are positive they know the one true reality. That's what makes them so disturbing to me, there is simply no real room for freedom because, in their eyes, if you do something they don't agree with you are flat wrong (and maybe going to hell for it). Part of the responsibility of a religious person is to convert those who do not believe, right?

Click to expand...

This is certainly true of Christianity and Islam, but from what I know of it (admittedly not a lot from growing up in the Baptist church, but as an adult I've had some Jewish friends), this is not true of Judaism. Perhaps someone of the Jewish faith could chime in here and clear this up. But certainly not all religions command their followers to recruit and convert others, though in the West the Christian model of religion is so overencompassing that many people believe that other religions do all the things that Christianity does, they just believe in a different God.

First of all, having lived in Utah off and on for many years, let me assure you that LDS doctrine is, when compared to other Christian beliefs, somewhat bizarre. On the other hand, Mormons in general are pretty reasonable – fairly conservative, but by no means zealots of any kind.

I have a problem with Romney, not because he’s Mormon, but because of his belief that a leader of this country must be a man of faith. Romney as much as said that one needs faith to have moral principles. Which is also Huckabee’s, belief, and most others as well. And sadly, most Americans. The concept that religious views are a private matter that should be kept separate from political views is no longer even paid lip service to. Quite the opposite.

But who knows what any of them really believe. Any politician who proclaimed “religion is not that important to me” could never get elected in today’s U.S. Period.

blacbird said:

CNN talking head Glenn Beck, who has in the past year publicly questioned the religious commitments of a Muslim U.S. Congressman and a Jewish U.S. Senator, has dismissed questioning Romney's religious views as meaningless and inconsequential.

Glenn Beck is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. No connection, of course.

caw

Click to expand...

He got the gold on Olbermann's Worst Persons list for that last night. Rightfully so.

As for Romney, his speech bothered me too, as someone who has long left organized Christianity behind (I still dig Jesus, I just don't think I have to go to church in order to worship is all). So what about those of us who aren't church-goers? Are we automatically bad people? I don't get it.

Not all Christians are sworn to convert others, simply not true. Absolutely not true for Jews.

There are a variety of denominations within Christianity, some are missionary, some are not. Some fall under religious labels, such as Catholic, Protestant, and the like. Some are simply Christian, such as out in CA in what I call Mall Churches. Their goal is to convert as many as possible.

There are the Baptists, in the Bible belt, the Methodists, they all call themselves Christian. It's an incredibly large, enormous label that you cannot broadstroke w/ one brush.

Then, there are the weirdos such as Falwell. See where I'm going w/ this. Christianity is not one neat little package.

LDS scares me a bit, especially Romney, 'cause w/ the basic tenets of the religion, I doubt if he were elected, he'd have any women in his cabinet. Say what you want about Bush, but at least he's equal opportunity, and I don't think Romney would be.

Also, JFK understood the balance of his religion w/ government, Romney just thinks he does. Therein lies the crucial difference.

benbradley said:

This is certainly true of Christianity and Islam, but from what I know of it (admittedly not a lot from growing up in the Baptist church, but as an adult I've had some Jewish friends), this is not true of Judaism.

Click to expand...

You're correct. It's not true of Judaism (and I didn't think the Protestants were big proslytizers (sp) either, just the Catholics, but perhaps someone else can clear that up, please...and I see Jean has chimed in, so thanks, but even more detail would be great).

And overall, I'm in agreement with the others regarding Romney's speech. His Mormonism shouldn't be part of what qualifies or disqualifies him from office. But asserting, however, that only the religious can experience or understand freedom completely ignores what we've seen in history.

Out of curiosity....if the Mormon candidate was a democrat instead of a republican, would some of you (those that 'seem' to be more left-leaning) be more willing to overlook his religious beliefs? I mean, do you dislike this candidate simply because of his religion, or because he's a republican, or both?

Take care all -

To be honest, My Immortal, I don't think any of us that you'd call left-leaning dislike him for his religion -- we have other reasons. But this speech is an alarming one because of the role he suggests religion MUST play in life and in a democratic society.

benbradley said:

This is certainly true of Christianity and Islam, but from what I know of it (admittedly not a lot from growing up in the Baptist church, but as an adult I've had some Jewish friends), this is not true of Judaism. Perhaps someone of the Jewish faith could chime in here and clear this up. But certainly not all religions command their followers to recruit and convert others, though in the West the Christian model of religion is so overencompassing that many people believe that other religions do all the things that Christianity does, they just believe in a different God.

Click to expand...

In one of the sad ironys of the day, I doubt most Christians, Muslims, and Jews know that they do, in fact, believe in the same God. Where they differ is after God, so to speak - the way to him, to salvation, worship requirements, etc...

BTW, If a current Presidental candidate delivered George Washington's Thanksgiving Address that I posted a while back, what would happen to that person today? Religion has been mixed in with politics since day one, this is nothing new.

Here is the address, for reference....

...

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLIC THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

...

TheGaffer said:

To be honest, My Immortal, I don't think any of us that you'd call left-leaning dislike him for his religion -- we have other reasons. But this speech is an alarming one because of the role he suggests religion MUST play in life and in a democratic society.

Click to expand...

So....basically, if any candidate of any religion made the same sort of comment - about the role religion MUST play in life and in a democratic society - you'd not like him or her...or would their political party grant them a little reprieve if they were of the same political mind as you?

I guess another way of looking at it is -- which is more important to you, someone that agrees with your politics or your religion?

Thanks for the discussion.