Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
I don't really think he hates non-Christians, but I do think he wants the religious extremists to whom the message was directed to think so.
You didn't originally place that condition on the statement, but I'll except you probably typed it in the heat of the moment.
In any case, I agree the speech was directed to those who consider Romney "not a real Christian," however it's difficult for me to dub all those ascribing to such thought as "extremist fundies." Perhaps it's because I live in the Bible belt, but just about every Protestant I know believes I belong to a cult. Many of their churches have actually published official statements supporting such sentiment. If all of them are fundies, who are the "religious conservatives?"
Although, I disagree with your labeling of the target audience, overall I agree with your assessment of the speech's purpose - although I think such is far from revelatory. In Romney's speech on his faith, he was primarily addressing those with concerns about his faith whose votes he needs. (Gasp!) Romney giving a speech dedicated to resolve ill-conceived or misguided concerns in a language with which the target will identify seems perfectly reasonable.
You, however, seem unable to see through the careful wording to the root meanings. You say he is "pandering" on one hand (which implies insincerity) and then assume Romney is the biggest fondie of them all on the other. Rather, Romney is simply a religious man with whom you disagree on obvious and well-documented issues. He, like all other religious people, finds moral value in religion. He, like all of the other candidates of either party, won't advocate taking "In God We Trust" off of U.S. coins or removing "Under God" from the Pledge. He, like me, thinks you are too quick to ascribe any good done in the name of religion to something else and any bad done in the name of religion to nothing else.
But, you probably knew all of this before you read/heard his speech on faith. What changed then? As far as I can tell, Romney's catch phrase that "freedom requires religion" ticked you off and now he's unfit for office all of the sudden. I mean, who knows what sort of damage someone of that opinion could do as the leader of the free world ... :-| (severe sarcasm face)
he puts religion ahead of secular society ... denigrates the value of secularism
You seem stuck on Romney's opinion of secularism, so perhaps we should review what he said on the subject, exactly. He mentions the word only once (emphasis added):
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. The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square.
Romney's point is simple: He doesn't see the separation of church and state as implying one interpretation of secularism. Again, I see how you might disagree, but you knew that before the speech.
It's hypocritical to compare yourself with JFK and then deliver the completely opposite message.
The messages seem almost identical to me. JFK was a Catholic seeking the vote of the mainstream Protestants, and Romney is a Mormon doing the same.
It's hypocritical to praise religious freedom and then denounce secularism.
Hardly. The secularism he mentions is exactly the removal of freedom to express anything religious in the public domain.
It's hypocritical to talk about how terrible it is that Europe's beautiful cathedrals are so empty due to their increasing disregard for religion, but then insist that "freedom requires religion".
I don't follow you.
RSS
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk
You have absolutely nothing to back this statement up - either from the speech itself or from Romney's personal life.
Nope. I take it from the speech itself. I don't really think he hates non-Christians, but I do think he wants the religious extremists to whom the message was directed to think so.
The message was not targeted at religious moderates or "mainstream" Christians. Romney's base is religious conservatives, and he lives or dies by the extremist fundie vote, which is currently supporting Huckabee. Their most vocal faction are the Baptists who are insisting "Mormons ain't real Christians", and the point of the speech was to try to suggest that, even though he may have doctrinal differences, their goals were the same.
The speech was laced with phrases that make this clear. The bit where he talks about Americans who "tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world" is clearly aimed at the extremists, as Americans are tired of those who use religion to push bigoted agendas.
Throughout the speech, he panders constantly to the fundies...
Here, he's very obviously pandering to the kind of extremists who want prayer in schools, creationism in the science classroom, and the ten commandments on the courtroom walls. Religious moderates do think religion has no place in public life.
This is code for, "I plan to appoint activist judges who will protect religious interests over secular ones." Another message aimed straight at the fundies, who are terrified that, even though the court is already packed with right-wing sympathizers, they might actually realize that demanding schoolchildren recite "One Nation, Under God" really is unconstitutional.
Romney discussed the idea that freedom requires religion, yet you interpret this to mean he claims religion causes freedom, citing places with religion and little freedom as counterpoints. I'm not sure why you need me to point out the irrationality of this.
I'm afraid I do. His statement was, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
Yet, freedom endures in the Scandinavian countries where religious belief is almost nonexistent, and religion endures in the Muslim countries of the Middle East, where freedom is mostly absent. So, it's quite obvious that neither one supports the other.
To the contrary, it's precisely the religious fervor that has so suppressed freedom in the Middle East, and it's precisely the restraint of religious fervor that protects our freedoms here and in the other liberal democracies.
Religion certainly benefits from freedom - ask any Christian living in Saudi Arabia, and compare their experience to one living in Sweden. But freedom is harmed by religious expression - it must tolerate it, in order to remain freedom, but there's no benefit at all to be derived from it.
Of course, this depends on them being able to take a step back and look at things objectively - rather than responding with the knee-jerk "I don't like him because he doesn't believe like me" response you seem to have adopted.
Actually, I've been quite neutral on Romney up until this speech. I knew he was a religious conservative, and thus unlikely to share many of my values, but I certainly didn't hold his Mormonism against him - nor do I. The problem isn't that he's a Mormon, the problem is that he puts religion ahead of secular society.
Any man who steps up to the microphone and says "freedom requires religion", and denigrates the value of secularism, declares himself unfit for the office, so far as I'm concerned.
One last thing - Where exactly is Romney being hypocritical?
It's hypocritical to compare yourself with JFK and then deliver the completely opposite message. It's hypocritical to praise religious freedom and then denounce secularism. It's hypocritical to talk about how terrible it is that Europe's beautiful cathedrals are so empty due to their increasing disregard for religion, but then insist that "freedom requires religion".
The best thing about this is that it might further split the fundamentalist vote between him and Huckabee, who's even more of a religious lunatic.
View Full Discussion