Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Where exactly is Romney being hypocritical?
Isn't any politician who claims to be religious, but then says religion will not impact his ability to lead, hypocritical? I would at least respect him if he'd say, "yes, LDS drives my moral reasoning and my moral reasoning drives my decisions." Or if he said, "well, I'm an LDS poser, i.e., just like most 'religious' Americans who go to church because it seems like a good thing to do." At least those two statements are honest and make sense. But this constant rhetoric that implies he can flip a switch and somehow go from faith mode to politician is nonsense.
Being religious is like being pregnant, either you are or you aren't. He ought to choose what he is and stop tap dancing all the time.
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...
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're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong.
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.
Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
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.
RSS
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk
Romney's message? "I hate non-Christians as much as anybody."
Please tell me you nabbed this from the Onion or some other satirical publication. You have absolutely nothing to back this statement up - either from the speech itself or from Romney's personal life.
Another example, which is not preposterous to the point of humor, but is still significant: 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.
The message of the freedom/religion statements are clear: Without freedom, the people are not able to worship according to their desires, and without religion the value of freedom is compromised. You may not agree with the second half of that, but that's not the way you presented your argument.
This speech should be seen for what it is. It's an attempt by the Romney campaign to frame a message for the American religious extremists who think Romney's not Christian enough for them.
And in this sense it's very much the same as Kennedy's goals. The target audience is not religious extremists, however, but "mainstream" Christians. (Yes, their views might be extreme in your eyes, but they are not on the fringe of U.S. society by any means.) These Christians, in a general sense, do not understand the LDS church, and because of this they fear having a Mormon in the White House. Just as they feared the influence of the Pope in the 60s, they fear the influence of the LDS Church President today. Romney addressed these concerns, and I think did so as well as could be expected.
Yes, the doctrinal issues will not be disolved, but hopefully people will better understand Romney's ability to be both Mormon and an effective, independent President. 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.
The usual hypocritical religious load of junk
One last thing - Where exactly is Romney being hypocritical? I know you think everything religious is categorically a "load of junk," so I see where you got that part of your title, but did you throw in the hypocritical bit just for good measure?
View Full Discussion