Romney Nailed It
By GOP84 Posted in 2008 — Comments (119) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I think it's hard to deny how good Romney's speech was.
Granted, I'm not sure it was perfect. But I think it was as close to perfect as it could have been.
He appealed to religious liberty, the liberty that America was founded on. He pointed to what a lack of religious freedom can lead to. And I think he did an excellent job of showing Americans that he is indeed an ally in the fight for the collective faith of all Americans and the religious freedoms we too often take for granted.
Support him or not, it's hard to disagree with anything he said. He's a true patriot and an important part of the conservative movement in this nation, as was demonstrated in his speech.
I support Mitt Romney more now than ever before.
For a transcript of the speech (prepared for delivery), you can go here.
He said something like, "If Romney does go on to become President, we can say this was the day that march began."
Pat Buchanon and Joe Scarbrough loved it, but the other two guests were skeptical. One of them claimed that it "obliterated" the separation of church and state, after which I don't think Russert let her get in another word.
Russert always lets people talk. I think "religion requires freedom" caught that woman's ear. Certainly caught mine.
Romney said "Freedom requires religion", an altogether different proposition and an eminently stupid one.
He said both. "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom".
This is a rhetorical two-striker, because there are numerous examples of both highly religious but unfree societies (Saudi Arabia) and highly free but irreligious ones (Sweden).
He addresses your criticism with the following:
I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
... but I fail to see how that addresses my criticism, or buttresses his claim that "freedom requires religion".
I am trying to say that I disagree with Romney regarding the necessity of religion to freedom, and that he cited no facts to establish his claim. He can quote John Adams until he's blue in the face. The existence of irreligious, but free, societies is something he can't get around.
We should grant that he did give an argument to back up his assertion though. His reference to freedom is parochial and particular in that it is America's view of liberty and the philosophical foundations for that view in American history.
You are after making a practical argument that some other parochial form of freedom has arisen from atheistic societies. I don't think he addressed your argument. And you would have to elaborate it for me to be able to entertain it. You might have a good argument in which case you could fault Romney for being too parochially American, but I doubt he will mind. I won't.
and I am not arguing that freedom "has arisen in atheistic societies". The roots of freedom are firmly within majority Judeo-Christian societies, and it has spread worldwide from there. What I take issue with is a claim that freedom requires religious allegiance, which is exactly what Romney claimed in his speech -- no ifs, ands, buts, or metaphorical interpretations; it's what he said in plain English. (If you don't understand the difference I am emphasizing here, substitute "majority Caucasian" for "majority Judeo-Christian" in my second sentence, and you will see a claim that, while equally true, would be both highly misleading and completely toxic to the electoral fortunes of any candidate.)
I find it deeply ironic that his statement was a fine example of the kind of religious bigotry he claims so regularly to be a victim of.
Look, I am not going to go back and reread your comments in order to figure out how I misunderstood you. I'll take the blame for it on the basis that your interpretation of his words never entered my mind. Based on the supporting arguments he gave in the context of that claim I can only understand him to be making a statement about the philosophical foundations of liberty as it developed in America. By no means can I get to the interpretation that he is arguing that all Americans must subscribe to a religious faith. I suppose there may be a philosophical or religious argument that you can't be free without being in right relation to god, but he did not make it, so I don't think that is what he was after. We disagree on how to interpret him then. EOD.
I don't think he was being perfectly literal. Freedom is possible without religion, just as religion is possible without freedom. The quote above describes examples of each. But he is saying that a free country is much better with religion and a religious country is much better with freedom. You may disagree, but that would be simply because you don't like religion, a debate that's not going to go anywhere constructive.
The quote that the Constitution was made for a religious people is an excellent one. It doesn't mean that it is impossible for secular people to live under the Constitution. But we already see that, in general, religious people are defending the Constitution while secular people are attacking it by saying that it must be "redefined to fit our times" by judicial fiat rather than going through the process of Constitutional Amendment. Outside of the mentions of slavery, which were taken out 140 years ago, the Constitution is as timeless a document as has ever been written.
has been specifically because of the separation of church and state and the guarantee of freedom of religion. The rest of the world thought we were crazy when we made that guarantee; but that's what gave us the highest rate of both faith and practice in the industrialized world.
(That said, I still like Huckabee.)
I think if you look at the parts of the world where freedom reigns, you're a lot more likely to find branches of the Judeo-Christian tradition, than not.
Even places like South Korea have had quite a bit of missionary work.
Most of the free world comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition, but not all of it does (India and Japan would be two prominent examples), and in any case this does nothing to establish a claim that "freedom requires religion".
Almost all free countries have religious majorities and/or state religions, but there are significant exceptions, and besides, the same is true of the unfree ones. Romney's statement is a blatant slap in the face to religious unbelievers. If the GOP doesn't want those votes, that's just fine with me, of course...
On point 1
What are some of the influential forces that led to Japan and India having democracies (and the freedoms therein)? Well, Japan was rebuilt by the U.S. and democracy was forced upon them. India had the example of the British to follow after Britain left.
Both the U.S. and Britain were formed from Judeo-Christian values. So, can we still say that most of the free world comes from Judeo-Christian traditions...?
On point 2
Certainly there are significant exceptions. But, were these countries once more religious and now are walking down the atheist/agnostic path and establishing government as their God? Britain at one time was far more religious than it is today...and what is there society like - national health care, social policies, cradle to grave. See below for the number of agnostics in Britain and other nations.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
Erik
Drupal would make fixing it in RS 2 very hard, unfortunately. At least, it looked impractical when I tried.
a precious message capably delivered with conviction
Here's a link to the transcript:
http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/12/governor-romneys-faith-in-a...
I'm sure you can find it on MittTV on the Romney website before too long.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Here is MSNBC's video link. Had to hack it a bit, so hopefully the link works.
I expected the speech to be solid, but business-like and maybe a little defensive.
He more than nailed it. He added something beautiful to our nation's discourse.
I recommend this so other people will seek out the video or transcript.
a lot. Very nicely done! Of course, it does not change who I support. I am not opposing Romney anymore. I merely support a different candidate.
And very consistent with the point of his speech, imho.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
The speech was a well written one on religious freedom and Mitt nailed it. The problem here is that what people wanted to hear/needed to hear was the history/beliefs of Mormonism and on that he didn't deliver. Mitt had the opportunity to tell people exactly what Mormons believe and he chose not to do so, which will lead people to the internet and other (albeit accurate) sources or they will simply vote against him based on a lack of understanding. This speech did nothing to clear up the Mormon issue for him no matter how the media is drooling over it now.
Who wanted to hear a speech on the history and beliefs of Mormonism? I can't think of anyone but maybe yourself. Besides, that's not Romney's job to educate Americans on Mormonism. As he said in his speech, doing that would dignify the religious test that the Constitution opposes!
Mitt Romney is a Presiential candidate, not a Mormon scholar that's supposed to lecture all of America on Mormon history and its system of beliefs. Do you see Mike Huckabee giving us the history of the Baptist church and their beliefs? Do you see Rudy Giuliani telling us the history of the Catholic Church? I mean come on, give me a break.
I think you missed the point of Romney's speech altogether.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
...and I believe he specifically avoided it, for good reason.
BTW - Rush is giving the speech rave reviews right now.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
You can't say that he both nailed the speech and is responsible for expounding on the history and doctrines of Mormonism.
Anyway, you're wrong. Only opponents of Romney would want him to mire his campaign in the discussion of doctrines.
I wouldn't mind having Mitt dive into details on his religion, but that goes against the whole point he was trying to make:
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. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
Asking a primary candidate to explain a religion that very few Americans understand is hardly the religious test that the Constitution referred to. And no one is asking him to be the spokesman for his faith, but when you have a candidate that practices a religion that is very secretive and believes in a history that is alternative to all other religions/science then I think an explanation is in order. And if you think for a minute that this won't become an issue in a general election, then you sir are crazy.
You're the only wanted who wanted to hear Romney preach about Mormonism, and doubtless you wouldn't support Romney no matter what he said. So what does that say about your argument?
Obviously if Romney gets the nomination he's shown it won't be an issue. The only new opposition his religion might pick up in the general are liberal religion-bashers whose votes he wouldn't get anyway.
Romney said, "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
If you have any questions about the Mormon faith you can visit www.lds.org or www.mormons.org, you can ask any Mormon member of his faith for details, heck, you can even go to anti-Mormon sites and read all the transcripts of the things that are done in those "secretive" temples.
You sir are asking Mitt to give you a 30 minute speech on who Mormons are, and that was not his intentions of this speech, his intentions were to speak about "Faith in America" and how his faith would affect his Presidency to which he said:
Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
People who think Romney should have been specific about the beliefs of the LDS church clearly missed the whole point of the speech. Requiring him to get into that creates the religious test he said we should avoid. I completely agree. I don't expect Mike Huckabee to defend his belief in Noah's arc, nor do I expect a catholic to discuss the virgin birth or the infallibility of the Pope. Can we get past this now? Can we focus on things like experience, education, leadership abilities? You know the important stuff.
When he said, "no political candidate should become a spokesman for his faith." If people want to know "exactly" what Mormon's believe, they can ask the Mormon church.
Don't agree. The people who wanted to hear theological details of the Mormon faith wouldn't vote for Romney no matter what he did.
The vast majority of people could not care less what the Mormons believe. All the Mormons they know are hard-working people who keep their nose to the grindstone and have well-behaved children. That's really all anybody needs to know about Mormons. Mormons do not visit pizza parlors wearing explosive backpacks and they do not slit the throats of film producers. OK, they're in.
My sense is that this speech might be a brilliant stroke, a kind of media ju-jitsu that grabs Huckabee's religion thrust and uses the media's fascination with that to throw Huckabee off the stage for at least a day and maybe longer. Romney had to do something to stop the media from giving Huckabee all the oxygen. This will do it.
What the speech will not do is assuage the fears of those who probably weren't going to vote for him anyway. But if he's realistic, he wrote them off long ago. His problem wasn't them, it was how to get back up off the mat. Did it work? I dunno. We'll see.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
can where it belongs.
It does NOT make Mitt our candidate, as his candidacy must rise or fall on its merits. His wobbles and bobbles, his Wall Streetisms and the potential contamination from his residence in Massachusetts are all valid issues.
But his religion is irrelevant.
Over 2,500 words in his speech, Romney mentioned Mormonism once: "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it."
Aren't you curious as to what it is by which this Presidential candidate is living?
I'm not in on this pro- or anti-Mormon nonsense in the context of a Presidential election, but I don't like to be teased. Mitt teased us.
That would be the MSM. They are the ones that speculated this would be about Mitt Romney addressing Mormonism. Mitt released days ago that the speech was a talk about "Faith in America", not "Mormonism in America".
It wasn't a tease because Mitt said all along that this wouldn't be about Mormonism or defending his personal beliefs. Aren't you curious about Rudy Giuliani's faith, Mike Huckabee's, Ron Paul's? Give me a break.
If what Mitt did today was a tease, all the other candidates have been teasing you day-in and day-out.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
He doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he tithes his income, he believes sex outside marriage is a grave sin, he prays, he reads scripture, he attends church on Sunday and takes the sacrament there, he does his "hometeaching" (meaning that as a member of a Mormon congregation he's assigned a couple of Mormon families that he's supposed to visit monthly, check on their wellbeing, and deliver a short religious message), he goes to the Mormon temple on occasion, he tries to keep a journal and to tell his grandkids family stories, he fasts the first Sunday of most months, he tries to give as much income and time as he's able to charity.
Anything else?
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I wish I've been that good. It would be one thing to say that Romney was "teasing" people about his faith if his own life and the things he does in terms of his personal, private behavior weren't so indicative of what that faith means to him personally. Those are the most important indicators, to me. You cannot fake these things: you either do them or you don't do them. If he was "teasing us" about what is faith means to him, that's some tease. All the evidence we have so far is that he walks the walk.
If it's all a ruse on Romney's part he certainly outdoes a lot of other "genuine" people with his "act."
Just in case you missed it. He was doing this during his campaign and shortly after the San Diego fires.
originated in specific Mormon doctrines, then a little elaboration would be in order.
And I don't see any evidence of that.
Ergo, none of my business.
Romneygirl
"Aren't you curious as to what it is by which this Presidential candidate is living?"
It is not his obligation to explain the LDS faith. If curious it is your job to satisfy that and go to the LDS website, open the phone book and call for a missionary to come talk to you, etc.
"Mitt teased us."
THe title was Faith in America not Mormonism 101. He said he would explain faiths role r/t his politics. He did that very clearly.
The speech was very good. I just wish Mitt had been as principled on political issues as he is on his faith. Mormonism is about the only thing he didn't flip on.
Anyone who is complaining about Romney not explaining Mormanism and the doctrine of that faith is a suspect KOS plant imo. The press is going to totally miss the well articulated points in this speach and focus on the lack of explanation of church doctrine. If you're intersted in church doctrine corral one of those kids on the bikes one day and ask them. This speach was supposed to address why his faith isn't an issue with him becoming president, just as JFK addressed why his Catholic faith wasn't an issue. I for one am a Thompson supporter but think Romney just put a feather in his cap with one well delivered, timely, and pertinent speach. Lets see how the mainstream spins this to make him look bad. That's my opinion we welcome yours....
I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it to the very death.
...I've noticed a few new accounts in the past couple of days making a single comment on this topic. Your Kos theory isn't so far off.
JFK actually addressed the major religious issue that was being held against him- that he would take orders directly from Rome.
As Robert A. Hahn notes above, the religious issue being held against Romney is notion that some people are suspicious of Mormonism for its (perceived) secretive and nontraditional beliefs. If Romney actually wanted to try to persuade these people, he should have addressed Mormon beliefs in an attempt to get these people comfortable. However, as Mr. Hahn notes, these people are probably unconvincable and Romney's real objective was not to make a futile attempt to convince them, but rather political ju-jitsu on Huckabee.
I didn't see the speech, but it sounds like it was effective for Romney's actual intent. But if someone naively believes that he his main goal was to address those who are suspicious or hostile to Mormonism (as JFK actually did address re: Papal authority), it is understandable that they would wonder why he didn't get more into the details of Mormonism.
Hopefully, I'll get a chance to see this on C-SPAN soon.
If it's as good as everyone is saying, it may persuade a few folks who were hesitant to vote for a Mormon to take another look.
For the rest of us who are voting for other candidates because of Romney's abandonment of conservative values during his tenure as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts not to mention his failed run for Senate versus "the swimmer"), probably not.
Yes, correct on the points - but as I indicated in my own blog post - its just another manufactured cog in the Romney campaign.
Sorry, not moved.
A lot of amens to what was said - but how it translates into the presidential campaign and how he governs just doesnt impact me much.
Then again, his religion was never a point of contention for me.
That I am quite proud of. Whether or not he wins the Republican nomination, we need to keep his words out in the forefront.
We simply cannot forget that as we have freedom from a state sponsored religion, we are entitled to the free exercise of our preferred faith. We can allow any person of faith to practice their faith however they wish; but we cannot allow someone with no faith, except in some phrase "secular progressivism", to stop anyone else from practicing their faith.
If Mitt achieved nothing more than to put those who claim faith but want to be a 'secular progressive,' then they have a choice, stand against a country of faith and the Constitution, or understand that Faith, itself, is not unconstitutional.
I have never experienced the slightest desire to prevent anyone else from practicing his or her faith, and I certainly don't believe faith is opposed to the Constitution, so I'm honestly not sure who you're addressing here.
Conservatives consider the war against the following things as being waged by secular progressives:
1. Nativity Scenes in Public
2. 10 Commandments or other religious works of art removed from Public Buildings
3. Removing Christmas from public vernacular
4. Removing Under God from the pledge of allegiance
5. Removing In God We Trust from money
6. Removing Prayer from Congress
etc. etc.
Majority of Conservative Christians have no problem with other religious symbology in public, but just stop trying to take away ours.
If you do not subscribe to these actions, then good for you.
Rave reviews over at The Corner and elsewhere.
I loved the Sam Adams story at the end.
Full disclosure: I'm a Mormon and, though I'm lukewarm about Romney as a candidate, I'd probably vote for him if my primary were today.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
should look closely at his face following his anecdote about sam adams. he is clearly overcome by his emotions as the audience applauds.
he was truly open about what is in his heart and i think lands a huge blow to the claim that he's purely a rehearsed, slick, salesman-type politician.
he took a huge risk giving that speech today despite all advice not to. it was clearly very important to him that he discuss his views on faith and freedom. i think his critics should take a moment to pause and give him some well-deserved credit.
While Romney gave what may go down in history as one of the greatest speeches on Religion in history. (and you can disagree if you want).
Rush Limbaugh on his Radio Address may have almost came to the same level. I hope someone when they get the transcript of todays Radio show, posts his statements on this site.
They both make me proud to be an American
_______________________
Give me juicy, Red meat
This was the speech I was hoping Mitt would give. There is religious bigotry in the country, and it needed to be called out in a highly visible way. The speech accomplished this. While I remain strongly committed to another candidate, I am strongly in favor of Mitt's having made this speech.
As a 13th generation American, religious bigotry is one of my hottest of hot-button topics. When a pastor appeared as a commenter this summer, I joined with my fellow FredHeads in discouraging said pastor's presence because of his blatant bigotry against those of Mormon faith.
This is not a religious issue, folks. This is an American issue. When we allow people to be attacked on the basis of their faith we are striking at the bedrock of our nation.
I believe Mitt spoke ably and nobly. I applaud him, because as well as speaking to the American people, I believe he spoke for all people who think as I do.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Believe it or not I haven't seen it yet. This morning was a cavalcade of calumny. It had nothing to do with Klaus Nomi, though, I can assure you.
I'll watch it tonight and I'll have my takeaway tomorrow morning. In the meantime it sounds from the comments that he didn't bomb. That's good. And I heard today that Rush Limbaugh came to his defense. That's good too.
Speaking of all this wonderful bipartisan spirit, I've got to give a shout out to John McCain for his interview in the Boston Globe, in which he expressed his perplexity at the NIE report on Iran:
"My confidence in American intelligence capability is not at the highest level," McCain said.
Good answer, Senator.
Say what you like about McCain, but he's no dummy.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I've disagreed with Senator McCain on specific subjects at specific times because of the specific things he's done and said, but I've never questioned the man's intelligence. I liked his answers in the Globe interview today.
Now I'm not 100% sure he eliminated questions about Mormonism. Personally, I'm not a supporter but I never once worried if the Mormon Church would control his decision making. I never once worried about his religion, last time I checked Mormonism is not trying to eliminate the West and America. My issues with Romney are clearly policy.
I will say... such a speech on religion in the US was much needed, and will hopefully remind people of the value of practicing religion freely and the moral and ethical values that helped build this country that many seem to have lost site of. Whether or not Romney earns the nomination and wins the Presidency, I think his speech was a huge service to this country, and his presentation and delivery was excellent.
He has just moved up to second place for me. I still think Fred is a better choice.
My favorite, unscripted applause point so far:
"Americans acknowldge that Liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of Government."
Well said, Governor.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
I read it and liked it - Presidential in all aspects.
Erik
I've been leaning towards another candidate, but what I saw and heard today was inspiring. I could see Romney as President. This may have changed everything. I think that those who continue to raise the Mormon issue will only look small and petty.
___________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
While there is much that I admire about the man, especially his superior business background, he has been second or third in my mind - as the campaign has shaken out.
I heard parts of the speech on the radio, and then just finished reading the entire text. I really likes what I heard, and I loved what I just read.
I have to give him another long look.
I was inspired by Romney's speech. I was for him a year ago, but switched to Rudy because he seemed to me the more likely the best fighter in the GWOT. Today I saw the fighter in Romney as he took *straight on* the issue of his religion that has bubbled up in a very nasty and bigoted way during this campaign, IMO.
Why should a solid family man and citizen of accomplishment, a proven successful businessman, a leader who saved the 2002 Olympics and a Governor of possibly the most liberal state who balanced the budget every year without raising taxes need to be subjected to a test of his religion in the United States of America?
I agree with Romney when he said, "A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith." He also said he doesn't define his candidacy by his religion.
Personally, I think it's insulting that in 2007 where the PC police constantly promote tolerance of everything abhorent that freedom to practice one's religion has to be explained.
Well, Romney took the opportunity to explain the basic principles of freedom of religion which, in my mind we don't hear often enough. Maybe with Romney at the bully pulpit we'll hear more inspiring education of the masses who need to hear about the greatness of this country and the "symphony of faith".
I now see Romney as strong fighter. I also see him as sincere, not plastic. The poor guy has to suffer his good looks. The GWOT on terror is this socons #1 issue. I think he's up to the fight.
Kathy
=============
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
sometimes I do wonder what is the difference between "religious" liberty and "Christian" liberty? It's just food for thought, nothing to it, really.
In any case, unfortunately for Romney, I still wouldn't vote for him because he's a Mormon. Tough luck for him. If evangelicals feel comfortable voting for him, good for them, they have the right to do that. No problem at all.
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
And I'm voting for him. I feel sorry for you that you won't vote for a candidate simply because he doesn't share your religious beliefs. If that had been the case for me, I would have never voted for anyone...
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
and Mormonism has nothing to do with it.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/dhannon_pdx/2007/dec/06/americans_do_not_r...
it's no secret I've been leaning Romney's way since day one, but I'd yet to commit to a candidate. now I do so commit. I'm in Romney's camp officially. I still like McCain and Huckabee and would vote for them enthusiastically if they were the nominee (and the gap between them and Romney is actually much smaller than it once was), and I've come to respect Giuliani enough not to revolt over him, but Mitt's my guy now.
I don't know if it was a great speech, though it was in parts, but it was thouroughly solid and hit all the right notes. a very good speech on faith that should comfort those honestly on the fence. and the fact that he recently said exactly what I said he should when he said, simply, regarding abortion during the last debate, "I was wrong," certainly didn't hurt my decision to suppot him either ;)
In his "Kennedy speech," Romney made a huge mistake by leaving the impression that he believed in the same Jesus that Christians believe in. He knows that the Mormon Jesus is the spirit-brother of Lucifer; he knows that the Mormon Jesus is the son of a god who had multiple wives and who also had a father, who also had a father, who also had a father--into eternity past. He knows that Mormon polytheism is not the same as theism (and orthodox Trinitarianism). Yet Romney tried to deceive us by hiding the fundamental differences between his church and orthodox Christianity (which includes Catholicism and Protestantism).
If he would have admitted that there were significant differences between his church's doctrine and the doctrine of orthodox Christianity, though we share the same moral values, I could have supported him. (He is running to become the national President; not the national Pastor.) But since he lied to us by pretending that he believed that the Jesus of Mormonism is the Jesus of the Bible, he has made me into a vocal enemy.
With the deception in this speech, Romney has opened himself up to a comparison between his beliefs and the beliefs of true Christianity. We have every right in the world to attack his lies.
I'm sorry MB, you've been a member for a long time, but you don't sound very credible when you say, "If he would have admitted... significant differences between his church's doctrine and... Christianity... I could have supported him."
He did say, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
Doesn't sound to me like he could of won you over anyway. Quick hide the kids, Romney's on a deception campaign!
I am a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, and an immigration conservative who will vote for any Republican that wins the nomination. In the primary here in Ohio, if it will make any difference, I plan vote for the candidate most likely to beat Guliani (even it that is Mitt). I am an evangelical college professor who teaches comparative religions.
I appreciate the fact that Romney admitted that his church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. That does help, and I should have pointed that out. I apologize for not doing so.
Here is Romney's mistake: By saying "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind" he is implying that he is in agreement with orthodox Christianity regarding the essential nature of Jesus and God the Father, and only in disagreement on secondary issues. But according to historic Christianity, the only reason that Jesus can be our Savior is that he is himself the transcendent Creator of mankind, the second Person of the infinite, eternal Trinity. Only a sacrifice of infinite value could atone for our sins against an infinite God; that's why God himself had to become incarnate. Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the first of billions of spirit babies born to Elohim and his goddess wives. Lucifer was one of his younger brothers, and his father was himself one of many other finite gods. Mormons presuppose polytheism, which is fundamentally different from orthodox theism.
The theological presuppositions of Mormonism are so different from basic Christianity that I believe it is deceptive for Mormons to claim general agreement with classical Christian teaching about Christ. The theological terms that Mormonism and orthodox Christianity are the same, but the meaning is very, very different.
Mitt left the impression that the differences between his church and orthodox Christianity were like the differences between Baptists and Methodists. The problem with that is that Baptists and Methodists disagree on minor or secondary issues. Mormons and orthodox Christians have fundamental differences in theology-though not with ethics. If I knew that Mitt would never talk about his beliefs, but instead would talk about our shared values, then I honestly could let the religion issue rest.
I do think, though, that it says something Mitt's integrity for him to imply that Mormonism and Christianity are in fundamental agreement on what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God and Savior of mankind. He knows the differences.
I have had a lot of dialogue with Mormon missionaries and other Mormons, and I have to press them on their fundamental beliefs. They are reluctant to tell me what they really believe--though if you work hard enough, they usually will open up and describe their differences.
This speech made me less likely to choose him among the pack of Republican contenders.
This probably isn't the place, but the door is now open. Can you explain to me why you think it is so important that Mitt Romney cast down in speech the vast chasm of differences between how he interprets Jesus in the Bible and how you do?
He is running for President. He is restrictive in how he talks about his faith because of that; he does not proselyte from the podium. What good is that going to do for you, for me, for Joe America if Mitt Romney comes out and theologically pinpricks every difference between his religion and yours and for that matter every religion that is free in our land?
His speech was one to unite this country with all it's diverse religions and raise the discussion of Faith in American. I'm sorry that was lost on you.
That's part of my point. He should not have claimed to believe that Jesus is the Son of God if by that he means something fundamentally different than orthodox Christians. He should not have stated any of his beliefs! He should have simply acknowledged that there is room for diversity of religious beliefs in the political realm and that there should be no religious test. I would have agreed with him. But instead, he left the impression that there is no essential difference between Mormonism and Christianity in regard to the essential nature of Jesus as the Son of God.
I must have miscommunicated, because I didn't intend to say that he should explain the vast chasm of differences between Mormonism and Christianity (not just me, but all of historic Christianity)--unless he is going to talk about his beliefs. I think it is great that he was trying to unite the country with all of its diverse religions. But in doing that, it would have been wise for him to say nothing about what he believed. Since he did make a statement about his beliefs, he needs to be honest about what he means by the words he uses if they mean something so radically different (which they do).
Thank you for your futher clarifications. I understand and can appreciate your point now, yet I disagree with parts.
Romney's speech was about "Faith in America", not "Values in America". And although you feel that his Jesus and your Jesus are continents apart, he spoke to the following, "There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ?" Since his speech was about his faith, he chose to layout the fundamental prinipal of his faith, even if you feel that his Jesus and your Jesus are galaxies apart.
You mention, "he left the impression that there is no essential difference between Mormonism and Christianity...." I disagree, he said,"My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance." I feel he had to express the basis of his faith for the speech to work. And for most, the speech did work, I understand now why it didn't for you.
Friend, you were gaffing this politician as a liar based on an implication you draw as a theologian. He claimed to be a Mormon, not an orthodox Christian. He isn't a missionary engaged in proselytizing so even if you can justify calling them deceptive, you don't have proper grounds for analogical reasoning.
You were also reasoning forward from an impression. That was your impression based on your particular background and expectations. I did not get the same impression. It is difficult to argue which one of us got the right impression, but that is the difficult task we would have in order to evaluate the claim of deception.
By stating that what he believes to be common ground between Mormon and Christian views of Christ he may indeed have opened himself to having questions raised about the differences. Fair enough and you might fault him for opening that door. But publicly accusing him of deception based on the implications you draw and the impressions which were no doubt shaped by your own expectations seems a stretch to me. I don't see that you have really justified yourself on that point, though the change in tone is welcome. Of course, it seems that all one needs any more, to throw out a challenge to a man's integrity, is to claim a right to be cynical; so graded on the curve maybe you are doing pretty well. Nevertheless... I am going for the post button instead of the delete key on this one.
Personally, I wouldn't have shot my bolt on something like this, but hey, takes all kinds, huh?
Well, obviously not all kinds.
Blam.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I have been requested to let you have another chance, which I have graciously assented to do. Provided that you apologize - to my satisfaction, which means that "sorry if you were offended" won't even begin to cut it. Next post.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position. Notice that I have changed the tone of my postings. Thanks for challenging me to do so. Please believe me that I am sincere and a true conservative who wants the best for this country.
Only this time, apologize.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I am sorry that I used the "l" word, and that my tone was overly harsh. I do back down from my original posting, as written. I am not sure what else to apologize for. No apology is meaningful if it is not sincere.
If the second post were the original post, would you have been ok with it being posted, though you may still disagree?
As to your question: yes, that would have been acceptably within site guidelines.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Oh, brother. And there are big, big differences between Mormons and most Christians, but not this nonsense. The Mormon Jesus is the one in the New Testament. There's only one Jesus. But I don't want to fight about it here. Go to www.timesandseasons.org if you want an explanation.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I first noted Romney on a CSPAN speech about a year ago in Iowa, and I was very impressed with his abilities.
Guiliani is very personable, and I am grateful for his achievements and leadership in reducing crime in New York. He comes across as someone who can be trusted, someone who is smart, and efficient and practical. However, he also comes across as a big city liberal guy who is willing to accommodate illegal aliens, homosexual "marriages", higher taxes, gun control, and bigger government. I'm willing to vote for him to prevent a Democrat from gaining power, but I'm afraid his leadership would not be something I'd be very happy about. Much like Schwartzeneggar in California.
Huckabee seems like a decent guy, but his support of illegal alien tuition leaves me cold. I've got 200 illegal aliens lining my street near my house, sitting by a taxpayer built center for them. Even though I write my Representatives and Senators, they are quite happy to keep funding these lawbreakers. Huckabee would seem quite happy to help out. His comments on bigger government (state sponsored health care initiatives) are terrifying. He seems to be a liberal Democrat.
McCain is somewhat good for defense, but for everything else, he might as well be a Democrat. He reminds me of Leiberman.
Duncan Hunter is great on the issues, but seems incapable of organizing a campaign on a national scale. This strikes at my ability to support him since I don't know if he could cope with national leadership either.
Thompson is solid on the issues, definitely, but comes across as lethargic and a bit of a dullard. I'm afraid the lack of energy is terrifying, and I'm not sure he is up to the task.
Romney's greatest weakness so far has been his lack of charisma at debates. He's come across as lacking in strength of conviction, in lack of drive and purpose. With today's speech, I think we see that this drive and conviction is there. His moral convictions are the reason why I'm now convinced that Romney is the best candidate for President.
I'll be voting for him in the primary and the general election.
I will now support Romney -- temporarily -- ONLY to stop that truly liberal Dem., Huckabee. All comes down to Huck's support of illegal immigration.
If Huck. gets the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for him, but won't do an ounce of work for him, or any other GOP nominee. All comes down to Huck's support of illegal immigration.
??????
Mitt grew up in Michigan (liberals running everything, everywhere the state), he spent some time in France (enough said) during college, ond then he found a comfortable home is Mass. to start a public life as a one term wonder in the most liberal State in the Union! He was "effectively pro-choice" (pro-death) and his family donated money to Planned Parenthood....no that is not a Conservative group! Mitt's father was even considered a "moderate Republican". It was Mitt's Mommy who told about abortions and a womens right to choose; it was obviously instilled in him from an early age. So what he changed his mind a few months ago, big deal. I call it Mitt's position "convienently pro-life" As far as defending the Country; Mitt comes from an anti-war background as well...
On 31 August 1967, Governor Romney made a statement that ruined his chances for getting the nomination.[3] In a taped interview with Lou Gordon of WKBD-TV in Detroit, Romney stated, "When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." He then shifted to opposing the war: "I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in Southeast Asia," he declared. Decrying the "tragic" conflict, he urged "a sound peace in South Vietnam at an early time." Thus Romney disavowed the war and reversed himself from his earlier stated belief that the war was "morally right and necessary."
Whoa...where have we heard that before; its "like deja vu all over again"
On Immigration; I had a restaurant in Westborough Mass. I was up there once or twice a month for a year or so. The corporation that I was working for at the time sent us a list from each of our restaurants (I had 7) that showed all of the fraudualant or invalid SSAN's....I had to fire as many hispanics carrying fals ID in that one restaurant as I did in the rest of my market which was all in the Baltimore Maryland area. And let me tell you, if you can beat MD for sanctuary status, you have accomplished a major liberal feat!
Mitt Romney has displayed one characteristic that makes him the WRONG man for the job and that is his eagerness to do and say whatever is in the best interest of Mitt Romney. What a fraud.....go find a equity firm to run, leave your hands off of my Country.
He's still tooooooooooooooooo liberal! FACE IT!
Why do people here at Red State believe that we have to be like the Democrats to beat them? These candidates are in our party but have supported liberal ideals and you guys ignore it or you find a similar tendency in your candidate and say "well if Rudy is then Mitt is" Hell, You are both right!
All of you Romney, Rudy, Huckabee fans should be careful what you wish for. When your love affair is over and you take off those rose colored glass all you will see is a RINO govern like a liberal!
The Olympics do not make Romney a Conservative just like 9/11 didnt make Rudy one! Thing is, we like smart business men and that they are. Doesnt make them deserving of the White House.
We probably should stop the "we just need someone to beat Hill&Bill". Its getting us closer and closer to nominating someone just like them!
FRED IS A REAL AND (the big one) CONSISTENT CONSERVATIVE!
And since all that Mitt has done is save an Olympics (who cares...anyone watch or care about them??? anyone???)he can run the Dept of Commerce for Fred (until the Olympics needs him again) and Rudy he can be a White House attorney again.....he certainly doesnt deserve the USAG title with his stance of guns.
When we talk "experience" to serve; I think that the better question is what type of people will they appoint to run dept.'s and give them candid advice? Who will appoint a most conservative cabinet? Well at least Fred as pledged....thats right a pledge to appoint high level cabinet officials who hold a prolife view! Will Rudy say that? How about Mr. and Mrs. Planned Parenthood; the Romney's? At least Huck would take the pledge.....he would likely go back on it once in the White House.
Where are the Conservatives? Whats happened to this movement when those who call themselves Conservative can get behind a candidate like Romney or Rudy or Huckabee? Seriously....Hunter is more Conservative than any one of them and he has little support because of his small wallet. And THAT in and of itself is sickening to me. Most of you have folded up your principles and put them away until Hillary-the-boogey-women is gone and it is shameful.
We can beat a liberal EVERY SINGLE time with a strong and consistent conservative and you all rally around a couple of frauds? We deserve what we get.
and I think many do understand that, but it should be reiterated. Just because we feel strongly about our candidate of choice does not mean they're the ONLY one that is worthy. I strongly support Fred Thompson, but I think Romney would probably do almost as well as Fred, so I am ambivalent about his candidacy. I'm glad he's shoring up his support, just in case Fred doesn't make it, as Romney is my strong 2nd choice. I could vote for McCain, but he's down there as a 3rd choice. I could vote for Huckabee, but he's WAAAY down the list as the 4th choice. And Giuliani is a non-player.
The moral of the story: just because one is a strong supporter of a particular candidate doesn't mean one must tear down the opponent(s) and their supporters.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Picking a candidate isn't like falling in love. You don't have to reject the alternatives. Romney and Thompson are 1a and 1b for me.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Wait, are you talking about the same Fred Thompson that lobbied for pro-abortion groups? How consistent is that? He also said at one point that he didn't know whether or not life began at conception.
Not to mention that Fred didn't consider the crime of a perjury by Clinton to be a "High crime" or "misdeamanor."
Don't come here defaming Mitt when your guy's record isn't squeaky clean either. Romney was the first to sign the tax pledge. Has Fred signed it yet or is he holding out till the last minute like he did declaring his candidacy?
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
If you believe in American Exceptionalism, you owe Romney a big, big thank you for his speech yesterday. It's focus on the founding of this truly great nation was inspiring.
See Rush Limbaugh for more.
...between Hannity, Laura, & Rush raving yesterday and today, it looks as if Mitt is getting some great mileage out of this thing.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Buchanan and DeFrank Nailed. Two great op-eds on Romeny's speech by Buchanan and DeFrank. He's getting mileage indeed. Makes his naysayers and the christian "purists" look petty:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article59079.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/07/2007-12-07_mitt_romn...
I am amazed by the outrage of atheists and agnostics across America at Romney's speech. They are particularly burned by his notion that freedom requires religion. They argue that such a notion leaves out all the non-religious folk. I take issue with this point of view, however.
While an atheist may tell you that she or he is devoid of religion, that is not quite true. The very fact that any opinion regarding the existence or non-existence of deity is expressed is actually an example of faith. An atheist has no more proof that God does not exist than a believer has that He lives. Atheism is in and of itself a religion. Romney would likely agree that folks should be free to be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Hindu, or whatever. An important point of the speech was that we are free to believe (or not believe) as our conscience dictates.
Shawn Weber
Some people who call themselves atheists are actually anti-theists, which is something different entirely.
Real atheists like me just don't care, heh.
...from atheist to anti-theist. Especially when I have to deal with people who are trying to affect my personal life based on the way that Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha/Captain Kirk told them to live. I have absolutely no problem with anyone of any religion practicing their faith in their own home or place of worship. However, what gives you the right to tell me that I can't drive a red car because in the ancient scripture, some guy named Bob was killed by [insert deity here] for driving a red chariot*.
* - This example was completely fabricated so as not to offend any one religion. If your personal belief system includes someone named Bob and a red chariot, I'm sorry.
the CONCORD MONITOR editorial toady
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/OPINIO...
puts the ROMNEY candidacy in PERFECT perspective. If you haven't read it yet I encourage you to do so NOW!
But I still think he nailed it. I'm glad he made this speech, its about time we stop this nonesense about his faith. I'm a Catholic with an understanding of history so I'm sensativ eto this and support Romney's position that he's not running for pastor-in-cheif. Great job by the governor, lets how we can get down to business now.
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason