But there is only room in it for Christians.
“There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders…. In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
Notice that Adams at least said “Moral and Religious” … Romney, on the other hand, clearly implies that true morality comes only from religion. Don’t believe me? Read on…
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Freedom, a fundamental American tenet, requires religion. I know I’m just repeating what he said, but, well, I just wanted to make it clear.
“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
Yea, and a few years later, his kid brother used your sorry ass to clean out the bilges on his yacht. Hey, Mitt: I knew (of) John Kennedy. You’re no John Kennedy.
Although I know you wanna be…
“America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.
Translation:
“America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging Godless China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign raghead oil, and the breakdown of the straight nuclear family.
But in the end, this is the key part of the speech:
“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked.(sic) 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. (Like, for example, the other faiths that do not regard Jesus Christ as the Son of God, for instance) 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. (But it is perfectly justified spin if we make it abundantly clear that we are only speaking of faiths that regard Jesus Christ as bla bla bla)
But wait, there’s more:
“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.
… because such a candidate may then have to explain polygyny, this golden book that does not exist and how the elders of the church lied about it for so many generations, and all the weird and creepy beliefs we Mormons have…
“I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.
Oh yes, they are all so quaint. Especaqlly the ancient Jews and how those silly Muslims pray all the time, wailing and shit….
“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.
This, of course, is an explicit statement about atheism. Without using the word atheism. The atheists are just a form of “them.”
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.
Do you remember the statement by Romney, in an early debate, about how he would check with his lawyers before committing a blatantly unconstitutional act such as ordering the death of a world leader? Apparently, he would not see a need to consult a lawyer in the event he felt like violating the First Amendment. Has this guy even read the constitution?
“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history
This bit about “history” could mean a couple of things. Like, the part about the seagulls saving the Mormons. Or the part about the Mormons coming over and turning into Indians. Or… It could refer to history with a capital E, if know what I mean..
(just in case I’m being too subtle, I mean Evolution)
and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.
ZZZSSRRRRRRrrrrrr ….. BOOM
(That was the sound of an incoming round in the ongoing War on Christmas.)
Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.
Does this even need a translation? Regarding appointments to the Supreme Court?
“I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. 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.
OK, so how about if we expand the Bush Docterine of isolating ourselves form the rest of the world to include all of Europe. Oh hell, maybe, just maybe, after we’ve rounded up all the Atheists and put them in concentration camps, we should just invade France and Italy, and take back the cathedrals, much like our forefathers invated the Holy Land for much the same purpose.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
I just sent a brief message to the Romney campaign saying that this made it clear that I wouldn’t vote for him. Not that I was going to anyway, and I suppose that’s why he gets away with it. No one who’d be bothered by statements like “Freedom requires religion” was going to vote for him, so he doesn’t care about that.
WORDS
Yeah, like he is god separate from God the Father, just like the Holy Spirit — Mormons are literal tritheists. This is one of the sticky points he is trying to dodge in his speech, and I just don’t see the fundamentalists being convinced, especially since he explicitly avoided talking about more detailed aspects of doctrine.
“features I wish were in my own…”
How about:
reason,
rationality,
or… reality?
” the religion of secularism.”
Basing public policies on observable facts and judging those policies by their obervable outcomes is a religion now?
When will they learn, government policy is suposed to be the best that we can all agree upon? Religions are idiosyncratic beliefs no one will ever agree upon. Basing your policy in any way on any religion, or even on vague religioniness, will inevitably lead to policies harmful to our everday secular interests. (and if Romney is elected, replace “inevitably” with “immediately”)
Surely someone will (please) ask this dolt why freedom requires religion?
I realize the guy is not in touch with reality, but someone ANYONE, should ask him to explain the logic in this, even if it is bad logic. It just sounds like a random assertion unless I missed something.
I had heard it but this speech further reiterates the fact that separation of church and state is rapidly dwindling in US. I am basically from India and I get very angry when politicians use religion or caste (india specific thing) for garnering votes but i have never seen any politician needing to defend their beliefs for running for any post. We have got many minority presidents and prime ministers. I don’t say that people don’t vote on basis of religion but a country like US with the level of educated population, it sounds very bizarre that a candidate running for such high post has to defend his belief and religion. We living in third world country are much better off but nowhere perfect in these matters.
I thought a mature democracy would ensure that these things gets slowly weaned off but my thinking has take big blow after this speech. I don’t see a bright future for our country too when a 200-year-old mature secular and democratic country is behaving in such a way.
It seems the wingnuts aren’t too pleased with the speech either:
Oops. Bad at the linky thing.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59088