Romney's Appeal to American Ideal

I would hope that Americans are smart enough to think, pray, act for themselves and VOTE for who their consciences tell them is right for this country. Mitt Romney is certainly on my watch list and I appreciated his comments and explanations and the limited way he included & excluded certain topics. He shouldn't have to explain his faith - it is his and his right to have and believe as he wishes. That any intelligent person would think he would be dictated by the LDS leadership is just ridiculous. I know of no other church that separates church & State more than the Mormon church. They declare from their pulpits that they encourage their members to go to the polls and vote for good decent people in their communities as leaders and so forth but they go out of their way to decline from standing behind any specific person, party or platform. You probably won't find TOO many Mormons or even main stream christians who are Democrats - although there certainly are many - and if President Bush hadn't done such a horrible job with our country in recent years than I think a Mormon might just have a chance at winning the office. BUT what a miracle it is anyway to see a Mormon, An African American and a Woman on our country's ballot! God Bless America indeed! Horray!

I feel Romney should be judged on his political principals and not solely on his religious affiliation. Furthermore, he is a man of character who is committed to keeping his word.

I feel Romney should be judged on his political principals and not solely on his religious affiliation. Furthermore, he is a man of character who is committed to keeping his word.

I for one think that any of you could take anything Romney has said or will say and twist it. I am not just talking about Romney either, anything can be twisted. I think his basic message was that he should be considered for President, regardless of whether he is mormon or not. It doesn't matter that most people don't believe Mormons are Christians...It's pretty interesting that Mormons would be expected to respect everyone elses beliefs, but everyone else is excluded from respecting the Mormons.
Our Country was founded for Religious freedom...For that reason, Mormons should be allowed to play a part no matter what part that is. No one is perfect, I believe most of us are trying to be good people.

Professor:

The wound of religion on the body of the electorate is deeper than one might imagine. Seems, according to the latest polls that what Mr Romney did was ferment the anti Mormon voters. It was a fairly good appeal to fundamentalists, (Lucifer worshipers) in behalf of Huckabee.

I couldn't help but notice how NBC immediately predicted that would be the result. Tim Russert was frothing at the mouth about some detail, "he'll have to answer that question" implying he couldn't. I must not see whatever it was as important since I can't seem to recall it and you didn't mention it either - something about faith and freedom being mutual requirements I think. Isn't that a given in the evangelical world? The address was to evangelicals with the rest just eaves dropping?

Elsewhere, the money changers at the CNBC side of the room can't seem to find any faith in a Republican win of anything. They use that as ballast to stay earthbound as they count their recent gains and worry about paying taxes on it. Larry Kudlow did an interview with Huckabee which I thought was pretty main stream and then, with help from his panel of experts trashed what Huck said. So much for replacing income tax with a national sales tax for example.

I can give religion this much. When it comes to extracting money from people they're painless. Compare the attitude of a tax payer with that of a tithe payer. No one ever lied about having more income than reality with the IRS while people flaunt their "gifts to God" for the benefit of those watching - what church is all about.

Isn't all history really about money, (the wealth of earth)? We get these presumed emotional patriotic upheavals thrown in with what really happened, "no taxation without representation" from people who accept being tithed with no pretence of being represented. Go a little farther back in history and it becomes how wonderful thing were after the liberator overthrew the evil empire, (not too far back to Iraq) almost leaving out the fact that they hauled away all the gold, (not us in Iraq - just securing freedom for those poor people). I thought I would ask that question. I'm still learning as much as I can wherever I can.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme

Pagels' book The Gnostic Gospels says of the 1st century christians:

"Diverse forms of Christianity flourished (like the Mormons and the Evangelicals etc today- HJ) in the early years of the Christian Movement, Hundreds of rival teachers all claimed to teach "the true doctrine of Christ (as Huckabee and the Mormons do today - HJ), AND DENOUNCED THE OTHERS AS FRAUDS. All claimed to be the Authentic tradition"

I have lost any lingering respect I ever had for Romney. A despicable display of historical ignorance and political pandering.

The problem is the insistence that the only path to a conscience is a "religiously informed conscience". That only through a "religion" can morality be found. "Spirituality" is dismissed and mocked. Ask the army of Mormons on mission, the Patrick Henry graduates in government if their "morality" can be shared by atheists and agnostics?? I can't wait for the presidential candidate who gives the speech defending his/her lack of belief in any 1000+ year old superstition, insisting that (like Kennedy and Romney) his/her beliefs in the source of moral understanding shouldn't be a litmus test for office. Romney's speech asked the right wing conservative Christians to support him, despite his Mormon beliefs. Kennedy had it right. Romney missed the mark by a long shot.

According to Romney, atheists and agnostics have no right to freedom. But they weren't the target of his speech, were they? Yuk!

Romney and Christian Political Authority
An Historical Perspective

Romney's position that Christian faith is a necessary qualification for the Presidency has echoes of the original Christian History.

The fundamental tenet of Christian Supremacy - that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, regaining his earthly body - has ambiguous underpinnings EVEN in the Christian Bible. Some accounts (e.g. Luke's and some accounts of Paul's conversion) are consistent with the interpretation that disciples may have been seeing a Ghost or Apparition rather than a body (read Chapter 1 of Elaine Pagels' great book, the Gnostic Gospels).

As Pagels says in that chapter: Whether or not one accepts the resurrection story as literally true, "the doctrine of bodily resurrection serves a *political function*: it legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter. From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of Papal authority to this day."

Romney is claiming an analagous "Christian right to succession" for the Presidency of the US.

Ironically, the basis of the Mormon claim to be the THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH is that the Catholics strayed from the God-authorized line of authority and priesthood, and that line was restored to Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saints in 1830.

BUT: not all contemporaneous Christ followers believed in a literal resurrection. That was the story that had the most political clout.
"

The estimable Dr Bushman cites the need for Romney to address the case of non-believers.

Amen a thousand times.

Romney's speech emphasized the No-Brainer that it is Un-American to vote against someone solely because of their religion (unless perhaps their religion endorses Child Sacrifice).

An important point, but one everyone SHOULD have understood 50 years ago.

The Main Aim of the speech was to convince the Fundamentalists bigots who would vote against him solely because he is a Mormon that
"I am a Christian too."

And further,
we in America SHOULD ONLY ELECT believing Christians, while of course tolerating Muslims and Jews.

This aspect, again the main aim, is despicable in its hypocrasy and pandering to the fundamentalist constituency.

A profile in Conventional, Un-Courageous Politics.

JOZEVZ et al:

Is, "Your site is very Childish!" the best you can do? From the mouthes of babes comes the devistating truth?

Thanks for saying something. I've asked everyone hereabouts for some evidence that what that "childish" site says is in error and they remain deafly quiet for the most part. Speaking of bad writing, have you looked at your own writing?

So let me ask you oh mighty ECLATI crap one. What evidence do you have that it was God and NOT Devil that Moses, Muhammad, Joseph Smint, some woman claiming to have talked to Jesus with her 200,000 followers, Pat Robertson and a cast of thousands. Seems to me that hoax buster fellow with his "childish" web site has refuted the lot of them.

My post above was for the history professor. Pope, bishops, Bible college presidents, ministers, and an array of pundits of several varities have been unable to refute him. Maybe a professor of history? That's what that post is all about.

Your boy Mitt? Are you sure he's not a --- named T, Ta, Tim Yenmor? Just kidding of course. Good luck with whatever it is you're up to. And don't forget there's a lot of folks, 43 million and growing who think hoax buster got that story real straight, childish presentation or otherwise and we vote - the real God vote. I could vote for Mitt - best looking one of the bunch if you ask me. So he lies a little. Maybe he's lying about "faith" and neither a Devil worshiper like the rest claim to be or stupid either one. No one who refuses to lie will ever be elected president or anything. I didn't make that rule but I understand it.

At least the nations leading newspapers editorial pages get it:

From the NY Times:

Faith vs. the Faithless

By DAVID BROOKS

...“But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious.”...

And again from the NY Times:

Editorial
The Crisis of Faith

“Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office...

He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy...

CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?”

The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.

From the Washington Post:

No Freedom Without Religion?

There's a gap in Mitt Romney's admirable call for tolerance.

“RELIGIOUS liberty is, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared yesterday, "fundamental to America's greatness." With religious division inciting violence across the globe, he is right to celebrate America's tradition of religious tolerance. He's right, too, that no one should vote against him, or for him, because he is a Mormon. We only wish his empathy for religious minorities such as his own extended a bit further, to those who do not believe in God...

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government," Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.

Speaking of religious history, just how accurate is that taught at Columbia University? Do you draw conclusions, interpret history?

Here's a conclusion - http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Religion is the great enemy of democracy. That's a little tidbit I picked up at hoax buster. Got anything besides faith that says religion is really in favor of FREE elections? Is the pope not the one who runs the kingdom of God while we anxiously await the return of Jesus?

What conclusions if any are drawn concerning the incompatibility of "faith" and "fact?" When Jesus returns will we have democracy - free elections? Isn't Jesus already here by proxy - great Christian ministries ready, willing and able to enforce God's law? How will we choose the proper one for that job and especially since more than half don't even believe Jesus is coming.

Does the "God vote" negate all other votes?

As an educator and especially since you are Gouverneur Morris Professor of History Emeritus you should strive for truth. Is hoax buster interpretation of sacred scriptures part of the curriculum's at Columbia University? Yet? Ever? Denying any is to deny all? Teaching partial truths is teaching lies or what they don't know won't hurt them?

We do have a choices with Mitt. We can persecute him, we can elect him president, we can ignore him or we can try to educate him? He's not too old to learn is he? Why not tell him the truth, all sacred scriptures are hoaxes including the Book of Mormon and then get his reply. We can vote on that.

Of course, despite a good speech, even a very good one, Romney remains a right-wing Republican who would continue Bush's war in Iraq, the demonization of Islam, and a too-friendly governmental position towards big business.

I wouldn't vote for him for these reasons, not his Mormonism.

And, btw.

It does pain me to have to be the one to point this out, but...

He's no Jack Kennedy.

"I liked Mitt Romney’s "Faith in America" speech. He made very clear that he believes in religious liberty in many dimensions. First, of course, was his appeal for tolerance for his own Mormon faith, but also respect for the other religions in the country–Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims'"

How bout me, Brer book-people?

Never mind how you expect he'll respect those book-religions if the people involved don't happen to think non-straight-people aren't 'sinners' in need of his 'correction?'

There's a lot of Pagan American war dead from a number of wars who *only got a decent burial cause it'd have been impolitic for Bush, who speaks in the same way* to actually say to America's face what he said as Governor of Texas, 'I don't think that's a real religion.'

I don't see in your Romney quote anything that happens to include *me* in his 'tolerant' language, either.

Having lived in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts while he was governor, ....him promising to respect queer rights and religious diversity, until, of course, a GOP nomination was in the offing...

Pardon if I don't have much respect for the man.

He promised, and he lied