An Instant Classic in American Civil Religion

Norrie -- GO BABY!

Steve Prothero -- please seek counseling. I'm concerned that you’re like those gay haters who are actually gay.

In your case – I’m not implying anything sexual -- but I think you may be a closet atheist who really doesn't want to be one of those awful heathens you've heard so much about. I suspect this because in your book, you say you are “religiously confused” which seems wishy-washy, disingenuous or both, especially for a chair of a University religion department (though, who knows – this might be a common affliction.

Then you seem to enjoy making atheists look bad, e.g., mentioning in your definition of the Bible that Teddy Roosevelt called Thomas Paine a “dirty little atheist.”

I recently read Professor Prothero's book and I appreciate his clear insights into the interaction of religion with society. This is the best synopsis I have read so far of the Romney speech. I agree that Romney was reminding Americans that they have not always lived up to the ideal of religious tolerance, and that it is something that we need to be actively considering, rather than assuming that anything we think or feel is free from it. Mormons have a heightened sensitivity to the issue, because there has been continuing intolerance toward them since the inception of the church in 1830. After physical violence by their "Christian" neighbors in the 1830s and 1840s, it became a denial of civil rights by the Federal government in the 1850s to 1890. In the meantime there has been a profitable industry built on catering to a public that is willing to believe anything pejorative or lurid said about Mormons. Is there anyone in the US who publicly sells materials that denigrate Jews and Catholics in the way that many Southern Baptists buy materials attacking Mormons? As manifested by people like Christopher Hitchens and Larry O'Donnell, media figures in America who purport to tell us about reality thinik nothing of telling pejorative lies about Mormons, reveling in their own ignorance of the reality of Mormon beliefs and even who the Mormons are. Romney could have pointed to all sorts of things that have been done to Mormons in the past and present, but he was appealing to the people who care about respecting their fellow Americans enough to actually investigate the facts of what people believe before calling them criminals.

To the extent that Romney's candidacy is smoking out the religious bigots in America, it should give Americans pause to realize that bigotry is alive and well, and that it always claims it is acting in the service of "truth", such as the alleged perfidy of the Jews, or the "unintelligence" of the "Negro".

What the bigots fear the most about a successful Romney campaign is that it would introduce people for the first time to a real Mormon, and they would realize that the things that they were being told by their pastors and newspapers and TV reporters were bald faced lies and slander.

The professor seems ignorant of history. Romney was pandering to the Christian right. To talk about tolerance and excluding many Americans who take a different position on religion were left out in his speech and yet he was quoting the Constitution. The Constitution protects believers and non-believers. He is a flip flopper and plastic like Robert Redford said he was. He will go no further the New Hamshire.

The evidence presented at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is open for cross examination. I and those who care will be the judges of how well that's done.

Here's a couple of questions for those of you who only sling mud.
1. Are those pictures advertised by hoax buster to be "authenticated" by the Roman Catholic Church really "authenticated" as advertised?

2. Are the quotes from the bible authentic.

There are many more that can be asked - when you're done with those.

Jon asks
Who are these people who whine that he didn't talk about THEM enough...?

Carol joins Jon implicitly

Well, Jon and Carol,
these people are Jews, Muslims, Secular Humanists, Respectors of the Constitution, Responsible Christians like Fr Reese and Mr Gaddy.

Kudos to Stephen Prothero for not feeling he has to prove his intellectual credentials by denigrating Romney's speech, like most of the media seems to be doing.

Romney is likely smarter than anyone here....

I loved the speech. It was brilliant. Who are these people who whine that he didn't talk about THEM enough...?

So what if he didn't include the irreligious crowd! That's not his immediate problem, is it now? Maybe he'll write a nice speech for you guys too, so you don't feel so left out....

Galatians, what you have said is all well and good. But as to sheep or goats does what you say mean that Mormons have been caught by "the snare of the fowler." Are they out of the ball game because of a technicality based on orthodoxy? Jesus says this:

Mathew 10:32 So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven.

Is arguing about the exact nature of the trinity any different than arguing Armenian vs. Reformed faith? What about your eschatology? Are you millennial, pre-millennial or a-millennial.

Yes the Mormon situation is, what shall we say, about some big technicalities. But who am I to judge not only the error but the size of the error and how much pushes things over the line. Perhaps judge not should be applied to this situation when a brother sincerely professes in a very public way that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. Is not the rest then up to our Lord? None of us can claim to have perfect knowledge and understand. God makes salvation very simple and straight forward (John 3:16). We muck it up. If their were technicalities or conditions built into John 3:16, then I dare say we would all be caught "in the snare of the fowler."

Perhaps you are being technical about the descriptive term Christian. If adherence to such and such orthodoxy is required to take on the descriptive name Christian, then I prefer the honorific value of the term Christan and will call Mormons, Christians anyway.

Posted on December 7, 2007

Romney Plays the Atheist Card
Sometime in the coming weeks I will point out that far from being a speech in the Kennedy mold (as advertised and as spun), Mitt Romney’s Faith and Values address marks a complete and long-coming reversal of JFK’s (and 20th Century America’s) understanding of the proper place of religion in public life. The Golden Age of American Secularism, as I call it in my forthcoming book, is over.

But rather than dwell on these troubling verities, permit me to momentarily bask in my own wonkish glow. In a radio interview with the Washington Post’s Emily Freifeld on Wednesday I was asked what I thought Romney might speak about on Thursday.

For months now, I have been sort of waiting for a (GOP) presidential candidate to play the secular card. He would, I always imagined, cast all of those decent, hardworking, non-believing Americans and believing ones who advocate separation of Church and State in the role of public enemies. He would charge that they are unraveling the nation’s moral fiber. He would depict them as Willie Hortons with advanced degrees, furloughed by the Democrats and a liberal judiciary.

My hesitant response to Ms. Freifeld was to suggest that Romney just might--who knows?--take on the secularists. Think, after all, of how much mileage the old Moral Majority got out of the boogeyman of “secular humanism.” That worked pretty good.

Well, yesterday Mitt Romney done went and did it!

Continue »

Posted by Jacques Berlinerblau | Permalink | Comments (54)

God, S.P., you really are an ignorant jerk, aren't you?

Wrong title: Romey's speech was really "An Instant Classic in American Religious Intolerance".

I've always thought that you were somewhere on the spectrum of knave, fool, BS arist and beacon of intolerance in religious matters. This essay proves it.

My post (following) on Chuck Colson's essay applies to you as well:

Chuck,

My wife and children are very upset with Governor Romney because he clearly stated that no one in our family can be considered a good American citizen because we are not "believers".

A nice sentiment for a potential President of all the people to express, isn't it.

Your applauding his speech says a lot about you and none of it is good.

If elected, how long will it take Mitt to start building concentration camps in the California desert for us bad American citizens? He probably thinks we're terrorists too.

The Boy Scouts of America, chartered by Congress, will not allow Buddhist boys to join the Scouts because Buddhists don't believe in "God".

What federal opportunities and privileges will President Romney deny our family because we don't believe in "God".

Will we still be allowed to deduct our property taxes for the federal income tax?

******************************

I HOPE TO HELL YOUR DEPARTMENT'S NEW AQUISITION, DONNA FREITAS, CAN STRAIGHTEN YOU OUT. THOUGH CATHOLIC, SHE UNDERSTANDS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE.

MAY YOU HAVE A DEPRESSING CHRISTMAS AND A HORRIBLE NEW YEAR.

AND MAY MITT ROMNEY DECIDE THAT YOUR BRAND OF RELIGION IS UNACCEPTABLE IN A GOOD AMERICAN CITIZEN AND PERSECUTE YOU MIGHTILY.

Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is “no.” Nevertheless, even as the question is clear, the answer requires some explanation.

The issue is clearly framed in this case. Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.

We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.

Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself – that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.

In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.

So, what does Mormonism reject? The orthodox consensus of the Christian church is defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations. Two great doctrines stand as the central substance of that consensus. Throughout the centuries, the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ have constituted that foundation, and the church has used these definitional doctrines as the standard for identifying true Christianity.

The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God – a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology. The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy.

Contemporary Mormonism presents the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ,” but the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.

Normative Christianity is defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus. These doctrines are understood by Christians to be rooted directly within the Bible and rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time. As one leading figure in the early church explained, the true faith is recognized and affirmed everywhere, always, and by all (Vincent of Lérins defined the orthodox tradition as those truths affirmed “ubique, semper, ab omnibus”).

The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith. These are precisely what Mormonism rejects.

Without doubt, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects that very tradition.

Richard John Neuhaus, a leading Roman Catholic theologian, helpfully reminds us that “Christian” is a word that “is not honorific but descriptive.” Christians do respect the Mormon affirmation of the family and the zeal of Mormon youth in their own missionary work. Christians must affirm religious liberty and the right of Mormons to practice and share their faith.

Nevertheless, Mormonism is not Christianity by definition or description.

Georgiason, I have no problem with what you have stated. And what you've said in no way effects my comments.

What do you think about Jesus Christ? You either believe he was the Son of God and the Savior of mankind or you don't. You are either a sheep or a goat. BGONE only pointed out the some sheep may also be cons. This in no way creates a third category.

Oops! I wrote the "Reply to Tim." Just inadvertantly neglected to type my ID in the box.

REPLY TO TIM, who wrote>>"This is the fundamental question. The world is really made up of two groups: Those who believe Christ was the son of God and the Savior of mankind and those who don't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. In reality there are only sheep or goats."

The American Declaration of Independence takes a different path. It states that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Not just Christians, but all. That includes Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, you name it. It also includes atheists. The Declaration of Independence says nothing about God, religion, or Jesus, much less anything about some link between religion and freedom. Please read my separate post explaining that religion and Christianity have nothing to do with freedom, and in fact, have been more freedom’s enemy than friend. Inform yourself about the historical facts, and think about it, in so far as you are capable.

The Constitution made the secular nature of our Republic clear with its explicit provision of separation of church and state. Its core meaning: atheists are as good Americans as those who believe that accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is the only path to heaven. Atheists are as good Americans as you, Tim.

Mitt Romney with his speech added his voice to the support of a phony war that falsely posits a division between believers and secularists in America. He put himself on a par with Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker (remember those fine Christians), Ron Hazzard, and Ralph Reed, the hypocrite of hypocrites (search on “Indian gambling casinos”). We live in an era of false prophets, whose role model seems to be Elmer Gantry.

Gary Jackson:

I couldn't agree more.

"One might say that religion, ratings and revenues are the three "r"s of the culture war and the punditocracy that thrives on it."

Unfortunately the 4th "r"...reason, never even makes it to dance...and so it goes on and on...

Bgone aka Be Gone,

Your words:

"Evidence! Where's the evidence? I know. You ain't got no stinkin evidence that wasn't concocted by Lucifer's agents."

And your words are evidence that you suffer from a belief in the "demons of the demented Bgone".

Henry,

I do know...(and please, bear in mind, my purpose in stating this is not that I think I know more than others...it is that I personally know for myself. I certainly cant and do not speak for others)

...The creator God of the universe. The Eternal who has been referred to thru the ages, whom the knowlege of has been passed down for time immemorial. The one in whose image we are made.

Easily distinguished, I believe, from any other 'god' that has come along since...

And presently, the one who is not currently the 'god' of this present age. Men have elected another for a time. That wont be forever, tho.

Bgone,

All kidding aside...Im truly sorry, I know the truth hurts.

And the truthful fact is that there is no truth to what you tout, my friend. It is a convoluted menagerie of twisted myth, personal opinion and irrelevant verbage that fits nothing. It is as extreme on the dark side of the subject as there are extremeists on the right side of the subject. Point is, there is a middle ground that can be understood. God is not the author of confusion. Man has done that job for Him. Hoaxbusters included.

The King James Bible...with all of its mistranslations, is much a much stronger case of what God is when backed by commentaries and other works of many authors who are sane, reasoning and intelligent.

Sadly, what you present is something like a bad copy of MAD magazine. Baseless suppositions and meaningless banter.

JOZEVZ:

It's code red! Uga, uga dive dive. Hot off the press. Huckabee has taken the lead in Iowa and South Carolina over your boy Mitt. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" does not apply if your neighbor is a Mormon, (several other types too). But then Lucifer worshipers just hate themselves so hating their neighbors probably seems like love to them.

Huckabee is also claiming that he's been chosen by God - at Liberty University where higher education has been taken to new altitudes.

Sub prime loan anyone? Gullible is as gullible does.

I came here to let you know that and sympathize but then I saw WHAT?'s post. WHAT?'s post prompts a brand new expression, "as dumb as an evangelical." That's not new?

WHAT?

Oh yeah? What's wrong with it? What in particular. "One toke over the line, dude....one toke over the line" is a bit of a broad stroke.

You can't look at a picture? Not being able to read the words is bad enough but not being able to look at pictures, pretty dumb but doesn't rule out smartass I see.

Christmas is coming. There's a Christmas picture you must have seen if you're not lying about reviewing that site, http://www.hoax-buster.org Did you see the picture from El Amarna of the "Wise Men" at the "birth" of Jesus? Sorry, meant to say Amenophis IV.

What does the word "maji" mean? What were those "Orientals" on their knees to Jesus? Sorry, meant to say the Amen.

Oh! You mean http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul So your God is on fire with the same kind of fire unique to hell. You'll be there with your God on fire and never burn up. Congratulations on picking a God that will let anyone into His kingdom thus assuring you'll be there to.

Evidence! Where's the evidence? I know. You ain't got no stinkin evidence that wasn't concocted by Lucifer's agents.

CW

I don't Blame God (largely because I don't believe in God).

But even if I did,
the hundreds of rival interpreter of Christ's teaching and story (WAS he resurrected? they asked)

inevitably leads my brother William to ask:
Which, if any, or the Rival interpretations is True, and a True reflection of God's Truth?

Do we go with the Catholics because they consolidated political power better than anyone else?

Political power has usually had little to do with truth in human history.

So even as a Christian, we are left with the problem: WHICH of the hundreds of versions of "God" should we adhere to?

Do you KNOW? Tell us.

Henry,

Very interesting comments.

>>Diverse forms of Christianity flourished (like the Mormons and the Evangelicals etc today- HJ) in the early years of the Christian Movement

For this..thanks to 'ol Constantine...his was the biggest diversion that made the difference in what mainstream does today. Many of the true followers of Christ had to go underground.

>>Hundreds of rival teachers all claimed to teach "the true doctrine of Christ (as Huckabee and the Mormons do today - HJ)

Again...the old roman, greek orthodox, dudes did their dirty work...with Christs blessing?...............NOT.

>>AND DENOUNCED THE OTHERS AS FRAUDS

Are we talking pope here? Sounds familiar to us all. The 'mother' church...who is nothing but a harlot. (according to Revelation)

>>All claimed to be the Authentic tradition

Sounds like alot of humans with alot of pride to me.

God's fault? I do think so.

BGone:

And 'Over the hill and thru the woods to Grandmothers house you went'...

...and youve been lost in dem woods ever since.

Tell me, was Timothy Leary your mentor?

One toke over the line, dude....one toke over the line.

hoaxbusters is a (psycho)delic trip...and a bad trip at that.

Confusion a la carte.

Nonsense with a cherry on top.

1 taco short of a combination plate.

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!

Yea, Joneszy is kind of all knotted up, that's for sure. I rather enjoyed his rant since Frank Collins never shows up anymore. I don't know if recognizing a con job creates a third category but in your case - well, it takes one to know one. :)

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.
"

Tim:

Two out of three ain't bad. There's sheep, goats and those who know a con job when they see one.

Romney's address is symptomatic of what has happened in politics recently. Kennedy's speech emphasized the need to set religion aside and address the business of the nation. Romney's and those who have profited from religion make religion the business of the nation. The ones with the gold shall make the rules and it's religions that have the gold? Got it unaccounted tax free, tax deductible and at tax exempt facilities. Probably why taxes is such a popular campaign issue.

Joneszy may have noticed that, can't say for sure. Maybe Joneszy is all knotted up in the big picture and overlooking the details? Satan is God's right hand angel that keeps the trashy people out of God's kingdom. S/he probably meant Lucifer, the angel that would be God. You know, like Romney would be president. There's a lot of that going around these days. Maybe God wills it or God is with us is the answer?

Round and round the tabernacle the hound dog chased the skunk. Round and round the tabernacle until squirt went the skunk. Probably why they call the seats pews.

Bgone stated:

>>Teaching partial truths is teaching lies.

Uh..your hoaxbusters website doesnt even have a hint of partial truth.

Teachin' lies there, dude.

A few observations:

As per the following comment:

"he (Romney) challenged us to live up to the better angels of our nature by refusing to persecute him for it."

Hopefully Milt does not believe the Moroni fiction.

Believing in angels/"pwtfft"s in the 21st Century is a cause for alarm especially if said believer wants to be president of the USA.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party controls the state government of Massachusetts yet Romney, a Republican, was elected by said Democrats as their governor. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, atoning for their sins for electing the Christian Teddy "DUI ED" Kennedy all these years??

Or was it because Milt is an impressive, articulate leader with sufficient personal funds so he does not have to sell his soul for campaign contributions????

Romney Speech "Classic" Indeed
Classi Religious Bigotry"

That is
Bigotry against those who are not religious

Containing the Corker

Freedom depends on Religion
and
Religion depends on Freedom.

Please!!!!

Romney Endorses Religious Intolerance

Mr Prothero's Kudo's are Nonsense

The message that
To be elected President
You Must be A Christian
and a Believer

came through loud and clear
(and Romney made clear that HE IS a Christian).

So
There IS a Religious Test.

You MUS

Well written. I couldn't agree more.

"Elsewhere in the speech, Romney alternated, effectively in my view, between the right-wing view that the First Amendment by no means necessitates the separation of religion and politics and the left-wing view that the United States is a religiously plural nation."

I like it when you right-wing religious morons make statements like these because you assume that the religion that will share (or plunder) power with government is Christian.

If it was Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroasterism, a pagan religion, or atheism that was to share the power with government, you Christian whackos would be crying like the spoiled, uneducated little girls that you are.

Christianity has obtained its power through death and coercion, yet you Christians conveniently forget to observe that part of your nature.

Jesus may have died at the cross, but your trail of death is certainly not in policy with Jesus' doctrine.

Too bad, you had a beautiful religion, but you f*cked it up with your lust for power.

Well, at least Satan will benefit for your implementation of "God's work".

And, when your panties get in a twist over this post and you feel compelled to call me names, I know that you will not have done what needs to be done; pick up a non-Christian history book and read it. That would take courage and you simply don't have any.

From Romney Speech: "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."

This is the fundamental question. The world is really made up of two groups: Those who believe Christ was the son of God and the Savior of mankind and those who don't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. In reality there are only sheep or goats.

The speech was total hypocrisy. First, it was not about the general public fearing Mormons (they don't - George Romney and Mo Udall ran without the subject ever coming up). It was (as Charles Krauthamer writes today) about Huckabee in Iowa claiming to be the Christian, and polls showing evangelicals in Iowa squirming at a Mormon. Second, he invokes the "no religious test for office" clause as a convenient way of not describing his religion, then turns around and proclaims Jesus his lord and saviour (so he can fool evangelicals into not paying attention to the fact that no evangelical theologian thinks Mormons are christians), and then proclaims that you have to have some religion to be an American at all (atheists are not welcome). despicable.

I think that Romney's speech was an admirable paean to the ideal of religious tolerance in American public life. While much is being made here and elsewhere of his lack of commentary regarding non-belief, as well as his point on freedom and religion, I think the responses say much more about the respondents than they do about Romney. Romney was giving a speech on religion, and those who practice it, in American society. Not on those who do not practice it. It may hurt the feelings of those who are non-believers in religion to go unmentioned in the speech, or make them feel threatened, but religious liberty implicitly includes the understanding that it also recognizes those who choose not to believe. Why does Romney have to be an apologist for that? He was addressing primarily those who are interested in religious practice and faith, not its absence.

His shorthand statement that "freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" deserves more than backhanded dismissal. Was it a clear explication of his point? No. It is over the top to suggest that he's trying to launch a culture war against secularism. He simply was pushing back on the common suggestion that all references to religious thought or practice be summarily removed from public life, and that such a mindset has certain consequences. A free society that allows people to act as they choose also expects that people will behave in socially responsible ways, and that government will not have to constrain every behavior. Romney's suggestion is that religion ably tends to fill the vacuum as a guide for moral behavior that is necessary for a free society to continue functioning, without descending into an anarchical state of those pursuing only their own ends or their own rights. You may disagree, but that's the fundamental point. I won't belabor it. His suggestion that religion requires freedom is simply the idea that true religious expression, uncoerced by religion or the state, can best be achieved when individuals are left free to pursue their own religious choices - which would include the lack of belief. He just happens to think that a free society that allows non-belief and its accompanying authority to become the dominant mindset is not on the road to a healthy future - which is another discussion altogether.

Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA:

Is there a third possibility beyond faith and faithless? Maybe if you answer the extremely simple question - faith in what?

Let's try:
1. Faith is in Moses, Muhammad, Joseph Smith and now I understand there is a new person that conversed with Jesus, 200,000 followers so far. All faith is in the truthfulness of those folks - and - in their ability to identify God, (Note that God may not be identified - violates the first commandment).

2. Faith is in ministers for lack of a better word, scholars maybe who have knowledge of the "sacred scriptures" detailing what Moses, Muhammad, Joseph Smith and Miss X experienced when they spoke directly with supernatural beings or their representatives, angels, (note that angels are themselves supernatural beings). Note also that we must assume (1.) truthful - those prophets really did speak to supernatural beings and not just lying or hallucinating.

3. Faith is in organizations called churches. We can chalk that up to "strength in numbers" x number of people cannot possibly be wrong. (The big money goes to those leading the multitudes to hell fits here.)

So what we have is faith in prophets, prophetic writings, learned men - scholars of prophetic writings and organizations. Don't you wonder what God has to do with anything? With all that faith required before we get to God one is left to wonder just how much is left over for faith in God.

So small wonder just thinking about http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul makes JOZEVZ et al's heads hurt. When we actually read sacred scriptures we find not God but Devil in the details. Learned men who slop at the p1g feeder of religion, (third in the faith chain) have no incentive to point that out, kinda career ending.

I've heard somewhere that the Devil lurks about in the details. Is that what trips up Mitt Romney, the details? Can't help but notice how there's a feeding frenzy brewing and already hearing cries for details about what he said. One should be cautious for all Mormons are missionaries. One could get converted and double one's faith in the truthfulness of prophets - Moses and then Joe Smith.

So there is a third option to faith and faithless which is dividing faith into two groups - one in God and one in Devil. When we actually read what sacred scriptures say we find that all, (real) religions are faiths in Devil. Only Pagans are honest enough to admit Devils and Angels are gods too.

JOZEVZ take a little credit where credit is due you.

This speech was not surprising at all, he played the only card he could, fundamental christians have a deep distrust of any religion that is not their particular form of christianity, even among themeless, the only way Romney could even try to bridge this gap was to deflect that distrust to a "common enemy". And the only thing that seems to bring the major religions together, is a hatred and distrust of the atheist/secularist. So in this context the speech wasn't a surprise at all, when in trouble remind them that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

"Instead of saying precisely what a Mormon is, he said he was a Mormon and he challenged us to live up to the better angels of our nature by refusing to persecute him for it."

While I agree wholeheartedly with the observations in the first full paragraph, I cannot agree that Romney is being "persecuted" for his religion. We're not talking about running him out of town, burning down his house, writing bigoted graffiti on his garage, or denying him a seat on public transportation. We're talking about electing him president of the United States. Refusing to vote for someone who believes something you find utterly absurd is not persecution; it's making a choice based on personal values.

Stop portraying the man as a victim. He simply isn't one.

Mr. Prothero-

You should be ashamed for this pathetic endorsement of religious bigotry. Equating religion with freedom is about as bigoted as it gets.

Keith Rudd:

Based on your comments, you either didn't read his speech or you didn't understand it. The speech uses lots of Christo-fascist code words, but the non-religious are mentioned repeatedly by inference. The speech was anti-secular in the extreme, equated freedom with religion - about as big a slur against the non-religious that one can make - and clearly for greater intrusion of religion into government. The speech was a classic piece of outright bigotry.

Yes, it was a classic religious speech. The intolerance was overwhelming.

Romney's America has no room for non-believers, ie: Americans he conveniently excludes as Americans through his gross mis-telling of history. Funny how Romney didn't bother mentioning the 1796-7 Treaty of Tripoli as he put forward the fanciful idea that the USA is a Xian nation. ("As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.")

If anyone doubts that Romney doesn't tolerate non-believers, they need look only at the person who introduced him yesterday. That was none other than GHW Bush, a man who stated quite clearly and loudly that he believes that atheists are not "real" American citizens. That exchange took place in 1987, and Poppy Bush has never apologized to atheists for his remarks to journalist Robert Sherman, to whit:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

That money quote from Poppy Bush bears repeating:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

So, here we have a person (Poppy) who is bigoted against atheists introducing a candidate (Romney) who is...bigoted against atheists. 300 million Americans to chose from to make an introduction, and you pick a person of power who - in his public statements - is openly and uniquely bigoted against atheists. Well, this atheist got your message loud and clear, Mitt.

Imagine the outrage if, say, Louis Farrakhan introduced a candidate who believed in religious diversity...as long as you weren't Jewish. Can anyone tell me the difference between this imaginary scenario as it relates to Jews and yesterday's shameful performance by Romney as it relates to non-believers? There is none, Romney's hollow gestures to inclusiveness notwithstanding.

You're right, Dr Prothero, it was a classic - and shameful - example of American "Civil" Religion.

Is there no one that liked his speech? Just because he didn't specifically mention those who are not religious, does not imply in any way that their views and oppinions are not of importance. There were many religions not mentioned, as Ricardo Arjona put it, in this world there are more religions than happy children. But the fact of the matter is, America should learn to me more tolarant, and that is what his speech emphasized. As to he being a little wishy-washy on issues, every polititian plays that game, Mitt just hasn't disguesed it as well as others.

PS. Don't judge me for my type-o's.

Romney's speech left me cold. He started out well enough and some of his speech was indeed inspiring. But he ruined when he started drifing into all of that partisan hoopla about secularists who want to remove religion from the public square. Who was he talking about?

This is why I so distrust republicans on this subject. It is obvious that there are no secularists running for the office of the Presidency. It is equally obvious that the leadership in both political parties is comprised of devout people of varying faiths. For God's sake, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid is a Mormon himself! Yet here is ild Mitt out there unmistakably conflating himself and his party as fighting off the evil secularists on the other side--presumably democrats--in a culture war that seemingly goes on forever.

That is why people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the right and Chris Matthews on the left were so enamoured of Romney and the speech. If nothing else, it keeps the old culture war alive and well and keeps them fat with ratings and revenues. One might say that religion, ratings and revenues are the three "r"s of the culture war and the punditocracy that thrives on 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.

Isn't it a lot more fun to persecute him?

Speaking of religious history, just how accurate is that taught at Boston College, a Catholic U? I mean, do you draw conclusions?

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

So that I can in good conscience NOT believe the hoax buster where's some evidence, the slightest bit of evidence that's not the accurate version of what really happened?

Isn't chaos what Devil brings? Is this becoming a chaotic election? Any chaos based upon "faith" up an about in "one nation under God" right now, (hint - sub prime). How sure can I be that was not Lucifer Moses met in the sheep pasture? So many questions - so few answers.

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?

How much of the money collected by the RCC goes to the Vatican, tax free, tax deductible and collected at tax exempt facilities? Aren't Mormons just a cheap copy of Catholics - first their "God given rules" and then the real word of God, the Bible?

As an educator and especially a department head you should strive for truth. Is hoax buster interpretation of sacred scriptures part of the curriculum's at Boston U? Yet? Ever? Denying any is to deny all. Teaching partial truths is teaching lies.

Just wondering. 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? You persecuted the last Catholic candidate for president didn't you? Let the persecution begin?

As has been noted on several blogs (but not here yet), Mr. Romney pointedly omitted from his generous tolerance all those who profess no religion at all. As one of those atheistic-agnostics (the words are fuzzy and hard to pin down, but suffice to say that I do not believe in any sort of God who behaves as does the "Judeo-Christian" despot with a character that would have him banned from any kindergarten class) I am both insulted and frightened. Romney is clearly appealing to a substantial portion of our society that would make me and an also substantial portion of the population into non-citizens (at best) and agents of Satan (at worst) and thus amassing fuel for a religious civil war. That may not be his intention, but I have no doubt that some of those to whom he is so transparently pandering would not hesitate to use violence in order to "rescue" America from its moral depravity.

We have heard that sort of thing before, and in the "purist" totalitarian regimes of the past century have seen where such ideas lead. (Yes, I know, the Bolsheviks professed atheism but their regime that ruled in it's name --- meretriciously "communist", in reality thuggery--- all but deified something called "History" and had as full a share of hypocrites, opportunists, and careerists as any of the others.)

Sinclair Lewis foretold that fascism in America would arrive wrapped in the flag and carrying a Bible. Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph claimed God as their authority. The potential for a holocaust is always there, and Romney served no purpose other than his overweeening ambition by pandering to it.

I was personally much less impressed by this speech. I suppose part of my feelings stem from a deep belief that Romney is fairly flexible when it comes to applying religious beliefs to policy decisions. One of the things I actually like about Romney is his background in business and the fact that I think he can separate decisions from his faith. I never ever want to hear from a politician again that they turned to God for policy advice. It is arrogant, foolish and untrue to believe for a moment that a politician can divine God's wishes... that's the mystery of religion and that's the reason why religion is personal while "organized religion" is simply a reflection of humanity in all it's strengths and weaknesses.

To me the speech was the epitome of a strategy to mollify and in some instances out and out pander... I didn't find it to be enlightening at all. I'm curious how it played with the sub-set of Americans who would elect an idiot if they agreed with their religion...

From a historical perspective, Romney's assertion that religion and liberty are dependent and inseparable is not supported by facts. I would argue just the opposite, and I would additionally site that in the case of countries such as USSR, Communism (taking Mitt's definition) became a dangerous religion itself. Then again, the audience Mitt was playing to would never ever take that view...

Are there any candidates who run on the quality of their judgement?

Romney's speech, taken as a whole, should satisfy anyone that his decisions as president would be independent of the Mormon Church authorities.

But along the way, he restated one of the most compelling myths lodged in the American mind. That's the idea that somehow, Christianity and freedom are intrinsically linked. That's breathtaking in its willful blindness toward historical fact. Christianity existed on this planet for one thousand one hundred and seventy six (1776) years before it produced freedom. Christianity and freedom have been compatible for something like one-tenth of Christianity's existence. For the other 90 percent, Christianity not only did not produce democracy. It produced the divine right of kings. It produced a religious hierarchy that proclaimed that God’s will on earth was being fulfilled if the bulk of humanity lived as poor, powerless peasants, who were by divine right led, governed and ruled by a tiny minority of males. Whatever power those few males possessed, said the Church authorities, God had given it to them. The lot of the masses, said the Church, was to accept their lowly position in life and the overlordship of their masters as ordained by God Himself.

And, of course, the Church hierarchy itself was beyond reproach. In fact, the only way to heaven was to bow down to their God-given doctrines and to follow each and every one of their edicts. Further, there could be no such thing as dissenting voices. No minority religion. Any offshoot of Christianity as fanciful as Mormonism would have met a quick death, literally. There would never have been a Mormon Church. Never a Mitt Romney.

It took a handful of white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males on the eastern seaboard of the North American continent, imbued with the secular ideas of the Enlightenment, to produce the freedom that Mitt Romney and the rest of us enjoy. In order to get there, they had to put the evil religious genie back in its bottle. So that the Mitt Romney’s of America can now have the freedom to practice a minority religion and to create a myth—in fact, a lie--out of whole cloth that religion is a necessary condition of freedom.

The above should read: "He said he would not let his religion interfere" (I apologize, but, I'm afraid I'm in a certain amount of discomfort which is distracting)

Nonetheless, ...in order to allay our *rational* fears, he promised, and he lied.

It's not cause he's Mormon. It's cause he's a right-wing corporate toadie.

Basically, when he ran for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, he said he would let hid religion interfere with our lives.

The moment Massachusetts did what she always does, ...expand recognition of liberty and human dignity,... he broke all his promises and trotted out an overtly-racist and forgotten law from 1915 or so to try and put a stopper in it.

He lied.

This is not forgotten.

Nonsense. Romney conflated his version of Fundie Christian religion with 'freedom' by saying, 'God says you're free to a) Obey my mortal authority, or b) Suffer persecution by Christian religious power in life and eternal rtorment afterwards, if you don't obey me, but, of course, you're 'free' to demur, unless of course you're a queer person wanting equal protection under the law in the Commonwealth of massachusetts or the nation, in which case I'll drag out an overtly-racist law against interracial marriage to hurt you... but if you complain, you're 'anti-Mormon,' even if I'm trying with all my might to prove that I'm the same as any other corporate-owned Fundie...

Yeah.

I'm a little unconvinced, particularly after his promises in Massachusetts not to be a theocrat, which he turned on the *moment* the GOP promised him greater power.

Your history of America skipped a few chapters, btw, columnist.

If he wants to be about *religious freedom* he should "repent" of changing the tune he was elected by in Massachusetts, where he promised not to be a theocrat, and stand for equal protection under the law for those who do *not* hold the religious opinion that gays are bad and women who need abortions should be subject to the judgement of those who will then hurt them for not being married to a willing conservative...

If he wants his religious views to be about *diversity* rather than about him being a corporate pawn and Bushie,* then he should say freely that *all* religions and interpretations thereof, will have room for free exercise under his administration.

What I saw in Massachusetts was him appealing to the 'diversity' crowd until the GOP noticed him, and he screwed us.

So I challenge this candidate, if he wants to say he's about 'freedom' to consider *my* freedom.

Cause it's not freedom if you beg to be accepted as conforming.

Great article. And I can't wait to read the transcript of your Pew Forum talk.