A number of important things have happened lately, I will focus on the one making quite a stir in the political race: Mitt Romney’s “I swear, Mormons are Christians, I mean, religion shouldn’t, wait should play a role in politics, cough cough” speech. Confused yet? Me too. Every news program I’ve listened to or read about compares this speech to JFK’s speech on Catholicism and government. However, I fail to see the comparison. Instead of insisting that his religion will remain separate during his role as president, Romney (superbly) defended Mormonism (without actually using the words…) and insists religion should, but shouldn’t, have a place in politics… Here are some important excerpts:
"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. 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. They are wrong.
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.”
Also, Romney quoted John Adams and said:
"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."
This speech is just as narrow-minded as the politicians and voters to whom he is trying to "prove" Mormonism, not to mention this entirely ignores all atheists, agnostics, and those people of religions that believe in more than one God…
Herein lies the problem… WHO CARES? Why does he need to defend his religion when the political office of president should have no barring on the president’s religion and visa versa. It’s just so frustrating that religion is still a qualification for president. What ever happened to the separation of church and state?!
As a political strategist (which I am far from) I think his best bet would be to separate his religion from politics altogether because then he will win the hearts of those who believe in the separation of church and state as apposed to trying to prove his Christian-enough-ness.
Also, Romney said the word “Mormon” only once whereas he eluted to “God” over a dozen times. So which is it, Mr. Mitt, are you trying to show how similar Mormonism is to the other sects of Christianity or are you trying to pretend you aren’t Mormon altogether?
On a more sympathetic note, I do feel a tad bit bad for Romney, it’s frustrating that he has to defend his religious beliefs in general, and the fact that he did opens up doors for the other GOP candidates to prove they are more Christian (read: thus more appealing candidates) than Romney.
4 comments:
Andy Rooney
DID YOU KNOW? As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!
.
DID YOU KNOW?
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
DID YOU KNOW?
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall,
right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,
a display of the Ten Commandments!
DID YOU KNOW?
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
DID YOU KNOW?
James Madison, the fourth president, known as 'The Father of Our Constitution' made the following statement:
'We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.'
DID YOU KNOW?
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
'It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ'
DID YOU KNOW?
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
DID YOU KNOW?
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.
DID YOU KNOW?
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law . an oligarchy
the rule of few over many.
DID YOU KNOW?
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:
'Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers.'
How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.
Chamber, US House of Representatives
"I've neglected current events, for this I apologize…"
Oh horsefeathers - no need to apologize! :-}
I'm guilty of such negligence on a regular basis, to the point where I no longer even feel guilty about it. . .
Here's how I see it: if we define current events to lie within the zone of the "political", it might follow that other subjects would lie within the zone of the "personal".
AND. . . as the classic formulation has it: Personal = Political.
Therefore, by the end of the day, it's ALL political.
So, it's all good and there's no need to feel bad! :-)
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.”
It is difficult for me - devilishly difficult - to understand how this "nation under God" scenario which he describes could ever, in the long term, translate into anything OTHER than a state religion.
I am trying very hard to wrap my mind around what he is saying. . .
I know, this freaked me out too! Religion is such a personal thing, why is it even an issue? I don't care if if an candidate is Bhuddist, a Pantheist or Bahai, as long as they have their heads on straight and are fair and see all people as having equal rights under the law.
Post a Comment