« One Year Later | Main | Robert Samuelson is a Heartless Monster »

Romney's Terrible Speech

07 Dec 2007 08:46 am

The editors of National Review proclaim that "we suspect that most people who watched the speech were impressed, sympathetic, and sometimes moved." I had an instinct to respond in time, saying that I suspect the speech will fall flat, backfire, etc., etc., etc. But why go meta? In a first-order sense, I thought the speech was dumb, and made Romney look like a deeply dishonest, somewhat foolish person.

Romney rejected the counsel of those who "would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines." But he couldn't actually stick to that line. He felt he desperately needed to reassure Christians worried about his relationship with Christ:

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.

It's hard to see this as anything other than an effort to trick people; the Mormon emphasis on Gethsemane rather than the crucification is not a trivial theological difference, nor is the fact that Mormons believe in "another," more important, Testament of Jesus Christ in addition to the Christian Bible. I don't personally have a stake in that quarrel but I paid enough attention in Bible class at Grace Church School to know that this isn't some nothing to be papered over.

Now if Romney had wanted to say that the nature of his beliefs about Jesus are irrelevant to the campaign, fine. Similarly, if he'd actually wanted to avoid discussing Mormon theology, fine. But he didn't stick to it. Instead, what he wanted to do was discuss just enough about Mormon theology to make it seem as similar as possible to orthodox Christianity while underscoring the idea that the nature of his belief in Christ is relevant to the campaign just insofar as his beliefs overlap with those of the Evangelical Protestants whose votes he's courting.

All of this meshes with Romney's disgusting efforts to unite all people of faith under the banner of excluding atheists entirely from his account of virtue. And this, in turn, combines with his ludicrous "say something nice about everyone" paragraph:

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.

For a passage in a speech dedicated to underscore the centrality and importance of religion, this seems like a pretty superficial understanding of what's going on. What's more "unchanged through the ages" isn't a notably accurate description of the "ancient traditions of the Jews," but I guess he couldn't think of anything else to admire about Judaism. At least it's not as dumb as commending Muslims for their "commitment to frequent prayer," which is just silly.

I've previously taken the view that Mitt Romney would be the least pernicious Republican were he to take the White House, but his entire campaign has been an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people (remember the Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom?) and with this speech he's just taking the trend one step further.

Share This

Comments (207)

"...his entire campaign has been an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people."

And since when has underestimating/insulting the intelligence of the American people ever posed a problem for politicians? Remember how cutting taxes increases government revenues? How trying to bring the boys home from overseas is to undermine our military? Yadda, yadda. Romney unfortunately understands that pandering to the electorate works all too often. That, and his "presidential good looks," would certainly get him the nomination if it weren't for this pesky Mormon business. You can tell he's sincere about his religion -- because otherwise he would have dumped it by now and become an evangelical.

and look at some of the reactions to Mitt's speech. at least to some, this was one of the greatest political speeches ever given.

All plausible Republican candidates are equally pernicious.

What's more "unchanged through the ages" isn't a notably accurate description of the "ancient traditions of the Jews," but I guess he couldn't think of anything else to admire about Judaism.

The Trilateral Commission made him remove the passage where he praised Judaism for its responsible management of the global economy and the American media.

Anyway...

Maybe I have low expectations of Romney (though I don't dislike him), but this speech seemed to do get the job done. Including atheists in his run-down of who gets to participate in American life, and getting into a detailed discussion of Mormon theology, are both good ways to lose support of the religious conservatives this speech was meant to reassure.

So I agree that it wasn't a particularly coherent or inspiring take on the role of religion in public life, but I also don't think that really matters.

I know I'm already conceding the point to Romney by analyzing the speech on purely tactical terms, but it's hard for me to view anything Romney does any other way. If he ends up being the GOP's nominee I have a feeling he'll suddenly have kinder words for people who don't go to church (or synagogue, or mosque, or whatever). So I have a hard time motivating myself to parse the specifics of his supposed "views" on religion in public life.

Not to mention 'the pastoral simplicity of the Schwenkenfelders'...

"the self-defeating celibacy of the Shakers . . ."

Including atheists in his run-down of who gets to participate in American life, and getting into a detailed discussion of Mormon theology, are both good ways to lose support of the religious conservatives this speech was meant to reassure.

the line that stood out to me was :

    “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

so, atheists are, at best, second-class citizens in Romney's world. they get to leech off the freedom granted to everyone by the faithful.

fuck that guy.

Matt,
Mitt struck a false note when he used that cheap rhetorical device "some people say" that some cable hosts use.

You know - "some people say Arabs hate freedom, but I disagree"

Romney (maybe under the influence of that phoney Hewitt) also did this when he implied a false campaign to get him to back away from Mormonism.

This is absurd - He would be nothing without his Mormon base and no one, but no one, is telling him to back away from it.

Incidenatally - He quoted John Adams, an anti Papist. LOL.

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

As a Pastafarian, I'm happy to accept his tolerance.

". . . the Eclectic Wiccans' wonderful disdain for doctrine and dogmatism"

I don't want to minimize the awfulness of Romney's comments about nonbelievers, but I think it's also worth noting what an absurdly reductive view of religion he's pushing here. "Religion" here clearly equals Abrahamic monotheism, and Hindus or Buddhists need not apply.

That's hardly an uncommon view in the US--a lot of pro-school prayer people will claim that appeals to a (monotheistic) God "aren't religious"--but that doesn't make it right.

A speech cannot be great if it contains false notes or demagogic pleadings.

Romney's "some people say" trick was a false note. He showed himself to be a poseur and a bit unsure of himself.

JFK's speech was of a higher literary quality = Plus Kennedy engaged in Q &A with hostile preachers .

Romney should have just kept quiet - But it's amazing that the mental midgets on cable shows - like the sweaty tweety et al pretend that this was a great speech.

They have been trying to pretend this speech was great, but few of them really believe that - They will not watch re-runs of this speech years from now like people do with Kennedy's masterpiece/

Mitt struck a false note when he used that cheap rhetorical device "some people say" that some cable hosts use.

Where did the 'cable hosts' get it? A certain 'Quaker' whose mom 'was a saint'; a classic Nixon construction.

And George W has certainly carried on in that wonderful "some people say" tradition. It's one of his favorite tropes.

About 90 percent of the rhetoric coming from the right seems to consist of setting up straw men and knocking them down.

Amazing that Nixon never had to explain his Quakerism

Unless, you think his Christmas bombing was a form of explaination.

". . . the Eclectic Wiccans' wonderful disdain for doctrine and dogmatism"

Not to mention the snake-handlers' fearlessness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling

Why is the emphasis on what occurred in Gethsemane over the actual crucifixion a big "theological" difference?

Theologically, as I understand it, both mainstream Christians and Mormons believe that Jesus "atoned" for our sins -- took the sins of the world upon himself, suffered for them, died, and was resurrected -- all of which somehow made it possible for people to avoid that fate if they repent.

In other words, no big theological difference with regard to Jesus's atonement, as I understand it.

The Mormon focus on Jesus's experience in Gethsemane vs. the mainstream Christian focus on the cross/crucifixion is little more than...well...a difference in focus. They both believe there was an Atonement; they both believe that Gethsemane and the Crucifixion were part of that Atonement.

Where's the big theological difference?

There are definitely LOTS of other differences between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism that constitute big theological differences -- but I don't see how this is one of them.

And it's worth pointing out that OF COURSE your time in Grace Church School would've emphasized the supposed gravity of these "differences" -- whenever one group wants to marginalize and subordinate another group, emphasizing the enormity of the differences between the two groups is key.

It is quite apparent that most who have left comments (and the author of this article) were not his intended audience. I believe it will be considered a great speech, given his audience. My guess is that any atheists, agnostics, etc. that may have gone unmentioned in the speech were not really fence-sitters on supporting Mitt in the first place.

Enjoy this little chat of irrelevancy, reminiscent of ivory tower pontifications. Talking heads.

The insult to atheists, and even to Hindus and Buddhists, is certainly intentional.

Remember, he was introduced before the speech by a man who has declared that atheists cannot be citizens of this country. And the evangelicals to whom he trying to pander do not have a kind view of non-Christian religions.

The primitiveness, illogic, and intolerance of public discourse on religion in our country never ceases to amaze me.

I understand not liking Mitt as a candidate for his pandering, his opportunism, his slickness, his actual stance on the issues, etc. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for him -- especially if you're not planning to vote for the GOP anyway.

But people on the Left really need to cut out the Mormon-marginalizing, and the outright Mormon-bashing.

I don't know the numbers for 2004, but in 2000 only about 60% of Mormons voted for Bush. Think about that for a sec.

In other words, roughly 40% of Mormons nationwide are open to voting for Dems.

I'm one of them. I'm on the Left because I believe in tolerance, egalitarianism, diversity, equality, etc.

But if those values and ideals don't include or actually apply to me, because people on the Left think that Mormons are a bunch of stupid crazy cultists -- well, let's just say it doesn't help the Leftists' cause at all.

The phrase "practice what you preach" doesn't apply only to those who are religious.

The primitiveness, illogic, and intolerance of public discourse on religion in our country never ceases to amaze me.

What do you expect from people nutty enough to believe in ancient myths? Or nuttier still, people who believe in recently concocted myths (ie, Mormons)?

At least it's not as dumb as commending Muslims for their "commitment to frequent prayer," which is just silly.

Why is this silly?

"the intrepid intrusiveness of Jehovah's Witnesses"

I don't give a rip about theological differences. In my mind those questions have unknowable answers.

But I do care about claims to historical fact, namely the Joseph Smith tale and the history of mesoamerica. I don't trust those who believe that silliness, nor do I want creationists to have the authority to allocate nickel one of science or education budgets.

Mitt's faithiness is so complete he ought to found his own Church of Faith instead of running for President.

Enjoy this little chat of irrelevancy, reminiscent of ivory tower pontifications. Talking heads.

Always amusing when someone takes the time to comment about how irrelevant a comment thread is.

oo, I like "faithiness"! First time I've seen that term, I think. Did you invent it, or was it coined elsewhere?

Gregor, I agree, and I certainly understand what he's trying to convey to his intended audience. But if any good comes out of this speech, I hope that it helps expose the "Of faith" schtick as the cheap, contentless bigotry that it is.

There are plenty of people on the would-be "religous left" that indulge in this sort of ecumenical chauvanism, albeit in cuddlier tones. Every time someone like Jim Wallis tell us that religous people can form the "moral center" of the Democratic party, there's no way around who gets placed on moral periphery in exchange.

Tom I think I invented it, but as faithiness is to truthiness as faith is to truth, I guess I owe it all to Stephen Colbert... ;0)

"Religion" here clearly equals Abrahamic monotheism,

Pretty funny since Mormonism is not even monotheistic but tritheistic.

I do care about claims to historical fact, namely the Joseph Smith tale and the history of mesoamerica.

There are Mormons who do not go in for a sweeping literalist reading of the bible or the BofM. In other words, the historical claims of the BofM are not categorically, universally accepted by all Mormons as literally true. They give rise to some controversy even within the Church.

And the Joseph Smith "tale" -- I assume you're referring to his claims of visions -- makes claims to "historical fact" that are unknowable from a historical point of view. You can't claim to know for "historical fact" that Joseph Smith did NOT have visions, can you? All you can do is disbelieve it. That's fine, but don't try to say that your beef is based in "historical fact."

Matt B -

But I do care about claims to historical fact, namely the Joseph Smith tale and the history of mesoamerica. I don't trust those who believe that silliness

But you're okay with people who believe that the death and ressurrection of Jesus occurred as historical fact? Because those guys get elected president all of the time.

Not to defend LDS - whose theology I find as absurd as anything you'll find in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Santaria, Vodun, Wicca, Thorism, Pastafarianism, and most other religions, and somewhat slightly less absurd than the theology of Scientology, Raelism and the Worship of the God of the Invisible Hand - but why should adherents of LDS be excluded from office just because they believe something "different but equally weird" as the guy who holds the office now? Or the guy who held the office previously? Or any of the guys who have held the office for the last 200 years or so?

I am a converted mormon, I am not kooky... I am a mom of five and want a candidate that will make the US a better place for my children! Just because I am a certain faith does not mean I only will vote for a Mormon. I believe separation of church and state is a must. Isn't that why we came to exist as a nation? If you all want separation of church and state why does Romney's relgion even matter. Aren't the issues important here? Isn't that what running for an office implies? Whether he is Mormon, Jew or Evangelical, does it really matter? Vote for a candidate that best matches your views. Stop bashing people for their religion and invest you time in making a difference on the issues you believe in!

"For the first time in this campaign and it has been long already, I heard greatness this morning."
-- Chris Matthews - MSNBC

"It was a magnificent speech, splendidly delivered, it was moving… I don't know how he could have done it better. I mean I was very moved."
-- Pat Buchanan - MSNBC

"...he hit it out of the park."
-- Joe Scarborough - MSNBC
"Frankly, I thought what we saw today, folks, was a Republican candidate for president giving an inspiring speech. It was an inspiring speech about American values..."
-- Rush Limbaugh

"Mitt Romney, who sure looked presidential, explained effectively that he is a man of faith who is committed to America's values."
-- Kate O’Beirne - National Review’s The Corner

"Gov. Romney’s speech was a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message was inspirational."
-- James C. Dobson, PH.D. - Focus on the Family Action founder and chairman

I've grown used to Matt referring to Romney as the least pernicious Republican and for a while I agreed. But the more I think about it the less I think this is so. I think most observers would agree that, whatever his positions over the years on social issues, Romney is a true big money Republican. Whatever their many other faults, people like McCain and Huckabee and even Ron Paul appear to have some principles on issues that would make them less worse than Romney, whose primary goal as President would be to make the wealthy wealthier and do whatever else is needed to retain the support of enough Republican voters to be re-elected. As much as it nauseates me to even think about a President McCain or President Huckabee, I could see those guys taking stands on _some_ issues that would be unpopular with their base and with which I would agree. Romney has made it clear that he will do whatever he needs to make the base happy. The more I think about it, the more I consider Romney in the top tier of pernicious Republican candidates (although in truth, Giuliani has the top tier all to himself).

NonyNony, why should faith matter at all? Do you think Romney's statements on faith being necessary for freedom or that the President should be a person of faith are silly or not?

Me, I think it's all so much shameless pandering on Romney's part for the evangelical vote.

Mormonism is not even monotheistic but tritheistic

Depends on what you mean by "monotheism." If you believe "God" is a proper name, like "Steve," referring to a singular entity, and "monotheism" requires the belief in or devotion to this singular entity, called "God," then it's probably fair to say that Mormons are not precisely monotheistic.

(Mainstream Christians would claim that the three identities of the trinity are manifestations or expressions of the same singular entity -- so "God" still refers to a singular entity, though "He" takes different forms or appears in different ways. This is their way around the monotheism problem.)

My view/interpretation of Mormonism entails a conception of "God" that is different from the proper-name ("Steve") conception. I think a fair presentation of Mormonism is to say that "God" is more like a title or an office than a proper name -- like "President" or "Council." The Mormon conception of "God" involves more than a singular entity: the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost -- these are separate entities, not merely separate identities of the same singular entity. But they are all part of ("one" as) the same "God" ("Council" or "Presidency"). Another way that Mormons talk about this is to refer to the "Godhead" (the Mormon version of the "trinity").

So...Mormons are "monotheistic" in that they believe in a singular "God" -- there is only one "God" (like there is only one "Presidency" or "Council"), to be followed, worshiped, etc. -- but they are not "monotheistic" if this requires believing "God" must be a singular entity (like "Steve").

Bottom line: mainstream Christians have the trinity-conception as their means of getting around the monotheism problem, and Mormons have their godhead-conception as their means of getting around the monotheism problem.

The fight, then, for mainstream Christians, is to try to convince everyone that the Mormons' way around is illegitimate (because some group of guys in the 19th c made it up), while somehow the trinitarian way around is legit (because some group of guys in the 5th c made it up).

Matthew, what planet are you from? Your story is takes the title of "terrible". Romney's speech was magnificient and may very likely be one of the greatest speechs on freedom of religion ever given.

Get with it or find a new job!

Matt, you simply don't know what you're talking about. There is a tremendous amount of variation in Christian teaching and theology beyond the caricature presented in conservative Catholic schools and Jack Chick tracts. In the Episcopal Church alone, I've met priests who taught that Hell didn't exist, who didn't believe in angels or the existence of the soul, who taught that the crucifixion wasn't a necessary sacrifice but a tragic accident. Yet every one of these people had a distinct and coherent moral and theological framework ultimately rooted in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and all of them would be really pissed if you claimed they weren't Christian.

Mormons worship Jesus Christ. That sounds pretty damn Christian to me, and it's not for me or you or anybody else to say they aren't. Your constant need to assert that "real" Christians should consider Mitt Romney's religion phony is bizarre bordering on the offensive. My most charitable interpretation of this is that it's mere political hackery - you're using your platform at The Atlantic to spread the meme that Romney is a heretic in order to make him less palatable to social conservatives. The notion that you, as an utter ignoramus regarding Christian belief and the diversity of Christian thought, would be so persistent in weighing in on the "authentic Christianness" of the LDS Church is pretty fucking offensive.

FWIW, after 36 years of experiencing Mormons and Mormonism in eight different states (West coast, New England, Texas, and Utah/Idaho), I feel confident in saying that Mitt's Mormonism will have very little overt or visible impact or influence on his presidency (were he to win it). Sure, it informs his worldview. But I feel confident in saying that it would not be as overt or as prominent as Bush's Evangelical Christianity has been (or Huckabee's would be).

Romney's just playing up the religion stuff to play to the party that Robertson/Rove/Bush built -- and because he knows (now) that his main competition for that party's vote is Huckabee (the true inheritor of the Robertson/Rove/Bush legacy).

This sort of pandering is reason enough to be concerned about Romney's candidacy -- but let's not forget that the Clintons have quite the record for pandering. Most politicians do. Some just do it better (less detectable) than others.

At heart, Romney's a business administrator. I think he has the actual skills to be more successful than the other GOP hopefuls. Unfortunately, he feels he has to play up the god-talk in order to get in the door.

And the fact is, he's right. If he didn't, Huckabee would run away with this thing.

Meanwhile, vote for Obama and let the GOP folks do what they feel they've gotta do.

Romney will win the primary and the presidency. He is the complete candidate. Nobody else comes even close. This speech (written by him)shows that he is nobody's fool when it comes to faith. He is every bit a faithful person as anyone in this great land. However, you may also note that this speech reveals his personal life philosophies: for him faith and reason go together. He can at once live in the inspiring world of doctrines and vision while at the same time be solidly grounded in the here-and-now. No other candidate has this type of breadth. Mr. Huckabee is lost in the world of lofty speeches and squishy emotion (which leads to bad governance and bad decisions such as paroling serial rapists because of the grace of Christ) while Mr. Giuliani is in a foreign land talking about faith and religion. With the remaining time before the primaries, I think people will be able to see the deficiencies of both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Huckabee. I'm impressed by Mitt Romney. I believe he will win the day and actually be the best U.S. President in a century.

"For the first time in this campaign and it has been long already, I heard greatness this morning." - Chris Matthews

God I despise Chris Matthews.

I feel that Romney completely missed what he needed to do with his speech. Americans have concerns over how Mormonism will or will not effect his political views, but he barely addressed this in his speech. In Kennedy's version of this speech, he referred to his Catholicism repeatedly, and assured Americans that if the Pope was pressuring his decisions as president, then he would promptly resign. This assurance worked. Romney, on the other hand, barely refers to his religion by name, and his main goal seems to be to convince religious conservatives that his beliefs are the same as theirs.

And, quite frankly, I am suprised that there has not been more outrage over his discussion of religion in the public sphere. He says quite plainly that atheists have it wrong. He single handedly condemns 200 years of secularization in the United States.

He is every bit a faithful person as anyone in this great land.

Ladies and gents, I present to you the nadir of political discourse.

Here is a link to the full speech. I strongly recommend listening to it.

http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=718280

I have met Mitt, and he is one of the most sincere and humble people I have ever met. I don't think his polish takes away from that.

At the very least, he puts his money where his mouth is.

I will vote for Mitt, and Mitt only.

And, quite frankly, I am suprised that there has not been more outrage over his discussion of religion in the public sphere. He says quite plainly that atheists have it wrong. He single handedly condemns 200 years of secularization in the United States.

Dude, where the fuck have you been the last 30 years?

I have met Mitt, and he is one of the most sincere and humble people I have ever met. I don't think his polish takes away from that.

At the very least, he puts his money where his mouth is.

I will vote for Mitt, and Mitt only.

Jumpin' Jehosaphat. A Mittbot!

(Rombot?)

The speech was anything but terrible; the people that call Romney unintelligent are obviously exteremly unintelligent themselves.

He wants to win the nomination; he needs the evangelicals; the evangelicals hate mormons; he's a mormon; try to get the evangelicals to not hate mormons...

Its all logical...Whether you like or not is all of matter of opinion - but it makes retional sense.

As far as terrible, have you hear "W" give a speech lately? That's terrible.

WOW WOW WOW --- This article is the STUPIDEST hack-job I've ever read. BOOO HOOOO. Even Hitchens could see that this article is a traitor to its cause.

Where did the 'cable hosts' get it? A certain 'Quaker' whose mom 'was a saint'; a classic Nixon construction. - jonnybutter

I forget the quote and the historian who said it, but some historian (wit kinda intended) once said something to the effect of "Nixon's favorite source to cite is 'Some Would'".

Re: Nixon's Quakerism -- remember (as was discussed on a thread here (?) yesterday) ... the issue back in 1960 was not theological but that JFK would take orders from the Whore of Babylon known as the Pope ... actually, by talking about religious tests and what not, Kennedey completely reframed the issue on terms which were friendlier to him (note to Dems. -- this is how it is done), when the actual concern of people (which was based on prejudice) was not that Kennedy couldn't pass a religious test but that he had "dual loyalties".

A Quaker (who proved himself a bad enough Quaker that he went to war, and thus addressed the national security concern) wouldn't have had any issues in 1960 'cause the concern wasn't whether and how you believed in Jesus, but where your loyalties were. Nixon proved he was (theoretically) willing to die for his country by going to war, so people knew he was loyal to this country ... and to whom else would a Quaker be loyal. OTOH, JFK had to address prejudice that Catholics would be primarily loyal to another head of state, namely the Pope.

Nowadays, though, we have explicitly ventured into "religious test" territory in a way that was unthinkable in Kennedy's day (in part because of the greater politicization of pre-millenialists and the right wing turn of post-millenialists ... so we have more people who like religious tests actually engaged in the political sphere than we did in 1960). I doubt if a Quaker or a Unitarian could get elected today, even if many got elected in the past. Even Obama is gonna have a tough time if he's the Dem. nominee 'cause the spiritual descendents of the Pilgrims and Puritans are amazingly not Christian enough to pass our society's religious tests. OTOH, nowadays, unlike in 1960, it would behoove a Catholic to be a stereotypical Papist 'cause then he would be a "man of faith" (e.g. Kerry got into trouble for not sticking to the Catholic party line 100%) -- if 1960 were replayed today, what JFK would have to play down would be his heterodoxy, not any loyalty to the Pope meanwhile it would be Nixon who would be forced to answer for his faith.

Bill,

At ease, my friend. Does anything that has taken place the last 30 years negate what has happened for the past 200? And regardless of what has happened the past 30 years, does that make what he says less alarming and/or controversial?

Romney will win the primary and the presidency. He is the complete candidate. Nobody else comes even close. This speech (written by him)shows that he is nobody's fool when it comes to faith.

". . . the aw-shucks credulousness of the Political Die-Hards"

Mainstream Christians would claim that the three identities of the trinity are manifestations or expressions of the same singular entity -- so "God" still refers to a singular entity, though "He" takes different forms or appears in different ways. - Jason

So, how is this different than Hinduism then? Nu? By this standard the Hindus are also Monotheistic as they believe their gods to be "manifestations or expressions of a singular entity" ...

"If you all want separation of church and state why does Romney's relgion even matter."

Because Mr. Romney is insisting that it matter.

the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews,

Why did Mitt waste verbiage praising both the lutefisk of the Lutherans and the pickled herring of the Jews?

Brevity is the soul of wit (I know -- I'm a hypocrite to point that out). Romney should have praised "the rotted fish products of the Lutherans and the Jews".

Actually, given the existance of fish sauce, he could have been even more ecumenical praising "the rotten fish products of the Lutherans, Jews and Threvada Buddhists".

;)

*

Seriously, though -- I don't blame Romney for thinking Jewish traditions more ancient than they are. Many Jews, from secularists with only a passing aquaintance with "the old ways" to the "to Moses at Sinai" crowd, tend not to realize that Judaism (as distinct from the cultic practices of the ancient Hebrews) really only got off the ground just as the first exile became inevitable (Jeremaiah was the first Prophet to refer to "Jews") and the Mishna was compiled around the same time the NT was cannonized. So in some ways, Judaism really is only as old as Christianity, although it's roots are far deeper.

Romney will win the primary and the presidency. He is the complete candidate. Nobody else comes even close. This speech (written by him)shows that he is nobody's fool when it comes to faith. He is every bit a faithful person as anyone in this great land.

this, and the comments i linked-to above, have convinced me that Romney supporters are watching memorandum or Google Alerts or something, looking for discussions of the speech and dumping these lavish, hyperbolic comments about Romney wherever they find one. they all have the same tone, the same ridiculous claims and they all started yesterday. it's Astroturf-spam.

that, or a parody troll is having a blast doing the same thing.

"... the fantastic natural rhythm of Santeria, the firm belief in material progress of the cargo cults of Papua New Guinea, the simple awe of the sect in Tanna in the Solomon Islands who worship Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, as a living god, the... erm... the dedication of the Thuggees..." (contd. p. 94)

Matthew,
The public sphere and political discourse in the US have been riddled with religion from the beginning. The secularist aspirations of church-and-state separation, "no religious litmus test," etc, have always been aspirations -- ideals held by many, but never fully realized. You cannot plausibly claim that the US has been a secular nation for 200 years. It just isn't true.

I for one believe in the ideal of church-and-state separation, and think it's an aspiration worth having. But I'm not naive enough to claim that the US has always been secularist. The last 35 yrs have seen an uptick in religious rhetoric in the political sphere, but it's always been there in one form or another.

As evidence: the Founders' drive for religious freedom and diversity was reaction to the dominance of a single-church state. They weren't pushing for secularism (no church); they were pushing for religious freedom and diversity. Big difference. Public discourse about religion has been there ever since.

Yes Romney's intelligent and reasonable in a self-interested way. Which is why he's also a shameless panderer. Great speeches do not pander. Neither do great men.

Alerts or something, looking for discussions of the speech and dumping these lavish, hyperbolic comments about Romney wherever they find one. they all have the same tone, the same ridiculous claims and they all started yesterday. it's Astroturf-spam.

Oh, I don't think it's a natural outpouring of support, I figured that out just with this thread. Not astroturf in the traditional sense though, if someone was paying for this the crazy, Romney worship would be literate anyway.

"the staunch conservatism of the Aztecs, who never tested the theory that the sun might rise without daily human sacrifices"


(wish i'd thought of the cargo cults)

"I feel that Romney completely missed what he needed to do with his speech. Americans have concerns over how Mormonism will or will not effect his political views, but he barely addressed this in his speech."

He clearly stated in concise language that the church would have no bearance on his decisions as president. Were you sleeping during that part? This was actually the point of his whole speech, you just missed it. He clearly stated that it really didn't matter what religion you belong to, because that shouldn't determine how you vote. That's why he cited all the different religions in the US and praised them for what they are, because they make America a free nation. If it weren't for the principles and values of the founders that were derived from their religious convictions America wouldn't exist. That's why he says that religion is important to freedom, and freedom is important to religion. One cannot exist without the other. He also stated that it was the values and morals that are important in making your vote. If you have the same morals and values from your religion (or lack of religion)(because that is what applies in government decisions and public issues) then he is the candidate for you to choose.

how is this different than Hinduism then? Nu? By this standard the Hindus are also Monotheistic as they believe their gods to be "manifestations or expressions of a singular entity"

Maybe it isn't much different from Hinduism, on that level, or in that regard. I don't know enough about Hinduism to say much about the comparison. But you're referring to mainstream Christianity here. The difference for Mormonism is that is does NOT see "gods" as "manifestations or expressions of a singular entity"; it sees "God" as inclusive of multiple entities.

In other words, where for the trinitarian-Christian an analogy might be an Actor playing three different roles (Father, Son, Holy Ghost), for the Mormon an analogy might be three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) jointly-holding office.

So many people are trying to read so much more into this speech than was intended. It was intended to satisfy the christian conservatives (albeit his referrence to serving no one religion, or religion for that matter, but serving the people should also satisfy the atheists and anyone else).

I'm mormon, married to an agnostic, am a democrat, very educated, and I can look at this speech from an objective logical view and see there should be no offense. So many people want to turn things into negatives, cry victim remain in their own little world. We all could be more tolerant.

Great speeches do not pander. Neither do great men.

C'mon. You're not serious are you? I mean, this might be a nice ideal. But I doubt you can name a single "great man" (why not "great person"???) who didn't pander somewhere along the way -- or a "great speech" that didn't involve some pandering somewhere in its margins.

Pandering is typically, justifiably looked down upon, but in a democracy it's hard to avoid. Like I said earlier, some are just better at it than others, insomuch as they're less detectable in their panderings.

Think about it this way: whenever you hear a "leader" saying something that you really like and agree with, there's always the chance that there was some element of pandering (to you and people like you) involved in the saying of it. We just call it "pandering" when it appears disingenuous or calculated. There are LOTS of times that it doesn't appear to be so -- so we fail to detect it for what it is: somewhat disingenuous or calculated.

...the innocent unwavering pleasure of the Order of the Nine Angles as they sexually penetrate and orally consume anything...

...the commitment to sacrifice of the Maya...

...the establishment for the grounds of the Enlightenment and all technological advancement in Europe and America of the Secularists...

I am an undecided voter at the moment - and frankly I think there is a lot of talent in both parties - but to single out this religion and pin it all on Mitt Romney is really not very christian at all. It also misses the mark in evaluating the candidates true qualifications.Isn't the real question for voters whether or not Mitt Romney is qualified to be president and whether or not he would do a good job?

To those who raise the Mormon card as a disqualifier for public office, I challenge them to look at the fruits of the religion - most Mormons are upstanding people of character that work hard to serve their fellow human beings of all religions and circumstances as well as their God. They see christ as the savior of mankind

Are some of the Mormon beliefs different than other Christian religions? Sure- but many many are the same. An honest reading of the Bible, or any other religious text will find readings that strain the logical and intellectual mind. Angels, floods, healings, burning bushes, etc... Are these all logical? Remember all the wars and slayings of christians for their incredible and illogical beliefs?
Religion is based on a spiritual belief that inspires men and women to better themselves. While good people can be found in all walks of life, all religions and among those who don't believe in god, you will find their convictions to goodness and decency the same.

Enough of bashing a religion that stresses the desire to be good to others and to live life accordingly. To those who can't get enough of it - ask yourself if this is really the pertinent question at hand and also get some facts straight. I've heard a lot of inaccuracies about Mormons and mormonism this past week.

It's a shame to see those who claim that religious freedom and respect does not apply to the Mormon faith inject these into this candidacy.

...the commitment to social drinking of the Episcopals...

...the achievements of the Scientologists in the fields of cinema and television...

"Enough of bashing a religion that stresses the desire to be good to others and to live life accordingly. To those who can't get enough of it - ask yourself if this is really the pertinent question at hand and also get some facts straight. I've heard a lot of inaccuracies about Mormons and mormonism this past week.

It's a shame to see those who claim that religious freedom and respect does not apply to the Mormon faith inject these into this candidacy."

The Mittbots don't seem to realize that it's not the Dems that hold Romney's Mormonism against him. They won't vote for him because he's a slimy, bigoted idiot, not because he's a Mormon. It's the people in his own party -- who normally LIKE the bigotry and idiocy -- who he has a problem with.

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document, which would seem to decisively undercut the assertions made by Romney that faith is somehow a requirement for freedom. Romney's pandering to evangelicals on that score is clearly intended to signal to them that he's really on their side of the whole Church of Faith silliness. Unfortunately for Romney, there are plenty of evangelicals who take their faith more seriously than that and aren't enamored of having a Mormon President. Which is why the secularist approach to government makes a great deal of sense when you start taking such things into consideration.

Jason,

I was not claiming that the United States has been a secular nation for the past 200 years. I was claiming that the United States has, in general, moved in a secular direction. Obviously religion has played an active role in politics since the beginning, but that role has diminished in many respects, with some exceptions over the years, but even the founders feared the influence of fundamentalist religious groups.

all technological advancement in Europe and America of the Secularists...

Whoa. I know this string of parody-comments is meant humorously, but it's a bit over the top to suggest that "all technological advancement" has come from secularists, no? Quite a bit of technological advancement has come in pursuit of religious practice, after all. (Think better ways to build things -- altars, monuments, temples, etc.)

...the arcane holy magic of Zigibrond Greycloak, Dispeller of the Undead, 12th-level cleric and interchangeable personality of one Randy Buddles of Wichita, Kansas...

So many people are trying to read so much more into this speech than was intended. It was intended to satisfy the christian conservatives.

Shane, no one disagrees with this, but that's the very issue that's bugging people. All you need to do is read "Dr." Dobson's response to see what he intended to achieve. (See a comment above.) This was wink-and-nod politics to a crowd of people who wanted to hear that Romney would be a crusader against atheists and agnostics just like they are; if he convinced them, they'd overlook his theology's difference from theirs.

To wit, here are three paragraphs from Byron York:

"I was the most enthusiastic," Smith said, "because there were several things that resonated with me that only an evangelical would notice. For instance, he talked about the coldness and deadness of religion in Europe. That is something that is talked about in evangelical churches almost every Sunday – somebody will say, 'The mission trip to Wales is starting next week.' Mike Huckabee might say something like that, but that's not something you would say unless you had a really good speechwriter or you were very tuned in to evangelicalism."

In addition, Smith told me, "There is a lot of talk in evangelicalism that we have gotten away from the Founders' views of what religion was. A lot of evangelicals are having conversations where we pull these quotes from John Adams and others that you can't have a decent society unless you've got strong religion…It's something evangelicals talk about a lot."

The point here, I think, is not that no one else would have noticed those words, but that Romney knew they would have special resonance for evangelicals. Those are the kind of dog-whistle references that politicians will sometimes put in speeches – remember when George W. Bush referred to the "wonder working power" of the goodness of the American people? – that are meant to be especially noticed by a particular group.

Good job on the dog whistle politics, but that's still what it was, and for those of us who weren't the whistle's intended targets, it smacks of an offensive, government-backed effort to defeat the nonbelievers.

Weird that it only italicized one.

Whoa. I know this string of parody-comments is meant humorously, but it's a bit over the top to suggest that "all technological advancement" has come from secularists, no? Quite a bit of technological advancement has come in pursuit of religious practice, after all. (Think better ways to build things -- altars, monuments, temples, etc.)

Well, secular or religious, nobody figured out better ways to build things by praying to the Almighty.

David W,
Not sure what you mean by "the Constitution is a secular document." It doesn't espouse or endorse secularism over religion, or vice versa; it is silent on this divide. So far as I recall, it is only the 1st Amend that makes any comment on religion, and it provides for free exercise and moves against the state's "establishment" of religion. I'm not sure this can be taken as an espousal of secularism -- the better argument, I think, is that it is a protection of religious diversity (including, I think, the allowance for non-religion). The Constitution, so far as I can tell, is only "secular" in the negative sense -- that is, that it is "not religious." If that's all you mean, then fine. But "secular" these days tends to have a positive quality to it -- that is, meaning more than merely "not religious," as in affirmatively "against" or "exclusive of" religion. I don't see how one can claim the Constitution is "secular" in this sense.

Matthew,
I don't think you can successfully argue that the US has moved in a secular direction. The graph that would track the prominence or predominance of religion in American public discourse would have peaks and valleys, and (IMO) no clear trend downward (away from religion). And the Founders were a diverse bunch -- some of them were members of fundamentalist groups, while others feared the influence of those groups. Again, evidence of the part that religion has always played in our public discourse.

"... the self-congratulatory witticisms of Yglesias commentators" (which I personally find hilarious)

Well, secular or religious, nobody figured out better ways to build things by praying to the Almighty.

How do you know? I mean, can you really make that empirical claim? It isn't provable, one way or the other. Let's say I'm a secularist and I spend a lot of time thinking about a problem, until I finally figure out how to solve it technologically. Then let's say I'm religious and I spend a lot of time praying about a problem, until I finally figure out how to solve it technological. You will probably claim that the "praying" was really just "thinking," and that the "praying" didn't actually do any good. But you don't know that. There's no way to prove that heavenly inspiration (or whatever one might call it) played no part in the "figuring out" of things.

In fact, the believer might claim that even the secularist was inspired by God -- that God inspires or provides intelligence for the good of humanity, etc.

Again, it's not something that can be proven or disproven.

Thank you, Matt, for sticking your neck out on this one. I also thought this was one of the most craven, insulting, and mockable political speeches I've ever witnessed.

Thank you, Matt, for sticking your neck out on this one. I also thought this was one of the most craven, insulting, and mockable political speeches I've ever witnessed.

Romney's cafeteria-style nod to various other creeds was also excruciating:

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.

Superficial nonsense. That's the faux-embrace of the consummate bullshitter, or, may I say, the consummate Mormon doorknocker.

Jason, the Constitution is a secular document in that it does not permit matters of faith to enter into the functions of government. That's what the so-called "establishment clause" of the First Amendment is all about. Everyone is free to profess their faith (or lack of same), including those who run for office, and everyone is free to judge them accordingly by the tenents of their own faith (or lack of it). Mitt Romney is free to claim that a President should be a "person of faith", and I'm free to say that such is not the case base my own vote on that and other issues. However such de facto religious litmus tests such as Romney's should be seen for what they are, namely pandering to religious bigots. After all, John F. Kennedy back in 1960 did not say that only Roman Catholics should be President.

re jason:
"So...Mormons are "monotheistic" in that they believe in a singular "God" -- there is only one "God" (like there is only one "Presidency" or "Council"), to be followed, worshiped, etc. -- but they are not "monotheistic" if this requires believing "God" must be a singular entity (like "Steve")."

This is not true. I have been a mormon my whole life. Mormons believe that God the father, Jesus Christ and the Holy ghost are 3 seperate entities, three seperate gods.

I don't think I will vote for Romney simply because I feel like he is putting on a front and that he will do or say anything to be accepted so he can grab the gop.

Of course he is going to be influenced by the prophet on political matters if he is really a believing mormon. "when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done" because he speaks for god.