Ross Douthat (December 06, 2007) - Romney's Speech (Religion)

There were some very nice passages in the speech, for which he should be applauded. In particular, his statement involving the abolition of slavery, civil rights, and the right to life--that was a real home run. Excellent.

And yet this is just starting and I believe the speech will backfire enormously. He has made Mormonism(perhaps unintentionally) a valid topic of discussion. It may be enormously unfair, but the more people actually learn about Mormon doctrines of faith, the less chance he has. The second the press or public starts asking more about the specifics of Mormon views...it is over. Sorry.

Posted by Brian G. | December 6, 2007 4:41 PM

Uh Ross, Romney didn't simply marginalize non-believers by failing shout-out to agnostics and atheists. Romney claimed that "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."

Got it?

Posted by Rickm | December 6, 2007 4:42 PM

Huckabee was eating up all the news coverage. Mitt grabbed back the spotlight by giving a big speech, covered and analyzed by everyone, wherein he affirms Christ as his savior and says he won’t back down from that, even though it’s unpopular.

Sounds like good headlines if he’s trying to appeal to Christian voters.

Now, since the ‘Huckmentum’ story line has been interrupted, reporters who don’t want to be telling yesterday’s news will cover Huckabee from the “why won’t you say that Romney is a Christian/ Why did you pardon that murdering rapist/ can Huckmentum last?” angles.

Posted by Gyrd | December 6, 2007 4:47 PM

Rickm writes: "Romney didn't simply marginalize non-believers by failing shout-out to agnostics and atheists. Romney claimed that "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.""

Exactly. Thomas Jefferson just rolled over in his grave and threw up.

Mitt Romney should commune with his god or gods full time and give up any idea of serving in the White House. He's no more fit to live there than the rat-bastard living there now is.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 6, 2007 4:53 PM

If it isn't the praeternaturally smug and immaculately wrong-headed MoeLarryAndJesus! Glad to see you back posting here at the Atlantic! (To which you could reply with justification "What do you mean 'back posting?' I've never stopped my continuous public diatribe!")

How far into Jefferson's Declaration do you have to read before encountering his belief that our rights were endowed upon us by our Creator? I wonder if Jefferson puked while writing those words?

Hey -- quick quiz: Who was your favorite President? Guess what? He was a Christian.

Posted by gyrd | December 6, 2007 5:08 PM

I think this was the best speech Romney could give under the circumstances. Much as I'd like him to simply embrace the separation of church and state and be done with it, he can't do that because the base of the Republican Party is full of very uneducated people who, because they don't know any better, believe radio talk show hosts and preachers when they lie to them about the history of the constitutional provisions relating to religion. He also can't do it because the Republican Party is also full of people who are bigoted against his faith.

So, he has to find a way to say that his faith shouldn't matter while also not telling the entire truth about the separation of church and state. Given those parameters, this is about the best speech that one could expect from a modern Republican on this issue. Yes, he should have mentioned the rights of atheists and agnostics, and yes, he underplays the real conflicts and issues inherent in efforts to introduce more religion into the public square.

But he also did pretty clearly indicate that there was a separation of church and state, and he articulated two of the fundamental justifications for it-- that established churches without coercion actually dry up religious belief (Europe) and established churches with coercion lead to violence (the Middle East). He understands that one of the reasons we have so many thriving churches in America is precisely because we have a separation of church and state.

Look, this is a big improvement from what we have gotten from Republicans on this issue since 1980.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 6, 2007 5:09 PM

gyrd-

The personal beliefs of a politician isn't the issue, nor is the mention of a creator or god. Rather, the issue is that Romney pretty explicitly stated that non-believes are not free. Coming from a likely presidential candidate, that is pretty shocking.

Posted by Rickm | December 6, 2007 5:14 PM

Ross:

I have to agree with Rickm. That formulation - "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" is not only nonsense (the second part as much as or more than the first - you would have to agree with me there, no?), but very poorly, because far too strongly, worded. He might have meant many things, some of them unobjectionable (some of them I might even agree with), but what he said sounds an awful lot like saying that only the faithful can be free. That's a bridge farther than even President Bush has gone - and I think it's a bridge and a half too far. What this points to more than anything is his characteristic rhetorical ham-handedness. It keeps getting him into trouble - and it looks like it will keep getting him into trouble.

Otherwise I agree with you: the paragraph where he testifies to his faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a disaster, exactly what he needed to avoid in this speech, and the happy-talk about other faiths came off as condescending, but the rest of the speech apart from these three bits is reasonably good. In particular, he did a reasonable job of saying that, on the one hand, he believes in the separation of church and state and freedom of religion and all that, but, on the other hand, that thinks a robust religiosity is good for America and should be allowed expression in the public square, and not just the private home.

I'm just not convinced that this is the message he needed to convey. I think he needed to shift the ground of debate about his Mormonism. The concerns on the Christian Right about voting for a Mormon revolve around the fear that doing so would legitimize Mormonism as a branch of Christianity, rather than a novel (and false) religion. Romney needed to address those fears obliquely; instead, he pretty directly heightened them.

Moreover, the circle Romney needed to square was: how can you promote an America that is more infused with Christian values if you are (arguably) not a Christian? Romney's answer is to say that all faiths have a common ground of values. He may well believe this, but I don't think this is going to satisfy anybody who really believes in the exclusivity of Christian salvation. And he doesn't need to argue that a Muslim, or even another Mormon, can lead America in a direction that conservative Christians like. He had to argue that *he* can do it. He needs to change the discussion from theology to character, ask people to look at how he has lived his life, what he has made a priority, what his values are, and ask whether *that* is what they have in common, and whether they can trust that he will promote that commonality in public policy. And he didn't really do that.

So: good speech with two or three significant false notes. But not the right speech.

Posted by Noah Millman | December 6, 2007 5:15 PM

. (And whether the absence of a shout-out to agnostics and atheists was intentional or not, I can't imagine that his campaign is all that sorry that "Mitt Romney wants to marginalize nonbelievers" is one of the insta-stories coming out of the speech.)

Well, glad to know that Romney doesn't care about throwing away my vote. (Not that I was going to vote for Romney anyway.) Is it even possible in these times to be a social conservative and not a religious conservative? I'm not a conservative, but it seems like the "big tent" is shrinking at a remarkable rate.

Uh Ross, Romney didn't simply marginalize non-believers by failing shout-out to agnostics and atheists. Romney claimed that "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."

Didn't he also pull a Bill O'Reilly and call out the "secular menace"? I'm really pleased, as a law-abiding citizen, to know that I'm a threat to freedom just because I don't pray to or believe in God.

I'm not usually a fighting atheist. I'm not a fan of the Dawkins/Hitchens school of thought. We're the minority, I figure, so we have to give in the majority. I don't care what the money says, what the Pledge says, or how many people are reading Left Behind books. But if our political figures start veering down this road, this road of telling me I don't properly appreciate freedom, then I will start to get hostile.

Maybe I'm reading him all wrong, but it seems like he's telling me I'm not really free. And I'm as free as the next person, the last time I checked the Constitution.

Posted by e | December 6, 2007 5:22 PM

Re: the passage on religion and freedom.

That's almost word-for-word out of George Washington's Farewell Address.

Posted by Brian G. | December 6, 2007 5:32 PM

Brian G.

Except it doesn't. Could you supply us with the relevant passage?

Posted by Rickm | December 6, 2007 5:34 PM

This is the passage Brian G's thinking of:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."

The question, Brian G, is whether "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" means the same thing as the above. It might well, but it's not clear that it does. That's why I said *some* possible meanings would be unobjectionable to me, and I might even assent to then, but that the formulation was ham-handed and likely to get him into trouble.

Posted by Noah Millman | December 6, 2007 5:49 PM

Here's the point:

Romney spent much of the speech arguing, basically, that freedom - from religious establishment and religious constraint - is the best thing for a healthy religious culture, but that for that culture to flourish it shouldn't be kept out of the public square, but should be publicly honored and acknowledged. And he suggested that there was enough commonality among all "people of faith" that this public acknowledgement and honor should not offend believers of any particular faith.

Whether that's true or not, it's very much in the spirit of Washington's address, and of American civil religion generally through history.

What does "Freedom requires religion" add to that? As a sound-bite, it's aggressive and obnoxious, and misleads people into thinking that Romney is saying that *individually* freedom requires religion - as opposed to, say, that a society that abandons religion will not cohere, or will not raise a virtuous next generation, or will not make great sacrifices, and hence will fail to sustain its free institutions.

Did Romney mean the latter, and not the former? Probably. But he's either chosen his words with too little care, or he's deliberately trying to produce headlines about how he slighted atheists. Either way, not a good move in my book.

Posted by Noah Millman | December 6, 2007 5:56 PM

How far into Jefferson's Declaration do you have to read before encountering his belief that our rights were endowed upon us by our Creator? I wonder if Jefferson puked while writing those words?

He didn't puke. He looked at some of his colleagues, rolled his eyes and muttered "Whatever it takes to shut you fanatics up." Ben Franklin probably threw up, though. Reading it while being hung over, of course.

Speaking of puking in graves: Poor JFK.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 6, 2007 6:03 PM

"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."

It seems equally ridiculous to say that religion requires freedom. Islam seems to do just fine in countries without freedom. The Buddhist monks in Burma might also disagree with Romney. Or religious dissidents in China.

Christianity really doesn't require "freedom" to be practiced, does it? Seems to me in the worst regime, you can still "commune with God." In fact, you may need to all the more.

Posted by e | December 6, 2007 6:11 PM

gyrd writes: "If it isn't the praeternaturally smug and immaculately wrong-headed MoeLarryAndJesus! Glad to see you back posting here at the Atlantic! (To which you could reply with justification "What do you mean 'back posting?' I've never stopped my continuous public diatribe!")

How far into Jefferson's Declaration do you have to read before encountering his belief that our rights were endowed upon us by our Creator? I wonder if Jefferson puked while writing those words?

Hey -- quick quiz: Who was your favorite President? Guess what? He was a Christian."

Actually it's Jefferson, and he wasn't a Christian - he was a Deist who regarded the notion that Jesus was divine as a joke. If you weren't an idiot you could look it up.

Jefferson would have scoffed at the notion that "freedom requires religion." If you don't understand that, you understand neither Jefferson or freedom.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 6, 2007 6:14 PM

Gyrd,

Moe is right here....as I understand it, Jefferson was certainly not a believing Christian, nor were many of the early politicians and theoreticians of the American revolution.

Posted by Hector | December 6, 2007 6:25 PM

What was with Romney's delivery? The speech had some very good lines, and they could have been much more powerful if he had filled them with a strong baritone. Instead his voice was high and thin. Did he have a cold?

(This is the important stuff, obviously.)

Posted by PJ | December 6, 2007 6:29 PM

Some Thomas Jefferson quotes: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."

Many of the founders and early Whigs believed religion was necessary, including some whose view might seem skeptical or atheistic. The role needed of religion came to be played by Lincoln's "political religion" that deified the Constitution and paradoxically the framers of that document and the philosophises from which it formed.

Today, I suppose we are still arguing about what that "political religion" entails. What is in and what is out. Romney seems to be saying that I am in, and implicitly saying that some of you are out.

Posted by PD Shaw | December 6, 2007 6:35 PM

Can I recommend a wonderful piece of scholarship to everyone? "America's God" by Mark Noll, hands down the leading scholar of American religion on the planet. An extraordinary work.

Posted by Brian | December 6, 2007 6:45 PM

The parts I didn't like were the "no people have ever sacrificed as much for liberty as America," which is patently untrue and which Romney's spokespeople have already disavowed as "not intended to be a statement of fact" (whatever that means) and, as many others have pointed out, the business about freedom requiring liberty and liberty requiring freedom, which I don't think makes much sense unless what Romney meant was that freedom of religion is necessary for true freedom, which I would agree with. I think it's safe to say that the speech was not a watermark in the ongoing debate about religion and politics. On the whole, though, I think Romney did as well as could be expected, and more importantly (for him), he forces everyone to focus on him, which can't hurt.

Posted by hugo | December 6, 2007 6:48 PM

That sounded a little more cynical than I really intended - I should say that, although the speech was obviously calculated and calibrated, it was an honest and heartfelt speech that Romney worked hard on and it was at times downright inspiring. I should disclose that I am about as far from a Romney supporter as humanly possible.

I do think that Romney, and lots of other politicians, make a huge mistake when they exclude nonbelievers from their vision for America. My friends who are agnostics, secular humanists, or nonreligious deists are some of the most generous, kindhearted, civic-minded, and moral people that I know. I can only hope that I can be as good a reflection on Christ and Catholicism as they are on their belief systems. Religious folks too often simply dismiss nonbelievers as amoral people who believe that life has no purpose and therefore care about nothing other than themselves. This could not be further from the truth. Of course, in Romney's case, he's trying to score political points by setting himself up against secularists.

Posted by hugo | December 6, 2007 7:18 PM

As gyrd alludes to above, the real upshot here is that he made a big speech and got everyone to pay attention which is a win in itself. Given that he's a reasonably good orator (especially compared to his present competition) and looks good on camera, the leading news coverage alone with 10 second clips of the best parts should boost him in the polls by itself.

Posted by right | December 6, 2007 8:14 PM

Not that he has any political reason for wanting to do so, but if someone wanted to make a non-atheist excluding version of Romney's speech, they could change "freedom requires religion" to "freedom requires transcendence". We might disagree about the source of transcendence, with the faithful pointing at divinity and others pointing at love or beauty. But without something transcending the individual, classical liberal government is impossible--justice becomes nothing but my tribe competing with your tribe for power.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 6, 2007 8:27 PM

Thanks, right.

Guys, Jefferson was a deist and an Episcopalian. So we're all right.

Personally, I think there are multiple interpretations of "Freedom requires religion" which don't have to imply that agnostics aren't free. He could mean that agnostics are kept free by the efforts of those more religious than themselves, for instance. Or that a society run by purely rational pragmatists wouldn't in practice respect the Klan's freedom to demonstrate because of the objective harm caused to the affected communities.

So, I think if you're taking offense, it's because you went into the speech expecting to be offended by a religious conservative.

Posted by Gyrd | December 6, 2007 8:53 PM

Gyrd writes: "Guys, Jefferson was a deist and an Episcopalian. So we're all right."

Epicopalians believe in the divinity of Jesus. This is what Jefferson believed:

"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter."

Jefferson also produced the Jefferson Bible, a redaction of the New Testament which removed all of the hocus pocus abracadabra and presented Jesus as a moral teacher and a human being.

You can call him an Episcopalian if you wish. Somehow I don't think his actual beliefs meet that description.

"I think if you're taking offense, it's because you went into the speech expecting to be offended by a religious conservative."

Well, no. I actually agree with Dilan's point up above that the speech was an improvement over most recent GOP theocratic bullshit. And I've seen Romney work up close here in Massachusetts, and I suspect he'd govern more moderately socially than most Repiglicans would like. But he's still forced to pander to morons and bigots because it's no longer possible to win the GOP nomination without doing so. Giuliani thinks he can do it by out-crusading Dick Cheney and soft-pedaling the Jesus stuff. I'm hoping he can't. Romney thinks he can overcome being a Utah-shaped peg in a round hole. I don't think he can, either.

Between Rudy and Romney, if I had to choose, I'd take Mitt.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 6, 2007 9:24 PM

So, I think if you're taking offense, it's because you went into the speech expecting to be offended by a religious conservative.

Gyrd, please don't tell us why we are offended. Religious conservatives don't like to be told why they're offended by something. And I don't listen to every religious conservative speak in anticipation for something to be offended by. Actually, I always hope for something we agree on.

But that line was offensive to the nonreligious. We are allowed to be genuinely offended! It's our country and our freedom, too. I'll throw you a bone: I know without a doubt that if Mitt Romney is elected, he will not infringe on my right not to believe and not to go to religious services. But if there are more gems like "freedom requires religion" during those four or eight years, I'll be throwing a lot of things at my television set. Ross wrote about "marginalizing nonbelievers." How are we supposed to be happy about that?

Posted by e | December 6, 2007 9:27 PM

Disclaimer: I am not a Romney supporter, but I do see in the Christian right's treatment of him a tipping point.

The reaction of the religious right against Romney shows why the Republican party will never be a majority party again, at least until it reformulates itself as something other than a group based on the "in" group and "out" group. There have become too few who are pure enough to be "in" and too many who are unworthy and therefore "out."

If Mormons are so bad, why does the GOP (God's Own Party) always count on their votes? Wouldn't that contaminate the holy (political) alliance? Perhaps the leaders of the Christian right have become so arrogant they don't think they need the Mormon vote anymore.

Of course, Pat Robertson can endorse Rudy Giuliani, whose personal conduct does not even qualify him to be an active participant in his faith.

But Pat could never endorse a Mormon. Why? Because he would be exposed for the political hack that he is if he were to endorse someone from a religion he has fallaciously labeled a cult. Better to endorse a serial adulterer who is pro gay rights, pro choice, and seems to enjoy the company of corrupt cronies. Endorsing a Mormon would ruin Pat's credibility. Ummm, yeah--mission accomplished.

This election is a change election, and one of the changes will be that Mormons are going to realize that they don't have an interest in supporting a party that takes their support for granted and then throws them under the bus when it's convenient. Mormons will remember more strongly that they were not allowed to participate in the national day of prayer following September 11th because some evangelical Christians didn't deem them worthy. They will remember that when asked if Mormons are Christians, Mike Huckabee punted rather than saying what he honestly thought.

Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist convention, in part, because he didn't think anyone but God had the right to decide who was Christian and who wasn't.

If I were a Democratic politician in the West, I'd be paying very close attention right now. This trend may only be trickle, but I predict that it will become a torrent and Mormons will realize they are better off somewhere besides the GOP, taking the intermountain west and every subsequent presidential election away from God's Own Party.

It's only natural for Mormons to feel this way--with friends like the "Christian" right, who needs enemies?

I'm a Democrat, so I fully welcome this change. It's morning in America.

Posted by Mormon Democrat | December 6, 2007 10:23 PM

Maybe his speechwriter shortened the original speech: "Freedom (to believe the earth is flat) requires religion, just as religion requires freedom (to believe the earth is flat)." Or maybe the deleted words were "to believe the world was created in six days", or "to indoctrinate little children", or whatever.

Or maybe he had just finished 1984 and Orwell's words danced around in his head, "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength".

Don't miss Andrew's post today including JFK's message on religious freedom. Now that was a great speech - and so courageous, too.

Posted by Hans B | December 7, 2007 6:49 AM

MD writes: "I am not a Romney supporter, but I do see in the Christian right's treatment of him a tipping point."

Um, conservatives are falling over themselves praising his speech.

Posted by Brian | December 7, 2007 8:42 AM

Pat Buchanan calls Romney's speech a 'tour de force'.

If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library.

The address was courageous in a way John F. Kennedy's speech to the Baptist ministers was not. Kennedy went to Houston to assure the ministers he agreed with them on virtually every issue where they differed with the Catholic agenda and that his faith would not affect any decision he made as president. He called himself "the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic."

It was like saying: "I happen to be left-handed. I can't help it."

Posted by Hugo Boniface IV | December 7, 2007 9:39 AM

He could mean that agnostics are kept free by the efforts of those more religious than themselves, for instance.
Gee, Gyrd, that makes this agnostic so much less offended. You've managed to be more condescending than Romney's speech. If that's what you meant to do, congratulations.

Posted by Lynn | December 7, 2007 11:01 AM

Hugo Bonaduce writes: "The address was courageous in a way John F. Kennedy's speech to the Baptist ministers was not. Kennedy went to Houston to assure the ministers he agreed with them on virtually every issue where they differed with the Catholic agenda and that his faith would not affect any decision he made as president."

What a load of crap. Romney made his speech in front of a handpicked audience.

That's hardly a profile in courage.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 7, 2007 11:20 AM

what's with these other hugos anyway?

Posted by hugo | December 7, 2007 11:23 AM

To clarify: the section quoted by MLAJ were also Buchanan's words. The html tags on these boards don't jump across paragraphs.

That said, I don't see what the make-up of the audience had to do with the public message.

The reference to Profiles in Courage does raise an interesting point, though: Who is Romney's scriptwriter?

Posted by Hugo II Boniface IV | December 7, 2007 12:56 PM

Hugo Bonaduce again: "That said, I don't see what the make-up of the audience had to do with the public message."

I was referring to your bizarre claim that what Romney did took more "courage" than what Kennedy did, chuckles. That Romney gave his speech in front of an audience guaranteed to polish his knob before, during and after doesn't strike me as "courageous" by any measure.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 7, 2007 1:34 PM

Oh the irony of the candidate that stated he wouldn't put a Muslim in his Cabinet lecturing on "religious freedom"....

If religious freedom doesn't include the freedom to not be religious are we truely free?

Posted by tiparillo | December 7, 2007 1:36 PM

LMAJ, again, it wasn't my claim, and, again, your point makes no sense. I'm sorry that you're unable to grasp Buchanan's meaning. Let's hope it's third time lucky.

Posted by Hugo III Boniface IV | December 7, 2007 1:41 PM

Oh the irony of the candidate that stated he wouldn't put a Muslim in his Cabinet lecturing on "religious freedom"....

No, it means he's free not to put a Muslim in his Cabinet. Personally, I would increase the religious freedom of Muslims by deporting them all to Muslim majority countries.

Posted by Hugo IV Boniface IV | December 7, 2007 1:47 PM

I would increase the religious freedom of Muslims by deporting them all to Muslim majority countries.

What no star and crescent arm bands?

Posted by Tiparillo | December 7, 2007 1:58 PM

Jim Keane (who you may know by the incredibly adolescent moniker, "MoeLarryAndJesus" ) wrote: I was referring to your bizarre claim that what Romney did took more "courage" than what Kennedy did, chuckles. That Romney gave his speech in front of an audience guaranteed to polish his knob before, during and after doesn't strike me as "courageous" by any measure.

This is such a good point because as we know the only people who heard Romney's speech were those who were actually in attendance. And by the way Jim Keane, love the chuckles reference. Hilarious as always.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 7, 2007 1:58 PM

It is indeed bizarre to claim Willard's speech was more 'courageous' than JFK's. Let's compare:

Kennedy:
- skeptical audience
- took questions from skepitcal audience afterward
- embraced the Constitutions' very clear seperation of church and state as "absolute"

Romney:
- adoring, hand-picked audience
- took no questions afterward
- said religion should be private and personal, then publically proclaimed his love for Jesus Christ
- created a laughable 'religion of secularism' straw man in an attempt to find a common enemy with Religious Right folks who may be leery of Mormonism

Yes, Mitt truly is a profile in courage. Although I guess that, given his track record, he could make a speech next month and say the exact opposite of everything he said yesterday.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 7, 2007 2:35 PM

Kennedy:
- skeptical audience
- took questions from skepitcal audience afterward
- embraced the Constitutions' very clear seperation of church and state as "absolute"

The whole point is that JFK told this unfriendly audience exactly what they wanted to hear. That's why it's not particularly courageous.

That's not to say that I think Romney's was particularly courageous either. It's actually kind of a dumb argument to be having.

Did we really expect either to say, "I will be consulting with my bishop before making major policy decisions to make sure I am in accordance with my church's teachings."

Posted by Mark Adams | December 7, 2007 2:48 PM

Woody Bombay writes: "Yes, Mitt truly is a profile in courage. Although I guess that, given his track record, he could make a speech next month and say the exact opposite of everything he said yesterday."

You never know with Mitt. If his handlers thought it would help, he'd probably post a video on Youtube where he does a rap version of "Amazing Grace" while wearing only his secret Mormon underwear.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 7, 2007 2:49 PM

If his handlers thought it would help, he'd probably post a video on Youtube where he does a rap version of "Amazing Grace" while wearing only his secret Mormon underwear.

Well done Jim Keane. I think you are the first person ever to have come up with the idea of making fun of Mormons for the underwear thing.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 7, 2007 2:55 PM

No, Mark. While JFK's audience might have been happy to hear him say he wouldn't be taking orders from the Vatican, he also said that "the separation of church and state is absolute." They most definitely did not want to hear that.

You're right, though, that it's a dumb argument to be having (assuming you mean comparing JFK's and Romney's courage). Other than the most general comparisons - two presidential candidates, two religions that lots of people are leery of - the two speeches and approaches have nothing in common. And, of course, when you look at Romney's speech as a whole, "courage" is the last word that comes to mind anyway.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 7, 2007 3:14 PM

Romney was actually quite correct in his statements regarding religion and freedom. The cause of the confusion is that the Republican party's definition of "freedom" actually means something entirely different from the tradition one and has been evolving for some time.

The new meaning of freedom includes the warrentless surveillance of the public, loss of all individual liberties by Presidential decree, the suppression of speech, show trials, confessions obtained by torture as legitimate evidence, cronyism/corruption on a massive scale, the prohibition of victimless crimes and harmless responsible substance use, and of course the export of such freedom to other essentially nonthreatening countries by force on dubious grounds.

Democrats of the DLC variety have been slavishly emulating such freedom as well.

Posted by Ben R. | December 7, 2007 3:18 PM

. . . he also said that "the separation of church and state is absolute." They most definitely did not want to hear that.

No I am pretty sure that is what they wanted to hear from a Roman Catholic.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 7, 2007 3:36 PM

The whole point is that JFK told this unfriendly audience exactly what they wanted to hear.

So, you think Kennedy was lying? What proof to you have of that? Did he govern in a way that makes you doubt this?

Posted by tiparillo | December 7, 2007 3:47 PM

So, you think Kennedy was lying? What proof to you have of that? Did he govern in a way that makes you doubt this?

What the hell man! Where did I ever say he was lying? I think it's quite obvious he wasn't lying, that his Catholicism had next to nothing to do with how he led his life and how he carried out his political duties.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 7, 2007 3:53 PM

Woody Bombay writes: "While JFK's audience might have been happy to hear him say he wouldn't be taking orders from the Vatican, he also said that "the separation of church and state is absolute." They most definitely did not want to hear that."

Of course not. And he wasn't just saying that the Catholic Church should be separate from the state - he was saying the separation applied to ALL churches. "Absolute" means just that. I would hope that would be apparent to anyone whose brain hasn't been fried due to constant semen back-up.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 7, 2007 3:57 PM

What the hell man! Where did I ever say he was lying?

Obviously I misunderstood your "told them exactly what they wanted to hear" line. Maybe its just me, but that phrase usually implies obfuscation at the least if not out right lies. If that's not what you meant, thanks for clarifying.

Posted by tiparillo | December 7, 2007 4:18 PM

Of course not. And he wasn't just saying that the Catholic Church should be separate from the state - he was saying the separation applied to ALL churches. "Absolute" means just that. I would hope that would be apparent to anyone whose brain hasn't been fried due to constant semen back-up.

Jim Keane (which is MoeLarryAndJesus' real name) thinks that people who use natural family planning have less sex than those who don't even though he has absolutely no factual basis on which to make this claim. That's the premise for his hilarious comment above.

But I am sure you are right Jim Keane (aka, MoeLarryAndJesus). Not only did all those Protestant preachers want JFK to deny that we would be taking orders from the Vatican. They also fully expected him to say that he *would* be taking orders from the Southern Baptist Convention. And he refused. What a man of courage . . . Just like you Jim Keane, so bravely speaking out against all the religious persecution we Christianists are trying so hard to impose on you.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 7, 2007 4:19 PM

oh man, I hope we get into another natural family planning discussion. Mrs. Hugo gets all hot and bothered when I discuss our sex life on the internet...

Posted by hugo | December 7, 2007 4:24 PM

hugo says: "Mrs. Hugo gets all hot and bothered when I discuss our sex life on the internet..."

Do you have a really, really big chart, too?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 7, 2007 4:32 PM

OK, Mark, MLAJ's real name is Jim Keane. But who's Jim Keane? The man's evidently a pest, but enough already.

Posted by Hugo's Boss | December 7, 2007 4:48 PM

The bottom line, as I see it.

Romney's speech was a courageous step/calculated risk/unavoidable course and it seems to have paid off. I think Romney will win the Republican nomination, and I'm wondering if Huckabee his holding his fire because he's looking at the VP slot.

Posted by Hugo V Betancourt II | December 7, 2007 4:54 PM

But who's Jim Keane?

A brilliant comedian. A satirist of the highest caliber. A man of insight and great analysis. A man who helps elevate the conversation wherever he goes. A decent, measured man who uses his skills of persuasion to ever so subtly enlighten all those around him. A man who refuses to show disrespect to anyone no matter how vehemently he disagrees. A man of culture and refinement. Jim Keane is this and so much more. And we are blessed by his presence.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 7, 2007 4:58 PM

Sounds pretty fly for a white guy. I bet in real life he wouldn't say boo to a goose.

Posted by Hugo Molasses XIV | December 7, 2007 5:03 PM

I didn't have anything to add. I just wanted to post as Hugo Hackenbush. (Look it up on imdb if you don't know.)

Posted by Hugo Hackenbush | December 7, 2007 6:03 PM

More importantly, who is Mark Adams? Apparently he's some poor guy who has to use advanced chisenbop to determine when he's allowed to hop on top of his bashful brood mare for ein kleine nachtmusik. Plus he has some sort of hugo-sized mancrush on this ML&J fellow.

This is a very interesting blogsite.

Posted by Hugo Beaumont | December 7, 2007 6:57 PM

While JFK's audience might have been happy to hear him say he wouldn't be taking orders from the Vatican, he also said that "the separation of church and state is absolute."

Not true, actually. "The wall of separation between Church and State" was originally a Protestant idea to keep Catholics and other undesirables from doing pro-Catholic stuff in office. They didn't mean it to apply to Protestantism, which they didn't think of as a Church. Protestantism was just, you know, obvious true stuff.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | December 7, 2007 6:57 PM

chisenbop
Now that is funny!

Posted by Mark Adams | December 7, 2007 7:06 PM

Romney’s key theme is that liberty, including religious liberty, derives fundamentally from God, not man. Jefferson said as much in the Declaration: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

He, also, incisively warned that the puritanical devotees of quasi- secular religion have attempted to establish a public square devoid of religion and aligned himself with the evangelicals, conservative Catholics and orthodox religious who properly want a voice in the public square.

Romney in terms of his excellent record in business and politics is the most able candidate. He is driven by getting the facts right and hard-headed analysis in any complicated reality. He is far brighter and more articulate than Bush. He, also, reflects the optimism of American hard-headed pioneers. Whether this optimism could survive the callousness and poison of Washington politics is questionable, though I somehow think he is no dummy on this score.

Personally, my heart at this point is with a proved hero, John McCain, though my head is with Romney. I think he could thrash Clinton and possibly beat Obama.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | December 7, 2007 7:24 PM

We're getting sidelined, boys and girls. Who agrees with me that Romney is the Republicans' best bet and would defeat either Clinton or Obama?

Posted by Sadler's Well | December 7, 2007 7:28 PM

It's hard to say Sadler. Mr. Leavitt is correct, I think, that Romney is sort of the anti-Bush in terms of competence and talent for being a real executive. But it is unclear to me yet whether or not his vulnerability as a flip-flopper has really come close yet to being really exploited by his opponents. As the nominee he will be constantly attacked for insincerity and his record will make it hard for him to argue with such attacks. On the other hand all his (recent) flip-flops have been from left to right so all the Dem nominee could say is, "When your true colors come through you'll be more like . . . me" which isn't exactly a compelling argument from an opponent. I mean when a committed pro-lifer says "You are not a true pro-lifer." it's a criticism. If Hillary says it it's a compliment.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 7, 2007 7:46 PM

"Romney’s key theme is that liberty, including religious liberty, derives fundamentally from God, not man. Jefferson said as much in the Declaration: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I don't think you understand what the words "self-evident" mean. What they mean is that these rights are obvious, divined using reason, period. That a Creator must have created them is an irrelevant afterthought, not a foundational principle. Everyone back then believed that the universe had to have been created by some grand architect, and so must have natural rights as well. But nothing in that logic requires that belief in order to observe that these rights exist. If they do, they do, utterly regardless of whether a god created them or they just are that way. And they are then self-evident.

"He, also, incisively warned that the puritanical devotees of quasi- secular religion have attempted to establish a public square devoid of religion and aligned himself with the evangelicals, conservative Catholics and orthodox religious who properly want a voice in the public square."

This is not incisive: it's a flat out lie. It's part of a game where people like Mitt pretend not to understand the difference between "public" as in "public works(i.e. the government) and "public" as in, in public. Secularists want religion out of the former. Most of us would lay down our lives to defend the latter. Given that, trying to confuse people about what we want and make us out to be enemies of the free public expression of religion is nothing short of vile.

This speech was disappointing and incoherent, and there's not much else to say about it.

But then, maybe I just haven't washed my "soul windows" often enough to see the bright beauty of a man who cannot tell the difference between government led religious observance and free individuals worshiping or not as they please.

Posted by Bad | December 7, 2007 10:43 PM

Bad - you're good.

One bit from Romney's speech that I haven't seen anyone comment on is his odd choice of praise for Muslims - their "commitment to frequent prayer." Sure, he'd be willing to nuke the living shit out of them, but at least they do their homework.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 7, 2007 11:38 PM

Bad - you're good.

This is one of those clever turns of phrase that Jim Keane is famous for.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 8, 2007 12:06 AM

I don't think you understand what the words "self-evident" mean. What they mean is that these rights are obvious, divined using reason, period.

That's some pretty tortured exegesis there. The plain meaning of those words is pretty simple.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,"

He writes that the truth that are about to be enunciated are evident without need of proof. Then he enunciates those truths.

The first self-evident truth: "that all men are created equal,"

the second: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"

and the third: "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

How you conclude that the role of the creator in that construction is an "irrelevant afterthought" is beyond me. The creator's role in universal rights is actually quite central in that sentence's argument. Given that rights in the past had been seen as the gift of the civil sovereign, the claim of creator endowed rights was not some trivial formality.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 8, 2007 12:37 AM

Deists believed that there was some god who had created the universe, and that's basically all they had to say about it. They didn't speculate about its views on masturbation or plural marriage or gin.

They were specifically un-biblical when they expanded their philosophy to include a notion of inherent liberty. After all, the buybull doesn't just tacitly endorse the practice of slavery, it presents a god-thingy that commands his people to take slaves, and it permits his people to beat the living crap out of said slaves as they see fit.

That morons, dummies and feebs think deists created America as a nation embodying biblical principles no longer surprises me, but it still worries me. After all, there are so many of them, and they seem to be immune to intellectual improvement.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 1:02 AM

See what a skillful rhetorician Jim Keane is. He responds to arguments that no one's even made.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 8, 2007 1:22 AM

Bad, having read your sophistic attempt to excise Creator from Jefferson's Declaration, I shall continue to take it at face value. Jefferson was indeed a Deist who believed that liberty derived from a Creator.

On the matter of the public square, allow me to quote Mary Ann Glendon, a senior profeesor of law at Harvard:

Neuhaus’ diagnosis of the problem remains valid, but events have not borne out his confidence that a supposedly religious majority could help remedy our circumstances. Perhaps he read more into the polling data about American religious opinions than was really there. Certainly he staked a great deal on the notion that most Americans were still attached in important ways to the Judeo-Christian tradition. No doubt he was right that millions of Americans felt “a powerful resentment against values that they believe have been imposed on them,” but were their numbers really greater than the millions who adopted various forms of indifferentism, going along to get along? After all, it’s so much easier to get into the public square—or anywhere else one wants to go in American society—if one checks one’s religion at the gate, at least those parts of one’s religion that do not conform to the dominant ideology.[Secularism] If a majority of Americans are still religious in some sense, how many, one wonders, adhere to religions that assert strong truth claims and make strong demands on their members? And how many are devotees of what Robert Bellah and his associates dubbed “Sheila-ism” after the interviewee who described her entirely private religion as a matter of “listening to her own inner voice”?

Posted by Peter Leavitt | December 8, 2007 8:04 AM

Both Marc and David Frum note that for Romney to say that candidates shouldn't have to answer theological questions just moments before declaring "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind" seems like something of a contradiction.

This is too obvious to point out, but it's not being pointed out, so...The reason Romney said Jesus Christ was the Son of God and savior of mankind was to try to show Christians that he is a Christian, too. Romney's "religious problem" at bottom is with Christians, not Jews, agnostics, Muslims, atheists or Druids. Non-Christians and people who are hostile to publicly religious politicians generally are indifferent to whether Mormonism is a heretical deviation from Christianity. But Christians (many of them) are not indifferent to that question.

Posted by keypusher | December 8, 2007 9:20 AM

Jesus's wives and children live on the planet KOLOB and... oh, hell. If you're not familiar with the screamingly funny world of Mormon theology, here's a handy-dandy primer:

http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormons4.htm

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 10:17 AM

From Moe's link...

Re: On KOLOB, the main activity is mating.

hahaha.....

Re: Sweets are especially prized by the saints and by the angels.

The planet KOLOB sounds like a twelve year old boy's version of heaven...

Re: The uninhabited planets and The Void act as spacers, or barriers, so that distant colonies cannot contact each other until they develop technology to a sufficiently high degree.

Joseph Smith gives a new meaning to the word 'preposterous'.

Posted by Hector | December 8, 2007 11:01 AM

I know, Hector, isn't it hilarious? But we can be grateful that none of the other candidates hold such ludicrous beliefs - none of them believe in crap like lakes of burning sulfur or demonic possession or the Noah's Ark fable or a zombie invasion of Jerusalem.

That Romney's the only one with any wackaloon beliefs!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 11:26 AM

Mark Adams and Peter: "How you conclude that the role of the creator in that construction is an "irrelevant afterthought" is beyond me. The creator's role in universal rights is actually quite central in that sentence's argument. Given that rights in the past had been seen as the gift of the civil sovereign, the claim of creator endowed rights was not some trivial formality."

I conclude it by following Jefferson's actual thoughts and writings on the matter. The argument is built off of viewing those rights as self-evident and then assuming that they are the design of a creator, not the other way around. The whole point of the American version was that the creator had not specifically granted grace on any particular earthly anybody: it had simply created natural rights that were available to all.

This situation operates utterly regardless of whether the hypothetical Creator existed or not (and philosophically do in any case).

I never argued that Jefferson wasn't a Deist, and it is dishonest to imply otherwise. Jefferson was, in fact, not a mere Deist in any case. He was, at least in his mind, some sort of Christian (a Unitarian), though in a sense that would make many Christians today call him a blasphemer. The point is that the arguments of Jefferson and others have no philosophical requirement of a deity to hold. They included a deity merely because they saw a creator as having to be behind everything. But it was the observation of the "everything" that they saw as allowing them to know that the Creator had did it, not the other way around.

Posted by Bad | December 8, 2007 11:36 AM

Bad writes: "I never argued that Jefferson wasn't a Deist, and it is dishonest to imply otherwise. Jefferson was, in fact, not a mere Deist in any case. He was, at least in his mind, some sort of Christian (a Unitarian), though in a sense that would make many Christians today call him a blasphemer."

Jefferson regarded Jesus as a good moral teacher - in fact, the best moral teacher - but that's it. I suppose that makes him a Christian in the way that devotees of Ayn Rand are Randians. He performed rational surgery on the New Testament and came up with a work devoid of exorcized swine and zombie invasions and so forth. Anyone interested in the result can find it here:

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 11:51 AM

Jefferson's religious views are hard to categorize within the framework of modern denominations. Remember, he had to maintain certain appearances as a member of the Virginia planter class (which was Anglican-Episcopalian) and in any case his church-going options were limited by the churches that were within easy horse-riding range. Bad is right, Jefferson was some complicated version of Deist/Unitarian, and as far as modern denominations go, the one he'd most likely fit in the best with would be the Unitarian Universalist church, which claims him in any case. See: http://www.famousuus.com/bios/thomas_jefferson.htm

Posted by Mark in Houston | December 8, 2007 11:57 AM

It's interesting that John Adams, Jefferson's political rival, was also a Unitarian. Here's a nice discussion of the two from a Unitarian perspective:

http://huuweb.org/Sermons/john-adams-versus-thomas-jeffers.htm

There were giants in those days.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 12:07 PM

He performed rational surgery on the New Testament and came up with a work devoid of exorcized swine and zombie invasions and so forth. Anyone interested in the result can find it here:

Wow Jim! Really? This is great to know since none of us had ever heard of the Jefferson Bible before.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 8, 2007 12:46 PM

Why would atheists want to be mentioned in a speech called " Faith In America"? Aren't atheists people of no faith? Isn't faith " the great cop-out" , according to all good atheists?
The point of this speech was to placate religious conservatives. If it did that, then mission accomplished, and if atheists feel left out, well, they weren't the original target.
For those atheists who feel miffed, well hang on a bit. I'm sure Mitt will soon come out with with a speech pandering to atheists-praising the " skepticism and rejection of all ceremony and ritual of atheist, for example. Would that make you feel better?

Posted by stonetools |

Romney's Speech

Comments (98)