Thursday, December 06, 2007
|
|
Romney's 'Faith in America' Speech (Updated With Reaction)
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
10:30 AM
|
I talked to Fred Barnes last night, asking what he thought we'd hear in "the speech."
Fred: "Not much."
Looks like he's right, judging from the excerpts, which are good but bland:
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
Jim Geraghty rightly fears the "Barney the Dinosaur" effect: Romney can't get into the specifics of his religion, and won't call people out for religious bigotry, so you end up with a recitation of the wonders of faith in America, and how many faiths work together to comfort and lead this great nation through times good and bad.
Bob Novak was just on Fox saying this is a panic move on Romney's part-- a response to Huckabee's surge in Iowa:
Two weeks ago it was settled policy within Mitt Romney's campaign that his speech dealing with his Mormon faith would be delivered much later -- if at all -- and only after primary election victories. Romney suddenly overruled his advisers to undertake that risky venture today [Thursday] in College Station, Texas, for one reason: Mike Huckabee's ascent in Iowa. Romney had been told by campaign strategists that flooding television screens with ads financed by his ample funds could win the critically important Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses for the former governor of Massachusetts in a state where Mormons comprise 0.5 percent of the population. That was working as Romney led the state's polls until former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, came from nowhere to challenge Romney for first place. Surveys detect substantial anti-Mormon bias.
Matt challenges Novak's sources, here.
Here we go. Best of luck, Mitt.
Update: I like this part: "There are some who say my religion could sink my candidacy, but I think they underestimate the American people. The American people do not respect believers of convenience, people who would jettison their own beliefs even to gain the world."
I wish his tone were a bit less sing-songy and more serious, but I'm enjoying parts.
Update: Thought this was touching:
These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...’
My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency. And, the part about state-run religion in Europe and religion-by-coercion in radical Islam was effective.
Mona Charen calls it the "best political speech of the year," citing particularly the part about empty cathedrals in Europe. I liked it, but wondered that there was no mention whatsoever of those with no faith at all. They're not a huge voting block, but many of them are patriotic Americans who respect their religious neighbors (not you, Michael Newdow). It would have been nice to hear that they make up part of the symphony as well.
All in all, I think he looked Presidential, sounded serious and hit a lot of good refrains about faith in America that will play well with plenty of voters. I can't imagine the snippets on the evening news could hurt him, and it will likely serve to make questions about his religion seem petty from here on out. Plus, we've been talking about Romney's speech non-stop all week, sometimes to the exclusion of the illegal landscaper story, while Huckabee's been taking a lot of bad press.
|
|
It took a devout man to break John Kerry's flip-flop record. I thought that record would last longer than the pyramids. I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that Romney is willing to ignore atheists, the single most hated group in America.
After all, 1% of Americans doesn't mean much electorally if you can use the mindless bigotry of the evangelicals to get elected. And when did Romney ever take a stand not held by an electoral majority? Certainly not in Massachusetts where he became a born-again liberal. Not in the rest of the US when he was born-yet-again as a man moved by his faith.
How many times can a man be born again? Answer - as many times as it takes to get elected.
Romney will say anything, do anything to be elected. He is the protege of Paul of Tarsus who became "all things to all men" in order to do God's work. Romney is doing God's work too - God wants Romney to be president.
If America elects Mitt Romney, they will get exactly what they deserve. |
|
Many of you claim you listened to the speech. The whole point of the speech was to ask Americans to not link Mitt with specifics of the Mormon religion. But people above, and elsewhere on the site, are doing just that. Each religion has some odd beliefs, and some nasty bits of history.
Mitt took these minutes to ask people to put aside the specifics of his religion. Mitt has excelled in the private sector (Bain), the public sector (Mass governor), SLC Olympics, he appears to me to be a competent and principled guy.
I don't care what Mormon's did 100 years ago, or some of the differences between Mormon beliefs and other religions today. I'm judging Mitt based on about 20 years in the private and public sectors. |
|
As an agnostic (lapsed Catholic) I was disappointed that Mitt left me out. I don't think it was an oversight. His whole "us vs. them" mentality requires a "them," and since he can't go after the religious bigots who can't tolerate a Mormon president (because that would hurt his chances with Evangelicals) he instead targets secularists. Now, strictly speaking, secularists and atheists are different; one can be one or the other, both or neither. But that was probably a point too nuanced for a speech like this, so atheists/agnostics got left out of the "us". Any faith is fine, but no faith is not.
I don't consider myself a secularist; I like Christmas, and I have no problem with religious symbols, or songs, or things on our money. I give to the Salvation Army; I still think the Catholic church does many great things, and I think people who get upset when someone says, "Merry Christmas" need to get a life (although I also think that of people who think saying "Happy Holidays" is akin to defacing an alter). I also recognize that the religions of our founders were profoundly influential in our country's shaping and history. But, practically, Mitt needs to create an alliance with conservatives, and so myself and Christopher Hitchens get the finger....
It's OK; I wasn't voting for him anyway. I just think Mitt is kinda a phoney. But overall, I thought it was a great speech. |
|
|
As an old Utah mormon......The truth about our church IS NOT as clean as we are told in church. My LDS ancestors were NOT the innocent victims we like to portray either. It could be that alot of this will come up in the media. Much of it will be a big surprise to the average LDS faithful. Hold on baby!!!!!!! |
|
Read Clarice Feldman today in AmericanThinker.com and then tell me you still support Huckabee.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/huckabee_house_built _on_a_weak.html
I'll be amazed if Huck supporters continue to support him, in light of the truth that is coming out hard and fast this week.
He has more dealbreakers than any other candidate, including Paul, if that is possible. |
|
|
This is an excellent speech. It's too bad Mitt doesn't have a gift for delivery. His quoting of John Adams gets to the essence of the problem. We are fighting for the very legitimacy of our constitution. Once it is no longer a legal argument to say that our rights are self-evident and are granted by our Creator, the entire document falls apart. Mitt needs a speech coach. This should have been a major speech. |
|
Who are you trying to fool?
BTW - the murders and the burning of homes and towns was done by crazed anti-Mormons. You gave the impression it was the LDS people. |
|
religion was not an issue. It only seemed so in the very beginning of the campaign and any comments or article have been almost non existant for some time.
So why give the speech? political gain? Ya, obvious.
It was not an issue to me, until I read he was going to give his speech on religion. So I looked into the Mormon Church. It's history at first and now into the beliefs.
The history is plagued by many unfavorable things, including murders, burning towns and farms and also the president of the US, sending the army to stop their actions. Numerous court records about a constant refusal to adhere to the laws of the US.
Then when I looked into the religious aspects and quickly found, that it is not christian. They believe in a multitude of gods and that they themselves will become gods and rule over other planets, with a multitude of wives, to populate the planet.
I wouldn't have even bothered to look, if Romney had not made it an issue. Now I know. |
|
Romney is only going to make matters worse with Christian evangelicals with his speech. They think that he is lecturing them as "intolerant" with this speech.
To top it off Huckabee is a good republican candidate with not as many skeletons as either Rudy or Romney as far as the republicans are concerned, especially on matters important to them. I expect him to win this nomination. He is also going to be a formidable candidate in the general. People think 2008 is the year of democrats. It appeared so until October of this year. I am not at all sure if that is going to be the case if Huckabee |
|
|
|