Mitt Romney: “Faith In America” Speech
For your viewing and commenting pleasure. Please do not comment unless you watch the entire speech, thank you.
For me…. the most important parts are these:
“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.
“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.
“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.‘”
And this:
“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.”
And this:
“It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.
“We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.”
And of course, this:
“Infinitely worse [than the decline of religion in Europe] is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom… killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
“The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
21 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I watched it live this morning, and it still seemed he tap-danced around the “Mormon”-issue while making a reasonable argument for the involvement of men (and women) of faith in public life. I’m not concerned about the “theology”, sacred undergarments or whether they throw salt over the left or right shoulder. I’m concerned about the shadowy role alleged of the LDS Elders in mixing politics, money and the LDS Church in civil life…and over LDS members in public office. Romney is a Mormon lay-bishop and an observant-believer. He’s a member of the hierarchy that answers to the Mormon Prophet, and relays and enforces the Prophet’s “revelations”; not just a casual church-goer who attends at holidays-only. I don’t feel comfortable placing the power of the US Presidency in the hands of a man of faith who doesn’t own his own conscience, and who spiritually-answers to a higher Earthly authority. ….Especially when I don’t know where he stands, and he tap-dances around the topic.
Can you even name the LDS Prophet?
Unlike the Kennedy speech of 47 year ago, I still have no idea which way a Pres. Romney would jump when faced with a spiritual-conflict between his Presidential Oath and his allegiance and obeisance to his Elders and Prophet….either way he’s oath-sworn.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 6, 2007 @ 9:25 pm - December 6, 2007
“Public domain” and “public life” here obviously meaning “at government expense, on government property, and with government sanction.” There appears to be a confoundation of “public” and “government” which is symptomatic of modern politics. The founders clearly intended that “We the People” were to be “the public,” and that government (that artificial entity whose potential tyranny they strove so mightily to restrain) should not impinge upon it by promoting one [religious] view over another (thus, no “official, government-approved religion” like the Church of England).
Certainly, the Founders were all [professed] Christians (you really couldn’t be a respectable member of society back then otherwise), and presumably thought that religion (meaning their own religion, of course) was a positive force in society. And I certainly believe that they would be made uncomfortable by a society which didn’t have that “edifying influence” and moral guidance which they no doubt took for granted.
But keep in mind, they were Christians, and saw a Christian society, Christian government, and Christian public. It would almost certainly have been outside of their worldview that, 230 years later, so many “foreign” religions would be acceptable (at least to some degree, even if only in principle more than practice) in the public sphere.
While I certainly don’t think that religion should be discriminated against by government (any more than any other set of beliefs or customs), there is a difference between not suppressing something and promoting it, even if by acquiescence. For example, people often talk about “opening the public square” to seasonal displays (usually citing Christian and Jewish religious holidays). But would that include every religion equally, even on their most important days? Buddhists, Muslims, Animists, Wiccans, Native Americans, the list goes on.
Equal access for all religions? Unlikely. Which means that now our government is deciding which religions are “more important” or “more socially deserving” of access to our public spaces. And whose scripture gets written on the walls of our court houses? Should we have a vote? Apportion wall space by demographics? Not to mention that this will always, in some manner, end up costing taxpayer money, so inevitably (as is true of everything government does) someone will end up being forced to promote a religion which they don’t believe in (at best) or oppose.
I don’t have an issue with a politician who is strongly religious (Ron Paul is a fairly “conservative” Christian, but one that doesn’t believe in forcing his personal moral views on the public). I personally don’t trust Romney, but I don’t really feel that he is any more faithful to his religious positions than he was to any of his other disposable stands. We see how steadfast he was in maintaining those even though “the people” elected him to serve based on them. While I can understand how a Christian might have reservations about electing someone with views which differ from their own, I don’t really feel that it’s much different than any other particular aspect(s) of a politician which they allow for.
GL, did I write all that? Sorry. :/
Comment by cowb0y — December 6, 2007 @ 11:13 pm - December 6, 2007
P.S. I’m nominating Romney to guest host on Jeopardy!
Comment by cowb0y — December 6, 2007 @ 11:17 pm - December 6, 2007
That is a great rebuttal in #2. I especially agree with your observation that Romney cannot be trusted. He says he “won’t waver” from principle, yet we’ve seen little but wavering and flip-flopping ever since he entered the GOP race. One other thing: I find it incomprehensible that a republican blogger (supposedly an adherent of liberty and individual rights) can pull out of that speech what he considers “important”, yet never mention the ONE thing Romney said that was actually new to our political discourse: the shockingly dangerous quote, “freedom REQUIRES religion”. God (npi), I hope he wins the GOP nomination. Hillary or any other Democrat will have all the ammunition for debate and political ads a politician could ever hope for — and it is ALL on video, starting with all he said to the opposite case while campaigning for Governor and Senator in Massachusetts.
Comment by KYKid — December 7, 2007 @ 7:13 am - December 7, 2007
Bruce, I really enjoyed Bush 41’s introduction of Mitt and the indirect reminder to all those Iowa and NH GOP primary voters that Mitt’s dad, former Michigan Governor George Romney, was a leader in the volunteerism movement long before Bush 41 gave us his version of that great service effort, 1,000 Points of Light. But then, I’m as pro-Romney as I am pro-Bush #41, #43 and maybe #45. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to be there.
I thought Romney did an superb job at addressing the issue of religion in politics… not for those who advance the secular agenda and have a grudging antagonims toward Faith, but for those who believe religion is important in our society and felt the secularist’s hammer on this issue.
I disagree with the instant pundits who claim he didn’t address HIS faith and how being a Mormon will temper a Romney presidency (which he did speak to, in fact; it won’t).
I also disagree with emminent conservative moralist Bill Bennet when he conjured that Mitt made a speech that just about every GOP and Democrat presidential nominee candidate could have made… Bill’s forgetting that the Democrats would have focused on how Thos Jefferson stood against the tide of religionist Founding Fathers and helped secure liberty for the non-believers… how the wall of separation should be used to squeeze and push religious representations out of the public marketplace.
My parents used to speak about how JFK as a Catholic was viewed with suspicion by a significant minority in America… much like some have viewed Mitt as a Mormon. Religious bigotry or just ignorance about the faith, I don’t know. I think many GOP primary voters will take comfort in Mitt speaking about God, faith, Jesus Christ and how those influence Mitt’s life, inform his dedication to fellow men and might affect his presidency.
I know many gays hold a deep seated and rightly formed antagonism toward men of faith and the institution of religion. Frankly, nothing Mitt can say or do will influence the opinion of those secularists. But, then, that wasn’t his target audience, was it?
Thanks for your post on Mitt’s speech. We share the same attention to the important parts of the speech.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 7, 2007 @ 9:13 am - December 7, 2007
I don’t like the mixing or religion and politics. I don’t like it when Obama has a gospel concert tour as a campaign event (not to mention having an anti-gay but obviously homosexual singer on the bill), and I don’t like this either. I don’t think it’s any of my business what religion Romney practices, or if he practices none at all. I do think it’s my business if a candidates beliefs are going to trump the constitution, the law and reason while he is in office. Kennedy answered concerns that he would be more beholden to the Pope than to the US Constitution. I don’t think Romney has allayed any such concerns. The problem is that the LDS church is so secretive. Now like most secrets I suspect that there’s not anything terribly shocking that goes on behind those closed doors. But speculation about what is being done in private can be damaging in politics.
As for the idea of needing religion to have freedom, I find that rather odd. Christianity was the religion of monarchy (Divine Right of Kings and all that) until 1776. Democracy and human rights are a product of the enlightment, not of Christian doctrine. Our modern concept of religion reinforcing democracy is something we created in America and exported to a few other western countries. It’s not something that one finds in the scriptures.
And about separation of church and state. I think Christian groups that want to break down the wall between religion and government do so at their own peril. Freedom from meddling by the state has served religion quite well in America for the last two hundred years. Even the act of taking money from the government creates a dependency on the state and we all know that no one gives you money without eventually setting the rules for what you can and can’t do with that money. There are always strings attached and churches, temples and mosques and whatever else there might be are better off raising their own monies privately and maintaining autonomy than they are having the government tell them what they then can and cannot do. What happens when the day comes that the government is hostile to particular forms of religion if that wall is no longer there for protection? I know a good many religious leaders (including fundamentalists) are not on the bandwagon of faith-based initiatives for that very reason. But I don’t think their voices are being heard very loudly.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 7, 2007 @ 11:59 am - December 7, 2007
KYK states: “we’ve seen little but wavering and flip-flopping ever since he (Romney) entered the GOP race.”
Care to name a major issue that’s he’s flip-flopped on since entering the race?
Your party’s own guy in 2004, JohnKerry, flip flopped like a salmon on the river shore caught by a black bear… so I know you know what real flip flopping is, KYK.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 7, 2007 @ 2:41 pm - December 7, 2007
evangelicals like mormons are satans in god’s clothing.
Comment by michael — December 7, 2007 @ 11:10 pm - December 7, 2007
ROFL!! So topical.
Proving that, yes, even to Christians, “size matters.”
Comment by cowb0y — December 8, 2007 @ 12:53 am - December 8, 2007
a 20 foot candle is pretty big
Comment by Vince P — December 8, 2007 @ 1:18 am - December 8, 2007
#7 — choice, gay rights, immigration — he’s flipped on virtually every issue of important to what Peggy Noonan calls “the idiots” that dominate your party’s primaries.
Comment by KYKid — December 8, 2007 @ 6:14 am - December 8, 2007
I am so sick of all this squabbling every holiday season. Most of these displays are tacky. Why not let the city put up some lights and wreaths and let the churches and temples and private organizations (religious or otherwise) and individuals put up whatever nativity scenes, menorahs they want. No squabbling, no arguing. And people who are actually religious can enjoy the true holiday at lessons and carols and actual celebrations of the real holiday and not cheesy commercialization.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 8, 2007 @ 10:39 am - December 8, 2007
we know (or should) the reason for the season is the solstice. always makes me happy to see the days lengthen. but you know those cult types, always trying to make my god bigger than your god.
Comment by michael — December 8, 2007 @ 5:08 pm - December 8, 2007
OK, I have watched the whole thing. I agree with people’s praise of the speech’s content. Therefore, I will address myself to something completely different. The man is a car salesman. There is something over-sanctimonious in his eyes and his voice. There is something crude in the compliments he pays, or in the way he watches the audience reaction from the corner of his eye, while trying to look angelic – almost as if he secretly believes or knows himself to be pandering. I’m skeptical that the country at-large will elect him in the general election. If you didn’t convince me rationally that he was our only alternative to a far-Left Sorocrat, I myself might like to vote against him, so as not to have to see him on TV for 4-8 years, or to hear the little spit-sucking sound (I forget what people call it) that he makes between phrases.
In other words: Since he formally declared candidacy on Feb. 13, 2007? I am 100% certain Romney is much too calculating and careful a politician to have made any flip-flops since then – so, no one should try to meet your challenge. People who find the flip-flops, look back over a longer period of time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 9, 2007 @ 4:23 pm - December 9, 2007
ILC, I’m still laughing at your post. “I agree with people’s praise of the speech’s content” but let me slam him anyway.
And it’s all about “feelings”, nothing more than ILC’s feelings… what a crack-up. Very funny.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 10, 2007 @ 10:30 am - December 10, 2007
MM, I believe this is how I really put it:
I have now put the second sentence in bold for you, and added ***stars***. I hope it shows up now, on whatever monitor or browser you are using.
Other than that – Glad you liked it!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 10, 2007 @ 10:33 am - December 10, 2007
P.S. MM, just FYI, you missed an obvious criticism that I think should be made of my comment. I actually didn’t focus on my feelings quite that much. I looked at Romney’s non-verbal language (if you will), then listed some specific cues that I think would help explain why he strikes many people as a bit of a car salesman (phrase not invented by me). The criticism my comment deserves, or that I would have little answer to, is this: Aren’t they all that way? How would it make Romney any worse than the others? What on earth am I expecting – another Reagan?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 10, 2007 @ 11:09 am - December 10, 2007
Ron PAUL, Ron PAUL, Ron PAUL….
Comment by cowb0y — December 10, 2007 @ 10:33 pm - December 10, 2007
Sorry cowb0y, but I think Ron Paul has it way wrong, when it comes to foreign policy. I’ll be happy to discuss the reasons at length, but will save it for another thread (rather than take this one off Romney).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2007 @ 12:04 am - December 11, 2007
The problem is that Romney didn’t address the central issue. A lot of Americans think Mormons are a “dangerous cult”. Focus on the Family and similar groups used to put out anti-Mormon propoganda films. I saw one of them at church as a teenager. He has to address what he actually believes and whether or not that’s going to come into conflict with his duties as president. Kennedy’s speech worked in that regard (but considering how close that election was, probably just barely). And that was a time when politicians treated religion as a private matter. (Did people even know that Nixon was a Quaker? Did they care?)
It was only a matter of time before the Fundies woke up and realized that Huckabee was the only candidate who was really one of them.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 11, 2007 @ 3:41 pm - December 11, 2007
Now for some disproof (or at least counter-evidence) of your thesis, Houndentenor: FotF’s Dobson hails Romney speech as ‘Magnificent’.
And no, it wasn’t just a press release; I heard Dobson on Hugh Hewitt’s show, praising Romney.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2007 @ 4:30 pm - December 11, 2007