I didn’t listen to, but I did read Mitt Romney’s faith in America speech. I think it’s a good speech and says at length what I’ve said more briefly in previous posts (and what others have said in millions of posts):
(1) the separation of Church and State that our Founders envisioned was intended to keep religious organizations from controlling government, and government from setting religious doctrine, but was not intended to keep people of faith out of government; and
(2) there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone entering politics whose beliefs and values are informed by his religion, provided that he uses his political power to put forward his beliefs and values, rather than his religion and its doctrines.
I also like Michelle Malkin’s take on the instant rush to analyze Mitt’s speech, for better or for worse: “For me, it’s simple. Any day a Republican can turn the tables on the ‘tolerance’ squad and cast light on our great American tradition of religious liberty is a good day.”
Filed under: Mitt Romney, Religion | Tagged: 114, 98 |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
I think he did a good job, I think he raised the bar for everybody – I think it was wholly unnecessary and I find it annoying as hell.
The half-wit Harry Reid is a Mormon – anybody asked him to explain himself?
Anybody asked Clinton, Edwards, or Obama to elucidate their religious views?
Of course not – they’re democrats. Only republicans have to explain themselves.
I don’t see that he accomplished anything. If you have a problem voting for a Mormon I doubt that he changed anyone’s mind. And if you don’t well then you don’t.
In my opinion people have more doubts about his authenticity than his faith. I don’t think it’s over religion that the Huck’s beating his butt in Iowa.
[…] [Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room…] Share Article Mitt Romney, Michelle Malkin Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]
“[T]he separation of Church and State that our Founders envisioned was intended to keep religious organizations from controlling government, and government from setting religious doctrine, but was not intended to keep people of faith out of government;”
There was a third reason that’s at least as important as those two. The union of Throne and Altar puts religion at the service of government. Religions given political privileges pay for them by composing theological rationales for State policy. That arms the State with weapons both in the natural and the supernatural realms: Not only does a lawbreaker or resister risk temporal punishment, he’s also in violation of his church’s decrees, and thus at risk of his immortal soul.
Ok – so when is the media going to demand that Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton explain themselves?
There have certainly been enough examples in recent history in which church representatives and leaders have fallen below their theological standards for behaviour. All denominations have some hypocrits, crooks, and holier than thous. And most people deal with others (and judge them) everyday without being aware of their religious beliefs. I don’t care. I do care about how a person acts and how competent he is. Mitt gave a good speech and I think he was sincere. I trust his Mormon-based value system far more than that of radical feminists, environmentalists or other activists de jour.
People forget that religion doesn’t make you good, it just puts you on the path of making you better.
I just saw the speech (my earlier comment was based on the transcript.) Romney shows more passion in this speech than I have ever seen. Gone completely is the Ken Doll. So, I now think it did him more good than I had first thought.
I find myself wishing the Primary season were more stretched out because I see the candidates growing, evolving. At first I was thrilled with the super-duper primary on 2/5 because the previous schedule — Iowa, NH and then Super Tuesday, a sweep of the South, gave almost total nominating power to the South and to rural America. It led to the complete disenfranchisement of the moderates in the Primaries. My state’s Primary used to be in June.
Everybody despises the moderates — until the General election, of course, when suddenly EVERYBODY’S a moderate. The candidates have to totally re-invent themselves because the early Primary voters do not resemble the nation as a whole. So we have come to expect this Presidential candidate charade every 4 years. No wonder we are all so cynical.
It’s Rudy’s “here I am — take it or leave it” attitude that I like because it makes me think with Rudy what you see is what you get. I feel I got played by Bush II and I am wary of a repeat — you know “fool me once …..”
Today I think I saw the genuine Romney and I have to admitI liked what I saw.