Thursday, December 06, 2007

Mitt Romney Fails to Reassure

Well, today was the day of the long-awaited speech on why people should not be afraid of "Mitt" Romney because he's a Mormon. I didn't watch the haircut myself, although I have read it, which he supposedly wrote all by himself.

If this was supposed to be his Kennedy moment, it failed. If, as seems more likely, he was just trying to reach the religious right, it maybe worked, but maybe not, given that he unilaterally declared discussion of his wackier beliefs off-limits.

But here's the problem I have with him. I think the First Amendment, and the religion clauses in particular, are pretty important. That's because I'm part of a religious minority, so I'm maybe more sensitive to the majority throwing its weight around.

So listen to what Romney says here, and you'll see what I'm talking about:

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.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is he really saying that freedom is impossible in the absence of religion? And what is the freedom he wants to protect: the freedom to commune with God.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.

We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"Differences between churches?" "We?"

And here's the kicker:

Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.

Thanks for the clarification, "Mitt". Now, if I didn't know anything about you before , I know it now: I do not have a friend and ally in "Mitt" Romney. He told me himself. His view of America is so narrow that it excludes those who doubt, deny, and oppose his claims, and the claims of his co-religionists, that their god reigns supreme over the United States.

But he goes on from there to lie about what his enemies, the secularists, people like me, and maybe you, are doing:

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.

As I say, no matter how many times they say it, this is just a lie. Nobody is trying to remove religion from the public domain. What we are trying to do is what the Founders said. We are trying to make the government stop putting its power behind religious indoctrination. We aren't winning this fight, but we're trying.

And there is no stretch of the term by which you can call secularism a religion. It's a principle of government, and it's actually a principle that we are supposedly fighting for in Iraq and Afghanistan, and maybe in Iran sometime soon. So is it the religion of the United States? Let's ask "Mitt".

Obviously, he doesn't care about my vote. If he knew who I am he'd know he'll never get it. There just might be some people, atheists like me but not solid Democrats, who might consider voting for him in the general election. I wonder if they know that, as far as "Mitt" is concerned, they're not a part of his America any more than I am.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Secular Humanism is technically a religion BTW, but I got the same stale impression from the Romney speech that you apparently did. He's just a "stuffed shirt Republican" that's trying to appeal to the base of the Republican party, which he's losing right now. Did you know that his real first name is apparently Willard? :)

December 07, 2007 11:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home