Good GOD, Mitt!

December 7th, 2007

Happy Pearl Harbor Day [and the harbor, the entire island, appears to be flooding under the kiss of global warming's weather extremes.] Today we’ll remember FDR’s Day of Infamy … and remember it all these many years later in what we’ll come to call a Decade of Infamy. The era in which this nation imploded, went to war with itself, religious schism to schism … and that brings us to Mitt Romney and the dialogues that should never have happened here.

It’s no wonder we behave stupidly in this nation — where might I find the voice that speaks from intellect? Not on cable news, that’s for sure. The coverage of Romney defending his Mormonism gave us commentators that bypassed the essence of the issue … that it wasn’t a Kennedy church/state moment but a Conservative values/secularism moment … it was more an “I’m a Christian too, so you can feel good about electing me” moment. Blitzer even suggested that maybe we shouldn’t be so stringent with the separation of c/s because it turns some people off. What??? What turns people OFF is having denominational religion pounded down their throats … talk about missing the damned point!

So instead of having an actual intellectual discussion, we got sound bites, dimwit speculations, us v. them on the Founders intentions and drivel about Mitts possible success in turning the evangelicals his way, the commentators fairly crowing about the “new” ability of politico’s to speak about their religion.

As far as I can tell, God doesn’t have a religion, that’s mankind’s miserable hobby — I don’t see why any of our presidential candidate’s should be required to run on one. In fact, Article VI, section 3 of the United States Constitution says in part that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to an office or public trust under the United States.”

So it turns out Romney’s not a uniter, he’s just a same-old, same-old fundy type — and he’s no Jack Kennedy, who so beautifully and confidently put it THIS WAY.

And rather than confirm the separation of church and state, Mitt wants us all to understand that we really really need religion in the US of A … because that’s what the Founders really, really wanted, and because God is in the “freedom” business [sic] and so are we [sic.] Secularism is the enemy, donchaknow — but he does parrot the Kennedy line about not being beholden to church leadership. His insistence that no church authorities would dictate his position falls apart here.

I’ve had a lot of Mormon friends over the years and I find them, on the whole, a warm and admirable group; I like that they’re honest and principled, that they take care of their own and I appreciate that they don’t proselytize, except with their young door-knockers who have two years to get it done. Even their practice of baptizing for the dead is an institutional kindness that seems uniquely generous to me [unless it comes out later that we'll all be slaves in the hereafter, assigned to sealed families ... only THEY can tell us that, of course, and they're not talking. If you just gasped at my "incorrectness," remember that the Christocrats are fairly busting to have Jesus return and pitch Jews into the fiery lakes of Hell and Damnation -- so remember, when we're talking about "religion," we just don't KNOW for sure.]

I have no issue with the Mormon lifestyle or faith … but I have a lot of problem with Mitt’s innate sense of patriarchy, racism, sexism and opportunism. Hence, Conservatism.

The Wing Nut faction remains, initially, undecided [quotes borrowed from FireDog]:

Hugh Hewitt: Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst.

David Frum: Once the murmurs over the oratory subside, people are going to realize: that speech did not work.

Glen Beck told Wolf Blitzer he thought the speech was “… a home run.”

But the man’s running on the Right — he’s got to get the Fundy’s on board because they’re flirting heavily with ol’ Huck, the Baptist, now … and no speech will be able to convince the True Believer’s that he’s one of them, not on a sea gull’s ass … some of their scepticism has to do with that majik underwear. Not even Mitt’s proclamation that Jesus is the Son of God will turn their heads his way — it may even tick some of them off that he mentioned JC with his “cultist” mouth … much the way the Islamic Faithful came unglued about the teddy bear named Muhammad [and if you haven't read Morford's piece on that, you simply MUST.]

So — here’s a roundup of articles, some straightforward, those toward the end snarky, about Mitt’s speech … coinciding with our Galactic lineup and typically laced with religious whatnot. [And speaking of that, the Mormon's have it that Christ will return in Missouri first -- if I get any news on that, I'll let you know ... but He better be careful, the h'b'ly's will take a shot at anything flying low on the horizon, here in the Pea Patch.]

Your bonus read, posted last, is yet another Morford, a recent dialogue he had with God/dess which makes every bit as much sense … in my opinion, a good deal more … than anything you’ll read here, prior. This nation [and several others to the east] has been wearing its childish notions about God like a bad rash for too long now … it’s time to grow up and get back to the Constitution.

Note: Moyers will speak to this “god and politics” business tonight on PBS. Have a good weekend — and if you’ve got weather going on, as does most of the nation, be careful out there. You might want to tuck in with some of these weekend reads.

Jude

Romney: Freedom requires religion
Kristi Keck, CNN
12/06

(CNN) — White House hopeful Mitt Romney on Thursday articulated his position on the role of religion in America, but avoided details about his personal faith.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said “freedom opens the windows of the soul.”

Romney, who hopes to become the first Mormon president, said “religious tolerance would be a shallow principle, indeed, if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”

“There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution,” the former Massachusetts governor said.

“No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”

CNN contributor Bill Bennett said he wasn’t sure Romney addressed the concerns voters might have with Mormonism, but, he added, “I don’t think he had to.”

“I can see this speech he just gave being given by any of the Republican candidates and most of the Democratic candidates, frankly. I’m not sure he was responding to the concern ‘what about this Mormon thing?’ ” Bennett said. “I think he will probably get more questions on it, not fewer.”

Another CNN contributor, Roland Martin, said the setting for the speech was a good one — “in the heart of the Bible Belt.”

Romney spoke at former President George H. W. Bush’s presidential library at Texas A&M University before a crowd of about 300 people: a combination of friends, family and religious and conservative leaders.

“What he is trying to say is ‘I am a person of faith. Forget the fact what my faith is, that I am a Mormon. You might be Christian. You might be Jewish. I’m a person of faith. I believe in God,’ ” Martin said.

Romney said religion is essential to freedom, without pointing to any specific faith.

“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,” the GOP contender said.

Romney, who had brushed off comparisons to John F. Kennedy’s famous address, didn’t hesitate to mention the 1960 speech.

“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president,” Romney said.

“Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”

Kennedy took the stage in Houston, Texas, and addressed concerns that the Vatican would influence his policies.

Like Kennedy, Romney told the audience that his church would not influence his presidential decisions. Romney said he did not “confuse” religion and politics as governor and he would not do it as president.

“If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States,” he said.

Romney, however, said he would not distance himself from his religion.

“I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers — I will be true to them and to my beliefs,” he said, adding that if his faith hurts his candidacy, “so be it.”

Romney avoided explaining differences in his church’s beliefs and other faiths. Instead, he pointed to similarities between churches in America, saying they share a “common creed of moral convictions.”

Romney said he thought some have taken the idea of separation of church and state beyond its original meaning by trying to remove any acknowledgment of God from the public arena.

“It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong,” he said.

Nearly 77 percent of those questioned in an October CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said the fact that a candidate is a Mormon would not be a factor in the way they vote for president. But a significant portion — 19 percent — said they are less likely to vote for a Mormon.

“Those who have the biggest problem supporting a Mormon are churchgoing and evangelical Christians — particularly those who believe that Mormonism is not a Christian religion,” CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider said, citing the October poll.

And that also represents a large portion of the Republican base.

Brushing off differences between Mormons and other Christians is not the best campaign strategy, religion reporter Dick Ostling said in an interview with ReligionWriter.

“Better to candidly admit there are differences but these should not affect voting decisions,” Ostling told RW. “The more effective plea is tolerance, asking voters to follow the spirit of the Constitution’s ban on any ‘religious test’ to hold public office.”

Romney is trying to win over conservative Christians as rival Republican Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, makes gains in the polls.

The former Arkansas governor is touted in one of his television ads as the “Christian leader.”

“Understand, Mike Huckabee is rising because he is speaking to those social conservatives, these evangelicals. So Mitt Romney needs to identify with them saying, ‘You’re a person of faith, I’m a person of faith, let’s break bread together, and let’s agree to agree or agree to disagree,’ ” Martin said.

Romney Speech Reflects Inaccurate Understanding Of Church-State Relations, Says Americans United
Those Who Don’t Follow Any Particular Religion Are Good Americans Too, Says AU’s Lynn
December 6
Americans United for Separation of Church and State via Common Dreams

WASHINGTON, DC - Today’s speech by Mitt Romney on the role of religion in American politics reflects an inaccurate understanding of the constitutional relationship between church and state, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“I was disappointed in Romney’s statement,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “The founders of our Constitution meant for religion and government to be completely separate. Romney is wrong when he says we are in danger of taking separation too far or at risk of establishing a religion of secularism.

“I was particularly outraged that Romney thinks that the Constitution is somehow based on faith and that judges should rule accordingly, ” Lynn said. “That’s a gross misunderstanding of the framework of our constitutional system.

“I think it is telling that Romney quoted John Adams instead of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison,” Lynn continued. “Jefferson and Madison are the towering figures who gave us religious liberty and church-state separation.

“I was also disappointed that Romney doesn’t seem to recognize that many Americans are non-believers,” Lynn continued. “Polls repeatedly show that millions of people have chosen to follow no spiritual path at all. They’re good Americans too, and Romney ought to have recognized that fact.

“I am an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, and I believe in my faith,” Lynn added. “But I believe just as strongly that non-believers are good Americans too. I wish Romney had said that.”

The Crisis of Faith
NYT Editorial
December 7, 2007

Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office.

Mr. Romney spoke with an evident passion about the hunger for religious freedom that defined the birth of the nation. He said several times that his faith informs his life, but he would not impose it on the Oval Office.

Still, there was no escaping the reality of the moment. Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy. He cited the Declaration of Independence’s reference to “the creator” endowing all men with unalienable rights and the founders’ proclaiming not just their belief in God, but their belief that God’s hand guided the American revolutionaries.

Mr. Romney dragged out the old chestnuts about “In God We Trust” on the nation’s currency, and the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance — conveniently omitting that those weren’t the founders’ handiwork, but were adopted in the 1950s at the height of McCarthyism. He managed to find a few quotes from John Adams to support his argument about America’s Christian foundation, but overlooked George Washington’s letter of reassurance to the Jews in Newport, R.I., that they would be full members of the new nation.

He didn’t mention Thomas Jefferson, who said he wanted to be remembered for writing the Declaration of Independence, founding the University of Virginia and drafting the first American law — a Virginia statute — guaranteeing religious freedom. In his book, “American Gospel,” Jon Meacham quotes James Madison as saying that law was “meant to comprehend, with the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”

The founders were indeed religious men, as Mr. Romney said. But they understood the difference between celebrating religious faith as a virtue, and imposing a particular doctrine, or even religion in general, on everyone. As Mr. Meacham put it, they knew that “many if not most believed, yet none must.”

The other myth permeating the debate over religion is that it is a dispute between those who believe religion has a place in public life and those who advocate, as Mr. Romney put it, “the elimination of religion from the public square.” That same nonsense is trotted out every time a court rules that the Ten Commandments may not be displayed in a government building.

We believe democracy cannot exist without separation of church and state, not that public displays of faith are anathema. We believe, as did the founding fathers, that no specific religion should be elevated above all others by the government.

The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific declarations of religious belief (like Mr. Romney saying he believes Jesus was the son of God) is a step toward imposing that belief on all Americans. That is why they wrote in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

And yet, religious testing has gained strength in the last few elections. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, has made it the cornerstone of his campaign. John McCain, another Republican who struggles to win over the religious right, calls America “a Christian nation.”

CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?”

The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.

No Freedom Without Religion?
There’s a gap in Mitt Romney’s admirable call for tolerance.
Washington Post Editorial
Friday, December 7, 2007

RELIGIOUS liberty is, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared yesterday, “fundamental to America’s greatness.” With religious division inciting violence across the globe, he is right to celebrate America’s tradition of religious tolerance. He’s right, too, that no one should vote against him, or for him, because he is a Mormon. We only wish his empathy for religious minorities such as his own extended a bit further, to those who do not believe in God.

It is regrettable that 47 years after John F. Kennedy felt the need to promise voters that his Catholic faith would not dictate his conduct as president, Mr. Romney felt compelled to offer similar assurances that “no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.” It’s regrettable, too, that the skepticism and even hostility some voters feel toward Mormonism has been played upon by the man who has emerged as his chief rival in Iowa, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is running commercials that proclaim him to be a “Christian leader.” That is why Mr. Romney felt the need to detail his creed: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.” If, as Mr. Romney correctly says, the country’s founders took care not to impose a religious test for any public office, a candidate’s belief, or not, in the divinity of Christ ought to be irrelevant.

Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity. “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom,” Mr. Romney said. But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.

“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government,” Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.

Romney Pulling a Reverse JFK?
Peter Montgomery, HuffPo
December 6, 2007

After months of dithering about whether to make a major speech about his Mormon faith, GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney is scheduled to address “Faith in America” at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library Thursday night. John F. Kennedy’s famous speech to Protestant ministers in Houston is often cited as the precedent. But Romney’s no J.F.K. and this will have to be a much different speech.

Kennedy was the Democratic nominee pledging to Americans his support for “absolute” separation of church and state, promising that his Catholicism would not dictate his policy positions, and urging Americans to rise above religious intolerance and promote an ideal of brotherhood.

Romney is in a dramatically different situation. He’s in a heated primary race, losing conservative evangelical Christian voters to Mike Huckabee, and walking a tightrope. He can’t make JFK’s appeal to church-state separation, because he’s trying to get support from people who think church-state separation is, in Pat Robertson’s phrase, a “lie of the left.” Ditto for an appeal to religious tolerance, not a high priority for the “Christian nation” crowd.

So Romney’s more likely to try to convince Religious Right voters that they should care less about the theology of Mormonism and more about his pledge to support Religious Right policy priorities down the line: criminalization of abortion, opposition to equality for gay people, a dismantling of the wall separating church and state — and judges who agree. That’s been enough to win the support of some high-profile Religious Right leaders, including Paul Weyrich, Lou Sheldon and Jay Sekulow.

But as Huckabee surges, Romney finds himself in a bit of a box, partly of his own making. Given the power of Religious Right voters in the GOP primary, and the de facto religious test many of them apply to the presidency, Romney has stressed the importance of electing a person of faith. But when he has tried to assure Religious Right voters that he is a follower of Christ, he has drawn stern warnings from people like the Southern Baptists’ Richard Land, because many evangelicals view Mormonism as a cult. According to Pew polls, more than a third of white evangelicals, and more than 4 in 10 of evangelicals who attend church weekly, say they’re less likely to vote for a candidate who is Mormon. Says Land, “”When he goes around and says Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior, he ticks off at least half the evangelicals.”

Mike Huckabee, in many ways the dream candidate for Religious Right voters, isn’t trying to make things any easier for Romney. While deflecting opportunities to comment directly on whether or not Mormons are Christians, Huckabee has encouraged others to ask Romney. “If we’re going to ask me about my faith, let’s ask all the candidates about theirs,” he suggests. “Now as you noticed, I’m not hesitant or reluctant to talk about mine.”

Of course, the whole conversation tells us how far the Religious Right and its GOP allies are from the vision espoused by John F. Kennedy. In October, a prominent Dallas minister Robert Jeffress, speaking of Romney, said, “It’s a little hypocritical for the last eight years to be talking about how important it is for us to elect a Christian president and then turn around and endorse a non-Christian,” he said. “Christian conservatives are going to have to decide whether having a Christian president is really important or not.”

The Religious Right’s long public war on church-state separation and religious pluralism has been cheered on by Republican officials as long as it has been a weapon against Democratic candidates. But it’s not as much fun for them when the target is one of the GOP’s top contenders.

Please, Not Another M.B.A. President
Mitt Romney has private equity cred, but that might not be so useful in the White House
Matthew Cooper, Portfolio, September 2007 Issue
Dec 6 2007

It’s lunchtime in Sioux City, Iowa. In the Clarion Hotel ballroom, Mitt Romney is preaching his business experience to a couple hundred Republicans who have come to meet the former Massachusetts governor. “I spent my life in the private sector,” he tells the audience as they tuck into ham and turkey sandwiches. “In business, you make a better product or you go out of business. In government, things seem to stay the same.”

Later, as we drive through the Iowa cornfields, Romney continues the sermon, likening being president to being a C.E.O. “If you think about the government of the United States, it is an enterprise. It has leaders, employees,” he declares.

Willard Mitt Romney knows that the urge to have someone run the country like a business is a strong one in American politics. Periodically, this yearning attaches itself to a nutty object of desire. Lee Iacocca was one such love interest, talked up for the White House in the ’80s. That he’s once again made the bestseller list, almost three decades after the historic accomplishment of ­accepting a federal bailout for Chrysler, tells us that we’ll adhere this yearning to any C.E.O. with West Wing swagger. In the ’90s, Ross Perot got a fifth of the vote even though he was, um, odd. ­Today, ­Michael Bloomberg has the virtue of sanity, but his appeal is the same: He’s the executive who, as one C.E.O . who wants a C.E.O. president tells me, “gets things done … without all the bullshit.”

Romney doesn’t curse, but he’s pitching the same idea, and it has made the one-term governor a first-tier candidate. At 60, he’s got one of the best fundraising networks of any Republican candidate, tapping pals like his former Bain & Co. colleague Meg Whitman. “We need a fabulous leader for this country,” the eBay C.E.O. and Romney finance co-chair tells me. “That’s him.”

Not surprisingly, Romney, the first Mormon with a shot at being the ­Republican nominee, also has the backing of executives who share his faith, ­including Bill Marriott, the hotel magnate and a longtime friend. It was the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, though, that made Romney a hero to many Mormons. The global spectacle was a signal moment for a flock once branded as outlaws. When Romney took over the Salt Lake Organizing Committee in 1999, the games were a scandal-plagued fiscal wreck. He made them profitable. Romney’s campaign coffers show him to be the pride of his people, a very white Jackie Robinson.

Romney, as is well known, comes by this business acumen naturally. ­Before becoming Republican governor of Michigan in 1963, his father, George, ran American Motors, giving us small and iconic cars such as the Rambler and coining such phrases as gas-guzzler. The son’s rise as a consultant at Bain & Co. and then his founding of Bain Capital, the private equity giant, are well documented too. What’s less understood is what this background might mean in the Oval Office. How would America be led by its first consultant in chief?

Mitt’s Bad Faith
Marc Cooper, HuffPo
December 7, 2007

Is it fair to vote against a candidate based on his or her religious beliefs? Why not? Tolerance is one thing. Endorsement is quite another. As no lesser a sage than George Carlin has pointed out, one’s religious beliefs are strictly voluntary. Unlike your race, ethnicity or gender, it’s you who chooses what to believe or not.

Now that Mitt Romney has introduced his religion into the center of the political arena, I think we have every right to evaluate him, in part, on precisely those beliefs. No surprise that Mitt — who has was pro-choice before he was anti-choice, who was tolerant of gays and immigrants before turning nativist and homophobe — would now want it both ways when it comes to his Mormonism.

First he said this: “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”

Then he said that: “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”

That said, should I care just exactly what those Mormon beliefs are?

Damn straight I should. And I do. Mormon beliefs could have a profound effect on vast swaths of public policy as the religion reporter of The Dallas Morning News pointed out earlier this year. Mormon doctrine holds that the constitution of the United States was divinely inspired; that welfare undermines the higher value of self-sufficiency; that traditional families must be strengthened and that women should be those primarily responsible for child-rearing; that abortion, with some exceptions, and that each person has an inherent gender that pre-existed in a life before birth and that each of these identities can never be gay.

Worse, Mormons subscribe to the notion of so-called “continuing revelation” which, boiled down, means that a practicing member of the church can have a dramatic epiphany at any moment that would alter the basic dogma. That’s what supposedly happened thirty years ago when official church policy was altered to allow blacks full membership in the Latter Days Saints.

That’s to say, it wasn’t until 1978 that Mormons processed the “revelation” that people with dark skin might really be, um, people. What revelation might a President Romney have some afternoon while doodling in the West Wing?

Mitt Romney’s free to be a Mormon and free to run as a religiously-inspired candidate. And I’m just as free to reject him for his religious beliefs as I am for his positions on the war, taxes and torture. Now, that’s real tolerance.

Mitt and Mormonism
Mitt Romney cannot ape JFK’s speech on Catholicism. He should drop the consultant-speak and tell Republican voters what he believes
Jeremy Lott, CommentIsFree
December 5, 2007

As former Massachusetts governor and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney prepares to deliver a major address tomorrow night at the George Bush presidential library, he finds himself in an almost impossible bind. The subject of the talk is faith and politics. The bind: how do you sell Mormonism to conservative Christian primary voters in a way that will not later alienate less religious voters in a general election?

Press accounts are currently focused on Romney’s woes with the Republican Party’s evangelical base. That’s understandable; he’ll need their support if he wants to be the Party’s standard-bearer next November. However, the things he can do to get over the evangelical hurdle are likely to fatally wound him among more liberal Christians and non-churchgoers.

Right now, there is rampant speculation about the content of Romney’s speech. Many analysts suggest it will be his “JFK moment,” in reference to presidential candidate John F Kennedy’s speech to the Greater Houston ministerial association in September 1960. As a Catholic, Senator Kennedy had been plagued with charges of “dual loyalty” - to the United States and to the Vatican. He responded by recasting himself as “not the Catholic candidate for president” but the “Democratic party’s candidate for president who also happens to be Catholic.” He explained: “I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me.”

The speech has been remembered as a cry for religious toleration and an excoriation of religious bigotry. It contained those elements - “[I]f this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser…” - but the thrust of it was Kennedy’s promise that he wouldn’t be a particularly Catholic president.

Kennedy came out against appointing a US ambassador to the Vatican, as well as any government aid to parochial schools, and endorsed an absolute separation of church and state. On the issues that were likely to come before him as president, including “birth control, divorce, censorship, [and] gambling,” Kennedy promised to make decisions “in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates.” Then he shifted into his very best Martin Luther impressing, declaring that “No power or threat of punishment [ie, excommunication] could cause me to decide otherwise.”

If Romney were to give even a watered-down version of that speech today, he would not be the nominee of the Republican party. Evangelical primary voters may distrust Mormonism, but they have a greater fear of secularism. In that, they’re not too different from the country as a whole - many Americans would rather have a Muslim as president than an atheist.

One thing that might win over evangelicals is an appeal to the notion of “co-belligerency.” The modern religious right is organized not around an ecclesial body but a set of public policy ideas about abortion, the family unit, education and free exercise of religion. Catholics, Protestants, and, yes, Mormons, can agree that they want to restrict abortion, prohibit gay marriage, use public funds for private religious education, and scrap most restrictions on religious displays in public spaces.

There are two problems with this approach. First, Romney makes a poor salesman, because social issues make him uncomfortable. He was a late and reluctant convert to the anti-abortion cause and his opposition to gay marriage masks a fairly progressive record on homosexual issues. In a recent interview with the Washington Post, he called economic issues “the issues Republicans typically win on.” Asked about his stands as Massachusetts governor on life issues and gay nuptials, he preferred to talk about his initiatives on education, healthcare, and homeland security.

Second, say Romney does manage to make the sale to evangelicals. How will that go over with swing voters? It could turn off less pious swing voters, alienate Americans who are sick of culture warring, and make matters worse. Take non-Mormon suspicions that Latter Day Saints are all wacky cultists, add in closer associations with Catholic bishops and Protestant televangelists, hit frappe. The resulting mix may taste almost unelectable.

But where idealism and salesmanship fail, sheer pluck may stand a chance. In 1906, Britain’s Liberal party nominated man of letters Hilaire Belloc to stand for election as an MP in Salford. It was a throwaway nomination - Belloc was a French immigrant to the UK, only recently naturalized, and he was a Catholic running in an area that was heavily Methodist and that had never gone Liberal. Rather than trying to work around his religion, as his campaign manager had advised, Belloc took the occasion of “papist” taunts to make a memorable point.

According to literary journalist William Bryk, Belloc announced to a “packed hall” of constituents: “Gentlemen, I am a Catholic. As far as possible, I go to Mass every day.” He reached into his pocket, pulled something out, and told them, “This is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads, every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative!” An “absolute silence” was soon ended when the crowd “exploded with applause.” Belloc won, first as a Liberal MP then as an independent candidate.

A similar approach might work for Mitt Romney, Brigham Young University graduate and former Mormon missionary. He should be able to drop the consultant-speak for a few moments to tell voters exactly what it is that he likes about his faith, and where they can go if they’re unwilling to accept that.

Romney Says Nothing; Other Candidates Demand Equal Time
Marty Kaplan, HuffPo
December 6, 2007

In the wake of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s highly-anticipated and widely-covered speech not about the tenets of his Mormon faith, the campaigns of several other White House hopefuls immediately demanded equal time from the networks.

A spokesperson for Rudy Giuliani asked for an hour of prime time to enable him not to tell the American people why a lying sleazebag should be their president. Several prominent Mike Huckabee supporters have called on Oprah Winfrey to give him an extended opportunity not to explain why he pushed for the release of a convicted rapist who went on to kill at least one other woman.

Democrats also joined the fray. Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign said she was planning a major speech which will not be about the prospect of having Terry McAuliffe in Americans’ faces for another four years. Senator Barack Obama said that if CNN, Fox and MSNBC would promise live coverage of his upcoming address, he would promise to not explain why finding common ground with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner is a good idea.

Political analysts were sharply divided about the wisdom of the rush to not meet rhetorical expectations. On the one hand, Time columnist Joe Klein praised Romney, saying that “not playing the Moroni card was the smartest way to play the Jesus card.” But on the other hand, Newsweek columnist Karl Rove said that the failure of Romney’s speech to live up to its “JFK moment” billing was proof that “Democrats hate America.”

Asked for his reaction to the hat-tips that Romney gave in his speech to Muslims and Jews, the Reverend James Dobson commented, “Look. I don’t care who he panders to. Anyone who says that secularists, doubters, atheists, agnostics, and so-called ’spiritual seekers’ are the Anti-Christ is still a friend of Jesus in my book.”

Spokepersons for People for the American Way, People for the Separation of Church and State, and the American Civil Liberties Union were not contacted for this article.

Mitt Romney’s Jesus is Just as Good as the Leading Brand
Chris Kelly, HuffPo
December 6, 2007

A lot of people think Mitt Romney chose to give his religion speech this week because he’s afraid of the Rev. Mike Huckabee. (A man whose main qualifications for the Oval Office are a personal relationship with Jesus and the ability to lose weight.) Mike is breathing down Mitt’s neck in Iowa, which can’t be pleasant, because bulimics have terrible breath.

I think there’s a simpler explanation and, touchingly, it has to do with faith. Mitt Romney made his religion speech during Hanukkah because he’s the only candidate oily enough to burn for eight days.

If you missed the speech, it can be summed up pretty simply: He proclaimed the right of every American to freely and openly practice any religion, including his own, about which he won’t divulge a single detail, even if you killed his children right in front of him, one after another.

And he doesn’t care which of you atheist bastards and Islamic jihadists know it.

Now just give me your vote, and stop bothering me with all these questions. I’ve spent a lot of money.

It got a little slippery there for a second, what with name-checking Kennedy and Lincoln - who you’d think would have less to say about religion and more about gun control - but it came down to this:

1- Mitt loves religious freedom.

2- You love religious freedom.

3- Religious freedom is being threatened by atheists and people who ask Mitt a lot of fool questions about his relatives in the Star System Kolob.

4- If Mitt answers these questions, the ACLU will come to your town and kick over your crèche.

5- As long as we all love Jesus (or something more or less Jesus-ish) we can agree to disagree about the details.

6- If we disagree about the details, Jihadists will come and unstrenghen your family.

7- Wasn’t it cool when George Bush Sr. crashed his plane and got picked up by that submarine?

8- I swear this was Mitt’s opener.

9- Hey, George Bush is patriarchal and fell from the sky. Why don’t we worship him?

Okay, to you and me it’s all just the same old runny dogshit. You weren’t going to vote for him anyway. Because you’re reading a website, and computers work because of science.

But did Romney make the sale to the evangelical values voters, the ones who pray people like us get struck down by a just and loving God, and it’s painful and slow, and the sooner the better?

I don’t think so.

Here’s the difficult passage, the one Mitt raced through like the side effects of Nasonex:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

In other words: I’m glad you asked that question. I’m not going to answer it. As a tribute to this great land of ours.

Because here’s the thing that Mitt Romney can’t say: The Mormon Jesus has about as much in common with Jesus of Nazareth as the Los Angeles Kings have with King Tut. They have the same name, kind of, and that’s it.

The Gospel Jesus lived in Galilee. The Mormon Jesus lived in Albany. (Where he fought the Indians. Because he wasn’t just the Lamb of God, he was also the Last of the Mohicans.) Mormon Jesus? Three wives, a planetful of kids. Gospel Jesus? Living alone and loving it.

It doesn’t even have the theological weight to be heresy; it’s a simple case of mistaken identity.

And I know that sounds like I’m being flip, but that’s only because I don’t care. But if it matters to you, it really, really matters.

Mitt Romney wants Christians to think that Mormonism is just another “brand.” (He called it a brand earlier this week, in Manchester. Which is how most really devoted people talk about their faith.) But most Christians are pretty brand loyal. It’s kind of important to them. They didn’t just choose their church for the parking. They like to think they’ve put some thought into it.

Evelyn Waugh thought that the difference between the real church (Roman Catholicism) and some fake-o crap (Anglicanism) was so obvious that if you couldn’t figure it out, it was your problem. He said that trying to explain it was like trying to teach an Australian about architecture.

Mitt Romney doesn’t want to explain anything. He just wants to blur the distinctions, change the subject, and make the sale.

Mitt Romney isn’t proud of his faith. If he were, he wouldn’t react to questions about it like he’d just been asked to describe his parents having sex.

He could put this whole thing to rest by answering one question about his Jesus, just so we know we’ve got the right guy: Was he Satan’s brother? If the answer is “yes” — and the Book of Mormon says it is — Mitt and Pat Robertson are talking about two totally different Middle Eastern drifters.

See where profiling will get you?

Bonus Read

God commands you to read this
Honestly, I won’t mind if you don’t. But the Lord visited me personally. Do it!
Mark Morford, SF Gate
Friday, December 7, 2007

Richard Roberts told students at Oral Roberts University that he did not want to resign as president of the scandal-plagued evangelical school, but he did so because God insisted.

—Associated Press

There I was, calmly enjoying some Thanksgiving leftovers and offering some divine gratitude for this truly fine ‘04 Pinot when suddenly boom, there was God, right across the table, helping Himself to some stuffing and the choicest hunks of dark meat, which He totally knows is my favorite. Clearly, He wanted my attention.

“Oh hey, it’s you,” I said, feigning nonchalance, as if this sort of thing happens to me every day (I always like to throw God off a bit, given how He’s so accustomed to those melodramatic, fall-to-your-knees-in-terror reactions He always gets from the nutball evangelicals whenever He swings through their nightmares in his classic fire/brimstone persona. That always cracks Him up). “What’s up?”

“Oh, you know, same ol’ same ol’,” God muttered, His voice sounding like an ocean playing a cello concerto in a black hole. He grabbed my pricey Pinot and chugged nearly the entire thing like it was Trader Joe’s house brand, His long, well-manicured, beautifully feminine fingers shiny with meat grease. “Just sorta bored, hanging around the universe, putting out little fires. How you doing? You get those sexy new floor cushions yet? How’s the car running?”

Something was wrong. This wasn’t like God at all. “Wait, what? You came all the way here from the belly of the cosmos, ignoring the unimaginable dance of astral forces and the infinite conundrums of colliding galaxies, not to mention the constant pitter-patter of little questions about the meaning of war and death and suffering and life itself, and you want to talk about home decor? What’s going on?”

“Oh, you know Me, just trying to keep it real, visit My peeps personally now and then, offer advice like some sort of sniveling lawyer, like some sort of stupid little shrink who’s speaking only to you, at the expense of everyone else.”

Now I knew he was being sarcastic. At least, I think He was. You can never really tell with God. I mean, just look at Pluto. Or New Jersey. Or Tom Cruise.

Then it hit me. “Wait, is this about that obnoxious preacher’s kid? That Roberts guy?” I’d just read about how Oral Roberts’ wildly spoiled son Richard, the odious televangelist who headed Oral Roberts University and who’s right now being sued for allegedly swiping mountains of cash from the financially strapped school to pay for lavish personal crap like shopping sprees and a private stable of horses and the repeated remodel of his home (11 times in 14 years!), and for flying his kid to the Bahamas on the school’s private jet as his wife spends tens of thousands of dollars in university funds on clothes and sends furtive text messages to underage boys. You know, the usual.

And oh yes: I also recall that Roberts has officially claimed that God spoke to him in person, and instructed him to resign from the corrupt, horribly managed, deeply creepy university, over Roberts’ own protests. Ah ha.

God sighed grumpily, sounding like two dump trucks mating in a hailstorm. “Look, you claim to be some sort of journalist, right? This little worm actually invoked My name as an excuse, dared to say that he talked to Me and that I insisted he resign. Insisted! Me! The f-ing nerve. I don’t insist on anything, except maybe a little backrub from the cherubim at the M51 whirlpool galaxy now and then. That little scab is getting a first class ticket to Impotenceland, you can trust Me on that.”

“Well, good. But I don’t see how I …”

“But that’s not the worst part. The worst part is the lemmings, the crowd of wide-eyed students, they were eating it up! Actually weeping and cheering him on, fully believing every word, even as he wiped away his crocodile tears with a goddamn handkerchief he bought from a gay bathhouse in Vegas using their tuition money.”

Then God shot me that sweet, imploring look that always makes me melt. “So here’s the plan: I want you to write up something scathing and funny and pointed about how God visited you, in person, and you broke bread and shared a nice bottle of host’s blood or whatnot, and I told you in no uncertain terms that Richard Roberts is a world-class charlatan with a rabid case of elephantiasis of the false spirit.

“I want you to ring the alarm, raise the roof, send out an S.O.S., put a message in a bottle, whatever the hell it is you writer people do. I’m getting tired of this.”

I was, I have to say, a little taken aback. This wasn’t like God, so spiteful, so easily annoyed by such petty, meaningless human shrapnel as Roberts. We usually laugh and shrug off stories like this, then move on to talk about, say, Buddhism, or the deeper meanings of tantric philosophy, the best meditation techniques to help you get past a nasty port wine headache. That sort of thing.

I had to ask. “OK, I give. What’s this really all about? Because hell, they’ve been invoking Your name as an excuse for a couple thousand years, stamping it like a bad logo across everything from slaughtering pagans to detesting gays to screaming in fear of the human vagina to launching all manner of brutal war and torture and righteous moral crusade.”

God just looked at me sidelong, and polished off the rest of the wine in a single sip.

I went on. “Look, You know better than anyone that Roberts is nothing more than a flea on the great sheepskin rug of human belief. But You know I’ll try. As for the gaggle of students in his cultish thrall, well, I’ll absolutely keep doing everything I can to inspire them to wake up one day with a Burning Man ticket in one hand and a well-licked copy of Rumi’s collected poems in the other, shuddering with mad desire to drop some ecstasy and join in a dawn fire ritual and see, well, the real You.”

God smiled. In a flash, the room went dark, and suddenly I felt a rush of warm air flow over me like molten honey, soothing my bones and penetrating my very blood and forcing me to close my eyes in what I can only describe as ecstatic cellular orgasm. It was, you might say, pretty nice.

When I opened my eyes again, God had morphed into Her other form, the divine female, the true ruling principle of the universe, skin like moonlight and eyes like diamonds and a massive mane of fiery red hair and a figure that could melt the ice planets of the Hyperion cluster in the Artemis nebulae. I mean, wow.

Her voice made the ground tremble beneath my feet. “You know what? You’re absolutely right,” She said, as the cellos changed into violins. “Guess I just needed that hot kick of divine reconnection. Or you know, maybe you did.” Then She winked at me, and 10 million birds fainted with delight. “I mean, we are co-creators of each other, after all.”

And just like that, She was gone. When I regained my senses, I saw that my wine bottle was full again, and there was a full plate of dark meat, awaiting my divine gratitude. Damn, She’s good.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

no online buy xanax prior prescription

A ringing signal is no online buy xanax prior prescription telephony signal that causes a telephone to alert the user to an incoming call.

on xanax information

Lithium-Ion batteries are sometimes used, as they are lighter and do not have on xanax information depression that nickel metal-hydride batteries do.

xanax from uk

[36] The non-thermal effects of RF radiation are xanax from uk of active study.

i buy xanax where can cheap

The technology that achieves this depends on i buy xanax where can cheap which the i buy xanax where can cheap operator has adopted.

medic cheap xanax buy

Since medic cheap xanax buy of medic cheap xanax buy s, concerns have been raised about the potential health impacts from regular use.

death xanax prozac and

The technology that achieves this depends on death xanax prozac and which the death xanax prozac and operator has adopted.

inject can you xanax

The inject can you xanax became inject can you xanax media channel in 1998 when the first ringing tones were sold to inject can you xanax s by Radiolinja in Finland.

no prescription xanax with

Unlike no prescription xanax with s, cordless phones use private base stations that are not shared between subscribers.

addition xanax

A working group made up of Finnish telephone companies, public transport operators and communications authorities has launched addition xanax to remind addition xanax users of courtesy, especially when using mass transit—what to talk about on the phone, and how to.

relaxer xanax muscle

Companies like Monster[4] are starting to offer mobile services such as job search and career advice.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves