onegoodmove

Romney's speech was given to pander to Republican fundamentalists who may be going over to Huckabee's campaign. period. Romney made the comment that he accepts Jesus Christ as his savior (not included in this discussion) to quell fears w/evangelicals that he's not far away from them. whatever.

The bits about the founding fathers conceiving this as a nation tied up with religion are just bunk. True, the constitution never explicitly states a separation of church and state, but the writings (letters and essays)of those who signed the document do so. They didn't want a repeat of a king who could invoke the divine to push his way of rule; experience taught them that way of governing was problematic at the least.

When Romney linked "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" in with the founding fathers, he was eliding years of history. "In God we trust" was a 19th century deal, not one of the late 18th c. The phrase 1st appeared on coins in 1864. the pledge of allegiance was Francis Bellamy's pet project, entering the public sphere in the 1890's. The phrase "under God" was added in the 1950's - the post WWII era, kill a commie for mommie environment.

The fact that he didn't allow for a private religious experience, or no religious way of life is 1. again, pandering to fundies, and 2. a sad statement in today's society. To make it worse, he went on about Adams and about you can't have freedom w/o religion and religion w/o freedom.

Hearing this rhetoric just reminds me of the kind of social climate we have today - especially since so many are speaking in favor of Romney's speech. So, when it comes time for a Jewish president to get up, then what? I doubt he's goona say that he accepts Jesus as his savior. JFK's speech should have put things to rest, but no. Anything else I type will be redundant. end.

I swear that I will be moving out of this country before I'm dead.

As residents of Massachusetts know, Romney's religion was a non-issue when he was Governor - now he's pandering in the worst way.

It is this kind of loathsome sucking up to fundamentalists that makes the GOP so sickening now - I won't even consider voting for ANY Republican unless and until one of them grows testicles and tells these fuckers to shove it.

Team Mitt did everything to create similarities between Romney and JFK. However, I'm pretty sure Mormons make up about 2% (guess) of Americans. And I will bet my left nut that Catholics represented a much larger percentage of Americans in 1960.

Nice to know that in Willard "Mitt" Romney's America Atheists won't be guaranteed freedom since that's only allowed for the religious.

cmon guys he really is the next jfk, all we need to do is find the next lee harvey oswald.

I'm pretty sure Mormons make up about 2% (guess) of Americans.

It is just another affirmation that all politicians are polytheists, believing in the founding fathers and their holy scripture - the constitution and the federalist papers and invoking their names for legitimation. They are dead and lived in the premodern era; why take everythng they said for granted?

Of course "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom". Every word has an antonym.

2% according to the last (2002) estimate

And an estimated 15% of Americans are atheist/non-religious. That's a sizable number of the population that this bigoted cultist would exclude.

I have a link to the JFK video in an old post at About Kitty...along with a Barack Obama video from June 2006 that was being compaired to the JFK Houston speech.

I don't think any presidential candidate today would give a speech like the 1960 JFK speech...they wouldn't have the guts.

"religion needs freedom"?

For most of European history, the church was part of the monarchic authoritarian governments. It was the problem, not the solution.

Norm, Youtube link to Kennedy's speech if you want it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2Jr03ADQmk

I forgot to mention vote ron paul!

Who'd of thought a Ron Paul supporter would fondly recount the assassination of one of America's most beloved presidents?

I swear that I will be moving out of this country before I'm dead.

I was thinking the exact same thing as I watched the report.

Be hoonest now, where would you move?

I'd move to France! :))

But it's difficult to just up and move to another country and become a naturalized citizen.

Yeah, France is pretty conservative that way ;-}

Hitchens supports Ghouliani.

"I'd vote for Giuliani because of the war. Mrs. Clinton has a good position on the war, too. If she were running against an anti-war Republican, which could happen, if it was Hillary vs. Chuck Hagel, let's say—he's not running, but let's suppose he was—well, then I'd vote for her. Because she's serious about the war—or at least she has to pretend to be. I'm a single-issue voter. With Giuliani, I also admire what he did in New York. He's proven that he can run and improve things by governing. And the second thing, very important, is that he does not come from a small town, and he cannot run a campaign saying, 'Vote for me because I come from a small town.' I hope I never have to hear that ever again. Candidates who go on about their small town roots make me sick. The third thing is, of course, with every candidate, you want to know what would they be like when things get really tough. Well, with Giuliani, we sort of know that. He and Tony Blair were the only bright spots on that day [9/11]. So I find it pretty easy making up my mind. It certainly would have to be Giuliani. But that said, Mr. Giuliani is very obviously not going to be the candidate for the Bible Belt, whereas Mrs. Clinton would love to be if she could, and she is trying her best to be. I would vote for a pro-war, religious person over an anti-war atheist."

http://www.radaronline.com/features/2007/04/christopherhitchensgodisnotgreat1.php

It was remarkable that in a speech about religion in America that Romney didn't really mention where atheists, agnostics, or just plain ol' non-religious people fit in. That set of people is likely as high at 30% of the population.

It's not easy to see what Romney meant when he said freedom needs religion. Of course there are many non-religious people who nevertheless enjoy freedom. It may be similar to Tocqueville's point that while in Europe religion is a force against freedom, in America it prevents freedom from becoming anarchic and licentious.

Hitchens I'm sure is sincere in his dislike of Mormonism, but his attacks on Romney--who has governed as anything but a theocrat--are clearly motivated by his support for Guiliani, and if they are having any effect, are probably backfiring. Make no mistake--with Huckabee you're getting the most explicitly evangelical president in American history, significantly more than Bush. With Romney, McCain, Guiliani, or any of the others you would have had people who said religious things in the GOP primary, after which they would return to their normal selves.

It was remarkable that in a speech about religion in America that Romney didn't really mention where atheists, agnostics, or just plain ol' non-religious people fit in. That set of people is likely as high at 30% of the population.

" And you can be certain of this: any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

"Who'd of thought a Ron Paul supporter would fondly recount the assassination of one of America's most beloved presidents?"

I think you're reading things that arent there.

"cmon guys he really is the next jfk, all we need to do is find the next lee harvey oswald."

That's what I read Brian. Maybe you wrote something you didn't really mean. I really do hope so.

Syngas,

Being a little smart ass yourself, I'm surprised that you don't recognize irony when you see it.

Oh wait... I hope that I used "irony" correctly. If not, I'm sure that pedantic will correct me, ...

"Actually he did…and it did not sound good. Towards the the end of his speech he said,"

Nope, nothing about the non-religous there. He welcomed everyone who prays, and conspicuously neglected to say whether he's a friend and ally of those who don't pray.

Ironic or not, it is occasionally tempting to think that some lunatic might eliminate our political problems - but then all sorts of reality creeps back in. Dick Cheney and religious zealots' love of martyrdom are just two things.

Besides, unless one wants to endure nearly three years of Romney's smarmy sanctimony and the ascension to the presidency of whatever asshole VP Romney would choose, Sirhan Sirhan is the guy to look for. (Being a little smart ass myself...)

yeesh! You guys are hard core!

I never fondly recalled jfk being shot, i was just fondly thinking of romney being shot. but it was a joke anyway, i dont want any harm to come to him, unless he wins, which wont happen.

So if he did win, would you do the deed yourself or just cheer when you found out?

Before skewering Mitt, I would like to remind everyone that historically, freedom is associated with religious freedom in US because people who founded the country escaped religious persecution. Hence, the aim of the US Constitution wasn't to protect the unbeliever against some tyrannical religion, it was to protect religion from the state. This served US well - religious belief is a deeply personal thing, and protecting that, cemented all kinds of freedoms in people's minds. Yes you atheists might be in minority but nobody is oppressed.. Were you ever turned down at a job interview because you were atheist? No.

Government can be full of cronies, weird religious types graduating from schools like Bob Jones what not. But the issue here is keeping the government "small" not forcing or trying to shame anyone because of their beliefs.

oh, Im not a bad person, Id just cheer.

The more I see people cheering Romney for delivering a great speech, the more I worry that similar support will garner Mike Huckabee the presidency. If that is the case, I will consider renouncing my US citizenship (I have already bought a house in France). Poor Mr. Hitchens, by recently obtaining US nationality, is swimming upstream in a creek of religious nutjobs.

Nope, nothing about the non-religous there

If Romney can win on speeches such as this, this once great country will begin it's freefall descent, and a new meaning for the term "american immigrant" will be commonphrase.

"I swear that I will be moving out of this country before I'm dead."

Please leave quickly so we can replace your spot with someone who will stay and fight.

"Poor Mr. Hitchens, by recently obtaining US nationality, is swimming upstream in a creek of religious nutjobs."

No need to shed tears for Chrissie-- he may be a hero on this blog, but he's also a big supporter of these rightwing nutjobs. He loves Georgie Bush, and he's endorsed Ghouliani in 2008.

"I would vote for a pro-war, religious person over an anti-war atheist." -- Chris Hitchens

"historically, freedom is associated with religious freedom in US because people who founded the country escaped religious persecution."

One of the biggest lies told to school children is that the founders of the US escaped religious persecution. In fact, the US was colonized specifically so that the colonists could practice religious persecution of anybody who didn't follow their particular flavor of religion. The puritans wanted to radicalize the church of england and resurrect good old practices like the burning of heretics, witches, and anybody else who didn't follow their purified view of the church. When King and Church told them to fuck-off, they went to Holland and tried to establish a commune that was absolutely intolerant of any belief other than theirs. It still didn't work because the religious ideas of the Dutch started creeping into their children. So, they left the continent and came to the new world as pilgrims so that they could establish a colony where their religion and only their religion was the only one tolerated. Over the succeeding years, other people did the same. You simply did not go into a colony where you were of a different rligion. For example, the Catholics had to have their own colony where it was OK to practice catholocism. Named after St. Mary, that state is now known as Maryland. A Catholic or a baptist or a Jew who accidentally found himself in Massachucets colony in the 16th century might well be tarred and feathered, run out of town, hanged or even burned. The colonies were established as places where religious intolerance could be freely practiced. Many years later when the Mormons left the east to found their own colony, ultimately Utah, it was not just because others could not deal with some of the peculiarities of their religion, like polygamy, but also so that they could have a place of their own to practice intolerance against non-mormons. When the US was 'founded', as in the Declaration of Independence and eventually the Constitution years later, the notion of silence on the issue of religion, which we think of as a separation of church and state, was really meant to make sure that disparate colonies of religious segregation would all be able to cooperate to build a new nation, so long as they knew the new nation would not prohibit them from practicing rigorous religious persecution within their own colonies. So, when the supreme court later interpreted that government in-general could not take stands on religious issues, they really were taking the intent of the constitution into unintended country. I'm not saying that was a bad thing but I want to dispel the notion that religious freedom (including the freedom to have no religion) was a cornerstone of the establishment of America. The number one problem I think plaguing America today is that we are such a damned big and rich land that we never had to learn how to be accepting and tolerant. It was always an option to just go someplace else where you could be intolerant, or if you were in the majority, run the people you were intolerant of out of your own area.

"cmon guys he really is the next jfk, all we need to do is find the next lee harvey oswald." Quoting Mr. "anonymous" Brian...

Careful there, Mr. Brian, back in the good old days, after Hinckley but before USA-ma*, before the internet, expressing a sentiment like could get you a nice chat with an officer or an agent who just happened to have a moderately plump FBI file about you sitting on his desk, and if they didn't appreciate your sense of humor, it might even get, say, 5 years in prison.

Personally, I bag my stinking garbage up and set, sit it, whatever on the couch in the middle of the living room. It doesn't pay to even think about doing the(o)logical thing.

.

.