Romney Attempts to Channel JFK

"And you're no John Kennedy."

It finally became necessary for Twit Romney to address the issue of his religious faith, since a huge block of voters in the country are Christian Taliban. How'd he do?

[Romney] seems to have decided his only hope of winning is to appeal to the religious conservatives - the very people who will reject him out of religious prejudice. But you can't pander to religious beliefs without triggering faith-based prejudices; and then, when it does occur, to cry "foul" seems a bit insincere. The forces of religious prejudice that Romney is up against can only be tamed with the tolerant secularism he fails to understand, but so clearly despises.

[...]

I have wondered, can it be considered political courage to proclaim your faith in God and your loathing of secularism (and Europeans) to a conservative religious audience?

[...]

It certainly is not a good thing for our democracy when Romney says that religious tests are unfair, but then, by confessing his faith and saying such religious belief is essential to our political well-being, merely creates another type of religious test. We need men and women of integrity and constancy, not those of expediency and inconsistency. We need men and women who will educate public thought, not just pander to public opinion.

Can I get an ‘Amen!’?

That is the opinion of Jeffrey S. Nielsen in the Salt Lake Tribune. Let me expand.

From Romney’s speech:

"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.”

Jeffrey Nielsen:

The great benefit of secularism is that it has left room for religious practice in our private lives while protecting it from the intolerance of religious fundamentalism - something that hasn't occurred in governments where secularism is despised. So, for someone to praise religious toleration while condemning secularism is to be simply ignorant of our history, and foolish about the possibilities of our future, if religion and government are not kept separate.

[...]

The best defense of pure religion is a healthy secularism, where religious faith is a private and protected matter. In fact, Romney's Mormonism is more respected among secularists than among conservative evangelicals. His faith would be suppressed in a government controlled by religious conservatism, while it has been allowed to flourish with a secular government.

Romney speech:

“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of god, not an indulgence of government."

That is such an obvious load, it needs little comment. God isn’t holding the keys to Guantanamo or any of the secret and political prisons around the world. They are in the hands of governments. Liberty is demonstratedly a very real indulgence of government.

“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.'"

[...]

“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.”

Although Romney does not specifically say that those phrases were handed down from the founders, by referring to them directly after a sentence claiming they were opposed to eliminating religion “from the public square”, he implies it. So let’s just have a look at that “under God” and “in God we trust” business.

A history lesson on the Pledge of Allegiance:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular kid's magazine Youth's Companion by Christian Socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892. The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day.

Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, and was seen by some as a call for national unity and wholeness after the divisive Civil War. The pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be stated in 15 seconds. He had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided they were too controversial since many people still opposed equal rights for women and blacks.

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on December 28, 1945.

The Knights of Columbus in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity.

[...]

Senator Homer Ferguson, in his report to the Congress on March 10, 1954, said, "The introduction of this joint resolution [to add the words “under God” to the pledge] was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." This time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law on Flag Day (June 14, 1954).

The pledge originated as a marketing gimmick. How very American. And 1954 is a long way from the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

A history lesson on the motto on our coins:

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861.

[...]

[An] Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States.

[...]

IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

1864 is not 1776.

Back to Twit.

"I think a person who's running for president or who's going to be president is someone who wants to, particularly in times of great need, to call on the prayers of all the people of America and not define him or herself as based upon a particular branch of faith.

[...]

" A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”

Oh, really?

[W]hen Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently addressed a group of a prominent local conservatives at a Las Vegas fundraiser, [local Republican George Harris] lobbed the first question: “If you are elected President,” he asked, “will you include any Muslim members in your cabinet?”

In the seconds before former Massachusetts Governor Romney responded, you could have heard a pin drop.

His (admittedly, very smooth) answer in a nutshell? “Not likely.”

  Liberty Watch

[Irma Aguirre, a former finance director of the Nevada Republican Party] says that she was at [a private fundraising luncheon at Lawry's restaurant in Las Vegas when Harris] asked Romney the relevant question. She described the exchange this way:

"His question was something to the effect of, `Considering the problems that we have with the Jihadist movement and the problems we have with the Middle East, would you consider having a Muslim as an adviser that can guide you as to what kind of decisions to make with regards to the Middle East?'"

"He said, `Probably not.'"

Aguirre added that what Romney said next surprised her. "He said something to the effect of, `They're radicals. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them.' I can't remember the exact words he used, but that was the explanation. We left thinking, `Wow, what a racist comment. He automatically assumed that all Muslims are radical.'"

  TPM

Back to Twit:

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion.

[...]

"I really think JFK did give the definitive speech," Romney told the man. "I think he said what needed to be said. I don’t think anything needs to be added."

That candidate from Massachusetts 50 years ago, JFK, put it this way:

I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end — where all men and all churches are treated as equal — where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice — where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind — and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

[...]

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

[...]

This is the kind of America I believe in — and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

Now, here’s my question: If Romney is elected president (on which day, Satan will be ice-skating to work), will I be sent to the pokey?

I only ask because of this excerpt from his speech:

"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.

[...]

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. " [Emphasis mine]

  TPM

On second thought, the second part of that sentence is an obvious give-away that the Twit is just pulling stuff out of his ass.

I'm not sure to just whom he thought this would appeal. Invoking JFK wouldn't be likely to draw Republican voters. Being a Mormon will forever lose him the Evangelicals, no matter what he might say. Is it the fed-up Democrats he might be looking to hook?

I’ll get to Huckabee’s new prominence as soon as I can stomach more religiosity.