not to turn this into some political 'go romney' blog, but mitt's talk was well delivered this morning. i was thinking it would happen later in the day with the ability to listen to all or part of it live, but it didn't.
the audio and an npr critique can be found here.
it was nice to be moved by what he had to say in several spots. i agree with his assessment of secular 'religion' and the need to allow all faiths to express themselves in the public arena.
judging from vehement expressions of hate towards mormon's beliefs that i have seen on blogs across the internet, i can see why mitt would choose not to step into that pile of uneducated and uninformed discourse. he clearly stated that his decisions would be his own.
did anyone else hear or see the speech? any thoughts?
22 comments:
Excellent speech. Too bad it wasn't presented in an airtime allowing more to have seen it. Somehow I thought it was going to be given Thursday night, but I guess a mere presidential candidate speech has a hard time competing with prime time Dancing with American Idols Gone Wild.
Mitt presented our common beliefs well, without getting into some of the specifics that others have such a hard time with. I think, however, he may have alienated those American citizens who also have the right to question the validity of any religion. I also think the comment about empty cathedrals may have gone too far, even if so many European cathedrals are essentially museums. Some may have missed the point he was making about the secularization of so much of Europe.
I enjoyed listening to Romney’s speech (talk?) twice as I multi-tasked last night. He was very forthright about a need for religion to exist and flourish in America—that liberty and religion are intertwined. He made many strong statements, which I know enraged a portion of the American public. He said a lot of things that others are just plain scared to say, because of the sensitivity of the subject of religiosity in America right now. Perhaps it lost him some support? But I think it probably gained him a lot more support from groups of Christians who have been a little uneasy about how a Mormon’s religion would “inform” his presidential office.
What made religion such a taboo subject, anyway?? I know, I know… only years and years of disagreement, conquest, suppression and superiority. But…
I appreciated this part of Romney’s speech: “… 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.”
If Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy does nothing else, I hope it can be the means for raising the awareness of the continued religiosity of the majority of Americans. To me, it seems that the voice of the small minority has been loud and shrill, drowning out the peaceful, faith-filled majority who DO pray and believe that God watches over us and our country. Efforts to increase “sensitivity” and “tolerance” of the Godless minority have overrun the principles of religious freedom the nation was founded on, imposing insensitivity and intolerance on the religious majority.
Some quotes other quotes I enjoyed.
“Liberty is a gift from God, not an indulgence of government”
He referred to our country’s “symphony of faith.” Growing up in Kentucky, I learned a lot about other religions. It increased my own personal awareness of faith and doctrine and morality. Diversity can bring understanding and depth when treated positively, and I appreciated these sentiments in Romney’s speech.
I also loved that he repeatedly used the phrase “child of God.” It reaffirmed my hope that---even if Romney is not nominated and/or elected for the presidential office, perhaps his candidacy could advance a lot of what I feel are important issues in the political realm.
romney stated he thought no president should have to pass a religious test, then he proceeded to show how he could pass a religious test. he should have followed the example of JFK and show that church and state should be clearly separated. we do have a problem with a leader following what he supposes is god's will, especially when it's george bush feeling that god is telling him to invade iraq. after having a president put into power by the evangelical right, it's hard to imagine why mitt is trying to court such a group. it will only damage him in the general election, just like all of his other pandering. i feel like i can't take anything he said in his speech seriously as it is all politics and pandering.
When did Bush claim that God told him to invade Iraq, or give any suggestion of the sort? As I remember it was faulty intel and council...
let's follow obama into darfur because the god of reason, science and compassion all tell him it is right. those who disparage churches in the hope bolstering a policy of banishment follow a similarly dogmatic theology on the left end of the spectrum.
too much colbert has colored your view of religion to a tint that doesn't match your own upbringing. some of your best friends are religious. some of those same friends are probably your most tolerant friends...even the people you most enjoy associating with.
the stereotype of christians as dumb red-necks is offensive and often untrue.
it's all pandering on all sides. i guess the question is whose pandering is most palatable...
here is arthur brooks book about the charitable divide in america...arguing against the stereotype you are furtherinig brother.
an excerpt, "The political stereotypes break down even further when we consider age: “Anyone who is not a socialist before age thirty has no heart, but anyone who is still a socialist after thirty has no head,” goes the old saying. And so we imagine crusty right-wing grandfathers socking their money away in trust funds while their liberal grandchildren work in soup kitchens and save the whales. But young liberals—perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today—are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood. Liberal young Americans in 2004 were also significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones: A lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."
it's colbert and his buddy stewart speaking matt...
In this particular speech he was pandering to me and I liked it.
Maybe it is just because I like decisions based on a belief in a moral code and a higher purpose and power. At the exclusion of a minority, some may call it bigotry. Are we all here to pander to degradations in society?
I think that, as the Book of Mormon shows over and over again, nations are blessed and even protected when they acknowledge God and rely on him in their governmental affairs. Romney's statements fit into this important interplay, and I like it.
And it's not just because he's Mormon.
matt:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E4DD173EF932A25750C0A9659C8B63
in the mouth of two or three witnesses, right?
paul: i think it's strange how when someone offers a differing view from your own, you automatically think they are part of the liberal left and they all believe the same thing and that same thing is wrong. i said there is nothing wrong with religion. i said there is nothing wrong with religious people. i did say, however, that having a president who flouts his or her religion, and uses it as justification for foreign policy, or even his or her candidacy, then we have a problem. please don't stereotype all people with a view differing from your own.
oh, and stephen colbert is a believing, practicing catholic, and barack obama a believing, practicing baptist. both of those people i don't have a problem with because they aren't forcing their beliefs on me, and they aren't parading their beliefs out in front of people in order to attract votes.
that book is stupid.
stark irony: in reference to romney, stevie said, "a pandering politician searching for the votes of a close-minded, radicalized group of bigots."
my brother criticizes me for 'automatically thinking' that he espouses some views of the liberal left. the stark irony here is that a few months back my brother--in good political form--called my sister out for wishing she could belt like a black women. he cried foul for a perceived generalization and wanted her to apologize. However, my brother's current generalization of the christian right is not blinked at in many (most?) leftist circles.
my brother (and many on the left) would have you not generalize or criticize anything dear to his heart, but when it comes to the 'radical right' (or any other item not on his taboo list) may may blast the bigots to your hearts content. why does this list of taboo subjects seem eerily like a tablet of commandments (thou shalt not generalize about...thou mayest condemn...) the dogmatic thinking involved here is every bit as seditious as the dogmatic inflexibility on the right.
stevie would have you believe that there isn't a religion of the left that flouts their view on every street corner just as stridently as pat robertson.
case in point:
about obama stevie says, "...they aren't parading their beliefs out in front of people in order to attract votes."
all politicians parade their views. the naivety in believing that obama doesn't mention his religion out of principle is laughable. obama doesn't talk about his religious beliefs because the voter base in his primary race feel that religion is for irrational, intellectually lazy people.
any use of evidence that stevie is parroting views of the left brings a condemnation of my method...not a substantive rejoinder with evidence of the validity of those views (ie. “you’re generalizing”, “that book is stupid”)
stevie: your first bbc references takes a palestinian politican's hearsay as evidence for your claim.
"Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
this quote is laughable and hurts your argument about bush...rather than bolstering it.
stevie: you second link relies on the same hearsay and silliness.
your last link is a generally anti-religious commentary. his basic premise that because bush believes that god has a hand in his life that he is an unsound, unhinged zealot.
the belief that god is interested in our lives and will answer prayers is not a new idea.
the belief that anyone who believes that god can communicate with them is a paranoid zealot is a fairly recent argument. to say this idea is founded in secular thought may disallow you to engage my assertion...so i won't go that far.
it's just too easy to sidestep the argument and label arguer as a bigot, close minded and stupid. let's take the road less traveled here.
Stevie... we love you and all the issues you bring up for us. You leave for Italy today? yesterday? so if you read these while you are traveling, read them with an Italian accent and perhaps it will soften Paul's tone...
Wow, miss a day or two and look what happens!
Stevie, going to Rome at all? I envy you. I traded the chance to travel Europe for a laptop many years ago and now I feel foolish.
I, too, enjoyed many parts of the speach. I like that Romney didn't set himself up as a spokesman for the church I belong to (because he isn't). He really has been the target of many terrible and pointed attacks by the left and right about his religion.
Sure, his response comes at a convenient time just weeks before the Iowa primary, but last time I checked, his goal was the presidency... What is wrong with him timing things to give him (as he sees it) the best chance to win? I don't have a problem with the timing.
i wanted to add nate oman's comment on mitt is one of my favorites about mitt to date, "#
BTW, I think that Dehlin is right that Romney’s big problem isn’t religion but the apparent lack of clear poltiical convictions. For my money this problem is created by the fact that Romney doesn’t have a set of clear political convictions. I don’t think that this means, however, that he is a purely venal and opprotunistic politician dirven by nothing but personal ambition. (He does, of course, have immense personal ambition but nobody chooses to run for president who does not have immense personal ambition.) Rather, I think that it means that for Romney ideology is of secondary importance. I think that he has basically conservative instincts, but that these instincts are not articulated into an elaborate set of ideological first principles from which correct answers on disputed issues of policy are deduced. Rather, I think that Romney ultimately sees himself as a problem solver who is more interested in creating incremental improvements in institutional structture and policy rather than realizing some grand sense of “vision” for the country. I suspect that he sees ideological flip-flopping on hot button issues of limited practical significance as epiphenomenal window dressing. And the end of the day he is a technocrat rather than an ideolog. As a problem solver and technocrat, I think that he has better credentials than any other candiate — Democratic or Republican — in the race. (I would put Giullianni second; not as a technocrat but as a problem solver.) Simple competence plays badly in primaries, but I suspect that given the spectacular failures of the Bush administration — which overflows with “vision” — running on competence will play better than principles in the general election. Given the absence — from my point of view — of compelling ideological visions on either the left or the right, I am inclined to think that a technocrat with conservative instincts for a couple of years wouldn’t be such a bad thing, although on certain issues — like immigration for example — I am not a fan of Romney’s position or anyone else within the GOP right now.
Comment by Nate Oman — 12/6/2007 @ 1:18 pm"
the thread can be found here
for once i agree with matt:
"~miss a couple days and look what happens."
here are my two bits, trying my best to not take sides, although i tend to agree more with stephen than paul on this particular subject.
paul.
you made some valid points. but similarly to your hero, mitt, you seem way too eager to state them, belabor them, and then quote every source that has ever written on that matter (hyperbole intended, which i my opinion weakens your argument. the more succinct and valid points will stand on their own without heavy unnecessary explanation.
oh yeah and you can't quote stephen from other threads when the gravity of statements made are totally out of context, particularly if he's being inflammatory with humorous intent.
stephen.
you're right in that obama doesn't flaunt his religion like mitt does. but only because his base is different. (i think that point has been made, namely because its obvious). because their audiences are different, the things they flaunt are different. but the flaunting is still the same. shameless on both sides.
this is why i think we need more than two parties in american politics, thus forcing more compromise and team building to reach majorities. b/c if no one party has a majority, then all parties must work together to get anything accomplished.
otherwise you have to convince bible thumping, gun toting, gay hating, government-skeptical, anti-tax, anti-abortion, pro-school prayer, anti-flag burning, looneys that you are better than your baby-killing, tree-hugging, save the world, prius-driving, anti-family, universal health care providing intellectual, pacifist, sissy opponent. clearly there are more issues than just what two parties can provide. otherwise, the system will continue to polarize until absolutely nothing in washington get done. oh wait. that's this session of congress. failing to produce one piece of legislation to address important issues of our time.
i broke my own rules and wrote too much
Petey,
I think we can also agree that yellow bikes are cool.
May I ask a question of Petey and Stephen?...
How have your political views changed since moving to NYC, or have they changed at all? I am sure that your exposure to many issues has been dramatically increased since moving there and I would like to know how much that has influenced the way you look at life, politics, and the way it impacts us.
i guess there is meaning in the idea that i feel it necessary to give detailed explanations...
that quote of stevie's made for even more humor in context of the denials he made on this thread though right?
i agree with the polarization argument peter. i think a lot could be solved by disallowing the redrawing of districts by sitting officials. strict population blocks in squares or circles would go a long way towards moderating the voting block of each elected official...
it's nice to see you in california again petey...
I am left to assume Petey and Stephen refuse to answer questions unless they can do so in an argumentative fashion, even when asked directly...
they're hipsters...we mustn't hold it against them!
Post a Comment