Reporting that Romney "asserts his firm belief in the separation of church and state," Wash. Post did not note attack on "religion of secularism"
SUMMARY: In an article on Mitt Romney, The Washington Post reported that Romney "repeatedly asserts his firm belief in the separation of church and state" and quoted from Romney's "Faith in America" speech: "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." But the Post did not mention that, in that same speech, Romney attacked unnamed people who "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," or his claims that "[f]reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," and "[f]reedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
A December 10 Washington Post article about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reported that Romney "repeatedly asserts his firm belief in the separation of church and state" and quoted from Romney's December 6 "Faith in America" speech: "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. 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." But the Post article -- part of the Post's series "The Front-runners," which purports to provide "[a] revealing look at each of the leading presidential candidates" -- did not note, as Media Matters for America did, that in the same December 6 speech, Romney attacked unnamed people who "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," claiming, "It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong." Nor did the article note Romney's claims that "[f]reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," and "[f]reedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Additionally, as Media Matters documented, Romney has repeatedly said that he believes Americans "want a person of faith to lead them."
By contrast with the Post article, as Media Matters noted, on the December 6 edition of MSNBC Live, Washington Post reporter Sally Quinn said of Romney's speech: "I'm really stunned because I think it was an obliteration of the idea of the separation of church and state. He eliminated anybody who was a doubter, an atheist, an agnostic, a seeker. It's like, if you believe in God or Christ, you're on my side. If not, you're not."
In a column also published in the December 10 newspaper as part of the Post's "Front-runners" Romney package, Dana Milbank wrote:
After the speech, CNN's Dana Bash asked him to square his tough-on-immigration stance with his repeatedly allowing "contractors to be at your house who clearly have illegal immigrants working for them."
"I have certainly never proposed that homeowners have a responsibility," he wiggled.
Somebody asked whether Romney's assertion that "freedom requires religion" meant that a nonbeliever "can't be a free person."
"Of course not," he folded.
From Romney's December 6 speech:
ROMNEY: There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution" he said, "was made [sic: only] for a moral and religious people.' "
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.
Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.
[...]
ROMNEY: There is one fundamental question about which I'm often 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.
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. 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.
I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I've come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass; the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals; the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals; the confident independence of the Lutherans; the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages; and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I'm always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.
It's important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter -- on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
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's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
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.
From the December 10 Washington Post article:
Romney doesn't particularly like all that running for president entails. He entered the race mainly because he had the opportunity to do so, he said, and it would have been irresponsible not to seize it. Mormonism instilled in him the desire to serve and the confidence to lead. And, ironically, Mormonism now presents perhaps his biggest obstacle to fulfilling those tenets.
Romney's success in winning the conservative vote depends largely on how he appeals to evangelicals, some of whom consider Mormonism a cult. During campaign events, Romney has tried to cast himself as a run-of-the-mill Christian. He tells voters that, like many folks, he believes Jesus is his savior and that the Bible is the word of God. He denounces his church's long-abandoned practice of polygamy and repeatedly asserts his firm belief in the separation of church and state. When asked about some of Mormonism's particulars -- the practice of baptizing the dead, the requirement to wear holy undergarments -- Romney defers questions to church leaders.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines," he said last week in a speech at the George Bush Presidential Library that was designed to allay public misgivings about his Mormon faith. "To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. 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."
His religious beliefs aren't the only reason that he has had trouble with evangelicals. Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002 as a moderate Republican who supported abortion and gay rights. In his run for the GOP presidential nomination, he has repositioned himself as a conservative who favors overturning Roe v. Wade and not allowing gays in the military. His transformation has left some voters with the impression that he is a politician of convenience, willing to say whatever is necessary to win an election.
Romney has tried to counteract that perception by talking, constantly, about values. His father, who was elected governor of Michigan in 1962, brought his mother, Lenore, a fresh-cut rose every day, and Romney has shaped himself in his father's image. On George's advice, Romney went on his Mormon mission, made money in business before entering politics and raised a family loyal to the Mormon church. Romney likes to say that he and his wife, Ann, "have been going steady since high school." His campaign centerpiece is to "strengthen the American family," and he offers up his own family -- from his deceased parents to his grandchildren -- as a worthy example.
He did? Where and when did he do this? Sounds like he wants to make sure that everyone is a Christian, and in his speech last week, he sort of disenfranchised the folks in America who are either agnostic or atheist.
But, we all know that his speech was geared towards trying to bring the "religious right" vote to the house of Romney. Hopefully the religious right learned their lesson voting for Bush, because as far as I can tell, he didn't come through on any of the things he promised them.
You can still get an abortion if you so choose. He hasn't outlawed gays completely yet. And that's about it, or well, that about seems about as much as they (evangelical christians) care about, although there has been some changing going on lately. More religious right folks talking about environmentalism, charity, and you know, more christianed themese of tolerance and such.
he didn't come through on any of the things he promised them.
Might wanna take another look at the Supreme Court.
It would be more accurate to say that Romney firmly believes in the seperation of church FROM state.
But, if the church ran the state, he'd be okay with it.
I thought you were giving yourself an old English vibe as in 'Therick of York'.
Right church, wrong pew.
That's not even close to true. Romney wants the government to mandate religious indoctrination.
Mitt Romney will protect you from those Evil Dark Sided people just like this God warrior.
[link to video.google.com] dark sided people are coming!!!!! What is our Christian Nation going to do!!!!!
[link to www.youtube.com]
There ya go...the GOP base.
"Freedom requires religion"--Mitt Romney.
The far right applauds while the founding fathers roll over in their graves.
Roll over? Hell, they're spinning!
you haven't read what the founding fathers had to say about the subject, have you? try looking up washington's first inaugural speech for starters. go on try it... it will be fun!
Try reading Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. Seeing as Jefferson wrote the first amendment, I'd suspect he's the authority on it.
Washington was just a mediocre general who got lucky.
If we're going to throw around Founding Father quotes, I also recommend reading the thoughts of James Madison, who is known as the "father of the Constitution." He makes reference more than once to the Separation of Church and State, despite the Bible Thumpers' claim that Jefferson is the only person who ever said it.
Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in about Washington and the founding fathers. They were all freemasons and the freemasons were the ones being persecuted by the religions and that is why this country was founded.
I have a collection of masonic books from the founding of our country and a masonic encyclopedic set all over 200 years old that have all of the details. If you are interested the books can usually be found by rare book dealers and the encyclopedc set is the best to get.
I digress, freemason philosophy is the backbone of the declaration of indepence and our constitution, regardless of what they may have said in public to the witch burning masses to get them to fight, doesn't change the fact that freemasons do not believe in god in the tradtional sense and they are not xians. So tell yourself whatever you need to sleep at night but we have never had a president that wasn't a mason. Their symbols are everywhere.
I guess it was just a coincedience that bush jr just happened to join the evangelical church, the only church capable of handing him the election. I am sure he's a true believer *lol*
I also think the phrase "endowed by their creator" says it all. It doesn't say "God" "Lord" "Jesus" "Holy Spirit" or any other xian word. Creator is intentially vague and the use of their instead of our is also pretty revealing.
Let those, who will, see.
you are correct, they were certainly not all christians, but most freemasons believed in a 'Supreme Being' and the founding fathers most assuredly believed that the had this 'Being's' blessing upon there ventures of independence.i believe that lincoln was not a mason, but it was sheer dumb luck that he was elected anyway... and perhaps had something to do with his untimely demise.
you haven't read
I'll see your George Washington and raise you a Thomas Jefferson, a Benjamin Franklin, a James Madison, a Thomas Paine, and an Ethan Allen. (Admittedly, the last two are not considered "Founding Fathers" but I doubt the others would refuse their company.) There are others.Washington's case is an interesting one. He invoked the name of "the Almighty Being" in public but barely mentioned religion in his thousands of private letters. (He assuredly was no Christian; neither his first inaugural nor his farewell address, nor any of his letters, mention Jesus Christ.) There is good reason to believe that his public references were because he thought them politically expedient, not to say necessary. The opprobrium that greeted Thomas Paine upon publication of The Age of Reason, in which he attacked the authority of the Bible, denunciations that came despite the fact that within it he declared himself a devout believer in a creator God, shows that Washington's concern was not an idle one.In Washington's farewell address, there is not a single mention of "God" or the Bible or Jesus and just one passing reference to the "Almighty" at the tail end. He does use the general term "religion," but it's so generalized as to make it hard to distinguish it from "a guiding principle for a system of moral beliefs," a phrase even the strictest atheist could embrace. In that light, it's worth noting that the conclusion he offered from his reference to "religion and morality" was "Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge."The bottom line here is that the Founding Fathers were not atheists in the sense that we understand the term; they did believe in a "creator." And they did hold that some belief in a "higher power," some creative even if impersonal force worthy of profound admiration, is a necessary basis for morality.
But they did not all agree that such a power took any role in human affairs, they specifically rejected the idea that religious belief of any sort (including the "infidel" "Musselmen," i.e., Muslims) was a disqualification for political involvement in the affairs of a free nation, and the concept of religion as Romney intended it, which involves membership in a church, would have outraged many of them.
Sorry for that run-on first paragraph. It was four separate paragraphs when I hit "Post." :-(
I strongly recommend that all Republicans read "The Age of Reason", Parts 1 and 2. It's a magnificent foray into free thought. It would probably make their heads explode (figuratively, of course).
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."- President George Washington"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"- President Thomas Jefferson"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."- Patrick Henry"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."- John Jay"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."- President John Adams"The rights to freedom being the gift of God Almighty...'The Rights of the Colonists as Christians' may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."- Samuel Adams"Have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir (Madison) a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this: and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."- Benjamin Franklin
G.W. Bush also makes xian quotes, that doesn't mean he is an xian. He is a self-admitted member of skull & bones, freemasons.
You are the very reason they pretend to be xian cuz you will throw your vote away on anyone who tells you what you want to hear.
Maybe I'll join the evangelical church and become president next :-) You would vote for me, all I have to say is jesus jeusu jesus.
Also, doesn't he realize that the whole "Under God" phrasing placed into the Pledge came in the 50's? Same thing for the mention of "God" on our money, the 1950's, no from the Founding Fathers.
There is no mention of God in the Constitution. There is talk of a creator in the Declaration, but the Declaration has no force of law. It's a press release issued by the founders stating their desire to become independent. An important document in the history of the United States, yes, but holds no sway in law, only the Constitution does that, which again, does not mention God.
Mitt, nobody wants to remove religion from the public square. We want to remove it from the government square. Why do we need the 10 commandments on the walls of courts? We don't. They have no bearing in a court of law. By placing them there, you are giving, or maintaining an assertion that it is a Christian court of law. It's not. It's a court governed by laws that sprung forth from our Constitution, and again, no mentions of God or religion in there (except for the whole separation church state, etc. etc..).
Mitt is just trying to win religious right votes. That's all he's doing. He's not trying to inform people of his religious views, he's just trying to win votes, and that's OK, no, really, it is. I mean, that's what campaigns are all about, just don't try to pass it off as something more you schmuck.
The only reason why "God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is to spell out the document's rationale, which is an avowal of natural rights and its New World ramifications.
That's it. It's not an angry, vengeful, operative, or overseeing god, in any case.
only reason why "God" is mentioned
Actually, there is no reference to "God" in the Declaration but to "Nature's God" and a "Creator," terms which had real meaning in the period, especially for those Founding Fathers who were deists.
Specifically, they referred to the concept of a creative force (which may or may not have been a conscious entity) responsible for the creation of the universe and the laws of nature by which it functions but which does not interfere in the day-to-day functioning of those laws and even less in the affairs of creatures such as ourselves.
MAGNOLIALOVER - Not sure if Romney realizes all (or any of) the things you mention in the first 2 paragraphs, but I'm almost certain that most Americans don't.
If you are a big believer in "the pendulum theory" like I am, I think that we have reason to be optimistic. What all those examples show is just how long it has taken to swing so far to the extreme right, which is the position the pendulum is at in this point in time. God and religion creeping into our government did not just happen overnight. Console yourself in the fact that the pendulum has only one way to go - and that is back to the positions that our founding fathers and the constitution deemed it to be. The times they are a changin'.
Same thing for the mention of "God" on our money, the 1950's, no from the Founding Fathers.
Actually, "In God We Trust" on coins came about during the Civil War, but your point remains every bit as valid.
On currency, this wasn't until 1964...
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
That same Treasury Dept. link also says that "In God We Trust" did not appear on all US coins until 1938.
Again, as we all seem to agree, the point is that the motto cannot be traced to the Founding Fathers.
Oops, my timelines were all messed up. I get what you guys are saying though. Founding Fathers didn't put that stuff on there. It was later on down the line. I think the Pledge didn't have the Under God wording until much later on.
It's also interesting to note that the words "So help me God" are NOT in the President's Oath as it appears in the Constitution.
romney did exactly the opposite of what the post claims. it was kennedy who insisted on such a separation.
This Washington Post article is enough to make me wanna bring out my Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet Complete Seasons Box Set DVDs and just sit in front of my TV for a week.
Off to Lonesome Town, eh?
Oh yeah, Ricky Nelson - my 1st boy crush at age 8 - forgot all about him (at least conciously - LOL)
No actually - as I was reading this, I was thinking of America's deep love afair with the "perfect family" as portrayed in the Wahington Post article. That is what's being sold here, right?
BTW, I don't really have the box set.;)
Hey, don't knock Ricky Nelson. My mom (class of 56) loved him so much she named her first born after him. True.
i think ricky was a real talent. he gets knocked because of his family connections, as if he could not have made it on his own. all i need to hear is something like fools rush in and i'm turning up the radio.
"America's deep love afair with the "perfect family"
That's a good point. A lot of what we call the "Conservative movement" is rooted in a nostalgia for the mythical "good old days", fueled in part by those idealized TV shows of the 50s and 60s. We'd all like to live in Mayberry, but was there ever really a town like that? Did anybody's Mom really dress like June Cleaver? I recommend a book called "The Way We Never Were", which addresses this phenomenon.
I'm glad MMFA caught these comments of Romneys. I couldn't believe them when first heard them. They reminded me of John Kasich's wacky remarks against Michael Newdow a few years ago, when he claimed that the 'Pledge of Allegiance' is, quote, "not religious.. it's just an affirmation that we were all created under an almighty god..."
The expression on Newdow's face was priceless. Ah, that religion of secularism and atheism...
carlileb, I don't recall that, but have seen the same thinking at this site with the recent religious topics, and I think I'm learning a few things.
The impression I get is that many religious people aren't driven by any malicious or controlling motives in imposing their beliefs, there seems to just be a real misunderstanding of those who are not religious.
Over the past few days, I've seen the usual "Atheism/Secularism is a religion" themes that I used to consider calculated spin. The more I see of it, I think these things are said in earnest.
To the True Believers,the idea of not believing in supernatural forces controlling the universe is so alien, they seem to think that not specifying a denomination or a particular God is being inclusive of everybody.
the idea of not believing ... is so alien
HBL, I think you're absolutely right. I've experienced exactly that sort of thing.
The argument goes something like this: Upon learning that I'm an atheist, my interlocutor wants to know if I can conclusively prove the non-existence of God. Of course not, the requirements of proving a negative being quite high to begin with.
Well, in that case, you are forced to admit, aren't you, that there is some possibility, even if a remote one, that God exists. Therefore, what I'm actually saying (or so I'm informed at this point) is that I'm not sure if God exists or not. So I'm not an atheist at all, I'm an agnostic!
And for some reason, they're much more comfortable with that.
(Sidebar: If you note in reply that by their own argument they are also agnostics since despite a few thousand years of philosophical argument there is no conclusive proof of the existence of God, you will be told that their faith is their justification and that no absolute proof is required. That is, they get to play by different rules.)
I usually start (if they insist on being rudely persistent and arrogant about it) by asking them to define "god" and then proceed to show how the very definition is so hopelessly devoid of any chance of either proof of nonexistence or of existence that, in reality, they've said nothing by asserting no definition at all, which means they don't know what they're talking about.
That's an excellent demonstration of how theism and atheism are not two different sides of the same coin, as I've said elsewhere. The existence of a God could be proven by God, if it exists. But that's what faith is all about, believing in something without any evidence. Atheists simply don't do that. Any belief that there is no God is based on the evidence of the real world, and based on the lack of evidence of anything beyond that.
The line between atheism and agnosticism is blurry. By different dictionary definitions I could be either. But since the actual word means "without a God", I find that the more appropriate title.
I think the conversation you speak of is an attempt to make atheism something irrational, when it isn't. I would never say there is zero possibility of any otherworldly theory. I would never say that there is no God no matter what. Those would be irrational statements. But I can still say "I do not believe in God".
Theists may be more comfortable with agnosticism as opposed to atheism, but you should try visiting an atheism/agnosticism discussion site. They can get pretty forceful in their arguments. Many would rather be labeled theists than to be placed in the other camp.
I've never been quite sure into which group I fall. I will concede there is a slim chance that there are entities with powers outside natural laws, but I consider it to be highly unlikely. However, whatever comfort a theist might gain from that concession will usually vanish when I explain that I feel very confident that even if such powers exist humans have absolutely no knowledge of their existence, nature or desires. In other words, all religions that extend beyond natural law are wrong.
As much as I consider it to be a huge leap of logic to the idea that such magical superbeings exist, it seems to me to be an even larger leap to the idea that there would only be one such being. I'll never understand how monotheism gained such a following.
First they had poly-theism.
That developed into mono-theism.
So... they're always getting closer to the actual number!
Bible Thumpers will insist that Christianity's early survival and prosperity are somehow "proof" of its truth. I would argue that it had more to do with the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Catholic Church found fertile ground in the ignorance and fear that followed.
That would be a strange argument to make, considering the number of Muslims on the planet.
I'm basically with you guys, but my argument is a little different. I actually DO believe in [a] God, ar at the least the idea of a God. I just don't believe that any (man-made) religion has any real understaidng of him/her. I don't doubt God - I doubt any and all man-made creations (the bible, koran, tora, rituals, churches, etc...) having any divine or sacred value.
When you pin someone down on exactly HOW the bible (for example) was created, it becomes absolutely laughable to argue that it is the absolute and ifallible WORD of GOD.
I'm actually OK with God - it's his idiot followers that I have problems with! And my hostility, which I make little effort to hide, is with RELIGION, rather than with GOD. But God is (and should be) a personal matter. Not something to kill people over, or to use as a tool to get elected.
Which version of the Lord's Prayer is he going to make the public school kids say?
(THAT should make for an interesting starter-discussion!)
For that matter, which version of the Ten Commandments do they want posted?