Couric did not challenge Romney's claim that "[n]o religious test should ever be required for qualification for office"
SUMMARY: On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked Mitt Romney "why he didn't spend more time explaining the tenets of his Mormon faith in his speech last week." Romney replied: "I can't imagine doing that in a speech as you're running for president. ... [T]hat would really open the door to the kind of religious test where people would listen and say, 'OK, do I believe that?' " He later stated that "[n]o religious test should ever be required for qualification for office in these United States." But Couric did not note that Romney has repeatedly asserted that Americans "want a person of faith to lead them."
On the December 10 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, during an interview with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, anchor Katie Couric asked him "why he didn't spend more time explaining the tenets of his Mormon faith in his speech last week." Romney replied: "I can't imagine doing that in a speech as you're running for president. ... [T]hat would really open the door to the kind of religious test where people would listen and say, 'OK, do I believe that?' " Romney went on to state, "No religious test should ever be required for qualification for office in these United States." However, Couric did not note that Romney himself has repeatedly asserted that Americans "want a person of faith to lead them," as Media Matters for America has documented.
For example:
- In his December 6 "Faith in America" 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." Romney further claimed that "[f]reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," and "[f]reedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
- Responding to host Chris Wallace's assertion that "evangelicals ... say Mormonism is a cult," on the February 26 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Romney asserted: "Well, I think people in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their governor, as their senator, as their president. I don't think most people care what brand of faith they have. ... Those things, I think, get swept away as people get to know the individual, understand their character, their vision, their values, and I think that's true regardless of a person's faith if they are a faithful person."
- On the March 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, when co-host Sean Hannity stated that "it seems like" the media "are creating ... a religious litmus test" by asking Romney about his Mormonism, Romney replied: "[F]rankly, the people I talk to, not necessarily the reporters, but the people I talk to in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina tell me time and again they want a person of faith to lead the country, but they don't particularly care what brand of faith it is so long as the person has American values. And if you look at my marriage, and you look at our family and our kids, and the values that we've tried to instill in each one of our kids, you'll see that the values that I have are as American as any in this great country."
- During an interview with Austin American-Statesman chief political reporter W. Gardner Selby, published in the November 22 edition of the paper, Romney reportedly stated: "I don't think people know a lot about my faith. But what I learn as I go about the country is that people want a person of faith to lead the country, but they don't particularly care what brand of faith that is, so long as the values that person has are American values. ... Now, if people want to know more about my particular faith, they can contact my church."
As Media Matters has noted, several news outlets have uncritically reported Romney's comments on faith in politics. For instance, The Washington Post reported on December 10 that Romney "repeatedly asserts his firm belief in the separation of church and state." In a December 6 article, the Associated Press reported Romney's complaint that a "religious test" to become president was "prohibited in the Constitution." Further, on the December 9 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, panelists praised Romney's December 6 speech, with syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker claiming, "New Englanders tend to respond to religion more in terms of liberty and tolerance than in terms of emotional responses."
From the December 10 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: Mitt Romney will air the first Republican-on-Republican attack ad in Iowa tomorrow, criticizing Mike Huckabee's record on illegal immigration. Today, I talked to Romney about Huckabee and about religion, specifically why he didn't spend more time explaining the tenets of his Mormon faith in his speech last week.
[begin video clip]
.ROMNEY: I can't imagine doing that in a speech as you're running for president, because what it would do is, it would say: Look, if you're running for president, you really need to describe your religion in some depth. And that would really open the door to the kind of religious test where people would listen and say, "OK, do I believe that? Do I disagree with it? Does it conform with my own view?"
It would say: We're going to evaluate candidates based upon their explanation of their religion. And that's precisely what the Constitution and the founders said we should not do. No religious test should ever be required for qualification for office in these United States.
COURIC: Having said that, in the absence of a religious test, what's wrong with a little religious clarification?
ROMNEY: Well, and that's, I think, what I did. I pointed out and provided the answers to the questions I think are appropriate: "Will you be there to take direction from the leaders of your church?" And I said no. "Will you be there primarily, or in any way, to represent your church and to try and put its interests ahead of the people's?" The answer is absolutely not.
COURIC: In Iowa, Governor Mike Huckabee has TV ads that describe him, in quite a prominent way, as a Christian leader. Do you think he's trying to draw a distinction between the two of you?
ROMNEY: People run their own campaigns as they want to. I do think it's important that we don't reject someone for political office based on their faith, but also that we don't select someone or elect someone merely because of their faith. And I think it's unusual to advertise your faith in your political campaign.
Aside from Romney outright lying, why did Couric get picked to do the evening *news*..?? Was it because the morning *show* she was on was so darn laudable...??
Could you please explain to me exactly what he lied about
I should amend my post to say he's being passively dishonest because he says he's asked people what they want in a leader and they replied 'a person of faith', which he is... if you believe what those people told him, then a person not-of-faith wouldn't have a shot at becoming president... being religious then becomes the FIRST thing one would have to 'prove' in order to be considered for a leadership role... it is a litmus 'test'...
There can't be a gov't sanctioned litmus test. Romney can't control whether the electorate prefers a person of religious affiliation. Thankfully, neither can the thought police of the partisan liberal left. His comments that voters prefer religious candidates is entirely distinct from the issue of 'litmus test'.
"There can't be a gov't sanctioned litmus test."
Mr.L didn't say anything about government sanctioned. But that's exactly how Romney is being dishonest. The "religious test" he's talking about is a government rule, as opposed to dealing with the people's opinions as Romney seems to be claiming.
"His comments that voters prefer religious candidates is entirely distinct from the issue of 'litmus test'."
No, that preference is the litmus test Mr.L is talking about. If that's what people want, then obviously you have to prove that you are in accordance with that or you don't have a chance.
So what would you like to do, preclude the public from considering a candidate's religion in deciding who to vote for? Like it or not, the secular liberals cannot yet control the thoughts of the majority of Americans. Again, that the public prefers religious candidates does not mean there's litmus test. Candidates may freely try to persuade the public that voting for religious candidates is dumb and backwards.
I realize that you're implying that there's a de facto litmus test, but again, that's only because someone has not convinced the electorate that a person's religion does not matter . . .
That is understood- the problem is Romney saying there shouldn't be, but at the same time pandering (by his words and actions and those places he goes) to those who believe so...
Understood. I don't care for Romney and find him incredibly difficult to defend as an honest straight-shooter. Besides Hillary, he's likely the most opportunistic bull-sh. . .tter in the race. So I will stop.
Of course I wouldn't preclude any such thing.
A litmus test is a litmus test until it's abandoned. Just because it's not something that necessarily will last forever doesn't change what it is.
Romney said, "we need to have a person of faith lead the country."
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/19/romney-we-need-to-have-a-person-of-faith-lead-the-country/
And now we have a knucklehead in congress introducing legislation honoring Christmas because he thinks we are a christian nation honoring christian principles. All you non christians out there voting republican, your party just turned on you.
I dont really see a contradiction here. I would PREFER a liberal be president but that doesnt mean I would deny that a conservative has a RIGHT to be president. If the majority of the people PREFERRED a liberal be president that isnt saying that the government shouldnt ALLOW a conservative to be president. You guys know I am not going to vote for Romney under any circumstances but I dont agree with this one.
And he says people are taking the separation of church and state 'way too far' and away from its original intent- as if he can really know when it's 'too far'... I think the intent is very clear- get your religion out of your ideas as to how to run the country...
"I think the intent is very clear- get your religion out of your ideas as to how to run the country..."
No, I think the 'intent' was to prevent a religion/church being co-controller of government actions (like was present in the UK back then-and one of the reasons many left the UK for America). The 'intent' has never been to require the President to 'not be religious'. If that was the case then how did Carter get past your standards? Virtually EVERY President has been religious to one extent or another. You want Michael Newdow to be President? Then vote for him. But, doesn't he belong to some kind of freaky 'church of the non-religious'? Darn, even those nasty atheist's have a religion.
And seriously, what the heck does his 'freedom REQUIRES religion..' quote mean other that one MUST have religion...?? that box even Pandora wouldn't touch...
Sounds like a secular society couldn't possibly be free...somehow.
Don't forget that the other side of his argument is equally stupid. "Religion requires freedom". So I guess that all those horrible regimes throughout the world are secular? What about those islamo-fascists I'm supposed to be scared of?
'freedom REQUIRES religion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
This made absolutely no sense. I am a person of faith and I don't understand what he was talking about. The converse of what he said is true, freedom to choose or not to choose a religion requires a tolerant and free society. It's not the other way around. This is just another example of Romney's disingenousness and he is attempting to pander to religious bigots that probably won’t accept him anyway because they believe he follows the wrong religion. I certainly hope that neither Romney nor Huckabee who seems to believe like GW that God wants him to be president wins the presidency. I don’t believe either understands or respects the free will that allows us as individuals to choose to believe in God or to choose not to believe in God. Romney and Huckabee both conflate being ethical and moral with being religious and that’s BS.MR.L,BRABANTIO,JAWILL11,LYNN,NICEGUYEDDIE.The following is from George Washington's farewell address to the people of the U.S. I think Romney is in good company. "Of all the dispositions and habits,which lead to political prosperity ,Religion and Morality are indispensible supports.In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness,these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.Let it simply be asked,Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths,which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without Religion.Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education of minds of particular structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
It's absurd. It's why he's dangerous, more so eve than Bush, and Huckabee is even more so. Religion has NO PLACE in government and niether does anyone who doesn't understand that.
romney means freedom requires one of the christian denominations. the idea of christianity is fine, do unto others, it's just when the churches get a hold of it..... i saw the movie elizabeth recently and she said something that may have been a screenwriter's invention, but was still true. the quote was "the spanish armada approaches our coast, bearing in it's bowels the inquisition." [other excellent movies lately, american gangster, no country for old men, and love in the time of cholera. i thought hollywood had forgotten how to make good movies.]
Of course no religious test should be a qualifier for running for office, but that has nothing to do with the fact that most people would rather vote for a presidential candidate who is a person of faith, as opposed to one who is not. That is the reality.
All the candidates from both parties love to bring up their faith all the time, and they don't do it to let their church know how religious they are, they do it to let the voting public know.
In all seriousness, is that actually the reality? And is it just 'any' religion, or does it have to be Christianity? I think Romney is an absolute tool, and a liar, and far from a suitable leader of anything, let alone the USA, but i do have some sympathy for his little religion tight-rope
That is the reality, sadly. And it probably does mean Christians specifically, since that's what we've elected so far.
There's a certain irony in the juxtaposition of the 'seperation of church of state' and the necessity of being a white, Christian male to be eligible for the Oval Office.
the way things are going, it's going to be 'separation of conservative neo-cons (with their guns and bibles and judgements) and everyone else...'- for better or for worse...
I agree. I'd love to see an agnostic president.
"Do you believe in God?"
"What does that have to do with government policy?"
"Uhhh..."
"Exactly."
hahaha... nice.
This thinking demonstrates the problem. We don't want to see an agnostic president, or a mormon president, or a christian president.
A great man who is an american and happens to be agnostic could be elected president in our country. He just has to be an american first.
It's nice to believe that, but the polls don't back it up. Surely there's some great man out there who would at least take a shot at it if it was feasible.
"And it probably does mean Christians specifically, since that's what we've elected so far."
There's a web site that lists the religion of each President. You might want to read up on some history before you start claiming that ONLY Christians need apply for the job. A couple showed little to no respect for religion, yet still led 'moral' (relative to their times) lives.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
I agree that most people do want the candidate to practice religion, but I think they prefer that candidate actually share their specific faith. Absent that, they want them to be at least fall within their general belief system, i.e., Christian or Jew. I exclude the rest because those minority religions won't be represented on the federal field for a very long time.
Personally, I am a non-believer and get to endure any number of baseless and derogatory descriptions of my value system on the grounds that people of faith simply can't believe that someone would choose to act in any selfless way without the threat of eternal damnation hovering about. But, then, the whole belief test is simply a black-white categoricalization anyway. Afterall, the jails are filled with the faithful.
"on the grounds that people of faith simply can't believe that someone would choose to act in any selfless way without the threat of eternal damnation hovering about"
I'm going to hope to get you to qualify this statement to "SOME people of faith"...because we aren't ALL that disbelieving. My faith does not depend on either the hope of reward or the fear of punishment. I am a Christian, I do not believe in either heaven as a reward, or hell as a punishment.
Yes, I mean some. Sorry. However, you are rather unique not believing in heaven or hell and being a Christian. Christ is recorded as speaking to the existence of both many times and the difficulties in reaching the Kingdom of his Father.
Cannon,
I believe in heaven & hell, but I figure only the scum of the earth will end up in hell. Some of us might wander around in purgatory for a bit, then eventually gain entrance into heaven ;-)
"most people would rather vote for a presidential candidate who is a person of faith, as opposed to one who is not. That is the reality."
Since we're dealing w/ reality here, is that 51% or 99% of people who favor religious presidents?
Nicely done. Obvioulsy, we have no data here, but these polls surely exist. Do you think that people of faith don't care? I think they do. But how much and how many is a good question.
People "care" about whatever limited and leading questions they are asked. At the end of the day, votes are cast for the lesser of two evils and "god" has nothing to do with it.
Governor, you sound about as defeated as I feel. I am so tired of the lessor of two evils.
or even the lesser of two evils
Sorry, I am tired of the lessee of two evils...
According to this poll, 53% would definitely not vote for an atheist. 45% would, but that may not hold up with everything else being equal. When faced with a choice of two candidates of equal merit, many of those 45% might still vote for the more religious candidate.
That's a pretty serious handicap to start off with.
I find that so ridiculous. Its so two-faced of people to apparently accept the separation of church and state, and then insist on religion existing within the executive. The two things can't coexist! I mean, you can say you'd prefer someone with the same values as you, but that doesn't justify EXCLUDING someone who doesn't go to church.
I have to be serious, these problems are not problems in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, in terms of Prime Ministers. The USA has some serious issues with their 'democratic' system and its a little scary to see that those issues are ingrained in the attitudes of the people as well.
What exactly are the serious issues we face with our democratic system?
Oh, how about lobbyists? Since we're "by the people, for the people," do you think most lobbyists represent our best interests, or the interests of a soulless corporation whose only god is profit? I wish to believe the former, but I know it's the latter.
ok, fair point, corporate America's domination of the national agenda. stick that in there.
you have a two party system, for one. you have incredibly low voter participation. you have problems with vote counting and election fraud, and you have a population that will apparently only elect Christian presidents.
thats all :P
Considering the topic here is the religiousness of candidates, I will stick with that and I would say that the freedom people have to vote for whomever they choose for whatever reasons they choose is a strength, not a weakness.
'What exactly are the serious issues we face with our democratic system?'
That was your question. It would be a little ridiculous for you to insinuate I was off topic in answering it, considering you directed it at me.
Yes, it is a strength that people are free to choose who they like. If you really think a choice between two right white Christian males represents a democratic system, well good on you. I happen to disagree. Especially in the context of demanding the 'separation of church and state.'
Demanding the separation of church and state, so in your mind you believe that disqualifies those of faith from seeking public office? Because it absolutely does not disqualify those of no faith from seeking public office.
what are you even talking about? you're not even addressing the questions i respond to you're just meandering. where did i say 'no religious person should hold office?' is that what you're pretending i said? its pathetic. What i'm refering to is Romney's assertion that we NEED a person of faith as president, which flies in teh face of separating church and state.
lame, tommy. lame.
I don't care what Romney said, his opinion is his own. If he wants to hold candidates to a specific religious test, that is his business. As it is everyone elses.
I don't know what your point is except your incessant trashing of the United States and telling us how messed up we are. Consider your scolding falling flat.
Lollerskates! If you don't care what Romney said, then why are you arguing with me when I'm addressing what Romney said!? You're just posting for the sake of posting.
As for 'his opinion is his own,' well yes, thats an utterly redundant truism, isnt it? But the point of this thread is a comparison of Romneys arguably conflicting opinions. So if you dont care, dont post. If you think my talking about American democracy, or American's preferring religious leaders, or a failing two-party system and low voter turnout, is all irrelevant to that discussion, then don't bother replying?! LOL! Its your favourite adage! Its a difference of opinion Tommy. If my scolding is falling flat (im not scolding) then why dont you challenge me on my criticism of American democracy? unless its irrelevant...in which case... dont respond... or something....
By the by, I love California. And New Jersey... but its irrelevant. My not living in the US has nothing to do with my opinion on the US. Thats an ad hominem argument. If you think I'm wrong, prove it.
Joad,
Romney's two statements don't really conflict. They simply reflect how most here in the states feel.
Religion should not be a qualifier for President, yet most Americans would prefer a person of faith. And like you and others have pointed out that likely means the Christian faith. Let's just say it's a part of our American culture. You can argue it shouldn't be, but it's like baseball & football being our preferred sports over cricket & rugby, that's simply who we are.
BTW, I work with a guy who has family in New Zealand [Hastings I think was the town/city] & they visited several years ago and had nothing but praise for your island nation.
Religion should not be a qualifier for President, yet most Americans would prefer a person of faith. And like you and others have pointed out that likely means the Christian faith. Let's just say it's a part of our American culture. [...], that's simply who we are.
That's not who I am.
I don't care what the polls say.
hehe. yeah i can see why you say they don't conflict Jeter. And i guess lots would agree and some would disagree about your 'American way' thoughts.
Hastings is pretty small but its a nice play. Good coast good surf :)
You tell me that we face serious issues with our democratic system -and then proceed to tell me Romney's personal opinion as some backup to that assertion. And I am telling you that his personal opinion is irrelevant to that. As for American choosing religious leaders, considering we have a strong and vital constitution that seperates church and state, that is also irrelevant....it doesn't matter how religious, or non-religious they are when it comes to policy and governing.
As for your opinions of American democracy, this particular thread topic is about religion and our candidates - your opinions of our democracy outside of that have no relevance to this discussion, sorry.
I am glad you love California and New Jersey.
Please direct me to the relevant portion of that post.
I have no idea what you are asking, so I will say what I believe another way.
Tomjoad apparently thinks that all these religious questions regarding our presidential candidates and whether we have "tests" or not based on one's faith is some weakness in our democratic system, and somehow shows that the constitutional lines that seperate church and state are blurred as a result. I think just the opposite. These discussions are healthy to sort out this issue and clarify what our consititution says and how this seperation is protected, and stronger than any election cycle or any party, or any candidate.
It highlights our freedoms to choose candidates based on many factors, including religion if we so choose, it is up to the individual. However, no candidate is vaulted above any other based on their faith, nor are they disqualified due to their lack of it. They are free to campaign on it if they wish and may garner some votes for, and won't get some because of it as well......it is a person's right to make that determination for themselves. The beauty of our democracy.
We as a country are better off when we hash these things out, not weaker.
“no candidate is vaulted above any other based on their faith, nor are they disqualified due to their lack of it.” “most people would rather vote for a presidential candidate who is a person of faith, as opposed to one who is not. That is the reality.” These assertions seem contradictory to me.
They aren't. You are confusing people's choices and preferences which can vault anybody anywhere.
Oh ok. So my opinions about American Democracy have no relevance.... but you asked me to highlight problems with American democracy directly.... so..... I mean I'm confused. Why did you ask me that question if its not relevant? I'm not being rhetorical, I genuinely want your explanation.
"You tell me that we face serious issues with our democratic system -and then proceed to tell me Romney's personal opinion as some backup to that assertion. "
No. I said American's refusing to vote for someone who isn't religious (and as Jeter rightly points out, that probably means Christian) as the poll shown suggests, is to me, a problem, when that democracy is founded on a separation of church of state. If religion should be seperated from state, then it shouldn't matter if your head of state is religious or not. Thats my opinion.
I told you the US faced serious issues with democracy, and when you asked me to clarify, i included a list of things (although according to you they are irrelevant, despite your question). You are yet to address those issues, so I assume you're still either confused about their relevancy, despite your question, or you've accepted that in fact they are problems. in which case I'm right.
"it doesn't matter how religious, or non-religious they are when it comes to policy and governing. "
I really don't agree with that. George Bush has used his God to justify a lot of things, and if I remember correctly, that includes aspects of his illegal invasion of Iraq. Oooo now thats off topic. Or is it. Because his appeals to faith, shared by apparently a majority of Americans, are dangerous, because (although I disagree with Dawkins about a lot of things) as Dawkins suggests, faith and reason don't always go hand in hand. See we outside of the United States have long questioned why after a massively failed illegal war, you re-elected george bush. Especially when you consider I have had friends in Iraq as a direct consequence. So when Romney says 'we need a person of faith to run this country,' to me thats a whole massive can of worms.
Well i could go on. But i wouldn't want to be accused of irrelevancy lol.
For the last time, I asked you that question as it related specifically to the topic of this thread, which is religion and presidential candidates.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
what do you mean for the last time? you never addressed it before. and i've explained how it related. and you smushed my answer into something you could argue against.
im trying to work out if you sit at your keyboard giggling because you get these careful responses from posters like me, or whether you're genuinely so incompetent you don't understand whats fundamentally wrong with your arguments, in particular, how you just meander away from things when you dont like them and readjust the discussion to something you feel you're able to address.
i have a feeling its a little from column a, a little from column b. You're yet to address anything substantial i had to say without re-hashing it. i sick of wasting mine and every other posters time with your back-and-forths so ill only respond when you have something worth responding too. ooo i know you think thats a lame threat but its more an fyi.
Thank you. Considering your circular arguments go nowhere, and you somehow expect me to follow you down some rathole where you can use it to sit there and tell me what's wrong with our democracy on unrelated and irrelevant issues to this particular topic, or because you don't have a leg to stand on in trashing our very clear constitional guidelines and seperations between church and state.
So you grab onto to Romney's words as some evidence that that seperation is crumbling because Bush took us to war and we re-elected him, or some such idiotic nonsense......I can't even follow your arguments so your ignoring me is quite welcomed, believe me.
You offer nothing. As I said yesterday, we are bombarded daily with those who trash our country out of nothing more than petty and obvious jealousy, you are no different. We are quite used to it. Many hate the US for it is the greatest country on this planet, despite our many failings. Which explains why millions each year immigrate here. I would hope you are proud of your country as well, but I would think trashing another is a poor way of showing it, but that's me.
Have a wonderful evening.
ooooo, so you're one of THOSE.... now i understand.
Many hate the US for it is the greatest country on this planet, despite our many failings.
What country do you rank 2nd?
and please don't misrepresent my arguments. I didn't say anything about questions relating to faith being a weakness in American democracy.
right=rich
Some people have as many as 4 fast food restaurants to choose from. The downside is that they all suck.
thats pretty meaningless to me. I'm not saying multi-party democracy is perfect, but in my mind its better than a choice between, say, Al Gore and George Bush, who at campaign time had very little differentiating them. In, for example a Mixed-Member-Proportional system, a massive array of policies and agendas are represented in parliament, and needn't be black/white yes/no. I vote uner MMP and only a couple of my options really suck :P
No doubt it’s ridiculous but… Do you want me start a list of other ridiculous ideas that are prevalent in America? Certain people have their ideas of what it means to be gay, a Catholic, a Mormon, a Jew,… – and I’ll bet you the majority of Americans are ridiculously wrong about those ideas too.
I agree with you. Religion - or any religion’s doctrines, symbols, traditions, or beliefs- does not belong in our government PERIOD. A few months ago I had to “swear in” on a bible (in a private office) as the executor of an estate I am handling. Just before I said my “I do”, I looked up at the clerk, and just to make a point - and (probably) piss her off - I said, “This book means nothing to me, I’m an atheist – but I promise I’ll tell the truth”. LOL
Now, are there going to be people who vote for someone because of their religion, yes. I’m sure more than a few Catholic Republicans voted for JFK. The same for voting for Hillary because she is a woman, or Obama because he is black. And I’m sure it works the other way also! Let’s face it – it happens, so why should this election be any different?
As for the rest of the world - You mention a few nations that have managed to get past the issue of religion (where religion isn't already the dominating force in their goverment). Hell, this is our first election with even a black or woman candidate - we're just a little behind the curve. Give us time.
Geraldine Ferraro for VP, notwithstanding.
PJ,
History lesson time.
1872 Victoria Woodhull was the first woman presidential candidate in the United States when she was nominated by the National Radical Reformers.
1884 and 1888 Belva Ann Bennet McNall Lockwood, United States of America Candidate for National Equal Rights Party.
1964 Senator Margaret Chase Smith, United States of America Republican member of the House of Representatives 1940-49 and Senator 1949-73. In 1964 she was Presidential candidate in the primary elections
1972 Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm, United States of America The first female black member of the member of the House of Representatives 1968-82 and was candidate for the Democratic nomination of Presidential candidate at the Democratic Party Convention. She lived (1924-2005)
1972 Bella Savitzky Abzug, United States of AmericaStood as a candidate for the Democratic nomination as Presidential candidate but withdrew from the race before the party convention.
1972 Linda J. Osteen Jenhess, United States of America Candidate for the Socialist Worker’s Party.
1976 and 1980 Ellen McCormack, United States of AmericaRan in the Democratic Presidential Primary race in 1976 and was the first woman to receive matching funds. She he appeared on the ballot in 18 states and received a total of 267.590 votes in the primaries and 22 votes from delegates at the Democratic National Convention, and engaged in a debate with President Jimmy Carter. 1978 she was candidate for Lt. Governor of New York State and in 1980 she ran as a third-party Right to life presidential-candidate and received 32.327 votes.1984 Patricia Scott Schroeder, United States of America A congresswoman, she was Democratic candidate for the nomination of Presidential candidate in the primary elections in 1987 (June September) but withdrew from the race before the Party Convention.
1988 and 1992 Leonora B. Fulani, United States of America Candidate for the American New Alliance Party. The first black woman to appear on the ballot papers in all 50 states. In 1992 her running-mate for the post of vice-President was Elizabeth Munoz.
1999/2000 Elizabeth Hanford Dole, United States of America
1981-83 Assistant to the President for Public Liaison, 1983-87 Secretary of Transportation, 1989-90 Secretary of Labor, In 1990-99 President of Red Cross of USA, Married to former Senator Bob Dole, who was the Republican Presidential Candidate in 1996, in 1999 she run herself but withdrew before the Republican Convention because of lack of funding. In 2002 she was elected Senator for New Carolina. (b. 1936-).There are others, but you get the idea.
Thank you cannonball and anotheramerican.
The statement is gramarically incorrect.
But I think most people get my point, which was that many other predominately caucasion nations have had persons of color, or women, in power at the top political posiition for decades.
pj,
Not to be argumentative, but I can't think of any predominantly Caucasian countries with leaders who were not Caucasian. Any examples leap to mind?
nope - and i have no idea where that came from. my bad sorry. I suppose i was thinking of women in power - so now i see why the oboma thing might be such a big deal to you?
Its so two-faced of people to apparently accept the separation of church and state, and then insist on religion existing within the executive. The two things can't coexist
I think you may be confused with people wanting a leader grounded in faith versus religon being a part of the executive branch of government. Media Matters is harping on this because they want to proclaim that Romney is contradicting himself - he is not.
Romney's faith speech came as a result of his personal faith being attacked by Mike Huckabee. In his own defense Romney clearly stated his belief that there is no religous test for the office of the presidency. That no person of any religous background, or one without religon, can be excluded from running for office.
That said it is possible to be a person of faith without imposing that faith on others. The majority of people do want a person of faith as a leader because people of faith generally have a belief system and a moral code based on something higher than humanism.
The US is a representative republic - we elect people to represent us - therefore we are more likely to vote for people who are like us. The majority of the country is religous. When it comes down to it - any candidate stands a much better chance of getting elected by appealing to the religous than to the agnostics - and getting elected is the goal.
You're misrepresenting what Romney said.
"It would say: We're going to evaluate candidates based upon their explanation of their religion. And that's precisely what the Constitution and the founders said we should not do. No religious test should ever be required for qualification for office in these United States."
That's not "precisely what the Constitution...said". He's talking about voter opinion. The religious test is a different matter.
He can't say that people want someone who is religious and that we can't evaluate someone's religion at the same time without contradicting himself.
I'm not sure I'm following your counterpoint so maybe I need to clarify mine.
There is a clear distinction in Romney's speech between a religous requirement for the office of the presidency and his assertion that people in general desire a leader grounded in faith. These statements are not contradictory and I tried to explain why above. If you believe they are please explain further.
to the point of the quote of mine you used - i meant simply that Romney suggested we NEED a person of faith in the oval office - I just used executive branch, as in, the President.
OK - on that we agree.
Where I think we disagree is that it is two faced to believe in a separation of church and state while desiring a leader with a religous background.
In colonial England the church as a partner to the Monarchy literally was allowed to prosecute for blasphemy. That is what drove many of the colonists out of England to America. In establishing our government the church was prohibited from joining with the state in governmental matters. Separation of church and state was not intended to remove religon from society, but to prevent the church from having governmental authority.
We'll take it in smaller steps, then.
Romney made his comment about the religious test in the context of voter opinion. It had nothing to do with disqualification for office, like being under 35. He's saying that if he had to explain his religion, the voters would have to analyze his religious views, which would violate the "no religious test" rule.
But he's also said that we need to have a leader who is religious, and he's said that people want a religious leader. But in order for the people to evaluate that, they would have to violate the "no religious test" rule, because Romney described it as dealing with voter opinion.
So Romney can't express the opinion that voters can and should vote for someone religious, and then say that voters analyzing religious views would be unconstitutional without being self-contradictory.
Does that make it clearer?
Going back then to your previous post
You're misrepresenting what Romney said. - I do not believe I did - I think I nailed it!
Baesd on your interpretation of Romney's words I understand what you are saying but I do not agree with your interpretation. I am one of the voters he is talking about - I don't need to hear anything more about his faith to know I am not going to vote for him.
"I can't imagine doing that in a speech as you're running for president, because what it would do is, it would say: Look, if you're running for president, you really need to describe your religion in some depth. And that would really open the door to the kind of religious test where people would listen and say, "OK, do I believe that? Do I disagree with it? Does it conform with my own view?"
It would say: We're going to evaluate candidates based upon their explanation of their religion. And that's precisely what the Constitution and the founders said we should not do. No religious test should ever be required for qualification for office in these United States."
The context is clear. Romney was absolutely talking about voter opinion as a "religious test". If you have some rationale to make a meaningful argument against that, you're welcome to do so. Saying "nuh-uh" by itself doesn't mean much.
Good point Brab. THAT sounds like a contradiction to me.
"The majority of people do want a person of faith as a leader because people of faith generally have a belief system and a moral code based on something higher than humanism."
I believe our "moral code" doesn't come from religion in the first place, so having a person of faith as a leader means nothing to me. We as a species had sorted out the basic tenets of society long before Christianity or even Judaism had come along. Out ancestors realized that "thou shalt not kill" was a good policy long before God told us so on stone tablets.
Religion, if anything, has corrupted our moral code. How many people do you think have been killed in Jesus' name? And on that note, how do you even know what Jesus actually said? Because the Bible told you? or because The Council of Nicea and subsequently, 1500 years of indoctrination and misinformation have told you?
You are free to believe as you do. I'm sure you already realize that you are in a small minority and few if any candidates will ever espouse those beliefs as a platform on which to build a campaign.
I find your condemnation of religion unenlightened. :-)
I am of the opinion that 20th Century atheists in Germany, Russia, China, and elsewhere have a killing record second to none.
The bit about qualification is a legal matter, the government can't disqualify someone from holding the office because of their religious views, but the views of the population are a different matter.
So if the people want a person of faith to lead the country, then isn't that a voter-inspired religious test, obviously? Romney seems fine with that. And on the one hand, the people don't care what the specific faith is, as long as our leader has a faith, but on the other hand providing details about his faith would lead people to vote based on that.
Hmmm.
Seems you have spotted the motive behind Romney's interest in the Constitution bar to religious tests as qualification to hold elective Federal office. Details of his religion might offend some voters?
Let's just say that if Romney was asked about Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, he would tap-dance around it faster than Savion Glover. The church has become a lot more mainstream, but there's still a pretty sizable cloud hanging over it.
Absolutely, some would be offended by Mormanism. I have Morman friends who are the best kind of giving and friendly people. But I think their religious text is hogwash and based on the ravings of a zealous loony. But, the result of their faith is a true desire to benefit others, be successful within a high moral framework, and raise upstanding children. Who can complain about that?
Conley, funny you mention that. Here's an article about Huckabee making incorrect claims about what he thinks mormon religion stands for. I believe the christian wing is banking on voter ignorance of other religions to be able to make false or misleading claims so as to cement christianity as the only qualifier for office.
Heck, I see both sides of that intramural squabble 'mong the Repugnants trying with almost equal fervor to promote that ignorance - Huckleberry's camp, in order to take advantage of the ignorant among the nominal Evangelicals, Romney in order to hide some of the more outre tenets of his religion. It is alarming to me that they are both courting the same ignoramuses, and that the winner of their spat has a potential of becoming our next Bungle.
Interesting points Brab.
It is about pandering, that is for sure. These candidates are so freaked out that they might be one-upped on their faith from one of their opponents, they don't dare speak too forcefully on why their own faith should absolutely have no impact or bearing on their policy decision making.
Why is it so hard for many of them to be honest about their own faith, that is fine - but be just as honest about how it is a personal choice and will not affect in any way their public duties.
And while they're pandering with their faith, they have to be careful to let it be known that it won't influence their position as president. So Romney's in the position of saying "I'm more religious than you", but at the same time being careful to assure everyone that the church won't have any say in what he does. So what difference does it make to be more religious if it doesn't affect your job performance? Someone who is mildly religious should understand basic morality and ethics just as well. It's not like "thou shalt not bear false witness" is going to be a surprise to a less religious person because they missed that Sunday or something.
It's probably the greatest demonstration of how people's priorities are out of whack. It shouldn't be about liking or identifying with a candidate, it should be about their policies and their record. We both seem to agree, religion should have nothing to do with it, and we'd be a better country if more people could realize that. And we wouldn't have to see this silly dance from candidates anymore either.
Well said. And I also think that at the end of the day the emphasis on religion will be the undoing of both Romney and Huckabee.
Not necessarily because Romney is a Mormon, but because of his divisive nature with this speech of his and his pandering to Christian conservatives who, I don't believe, will ever vote for him in any large numbers. And Huckabee's past statements are a little scary and troubling, I believe he is toast.
You may well be right. Especially with Huckabee and his comment about women being subservient to men. I have to expect even most Christian women are not going to take that well, much less the general population.
According to documents shown in this short You Tube video, there are 7 states where it is illegal to hold any public office if you are an athiest. If that isn't diqualifying because of (non-)religious views, what is?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg
Section Four, Article One of the U.S. Constitution would seem to invalidate this law. There are many laws in state codes that would be unconsitutional if they were challenged, they just haven't been. But this is a clear indication where the voters in these states may fall on the matter of an athiest candidate.
I don't read your referenced Section of the Constitution the same way you do. Elections are left to the States, except Congress MAY by law change the regulations. Unless Congress has specifically changed the Laws, the laws of those 7 states mentioned, as wrong headed as they mey be, are, as of the present, constituitional. Please cite contrary evidence if you have it.
Is it legal to discriminate against atheists in the workplace? When renting an apartment? Anywhere?
I thought we were guaranteed freedom of religion. That's not worth much if it's legal to discriminate against people who don't believe a certain way.
Doesn't the Bill of Rights trump state laws?
Holy crap! How unconstitutional is that?
I remember that Bush41 line about atheists not being considered citizens or patriots. What a moron.
This reveals an interesting hypocrisy on Romney's part. On the one hand, he is bending over backwards to reassure the GOP knuckledragging base that he's "got Jesus", as if not "having Jesus" might disqualify any candidate. On the other hand, he bristles if someone invites him to reveal the prickly little peculiarities of his own religion, retreating to the "no religious test" doctrine. He knows that those same knuckledraggers would recoil in horror if they knew those little details.
I'm waiting for the courageous reporter that will challenge Romney for his idiotic statement that "Freedom requires religion". I'm sure I'll just keep waiting ... Jeeezzzzuuuuusssss will come back before that happens.
Good points NERZOG. Man, it's not easy being a politician in Amercia, is it? I almost feel bad for the guy.
I'd never vote for him - but if he keeps it up he might get he "sympathy vote". LOL
Romney is in a tough spot. If he gets the nomination, he is likely to be defeated because he is a Morman. You can bet his opponent will make sure the details of this religion are exposed, but likely won't have to, the media will do it for him/her.
He will not lose just because he is a Mormon, the media would be attacked by anyone with common sense if they harp on his religious beliefs. the presidential candidates' religion is really not the most important aspect of them.
Also for those of you fearing the institution of a theocracy should a religious president win, just take a look at the religious Bush, he has not imposed a theocracy upon us, and most of his decisions where uninvolved with his faith. there are too many checks and balances of power for a single president to be capable of such a thing, they just do not have the power, this is not a dictatorship, those of you who think that a republican president would ruin America. A president just does not have the power.
I wonder if the question has ever been asked,"Should elected officials depend on "faith in a god" to determine/dictate public policy?
You could tack on things to that question with regards to a particular religion too.
I think it would be interesting to see what the results would be.
I personally found Romney's alleged bloodletting very disturbing. As has been mentioned in previous posts his statement of "freedom requires religion" is very disturbing..
You think shrub is bad now, if Romney or Huckabee get in, coupled with things like H.R. 1955 (if it gets passed) would make life very difficult for free thinkers or those who choose not to partake of the drug of religion in this country.
You're witnessing a foolish pointless struggle, over an issue that doesn't matter anyway (not in this upcoming presidential election; not to the majority of the present national electorate).
It's not as though Romney and Huckabee and others, truly believe that their Religious beliefs are an important election issue: It's that they want those beliefs to be important; they want to gather the flock to them, politically; they believe they are being subjected to a "religious Test", and they mean to pass it with flying colors (and Romney demonstrates a true lack of Soul, when he denies in one breath, what he affirms in another).
They're wrong. They're not being subjected to a religious test. It's not a qualification to Office, not in this upcoming presidential election and not to the present national electorate.
But old habits die hard, and old actors just naturally fall into playing the roles they have played so many years on the stage. It's a reflex.
Romney and Huckabee and all the others, they need to stay current with the mood of the national electorate; they need to read the memos.
We're not looking for a shephard or a Pastor or a preacher. We want a president with ability and experience (in public service) and integrity.
It's not that these wolves in sheep's clothing don't know this in their hearts, or can't figure it out: It's as plain as the Internet Wire in their face, that this isn't 2004...
...they should stopping delivering their religious thesis, because there is no religious test this semester.
Dem,
I agree with you.
I am of the opinion that this is a media driven issue. The media keeps bringing up Romney's religion so he feels compelled to respond. It then becomes a self-fulfilling issue. Each newscycle has some fresh quote by someone so they report, bloviate, and wait for the next response.
I feel Romney's quote "freedom requires religion and religion rquires freedom.." is one of those soundbites that look good on the surface but is not necessarily accurate. It reminds me of the quote, "It takes a community to raise a child."
Watching Romney on the Today Show this morning I think he's handling it about as well as anyone can expect. Yes he has a faith but his particular faith shouldn't be a disqualifier for voters.
We're not electing theologians. We're looking for people we can believe in and who share our view of where this country needs to go in the next four years.
AA
Religion wouldn't be a media driven issue if there hadn't been a concerted effort by the republican party to garner the evangelical christian vote. If I were a evangelical christian, I'd be really pissed at the GOP. It almost appears to me that the GOP candidates will say anything to secure that segment and yet when it comes time to pay up, they leave them hanging.
To be fair, the Democratic party does the same thing to those of color (for fear of pissing off the moderates, i presume).
Spin, Very well said, I don't disagree at all.
Spin,
I am not so sure there is any concerted effort by the GOP to get the Evangelical vote. I think they get it by default as the Dems pretty much handed them over to the GOP by their positions on abortion, sex ed, crime, etc. But that is open for debate. :-)
I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that ends with "...leaving them hanging". Any examples?
Every single issue that Evangelicals push except for Conservative supreme court judges.Abortion is still legal, homosexuals can still marry in some places, prayer is still not allowed in public schools...should I go on?
DB,
I would say the Constitution and Democrats had something to do with those issues.
Thanks for clarifying.
This is the whole problem with this chest-thumping religiosity. Once they start picking apart the other's doctrines, it is to the detriment of the national debate. "My religion is more right than yours" is the absolute wrong direction these conversations need to head. I probably just echoed most of the posts here, but oh well.
More sanctimonious bilge.
"[n]o religious test should ever be required for qualification for office in these United States." , on that he's wrong, if his ability to carry out his duties, or his personal beliefs and associtaions are in any conflict of interest barring his upholding the laws of this land, then he flunks the religion test. In no way can they pretend the two are not mutually interacting.
www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/FaithIssue.pdf
Non-news jumping on any idiosynchracy for an excuse to avoid the larger issues. Will Romney pardon his insurrectory hoard if he becomes president? Where does he stand on preemptive acts of high treason? Why will no sitting official or candidate address the mass shooting anomally? Were the Twin Towers blown up?
Katie Couric is the new Church Lady.
I'm sorry, what are you talking about??
I do believe that Romney, and many other candidates of faith, are using shorthand to make a few points. 1. I am anti-abortion 2. I am anti-homosexual 3. I am anti-sex education These, it seems to me, are the litmus test positions for Christian-based voters. They aren't really worried about any president taking orders from their church elders. That is a media cannard. They also don't really want separation of church and state. Now, before anyone slams my gross generalizations, I meen these to refer solely to voters who DO want a CHRISTIAN, with all caps, candidate. And we all know they are out their and that the media loves to pander to them.
Republican candidates for President say things like, "My faith defines me," or they quote scripture as basis for their political positions, and then they cry foul when someone asks them a specific question about their religious beliefs.
Democrats are accused of ignoring religion if they don't talk about it, or are accused of pandering if they do talk about it.
I don't know why we're wound up so tightly about religious values this electoral season. I would guess that the 'wedge issues' that have been used to target voters and influence the past few elections are coming home to roost.
I don't know why we're wound up so tightly about religious values this electoral season.
By "we're" you mean Republicans? I don't think most Democrats give a rats a$$ - although it doesn't mean the candidates aren't going to try to pander to the few that do.
As for the Rupubs... Hmmm, could it be because they've suddenly found that the guy who was their frontrunner a few weeks ago (Mr.911) has none (values)?
And of the 2 candidates now scrambling for the golden ring, one is a preacher and the other has a religion that preaches that "No man can come to Christ except through Joseph Smith.", Dark skin results from a "curse" placed upon certain spirits, Jesus had many wives, and Polygamy in heaven will be the rule.
If I was a Republican, I'd be wound up tightly, too. They haven't a chance in hell.
I hope, solely in the spirit of Christian love and understanding, that Huckabee and Romney tear each other's religions apart. Voodoo is as voodoo does . . . and sometimes it's damn entertaining.
If Romney did indeed say that America needs a person of faith to lead the country this in no way means that this person should go into detail explaining the tenets of their religion.
Once again MMFA has embarrassed itself trying to engage in current issues that do not involve "media misinformation". It is a shame how the media has set upon this issue like a rabid dog with really no reason besides the fact that Romney is a presidential hopeful and so they choose to attack him on a subject as sensitive as personal belief.
Icannot think of a free secular society anywhere in the world unless you consider the former soviet union or china a free society. A government that persecutes falun gong and drives the dalai lama into exile can hardly be considered free. while I do not wish to live under a theocracy like Iran I think a majority christian society that practices religious tolerance is the most likley to be free in the sense that americans of all political stripes understand freedom. freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion if you so choose. the majority of americans are religious and the overwhelming majority of them are christian. Christianity preaches tolerance. Certain elements of other religions sadly do not. Reviving old ninteenth century bigotry against Mormonism is crude and ignorant and should be repugnant to anyone considering themselves progressive. Why would anyone in the progressive movement ally themselves with the most far right evangelical christian conservatives just for a moment of political gotcha.
If Perky Couric and others wanted to know more about the religion they should ask Mormon Senetor Harry Reid. It could be informitive if Mormon Senator Harry Reid was booked on CBS news and ask the questions all have been wanting to have answered. The Mormon Democratic leader could also explain how his religon has an affect on his decisions in the Senate and how the Mormon church views political seat holders.
Media Matters displays a surprisingly poor understanding of the genesis of the First Amendment. It's intent was to prevent the ESTABLISHMENT of a NATIONAL Religion. It was never intended to disengage religion from the public square. In fact, several New England states continued state-supported religions until approximately 1840, long after Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Connecticut Baptist preacher
Therefore, Mitt's statement about faith remaining in the public square is entirely appropriate and in keeping with the Founders (even the Deist Thomas Jefferson's) wishes.
.
Do you have any evidence of that "intent" that would override what the Establishment Clause clearly says?