The politics of religion
Mitt Romney’s message to evangelical Christians was that, as a Mormon, he shares their morals — and that religion is inseparable from government.
Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Saturday delivered an overtly religious commencement address at Liberty University that skimped on politics though it was politically motivated.
To mobilize many Republican faithful, Romney needs to convince them that his Mormon religion shares their evangelical Christian values.
May 17, 2012 - 12:39 AM
“Woe to the Republican presidential candidate who fails to profess evangelical Christian values.”
And woe to the Democratic presidential candidate who fails to profess gay rights, abortion rights, man made global warming, and pro union support!
So what’s the big deal? RTEB needs a reality check! That’s why there are two major political parties, different strokes for different folks. Duh!
#1 John R, we have this pesky amendment to the Constitution that forbids the government forcing a religion on the public. Evangelicals and many Repubs seem to forget that.
His faith is so important, so integral and so much a part of how he would govern that he cannot even talk about it. He has avoided even the word “Mormon” much less explained it to anyone. He is running from that conversation faster than Obama ran from Rev. Wright…and for the exact same reason.
And you people call us sheep? The nerve.
For anyone who believes in the separation of church and state, Romney is the worst candidate in decades. For anyone who has a problem with cults and religious dogma, Romney is the worst candidate in a century. For anyone with a care for the inequality in our economy, Romney is the worst candidate in our nation’s history.
When did Romney ever say he would be forcing his faith on anyone? Surely you libs don’t believe Romney should have to defend his faith.
I seem to remember Obama using the Christian faith as a justification for raising taxes on the rich. An odd connection to say the least.
Romney’s business ventures have created and saved more jobs than lost. Obama has never ran a business nor created a single job and his policies are responsible for the loss of million of jobs. That is why the voters will fire him in Nov.
Willard Romney: ““You expect the president of the United States to be sensitive to that freedom and protect it and, unfortunately, perhaps because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda, they have fought against religion,””
No, I do not believe he will protect the separation of church and state because I do not think he believes it should exist. Few zealots do.
I also do not think that you can honestly claim “Romney’s business ventures have created and saved more jobs than lost”, since that was neither his goal or his concern.
“In many cases, such as Staples Inc., the Framingham retailer, and Steel Dynamics Inc., an Indiana steelmaker, the companies expanded and added thousands of jobs. In other cases, such as Ampad and GS Industries, another steelmaker, Bain-controlled companies shuttered plants, slashed hundreds of jobs, and landed in bankruptcy.
But in almost all cases Bain Capital made money. In fact, the firm earned substantially more from Ampad than Staples. Staples returned about $13 million on a $2 million investment; Ampad yielded more than $100 million on $5 million, according to reports to investors.
“It’s not that employment grows, it’s that their investment grows,”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/as_bain_slashed_jobs_romney_stayed_to_side/
Obama has also never raided a company, stripped it of its assets, borrowed money against it, then bankrupted it as a means to make a healthy profit either.
@4 John R., I don’t expect him to defend his faith because all supernatural beliefs are indefensible.
Romney has created Chinese jobs you mean. You need to throw that little caveat in there.
I seem to recall a decased president had a lot of folks nervous when it was discovered he was a Roman Catholic, but he made assurance that he will not be governed by his belief.
That president was John F. Kennedy.
Let’s also be clear about one thing: everybody is driven by their personal conviction, whatever he/she is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Agnostic, or Atheist.
We all are driven by what we believe and what we are convicted about, that’s why we care enough about our political system to debate and call into question about morals.
No kidding Trevor? I had not heard that.
If this nation was “nervous” over a Catholic, it is pretty clear that either Romney has no chance or that he is downplaying that he was not just an adherent but a leader (Bishop) in his church and that he believes a lot of far out, even blasphemous stuff told by a man who seems more mentally ill than prophetic. Baptizing dead people is only a part of it. But as long as he is not a “secret Muslim” it obviously won’t matter to the same people who think Obama is.
I prefer my President be “driven” by the Constitution. I guess I am just odd that way.
10 – I’m lad to hear you say that, Sandi. I’m sure your voice has been with mine at the egregious Constitutional excesses of pretty much every US President since Lincoln, up to and including the current Chief Executive.
Yes 89Hoo, my voice has been arguing since Reagan that the powers that had been allowed to be usurped, distorted and run over were like genies out of the bottle and there would be no going back. From the rules changes in Congress to make everything, even routine appointments have a “super majority” to the abuses of the misnomer “Patriot Act”. I have been at this a long time. I simply refuse to slam the Obama administration for what they gave Bush a pass on. The politics of outrage is telling.
12 – so you’ll give Obama a pass, based on the fact the others gave his predecessors passes.
Is it only the first Constitutional breach that offends you, all others being “pass-worthy” as it’s old hat?
#12 – “I simply refuse to slam the Obama administration for what they gave Bush a pass on.”
Based on that logic, Romney will be able to do whatever he wants based on the passes Obama got from his supporters.
I think you misread the line 89Hoo. I said I refuse to SLAM the Obama administration for what they gave Bush a pass on. I fully hold Obama accountable for not even trying to give more than passing lip service to fixing the egregious excesses they are very much aware of. The bigger point here is that I know beyond doubt what Romney would do on the issue and I still have some hope that Obama will address it before he leaves office. Not a bright hope, I freely admit, but a beacon compared to Romney.
I am hoping for more activism on some of these issues when the economy again is not the beast that it is for so many now. It seems indulgent to wax on about the Patriot Act when I know people losing their jobs, homes and in need of medical care. That does NOT mean I have forgotten the issue.
Unless he ADDS to that list, I agree. Which is yet another reason I want Obama to win and do something about it.
Yes, yes the Great Obama. How many promises has he broken so far? Today when the conservative SuperPAC tried to resort to attacking Obama’s past religious associations, Romney stood up and reigned them in. Meanwhile, Obama stays silent while his supporters attack Romney from every possible angle. It truly is telling and it is becoming more and more apparent which candidate truly will resort to any tactic to win. I still can’t believe Obama’s blindly partisan supporters who malign Romney as “the big money” candidate while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that it is their guy who spends more money than any other candidate in history in order to “win”. His campaign has openly stated they hope to raise and spend a billion dollars on this campaign. Yet liberals still, with a straight face, talk about Republican candidates as being “the best money can buy.” The sad part is that many of them truly don’t see the irony.
Sorry. I forgot. Apparently I should have been calling him Hussein.
Yeah, you gotta wonder why Romney the attack dog in the Primary would suddenly grow a conscience about bringing religion into the campaign. I am sure it will take me a long time to see the logic in that move. I’ll mull that one over carefully for the nano-second it takes and…
Chuck, I know you don’t get the difference, just like you think Soros money is the same as Koch money and I am tired of drawing pictures.
Call him Hussein to your heart’s content…I see through that too.
Funny how the Liberals and the RTEB can criticize Romney for identifying with evangelicals (he does profess to accept Jesus Christ as his Savior)and how they do not hesitate to bring up his belonging to the Morman Church at every opportunity.(See Sandi @#9 above!)
The Libs can drag up a supposed high school prank over 50 years ago that is unsubstantiated. They can attack Ann Romney for being a stay at home mom and Newsweek/Daily Beast senior contributor Michelle Goldberg can call Ann Romney “insufferable” and compare her to Hitler and Stalin on MSNBC.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/05/13/newsweek-contributor-compares-ann-romney-hitler-and-stalin-msnbc#ixzz1vDSX5Uh6
But just let Romney supporters remind the voters of Obama’s connection and former pastor for 20+ years with the radical anti-American Black separatist Rev. Wright and the Libs go ballistic, crying foul.
Such hypocrisy!
“I prefer my President be “driven” by the Constitution. I guess I am just odd that way.”
Well, you are unil you aren’t.
#17 Chuck, Romney realizes that attacking religious associations is a loser for him because it will just remind evangelicals that he’s Mormon. And many right-wing Christians don’t believe Mormons are Christian. (Not my opinion, mind you)
15 – that’s an awful lot of faith to put in someone who ran/is running on an agenda that is un-Constitutional, and many of whose actions in office were un-Constitutional, but I guess being a Democrat gives a certain amount of leeway.
I too, am absolutely certain that Romney, if elected, would commit all the same un-Constitutional acts as his predecessors.
I place way too much value on the Constitution to give anyone a pass, even the “epitome of the American dream” (if an elite boarding school and Ivy League education and a lifetime on the taxpayer dime defines that dream).
Neither Obama nor Romney is deserving of my vote, as both would do much in violation of the Constitution (and, in fact, what Romney would do is not that much different from Obama).
You know John R, it IS “Funny”! It is funny how we NEEDED to hear about the “birther” claims. It is funny how we NEEDED to hear about his “eating a dog”. It is funny how we NEEDED to see his college papers and admission forms. It is funny how we NEEDED to know about his friends from college, the community, the business world and politics. It is funny how we NEEDED to hear about his “radical” preacher and “radical” views and his “terrorist pals”. It is funny how we NEEDED to know his absent/deceased father’s business, religion, financial and familial information. It is funny how we NEEDED to know his every real estate and business transaction.
And yet NOW, suddenly it is “Funny how the Liberals and the RTEB can criticize Romney for” THE EXACT SAME ISSUES! Yep, pretty funny stuff.
Henry can “drag up” the poor child eating dog meat but a WITNESSED “high school prank” that involved an assault on another student and is most assuredly substantiated is not fair?
The right has repeated attacked Michelle Obama, her job/her salary, her looks, her clothes, her efforts at getting healthy, even giving her offensive nicknames, but it is unfair to do the same to Ann Romney? It is not fair to point out that being a wealthy stay at home mom would not make her a great “women’s issues” adviser?
While Michelle Goldberg has a right to her opinion, it is hardly indicative of the whole world or the Democratic party. Does FlimFlambaugh calling women “sluts” speak for the entire Republican party. She did not “compare her to Hitler and Stalin” either. It was a sappy, self serving column Ann Romney wrote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/14/newsweek_columnist_likens_insufferable_ann_romney_to_hitler_stalin.html
Just ask yourself did the attacks on Willard happen BEFORE or AFTER you all NEEDED to “remind the voters of Obama’s connection and former pastor for 20+ years with the radical anti-American Black separatist Rev. Wright”
Such hypocrisy indeed!
Phil, you and I not agreeing on what the Constitution says does not make you right.
The last President who “deserved” my vote has not been born yet. We do the best we can with what we are offered. I did not say I had a lot of hope, I do not. That has always been the crux of the matter. Putting a genie who can make things easier for you back in the bottle is not going to be an easy thing for any President and no candidate, including Ron Paul IMO would do it. A girl can dream, but that is really all it is. With Romney, I would not even have that.
Maybe if we had a functioning Congress, we would be a better nation.
#24 – What I find funny is that Romney’s past is important, but Obama’s hidden and buried past isn’t.
Why is that?
#24 Nice summary, Sandi.
Somehow I doubt that the NYT has any investigative reporters trying to track down any of Obama’s drinking buddies or his dope dealers from his high school/college days when he was a self admitted drunk and illegal drug user.
Their must be a reason why Obama’s college/law school grades and any papers he wrote are kept hidden. I wonder what his supporters are trying to hide?
I remember how the Libs tried to stop Gov. McDonnell with his Liberty Univ. thesis.
#29 Show us where Obama has admitted he was a “drunk,” John R.
Please don’t ignore this post. We want to read where he’s admitted to being a “drunk.”
We’ll wait for your answer.
#24: And exactly what kind of “hidden and buried past” are you talking about? Do tell, do tell.