☰ Menu
Blog of Mass Destruction

Romney's Anti-American Speech On Religion, Part 2

By The Reverend Published: December 8, 2007

The Romney speech on religion was such an anti-American speech, it even came close to taking the breath away of yours truly. I shouldn't have been shocked. Romney will say anything to get votes.....anything.....and I am fully cognizant of that fact....but I still wasn't prepared for the theocratic wingnut words I heard.

Romney said....

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am 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.

Let's focus on this one sentence..."My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths."

To Romney, apparently, "other faiths" are not, like, faiths outside of Christianity, oh no, ...."other faiths" are simply the myriad branches of the ONE faith, Christianity. Here the Mittster turns into a real pander-bear. Evangelicals do not recognize ANY other religions as authentic. Their form of Christianity is exclusive, it is an either/or belief..... either accept Jesus as your lord and saviour.....or be tormented by a loving god for all eternity.

Religious tolerance, to Romney, means mutual tolerance between Christian denominations and groups. Not tolerance of religions that are not Christian. This thinking, of course, is anti-American and anti-Constitutional. Our nation was founded on tolerance for all religions and our Constitution guarantees that "no law establishing religion" shall be written or enforced. Romney regards the word "religion" as "any one Christian denomination".

Purposeful pandering by this election cycle's King of Pander.

Shameless pandering carried out in a crisis-like fear of the rising "real" Christian Republican candidate, the rapist pardoning Mike Huckabee.

Noticeable by it's absence was any mention or inclusion by Romney of other religions. You know, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu.....what about those religions? I didn't hear any mention of those religions or the Americans who follow something other than Christianity.

What I did hear was more fairy tales....

"It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

According to Mitt Romney, those Americans who want to honor the Constitution and the Framer's by upholding the brilliance written therein about keeping government out of religion....are actually only members of another religion....secularism. I can't overstate the fact of how backasswards and irresponsible this kind of thinking is. The Constitution, itself, is a secular document that guarantees "religion" shall not be "established" by the government. Whatever Romney thinks secularism certainly is not a religion. Religion is based on faith in invisible worlds and beings. The Constitution is real and visible, based on, you know, real people and real societal issues. Secularists don't want to deny religionists the freedom to worship as they please, religionists want to deny secularists freedom from the intrusiveness and bondage of religion.

Even the wingnut Peggy Noonan, no friend to Democrats, picked up on Romney's explicit intolerance. In typical Noonan style, however, her view of Romney's intolerance only applied to agnostics and atheists. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Crickets....

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we've bowed too far to the idiots. Link

Idiots. Oh my.

Add This



About This Blog

Prev Next