Mitt Romney Jesus Talk

My very late take: Romney’s no John F. Kennedy.

Instead of making it less about religion, Romney made it more so. Instead of steering conservatives into a rational approach towards those who believe in Jesus (and those who don’t), Romney has left us with a speech that further divides and does nothing to address real issues facing the United States.

I could make a ton of references to Mormon meetings and similar, empty rhetoric. But I won’t. I’ll just say that Romney doesn’t appear to have the kind of big picture view that a leader who is going to move a country forward must have.

The U.S. has just endured six years of an evangelical, fundamentalist in the White House. It’s time for a change. I don’t think another deeply religious presidential candidate has a chance in 2008.

My views don’t represent the majority view in my state or my country.

See also:
Transcript of Romney’s speech is here.

Salt Lake Tribune commentary. They run these in the Sunday paper. This one written by a Mormon. Who(whom?) went to my high school and was mentioned here. Of note in the Salt Lake Tribune essay:

“It is odd how often certain groups try to portray our founding fathers as religious conservatives. Their guiding star was not Christianity, but Enlightenment secularism. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison would all be quite surprised by Romney’s statement that political liberty requires religion. Certainly, religious tolerance requires political liberty, but political liberty has often been the victim of religious conservatism.”

  • maggie ann

    “I don’t think another deeply religious presidential candidate has a chance in 2008.”

    Thank God.

    We need a leader with a sound,thinking brain, not one that leans on the vapid crutch of religion.

    Hopefully we’ve learned our lesson on that one.

  • Sasha

    It would be ‘who’. :)

    (I was taught that when in doubt, replace ‘who’ with ‘he’ and ‘whom’ with ‘him’ which makes it much clearer which it should be.)

  • ben

    Alas, after living in Utah at one time I now feel like my vote means something. When I shamefully admit that I voted for Bush in 2000, at least I can say, “well, I voted in Utah.” Bush knew he didn’t even have to visit Utah to win there.

    I hope maggie ann is right; that we’ve learned our lesson.

  • Deva

    I have yet to understand why in a country that so strongly values the separation of church and state, that candidates who are the strongest and most vocal about their beliefs and morals (their christian beliefs and morals), are the ones who gain the most support.

    Why do we need another candidate who is evangelical? I worry that in the future all strides that we have made as a country will be taken back from us, especially strides in the medical field as it pertains to women and their ability to control their bodies. I would not have an abortion, but I support that this right exists. I support the right to buy birth control if you are unmarried, and I support many other “controversial” topics. Why must the government be in the back pocket of a church and not the church in the back pocket of the government.

  • Stu Mark

    I wrote about this on my blog, as I listened to the speech. Here’s what I wrote:

    Mitt Romney Sounds Dangerous

    Just now listening to Governor Mitt Romney’s speech in Texas. Wow.

    I could mention many quotes from the speech which scare me, but for now, I’d like to concentrate on this one:

    “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 G-d. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone,”

    Now, all of the readers of this blog know that I am a religious man, that I am a dedicated and devout Monotheist, specifically Jewish. So I have absolutely no reservation about a religious person being elected to the Presidency of The United States. However, I am also fully in support of people who do not have a faith, either through agnosticism or atheism. Anyone running for high office who openly declares “Freedom requires religion,” is frightening. I’m cool with freedom. I’m cool with religion. But one should not depend on the other, neither should either one be forced down anyone’s throat.

    America has become a hungry lion, hiding in the costume of freedom.

    My father fled Poland because Germany was a similarly hungry lion.

    Where are we heading? Who are you supporting as the next occupant of The White House?

  • Chelsie

    I completely agree with the Tribune statement and hate it when it gets close to elections or patriotic holidays because without fail someone in church will mention how religious, etc. the Founders were. It is all I can do not to leave, scream, or get up and berate their ignorance.

    My husband, however, doesn’t have the same compunctions and one Sunday when our high counselor (Mormon old man) was lamenting (from the pulpit)how our religious leaders aren’t as righteous as the Founders, my husband actually booed him from the front row and loudly exclaimed that the he just felt the spirit leave the building.

  • Dan

    I thought Romney’s speech was for the purpose of answering Huckabee’s surge in the polls.

  • lostinutah

    Well, Jon, you may not be in the majority, but at least you’re not alone – I’m right there with you. And I am deeply religious. But, like Jeffrey Nielsen (who I think is just great by the way), I think we need to realize that it isn’t about the people who THINK LIKE I DO. It’s about all of us.

%d bloggers like this: