![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
The transcript of Romney's speech isn't all that long, and I think people who want to talk about it should read the whole thing.
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.
This is so patently false I don't know where to start. How can a political candidate get away with saying that freedom requires religion, when the first thing most religions do is bestow a few extra rules on people? I'd say that absolute freedom includes freedom to be religious (insofar as you don't infringe on the rights of others, blah blah), but if nobody happens to take it up on that offer, they're still free.
Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.
Either this is not true (some Americans do not acknowledge, etc) or else Romney does not consider nonbelievers to be American. Or both.
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.We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.
How odd. I haven't seen any secular people trying to remove churches from the public square. There's a pretty major difference between allowing something to be seen in public (okay with most everyone) and forcing something to be accepted in a package deal along with governmental oversight, like the "in God we trust" on money. Me? Sure, I'd rather not see that on my currency. It's simply not a true statement (not all of us trust in a god), and there's no other viable option for getting along economically in this country. If given a chance to vote that it be taken off, sure, I would.
You can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.
The first horrible thing here is the implied equivalence between "a believer in religious freedom" and "any person who has knelt in prayer". I view those things as basically unrelated: a person can be either without the other, both, or neither.
Whoever they are, those people get their friend and ally. And the rest of us? Plausibly not mentioned, we're left to decide what the silence means:
I'm getting pretty tempted to register Republican for this election, so I can vote in the primaries.
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.
This is so patently false I don't know where to start. How can a political candidate get away with saying that freedom requires religion, when the first thing most religions do is bestow a few extra rules on people? I'd say that absolute freedom includes freedom to be religious (insofar as you don't infringe on the rights of others, blah blah), but if nobody happens to take it up on that offer, they're still free.
Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.
Either this is not true (some Americans do not acknowledge, etc) or else Romney does not consider nonbelievers to be American. Or both.
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.We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.
How odd. I haven't seen any secular people trying to remove churches from the public square. There's a pretty major difference between allowing something to be seen in public (okay with most everyone) and forcing something to be accepted in a package deal along with governmental oversight, like the "in God we trust" on money. Me? Sure, I'd rather not see that on my currency. It's simply not a true statement (not all of us trust in a god), and there's no other viable option for getting along economically in this country. If given a chance to vote that it be taken off, sure, I would.
You can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.
The first horrible thing here is the implied equivalence between "a believer in religious freedom" and "any person who has knelt in prayer". I view those things as basically unrelated: a person can be either without the other, both, or neither.
Whoever they are, those people get their friend and ally. And the rest of us? Plausibly not mentioned, we're left to decide what the silence means:
- "Fuck off and die"?
- "The three or four nonbelievers in the country probably can't swing this vote anyway"?
- "Right now I'm calming down the religious right, so with all due respect, I'll talk to you guys later"?
I'm getting pretty tempted to register Republican for this election, so I can vote in the primaries.