Anyone else read this?
I thought parts of it were good.
Unfortunately, I was very much disappointed with some of his remarks. I'm not sure if he believes some of what he said; it is obvious that he directed the speech to the religious right.
It's too bad that he had to make a speech like that.
I will not be part of the religious right. I will not consider myself part of a group that claims that I am not a Christian. I will not try to mix my politics with my religion, although my religion influences my morals, and my morals help determine how I vote. And I am not happy that Romney used the occasion to blast the other group that the right-wingers hate--those who choose to be secular.
As McCain (my favorite Republican candidate) notes, many great patriotic Americans are secular. So what? Since when is a Judeo-Christian religion necessary for a country to be free?
Romney also blasts Europe, even though more of Europe enjoys freedom than ever before. Religion did not free Eastern Europe from the USSR. Religion did not give them their freedom.
Europe has issues too. Most Americans will not vote for a president that does not go to church. Most Europeans will not for one that does. Meanwhile, they overlook more important things, such as if the president will show respect to all groups whether they believe or not.
So while Romney may have won over a large number of the religious right, he lost the votes of those who are more tolerant, including this religious Mormon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that the secular/religious debate is a tricky one. On the one hand the founding fathers wanted to prevent the situation in Europe where religion was the state or vice versa, and many a bloody war was waged over that. Religious differences were often treasonous, i.e. the Pilgrims. Of course, the Pilgrims didn't sail to Plymouth for religious equality. If they had had the power, they would have driven out the other sects and stayed in England. But they did come for religious reasons, as did many others.
It is true that many of the Founding Fathers were secular. Much of their thought was influenced by the Enlightenment. But at the same time, many were of judeo-christian persuasion. As were most Americans in general. These are the roots that our country grows out of today.
I feel that there should definately be separation between church and state, if by church you mean a singular organized religion. I also think that no religion should be discriminated against, unless they are actively seeking the disruption and harm to the country and its citizens.
But I do feel there is a growing religion of secularism. I do not begrudge anyone their beliefs, whether they believe in God or not. It is fine with me if someone chooses not to believe, as long as they do not act like they are better than me. But to enforce one's unbelief on another is just as reprehensible as the Inquisition or ethnic cleansing.
Again I believe in the separation of church and state. But I do not believe we should deny the fact that today as at its founding, America is a land of predominately spiritual people.
cougarg-
I agree. I just think Romney went a bit over the top in attacking other belief (or non-belief) systems.
I think freedom requiring religion is a sticky phrase. But I think freedom requires morality and spirituality, attributes that atheists can have without believing in God. And even if "religion" did not bring down the USSR, I think God's hand was in it as much as in the founding of the US. That is what I think was at the heart of his comments. I was unable to watch the speech, but I have since read it, and I don't think his comments reffered to atheists in general. Rather, it seemed he spoke of a vocal minority that seeks to fulfill their agenda amidst a religious majority.
Post a Comment