Mitt Romney's America: Joseph Smith is Out, Jesus is In!

Well, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney gave his speech today in which he addressed the infamous "M" question. The intent was to put to rest the concerns over his cult affiliation and assure the right-wing that he is one of them. Bizarrely, in a speech about his Mormon beliefs, he only used the word "Mormon" once.

As I suspected he would, he said a few general, positive, things about religious freedom. He also contradicted himself by gushing all over religion. And he followed that by really bringing out Teh Stupid.

(Please note in advance that I did not hold out much hope for this speech. Still, I'm somewhat galled at the level of stupidity, intolerance and pandering that are evident.)

"Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom."

Ah, those hopelessly religious founders have entered the building. The speech is already teetering on the rails.

"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 God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Oy. I agree the religion requires freedom, but does freedom require religion? Hell no! Freedom is not about "communing with God" and despite what he says, it is perfectly possible to imagine a free nation not encumbered with religious superstition. Much of Europe is heading that way today. But he'll get to those Godless Bastards later.

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

Notice that he doesn't cover "no faith". So long as you have faith, you're okay. Don't have faith? You don't exist in Romney's America.

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution."

This is good (of course it is, Lincoln said it), but in the very next sentence, Romney throws the whole idea in the toilet.

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God."

As President, you don't take an oath to God, you nimrod. You take an oath to THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to uphold and defend the Constitution. I don't want you to pledge to an invisible sky-daddy, but to ME and ALL OTHER AMERICANS. You know, the people you are supposed to protect and represent?

Here's the Oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And then more about respecting faith.

"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."

I am SO glad to know that he thinks Jesus is great. That's just swell. But note that tolerance is reserved for "faiths". He apparently won't even acknowledge the existence of non-believers.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. . . . Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."

Sigh. The old "religion equals morality" canard. I suppose it's true just so long as you hate Teh Gays.

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

Dickweed. Dickweed. Dickweed. Oh, and he's a douchebag, too, for repeating this right-wing stupidity. Please note that the vast majority of separation cases brought in United States Courts were brought BY CHRISTIANS who were upset that another CHRISTIAN denomination was doing something to favor their denomination. And the idea of a secular "religion" is just stupid. He's pandering here in a big way, which completely shatters that whole "statesman" aspect of the speech.

"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. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.' "

Right. Our Constitution rests upon a "foundation of faith". These statements alone should disqualify this guy from running for President. What can I say about this bunch of nonsense other than call Romney a pandering idiot who has apparently never read nor understood the Constitution?

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty."

Wow. Apparently, not only are Americans REALLY religious, but we're also Prima Donnas. Let's look at just WWII. I guess the 5 million dead Poles, half a million dead French, nearly half a million dead Britons (each country lost more people than the U.S.), weren't sacrificing as much for liberty as the U.S. And I didn't even mention the Jews.

Oh and he finally gets around to dealing with those heathens in Europe.

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer."

Yes, it really sucks being "too enlightened". It can't be because Europeans are moving beyond the need for religion.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And 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. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

"Any believer" has a friend and ally in me. I guess that makes me his enemy. Don't see why I would ever vote for someone who considers me their enemy.

I'll leave it on that note.