Romney Speech on Faith

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
I must admit, this was inspiring. Mitt's not my fav, but he did score points with me today.

"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.

"It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of
you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way
in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows
the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War,
being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine.
It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril,
Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to
defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank
you, Mr. President.

"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat
Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your
children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the
greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to
today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine
what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam
seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our
economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government
overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best
to preserve American leadership. 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. In
John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our
constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

"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.

"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some
wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's
religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer
them today.

"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.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other
church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential
decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church
affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law
and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular
teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the
Constitution - and of course, I would not do so as President. I will
put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and
the sovereign authority of the law.

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political
religion' - the commitment to defend the rule of law and the
Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of
office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate
to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no
one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common
cause of the people of the United States.

"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would
prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that
it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or
another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon
faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers
- I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy.
If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American
people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain
the world.

"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.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and
explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the
very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No
candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes
President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents
closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are
features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the
Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the
Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the
confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the
Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer
of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and
cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their
steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's
blessings.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist
between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral
convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's
usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral
principles that urge us all on a common course. 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.

"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 is 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. 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.'


"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most
important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political
office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of
human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast
commitment to liberty?

"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great
moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which
Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

"We believe that every single human being is a child of God - we are all
part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and
inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary
political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are
'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'

"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one
another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of
God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day,
here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or
nationality.

"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. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons
and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve
freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world.
America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from
Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's
resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It
has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never
falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived
in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God
and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I
saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to
people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national
volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an
hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I
was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'

"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and
my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we
have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are
the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common
foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty.
Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took
to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion.
But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others.
Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from
Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and
two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were
unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an
appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In
this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had
left.

"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a
revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about
the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is
endowed by his Creator.


"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional
order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of
policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church,
and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

"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. The establishment
of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And
though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches
themselves seem to be withering away.

"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by
conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians,
Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do
their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds
and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than
theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups
could inflict if given the chance.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our
religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized
nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be
destroyed.

"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.


"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in
Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British
troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an
impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray.
But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious
sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and
Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of
piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by
the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.'
And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with
freedom's holy light.'

"God bless the United States of America."
 
WND Commentary Mitt's Hour of Power
Pat Buchanan
Posted: December 6, 2007
7:17 p.m. Eastern

If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library.

The address was courageous in a way John F. Kennedy's speech to the Baptist ministers was not. Kennedy went to Houston to assure the ministers he agreed with them on virtually every issue where they differed with the Catholic agenda and that his faith would not affect any decision he made as president. He called himself "the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic."

It was like saying: "I happen to be left-handed. I can't help it."

Romney did not truckle. He did not suggest that his faith was irrelevant to the formation of his political philosophy. While declaring, "I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest," he did not back away an inch from his Mormon faith.

"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough," said Romney. "They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

If this costs me the presidency, said Romney, so be it.

That is the kind of defiance this country can never hear enough of.

What Romney was saying was: If you so dislike or resent my faith you will not vote for me if I stay true to it, don't vote for me. But that may say more about you than it does about me.

Questioned repeatedly on what he, as a Mormon, believes about Jesus Christ, a matter crucial to evangelicals, Romney replied:

"What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that 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 it 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 if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

Surely that is right.

After defending his own faith, Romney declared himself a fighting ally of traditionalists and conservatives in the culture war against a militant secularism that is hostile to all faiths rooted in supernatural beliefs and that seeks to de-Christianize America.

"[T]he notion of separation of church and state has been taken by some beyond its original meaning," Romney said. "They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in the public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain in our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and, during the holiday seasons, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."

Romney understands that while the First Amendment proscribes the establishment of religion, it guarantees the free expression of all religions, even in the public school. Supreme Court, take note. "I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty," said Romney.

This was a tour de force, and it was delivered before perhaps the largest audience Romney will have for any speech before the January caucuses and primaries. It will be the subject of editorials and columns in coming weeks. And it is hard to see how Romney does not benefit hugely from what was a quintessentially "American" address.

With this speech, Romney has thrown on the defensive his main rival in Iowa, Mike Huckabee, the Christians' candidate who, when asked if Mormonism is a cult, left the impression it might well be.

The issues of religious tolerance, what it means to be a Christian in politics and of secularism versus traditionalism are all now out on the table, and will likely be the social-moral issues on which the race turns between now and January.

To this writer, Romney is on unassailable grounds. Nor is he hurt by the fact that his wife and five children testify eloquently that he is a man of principles who lives by them.

Mike Huckabee's ascendancy and Romney's address defending his faith, refusing to disavow his beliefs and making this a test of tolerance while launching an offensive against secular humanism, tell us that God is back – in the presidential campaign.
 
Holy Nonsense
Mitt Romney's windy, worthless speech.
By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007, at 5:40 PM ET
Almost the only clever thing about Gov. Mitt Romney's long-denied and long-delayed but obviously long-prepared "response" was its location at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, which allowed him to pose (prematurely, I'd say) in front of a presidential seal as well as a thicket of American flags. Composed chiefly of boilerplate, the windy speech raised the vexed question of the candidate's religious affiliation—and thus broke the taboo on mentioning it—without setting to rest any of the difficulties that make it legitimate to raise the issue in the first place.

Actually, and in fairness, one should say "any but one" of those difficulties. Romney did avow, early on and in round terms, that "no authorities of my church" could ever exert any influence on his decision-making as chief executive. This may get him in trouble with some Mormons, and it does invite the question of why he adheres to a sect whose "prophet" is a supreme commander, but it is the most he could have been asked to say, as well as the least. Actually, the more he goes in one direction, the more he may find it is Mormons who are developing reservations about him. There is already grumbling in the ranks about his statement that the Bible is the revealed word of God, an absurd belief that Mormons do not truly profess, because they feel it is lacking an even more absurd later revelation to Joseph Smith. There are also those who think that Romney's disowning of past Mormon polygamy is too opportunistic, since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does still offer the consolation prize of multiple wives in heaven (just like the sick dream of Mohamed Atta).

Trying to raise himself above this swamp of nonsense—the existence of which is his responsibility, not mine—the governor mainly treated us to evasion and a rather shifty attempt to change the subject and rewrite the historical record. It may be true that Romney "saw my father march with Martin Luther King" (though the candidate himself, who was of age to do so at the time, doesn't claim to have joined in), but that doesn't answer the question about official Mormon racism, which lasted 10 full years after Dr. King had been murdered, or of what Mitt Romney did or said about this at the time.

Romney does not understand the difference between deism and theism, nor does he know the first thing about the founding of the United States. Jefferson's Declaration may invoke a "Creator," but, as he went on to show in the battle over the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, he and most of his peers did not believe in a god who intervened in human affairs or in a god who had sent a son for a human sacrifice. These easily ascertainable facts are reflected in the way that the U.S. Constitution does not make any mention of a superintendent deity and in the way that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention declined an offer (possibly sarcastic), even from Benjamin Franklin, that they resort to prayer to compose their differences. Romney may throw a big chest and say that God should be "on our currency, in our pledge," and of course on our public land in this magic holiday season, but James Madison did not think that there should be chaplains opening the proceedings of Congress or even appointed as ministers in the U.S. armed forces. Trying to dodge around this, and to support his assertion that the founders were religious in the Christian sense, Romney drones on about a barely relevant moment of emotion in 1774 and comes up with the glib slogan that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Any fool can think of an example where freedom exists without religion—and even more easily of an instance where religion exists without (or in negation of) freedom.

This does not mean that freedom of religion is not as important as freedom from it, yet Romney makes himself absurd by saying that Mormons may not be asked about the tenets of their faith, lest this infringe the constitutional ban on a religious test for public office. Here is another failure of understanding on his part. He is not being told: Answer this question in the wrong way, and you become ineligible. He is being told: Your family is prominent in a notorious church that proselytizes its views in a famously aggressive manner. Are you only now deciding to make a secret of your beliefs? And if so, why? Would he expect a Scientologist to be able to avoid questions about L. Ron Hubbard? Does the governor of Massachusetts who publicly tried for mob applause by demanding that we "double Guantanamo" (whatever that meant) add that the detainees must not be asked what branch of Islam they favor? If an atheist was running against him, would Romney make nothing of the fact? His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.

According to the admittedly very contradictory scriptures of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth warned his disciples and followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and mocked for their faith. After all, how likely was it that God had decided to reveal himself to only a few illiterate peasants in a barbarous backwater? Those who elected to believe this stuff were quite rightly told to expect a hard time, and the expression "fool for God" or "fool for Christ" has been with us ever since. That concept has some dignity and nobility. Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity) is the well-heeled son of a gold-plated church who wants to assume the pained look of martyrdom only when he is asked if he actually believes what he says. A long time ago, Romney took the decision to be a fool for Joseph Smith, a convicted fraud and serial practitioner of statutory rape who at times made war on the United States and whose cult has been made to amend itself several times in order to be considered American at all. We do not require pious lectures on the American founding from such a man, and we are still waiting for some straight answers from him.
 
Huckabee Plays the Religion Card

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, December 7, 2007

When Mitt Romney's father ran for the presidency 40 years ago, his Mormonism was not an issue. When Mo Udall was a major challenger for the Democratic nomination in 1976, his religion was so irrelevant that today most people don't even remember that Udall was Mormon.

Five members of the Senate are Mormon. Are there any intimations that the Mormonism of Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Gordon Smith, Michael Crapo or Robert Bennett corrupts, distorts or in any way diminishes their ability to perform their constitutional duties?
Mormonism should be a total irrelevancy in any political campaign. It is not. Which is why Mitt Romney had to deliver his JFK "religion speech" yesterday. He didn't want to. But he figured that he had to. Why? Because he's being overtaken in Iowa. Why Iowa? Because about 40 percent of the Republican caucus voters in 2000 were self-described "Christian conservatives" -- twice the number of those in New Hampshire, for example -- and, for many of them, Mormonism is a Christian heresy.

That didn't seem to matter for much of this year, when Romney had a commanding lead and his religion seemed a manageable political problem -- until Mike Huckabee came along and caught up to Romney in the Iowa polls.

The appealing aspects of Huckabee's politics and persona account for much of this. But part of his rise in Iowa is attributable to something rather less appealing: playing the religion card. The other major candidates -- John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson -- either never figured out how to use it or had the decency to refuse to deploy it.

Huckabee has exploited Romney's Mormonism with an egregious subtlety. Huckabee is running a very effective ad in Iowa about religion. "Faith doesn't just influence me," he says on camera, "it really defines me." The ad then hails him as a "Christian leader."

Forget the implications of the idea that being a "Christian leader" is some special qualification for the presidency of a country whose Constitution (Article VI) explicitly rejects any religious test for office. Just imagine that Huckabee were running one-on-one in Iowa against Joe Lieberman. (It's a thought experiment. Stay with me.) If he had run the same ad in those circumstances, it would have raised an outcry. The subtext -- who's the Christian in this race? -- would have been too obvious to ignore, the appeal to bigotry too clear.

Well, Huckabee is running against Romney (the other GOP candidates are non-factors in Iowa), and he knows that many Christian conservatives, particularly those who have an affinity with Huckabee's highly paraded evangelical Christianity, consider Romney's faith a decidedly non-Christian cult.


Huckabee has been asked about this view that Mormonism is a cult. He dodges and dances. "If I'm invited to be the president of a theological school, that'll be a perfectly appropriate question," he says, "but to be the president of the United States, I don't know that that's going to be the most important issue that I'll be facing when I'm sworn in."

Hmmm. So it is an issue, Huckabee avers. But not a very important one. And he's not going to pronounce upon it. Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open -- the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.

And by Huckabee's own logic, since he is not running for head of a theological college, what is he doing proclaiming himself a "Christian leader" in an ad promoting himself for president? Answer: Having the issue every which way. Seeming to take the high road of tolerance by refusing to declare Mormonism a cult, indeed declaring himself above the issue -- yet clearly playing to that prejudice by leaving the question ambiguous, while making sure everyone knows that he, for one, is a "Christian leader."

The God of the Founders, the God on the coinage, the God for whom Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving day is the ineffable, ecumenical, nonsectarian Providence of the American civil religion whose relation to this blessed land is without appeal to any particular testament or ritual. Every mention of God in every inaugural address in American history refers to the deity in this kind of all-embracing, universal, nondenominational way. (The one exception: William Henry Harrison. He caught cold delivering that inaugural address. Thirty-one days later, he was dead. Draw your own conclusion.) I suspect that neither Jefferson's Providence nor Washington's Great Author nor Lincoln's Almighty would look kindly on the exploitation of religious differences for political gain. It is un-American. It is unfortunate that Romney has had to justify himself in response.
 
I think Krauthammer has a point here, but it is overstated and distorted...

Huckabee has exploited Romney's Mormonism with an egregious subtlety. Huckabee is running a very effective ad in Iowa about religion. "Faith doesn't just influence me," he says on camera, "it really defines me." The ad then hails him as a "Christian leader."

Huckabee is an ordained pastor, and therefore a "Christian leader". That speaks to his (potential) role as the nations moral leader, and serves to set him appart from another Arkansas Governer who, as President, failed his role as moral leader. Shrewd politics, nothing more.



Forget the implications of the idea that being a "Christian leader" is some special qualification for the presidency of a country whose Constitution (Article VI) explicitly rejects any religious test for office. Just imagine that Huckabee were running one-on-one in Iowa against Joe Lieberman. (It's a thought experiment. Stay with me.) If he had run the same ad in those circumstances, it would have raised an outcry. The subtext -- who's the Christian in this race? -- would have been too obvious to ignore, the appeal to bigotry too clear.

Being Christian isn't a formal qualification for President in the constitution, but you can find many quotes by the Framers that they thought that only a Christian should be President.

The "though experiment" here is innaccurate; comparing apples and oranges. Currently, Huckabee is running in a primary where the votes are largely christian, or religious friendly. He would be foolish not to play up his christianity. In the hypothetical race against Liberman, the race would be among more then just Republicans, and many in the potential voting populace would have an issue with him religion, so it would be an issue.

Nice straddle, leaving the question unanswered and still open -- the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.

Huckabee isn't making Romney's Mormanism an issue here, the media is.

Having the issue every which way. Seeming to take the high road of tolerance by refusing to declare Mormonism a cult, indeed declaring himself above the issue -- yet clearly playing to that prejudice by leaving the question ambiguous, while making sure everyone knows that he, for one, is a "Christian leader."

In refusing to declare mormanism a cult, he is implying they are? That's logical.

Krauthammer is effecively taking the medias actions of making Romney's Mormanism an issue, and attributing it to Huckabee because he is benefiting from it.

Huckabee, in running the moral leader of the nation from the state of Arkansas (and Clinton) is very wise in playing up his leadership in the Christian community; especially in the primary.
 
It's shrewd of Huckabee to go after the disaffected christian vote at this time.
If he gets them locked up he can go after more moderate voters.
However it's not enough just to wear one's religion on their sleeves.
Religion is all about the afterlife and should not be the most important thing in a candidate.
In this life Huckabee has to show he's the SMART substantative religious guy and not just God's candidate.
 
It's shrewd of Huckabee to go after the disaffected christian vote at this time.
If he gets them locked up he can go after more moderate voters.
However it's not enough just to wear one's religion on their sleeves.
Religion is all about the afterlife and should not be the most important thing in a candidate.
In this life Huckabee has to show he's the SMART substantative religious guy and not just God's candidate.


True. All good points.

Huckabee also has the "Arkansas governer" stigma to distance himself from. The last president who came from the governer's mansion in little rock was the most morally corrupt person to ever occupy the oval office. Conservatives are gonna be a little leary to elect another governer from arkansas for that reason.

You might wanna look at the article in a different thread that Calabrio posted about how the media is turning against Huckabee since he has gained momentum and become one of the front-runners.
 
By the way, 04, Christopher Hitchens has no credibility when it comes to religious topics. He is an atheist and he has demonstrated that he hates Christians. He routinely uses insulting, pejorative tactics when discussing religion, and he is NOT an expert on the subject of Christianity. Posting an article by him on this subject is useless.
 
Kind of ironic, his name being CHRISTopher.
Just thought I'd post a contrary opinion though.
Keep things interesting.
I find Hitchens labored and longwinded myself.
Huckabee has his record to defend and his charm to run on.
As usual there's a mixed bag of opinions and opiners of his fitness for office of president.
The race has become more interesting, for both parties.
 

Members online

Back
Top