Reactions to Romney's Pivotal Religion Speech

Thanks..... and, unfortunately I agree that what we need to do is look at the big picture and pick the least sucky option - the one that will do the least harm to the smallest number of people. Someday, however, I really hope that i can vote FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST the other candidates....
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

You make some good points, Alyssa. The dilemma we face is who can do the most good and least harm while moving us ahead.

Granny Sue
Stories from the Mountains and Beyond
www.grannysu.blogspot.com ( http://www.grannysu.blogspot.com )
susannaholstein@yahoo.com

What really interests me is the fact that when people say things like, "I can't vote for someone who's religion will play a role in their decision making" they are, in fact, making their decision based on religious belief - albeit someone else's. This issue so obfuscates other, more pressing, issues, that it is nearly impossible to find something positive in the sea of double-negatives.

Really, who amongst us does not have a moral code that we refer to in times of tough decisions or strife? I do. It so happens that mine came mostly from my parents, and the patchwork of life experience that i cloak myself in. But it is a clear moral code - different than that of some others - and it does, in fact, inform my decisions. That said, I (generally speaking) abide by the laws of the land. i am able to tell the difference between my personal moral beliefs and the societal agreed upon laws that inform our behavior so that we may live together productively.

I assume that Romney - and all the rest of them - can do the same thing. Regardless of whether their moral code came from the bible, the koran, the book of mormon or late-night speeches of their dog Spot.

To me it's about really looking at the big picture and not getting stuck on the red-herrings. Religion is a red-herring.

It PAINS me to say this, but Romney is looking really good to me. When I put my own moral issues aside (temporarily, and I will return to them) he's got a lot going for him. When I look at the larger issues that I believe have far more impact on the health of our nation - education, health care, foreign relations, social security - his ideas are solid, well-reasoned, well-accepted, easily translatable, AND he has both the political and business career to back them up. The truth is, I think he may well stand the best chance at turning around our economy in a way that creates growth and stability for generations to come.

I really want to vote for someone with the business and political experience to make HARD decisions and address the systemic issues that are eroding our security on so many levels.

That said, I also really want to vote for someone who would let me marry my girlfirend if i had one and have an abortion if I needed one.

But I can't seem to find a candidate that can do all of those things.

So far, here's my solution (and I reserve the right to change my mind a thousand times in the next year). I'm going to vote for someone who I think has the experience and credibility to make solid and tough decisions to shore up the infrastructure of our economy - taxes, health care, education etc.... And then make really big recurring donations to the non-profit organizations that support my moral beliefs.

So far, it's looking like a vote for Romney, and monthly payments to Planned Parenthood and PFLAG.

As much as I loathe the idea of voting for a pro-life candidate, I am even more afraid of letting the future of our country rest on that one issue, or a small handful of issues like that. Not when our economy is falling apart, our role on the world-stage is being usurped and...

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

Perhaps you're right, Kenny, I heard and read and formed my own interpretation of Mr. Romney's remarks. Mine differs from yours, and one of the real blessings of living in the US is the right to express those differences.

Certainly I agree that God is intertwined in our government and our lives. Whose God is perhaps the question. I am not anti-religious, and as I said, I admire Mr. Romney's forthrightness. Religious conviction sets ethical boundaries and standards for most of us. It provides a moral compass. We should be able to consider candidates based on the outward signs of their faith, not on their avowed belief. A man who is kind, considerate and thoughtful expresses his convictions more strongly than one who proclaims hisfaith in voice but not in action. I have no pre-set ideas about the Mormon faith--having been raised Catholic, I can empathize with candidates who find themselves defending their beliefs.

I continue to be concerned that a personal choice of religion is so integral a concern in a political race, that candidates feel they must proclaim their (Christian) faith to gain support. I prefer to make my choice on the issues that affect me--the war in Iraq (where one of my sons is serving a third deployment), the tax burden on the middle class, the problems with the NCLB program, environmental issues like mountaintop removal, and the exhorbitant cost of so-called health care.

If a candidate can give me clear information about their position and plans on these issues, I'm listening. If they insist on telling me about their strong Christian, Muslim, Mormon or whatever faith without satisfying my questions about the above issues, I'm tuned out.

Granny Sue
Stories from the Mountains and Beyond
www.grannysu.blogspot.com ( http://www.grannysu.blogspot.com )
susannaholstein@yahoo.com

GrannySue,

You are looking at the principles of his speech inaccurately and you read the establishment clause (separation of church and state) wrong.

First, the separation of church and state was established to protect religion and government. The founding fathers were afraid that religious intolerance would erupt if the government was permitted to choose one religion over another. Also, they did want the citizens to follow an American creed over one religions creed.

However, here is the point most miss. The founding fathers never wanted to banish religion from the public forum. In judicial proceedings, we give an oath to god. In our pledge, we recognize god. When we sneeze, we confer a simple pleasentry, "God Bless, you" God is intertwined in the American Dream and the American Mission. This is what Romney was trying to indicate. That God is present in our mission whether he has illuminated himself to you through Islam, Catholicism, Mormanism, or Hinduism. God provides liberty and our moral code. That is the essence of what Mitt is trying to say.

Second, your fears of public artworks or shrines is collateral to what Romney is speaking about. When he discusses returning God to the public forum, he is speaking about the common principle of morality, respect, and love. He is not discussing whether or not the Ten Commandments should be shown throughout Constitution Hall or the Rotunda. That issue, by the way, is insignificant to the tenents of "what it means to be American."

Lastly, I want to address the current role of religion in the Government. Here is where I agree with you. This administration has hijacked the religious message that probably invigorated your fears of a theocracy. Like the Islamic fundamentalists, this administration has used terms that God guided me to this decision, so I did not need to look at the evidence. They have perverted the message and mission of faith into a blind endeavor to foist their beliefs and strategies on us. I do not agree with that. I think that each president should have a moral compass, usually provided within the context of religious guidelines, to aid him in making his decisions-- to give him the ability and forsight to see the consequences and meanings of each decision. However, I do not believe, as this administration seems to, that religious belief should be the basis of any decision. I find that Romney understands this message and if you read more about him you may see that he is in no way a religious zealot.

All in all, I am a Ron Paul supporter.

This is a good article by June Kronholz ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119699609744016722... ) in the Wall St Journal about McCain's gains in NH.

Is it possible Romney's speech and Huckabee's ultra-religiosity will aid McCain among the less socially conservative voters in NH?

I hope so.

Granny Sue, those are all valid points. However, we live in a nation "built under God" and voters are affected by religion and/or lack thereof.

I don't agree with Romney's religious beliefs, but I admire his courage to come forth and proclaim that he would stand by his faith, but also lead this country without influence from his religion.

Whether or not what he said is true is a different story.

I don't care what religion the President considers his own. I don't care who the President sleeps with. Those things are not my business. Maybe it's a generational thing, but those matters are private.

What does matter to me is that religion is kept separatefrom government. We have many examples in history of the bad effects of combining the two--think Mary Queen of Scots, the Spanish Inquisition, the ongoing turmoil in the mid-East. All because religion and government were intermingled. Does the United States want to travel that path?

If we allow religious displays on government property, as Mr. Romney suggests, does he understand where that leads? The range of religious affiliations in this country is incredible, and the turmoil over which should be allowed to display their icons on government property could be disastrous. Who will define 'religion'? Does it include cults? Does one god/God trump another on a particular day or in a particular place? The possibilities of lawsuits are endless.

I admire this candidate's forthrightness about his views and beliefs. He made a difficult decision to go public about a private matter. I cannot accept or espouse his point of view. I want a candidate who knows the difference between right and wrong, moral and immoral. And those things have nothing to do with religious preference, but everything to do with individual moral character and the ability to make informed, ethical decisions.

One less candidate on my list of possibilities.

Granny Sue
Stories from the Mountains and Beyond
www.grannysu.blogspot.com ( http://www.grannysu.blogspot.com )
susannaholstein@yahoo.com