First of all, if you haven't heard his speech, you can hear it here:
http://podcast.1010wins.com/wins/788372.mp3
or read it here:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Faith_In_America
I think he gave a good speech, but I am concerned that he may have needed to say more. But then again, I don't know what he could have said. What people say their concerns are with him being a Mormon and what their actual concerns are, are probably not the same. I have read articles with various outspoken people stating that if Romney can believe in Mormonism, then he isn't very bright. I don't know what would bring anyone to say that. Doesn't any religion require an element of "faith" in things that you can't prove, but can accept and believe? Yet saying that someone isn't bright because of their chosen faith makes it sound like religion is purely a logical choice. So, I don't think I can take the hecklers at face value. There is a pure and simple prejudice there. (I'm hearing a big 'well... duh' in my head as I write this.) So what could somebody say to put that behind them?
Years ago, JFK wrote and gave a somewhat similar speech because he was then running for President, and was a Catholic. At that time, no Catholic had ever been elected. I believe his speech was ingenious. He called a spade a spade. You can read it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
What he did, that was brilliant to me, was that he made out any American who voted against him because of his religion as an anti-American. In other words, he made people feel guilty about their concerns. And if they heard his speech and listened to it, it wouldn't surprise me if they had come away from that deciding that they should vote for him just to prove him wrong about their anti-Catholic sentiments.
Romney echoed some of those same ideas, but it didn't come off the same way. He made it clear that religion is important, but that the details of the candidate's beliefs are not. With most of the Republican candidates touting to be religious and one of them a former minister, what he said did not make Romney stand out at all. It allowed him to blend into the background with all the others. I don't think the speech will score him many points, although I thought it was a good speech, and enjoyed it.
I don't know what I would have done if I were in his shoes. I can think of only two things. Do what JFK did, or get up there and really defend your faith. I think he may have done better if he gave the reasons why he believes in Mormonism. Show people what you are all about, and then tell them that faith is important in the Presidency and that he would rely on it to know how to handle the day to day situations that he would face. But that's probably why he is running for president and not me. But still... he did take the safe road. But will the safe road get him the presidency? Some how, I don't think so. I think he needs to do more than that. But I am probably not the person to say what.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I have so many thoughts on this but not much time since it is 12:15 and I need to get to bed! I remember when Kennedy gave his speech. I just heard it again yesterday and it was a masterful speech. He was very eloquent. But he didn't really go into the specifics of his religion either. I think Romney did as well as he could for our time. Yesterday also, on one of the cable news shows, a commentator asked a pastor who was condemning Romney and our Church, what was he so afraid of--that people might be influenced to join the Mormon Church? The Pastor said "yes." "They would be misled and might join the Mormon Church." Well, that's what is really behind the whole mess. Pastors losing church members and living in fear that they will lose more--to us. And they will. Romney should have never had to defend his choice of religion. By the way, my family who are not members all love Romney.
Sorry, I get a little pertrumed in this comment... read without being too mad at me.. "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." - But isn't this what Bush is having our troops do in Iraq? Crusade against a country and a faith in a way that has made most Americans hateful toward anyone who holds a religion other than Chritianity? And what's what "my highest covenant to God is my oath of office"? What happened to the highest covenants with God being the covenants made in the temple? There are a lot of problems with this speech... a lot of the same sentiments that have emerged in Bush's presidency and which are very frightening to me. It isn't freedom of religion, or freedom of any kind, to deliberately go into a country, uninvited, and take away their freedoms and replace them with our version of it (read the Book of Mormon - over and over again the Lord says, "don't make the first move! Or I will NOT protect you.") Afghanistan, OK. They attacked us first. But Iraq? Romney will keep that war going, and for what purpose? Sorry. :) But I can't vote for someone who hasn't fought against immorality in his state government. Why would he fight against it at the national level? He's wishy-washy, from what I've seen, and appears to change colours based on who he's speaking with... but that's just the way I see it. :)
Heidi, I don't agree or disagree with you. I felt there were problems with the speech too. But here are my thoughts on what you said, and though I partially agree with you, my thoughts here will mostly contradict you because I have no need to reiterate what you just said.
"that oath becomes my highest promise to God"... I'm not sure what he meant when he said this. But these are my thoughts... throughout The Book of Mormon, the kings and chief judges had a responsibility for the people. Though they never stated the order of their priorities, I'm guessing that they could not keep their temple covenants and fail in their civic roles. In essence, I think what Romney is saying is that where much is given, much is required, and God would require much from him if he were to grant him the presidency. I'm not saying that this is what Romney was saying, but it could have been. It could simply be that the presidency would become the most important part of his covenants. Is that doctrinally correct? I don't know.
As far as the war goes... I have never been crazy about it either. There was a time in The Book of Mormon where the Nephites had the opportunity to be rid of the Gadianton Robbers if they hunted them down and got rid of them. Is that what we are doing? Are we chasing Gadianton Robbers or are we picking fights? I don't know. You also brought up the idea of the US pushing its belief system (our version of freedom) on other countries. We have been doing that for a long time. Is that good or bad? I don't know. If you believe in relativism, then it is bad. They have a right to their own beliefs and we should just leave them alone. Everyone is unique, everyone is different, and everyone should be accepted by everyone. But if you believe in absolutism, or more specifically, that our beliefs about freedom of religion and representational government, and a whole slew of other things including feminine rights, are correct and true principles, then the picture changes. Yes, I know, we are still going over there to war against a people who didn't ask for it. But it could be argued that we are going over to lift a repressive government off of a people in bondage. That, instead of going to war against those people, we are liberating those people. Unfortunately, I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. We should liberate people who need and want liberating. We should help those who are powerless. And I do believe that our principles are, if not correct, more correct than those of the the old Iraq government. What I don't know is what our motives were when we attacked. It all depends on that. If our motives were bad, then the war is bad, and should be ended right away. If our motives were good, then God's speed to our soldiers who are fighting over there for "truth, justice, and the American way". ;-) Some things have too many unknowns for me to be able to come to any solid conclusion on. But what Romney said about America never taking the spoils from any war is true. We have never taken land or treasures from conquered countries. In fact, we spend a lot of money on those countries. I just hope that money is out of charity and that it isn't indulgence money.
And last but not least, Romney has been inconsistent throughout the years on how he votes for certain things. But he has also been in politics for a long time. I'm not opposed to him changing his opinion over 10 years on an issue. Just so long as he doesn't change it frequently. And maybe you have evidence I haven't seen that he does change it frequently. The only things I've seen show that he was a different man 10 years ago.
My vote may or may not go to Romney. I haven't decided. I'm mostly just looking at the possibilities right now, and trying to think though what I'm hearing.
Wow, quite the discussion. I certainly have my opinions, but I'm downright too tired to try to post them here. I like Mitt Romney. I like what he stands for. I like the values and morals that he has. I haven't had a chance to listen to his speech from this week in it's entirety yet (remember...4 kids with the stomach flu right now :-) but what I did hear, I thought was good. If his speech had come off as just like Kennedy's, he would have been criticized for that too. Bottom line for me right now...no one is perfect, but I think he would do a good job as President.
Be careful BJ; Your defense of the Iraq war sounds downright liberal. Horrors! No good conservative would be caught dead supporting paternalistic nation-building (which is what makes the spirited opposition to the Iraq war by so-called liberals so ironic...only Ron Paul really seems to be true to his professed ideology).
As for the Romney speech, I thought it was totally wicked and equally ace. Maybe not a classic, but I thought it went well. I thought he could have done without the line "Religion requires freedom and freedom requires religion." However, I don't think it was incumbent on him to describe and defend the faith. It would have created more problems for him then it would have done good. Besides, most reporters are referring people to the church's website if they are interested in reading about the church's beliefs. Having Romney try and explain would have presented him as a spokesperson for the church, making him the Mormon candidate.
Wow, what a discussion. Having seen mormon prejudice first-hand in the sense that I was told I was stupid for being a mormon--I am not surprised at the various prejudices against Mitt. Frankly, I haven't made up my mind yet as to whom I would give my vote but I do appreciate the uphill battle he faces.
Haven't you wondered if it was the former pastor who was behind the push calling? Isn't he the guy who also said that we weren't christians? Isn't he the only one who is benefitting from the prejudice? I am certain I couldn't vote for Huckabee.
I am afraid that I almost feel our problems are too big in this country to see much hope--I do feel Mitt's optimism my be the reason he would do a good job.
Most of the feedback from he speech I saw and heard was positive...I guess we will see.
(PS, about the war, Beej, I looked up everything in the BofM on the Gadianton Robbers, and carefully noted that in every situation in which the Nephites go to war against them, the Gadianton robbers have ALWAYS been attacking or doing something to them first, and the times that hte Nephites either go out without provocation or want to do so, the Lord either lets them be conquered, or says, "I'll deliver you into their hands if you make the first move." the concept is repeated in the D&C as well, in regards to vengeance. ;-D I did my homework this weekend!)
Sorry Heidi, I don't think I was very clear. I was just suggesting that we may be trying to attack the home base of the people who have already attacked us. At least that's what some people say we are doing.
Ah, I see what you meant. But... well, some people also said we were making a "pre-emptive attack" before they attacked us, and they said originally that we were going in after "weapons of mass destruction..." So I'm not too convinced about this argument, either! LOL. K. I'm done with this conversation. I like having discussions, but I feel sometimes that I get too intense and my responses promote the spirit of contention. My apologies!
PS. Since you refuse to post anything new and interesting and Christmassy that we can enjoy rather than argue over ;) I thought I'd just comment that it appears that lots of people think your first little 'un is going to be a wee girl baby.
Post a Comment