Profundity in Texas
Mitt Romney – not surprisingly – says lots and lots of irritating things in that collection of platitudes and errors he offered up in Texas yesterday – at the George Bush I ‘library.’ It would be silly and otiose to analyze them in much detail – it’s not as if there’s any reason to expect the speech to be sensible or well-argued or grown-up or coherent. But there are some remarks that are so outrageous I just…
When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.
It would be nice if it became his highest promise to his fellow-citizens instead.
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.
‘Tolerance’ of course is only relevant when we’re talking about opinion. It’s silly to talk about tolerance when you actually want to get at the truth of something – tolerance comes in handy when the subject is a human invented story that people want to believe is literally true but realize they can’t actually demonstrate is literally true. It becomes a matter of ‘I’ll tolerate your myth if you’ll tolerate my myth and that way neither of us will have to confront the likelihood that both myths are just myths and not literally true.’ The last sentence is a terrific summing-up of that – religious tolerance is deep because it will tolerate anything – which doesn’t mean actually believing the anything is true. Except of course one’s own anything. Which is true. But the others aren’t. But it doesn’t do to say so when running for President. Twirl, repeat, twirl.
Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government…[W]e can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty…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.
Well here’s one American who doesn’t ‘acknowledge’ that liberty is a gift of God, and I’m reliably informed that there are others. And as for reason and religion being friends and allies – well the whole speech demonstrates why they’re not: it’s nonsense throughout, and blithely ignores (when it should ‘acknowledge’) its own nonsenicality.
“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government” Does this mean I get to stop paying taxes? I mean, it sounds like he’s revoking my citizenship….
“Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.” So let me get this straight; in order to believe in religious freedom I have to have knelt in prayer to your god. Otherwise I’m an enemy. Did I understand that correctly?
The more I think about this whole thing the more annoyed I get.
“‘Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.’ So let me get this straight; in order to believe in religious freedom I have to have knelt in prayer to your god. Otherwise I’m an enemy. Did I understand that correctly?”
He could be taking the patronizing tack instead of the threatening one–when people pray, it’s actually to his god, but they’re just too blinkered and confused to recognize it. Although that also is something that Won’t Do to say straight out.
It is hard to ignore the implication that people that–heaven forbid!–don’t pray at all are non-citizens. Shirkers who won’t join in the glorious symphony of blahblah and keep making all this discordant noise with funny instruments.
Well he was speaking at the Bush I ‘library’ you know and Bush I did say that* explicitly back in the ’88 campaign. Perhaps Romney thought of it as a tribute, an homage, as it were.
‘that’=atheists are not citizens
Have you seen Galloway has come out as a creationist!?
http://indyblogs.typepad.com/openhouse/2007/12/galloway-comes.html#more
Unfortunatly O.B there is stacks more of this sort of ka-ka to come from Romney he is aiming to have what the media will describe as a J.f.k moment.
You mean someone will shoot him in the head?
That was in rather poor taste dzd, I was talking about the answer that J.F.K gave when he was questioned about his catholic faith during the Kenedy Nixon debate,generaly called the J.F.K moment.
J.F.K gave a carefuly crafted answer to the question of Papal loyalty that probably enabled him to win a very close election, so this is why a lazy media are using the term with Romney.
The american constitution does not mention god, GT. The declaration of independence has two mentions of god but this is not a governing document as such.There is a reference to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and the famous line about men being “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: “In God We Trust” did not appear on coinage until the Civil War, and “under God” was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in the 1950’s.
BUT there is a recent history of republican and democratic politicians who wish to pretend otherwise.
“In Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote: “We must reestablish that our rights come from our Creator.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/secu-j18.shtml
“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.”
So none of you irreligious people will ever experience freedom – if you decide to remain that way – as it requires religion. The windows of your souls are perceptibly ferociously shut tight thus causing mugginess and ventilation problems… This in turn allows you all not to be able to think straight in order for you all to be able to determine your true philosophical values. The fact that you do not need God and Jesus as friends, you do not know what you are all missing. You all should pay heed to those in power, as they will lead you all on the straight and narrow road to freedom and religion. Otherwise, God, breathless, gasping, and crying out alone in pain and anguish, will leave you all, forevermore. I sayeth now to one and all “you would not wish that on your irreligious souls, -” would you all?
O my not prophetic but muggy soul!
Brilliant line, M-T.
To experience astonishing freedom you are all, by me advised to abandon B&W. Its atheistic philosophy will doubtless lead you all on the road to perdition. Its sceptical thinking flies in the face of God and its biting worldly winds are enormously soul destroying. “When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God” If you all also pay heed to people of Romney’s religious kind and likewise place your hand on the nearest bible, you will be renewed and set free. Take Flight and leave your muggy souls behind @ B&W. Embrace the truth! :-)!
Danke, OB!
Those who refuse to accept Jesus will suffer in hell for their sins for 1000 years during the millennial reign of Christ.
Righteous people, whether Latter-day Saint or not, will be resurrected and live with Christ on earth.
After the 1000 years, the individuals in hell will also be resurrected and receive an immortal physical body.
Joseph Smith, Jr.:
“I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name.
Wherefore—Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
Endless punishment is God’s punishment.”
A thousand years of suffering awaits all your muggy souls if you do not seek freedom. Now!
God is a sadist: don’t you want to believe in God? Of course you do! God is cruel and vindictive not just for a moment or a day or a century but for eternity – so don’t you just love him to bits? Of course you do! Darling darling God, such a sweety.
Is it all that much of a problem if a candidate believes that freedom is a gift from God rather than man? if freedom is a gift of man surely it can also be recinded by man?
Yes, it is, for a lot of reasons. One, it’s just fatuous, and fatuous people should not have the kind of power the US president has. Two, secularism is better (for believers as well as non-believers) than theocracy; Romney’s account excludes all citizens who don’t agree with him, secularism simply puts religion to one side. Three, since there is no reason to think God exists, Romney’s claim turns freedom into something like Cinderella’s glass slipper. Four, the idea that ‘gifts’ from God can’t be rescinded applies to nasty things as well as nice ones, so we’re better off without it. Five, the fact that freedom can be rescinded by humans doesn’t make the God’s gift theory true (and presidents who say things that aren’t true are indeed a problem). There are more reasons, but that will do for now.
You mean people, or humans, not ‘man.’ (Omit the part where you explain that ‘man’ includes woman – no it doesn’t.)
I agree it is kind of silly it just dosnt bother me, the irony of Romney is if he becomes president it will probably be because he looks like people imagine a president should look like! in fact I would go as far to say if it wasnt for his mormon background he would be front runner just for that reason, that does bother me espesialy as we are no better in the U.K.
Richard:
if freedom is a gift of man surely it can also be recinded by man?
Well, yes and indeed it is : we, not god, put people in jail.
QED.
“Oh my not prophetic but muggy soul”
Oh my not prophetic, but purging soul? :-(!
Why does so much of this remind me of the wonderful “Kissing Hank’s Ass” sketch (by, according to my version, “Rev. Jim Huber, heretic”), that ought to be staged alongside every “Nativity” play…??
:-)
(if anyone’s unaware of this small & perfectly formed satire, I’ll post a copy on here – as long as that’s ok with OB?)
Sorry for error in last post! Hankisms.
http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/cetera/hankisms.html
Thought you might enjoy this…
In the annals of American history there are but a handful of defining, epochal speeches.
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
Roosevelt’s stirring Inaugural reassurance that “all we have to fear is fear Itself.”
Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream.”
Cleveland Indians Manager Eric Wedge’s “Nice Game guys” locker room remarks following the Tribe’s unforgettable 3-1 triumph over the Yankees in the 2007 American League Division Series.
And now: Mitt Romney’s magnificent, soaring, Olympian speech yesterday at the Bush Library.
Without question, The Speech is destined to enter the pantheon of the defining moments of our time; for in it, we lucky mortals were witness to what was inarguably the finest distillation of passion and and brains and square-jawed herculean glory of this or any other age; an achievement of such blinding white TelePromted perfection that, in 15 heart-pounding minutes, eclipsed every previous achievement of the human race, combined, and those who cannot admit this simple axiomatic truth are clearly soulless and/or deranged.
Forgive them Mitt, for they know not what they do.
The stakes were very high, and many in Romney’s inner circle advised against the address.
<...>
And of course in all but the most jaded, iconoclastic or stupid eyes, he carried it off magnificently.
Here’s the objective measure: When was the last time that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer and me all focused on the same subject and all agreed on the merits? It is literally impossible to imagine a more wildly diversified group of 50-something Republican pundits. Even in our most agreeable moments we are endlessly roiled in rancorous disagreements on everything, from the NFL replay rule to the merits of the Four-In-Hand versus the Windsor knot, yet here we spoke with one unanimous, harmonious voice:
Rush Limbaugh: “Pretty good speech. I think it will help him.”
Sean Hannity: “I didn’t see it myself, but Lee Greenwood told me it was nice.”
Michael Medved: “I think it probably helps Romney with Evangelicals.”
Fred Barnes: “I’d venture Romney will probably pick up 2 to 4 points in the next Iowa poll.”
Charles Krauthammer: “He certainly didn’t hurt himself.”
Me: “As the magnificence of His words burst forth, I fell to my very knees and wept with utter overwhelming joy; not just for me, but for the entire human race.”
There you have it: every single pundit whose voice actually matters has joined me in being swept into the rapturous epiphany that any unbiased, objective review of Romney’s unforgettable words will induce.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/12/in-my-objective.html
snerk
Stupid twerp can’t even quote the FDR thing right. It is (in patrician Hudson Valley accent): ‘The only thing we have to feah, is feah itself.’
Richard said, “Is it all that much of a problem if a candidate believes that freedom is a gift from God rather than man? if freedom is a gift of man surely it can also be recinded by man?”
Ophelia gave several good reasons it is a problem, but I think she missed one of the most important: If freedom is given by God then it surely can be recinded by God, keeping in mind that for people like Romney “by God” means “by the interpretation of God’s will by self-appointed experts who would be more than happy to tell you exactly what that is”.
As Utah Phillips remarked,
Freedom is what youy are born with, then they try to take it away. The extent to which you resist is the extent to which you are free.
“Freedom is what youy are born with, then they try to take it away”
I was under the impression that most people were born utterly helpless and dependent on others for warmth, sustenance, and life itself. Perhaps it is different in America, where members of the NRA burst forth from their mothers’ wombs, brandishing M16s and cursing as the gummint tries to impose the cruel teat of external aid, with its perfidious milk of collectivism, upon them….
Or you might just be talking boll*cks.
BTW, OB, your clock that logs the time of posts, it’s about 2hrs 15mins out [relative to GMT], rather bizarrely…
Dave,
You have mistaken my meaning.
‘… members of the NRA burst forth from their mothers’ wombs, brandishing M16s and cursing as the gummint tries to impose the cruel teat of external aid, with its perfidious milk of collectivism,…’
Not really where Utah is coming from.