I clicked right to this because I thought your headline was "quickie retraction."  Ok, I read your reaction anyway.

I know I'm not the audience for this speech, but I'm stuck on the Menorahs in the public square.  I hate that kind of pandering.  I have menorah in my house, so why the hell do I want a garish ten foot replica out in public to give the goyim a false sense of pluralism?  

On a purely strategic level, I think he accomplished his immediate goal: protecting his right flank from Huckabee. Now, those subtle anti-Mormon ads will have to get even subtler.

As a piece of political oratory, I thought it was among the best 20 or so speeches I've heard during the '08 campaign, and I more or less second Noam's praises of it. I guess my main beef is that it was too ambitious in scope. His assertions of ecclesiastical independence, his laundry list of practices he admires in other religions, and his somewhat awkward playing of the religious victim card were wholly unnecessary. The first was extraneous, since the primary indictment against Mormons is the oddity of their beliefs rather than the sovereignty of their public service, as it was for JFK. The second -- and I disagree with Noam here -- struck me as nakedly timeserving and borderline dishonest, especially the bit about Muslims tacked on at the end. The third came across to me as "There was Anne Hutchinson, then a couple centuries where things were just dandy, especially for Catholics and Jews, THEN came Brigham Young..." I've never understood why the KKK, which for much of its history was as much an anti-semitic and anti-Catholic organization as it was anti-black, isn't invoked as much in religious debates as it is in racial debates.

As an aside, the structure of the speech was fascinating to watch unfold. I am convinced reading the transcript that Romney started with a broad outline of the JFK speech and went from there. The beginning and the end especially mirror the techniques JFK used, opening with the "substantive" issues of the campaign (Cuba then, China now) and concluding with an historical analogy that illustrates different religions united behind a common cause (the Alamo, the First Continental Congress).

I do think it worked well politically, but taken at face value he didn't go far enough to resolve its internal contradictions to convince me personally (though admittedly the only way I'd vote for Romney is if Barbara Streisand were the Democratic nominee). The biggest one is the speech's subtext of religious freedom... so long as you have religion. Also, I object to Romney's willful conflation of the separation-of-church-and-state (to which he pays lip service) with the "religion of secularism". I go back and forth over how I'd feel about, say, a Christmas manger scene in a public park, or, taken further, allowing school vouchers to be used at parochial schools.  Sometimes I think liberals hyperventilate too much about benign expressions of the majority that wouldn't merit a second glance in other countries. Other times I think that it is precisely because America is so uniquely religious among developed nations that we must be vigilant against any leakage of religious power into the political sphere. But no matter where I am, I never confuse the efforts of staunch separation advocates with a "religion", because I think such a comparison is ridiculous on its face.

stgla: "I clicked right to this because I thought your headline was "quickie retraction."  Ok, I read your reaction anyway."

Haaaahahahaa. Funniest thing I've read all day!

stgla, I am shocked (SHOCKED!!) that you would imply that gentiles would have gigantic displays of Hanukkah menorahs in the public square for any reason other than to celebrate the Maccabees.  

That thing about secularism or humanism or even science being a "religion" is a theist favorite.  I've never understood it, either.  Given their feelings about secularism, it would seem to denigrate religion.  It might have something to do with framing secularism in a way that would bring it under the Establishment Clause, so that state entanglement with any number of non-religious ideas or institutions might be irrationally claimed to constitute an establishment of religion.

Or rerhaps the implication is that reason, empricism, skepticism, etc., are just as faith-based as, uh, faith.  But wait -- doesn't the fact that something is faith-based (i.e., lacks what scientists would call "supporting evidence") make it good?  Describing somebody as "a man of faith" always seems to be a compliment.  (I notice that this label is never applied to, say, Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, two of the most faith-based people on the planet).  Then again, calling secularism a faith may just be the best way Christians can come up with to describe Thomas Jefferson as a deeply religious fellow.

great posts everyone, primwallow, I didn't get a chance to watch it yet, but excellent briefing yourself.

stgla, who you calling goyim? didn't the little snip-snip i had as a baby make me an honorary member of the tribe?

For what it's worth, I agree with Primwallfellow re: liberal hyperventilation regarding public display of manger scenes and other religious sybolism.  Public religious displays don't really bother me, except insofar as they tend to be dreadfully tacky.  (What ever happened to Calvinist simplicity?)  

I think some the liberal outrage over these sorts of things is symptomatic of the sad human need to feel like, and represent oneself as, a victim.  Christian conservatives are the worst offenders, in part because their claim to victimhood is so ludicrous.  Even if a bunch of people in New York, Washington, Boston and San Francisco think you're crazy hicks, isn't controlling one of the nation's major political parties (and the White House) a decent consolation prize?  At last count, there is literally one member of Congress who is openly not religious.  To hear Romey & Co. talk, you'd think our country was being run by the faculty of Harvard and the editorial staff of the New York Times.

I'm confused: is the man's faith relevant to his policy decision-making process, or not?

If it's relevant, then which tenets of this rather peculiar racke- er religion does Romney apply, and how-when-where?

If it's not relevant, then could he (and we) please admit as much?

@Primwafflow: "Other times I think that it is precisely because America is so uniquely religious among developed nations that we must be vigilant against any leakage of religious power into the political sphere."

Yep. That's very well put.

"But no matter where I am, I never confuse the efforts of staunch separation advocates with a "religion", because I think such a comparison is ridiculous on its face."

Yep. Of course, that doesn't stop conservatives from using "Secular Humanism" as a convenient bogeyman to frighten that childlike evangelical base into voting against their own interests, election after election. In fact, you can make a case that recent GOP sucess was largely due to the deliberate gaslighting of the Christian right. (Watch out! The gays are gonna get ya! They're gonna steal Christmas! Watch out!)

@Tep: I assume your confusion is rhetorical. You didn't really expect Romney to address those kinds of specifics, did you? He was smart not to get into that. Radioactive stuff.

sully - I'm tired of the faith-pimpers. Can't have it both ways. If your faith is a key influence on your decisions, then your catechism, dogma, dog'sbreakfast etc are fair game. If not, then quit with teh codewords and winks, already

Tep,  I feel ya. But winks and codewords still work for the right, so there you are.

Religion requires freedom?  

The clear message of Romney's insulting speech is that it is un-American to be an atheist.  

Romney is a jerk.  I feel like sending Rudy a check.

Neil

Actually, purcellneil, it was the second part of that formulation that was the more objectionable.  

Freedom requires religion....?

Other than that, I kinda liked the speech.  He did all the things he needed to do, he mainstreamed his Mormonism without denying it and acknowledged the primacy of the Constitution without rejecting the historical and cultural place and power of faith in America.  Yeah, the athiests and agonstics were left out, but they don't swing many elections. And they sure don't decide many Republican caucuses or primaries.  It was eloquent, well written, and delivered with conviction and passion.

I think most people who grew up in a faith can relate to his spirited defense of the "faith of his fathers".  Most of us, even if we have made different choices as adults, have a soft spot for the faith we were born into and shared with family and friends.  And I still maintain that, whatever philosophical or religious arguments we use to explain our moral sense to ourselves today, most of us got it in Sunday School when we were knee high.   And Romney pretty much celebrated everybody's Sunday School today.  I ain't mad at him.

Freedom does require a fundamental moral consensus.  And historically, in this country, most of us get our moral sense from religion.  And most of us, still, get that, or got that, from a Judeo-Christian moral tradition.  If that's what that second part meant, then I don't necessarily find it so objectionable.

vanwurs,

Yes, of course.  I meant the other formulation as you suggest.  

Why do you think freedom requires religion?  We all wish to have as much individual liberty as we can get, and are willing to grant the same to our neighbor in order to get the same for ourselves.  This is a practical arrangement that requires no foundation in religious belief.  

Our founding fathers understood the practical aspects of the problem, and crafted a Constitution that included checks and balances, limited terms of office, the bicameral legislature, etc etc - all practical approaches to protecting freedom.  They specifically did not embrace the idea that religion was required - and made sure that religion would not be a requirement for public office.

Your defense of Romney is partly justified on the basis of its appeal to Republican voters -- and let's be clear which Republican voters he was speaking to.  He was speaking to evangelical christians who have taken over the party and who have all but established a religious test for the nomination.  What did he say to them?  He told them what they wanted to hear -- Jesus is his personal savior!  How is that an appeal for tolerance? Isn't the implication clearly that  this statement is now required of any candidate for the nomination of the Republican party?

Romney's speech was shameful pandering, and profoundly disturbing to those of us who hoped that the Bush fiasco would have undermined the evangelical lock on GOP politics.  Whatever your religious beliefs or political views, the fact that the GOP has become an overtly sectarian party should be cause for concern.

I grew up a Christian, and I agree with your observation about the soft spot we have for the faith of our fathers, but let's not let that soft spot become self-destructive complacency.      

Purcellneil,

Actually the "Freedom requires religion" part is the part I was taking some issue with.  But again, if you define religion as the essense of Judeo-Christion moral teachings (and he seemed to doing some serious homogenizing of faiths in his speech, in order to broaden the definition of American Religious tradition and keep Mormonism safely within it's boundaries), then I could agree that freedom requires some common and shared, implicit moral assumptions.  Like the value and worth of each individual.  The sanctity of human life.  I would argue that much of the rationale for a government that intervenes in society to establish justice and fairness, and to establish systems of publicly supported compassion (Food stamps?  Social Security?  Medicare?  Or to go back even further.....Freedman's Bureaus, Child Labor laws, safety regulations..) is a function of that shared moral consensus...which has it's origins in the Judeo-Christion moral tradition of the Founders.  They may have been "Diests", but you would be hard pressed to find a "secular humanist" among them.  So if you define "religion" as the predicate to the moral tradition that probably gave rise to the moral assumption we share as a society (no matter what philosophical justifications we may each supply for them today...) then, yes, religion was an essential prerequisite of American liberty.  But I wasn't necessarily endorsing that half of his statement, just trying to find some broad justification for it.

And as far as his purely political declaration of belief in the Lord Jesus.....yes, that is probably required of a Republican candidate, particularly a candidate who hails from a religious tradition that is suspect in the Christian world.  That's just the facts of Republican politics.  Just like over here, our candidates have to downplay their faith or they get jumped all over by the folks who object to any evidence of faith as hopeless superstition and a threat the Republic....over there you have to, at some point, embrace Jesus and get it over with.  

We may not be a "Christian" nation, but we are a nation (largely) of, at leat nominal, Christians.  Even Jack Kennedy, in a different time and a different party, had to acknowledge his nominal Catholicism (and place himself in that moral tradition) before he made it secondary to his fealty to the Civic Religion.