Mitt Romney is going to make his “Kennedy Speech” today to offset the question his Mormon Religion has brought up. Unlike Kennedy, however, who made a clear distinction between church and state, Romney apparently is of the new political thinking that religion is important as part of the candidacy.
This is upsetting for more than a small number of reasons.
I listened to an analyst on C-Span this morning discussing the situation… how, in the 50s and 60s Protestants hated Catholics, and it was Kennedy’s need to disable this position. By stressing that church was indeed completely separated from state, Kennedy accomplished his purposes. Now, 47 years later, Protestants and Catholics have come to a detente… but they seem to hate Mormons… and even worse, they hate Secularists and Non-Believers.
This says to me, as I have thought for some time, that “hate” and “religion” go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other.
Church and state have lost a lot of their separation. Candidacies are pushed in the pulpit like never before (and yet religions still maintain their tax-free status… think about it). Candidates go out of their way to push their religions. Obama has been accused, falsely, of being a Muslim, and so he goes out on a campaign crusade with an anti-gay preacher. I’ll have to hand it to Kucinich who doesn’t even list a religious affiliation, but he’s the only one.
I would give almost anything to get back to an America where church and state were as far apart as the Founding Fathers wanted. It doesn’t seem likely.
Well, old Mitt’s given his little speech. Just a few snippets from perusing the net.
. Well, that’s impressive. Stumble right out the gate with the old straw man “some people who feel”. What people Mitt? Tell me, Mitt. Tell me.
Freedom requires religion??? Freedom requires it ??? Where in the f%#*ck did he ever come up with that?
Holy sheep shit! Religion of secularism? Where does he get this stuff? News flash, Mitt. We were founded as a SECULAR COUNTRY. This guy is as wacky as those he is trying to convince to permit him in their club.
I certainly don’t know the context in which all these things were said as I have not yet seen a whole transcript. But from what I’ve seen, all those who want to compare this to the JFK speech are going to have dig mighty deep down in the shit pile to find any supportable parallels to this drivel from Mitt.
My concern here is the media is constantly comparing Romney’s speech to JFK’s speech. The difference here is that JFK was simply a Catholic layman and Mitt Romney was a Mormon bishop. Now, at the outset I will declare that Mormon bishops are not the equivalent of the title of Bishop in other religious orders. First of all a Mormon bishop is a Mormon layman who is “Called” to serve in this capacity by the higher order president of the regional Stake, or other higher order official. The bishop position is a non-paid highly intensive job which requires many hours, lot of dedication and enthusiasm, and therein lies the difference. Those who are chosen to serve in the capacity of bishop have already demonstrated within the Church that they are ready to “Take up the cross” of their lifelong calling to be a shepherd to the members of their ward or stake as guided by the “Spirit of lord”.
Therefore, though not explicitly stated this dedication is constant lifelong calling and it is difficult to see (if one is and has been sincere) how one can voluntarily shed this important cornerstone of character simply to make oneself a credible candidate for the highest political office in the land.
This is not similar to past situations where people prior to assuming the office of President or Vice President are required to sever their official connections with any corporations that have any involvement with the American government, so as to remove any appearance of conflict of interest.
In this instance the public is asked to believe that an individual who has been constantly weighed and evaluated by his Church superiors concerning the strength of his faith and the success of his efforts to develop and expand the Church on an official high level ministerial basis, always exceeding expectations, can suddenly put that lifelong ambition aside for political reasons simply on the basis of his public profession? I think not!