Romney's Big Religion Speech: What it Wasn't

Photos from Wikipedia

I have several problems with Mitt Romney's big religion speech from yesterday. But I have even more of a problem with how the whole thing has been handled in the media.

It has been likened endlessly to John F. Kennedy's own religion speech from 1960. The problem with that, is that Romney's speech had nearly the opposite point as Kennedy's. Both of them assured their public that they would not allow their church to guide their policy decisions as President. Beyond that, however, their speeches veered 180-degrees from each other. Kennedy was strenuously arguing for a strong and preserved separation of church and state. Romney, by contrast, was arguing for protection of religion, but not protection from it.

He wants religion to be front and center in the "public square." He declared that our country was founded on religion, and that in God we "do indeed" trust. He said that without faith there is no freedom. So apparently, we are expected to trust him, and respect his religion, and respect Christianity (presumably) enough to incorporate it into government. But, if you are agnostic or atheist you are to be afforded no respect, and it's cool to insult you by saying if you were running the country, there would be no freedom. Nice.

[Excerpt]

Romney, religion, and ‘the public square’

. . .“They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism.”

Romney didn’t field questions today, but I have a follow-up inquiry: name one. Name one prominent figure in America, who has any official and/or political influence, who believes religion has “no place in public life.” I suspect some of my conservative friends may point to the ACLU or my friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, but that’s absurd — both want the government to remain neutral on matters of faith, but neither have ever expressed any hostility of religion. Indeed, both AU and the ACLU have gone to court, countless times, to protect the rights of the faithful. . .

Read more at: Carpetbagger Report