« What NIE? | Main | Anti-Romney Forces Plan To Bracket The Speech »

Romney's Speech, Annotated

06 Dec 2007 10:43 am

This address is, at once, a plea to voters, an argument about religious tests, a defense of the role of Christian faith in American politics, and a political document.

At the outset, he sets to describe how faith -- some measure of faith -- is relevant to the tests facing the United States. His first invocation of freedom is distinctly Anselmic:

"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."

He invokes JFK and continues:

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

This he has said before.

The law, Romney says, is "sovereign."

And he elaborates:

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

And then:


"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

This is the first reference to his specific faith.

Romney then makes a curious argument next. Curious -- because he seems to pre-emptively invalidate it.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

Notwithstanding the rhetorical ledgermain -- the constitution prohibits government, not voters, from imposing religious tests (and, indeed, did not originally prohibit states from imposing religious tests) -- Romney wades into the paragraph above after specifically raising, and then answering, a question about his religion.

“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? 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.”

Jesus is the central figure of Christianity; redemption relies, in fact, on the precise beliefs a church holds about Jesus. Romney opens up a can of proof-texts, here.

Romney moves to more solid ground.


"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

This is a very sound argument. He does not admonish voters; he suggests that, in the affairs of state, church doctrines ought to matter less -- much less -- than the powerful effects of religion in the public area. That is, effect ought to precede cause for voters. Judge me, in other words, by the actions informed by my creeds, not by my creeds themselves.

There is an objection here, but it thin. Do creeds matter? But Romney is not arguing that faith ought to be separate from the public square, or even that convictions derived from faith have no role in politics. What he is arguing is that particular creeds -- creeds that divide Americans -- are dangerous. A creed is common and worthwhile if it advances the health and welfare of the Republic and if it is elemental to all our of major faiths.


"

These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'

"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

So how does Romney's faith inform his political arguments about non-majoritarian issues? abortion? Civil unions? -- Romney implies that the question is unfair. Maybe, but it's implied by his speech, and it's fundamental in trying to figure out whether the specific practices of his faith ought to be relevant in a voter's calculus. But the question is unanswerable. No one thinks about these questions rationally. Our gut, as much as any argument, dictates our conscience. We are left with the same question we mulled over at the beginning of the speech, because different creeds lead to different beliefs and vastly different public policies. Conservatives may object to Romney's preference for majoritarianism, with its assumption that all faiths are similar enough, and liberals might object to the application of his majoritarianism.

Read the full speech after the jump and tell me what you think.

"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.

"It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

"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.

"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? 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.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. 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. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

"We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'

"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'

"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

"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.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: 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.

"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'

"God bless the United States of America."

Comments (16)

Seems like Romney deliberately avoided saying the word "Mormon" or "Mormonism" in this speech. Everything was referring to "my church," "my faith," and "my beliefs."

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion."

Not exactly the profile in courage that JFK was. Couldn't even say "I am an American running for president, not a Mormon running for president."

This whole speech thing is preposterous. Nothing Romney says (unless it's "I am not a Mormon anymore") will have zero effect on how the voters see him and his religion. It's just a pathetic copy of JFK.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

The speech bombed. Its very clear that Romney is not JFK and infact Romney wants to mix religion and politics except that he does not want anyone to know that he is a mormon.

According to Novak:

Mitt Romney's Mormon problem "has been obvious for two years, though just two months ago he was still in denial, claiming only journalists asked him about his religion," Robert Novak writes. "A month ago, he changed his tune, telling campaign contributors he liked 'the idea' of a speech but 'at some point' in the future because 'the political advisers' tell him 'it's not a good idea.'"

"These advisers still think it's a bad idea, recommending that any speech should have been preceded by Romney winning in Iowa, New Hampshire or both. They think Romney is overreacting to the surge of Huckabee, who probably tops out at 25 percent in Iowa. They believe Huckabee's support is pro-Evangelical rather than anti-Mormon, boosted by his support of 'fair tax' reform to eliminate the federal income tax."

Agree with sentiments of Americablog. To quote them, "Romney is a flip-flopping, two-faced, hypocritical liar. There aren't words strong enough to describe what a disingenuous, deceitful politician Romney is. This latest flip-flop, on religion, is part of an ongoing pattern with Romney ever since he decided he wanted to be president. You'll recall that only a few years ago Romney was pro-choice, pro-gay, and anti-gun. Now he's the opposite on every single thing he ever believed in. And we're seeing the same inconsistencies on his positions on religion. Romney was private about his religion, about religion in general, until he decided he wanted to run for president. At that time, he decided he wanted to woo the far right of the Republican party. To do that, he needed to pretend that he was a far-right Republican, rather than the liberal Democrat he truly is. So, Romney became a raging Christian and a raging Muslim-hater, as both of those have traction in the far-right of the GOP. And that's where Romney's Muslim-bashing comments of last week came from - Romney probably doesn't care whether or not there are Muslims in his cabinet. But he knows that much of the GOP cares, so he's just making stuff up at this point, trying to pretend that he's intolerant towards Islam in order to get some chits.

Only problem? You can't give a speech about being an oppressed religious minority in America only 5 days after you oppress another religious minority in America. Romney can't tell us that the religion of his cabinet is relevant but the religion of the cabinet's president isn't. It just doesn't work that way. Either a candidate for high office's religion is relevant or its not. This week Romney is going to tell us that it's not, though I suspect he's also going to try to con everyone into thinking that Mormonism IS Christianity, so at the same time he's telling us to ignore his religion he's going to be telling us that he's a bigger Christian than we are and that that is the reason we should vote for him. In other words, Romney is going to try to have it both ways this week, lying all the way. So what else is new?".

WTF was that. Romney did not utter the word 'Mormon' or 'LDS church' even once!

Is Romnet too stupid or does Romney think that he can fool people all the time?

He used Mormon at least once. That term has had a negative connotation since the foundation, which is why that church's leadership has worked hard in using LDS. He didn't use LDS, but what's the point? The title of the talk is Faith in America, not Mormonism in America.

Preposterous is a strange word to use. It basically means something against common sense, nature, and/or senseless. And yes, that's a free language lesson for you. You can think what you like, but to most well educated people, the speech made sense and set out what it meant to do. The only way I could see an intellectual person calling it preposterous is if that person believes the whole idea of God is preposterous. If so, I still respect your opinion and contribution to this nation. But lets be honest. Romney has extraordinarily talented professionals backing him, equal to the likes of James Carville, Mandy Greenwald, Howard Wolfson, Harold Ickes, etc. Romney has wanted to make this speech for a while (more than a month ago, and before the Huckaboom). Why? Well I believe primarily that it is because Mormons love this country. It has been argued by numerous non-mormon scholars that Mormonism is most near to the true American Religion. I studied a bit of mormonism in school, read Mormon America, Mormon Experience, Tanner Lectures, No Man Knows My History, Rough Stone Rolling, and plenty of papers by Jan Shipps. They make a good argument on why it is so American. So go figure, a guy wants to talk about his faith in the context of a country he loves.

As everyone is aware, there are layers of motives behind every action in politics. This speech had many motives. I believe most were for good. It was a success on their part and hardly "bombed". I enjoy using "bombed", but lets save it for one Romney falls of the stage, or sneezes multiple times during a speech, or zero people applaud, or a microphone turns off. Why wouldn't Romney summon the image of JFK? What JFK did turned out to be a success. Romney is a business man, and he emulates what was successful in the past. It makes perfect sense and most certainly does not go against reason. I enjoy criticism, but lets not mistake criticism for jealousy, hate, or just plain bigotry. Let's recognize tact and skill where it is deserved. The speech worked.
Now get out there and vote for Huckabee! (There are a few issues I don't agree with Romney on, but I still believe he is a good man. Hell, most the republican nominees would be good presidents, even Obama is a prospect. Isn't this country great! Be thankful we are not Russia.

That speech could have been given by almost any candidate irrespective of the party. So whats big deal about it? Romney referred 'mormon' remotely only once and never explained what is mormonism and why he as a mormon will be ok as president.

The speech turned out to be a fraud.

Here is the official press release. Where does it say Romney will talk about Mormonism solely? Hmmmmmmm. Maybe I missed something. "on religious faith". That's not misleading and certainly far from fraud. He did what they officially said they would. It's disheartening that people don't read before criticizing...


CBS
Monday, Dec 03, 2007

"Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will deliver a much-anticipated speech on religious faith at the George H. W. Bush library on Thursday, CBS News has confirmed."

...

"'This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor's own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected,' said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden in a statement released this evening."

I liked Mitt Romney's speech regarding faith, and religion, which a two different things.
While there currently is a forced social experiment forced upon our children etc., it was a fresh breeze.
Nobody, who is genuine in his or her faith should be ashamed, or cautios in expressing such.
Only those who would find offense in genuine faith, or those who use religion to pander would find offense with that speech.
These negative comments by some expressed in the above opinions are considered 'free speech', my personal belief is that of not judging others unless you want to be judged.

A quote from the speech:

"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Yep. didn't say mormon once. Y'all are idiots.

Great speech.

I have been left feeling perplexed by Mitt Romney. Here is a man who is looking for the Republican nomination for President. Likening himself to a Medal of Honor awarded DEMOCRATIC President J.F. Kennedy... It kinda makes one pass to wonder.... Nope sorry Mitt after reflection I'm left with the conclusion J.F.K. you are not. You are a politician trying to liken himself with one of the most popular Presidents this country has known. Also Mr. Romney in case you didn't know there is a huge difference between the Catholic Church and the Mormon. Wasn't it in the 1970's when the Mormons finally allowed African American's to hold the priesthood? The case was going to court. When the Prophet in Utah suddenly had a Revelation from God. Allowing them to then hold the priesthood.

Why is everyone being so negative about Romney sticking up for what he believes in? I thought it was courageous of him to stick up for what he believes in, but most of you clearly don't agree with what he said:

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

Hurrah for freedom of religion!

Montgomery,
I don't recall anything "going to court". If anything, the 1960s would have been a great time to conveniently and "suddenly" have a revelation. The announcement actually shocked everybody in and our of the church because the issue had subsided. Study a little history. Also, if you're going to comment on a politician, lets stay clear of bigotry. And you're right, the Mormon church is different from the Catholic Church, by the billions. The Mormon Church is worth about 30-40 billion in assets, and brings in 5-6 billion each year. Where does that come from? Tithes mostly. (and probably from guys like Mitt Romney, who pay 10% of their income. Phil Johnston of the Mass State Dem Party pegged Romney's net worth between $500 million and $600 million.) Try paying 10% of that to a church where you have no control.. that takes faith. Point being? Mormons believe in their religion, and put their money where their mouth is.
Be careful comparing the Catholic Church to Mormonism purely as an ecclesiastical entity. Mormonism has its flaws, but not nerely as many as the Catholic church has had. LDS's have polygamy, mountains meadows, blacks & priesthood, and some doctrinal issues. Catholics have had similar scandals, issues, etc.
US News & World report quoted here:

"If current trends hold, experts say Latter-day Saints could number 265 million worldwide by 2080, second only to Roman Catholics among Christian bodies. Mormonism, says Rodney Stark, professor of sociology and religion at the University of Washington, "stands on the threshold of becoming the first major faith to appear on Earth since the prophet Mohammed rode out of the desert."


Romney deserves to place himself on the same plane as JFK, just as Mormonism deserves its place next to Catholicism, and any other religion. Show a little respect people. Some of the best people i've known are Mormons, and Catholics. Lets be open. Thanks Monty.

Disclaimer: I am not a Romney supporter, but I do see in the Christian right's treatment of him a tipping point.

The reaction of the religious right against Romney shows why the Republican party will never be a majority party again, at least until it reformulates itself as something other than a group based on the "in" group and "out" group. There have become too few who are pure enough to be "in" and too many who are unworthy and therefore "out."

If Mormons are so bad, why does the GOP (God's Own Party) always count on their votes? Wouldn't that contaminate the holy (political) alliance? Perhaps the leaders of the Christian right have become so arrogant they don't think they need the Mormon vote anymore.

Of course, Pat Robertson can endorse Rudy Giuliani, whose personal conduct does not even qualify him to be an active participant in his faith.

But Pat could never endorse a Mormon. Why? Because he would be exposed for the political hack that he is if he were to endorse someone from a religion he has falaciously labeled a cult. Better to endorse a serial adulterer who is pro gay rights, pro choice, and seems to enjoy the company of corrupt cronies. Endorsing a Mormon would ruin Pat's credibility. Ummm, yeah--mission accomplished.

This election is a change election, and one of the changes will be that Mormons are going to realize that they don't have an interest in supporting a party that takes their support for granted and then throws them under the bus when it's convenient. Mormons will remember more strongly that they were not allowed to participate in the national day of prayer following September 11th because some evangelical Christians didn't deem them worthy. They will remember that when asked if Mormons are Christians, Mike Huckabee punted rather than saying what he honestly thought.

Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist convention, in part, because he didn't think anyone but God had the right to decide who was Christian and who wasn't.

If I were a Democratic politician in the West, I'd be paying very close attention right now. This trend may only be trickle, but I predict that it will become a torrent and Mormons will realize they are better off somewhere besides the GOP, taking the intermountain west and every subsequent presidential election away from God's Own Party.

It's only natural for Mormons to feel this way--with friends like the "Christian" right, who needs enemies?

I'm a Democrat, so I fully welcome this change. It's morning in America.

I watched Romney's speech closely and carefully.
I am a conservative Christian voter in Iowa, not part of any campaign.
If the speech was directed at winning my support, it has the opposite effect. It is obvious that he is a 100% true believer in Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I really wonder if the speech is more directed at Mormons nationwide and the media.

Iowa evangelicals are well aware of Mormons because they aggressively attack our beliefs, but personally the various missionaries I have met were so untrained and unfamiliar with the Bible (didn't know the ten commandments or couldn't remember verses), that they had to just argue that the Bible couldn't be trusted.

He really shouldn't mention either of those early leaders, because if Mormons were to believe what these men actually taught and practiced, it would contradict what the current Mormon leaders teach.

1. He talked about the Founders a lot,
but don't people realize that Mormonism didn't even exist in 1776?

To aniowavoter:

The only name Mitt Romney declared his belief for was Jesus Christ. He did not mention Joseph Smith, and only used Brigham Young's name as a reference.

I thought his speech was aimed as those who would exclude him based solely on his religion. If you dislike him for other issues, fine. As he put it:
"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."

And just because I couldn't resist, You say quote the Bible a lot, but don't you realize that conservative Christians didn't even exist in 33 AD?