I missed the point in Romney's speech!

I have written about Mitt Romney’s “religion” speech on a number of occasions already but just recently I have been made aware, by commentators, that I may have missed the whole point of his speech – duh?

I thought that Romney basically ignored his Mormonism and focused on the freedom of religion in this country and the fact that religion should not determine if a candidate is fit to run for the presidency.

On closer reading of his speech, he is trying to unite all Christians (includes Mormons) to stem the attack of the secularists or as he put it, the unbelievers. He mentioned godless Europe as an example. Hmmmmm, that is a good political move on his part; uniting the Christians instead of defending Mormonism against Christians who call it a satanic cult and not Christian at all.

Smart fellow that Romney! But what do I think of this us against them; Christian against secularist that he is touting? On the one hand he says religion should not be a test for leadership (unconstitutional) but on the other its either vote for me (us) or a secularist may get in (read Democrat) and the U.S. may turn into a godless Europe.

It is interesting to point out that some countries in Europe have state religions (U.K. etc.) a clear repudiation of our separation of Church and State doctrine and yet in those same countries the people could give a shit about religion.

Hmmmmm, so the Christians in the U.S. want Christianity to become the official American religion so we can then all ignore it?

Anyway, I am having some trepidation about this whole religion in U.S. politics thing and I think the secularists here are going to have to start making some noise.

Religious Test to run for President!

Mitt Romney delivered his “religion” speech and by all accounts it was a well polished speech that was not a defense of his Mormon religion but a defense of the freedom of religion in this country and the fact that religion should not be a factor in choosing a president.

Romney cited our own Constitution, Article VI, Section 3 that states “…no religion test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. So to ask him to defend his Mormonism would be unconstitutional.

I am saying that in this country, at this time in our history, in this election, a de facto religious test IS REQUIRED to run for the office of president.

All candidates, Republican and Democrat, have had to affirm their “deep” religious roots and beliefs and that their lives are guided by these beliefs and if so, so will what they do as president will be guided by those beliefs. Of course, they all (not Republicans) could be just bull shitting in order to get elected but the fact that they feel they absolutely need to appear religious to win is very troubling to me!

Another way to look at this issue is to ask yourself what chance of getting elected would an atheist have, or even just a secularist? What if you just said you were an agnostic and just didn’t know which if any religion was “true” or even if a god existed; you’re not against religion, you just don’t know if it all isn’t just made up nonsense.

I don’t think a non-religious person would have any chance at being elected to the presidency in our present time.

I don’t think it was always this way. What religion was Eisenhower? Did anyone give a shit? So it must be the evangelical movement and their money that is changing our political landscape and it needs to be stopped.

The silent majority is going to have to speak with its vote. We need to let people know with our vote that religion should be a personal matter and we don’t want to hear about it. What we care about is how a candidate stacks up as a man or woman of this world and of this country.

What that person stands for, not what their religion stands for. Are you going to uphold our constitution or undermine it like little Bush has done? Are you going to use common sense based on solid evidence to make your decisions or are you going to hang on to superstitions your faith espouses like not accepting evolution as a scientific fact, or that stem cell research causes potential mini abortions and should not be allowed.

If our candidates do believe that they need to promote their religion to get elected but really would not do so under normal circumstances; we need to find these. We need to separate the real religious kooks from the candidates that are just playing the religious game to get elected.

I am pretty sure Hillary is one such person and I am sure Giuliani is also. In fact Obama is for a fact since he took up religion only when advised to politically. Edwards I am not sure of.

Huckabee is a religious kook but I don’t think Romney is. McCain is probably not and I would say the same of Thompson.

More later…