By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Even as we watch the violent collision of politics and religion at American embassies around the world, here at home Presidential politics took a decidedly religious turn. Mitt Romney, trailing in several decisive purple states, has resorted to the “God Card.” Capitalizing on the omission (and later reinsertion) of God into the Democratic Party platform, Romney has recently added God into his stump speech, “I will not take God out of my heart, I will not take God out of the public square, and I will not take it out of the platform of my party.” [Insert Amen! here].
Here in Virginia, Romney raised the specter of a “godless” Obama removing “In God We Trust” from the currency and from the Pledge of Allegiance. Standing before the Military Aviation Museum in Virginia Beach amid throngs of veterans and their families (mostly all white and very conservative), Romney remarked, “Our pledge says ‘under God. I will not take God out of the name of our platform. I will not take God off our coins. And I will not take God out of my heart.” Never you mind that Obama wears his religion like a ribbon or that the President never suggested removing “God” from the Pledge or off of US currency, God is good politics.
Romney’s strategy appears to fit hand-in-glove with his new-found anti-abortion policy. In 1994 while running for office in deep blue Massachusetts, Romney extolled the virtues of guaranteeing women their reproductive freedom under Roe v. Wade:
“One of the great things about our nation … is that we’re each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation, we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.“
However, Romney’s position has “evolved” and by 2005 he said:
“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.”
At the Republican Convention he furnished new red meat to anti-abortionists saying he would nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn Row v. Wade. While it’s fairly obvious that Romney has no firm convictions on the issue, he does firmly believe that the issue is a winner among the religiously conservative base that now grips the Republican Party.
But the question remains about how well this strategy of placing God squarely on your side will do among the general voting population. Polls show Americans are more and more rejecting traditional religion for something spiritual but less dogmatic. Atheists/agnostics are the nations’ fastest growing “religion” category even though their numbers are still quite small at 15%. There is no reliable data showing that a candidate’s religious beliefs sway voters one way or the other. If they did, Romney’s Mormonism would be more of a handicap to his election bid.
But there remains a more fundamental question highlighted by violent religious protests from Libya to Australia. Will Americans, seeing the carnage that religious fanaticism has wrought at America’s foreign outposts, begin to question the wisdom of electing leaders who pursue political goals through religious rhetoric?
Source: CNN
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Root words, coincidence and turtles!
Do you like that chocolate kind with the pecans in them?
C.Everett KooK 1, September 15, 2012 at 8:02 pm
========================================
sorry that’s crazy talk
you have an eerily similar writing style to Matt
====================================
I have never written a book.
Other than talent…what is the difference between Salman Rushdie and the creator of “Innocence of Muslims”?
After the platform debacle at the DNC last week, this post strikes me as ironic, oblivious or both.
Google General Jerry Boykin if you want a real scare.
He is advising Mitt Romneys campaign.
Bush had to apologize for this religious fanatic during his administration..
I would refer Pat to Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797. I was signed by President John Adams, one of the more conservative and more religious among the Founders. The Treaty was passed by Congress unanimously with many of Adams’ fellow Founders in the Senate. These men knew exactly what principles were and were not used in founding this country.
Article 11 begins” In no way was the United States of America founded on the Christian religion….”
That was not me who wrote that last post. It was HumpinDog.
Oh, I forgot to say that it was all in the God Card.
I was in Vegas one time and I had a good hand at poker. These folks were raising the bets and I had a hand that could not be beat. So, I put in a large bet thinking the others would fold. There was a preacher there behind some lady who was hanging in there with the last three of us. He kept telling her things in her ear. Things got down to the last gasp and I threw in my ace of hearts. The pile was mine, the lady was agast and the preacher was speechless. So I says, as i am picking up the pile of loot and giving a hundred to the hooker next to me, “Keep the Faith and the Lord Be With You.” The preacher got all sheepish and flustered. I says, “Dont worry Preach its all dogma anyway, an ace beats a King or a Queen any time, this is a Democrat state.” Hours later I am coming out of the cathouse and lo and behold there is the preacher coming out and re arranging his clothes. He looks over and recognizes me. “The Lord was with me”, he says, and then adds “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” With that the door opened and the woman he had been gambling with threw his hat out at him and called him a “Cheapskate.” The next day they were back at it at the crap table.
Pat:
Our Founding Fathers never said the Pledge of Allegiance — the Pledge was not written until 1892. It was written to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s arrival in the Americas.
Our Founding Fathers did not put “In God We Trust” on our coins; that phrase was added during the Civil War, when all the Founders were dead.
itchinbayDog, You sir are truly the secret master of the thread today. i went to Webster’s to look up the root of “dogma” (I like root words, coincidence, and turtles) and as one of three examples of “Dogma” it provided this quote:
“The Saudi regime has tried to deflect questions about its management of the country… by supporting and spreading an uncompromising religious dogma. —Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, 1 Oct. 2001”
LOL, recursions are not for fractal generation alone 🙂
Elaine,
I’d never seen that video before … at least he wasn’t sticking his tongue out catching flies!
Ugh … that visual has been with me all day. I must think of a way to repay nick
BarkinDog wonders why you call something Dogma when you refer to some doctrine that is without thought, stupid, and grounded in religion. It it is grounded in religion then call it Godma. BarkinDog is nursing a bite on the rear end from a fellow dogpack dog who does not agree with his philosophy.
Pat:
…Note that reference to “GOD” has been removed from our currency, the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in our classrooms,etc.
…This administration is leading America toward “Socialism
…This nation was founded on christian principles
hahaha…no
Pat:
…As far a a couple of Marines that urinated on some Al qaeda corpses, I would be glad to send them a quart or two if they need more to finish the job
are these the Chrisitan principles of which you speak? honestly I don’t remember the Jebus and the Golden Shower parable at all.
Pat:
…Why do we apologize for this stuff when subversives have no respect,
why should we?
okay Pat I’m just throwing this out there and maybe I’m wrong but I think…wait this guy said it better
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
sorry that’s crazy talk
you have an eerily similar writing style to Matt
Pat:
The Pledge of Allegiance was written, in 1892, by Francis Bellamy, a Socialist.
Bellamy’s brother Edward Bellamy, also a Socialist, was the author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
The words “under God” were NOT in the original Pledge and were added during the Cold War, in 1952.
mespo727272: so we should just clamp down on speech from the right?
Pat:
“Hillery Clinton has signed an agreement with the UN which can mean the end of the rights of civilians to own guns, thus eliminating your 2nd amendment rights.”
***********************
This is utter nonsense.
julianmalcolm:
I have read de Tocqueville but the seminal difference is that the religious fanatics of his time weren’t hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons to usher in their own brand of Armageddon. This religious overtaking of a political party is new indeed since in the past religion preached to its followers to avoid the sins of the world of which government was one. Now the mantra seems to be render unto God what is God’s and render unto God what is Casear’s, too.
Take off the robe.
forgot to say let me know of more comments