http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16965839
"However, unlike Kennedy, who praised "an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Romney seemed to suggest that this separation has gone too far.
"They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," Romney said. "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," he concluded to vigorous applause."
2007-12-06 10:34:33 · 26 answers · asked by Brendan G 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't give a ratsass about Romney one way or the other. If I got all spooled up every time some windbag Republican disrespected free-thinkers by flapping his gums about the importance of forcing superstition on the masses, I'd be angry all the time. I just don't have the energy. I'll pick my battles.
2007-12-06 10:44:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
It's a pact of lies
Oh well it's good to see that some things never change!
I liked it when he said that the people were either too busy or too enlighten to enter Church!
Thanks for noticing ROMMEY we in Europe are either too busy or too enlighteen
Well as an English man in Italy who's a lazy SOB in Rommey's own words I am an enlighteen and you there in are the enweighteen ones Or it could the endarken ones
So hear now the words of the Enlighteen Limey
People of the United states of America throw off the yolk that weighs you down and be free!
And for the endarken make light find some big wooded thing and burn it!
2007-12-06 21:24:34 · answer #2 · answered by Sly Fox [King of Fools] 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scary stuff!
The putative leader of the free world belongs to a crackpot religion, invented (and I use the word advisedly) by a priapic conman whose main intent seemed to be to shag any women (or little girl) who stood still long enough.
And now he seems to be saying the problem with American civic life - is there is not enough of this mad stuff.
Paradoxically, in the UK where we actually have a church embedded in the state the vast majority of people don't give a fig about religion (apart from a few Muslim misfits we could well do without).
I hope the majority of ordinary, sane US voters see through this loony figure and vote for someone else.
2007-12-06 18:54:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
A somewhat contradictory speech, don't you think?
Secularism is not about the denial of god, it concerns itself with ensuring institutions exist without religious influence, primarily those of the state.
In my personal view it is vital that the church and state do not overlap. Of course, any leader is free to hold whatever religious beliefs they want or none at all as long as they keep their views private. Unfortunately one only has to look around the world to see the result if the opposite is allowed to happen. Even Mr Bush and Mr Blair have said how god influenced their decisions.
Scary stuff. Pass me that jacket, the one that fastens at the back.
2007-12-06 18:53:15 · answer #4 · answered by Robin H 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
"Offended" isn't the problem. It's the fact that he's WAY wrong.
I would like to be able to expect an American President to be willing to represent all Americans, and in picking up the right wing attack on the nonbelievers, he is failing to do so.
In fact "secularism" is obviously not a religion, and I know of no sign that anyone is attempt to establish secularism in the United States.
Can Romney cite a single example of a judge who has insisted on hanging signs on his courtroom walls reading "There are no gods"?
Can he show a single case of a city posting a monument promoting the claim that there are no gods on public land?
Has the government been requiring teachers to lead their children in recitations of statements like "One nation, where we do not believe in any gods"?
Of course not. This notion that secularism is being promoted is simply and obviously false.
2007-12-06 18:36:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
I'm not offended, but I disagree with him. I think he has every right to be religious, publicly. That doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to sit through public prayer unless we have shown up a a public place of worship.
2007-12-07 21:41:16 · answer #6 · answered by Let Me Think 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"secularism"
I have read up on that and I think I agree with it on the most part. Why oh Why wasn't a I born a year older so I could vote!
I am slightly offended by his speech, and I hope he doesn't get elected.
2007-12-06 18:43:26 · answer #7 · answered by dance_of_the_storm 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I was and I'm not surprised. He is pandering to the same people that put dubya in because they have trouble accepting what they see as his cult.
He wasn't getting my vote anyways because he made a right mess of the state of Massachusetts when he was Governor there. I'd never vote to give him the power to do what he did there on a national level.
2007-12-06 18:37:49 · answer #8 · answered by genaddt 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Not offended so much as amazed. You would think a man wanting to be the President of the US would have a clearer concept of the US Constitution.
Then again, Romney is a master as saying whatever he thinks people want to hear.
2007-12-06 18:39:48 · answer #9 · answered by t_rex_is_mad 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Zealots are taking over. No suprise there.
American Democracy already ended 7 years ago. It's all on pre-scripted auto-pilot.
2007-12-06 19:51:03 · answer #10 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋