Mitt Romney gave his long awaited speech on religion and politics yesterday - 12-07-2007. Some have compared the speech to the one John Kennedy gave in the 1960 presidential race. It has been pointed out that by numerous sources that while Kennedy’s speech was secular in nature, Romney merely broadened the field of theism.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=16981132
Note: This link leads to printed and audio transcripts of Romney’s speech.

Below is the transcript of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech - for comparison purposes.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/j...nministers.html

Questions for debate:

1. Do you agree more with Kennedy’s speech or Romney’s?

2. Will Romney’s speech help or hurt him in the primaries and general election. Give reasons to support your answer.

3. How will Romney's speech play among evanglicals?
In order to conform to the board’s policy on religious debate, please restrict your answers to the general topic of religions impact on the upcoming elections.

I edited a typo in the text section. The count was reset to 0. I made another typo edit in one of the poll questions and two more votes were erased. Of the first four votes, we should have:

1. One vote for Kennedy (mine)
2. One vote for Romney.
3. One vote for both speeches
4. Apparently one nulled vote.

Can this be fixed?

I nulled my vote. That speech of Romney's is downright nauseating in it's lies and half truths and playing to the religious right. Barely was able to read it- it is almost identicle to the "whipping up of the masses" to Hitlers transcripts I have read. Look- before you jump all over this- I am NOT calling Romney a nazi- it is the 'we need a leader of faith to save us from the big bad world" junk, rhetoric, political grandstanding, pandering, whatever you want to call it- to get the masses to suspend really looking into issues and finding bumper sticker solutions to complex problems. Scapegoating and all that just bugs me. It is the blantant pandering and demagoguery that makes me think of the Nazi speech makers- not the policies, just the speeches, MMkay?

Romney and Kennedy were both consumate politicians, meaning, they weren't that personally decent of poeple. At least JFK was brave and defended his country in war for real- while Mtt and company, as usual, skipped out when the call up came. Notice NOT ONE of his sons have served- instead, they were "on mission"

Also- I have absolutely nothing but respect for the mormon religion- I don't believe it's quirky dogma for a minute- but they are the only organized religion, as a group, that seems to genuinly try to stick with the ideals they profess- heck, they don't even pay thier preachers- that makes them alright in my view

so it is NOT his religion that concerns me one wit- it is the using of his religion to pacify the religious right base that makes me disrespect him so much.

I kinda like huckabee- at least he is consistant- a very scary individual to have that much power, but at least he seems consistant in his beliefs and such.

Do you agree more with Kennedy's speech or Romney's?
I thought the gist of Kennedy's speech was the office he was running for didn't have a religious test, and Romney's speech was a multicultural acceptance of religion is important, even necessary. Or something along those lines.

Whatever. I'm tired of hearing how we should vote for presidents because they're so nice, so Christian, so compassionate. How about them convincing us to vote for them because they can do a good job governing? I think the majority of people who object to Romney's religious beliefs are orthodox/evangelical Christians, not the rest of America. But he's in a Republican primary right? And I assume there are more orthodox/evangelical Christian supporters among the GOP. That's great Romney knows his audience. Me? I could care less what hang ups Christians have about other Christians and I really wish politicians would stop weaponzing character issues and encouraging me not to vote for anyone. They're lustful, envious, vain, greedy little slobs like the rest of us. Campaign for the job, not for someone we would like to be, or shut up.

I see the 2 speeches as the same really, Romey's just adjusted for current climate. There is a definite push to remove religion from the public square and while i find religion to be a, hmm, stretch, I see no need for the over the top hysterics it seems to be getting from my fellow non believers.
Really folks if we ever got a Theistic government the first people to be stoned would be the politicians.

Romney needed like Kennedy before him to calm the fears of some of the more wild eyed holy rollers who still mutter under their breath that all Catholics are going to hell and the pope works for satan. They seem to hold the Mormons in the same vein.

I give him credit for doing more than offering false mentions of Christ during debates that just ring hollow and sound exactly like what a pandering politician WOULD say. I think it was a good move to model his approach off of JFK.

A couple parts had me rolling my eyes -- freedom can survive without religion pretty well IMO as does compassion -- but I found nothing as a atheist/agnostic/just don't think about it much kind of person.

I don't see it hurting him, in fact it may help him because it does make him seem to at least be on the ball as most others make their religions convictions with a wink and a nod.

3. How will Romney's speech play among evanglicals?
The more strident will still not vote for a mormon. Among the more moderate they will simply vote republican.

3. How will Romney's speech play among evangelicals?

IMO Romney's speech will not change the vote coming from the evangelical block. The evangelicals I know are aggressively against Mormons and their religion.

1. Do you agree more with Kennedy’s speech or Romney’s?

I heard JFK's speech as he was delivering it. JFK was very pointed with separation of church and state. Any non-Catholics who listened to his speech in 1960 knew he meant what he said. Following JFK's delivery I went to work the next day, and we all discussed nothing else for the entire work day. Many who were there that day, and had been hung-up on his Catholicism, ended up voting for JFK.

Romney's speech was very well constructed but I don't agree with many of his statements regarding religion in politics.
Such as when Romney stated:
"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."

We all want a President who has the ability to lead and solve our many problems. Whether or not our President is religious should not even be a consideration in my view.

As one who prefers secular government, I think John F. Kennedy’s speech was better and perhaps the most important of the 1960 campaign.

In Texas there was much opposition from more conservative Christians. Many argued that Kennedy would follow the dictates of Rome, rather than those in the interest of the United States. It was not by accident that Kennedy made the speech in Houston, Texas.

Even with Lyndon B. Johnson on the ticket, Kennedy only carried Texas by:

Kennedy=1,167,935 votes (50.5%)
Nixon=1,121,693 votes (48.5%)

The difference is a little more than 46,000 votes out of about 2.25 million.

http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1960.txt

The Kennedy speech may have won him the election.

Kennedy made his speech on September 12, a little less than a couple of months before the election.

Mitt Romney made his speech nearly a year before the general election. With many evangelicals skeptical of Mormonism – even if this isn’t fair - and Huckabee threatening to take Iowa, Romney had to move.

If by chance he gets the nomination, I predict he’ll have to address the issue again for a wider general election audience. If Romney does not get the Republican nomination, the speech will have little or no historical importance.

Since my vote was nulled by the board software anyway, I can say I don't favor either one over the other. These are two different men defining themselves. I do however prefer the speech that one of our Founding Fathers, none other than George Washington gave in 1796 in his Farewell Address to the Nation. In that speech he addressed the importance religion and morality must necessarily play for America's "grand experiment" in Democracy to work. From that address to the nation.....



and.......



I think I prefer Washington's take on this subject. There's a reason he's featured on Mount Rushmore.


Aquilla

1. Do you agree more with Kennedy’s speech or Romney’s?

Well this is a bit of an unfair question or comparison as I feel when I read the Kennedy speech and compare it to when I heard the Romney speech they each seem so distant or disconnected to one another.

It seems now that religion is a very important aspect to the Republican party and tat for many that is what defines the Republican Party. It seems to me that many Republicans feel how one thinks about Jesus helps dictate how they will think and act on and govern many of the most important issues for Republican voters.
I don't feel that same appeal to or need to appeal to public demands in Kennedy's speech. Romney spoke in what to me seems like a lot of Christian code. The religion of secularism (huh?) Jesus Christ is the son of god, child of god etc. I was lost, and that is because this speech was obviously not aimed to someone like me it was a test of faith or of at least faith compatibility and I think that is likely the biggest complaint I have for Romney. If he wishes to put forth the idea that the President is not to be tested on his religious beliefs then perhaps he shouldn't seek so much appraisal and convincing as a candidate based upon religion.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you agree more with Kennedy’s speech or Romney’s?
Kennedy carved out a much more persuasive delineation between religion and secular duty in his speech: the impression he leaves is that his religion was lightly worn, a label buried under the suit of office, and a label to which he is oblivious against the larger realities of American duty. Romney on the other hand hedges that point: "Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world" Au contraire, there are plenty of people with religious fervor and conviction in the world I would like to see jettison their beliefs, as that would likely ebb their desire to gain the world. Of course, he is assuming we know he is talking about good beliefs, not bad ones, right? Whether you immediately see the unintentional irony or not, it is there, and it undermines the integrity of the speech.

2. Will Romney’s speech help or hurt him in the primaries and general election. Give reasons to support your answer.
I think Americans are tiring of politicians who try to mix religion with politics. Certainly this American, but I can't speak for anyone else. I suspect even religious Americans are not yet convinced of the mental soundness of people who believe in holy underware. Besides, have you read the book of Morman? It appears to be written by a high-school drop-out, the prose is virtually unreadable.

He clearly wants religious voters behind him given the profuse bleed of religious lexicon, not to mention the time he spent cataloging various religious rituals and denominations in a manner that virtually makes a satire of the basic premise of the speech. If you are looking for a clear statement of separation of church and state, his rhetoric does not provide it. However, most people will probably hear whatever they want to hear in the speech, if they heard it at all.

3. How will Romney's speech play among evanglicals?
Evangelicals appear to be the target audience, and I am sure they will love the general tune while hating the lyrics of his denomination. But these days, do lyrics really matter? I will be fascinated to find out.

I really think this isn't true, but rather how the media would like to portray the conservative voting base.

Personally, I think if a true conservative were to emerge, and discuss fiscal responsibility, state's rights, etc but leave religion alone it would be fine.

I wouldn't care if the President were Buddhist, Jewish, or Methodist really. It IS important that he believes in some higher power, for at least 100 reasons that this debate would never discuss. However, something monotheists generally believe is that they have some obligation to their "neighbor". Maybe we all don't act that way, but it's a basic premise.

That being said, Romney makes me squirm. I have had interaction with his campaign due to simply capitalist arrangements, in other words we've done business with them. While they're campaign staff is wonderful, I adimantly would not vote for the guy.

I believe that Mr. Romney employs the Bible as a tool to "rouse the troops", as I've never met an LDS member who is not a Romney supporter. I'm personally very uncomfortable with this use of God in his campaign, not because I question that it would be good to have a President with that conviction, but rather because I don't understand his motives.

I believe that someone who ACTUALLY DID follow the teachings of Jesus would be a great leader. Frankly, I don't know too many people like that and don't feel like any of the men or women in the running fit the bill.

JFK is a different story... the Kennedy family reminds me of the Israelites in the Old Testament. They were given everything they could ask for, but perpetually fell from God's grace. As they did so, God punished the Israelites harshly. The only thing I can't figure out about the Kennedy family is why Ted is still around? ? ? Only in Massachusetts would a man who is basically a known alcoholic and who also murdered a woman by driving her into a river and leaving her could be elected time and time again...

We have heard your Kennedy hating garbage before, aevans176. I wish the board's profanity filter would allow me to call it what it really is. God's judgment? How is it relevant to this thread?

I don’t want Mitt Romney in the oval office – ever. I don’t think, however, that his Mormonism should even be an issue, just as I didn’t think John Kennedy’s Catholicism should have been an issue.

David Broder had an interesting take in his column in yesterday's Fort Worth Star Telegram



http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/348891.html
Note: This link may not be active after a week or so.

Only a raging liberal would stand up for a philandering drug addict who almost got us nuked and left Cuban exiles to die a painful and agonizing death.

It's relevant because umm... BOF, the thread asks about Kennedy and his use of religion in speech. It's not Kennedy hating garbage, but rather an interesting correlation. How many Kennedy family members died untimely deaths????

The fact is that the man, as well as his family, used whatever means necessary to get votes and sold their souls to do so. His use of religion in speech was basically just like his use of Civil Rights speech, lip service.

It's different than Romney's disgusting use of it, but still deplorable none the less.

SIDE NOTE- LBJ passed more civil rights legislation than any other administrator of our nation, but for some reason many liberals see JFK and Bobby as the ones who carried the torch. In my opinion, it's a tragedy.

None of this, except posssibly the hightlghted portion, is reemotely relevant to this thread or the two speches in question.

I'll overlook the "raging liberal" insult.

I don't buy this line at all, and Romney really emphasized it when he stated:



The Mitt didn't catch the distinction between "establishment of" religion and "free exercise thereof." The former is when a teacher asks students to pray with him, the latter is when students do it or when they form a before or after Bible study group. There are differences, but the distinction is clear. As long as individuals do it, it's o.k. When state authorites carry it out or opine about it, or put it across government buildings-it's quite another. Quite frankly, if you want a nativity scene, put it on your lawn, but don't expect me or anyone else to have to walk by it at the courthouse. Mitt wouldn't like lawsuits that would ban a controversial Bible curriculum plan in Texas, but the lawsuit is a rational and justified one. It was brought about in part by a deacon of a local Presbyterian church, a Catholic, and a Jew. Not exactly a brood of atheist heathens seeking to undermine Christianity in America. They are just a group that don't want a particular nauseating view over a scholarly, accepted hisotrical approach being put into schools.

Well you claim it isn't true but instead of dispelling this perception I have you only further reinforce it. As I posted in my previous reply it isn't so much a religious test as it is a religious test of religious compatibility. You also further cement my view by making the argument that monotheists are most reliable to upholding the concept of social obligations/responsibility. That is insulting.

I just do not understand why we must always lay credit to some ambiguous creator for our social order. In government why do we see so many who insist on classifying the importance of our democratic society in terms of the supernatural. We created this great nation, we have mortal men and women who are willing to die for it, it is our commitment to one another (not god) that brought us this far. This is what connects us and brings us together, and instead we see all this acknowledgment to unattainable things or powers, why is our own power not enough?

1. Do you agree more with Kennedy’s speech or Romney’s?

Kennedy's.

2. Will Romney’s speech help or hurt him in the primaries and general election. Give reasons to support your answer.

It might help him if he happens to be the candidate running against Hillary Clinton in the general election. It might also help him get a few votes away from Giuliani during the primaries, but Huckabee stands to get more of the votes from those who identify themselves as Christians.

Giuliani, with his multiple marriages, his moving his mistress into Gracie Mansion even as his wife still lived there, his ties to Bernard Kerik and other shady characters, and his stance on gays and abortion, would seem less desirable to religious types than a man who, even though he might be "going to hell" as well, appears to live his religious values.

But Huckabee is a Baptist minister. He's clearly going to appeal more to evangelicals for whom a leader's profession of being saved is so important.

3. How will Romney's speech play among evanglicals?

He might have made some inroads with evangelicals, but to these people "the Word" assumes primary importance. Even though Mormons are known for being good and upright people more than the flocks of evangelical Christianity are, their Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are considered to be in error as well as their founder, Joseph Smith.

I would not try to deny Willard "Mitt" Romney the presidency because of his faith anymore than I would vote for Giuliani because he is a Catholic; I just don't agree with either of them on the issues.

Religion should not be a factor. But a basic knowledge of right and wrong and a desire to live in a just world would be nice.

Re Mitt's speech, and Kennedy's speech, the problem that Kennedy had was different than Mitt. No one is concerned that Mitt will be taking his orders from the head of the COJCOLDS, whereas more than a few Protestants believed that Kennedy would be taking orders from the Vatican. Mitt's speech otherwise fails for two reasons. First, no one who understands what Mormons believe will ever equate Mormonism with Christianity. But that won't the proverbial deal-breaker for many, myself included. For myself and some others, the deal-breaker is that we simply cannot trust Mitt's judgment because he has either not investigated the roots of his own faith or he has reached the wrong conclusion following his investigation. Which is to say that more than a few of us have a problem with Joseph Smith's claim to being the recipient of some divine relevation and we believe that the evidence is overwhelming that he wasn't. For irony, well, the Roman Catholic Church has never directly opposed the authority of the United States of America, but Mormons have:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1...posts?page=1464

Re Joseph Smith:

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon430.htm


BoF:

The US Constitution speaks to formal oaths and is concerned with the restriction of candidates. It does not speak to the matter of private conscience and conviction. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone voting for, or not voting for, a candidate based on her or his religious faith [or the lack thereof]. If the author of the piece you cited believes that it does, then he or she is a fool. If you otherwise wish to vet any candidate with a "religious test", then simply ask her or him what her or his worldview is.

There's the letter of the constitution and the spirit of the constitution. I think David Broder was speaking to the second. In my opinion some people are just too damned concerned with religion. I don't know how old you are , but I was around during the 1960 election. The crap thrown at Kennedy was sheer ugly.

I wouldn't vote for Romney on a bet, but it's not because of his Mormonism.

1. Do you agree more with Kennedy’s speech or Romney’s?

No contest. Kennedy's speech is one of the great American political speeches of the last century.

Romney's speech has some decent things in it, but it also has some genuinely disturbing aspects.



This is contrary to what often happens in the real world. In fact, religion often flourishes where freedom is restrained. Freedom and religion are often in direct conflict. If it is true that freedom can be distorted into license, it is equally true that religion can be distorted into blind obedience.



OK, time for a bit of a reality check here. Secularism is simply the belief that church and state should be separate, which Romney himself accepts. Persons of profound faith can be, and should be, secularists.



To quote the old joke, "What do you mean 'we,' Kimosabe?"

I know that any candidate for office in the United States can safely ignore the potential votes of those who do not "trust God." This doesn't mean that they should go out of their way to exclude us from the political landscape.



Every fiber of my being screams NO! Mister Romney, you are dead wrong on all these issues.



This is the most terrifying sentence in this speech. It takes a willful act of deliberate ignorance to suggest that the Constitution, in any way, shape, or form, is based on religious faith. This is the exact opposite of the truth. The idea that we should appoint judges whose decisions would be based on such a delusion shocks me. This sentence would seem to serve no purpose except to win the votes of the Religious Right. It is shameful.



I would like to hear ONE of those reasons, because I seriously doubt that any of them are valid. In terms of wisdom, ability, and morality, there are NO meaningful differences between persons of faith and persons without faith.

Do you seriously mean to suggest that only monotheists care about other people?

Like I implied, this could be a debate in itself. I'm not saying that only monotheists care about other people, but rather that it increases their likelihood of worrying about what happens due to their actions.

Frankly, if you're not concerned about what happens after death, many people are at least more likely to act in a certain way. Sure- Christians, Jews, etc can be bad people.

I'm just saying that if lying, cheating, stealing, shredding paperwork, lying about sex with interns, allowing your business partners to go to prison, and letting innocent people in Rwanda die...oh - sorry... if being a bad person has repercussions, I'd have to say that a person of faith at least is held accountable.

Here's where I'd caution your argument. A person that "SAYS" they're a Christian doesn't mean that they are. A person that SAYS their a Buddhist doesn't mean much if they don't act like one. Get it? There are people in the pews every Sunday (or Saturday, etc) who never do anything for their neighbor. I believe that as people of faith, one staunch correlation is that we're tasked with making the world "better". Whether it's handed down through Buddhist oral tradition or the "words in red", it's a basic premise.

If someone goes to Church on Sunday, but does nothing else Monday - Sat, I'd be tempted to state that they're not really a Christian. Understand?

When it came to JFK, the worst thing he ever did was allowing those Cuban exiles to die when we'd promised support.

It literally makes me SICK that liberals support the same man who promised US support to the revolution, then backed out after they'd begun an invasion. It's deplorable. Those actions directly lead to us nearly going to nuclear war.

JFK wasn't a man of faith in my opinion at all, but rather a panderer. He knew that saying those things would hit certain buttons. Maybe Mr. Romney is the same... it's hard to say.

Please bring forth some empirical evidence.



Frankly, this is irrelevant to the topic and delves into faith issue. Are you debating or witnessing to us?



This is another debate, but many of these things have happened in the current regime, and just think how loudly the current president has tooted his religious horn over the past seven years. Let’s have a little consistency in our accusations.



So what! Who set you up as judge of what’s in someone else’s “heart.” Somebody blow the trumpet, the honorable judge aevans176 has entered chambers.



"Here you go again" with more irrelevant Kennedy hatred. We could start another thread in the history forum on whether Kennedy redeemed the failed Bay of Pigs invasion with his actions in The Cuban Missile Crisis. That, however, is another debate and has nothing to do with this one.




How did you come by the ability to see into someone else’s heart? There’s a closet around here somewhere. Please hang up that judge’s robe.

In his last post, aevans176 slung numerous darts at an imaginary, irrelevant board. Unfortunately all were wildly errant and didn’t even hit the board, let alone the bull’s eye. See highlighted lines for evidence of this.