It appears that Romney, like many/most evangelical Christians, do not believe a person can be moral without a belief in God. This is probably what they think: Non-religous people are moral “free spirits” – they pick and choose what they want to be moral about, so they above all others, not encumbered by guilt from religious pressure, cannot be trusted to be moral people and should not be put in a position where a moral person is greatly needed.

I personally don’t believe this at all, as I believe in an innate basic absolute morality (i.e. human rights, no stealing, killing etc.) which becomes known through experience in human interactions independent of a person’s belief in God. I believe the atheist can be a very moral person, more moral than religious people, who are quite capable of ignoring their religious teachings.

This is probably something you have deal with a lot, I’m guessing. Have you done any writing on this subject or read any good discussions on this? It’s an area I’m really fascinated with (for the last year or so).

tell one story and act out another

Nicely done. You put into words those feelings that I couldn’t quite articulate. But we really shouldn’t be too hard on Brother Romney. He is simply doing what we always do in the Church–tell one story and act out another.

I’d just like to add that Mitt is the worst thing that’s happened to the Mormon Church since Joseph Smith. It took 50 years in the wilderness for the church to recover the last time. This time, there ain’t no wilderness.

Narrator, I’m picking up Audacity of Hope from the library tomorrow.

Here it is, Elaine.

Astarte, welcome! You’ve pointed out one of the biggest problems with Romney–he wants to have it both ways. I hope it gets him into trouble.

While I looked at it from a different angle, I concluded the same as you. The man pisses me off. I can’t stand the double-talk, the misrepresentation of self, the pandering to the religious zealots of this country that would have us all choose a religion (and it better have Jesus in it) or get the hell out of the country.

Mitt was a stake president. He is a bishop of his local ward. He signs temple recommends. He is considered a “judge in Israel” by the Mormon people. He is one of the “Lord’s Anointed” that Mormons in his ward dare not speak negatively about, or they will lose his endorsement on that little slip of paper.

I want him to stop telling people that he isn’t a spokesperson for his faith. Try telling that to the members of his ward, or the members of the stake of two thousand people that he presided over.

Anyway, I liked the points that you brought up, about him totally ignoring anyone who doesn’t worship the Judeo-Islam-Christian God. That pretty much leaves atheists, Wiccans, Sikhs, Scientologists and Confucianists out in the cold, doesn’t it? Welp, better pack my backs and head for Canada…

This advertising/speech could very well give him the Republican nod.

With that said… Romney actually said very little. It was vacuous rhetoric aimed garnering the votes of believers at the expense of subtly snubbing non believers.

For a far far far better speech on faith and politics, read Obama’s chapter on the subject in his Audacity of Hope.

Just once, I’d love to hear a candidate stand up and say, “I don’t believe in God, and I firmly believe that religion has absolutely no place in the public sphere. If you elect me, I will see to it that America is a place for people to worship, but that it’s also a place that’s welcoming of skeptics and atheists who chose not to worship.” I know it probably won’t happen, but I can dream.

Furthermore, it pisses me off to no end to hear people complain about the persecution of Christians in this nation when the government is full of believers who seek to pass laws that buoy up the Christian cause. In fact, Romney’s speech almost proves that you have to be a Christian (dare I say a WASP?) in order to be president in our nation. We are years behind the developed world in freeing ourselves from religious governance.