5 responses so far ↓

• 1 Kevin // Dec 6, 2007 at 12:33 pm

  I would really like to have an untypical reaction so I feel like I’m not repeating myself in every comment I write (me no religious, me no understand their point of view, etc…) But o well.

  My first impression was that every time he said “Americans” I wasn’t included because the Americans he was speaking to were those who believe in one of the three monotheisms.
  The part on separation of church and state is important to the integrity of the rest of his speech but he tries to pull a fast one on us. He avoids a contradiction - that of wanting church separated from state but still wanting God to play a role - by switching vocabulary (”state” becomes “public domain” and “public square”). Religion is not allowed in “state” affairs but is allowed in the “public domain” (which the state just happens to control). Logic Professors pull these kinds of examples all the time to see if their students can catch the false argument hidden within the rhetoric.
  The other thing that I noticed is that every time he talks of religion he talks as if every religious person believed in the same (and just one) God. All other religions (polytheisms, religions without a God) are excluded - maybe they aren’t American enough?
  And lastly (and I say this half jokingly) he says we didn’t take any land from Germany after our war for freedom there (or for me: here). He’s wrong. We took land - we built army bases on this land, communities, high schools even. Most of these areas will be shut down by 2010 but they have been there since WWII - earning us the not so beloved title “Amis” from the Germans.
  Even more lastly than the last lastly:
  As a philosophy student the quote that “the great moral principles [will] urge us all on a common course” made me laugh out loud.

• 2 Elaine // Dec 6, 2007 at 1:45 pm

  I’ll try to read the whole thing later. For now, I got as far as “freedom requires religion” and just could not go any farther for fear of throwing up all over my keyboard.

  It makes me wonder what Romney’s definition of “freedom” is. It also reminds me of the impression I got while active in the Mormon church that they talked a good game about “free agency” but at the same time gave the strong signal that good Mormons only use their free agency to “freely” make the choices the church wants them to make.

• 3 xJane // Dec 6, 2007 at 1:58 pm

  [have not yet read it]

  Kevin - anyone who believes that Germany is not an occupied country has either never read about the history of our two countries following WWII, or has never been there, or both. Before making such claims, one would think that a quick trip to the library might be in order.

• 4 Mother Nature's Son // Dec 6, 2007 at 8:03 pm

  John,

  I can’t summarize my thoughts any better than the reply that was written by Hitchens over at Slate.com, including this gem:

  “A long time ago, Romney took the decision to be a fool for Joseph Smith, a convicted fraud and serial practitioner of statutory rape who at times made war on the United States and whose cult has been made to amend itself several times in order to be considered American at all. We do not require pious lectures on the American founding from such a man, and we are still waiting for some straight answers from him.”

  For the whole text, see http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

• 5 John // Dec 6, 2007 at 10:10 pm

  Kevin, good points. I empathize with your feeling of not being included, and I caught the “fast one” he tried to pull, and I’m generally a pretty forgiving listener. I think he wanted to come across as “presidential,” as a strong, values-driven leader, and I think the primary feeling I got was of a BS’ing politician.

  MNS, I just went over and read Hitchens’ response and it is a vindication of sorts to read it. Thank you! I found this observation particular astute:

  He is being told: Your family is prominent in a notorious church that proselytizes its views in a famously aggressive manner. Are you only now deciding to make a secret of your beliefs? And if so, why?…His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man “religion of secularism,” when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn’t seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.

Leave a Comment