More on Romney on Faith

More from other sites and blogs.

From Atrios a note on the man who introduced Romney today.

It's completely appropriate that Mitt was introduced by George HW Bush, the man who once said:

No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.to give a speech which included the line "

freedom requires religion."

Much of the time it seems that atheists are the only people who understand that importance of religious freedom, and for that we get accused of being hostile to it.

From Salon.com.

Here is the passage that troubles me: "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."

In the speech, Romney is attempting to pull off the "have it both ways" shuffle. He is aligning himself with those conservatives advocating more religion in the public sphere while simultaneously arguing that the doctrines of Mormonism should be off-limits in the campaign. In my judgment, Romney is half-right here -- no one should quiz him about his religious beliefs or vote against him because of his church. (For those who crave more on my views read today's piece.) But this back-and-forth is all part of the standard political debate that has been going on since, at least, the Supreme Court banned school prayer in 1963.

...

The objectionable point here is the ill-concealed notion that only those who are truly religious crave freedom. Secularists may, in Romney's vision, give lip service to freedom. But when the chips are down, they will presumably sell out liberty for a pair of backstage passes to the MTV Awards or a chance to rip the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall. ...

And this line of Romney's has also been noted.

We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust. We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.

So the obvious, what's that about judges? What test is going to be used by him then?

The other matter. He tries to subtly suggest that "In God We Trust" and "On Nation Under God" were enshrined by the Founding Fathers. This is something constantly foisted. No, the pledge changes and the money changes were things of the 20th century. And to use them as proof of the Founding Fathers intent is just plain dishonesty.

And I need a better causative argument for how exactly the lack of nativities and menorahs "in the public places" hurts liberty and America? How will an increase lead to better and improved freedom.

If I go and put up a Nativity scene, will he scrap the Patriot Act? Nope.