Man….Keith Olbermann did NOT like Mitt Romney’s religion speech. (Warning….brief profanity)
Romney, in his speech, is full of crap…or maybe just naïve, IMHO. Like most other politicians, he’s trying to cater to as many audiences as possible, but as usual he ended up contradicting himself (as Olbermann pointed out).
Here’s my favorite line: “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom”. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this reflect Romney’s naive view on religion (a view that I had as a Mormon, also)? Freedom of religion, gives the freedom to EXPRESS ones religion, but ones religion does not REQUIRE freedom, necessarily, unless your religion is a pre-packaged corporate empire that requires you to do certain tasks and go to certain places in order to comply (ie: Mormonism). What about the countries that outlaw Christianity where people believe in Jesus in secret (which, by the way, is the type of religion that I believe Jesus advocated for – an inner, personal faith)?
Also, in what way does ones freedom REQUIRE religion? What about the atheists in our country? Are they not free?
Maybe this all has nothing to do with what Romney is trying to get across, but it certainly reflects his limited perspective on faith and politics. Of course freedom of religion is important, but I just think Romney loves little catch phrases like this (which are commonplace with Mormon speakers — especially GA’s) that are cute, and naively try and ”sum it all up.”
WOW. I cannot believe these guys. Do they really think that when Romney is talking about freedom of religion that that doesn’t include freedom to not believe? PALEEZE
And when he was talking about secularism, he was talking about secularism wiping out religious expression. I agree with him wholeheartedly. He is right.
I agree that Romney probably includes atheists and secularists in his “freedom of religion” realm. But he sure screwed up in his speech, which was his golden opportunity to set the record straight (if he has a straight record, that is), and get people off his back. But afterall, he had an audience (or audiences) to please this time around. Maybe he’ll get to the secularists and atheists another time.
The whole “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom” line is something I was surprised to see bother so many people. Here’s the way I interpreted this, that freedom without freedom of religion is not freedom. And religion without the freedom to worship as you choose is a full assault on religion itself. Isn’t that what John Adams was trying to say?
Keith Olbermann was right to not like the speech and Eugene Robinson was right to call it bigoted (against adherents to what Romney falsely termed the “religion” of secularism), consequently hypocritical (in that it was calling for religious tolerance while advocating intorlerance), and so contrary to the intentions and beliefs of the founding fathers of the American republic that it would cause them to “roar in their graves.” By attacking freedom of religion (i.e., the separation of church and state), Romney’s speech was un-American and anti-American.
No wonder nobody watches MSNBC. The guys very demeanor was nauseating. It would have been almost as annoying to listen to him if I didn’t even speak English. Never mind the fact that the commentary was as mindless and insipid as it was self-congratulating.
I would guess that most evangelicals would argue that Olberman gets the monotheistic thing wrong.