DiscussMormonism.com

I was really itching to offer an analysis of the Romney speech, and figured I'd make an appearance here to post this (I also posted it for our friends and MAD).

The demographic group that Romney needs to win over are the white Evangelical Christians. This group has little tolerance for lots of groups: gays, atheists, Muslims, Mormons--basically just about everybody who isn’t an Evangelical, or at least the member of a sufficiently similar Christian sect.

Evangelical Christians need to divide the world into an “us” vs. “them” framework. Who is “us” and who is “them” can depend upon the specific issue, but they love to wrap themselves in the flag, and declare that this is on nation, under God, in whom we trust.

Various poles have indicated that there is extreme bias in America against both Mormons and Atheists. Romney could have declared that there is a hard separation between church and state, and that Americans need to keep religion out of it. Rather than doing that, he shrewdly wrapped himself in the American flag, and pushed all of the Evangelical buttons about how we are a religious nation.

Implicit in his message was that America has two enemies: those who oppose freedom (i.e. Muslim extremists), and those who oppose faith (i.e. secular humanists and atheists). Rather than unequivocally declaring that Americans shouldn’t be biased, he pandered to the Evangelicals bias against atheists, and essentially said, “they are the real enemies, and I am with you against them.”

It appears this was designed to delimitate “us” as people of faith, and “them” as the atheists and Muslim extremists who don’t believe that faith and freedom need each other.

He essentially was fighting bigotry with bigotry. As a humanist, I find that disappointing. But it’s shrewd, politically. He needs the Evangelical vote. He doesn’t need the vote of atheists.

And yes, his comments about how people without faith can’t handle freedom were in fact bigoted.

I thought he was pointing to non-believers as the common enemy, to which all freedom lovin' believers could oppose by joining together with Romney.

If anyone is interested in Hitchens' statement it can be found here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

Perhaps it is fitting he was introduced by the former president who declared he did not view atheists as citizens or patriots.

Perhaps it is fitting he was introduced by the former president who declared he did not view atheists as citizens or patriots.

CFR

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... .html#bush

George Bush on atheism and patriotism

"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

Relief Society:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
Relief Society:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Relief Society:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

truth dancer wrote:If anyone is interested in Hitchens' statement it can be found here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

That was hilarious. Very good read.

Romney attempts to rally people of faith to his candicacy while condeming the "religion" of secularism. He
talks about the need for separation of church/state and the wrong of applying a religious litmus test while proclaiming his chrisitianity and testifying of Jesus Christ.

Are voters so stupid that they can't see through this? To say that I was unimpressed is an understatement. Prior to this speech, I had somewhat liked Romney.

truth dancer wrote:If anyone is interested in Hitchens' statement it can be found here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

Hitchens says Romney speech was windy and worthless???? BWaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaaaa!!!!

He must have been looking in the mirror when he wrote that one. Idiot.

Sorry beastie, but I just don't believe it. For several reasons, but perhaps the most important is my distaste for Farell Till, who operates infidels.org

This nut bag was stalking a friend of mine in Orlando, JP Holding, and constantly calling his house and hanging up on his wife after making rude comments. They changed their phone number several times and eventually had to leave it unlisted. Incidentally, he is the one responsible for revealing to the world JP's real name, which means Pahoran used him as his source when he wrote a FARMS review of Holding's book.

I know this doesn't really refute anything you just wrote. I just couldn't help notice the website you took it from.

Anyway, here is a pretty good thread written about a year ago whereby one observer claims to have come across evidence that suggests this is nothing more than a myth: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=189743

In short, this claim written by an atheist who said Bush told him these things, just sounds too much like the recent incident where a Muslim said Romney told him a Muslim could never serve in his cabinet.

Isn't it funny how alleged bigotted statements by politicians against group X, always seems to be heard by some sole member of group X and nobody else?