Post #3 Romney on separation of church/state

To address Romney's perspective on the the separation of church and state I will once again examine his exegesis on 'faith in America' which he delivered in 2007. Romney seemed to make himself clear that if he was elected to office, he would not let his personal religious views corrupt his political decision-making when it came down to the overall well being of the nation. But how can one make such a claim so easily? After all, it seems unlikely that if one was to let their personal beliefs and ideologies take precedent over their duty as commander in chief that they would be directly conscious of their action. I don't believe that religion is something as simple and defined as a coat or jacket that one can put on and off at their convenience. Religion affects the individual and the individual's mind. It establishes significance in the way in which they think and reason, the way in which they live their lives, and the way in which they view and interact with the surrounding world.

    During his speech, Romney notes that, "I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law." It is as if Romney is denouncing the notion that any one religion should have complete control or autonomy over our government and our laws, but he is simultaneously advocating on behalf of religion in general as being a necessary piece of our society, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," he continues, "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." This specific passage outlines Romney's view boldly.
    He is arguing for freedom of religion, so long as one follows a religion with a specific theology, but his language becomes increasingly more anti-secularist as his speech continues, "We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
I found it incredibly interesting that Romney referred to secularism as a religion considering that by definition secularism is the absence of religion and religiosity. Furthermore, if secularism is a religion, as Romney points out, shouldn't it be afforded the same protection and equal treatment that Romney so passionately addressed earlier in his speech? Romney violated his own creed in singling out secularists. He expressed intolerance for a belief system and creed that is different from his own.

Post #2: Similarities between Romney and Obama

Upon researching Mitt Romney I noticed one trait that appeared to be consistent in both he and President Obama. The American public find them both religiously ambiguous to some degree. Although it could be argued that Romney faces an even steeper climb than Obama, it can't be denied that the nation's current President has had his share of public relations drama regarding religiousity. How much does the public image that the majority holds of a religion play into their political decision making? The issue becomes much more complex when one considers the disparities that exist between individuals in terms of their relationship to a specific theology. I found this Washington's post article interesting, particularly when they compared comfortability of American public opinion between candidates on the horizontal scale just before the fifth paragraph,

Obama-Romney faith comparison

As the Washington-post article points out, religion and relgiousity do matter. Most Americans are religious, and regardless of if they intend to let religion affect their political decisions or not, the fact that they are conscious of the differences in personal religious affiliations will most likely hold some significance. 

I am interested to see how Obama and the re-vamped Obama campaign 2012 will deal with Romney if he does in fact become the Republican candidate. Will Obama make religion a focal point in his race against Romney? I think it will be interesting to see. What does it mean for America to elect a Mormon president? But at the same time, what does it mean if Americans elect a President who once promised to bring change and progress to Washington will accept a campaign as tired  as the one that nods at religious intolerance as a way to win the race.

Post 1:Faith in America speech

Is it fair to be questioned about the basis of one’s religious beliefs when running for political office?  The spotlight has been regularly cast on the 70th Governor of Massachusetts and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his connection to the Mormon Church. Romney’s stance has remained consistent throughout his campaign; he has always maintained that he separates his political ideologies from his religious beliefs, and asserts that we need to have religious tolerance in politics. But don’t the creeds that are instilled in individuals through religion have some impact on the way in which they would care for an entire nation? The lines between church and state are blurred in this way. If we examine Romney’s speech on faith in America it becomes clear that his conceptualization of religious tolerance is contained within the framework of Christ-based theologies. If you fast forward to 1:25 you will hear Romney proclaim that if he were elected president he would serve all people of the nation regardless of the religious schools of thought to which they belong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4nULh2gUxk 

If you then fast forward to 2:51 you will hear Romney discuss his beliefs on Jesus Christ, in doing so he assumed that those who were listening were followers of Christ-based religions. This alienates those believes of non-Christ based religions, including atheists and those who consider themselves to be spiritual rather than religious. I felt it was an extreme contradiction to his first point of universal tolerance when dealing with religion in politics.