What a great speech........
Posted By: aw on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: Yes!!!!Yes!!!Yes!!!-nm - Stardust
so handsome, with his captivating smile, terrific speaker, cool under pressure, so humble, refined and much more...CHANGE IS HERE, CONGRATULATIONS to the American people and the world.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
A great speech indeed. Fantastic!
I loved the whole speech, but here are 2 of my favorite paragraphs from it:
“Because of you, and because of your jingoistic false ‘patriotism,’ our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far more despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever before.
It has been absolutely astounding how you have committed the most horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense – when what you have done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling – and disgraceful. What part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you not understand? What part of the “Golden rule” do you not understand? What part of “be honest,” “be responsible,” and “be accountable” don’t you understand? What part of “Blessed are the peacekeepers” do you not understand?"
Great speech by the mayor of Salt Lake City. sm
Speech by Mayor Rocky Anderson, democrat, on 10/27/07. They should bump Hillary and put this guy out there.
Salt Lake City, Utah --
Today, as we come together once again in this great city, we raise our voices in unison to say to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a majority of Congress, including Utah’s entire congressional delegation, and to much of the mainstream media: “You have failed us miserably and we won’t take it any more.”
“While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss.”
“You have breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty obligations, and betrayed the rule of law.”
“You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of the sort never before countenanced in our nation’s history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American men and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications, without competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder.”
“We are here to tell you: We won’t take it any more!”
“You have acted in direct contravention of values that we, as Americans who love our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the most cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed the undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among the three presumed co-equal branches of government. You have helped lead our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of our nation’s treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”
“Because of you, and because of your jingoistic false ‘patriotism,’ our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far more despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever before.
It has been absolutely astounding how you have committed the most horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense – when what you have done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling – and disgraceful. What part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you not understand? What part of the “Golden rule” do you not understand? What part of “be honest,” “be responsible,” and “be accountable” don’t you understand? What part of “Blessed are the peacekeepers” do you not understand?
Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, many thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and millions have been run off from their homes. For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and sisters around the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, ‘We won’t take it any more!’ ”
“As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings around the world, you justify, you deceive, and you cover up. We find what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and reputation of the United States, so appalling, so unconscionable, and so outrageous as to compel us to call upon you to step aside and allow other men and women who are competent, true to our nation’s values, and with high moral principles to stand in your places – for the good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the good of our world.”
In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment and removal from office, without any further delay from a complacent, complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares more about political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic accountability.
It means the election of people as President and Vice President who, unlike most of the presidential candidates from both major parties, have not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal, tragic, devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election of people as President and Vice President who will commit to return our nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from torturing human beings.
In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who are diligent enough to learn the facts, including reading available National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard Congress’s sole prerogative to declare war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to presidential requests for blank checks to engage in so-called preemptive wars, for legislation permitting warrantless wiretapping of communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible, saber-rattling legislation like the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country – and the world. They were enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and, ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people – 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks – a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets are wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by a government for which we need to take responsibility.
As loyal Americans, without regard to political partisanship -- as veterans, as teachers, as religious leaders, as working men and women, as students, as professionals, as businesspeople, as public servants, as retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins, sexual orientations, and faiths -- we are here to say to the Bush administration, to the majority of Congress, and to the mainstream media: “You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have undermined our democracy, spat upon our Constitution, and engaged in outrageous, despicable acts. You have brought our nation to a point of immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic, unprecedented proportions.”
“But we will live up to our responsibilities as citizens, as brothers and sisters of those who have suffered as a result of the imperial bullying of the United States government, and as moral actors who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it when we say ‘We won’t take it any more.’”
If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be principled, courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has demonstrated that our elected officials are not the leaders – the leadership has to come from us. If we don’t insist, if we don’t persist, then we are not living up to our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy – and our responsibilities as moral human beings. If we remain silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration – and to candidates running for office – and to the world – that we support the status quo.
Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what’s right and never letting down can we say we are doing our part.
Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was entirely fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no danger to the United States. Our government, acting in our name, has caused immense, unjustified death and destruction.
It all started five years ago, yet where have we, the American people, been? At this point, we are responsible. We get together once in a while at demonstrations and complain about Bush and Cheney, about Congress, and about the pathetic news media. We point fingers and yell a lot. Then most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months later.
How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning about and opposing the outrages of the Bush administration as they have spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past five years? Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have indeed become the opiate of the masses.
Why is this country so sound asleep? Why do we abide what is happening to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of peace and international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to put an end to this madness?
We should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising heck on our campuses. We should be making it clear in every way possible that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don’t cut it when presidential candidates and so many others voted to authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American men and women to attack and occupy Iraq.
Let’s awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across the country, as we ask others to join us: “We won’t take it any more!”
I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral breaking point is. How much will you put up with before you say “No more” and mean it?
I have drawn my line as a matter of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as possible, from Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name.
If we expect our nation’s elected officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our support for granted – that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided, principled leadership.
The people of this nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we won’t let it go on one more day – that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral degradation, and the disintegration of our nation’s reputation in the world.
Let us be unified in drawing the line – in declaring that we do have a moral breaking point. Let us insist, together, in supporting our troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which our veterans gave so much, that we bring our troops home from Iraq, that we return our government to a constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring the fundamental principles of human rights.
In defense of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of our shared values as Americans – and as moral human beings – we declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the insanity, stop the continued military occupation of Iraq, and stop the moral depravity reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture of people around the world.
McCain's speech was well written (for him, I doubt he wrote it himself), but he is not a great s
He does not have 'it'.
Obama has 'it'.
Well done, Obama.
Me three...he recites a great speech from the monitor......casual speaking is definitely
"kill him" speech is not acceptable free speech - it is against the law - nm
x
Great post, great insight, great analysis, thanks!..nm
nm
Great, great post. Thank you, Marmann! nm
x
the speech
I heard, I am very old and I suffered greatly at the hands of the enemy. Did I ever tell you I was a POW? I suffered greatly. Please feel sorry for me and vote for me. I deserve it. I suffered greatly. No economic plan, no health insurance plan, just I suffered greatly. Sarah's speech was John suffered greatly. No one else has suffered as much as he. Joe Biden's loss of family members and Obama's struggle with identity because of being mixed race do not qualify. This is an election about the issues of the american people not a Queen for A Day episode where the person with the saddest story gets a new washing machine.
The Speech to Nowhere
http://www.truthout.org/article/palins-speech-nowhere
Anybody see O's speech about
10:30 this morning? If he can accomplish half of what he talked about, I'll have a little more faith in him.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/president-to-ta.html
So much for your pre-speech intelligence
He did talk about the war.... Hey, wait a minute, your intelligence was bad....You lied to us!!! You twisted the information to fit your post...Don't you want to apologize and tell us all what a terrible mistake you made!!!!  How does it feel to be called a liar without justification?
Freedom of speech, LOL
Freedom of speech? To get up there and state you believe A WHOLE SOCIETY OF PEOPLE, A WHOLE ETHNICITY OF PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE ABORTED? Yet, you people jump all over Cindy Sheehan when she rags on Bush, LOL..You jump all over anti war people when we scream..STOP THIS WAR..But NOW you are stating freedom of speech..LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..Better to shut up now about Bennett, cause you sure are looking silly..
and this wise speech comes from a man
who admitted he's had too many wives, done too many drugs....and was happy to admit he inhaled.
Ahhh the credibility....
That's the only line you took from the speech...sm
But you think Bush who admits that he did drugs - obviously inhaled or sniffed, and was an alcoholic is a living testimony of credibility. Is there a double standard here?
Ah, yes. Freedom of speech.
I remember it well.
It was a cute joke. In case any of you missed it before it was removed from the board, one of the many places it can be found is http://www.justpetehere.com/2004/11/george_bush_pas.html.
Better do it quickly, though, because this post is sure to be removed as soon as the Cons start whining again.
freedom of speech
Check out the St. Pete Times, Sunday, 11/13/05, The Perspective, article by Robin Blummer. Sorry I don't have the link but it is easy to find. Talk about scary. By the way, I see that there are a number of comments to posts listed on the board but they are not available to see. Is this a new policy...we know people read or responded but we can't see what the response is?
the speech, annotated...
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0111-25.htm
Long but worth the read.
do you or do you not believe in freedom of speech....
and do you or do you not believe in the right of people to have opinions different from those and voice them? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts? You might be more comfortable in Russia where it is the policy of the counry to control thought that does not agree with the party line.
Do you believe in free speech?
If so, please allow me mine.
If you believe Obama's SPEECH,
nm
her speech, and debate later. I think
nm
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is freedom to all.
When watching TV if there is something I don't like I change the channel. I would suggest you do the same on this board instead of trying to silence those you don't agree with.
Keep on postin sam - you must be hitting home if there are those who want to silence you.
acceptance speech
was written by Bush speech writer. But there is not connection between the McCains and the Bushs. Mere coincidence. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
FYI, the prompter went out during her speech
at the convention -- but you didn't know it by watching her! I have every confidence she can handle whatever comes her way. she is a quick study, with common sense and intelligence.
Hate speech
You are a racist a__hole. Who cares what you think?
So is freedom of speech.
If the lady wants to talk about religion, so what? It's not like she's gonna get into office and make us all abide by her religion - Pa-leeeze!!!
Freedom of Speech? Think Again.
Hyscience
No, more like all the hate speech
"energizes" fanatic fervor and mobilizes race-baiting hoaxters, cyberspace skinhead assassination plots and the other more than 500 threats to Obama. See link.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6123157&page=1
I didn't see his speech
But I did read an article in the news. I notice that Bush's "help" is going to require union workers to get in line with non-union workers by the end of next year (can you say PAY CUT). I do agree with doing away with the job bank. Not one word did I read about his demanding deep cuts for the EXECS!!!! Of course they are his buds and they need those private jets and billions in bonuses. Makes me sick.
Bush's Speech
Bush was surprisingly coherent and articulate in explaining the bailout and its reasoning. His plan, by the way, is virtually identical to the one that the White House and Senate Democrats hammered out and Senate Republicans stonewalled a couple weeks ago.
The pay cut for auto workers is nonbinding, and there are limits on executive pay.
Maybe he should have made his speech in the 50s then.
His hate speech is not in line with today's reality. In most major cities, and for most young people, the black culture is the dominant culture. Fashion, music, media, sports - look at today's icons.
His speech was racist and makes me sick, because it is only going to spawn - guess what - MORE racism. If this is how the Obama presidency is going to be run, I predict the ranks of the KKK will be full to bursting by the time his first term is over.
freedom of speech
Hillary said that Bill always was a hard dog to keep on the porch. So what. At least we weren't embroiled in an unjustified war, we had a SURPLUS in the treasury and the whole country wasn't going to the dogs. I believe in the 1st amendment - she can say whatever she wants. Take some cojones to talk about propriety................look at dubya and turd blossom.
This man has NEVER believe in free speech
He has made no secret of his belief that our constitution is NOT a static document, which it is. He believes it should be a "living" document, so he can make up things as he goes along.
This guy is so uptight and immature that he continually makes comments about Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh. What rock did he crawl out from under? Too bad when he decided to come back to this country he didn't learn that FREE SPEECH mean just that, FREE SPEECH!!
Of course, he doesn't believe in our constitution anyway, so it shouldn't be a surprise.
Anyone in his position who obsesses over a few conservative talk heads isn't mature at all but this guy is so messed up, he actually believes he has the right to censor talk show hosts just 'cause he doesn't like them...... now that is a dangerous dictator!!!
Well, in his speech last night, he sure
seemed to be trying to put fear at the retreat. He started out calm enough but before it was over, he was livid, blaming the pubs for everything. He WAS trying to put fear in the dems to the words that they HAVE to pass this bill. No way was he going to let it fail. He wants the package the way it is. He doesn't want to compromise on this package no matter what he says to the media with his smiling face.
What did you think of PM Brown's speech
Don't get me wrong. I love England a lot (many of my family came from that country, have visited it and the people of England are wonderful people), but I caught PM Brown's speech the other day and I though it was... well "lame" for lack of a better term. He was kissing the behinds of the people to get funding from America his nose was covered in feces. I see he has also been studying President Obama's speeches and it was so blatantly obvious. President Obama is probably one of the greatest in giving speeches. No doubt about that, but this was clearly an imitation of Obama's past speeches. (We are not blue states and we are not red states, we are the United States). Here Mr. Brown says "There is no old Europe, there is no new Europe, there is only your friend Europe". The way he presented his speech all I could think of was that Obama's speech writers wrote it for him. All I thought of was how lame.
Just curious what your opinions are. Mine is that America does not have the funds to be sending money over to England. Unemployment is rising, home loss is on the rise and they are trying to have us send money to them??? Maybe I'm wrong about this but I just think it's very arrogant, as was his speech to congress.
I also heard that I guess it didn't go as well as England had planned because now The Queen is having a private meeting with Mr. Obama.
Just wondered what others opinions are.
Each to his own....... that's why we have "free speech"
xx
Deplorable speech!
What was breathtakingly shocking about Obama's speech is that he proposes "oversight" of executive decisions by the other branches of government under the guise of the principle of "checks-and-balances". As a former Constitutional lawyer, even he has to know that this was never what was meant by that principle for the simple reason that it abrogates executive responsibilities to the other branches.
Never mind that he failed to say what would happen if one of these other branches says "No you can't do that". Would the third branch then resolve the question?
Never mind that such a process would mean that the executive - which must often make critical defense decisions in minutes - couldn't act for days or months.
Never mind that he fails to mention that such a misapplication of "checks-and-balances" would set a precedent so that the next President could insist on exercising "oversight" over the Congress and the courts.
We shouldn't be surprised by this, though. This administration has demonstrated a shocking disregard for Constitutional principles from the very moment it took office and continues to do so to this very day.
Anyone who understands the principles of this country will have been very, very disturbed by Obama's speech today. And the country is getting sick of the blame game, too, Mr. President. At some point you should go into the Oval Office and see if you can find out who's President now. That's where the buck stops.
I think you have the wrong speech...(sm)
the discussion is about when he was talking in Turkey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIVd7YT0oWA&feature=related
I really doubt that O's speech had such
a big impact on the voters, in Lebanon and the EU, to change the outcome of the elections.
The EU voters changed to conservative, as so many poor countries were taken into the EU, and many countries were against this.
Turkey, a foremost Muslim country, is trying to get approved into the EU, causing a big controversy.
Who's denying her freedom of speech.sm
What you guys want is for her freedom of speech to go unanswered. Since she is an army mom then we should worship her and allow her to dump on us because of our beliefs.
If she wants praise and high-fives she should be posting on the conservative board.
Its called freedom of speech
Hey, neocons, its called freedom of speech..part of our Constitution. Dont like it, dont read the posts, dont come on the liberal board to cause trouble..stay where you are safe on your own board..
The issue is not free speech....
the issue is whether this guy was doing his job. He's a geography teacher for crying out loud. His remarks had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the job he was hired to do and that's teach geography. The excuse that he was teaching *human geography* is the most hilarious pitiful excuse I've ever heard. This guy should be fired for unprofessionalism and not performing the duties he was hired to do. If he wants to be a political activist so be it, but do it in your off time or quit your public education job and do it. This goes for anybody whether your conservative, liberal, or independent.
I think a new ammendment should be made to get teachers back to teaching the basics instead of trying in indoctrinate kids to think the way they do, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Well about the walkout---I doubt the kids did it for political reasons, they did it to get out of class and to get some attention.
Sandra Day O'Connor speech
Apparently only NPR and Olbermann covered this.
Audio here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712
Former top judge says US risks edging near to dictatorship
· Sandra Day O'Connor warns of rightwing attacks
· Lawyers 'must speak up' to protect judiciary
Julian Borger in Washington
Monday March 13, 2006
Guardian
Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.
In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University, reported by National Public Radio and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Ms O'Connor took aim at Republican leaders whose repeated denunciations of the courts for alleged liberal bias could, she said, be contributing to a climate of violence against judges.
Ms O'Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan as the first woman supreme court justice, declared: We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary.
She pointed to autocracies in the developing world and former Communist countries as lessons on where interference with the judiciary might lead. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
In her address to an audience of corporate lawyers on Thursday, Ms O'Connor singled out a warning to the judiciary issued last year by Tom DeLay, the former Republican leader in the House of Representatives, over a court ruling in a controversial right to die case.
After the decision last March that ordered a brain-dead woman in Florida, Terri Schiavo, removed from life support, Mr DeLay said: The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behaviour.
Mr DeLay later called for the impeachment of judges involved in the Schiavo case, and called for more scrutiny of an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president.
Such threats, Ms O'Connor said, pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedom, and she told the lawyers in her audience: I want you to tune your ears to these attacks ... You have an obligation to speak up.
Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence - people do, the retired supreme court justice said.
She noted death threats against judges were on the rise and added that the situation was not helped by a senior senator's suggestion that there might be a connection between the violence against judges and the decisions they make.
The senator she was referring to was John Cornyn, a Bush loyalist from Texas, who made his remarks last April, soon after a judge was shot dead in an Atlanta courtroom and the family of a federal judge was murdered in Illinois.
Senator Cornyn said: I don't know if there is a cause and effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country ... And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence.
Although appointed by a Republican, Ms O'Connor voted with the supreme court's liberals on some divisive issues, including abortion, making her a frequent target for criticism from the right. After announcing that she intended to retire last year at the age of 75, she was replaced in February this year by Samuel Alito, who is generally regarded as being more consistently conservative.
In her speech, Ms O'Connor said that if the courts did not occasionally make politicians mad they would not be doing their jobs, and their effectiveness is premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts.
So your saying Ann's not entitled to her free speech
but you are entitled to yours? The 9/11 widows can say anything, but Ann better shut up?
The double standards rule the day here.
Ann has her opinions but at least she is not saying America is guilty of genocide.
JFK speech 10 days before his death. sm
Please take 5 minutes to listen to this. It gave me chills. He truly was a visionary and what a great loss to America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU&search=JFK%20on%20Secret..
I distinctly remember this speech.
And it is not a new one. I remember it because it made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. The cards were on the table, I clearly remember thinking that.
Yes, his speech was awesome, wasn't it?
I think he should stick to his speech writers.
I can't hardly believe something as potentially volatile was discussed amongst that staff before he let that one go! Personally, I think its nothing more than a diversion to get people thinking and talking about something other than the war in Iraq.
Interesting take on Romney's speech.
![Does](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/ask-mitt-romney-anything.jpg") New York Times" href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ex=1354683600&en=8a31b02ef8ccfd20&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>David Brooks has a sober and thought-provoking take on Mitt Romney’s “Mormon speech,” simultaneously praising its intricate weaving of philosophy and worrying that his method of arguing for inclusion of Mormons in the political sphere was at the cost of excluding non-believers.
When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.
The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.
The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.
In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?
Indeed. The problem with the secularization of religion is that it winds up being insufficiently secular and insufficiently religious.
Brooks is also right that non-believers are more excluded from our process than even aggrieved religious groups like Mormons and Muslims. As noted here months ago, an atheist would have a much harder time getting elected president than a homosexual, black, or Hispanic — let alone a Mormon.
Memeorandum rounds up the blogger reactions to Brooks’ column. Most, like Ron Beasley, seem to agree with Brooks.
An exception is Red Stater Hunter Baker (who doesn’t appear to have read Brooks’ column) takes the opposite view, though: “The United States has traditionally been a nation that recognizes freedom must be paired with religion and morality if it is to persevere in political society. Mitt said it. Libertarians need to hear it. So do secularists.”
While there’s not much question that the Protestant Reformation played a role in the rise of democratic governance in the West, it’s far from clear that religion is necessary for freedom. Indeed, it’s difficult to think of a free theocracy.
The Washington Post weighing in on the question this morning with an editorial entitled, “No Freedom Without Religion? There’s a gap in Mitt Romney’s admirable call for tolerance.”
Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity. “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom,” Mr. Romney said. But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.
“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government,” Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.
The estimable John O’Sullivan, though, thinks Brooks and others are reading something into Romney’s message that was not there.
The religious liberty celebrated by Romney plainly entails the liberty to be non-religious. What Romney is opposing in those sections of the speech that seem to concern the culture wars is an obligation to be non-religious in the public square.
David’s arguments seems to be that if religious people were to unite against secularists to fight the their joint battles more effectively in the culture war, that would be an aggressive, divisive, and regrettable act. But that argument itself rests on the unstated assumption that the culture wars would stop if religious people stopped fighting them. In fact the culture wars began because the Left employed the courts to change America on everything from abortion to school prayer to gay marriage. This has not stopped. The obligation to be non-religious in the public square, though a very recent invention of liberal philosophers, is treated seriously in legal arguments and court decisions today.
So why shouldn’t religious people, while affirming the right to be non-religious, organize to defend their joint beliefs and interests in the way deplored by David?
No reason at all, of course. Indeed, while I would prefer that public policy decisions be decided on purely secular grounds, religious convictions are ultimately no less legitimate motivation for policy preferences that economic interest, party loyalty, or “we’ve always done it this way.”
It seems inevitable, though, that the overwhelming majority who are religious will mount their fight to protect their cultural values (even those shared by many secularists) on Us vs. Them grounds.
Further, as Eric Klee reports, Romney is thus far refusing to distance himself from the Brooksean interpretation.
A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday.
It’s a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney’s speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.
Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. “It is as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They’re wrong,” Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.
Romney’s strategy, if indeed it was intentional, is a politically sound one. The numbers favor pandering to the religious to the exclusion of non-believers; that’s especially so in the Republican primaries. It’s not the way to national unity but that’s generally well behind winning votes in a politician’s calculus.
Listening To Hillary's Speech
on CNN this morning and just as she is getting to the part where she is detailing her plan for withdrawal from Iraq,CNN cuts away to cover Cheney......You don't think there's any significance do ya?!
Politics!!!!!!!!! ARGH!
I could not find any coverage on any other channel.
What I DIDN'T Think of Hillary's Speech
Yesterday, Hillary scheduled her big ballyhoo to end her campaign, curiously at high noon. I live in out west, so everything is two hours behind.
I had been up most of the night and tuned into MSNBC early, at about 9:45 a.m. (11:45 a.m. Hillary time). Although I was pretty tired, I was looking forward to personally assessing the features of Hillary's personality as she spoke and wanted to see if this was going to be another speech that was all about her, with bitterness and a sense of entitlement, or if one of her other personalities would emerge, perhaps a kinder, gentler one, very much hoping for the latter..
Here's the time line:
9:45:00 a.m.: No Hillary yet, but I'm early. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann (my two favorites) are hosting this historic event. I can listen to these two guys talk all day.
9:50:00 a.m.: I can't listen to these two guys talk all day, so I begin channel surfing. Rachel Ray is cooking what looks to be some GOOD lasagna on the Food Network. I like Rachel Ray (despite the fact she's secretly a Muslim), but I can't get too involved because I am waiting for Hillary.
9:55:00 a.m.: Back to MSNBC. Chris and Keith still chatting. Hey, guys. We've got FIVE MINUTES to go here. Shouldn't we be -- what? Senator Clinton hasn't left her house yet? Quick shot to Senator Clinton's house reveals no visible activity. (Whose motorcycle is that, anyway?)
10:00:29 a.m.: Back to the remote. Animal Planet generously offers, "Cracking the Secret Code of Ants," complete with close-up shots of a gazillion ants. Uh, thanks, but no thanks. Whatever happened to that cute little meerkat -- Daisy or Rose or whatever flowery name the gave her -- yeah, that's it: Her name was FLOWER! Those ants are just too creepy!
10:00:30 a.m.: History Channel is showing Ax Men. I think not.
10:00:32 a.m.: Back to MSNBC: Clinton still hasn't left house. What the -- I bet she handcuffed herself to a piano, swallowed the key, they're trying to drag her out of the house, and she is refusing to leave.
10:00:35 a.m.: Beginning to feel extreme anxiety and tension. Recall that I was prescribed Xanax for such occasions. I'll only take a half of one because otherwise, I'll fall asleep, and I can't do that because Hillary's speech is too important!
10:03:00 a.m.: More surfing. Ooooooh. FX is showing Dharma and Greg at 10:00. As I tune in, Dharma is at her in-laws', having dinner and explaining why she sleeps in the nude. Some hot-looking foreign guy declares everyone at the table to be sexy. (Hot-looking foreign guy is Greg's aunt's new boyfriend. Greg's aunt wants a divorce from Greg's uncle and wants Greg to represent her.) As usual, Dharma does her good deed and tries to bring aunt and uncle back together. Greg is angry because Dharma's interference causes him to lose client. I decide Dharma would make a great diplomat to Iran. As you can see from the time line, this show moves very quickly (plus, it's a rerun that I've already seen).
10:07:00 a.m.: Back to surfing. Hit "channel down" button. "Army Wives" is on Lifetime. Like the show, but these are all reruns.
10:08:00 a.m.: Back to the clicker, hitting "channel up" button. Arrive at Animal Planet just in time to be greeted by the words, "...something gripped in ant's jaw." Am reminded to check MSNBC again.
10:08:02 a.m.: MSNBC makes another announcement: "Senator Clinton has not left her house. Endorsement speech delayed." Well, DUH! Am becoming a tad annoyed at this point. I wonder if she'd be late for her own funeral -- oops -- bad example. She already is, politically, "presidentially" speaking. Banner at bottom of screen: "Senator Hillary Clinton to Suspend Campaign and Endorse Obama." Suspend? SUSPEND???!!! Is she still holding out for that bizarre RFK scenario she shared with the entire world the other week? All the other candidates ENDED their campaigns, and she's still SUSPENDING?!!
10:11:00 a.m.: Back to Food Network. Someone's preparing grilled peach salad. Being basically a meat and potatoes kind of person, this is just a little too "busy" for me. (It's really quite simple: Peaches are good either plain or with ice cream, yogurt or cream; burgers, dogs, chicken, ribs and steaks, etc. are grilled; and salad consists of lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, celery, onion, and maybe a few other ingredients, but PEACHES ain't one of them.) Thinking how strange this all is triggers my memory to try MSNBC again..
10:13:00 a.m.: No news yet. Annoyance still present but somewhat "soothed."
10:14:00 a.m.: Channel-surf my way to Oxygen. "Snapped" is on. Again reminded of Hillary and tune back in to MSNBC.
10:17:00 a.m.: People still yacking, no Hillary, and the motorcycle outside her house is looking smaller all the time.
10:17:45 a.m.: Remote takes me back to the Food Network. The show is called "Rescue Chef." Acutely aware of my own personal culinary challenges, I pop a tape into the VCR and press "Record."
10:18:15: a.m.: I come to the realization that the show with that weird grilled peach salad IS "Rescue Chef," the show I'm taping. I remove tape from VCR.
10:19:00 a.m.: Back to the clicker. "Dominick Dunne's Power, Privilege and Justice" is on truTV. Again reminded not to take eye off prize and click back on to MSNBC, this time for the duration.
10:26:00 a.m.: People moving about outside Hillary's house. Motorcade leaving. Why does she need a MOTORCADE? Why couldn't she just do all of this, ON TIME, perhaps in the setting of one of her "conversations," sitting on her couch, smiling and trying to sound sincere? My annoyance quickly turns to anticipation, though. Finally!!! I yawn. My tension and anxiety have completely abated. I yell "Hurry, Hillary. Hurry!!" out loud. Dog stares at me in tilted-head confusion.
7:14:00 p.m.: I suddenly awaken to one of MSNBC's boring prison shows, distressed, sweating profusely and panic-stricken, after having had a nightmare about watching "Snapped," showing Dharma Montgomery in prison, having been convicted of poisoning her husband, Army Private Greg Montgomery, after serving him a dinner of lasagna with grilled peach salad in which she had hidden fire ants that she had killed with an ax. An Army Colonel by the name of Barack Olbermann had discovered Private Montgomery's body in the desert, near a colony of meerkats. Hillary Clinton, Dharma's attorney, is also interviewed. Dharma is sentenced to life in prison without parole.
What I learned today:
1. A half a Xanax works just as well as a full one.
2. Grilled peach salad really IS bad.
|
