The problem with this is the issue of religious beliefs is taking center state to promote politics. Considering that Mormons do not have an open door policy to their religious practices they leave it up to the imagination of others as to what they truly believe. So that raises questions, and rightly so, as to the how that religion can ultimately manifest itself. People should distrust all religious rancor in the political arena. We've seen how this man has been inconsistent in his utterances about some of the issues of the day.

There's a quote from the speech over at CNN.com that says, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

I'd like to know what he means by that, since I'm fairly sure we're not required to be religious in this country.

Romney 'chose to echo Kennedy,' scholar says

I wasn't going to say anything until I noticed the heading.

Where did this "scholar" mention in your article the First Amendment and it's Freedoms.

I admit I mentioned the "first" on another thread.

But, what was Romney supposed to do? Please ask the "scholar".
Was he supposed to hold up a book and explain page by page what it meant. Or explain his views for all of us.

People of all faith, yes, those that don't believe in a "higher power", have faith. It's what they believe in.

Now, many will answer here, but please explain to me how he was supposed to explain his faith.

If you want a faith based discussion, then have one, and leave the Politics out of it. Or talk about "EVERY" Politicians standing on faith.
Do you think Romney would have made this speech if he hadn't been continually discussed. NO.

Wise up all. With the continued hit on our Freedoms, it's a threat to those Freedoms.

There are 2,800 organized Christian religions in America today. They are different because they each interpret the Bible differently. It is the height of pride for the representative of any religion to say their dogma is better than anyone elses. It follows that a member of any one of those 2,800 religions is as entitled to be President of the United States as any other believer, subject of course to qualifications as determined by the voters.

Basic Mormon beliefs are hardly hidded and can be found at the web site of the Latter Day Saints for anyone who have 30 minutes to read.
My concern is the notion apparently prevalent on the "right" that one must pray to the "Christian God" in order to be president. That is unconstituional and highly troubling.

There was a comment that Mormons do not have an open-door policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Go to LDS.org and there are in-depth explanations of what the church believes. Go to a "Mormon" church any Sunday morning, and the people will fall all over themselves making you welcome and answering all questions, as they believe they have nothing to hide.

Where's Giuliani in all of this? He's a Catholic for goodness sakes.

That's the problem with Republicans.

JFK didn't knock down the religious barrier just for Catholics anymore than Jackie Robinson broke the racial barrier for blacks.

What Republicans do not GET is that we're all in this together.

Despite what the Supreme Court would have us believe about the Gore v Bush decision, there's no such thing as a "case by case basis" when it comes to politics. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Now, let's get on with the business of electing a Protestant again.

In response to the question about what Romney meant by "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom":

It is a belief among many people (both religious and not) that without the moral stabilizer of an institutionally codified and shared set of values (such as the injunction against lying, the injunction against adultery, exhortations to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, teachings that strengthen the family unit, the basic commitment to “fairness” nominally taught in Judeo-Christianity, etc.), that any free society will rapidly devolve into the type of hyper-selfishness that will cause both governmental and private institutions to cease to be effective, causing a collapse of the society, or at least the need for extremely strengthened centralized government. (Of course, there is great room for debate as to whether "religion" is actually the moral stabilizer of a society, but there is little debate as to the catastrophic sociological impact were "morality" and “public virtue” themselves to disappear.)

Hence Romney (as with Mormons in general) believes that a free people can only exist if the people are basically "good," and Romney (in a view that is not necessarily shared by most Mormons) believes that religion is a requirement for the people to be "good."

(It is an interesting aside to note that while a couple of generations ago it was the role of families and churches to take care of the poor, to ensure that children are raised in environments wherein they can thrive, and even to make sure that community members had health care, etc., with the collapse of the nuclear family and the collapse of the church in the last two generations, family and church have, in many ways, failed to fulfill these roles, and the government has had to step in to fill the vacuum. The result has been a hugely enlarged central government, high taxation, and a march towards socialism in many government programs. I believe that there has been a concomitant loss of many personal liberties.)

I can't believe the headline is "Romney chose to echo Kennedy." His statements about how separation of church and state have "gone too far" and that there should be more religion in government are completely contrary to JFK's speech.

In fact, when recently asked what his biggest mistake was, Romney said that it was believing he could separate his personal beliefs from lawmaking. That was his single greatest mistake. In his life.

I completely fail to see how this echoes Kennedy, who was very firm about maintaining the separation of church and state.

I also find Romney's quip that "freedom requires religion" to be pretty offensive to me personally and contrary to the fundamental purpose of America. I'm an atheist, therefore I can't be free? America does not require religion. That's why it exists!

“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason,’ he said. “No religion should dictate to the state, nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.’’ If he thought this was true he wouldn’t have made the speech. The speech was him telling the Christian Right that he is “Christian” enough them to vote for, not that he believes in the separation of Church and State. Though it might not be talked about the main plank in the Republican platform is to turn American in a “Christian” nation, the battle on the Right is who is “Christian” enough.

And where in Silva's article is mention of Romney's stance that he will not allow any Muslims in his Cabinet. I guess religious tolerance (and journalistic ethics) only goes so far.

Why can't the Wingnuts just pick their Prez candidate based on who would do a good job as President and not who is is the biggest Fundie puppet?

Companies don't hire CEO's based on whether or not the applicant claims to have spoken to god.
We've got a guy in the White House right now who claims to have a hotline to god and look at the fine mess he has made of our country the last 7 years.

Here's another phony Republican Prez candidate who thinks he talks to god, he even gets cell phone calls from him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yj_okz7ZwI

Where's Bruce? All he does is complain that there are nothing but stories about Democratic candidates but he won't post in a GOP article.

"And with this declaration, the former governor of Massachusetts confronted a challenge which John F. Kennedy faced in his own campaign for president in 1960... "

I think I know Romney's main problem -- this Ward Cleaver wannabe and the voter bloc he craves are both stuck back in the 1960s.

Organized religion has killed more than it ever saved. Religious nuts have been yelling my way or the highway ever since mankind began. Organizeed religion is uncivilized, and if there is a devil, he is the one who invented religion

I do not support Romney or any of his antediluvian fellow Republicans, but the man is right to declare that political office must be free of a religious test or doctinaire interference. It's a shame Americans need to be reminded that separation of church and state is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

A midget trying to sound like a statesman.

Lo, I would think that atheism is a religion in itself. It may not be organized religion but if that is your personal belief (which is the absence of God) then that is your religion.

Most people are smart enough to know the difference between a candidate for President who is religious versus a candidate for President who is outwardly a Bible thumping pawn of the far right. Romney is not a Bible thumper any more than Pat Buchanan was merely a candidate who happens to be religious. Buchanan spewed his views (and, along with them, his disdain for everyone who didn't believe and worship the exact same way he did) at every opportunity. Mitt Romney grew up in a political family (his father, George Romney was Governor of Michigan in the 1960s and, for a brief period, a Republican candidate for President in 1968).

While I am not a Republican, and not likely to vote for one for President, there is a huge difference between a religious candidate (Romney)and "religious fanatic who happens to believe he's right and everyone else is going to hell" type of candidate (Buchanan). I would hope the America voters understand the difference.

What is the "Christian right"?

How does one actually define the "Christian right"?

What beliefs does the "Christian right" hold that set them apart?

FYI - I am a practicing Catholic. I believe that life begins at conception, which is a reasonable belief, but if one holds that belief one must come to a rather P(In)C decision about abortion. (Hint - if it's growing it's alive).

FYI #2 - Pat Robertson is an idiot, Benny Hinn is an idiot, Jerry Falwell WAS an idiot, Dobson is an idiot.

But "Focus on the family - what is wrong with that?

What is wrong with proclaiming that kids need a secure home life, as in a mom and a dad who are there?
What is wrong with saying that young girls should keep their knickers on until they know that they are about?
What is wrong with telling young boys to respect girls, especially when EVERY hormone is screaming at them to behave differently?
What is wrong with expecting parents to teach their kids that "if it feels good do it" is the wrong way to go about things?

"...traveling to Houston to face a fundamentalist Christian audience with his assertion that he was not the Catholic Church’s candidate for president, but rather a Catholic running for president."

Poor choice of words, Mr Silva. Kennedy's remarks, as you point out later, state the opposite - he was an American running for President, and didn't believe his religion had anything to do with it.

I understand what you mean here, but the phrasing should be changed.

I also disagree that this speech 'echoed' Kennedy. JFK's speech was about the separation of church and state; Romney's seemed to be about assuring Christian Conservatives he wouldn't be an unappealing religious president. Very different sentiments.

The importance of JFK speech is highlighted by Romney's 'freedom' 'religion' 'freedom' 'faith' 'freedom' speech today. It's just about saying the right words to the base these days.

I wonder if Terry, as a "practicing Catholic" follows his Churches positions on:

Capital Punishment
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/

Iraq
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/2007-11%20Iraq%20Statement%20FINAL.pdf

The minimum wage
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/20070119minwageaa.pdf

Social security
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/socialsecuritybg05.shtml

Illegal Immigration
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/immigrationreform.shtml

The people who were stupid enough to elect Bush not once, but twice, need clarification on which particular brand of mythology their next leader believes in? Gotta make sure we are all on the same page here. Can't have no Mohammed's or Brigham's in charge. Got to be one of our own kind of haters.

So "Bud McFarin," obviously a pseudonym to hide his real identity, writes, "He's a Catholic for goodness sakes. That's the problem with Republicans." If that is not hate speech, I don't know what is. Every time I think this country has made progress, some coward who won't use his real name comes along to prove once again the level of stupidity that still exists.
And yes, I am Catholic.

To answer Terry's opening questions (if we MUST have a definition:

The "Christian Right" is the fundamentalist protestant white "Christian Right" such as the organization known as the Moral Majority led by the late Jerry Falwell. It's those who religiously (pardon the pun) watch The 700 Club. If we MUST give "Christian Right" a more narrow definition, as a way to describe and understand it for those who really must have that sound byte, let's call it the "Intolerent Far Right White Conservative". They are, by and large, middle class, white collar, out of touch with anything outside their own small communities and scared ****less that the blacks, Mexicans or whatever minority they're afraid of at the moment are slowly taking over their way of life.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Focus On The Family, either, except that it is often viewed as being exclusive of diversity. Once again, your aforementioned white, intolerant Christian right whose leaders seem to feel as though they have a monopoly on morality.

I am not a practicing Catholic, or a practicing anything. Neither am I an atheist, or even an agnostic. Like a large number of people in this country, I fall in the middle. The "Christian Right" (since you seem to crave a definition) is highly intolerent of people like me, because I don't believe EXACTLY as they do.

While I can buy into the whole "life begins at conception" argument, neither do I believe that the "life" that starts at "conception" is an actual human being -- yet. There are a whole lot of people in this country that believe the same thing, though we don't go running around spewing our beliefs like venom like those on the far right wing of the "Christian Right".

There is also nothing wrong with wrong with proclaiming that kids need a secure home life, as in a mom and a dad who are there. However -- what IS wrong is to demonize and blame for all the world's moral problems if they are not part of the one-dimensional, traditional American family. The "Christian Right" does that, and assumes that a woman who is a single parent was promiscuous, insead of being open to the possibility that the father of her children just up and left when he found out she was pregnant. Once again, instead of offering a helping hand whenever and however possible, the "Christian Right" that so promotes ideas like "Focus In The Family" will demonize ANYONE who isn't exactly like them, or doesn't believe, act or look like them.

There is nothing wrong with saying that young girls should keep their knickers on until they know what they are about, either. It's just such an unrealistic concept to expect the young girls to A) listen to it and B) take heed of the advice. And, once again, the "Christian Right" demonizes anyone who doesn't listen to, agree with, or do exactly as they think you should act.

There is nothing wrong with wrong with telling young boys to respect girls, especially when EVERY hormone is screaming at them to behave differently, except that every hormone is screaming at them to behave differently,and they are likely to not heed the advice. Which, of course, the "Christian Right" will demonize them for.

What is wrong with expecting parents to teach their kids that "if it feels good do it" is the wrong way to go about things? Nothing, except that it's highly unrealistic to expect that every parent is going to do this. Which, of course, the "Christian Right" will demonize them and say they're going to hell for.

If the "Christian Right" wishes to continue moralizing and spewing its venom and people who are different from them, no one really can stop them. Trying to would bring the rest of us down to their low level, anyway.

You asked for the definition of "Christian Right", pal. There. You got it.

Yeah,

Romney is the Mormon version of Kennedy, for sure. In 1941, Kennedy volunteered for the U.S. army but was rejected because of a bum back. Kennedy used his father's influence to get accepted in the Navy where he served as a PT boat commander and was a decorated war hero (Republicans hadn't perfected the art of swift-boating yet).

Romney, after a couple of quarters at Stanford, spent two and a half years in France convincing the French to give up the Pope, give up the wine and embrace the Mormon Gospel and 7-Up. Meanwhile, Vietnam was raging and Uncle Sam was looking for cannon fodder. But who could blame Romney for opting out? I don't.

Kennedy's most memorable speech addressing the issue of freedom and democracy evoked this plea:

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these walls"

Romney's signature moment when addressing the charges of illegal detainment, suspension of habeas corpus , and torture at Gitmo:

"You said they're at Guantanamo? I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them at Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers that they'd get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people say that we should close Guantanamo, my view is: We outta double Guantanamo."

And, he went on to say:

"Enhanced interrogation techniques need to be used."

Then used the totally bogus "ticking bomb" argument that McCain had just debunked.

http://www.ohdave.net/2007/05/romney-my-guantanamo-bigger-than-yours.html

So Mitt's down on the Geneva convention, down on due process, all for torture and Gitmo II. Sounds like John D.'s kind of guy. If only he were a "true Christian", eh Johnny Torture?

I note Willard did not express a belief in the 'absolute' separation of church and state as JFK did state.

Of course the Protestant ministers JFK addressed loved it. They deeply mistrusted the Catholics.

Now we have seen what the fundamentalist Prots. do when they gain power.