Romney regrets leaving non-believers out of his faith speech

[Synnical]

Huh? Talking out of both sides of his . . . .



http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9208033

By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/09/2008 01:28:37 PM MDT

Posted: 1:30 PM- WASHINGTON - Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, once criticized for leaving out atheists and non-believers when he delivered a much-touted speech on faith in America, now says he missed a chance to discuss their role in society.

Romney, who addressed his Mormon faith on Dec. 6 to allay concerns by hesitant voters, was criticized for asserting in that pre-primary speech that, "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

This week, Romney said he is still convinced of that, but that he regrets omitting atheists and agnostics from his initial address.

"Upon reflection," Romney said at the Metropolitan Club in New York City, "I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity - an opportunity to clearly assert the following: non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty."

If a society decides to outlaw a faith or ordain a state faith, it may be the non-believers who are first likely to be condemned, Romney said. And such an action, in the end, should scare everyone, he added, because an attack on someone because of what they believe - or don't believe - hits at the very idea of religious liberty.

"A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone," Romney said, according to prepared remarks, "whether we are
talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God."

-

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Wow. That's a first. I find my self in agreement with Mitt Romney on something.

If a society decides to outlaw a faith or ordain a state faith, it may be the non-believers who are first likely to be condemned, Romney said. And such an action, in the end, should scare everyone, he added, because an attack on someone because of what they believe - or don't believe - hits at the very idea of religious liberty.

"A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone," Romney said, according to prepared remarks, "whether we are
talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God."

He must have fallen on his head and had some sense (briefly) knocked into him.

[msongs]

2. he knows a LOT about a certain "coercive monopoly of belief" religion nt

[enlightenment]

3. Far too simplistic - but that's Mitt.

Many countries have "ordained" (inappropriate word choice) state "faiths" (again, poor word choice) and non-believers aren't singled out.

Non-believers aren't anywhere near as visible as believers. If a society decided to "outlaw or ordain" they'd go after all those folks who congregate first.

He's not saying anything different then what he said before; he's just figured out a sneakier way of saying it.

Twit.

[LucyParsons]

4. Boo, Hoo.

STFU, Glove.

[and-justice-for-all]

5. Thanks, but no thanks mittens...

"non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty." Im anti-religious and have no interest in defending the improbable and unlikely.

[Solly Mack]

6. I'm taking a wild guess here - but I can't help but wonder if the raids

in Texas didn't hit a little too close to home for Mittens.

He couches his speech to broadly include "non-believers" but his primary worry is those who don't follow a state (read that as acceptable) religion or they follow a faith that has been outlawed.



"A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone"

"If a society decides to outlaw a faith or ordain a state faith, it may be the non-believers who are first likely to be condemned"

The first - but not the last or only.

"...an attack on someone because of what they believe - or don't believe - hits at the very idea of religious liberty."

In one context, non-believers can also be read as those who do not believe in the state (or majority approved or practiced)) or ordained religion...not necessarily atheists at all.


Mittens couldn't just come out and say he believes in polygamy or that he believes those who practice it should be left to their own beliefs.

I dunno...and I'll be the first to admit there could be a whole lot of nothing there...still...I'm sensing more to his words than just Mittens regrets dissing atheists.

[KharmaTrain]

7. There's Only One Thing He Regrets More...

That's not being the candidate...and you can be sure that if that had happened non-believers would still be excluded from any speech or thought. He didn't regret it, he omitted it for political purposes, it didn't work and his biggest regret is he's on the sidelines now and misses having the corporate media ogle all over him.

If there was a left wing hate radio, this would be such food for fodder...Mitt would be Gramp's Reverend Wright...pissing off the fundies who weren't too happy with his magic underwear and flip-flop on choice...and now he's gonna speak kindly of the infidels? Ahhh...to live in a parallel universe for a few moments...now back to reality...