Introduction:
There’s an old saying: “Careful what you say…it could come back to bite you in the ass.” In that spirit, I offer my take on a speech delivered by Mitt Romney back on November 6, 2007. That speech was important then (since Romney was a POTUS candidate). And it’s important now, since I’m confident Mitt will give it another go in 2012. [NOTE: I had posted much of this essay on-line in December of 2007.]
Now for some ass-biting…
Introducing Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney could have said: "When I place my hand on the Book of Mormon and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God."
But no, he didn't say this. On November 6, after being introduced by (former) president George H.W. Bush, Romney didn't utter that sentence. Instead of "Book of Mormon" (which he holds to be superior to the Bible), he said "Bible."
Didn't the founder of the Mormon faith, Joseph Smith, say: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book?" ["any other book" includes the Bible, which Mormons believe contains (at least) errors of translation.]
So why did Mitt Romney say "Bible" instead of Book of Mormon? If I were Mitt, I would have praised this "most correct of any book on earth" and proudly said "that book is what will swear me in." Of course, the religiously tolerant America
I've already made clear how I feel about which book will serve to swear me in as your next president: The Lotus Sutra.
"...my highest promise to God"
So Mitt Romney thinks that the presidential oath of office should become his "highest promise to God." I'm sure a lot of evangelicals must have shuddered when he said that. Well, those who actually bothered to really think about what Mitt was saying should have shuddered. Any Christian's "highest promise to God" goes something like this:
"I promise to do, by the grace of God and of Jesus Christ our Savior, anything within my power and ability to convert non-believers to the saving graces of Christ our Lord."
That's the highest promise to God, thank you very much.
Of course, such a promise doesn't necessarily conflict with the oath of the presidency, which states:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Of course, if Mitt Romney were truly to defend the Constitution of the United States , he would loudly proclaim his intention of rejoining Maine to Massachusetts , and West Virginia to Virginia , since Maine and West Virginia
In addition, Romney would never hold the rights of the unborn (who have no rights under the Constitution) to be superior to those of abortion-seeking women (who do have constitutionally-protected rights). Not if he really wanted to defend the Constitution. I presented my 14th amendment argument in support of Choice here:
Somehow, I don't imagine that Mitt Romney, or any of my Dem/Pub opponents, would really support the Constitution to the extent I just described. They have, shall we say, other agenda.
A Buddhist's highest promise
As for my highest spiritual promise, it goes something like this:
"I vow to guide as many people to the practice of Buddhism as possible, so they might become Buddhas."
Unlike Romney, I am willing to talk about my religion, while being careful to add that I am not a spokesman for any particular Buddhist sect. In fact, I proudly declare:
"I am a Buddhist, who is a member of a sect containing just one member (that would be me)." [So, obviously, I am not seeking to promote one organized religion at the expense of others. Perhaps that's what the evangelicals fear most about Romney's Mormons.]
As an American, I believe in the market place of ideas, so I would be keen to share my ideas about Buddhism for public consumption. And why not? Just because a man attains the presidency doesn't mean he gives up his First Amendment rights to free speech. Or his right to practice his religion (and, yes, spreading the word about Buddhism is part of practicing my religion).
My view would be: My fellow citizens elected me to be their president, so my intention is to go down in history as this country's greatest President who also happened to be its greatest friend to the rest of the world. I can be both: A Buddhist and this greatest President.
Reflections on Romney's speech
The Points below are quotes from Romney's speech; Counterpoints are my comments to those Points.
POINT:
Mr. President [Bush], your generation rose ... to vanquish the Soviet Union.
COUNTERPOINT:
I wonder how Russian President Vladimir Putin felt when he read those words. And, make no mistake about this, he has read those words. In the process of writing a speech about religion, Romney rather carelessly uses language which might rile a rival. [Perhaps Putin might be thinking, "Vanquished, eh? We'll show you."]
Here's food for thought: We might want to actually thank Russia, for without their competitive presence (and their nukes), the American Oligarchs might have even more boldly advanced their notions of world domination.
POINT:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.
COUNTERPOINT:
Actually, what freedom really requires is an open-minded and ethical public which participates actively in the affairs of state. Under my administration, I hope to usher in an era of genuine democracy. And, no, we don't have that now - we have (barely) a "constitutional republic" (whatever that means). My goal is to create a political environment in which citizens crave to participate as a labor of love, instead of one in which many can't even be bothered to vote.
POINT:
A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
COUNTERPOINT:
Wouldn't that depend on the faith? Suppose a candidate believes that human sacrifice is appropriate religious practice - shouldn't we reject such a candidate for having such a faith? Of course, the sarcasts among us might claim that the War Machine routinely demands human sacrifice. But I'll leave that alone for now.
POINT:
There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.
COUNTERPOINT:
I'm sure Mitt Romney meant to say, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of a God..." He must have meant to say "a God," since Mormons believe that more than one God exists. [As a Buddhist, I have no problem with numerous Gods, because I think of them as Bodhisattvas who are on the path of practice, seeking to become Buddhas (of which there are also many in number).]
Witness these comments, concerning Mormon Gods:
QUOTE:
"I am going to tell you how God came to be God," declared Joseph Smith [founder of the Mormon faith] in his "King Follett Discourse" of 1844..."God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form...We have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." And (from fifth president of [Mormon] Latter Day Saints Church Lorenzo Snow): "As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be."
:UNQUOTE.
I am also sure that Mitt has been asked another "fundamental question": Do you believe in the supremacy of the Bible? He does not deal with that question in his speech, though clearly he must believe the Book of Mormon to be superior to the Bible.
POINT:
[Our nation's founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom.
COUNTERPOINT:
Maybe what they had really discovered was "the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of individual interior space against statist intrusion."
POINT:
Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.
COUNTERPOINT:
Why should we accept Mitt Romney's assurances? He speaks as a member of a group which had suffered persecution and had developed a closed-mouth siege mentality. Mitt himself refuses to release his income tax returns, which (by the way) I defend as his right. However, I have been reflecting lately on certain issues:
• What kind of connections does Mitt Romney have, which indeed might be far more valuable than mere monetary assets? He is, after all, a descendant of a Mormon apostle.
• What kind of (possibly hidden) financial arrangements are possible in a secretive group which had a leader like Brigham Young who had 27 wives and 56 children? What kind of financial underpinning could support such large families? Have those types of creative financing survived to this day? [Don't hold your breath, waiting for lame-stream media to ask such questions.]
POINT:
I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God....We should acknowledge the Creator.
COUNTERPOINT:
Obviously Mitt Romney has never encountered Buddhism, which doesn't believe in a God or a Creator. Ironically enough, though, I think of Mormons as being the most Buddhistic among the Western "Christian" believers.
POINT:
Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.
COUNTERPOINT:
I would be quite satisfied, instead, with judges who would busy themselves with interpreting the law and would just leave it at that.
POINT:
The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost [my underscore and emphasis], but also to every child of God.
COUNTERPOINT:
"to our fellow Americans foremost" - there's a certain selfishness in such a phrase, which will appeal to those who say, "You're either for us or you're against us."
POINTS:
• I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.
• ...the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights...
COUNTERPOINT:
I find it interesting that Romney invokes Martin Luther King, abolition, and civil rights in this speech (in Texas yet!). We might look back on this speech of November 6, 2007, as being the (intentional) "blunder" that sank Romney's 2008 candidacy, simply because in it he reminded voters in the Deep South of his liberal background.
Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
"Religious debate is important in a presidential campaign, simply because I believe it's high time that the nonsense espoused behind closed doors in some of our churches desperately needs broad public scrutiny" - Steven Searle
Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment