On campaign trail, Romney ratchets ups God rhetoric


At campaign events these days, Mitt Romney often says that if he is elected president, he will emphasize the role of God in American society and will not “take God out of the public square.”

That kind of rhetoric is a departure from earlier less God-focused versions of the Republican candidate’s stump speech and his early apprehension with discussing his Mormon faith.

According to Mark DeMoss, Romney’s adviser to the evangelical community, such lines are designed to create a contrast with a Democratic Party that had to fight to get God into its platform at its recent convention.

“I will not take God out of my heart, I will not take God out of the public square, and I will not take it out of the platform of my party,” Romney has been saying in his stump speech since the Democratic platform fight this month.

The former Massachusetts governor used the line at a campaign stop in Mansfield, Ohio, on Monday. In nearly the same breath, he said that “we are nation under God.”

Written By: Dan Merica
continue to source article at religion.blogs.cnn.com


  1. Disgusting, but how much could he actually do to promote religion? I mean how much more than someone like Bush did? Thankfully we have the first amendment. It seems politicians, especially republicans, feel like that must talk about god to get elected. I want to say he is pandering, but I’m sure he does believe magic underwear.

  2.  The constitution only protects us to the extent we have courts and elected officials that pay attention to it.  The office of faith based initiatives or whatever it was called that Bush started was IMO clearly unconstitutional but never challenged and if it was as long as they could convince Kennedy (the usual swing vote who often goes to the right, e.g. Citizens United) they can still get it through.

    Or look at abortion.  Roe vs. Wade supposedly settled the issue but various states such as Virginia and Mississippi are getting close to making it essentially impossible to get an abortion in the state by passing laws that make it very difficult to run a clinic.

    Or a lot of the stuff being done to essentially privatize schools (and even Obama supports most of this) its essentially starting to subsidize religious schools even though that is unconstitutional.

    I guess I’m just ranting, let me try to make a coherent point, what happens IMO is that there is a cycle. People like Bush II and Reagan create initiatives or pass laws (the “congressional prayer breakfast” is essentially a Christian prayer breakfast started under Reagan) and then even when democrats get into power they are too concerned with looking ungodly to do the work to reverse them so gradually our basic rights keep eroding.

  3. Elections are hard to call weeks in advance even if you’re an expert and of the relevant nationality, and in this case I am  neither. I get most of my knowledge of the gradual movement in US politics from occasional poll discussions and probability estimates online and Real Time with Bill Maher, and any opinions I have on what’s likely to happen could easily be shown up by Americans who genuinely know what they’re talking about. And since Americans outnumber Britons 5 to 1, there must be many American commenters here. 

    All the same, I’ll come out and say it: I think Romney’s chances of winning, which (according to estimates I’ve seen elsewhere) are somewhere between 1 in 5 and 1 in 3, will fall still further in part because of his Mormonism. Maher has been surprised that hasn’t been a greater source of critique at Romney’s expense, and perhaps it’s because he has said little about it and Americans know little of how wacky Mormonism is. Nonetheless Romney has apparently now increased with this speech the level of religious language with which he has engaged in the race, and this may legitimise efforts to make explicit what his faith actually teaches. So the mockery Maher was surprised not to see yet will, I expect, start to occur now. 

    Maher has argued Romney’s handling of the Libya situation made last week “the week he lost the election”; and, although I don’t know how fair that is, and although I’m sure election outcomes are due to multiple factors, I reckon the Libya situation and the religion issue will both detract strongly from his odds (apparently already poor) of beating Obama. And I really hope he proves me right, because I’d feel sorry for an America under that man’s direction.

  4.   Early in his campaign, Mitt Romney spoke at Liberty University, the largest evangelical Christian university in the world.

    TWO OF A KIND – Both taking liberties with truth, legal requirements, and scientific facts!

  5. I suspect this strategy will blow up in Romney’s face. Obama offers Christianity. Romney offers Mormonism. Obviously Obama’s product is more palatable to American tastes. The more Romney puts emphasis on his religiosity, the more he emphasises his defect.

    Romney has to sell bigotry and homophobia.  Yet the more of those sort of people he attracts, the dirtier he will look.  Further, these are the people who will most likely eventually reject him for his off-beat religion.   

     The bookies are putting their money on Obama.

  6.  There might be a danger here. When anyone says anything negative about Israel they are accused of anti-Semitism, and over the years anyone complaining about the sometimes outrageous behavior of the black tennis player Serena Williams has promptly been called a racist by her father.

    Won’t a campaign to expose the silliness of Mormonism be portrayed as simply anti-religion?

  7. The reality is Obama is probably the most religious president we have ever had. Of course, that could change in the next election.

  8. Bishop Romney is there to collect names for proxy post-mortem baptisms while those in attendance are adding him to their prayers so that he escapes their fiery Christian hell.


  9.  ” On campaign trail, Romney ratchets ups God rhetoric ” 

    They all do this to get elected, to a greater or lesser degree, but this magic underwear wearing wackaloon really means it. He toned down the god stuff to get the more ” balanced ” members of the ‘pubs and now that he is in trouble the god drum needs a hard beating. Misstep? Probably.

  10. …he sees the change as a response to a president who is doing better in recent polls

    God – break glass in case of emergency.

  11. I don’t think Romney is actually a believer… in anything else than mammon. Sure he is raised as a mormon and donates a large percentage of his wealth to his church… but, these people really are not religious in the normal sense. His only real interest is getting richer and making his peers richer. He has time and time again shown he does not give a damn about the poor or anyone else than his fellow rich friends. This is a man who sat in a mansion in France while the rest of country fought a war in Vietnam. He is the man who does anything he can to evade taxes. In other words he is as unpatriotic as they make them. He does not give a damn about the people of the USA or anything else than his money! But, as long as you profess a belief in a god this does not seem to be a problem in USA. You can be the most unpatriotic asshole, but as long as you profess a belief in god then you are excused! Welcome to the United States of Ignorance and Hypocricy!

  12. Romney’s Mormonism kept him from getting the nomination is 2008 and I think, in the end, it will keep him from getting the presidency this year.  The more he speaks about God, the more Evangelicals and Catholics, will be asking themselves just what, exactly, he means by that.

    I follow a fairly conservative Catholic forum that’s most definitely in the tank for the Republicans and in the past few weeks they’ve had to delete a number of threads calling Romney’s Mormonism into question. Between that and his views on abortion more and more Catholics are talking about declining to vote at all.

  13. Here is a good article that has about everything I would like folks to know about Mormonism, and why even without a test in the Constitution of religion for office holding, the voters do need to apply a test of pure crazy:


  14. “It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it… anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”Douglas Adams  

Leave a Reply