The speech is being compared to a famous speech that John Kennedy gave in 1960 to reassure dubious Protestants that just becaues he was a Catholic didn't mean he was going to be taking political orders from the Pope in Rome. (John XXIII was Pope at the time, so taking directions from him wouldn't have been the worst thing imaginable.)
George Packer at his Interesting Times blog explains why Romney's speech is unlikely to bear much actual resemblance to Kennedy's speech, which was a "full-throated, unambiguous defense of secularism" in government (Romney's Religious Test 12/03/07):
Romney’s intention is the exact opposite of Kennedy’s. He’s caught in a trap of his own and his party’s making. Romney can’t raise the shield of secularism, as Kennedy did, because he is seeking the nomination of a sectarian party that’s built on a religious test. He can’t stand on any principle at all, secular or religious; instead, he has to win over the Christianists, who make up a large part of the Republican base, even though he belongs to a faith that most of them consider un-Christian. His eternal truth will be: “Hey, we’re not that different.” He parades his large and perfect family, he reminds us of his spotless personal life, he is dismissive of the possibility of appointing a Muslim Cabinet member, all to immunize himself against the religious bigotry of the voters he’s wooing. He’s going to do the same thing on Thursday. So no more comparisons with Kennedy, please. (my emphasis)If George Packer is using the term "Christianist" at his New Yorker blog, I think we can safely say that the word is now a part of the American English vocabulary.
Tags: christian fundamentalism, christian right, christianism, military religious freedom foundation, romney
No comments:
Post a Comment