Romney's character

Why didn't Romney disavow his church's official racism until they repealed it in 1978? Frank Rich offers a succinct answer:

Mr. Romney didn’t fight his church’s institutionalized apartheid, whatever his private misgivings, because that’s his character. Though he is trying to sell himself as a leader, he is actually a follower and a panderer, as confirmed by his flip-flops on nearly every issue.

A nicely distilled assessment. Romney comes from a family with quite a lot of pull in the LDS cult, and it might have meant something. And even if it didn't he could have simply left it. After all even though I doubt my departure would make much difference I would certainly make it a point to leave were I to find myself a member of a racist organization. But Romney is a follower and a panderer, and his life is a story of seeking approval from the most proximate authority figures. How else could he believe the insane teachings of the LDS church, or keep a straight face when denying he's a flip-flopper?

No room for the atheists

Jacob Sullum joins the secular dissenters from Romney's speech.

Mitt, I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine. And you're no John Kennedy.

Not that I have any great love for JFK but I must say Romney's insipid speech on his religion didn't exactly meet that standard. I can't help but resent being told the requirements of freedom by a man who believes it somehow credible to think that Joseph Smith, a serial polygamist, rapist, fraud, demagogue, theocrat, and fantasist is a latter day prophet and revelator of the will of the creator of the universe. Apparently we need a person of faith in the White House but to even deign to wonder what that faith entails is hideousl un-American and tears at the fabric of our society. I can't help but notice a parallel between this and the importance Romney believes should be placed on the record of his entire political career before he began running for president This might be a clever way of preempting any questions on why a grown man in his late twenties and early thirties couldn't find it in himself to leave what was an officially racist cult until 1979.

Steve Chapman at Reason says it better than I, though I will have more to say so maybe I can gain ground.

Romney and Keith Ellison

Keith Ellison stirred up controversy back in January by requesting that he be sworn in on the Koran instead of the Bible, and in turn Dennis Prager stirred up more controversy by claiming he shouldn't be allowed to. Well I don't think he should either but then again I have the undoubtedly insane-in-the-eyes-of-Christianists belief that a politician should swear his oath only on the Constitution but that is just me.

I am wondering whether Romney will wish to be sworn in on the Book of Mormon and whether that will attract the same criticism. He undoubtedly won't. He has said that atheists should not be elected to political office and that only a person of faith should occupy the presidency. Apparently though it doesn't matter a stitch to Romney what that faith actually is as shown by his annoyance at being questioned on his religious beliefs. Well screw him I say. He has categorically labeled an entire group of people as unfit for office because of their beliefs. He is entirely fair game for vetting based on his.

If elected I have no doubt he will be sworn in on the Bible and claim he has no problem with it. After all he is plenty willing to abandon any number of beliefs to please the public. But i would just love to see the explosion of theocratic fury if a pol ever asked to be sworn in on the Constitution and not the Bible. Is the Constitution an unfit document not reflective of American values? Is it subordinate to the Bible? They would be compelled to say such things or remain silent. Michael Newdow should bring a lawsuit.

How will Mormons react if he does use the Bible?