Religion & Politics rant - making new friends

[Harlan Huckleby]

Last week, Mitt Romney said he would not allow a Muslim in his cabinet. The bizarre explanation was because there are so few Muslims in this country.

Even Sadam Hussein had a couple Christians in his cabinet, for fuck's sake.

Last night in Romney's Great Humanitarian speech, he goes after non-believers. He says that Christians are pitted against Secularists, those that want strict seperation of church & state are trying to make Secularism the state religion. Wonder if there will be any agnostics allowed in his government?

I doubt Romney is a biggot. I doubt Romney has any problem at all with Muslims, Agnostics, Athiests, gays, or anybody else. Romney is a power-crazed jerk who will say anything to gain political advantage.

It's ironic that Romney's "Ich Bin Ein Mormon" speech was compared to JFK's speech on Catholicism. Kennedy's message was simple: keep religion out of the public sphere. Romney attempts to use his Christianity to garner votes in an us-against-them fashion.

I would MUCH rather see a hardcore bible-thumper like Huckabee in office. I disagree with him on most social issues, but he does not villify non-Christians.

[Joemailman]

This was an act of desperation because he is losing Christian conservative voters as Huckabee rises in the polls. I don't think it will enable him to save Iowa, and I don't think it will sell very well in New Hampshire either.

[mraynrand]

Kennedy's message was simple: keep religion out of the public sphere.

Could you possibly be any more wrong? The answer is none, none more wrong.

[mraynrand]

I disagree with him on most social issues, but he does not villify non-Christians.

Please point out how Romney in any way villified non-Christians.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas
September 12, 1960

Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear 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 . . . so help me God.

[Freak Out]

I did not listen to Romney and would NEVER listen to a candidate when all they are going to talk about is how they are a faithful Mormon/Methodist/Jew/Muslim or whatever and I have to believe that more Americans would have listened if he was going to unveil his economics policy or foreign policy. I'm sick and tired of the God bless America crowd demanding that the candidates all be good Christians. I want a president that is not afraid to come out and say mind your own business.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I want a president that is not afraid to come out and say mind your own business.

Amen, Brother Freak Out. Can I get a witness!

[hoosier]

I disagree with him on most social issues, but he does not villify non-Christians.

Please point out how Romney in any way villified non-Christians.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"

He doesn't villify non-Christians in this quote, just non-believers. Unless you think that associating non-believers with unfreedom isn't villificaition.

[Joemailman]

Text of Romney's speech. Not a bad speech, although the line about "No freedom without religion" does seem to be a shot at non-believers.


Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Speech

Governor Romney’s “Faith In America” Address (As Prepared For Delivery):

“Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.

“It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

“Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

“America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

“Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

“There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

“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. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

“There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

“Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

“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. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

“There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

“I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

“Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

“They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

“We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’

“The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

“These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me…’

“My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

“Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

“It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

“We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

“I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

“Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom… killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

“The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

“In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

“Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. ‘They were too divided in religious sentiments’, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

“Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

“And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God … they founded this great nation.

“In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty.’ And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, ‘with freedom’s holy light.’

“God bless the United States of America.”

[Scott Campbell]

I did not listen to Romney and would NEVER listen to a candidate when all they are going to talk about is how they are a faithful Mormon/Methodist/Jew/Muslim.........

Would you listen to Barack talk about how being a black man might shape his presidency? Would you listen to Hillary talk about how being a woman might shape her presidency?

Mormons were persecuted in this country. And there is still prejiduce against them today as evidenced by the polls regarding people who wouldn't vote for a Mormon.

[Scott Campbell]

Ugly:

Wonder if there will be any agnostics allowed in his government?

Uglier:

Romney attempts to use his Christianity to garner votes in an us-against-them fashion.

Ugliest:

It's ironic that Romney's "Ich Bin Ein Mormon" speech.......

[Deputy Nutz]

Bob Saget just said, "Shut the fuck up". Thats right the guy from Full House.

[Scott Campbell]

Last week, Mitt Romney said he would not allow a Muslim in his cabinet.

Why lie about this Harlan? You must really have an ax to grind with the guy.

Here's the unflattering account written by the Christian Science Monitor that the Romney camp is distancing itself from:




Mansoor Ijaz wrote in a Christian Science Monitor column published today that Romney said he “cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified” for a Muslim in his administration, in light of the percentage of Muslims living in the U.S.

Romney's camp responded:

CBS News asked Romney to provide his version of the encounter, which occurred at an event that was closed to media.

“His question was, 'did I need to have a Muslim in my cabinet to be able to confront radical jihad and would it be important to have a Muslim in my cabinet,'" said Romney. "And I said, ‘No I don’t think that you have to have a Muslim in the cabinet to be able to, to take on radical jihad any more than during the Second World War we needed to have a Japanese-American to help us understand the threat that was coming from Japan,’ or something of that nature.”

Romney said that instead of filling his cabinet posts with ethnicity in mind, he would choose his cabinet members based on merit.





Your racially charged account of what transpired seems ridiculously inflamatory. Did you otherwise enjoy Las Vegas?

[Joemailman]

Romney nay need more than a good speech to hold off Huckabee in Iowa. A Newsweek poll http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ee_surges.htmlconducted on Wednesday and Thursday shows Huckabee opening up a huge lead in Iowa. It is so different from any other polls that it makes you wonder. However, it is finally getting to the point where these polls are worth looking at. Iowa is less than a month away.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God

Oh do we now? What about the polytheists? Or people who see God as detached from mankind's doings? And the clear implication is that unbelievers are unAmerican.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why lie about this Harlan? You must really have an ax to grind with the guy.

Here's the unflattering account written by the Christian Science Monitor that the Romney camp is distancing itself from

since the Romney camp is distancing themselves the report is a lie?

Mansoor Ijaz wrote in a Christian Science Monitor column published today that Romney said he “cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified” for a Muslim in his administration, in light of the percentage of Muslims living in the U.S.

Sounds credible to me. Or you can choose to believe the version of the Romney Camp, call people liars. Your choice.

[mraynrand]

I disagree with him on most social issues, but he does not villify non-Christians.

Please point out how Romney in any way villified non-Christians.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"

He doesn't villify non-Christians in this quote, just non-believers. Unless you think that associating non-believers with unfreedom isn't villificaition.

I don't see any 'villification' there. Sorry. Some day you may realize it's OK to have an idea that differs from someone else without necessarily labeling them as evil or villains. Plus, I don't exactly agree with him. The ability to freely practice any religion (having true religious freedom) requires freedom, but true belief doesn't necessarily require you to be free. Some of the greatest believers practiced their religion in the absence of freedom and practiced it at the cost of their freedom and their lives. Historically, freedom has depended heavily on the religious. I don't know if freedom can exist without it, and I suspect we'll never know, since I think religion will always be with us. Also, it's fair to say that many religions have limited freedom, in some cases that limited freedom is the freedom of licentiousness while other religions have restricted freedom of action, expression of independent thought or practice of other religions. Some religions have a history of removing your head if you don't convert. All religions are not equal - that is implicit in Romney's remarks. The amazing thing about our country is that the Judeo Christian values and the thinking of the rationalists (among others) allowed for the creation of a secular government and religious pluralism.

[mraynrand]

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God

Oh do we now? What about the polytheists? Or people who see God as detached from mankind's doings? And the clear implication is that unbelievers are unAmerican.

The vast majority do. That's the point. It's OK if you don't believe that liberty is a gift from God. The amazing thing about the U.S. is that you can say this openly, even write NY Times best sellers promoting these ideas, and you not only will NOT be persecuted, you will be applauded and lauded by many. If that's not freedom, what is?

[Scott Campbell]

Why lie about this Harlan? You must really have an ax to grind with the guy.

Here's the unflattering account written by the Christian Science Monitor that the Romney camp is distancing itself from

since the Romney camp is distancing themselves the report is a lie?

Mansoor Ijaz wrote in a Christian Science Monitor column published today that Romney said he “cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified” for a Muslim in his administration, in light of the percentage of Muslims living in the U.S.

Sounds credible to me. Or you can choose to believe the version of the Romney Camp, call people liars. Your choice.

Harlan, the point is that I can't find anyone besides you that accused him of saying what you claimed he said "Last week, Mitt Romney said he would not allow a Muslim in his cabinet."

And I still think your claim is ridiculous and inflamatory.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Romney nay need more than a good speech to hold off Huckabee in Iowa....Iowa is less than a month away.

Joe, sorry to piss in your punch bowl yet again, but all the pundits I listen to say Huckabee is still a very, very long shot. Romney has virtually unlimited funds, and strong, well managed state organizations across the country. Huckabee winning Iowa is not enough to overcome his overall weakness, Iowa is an odd and uncharacteristic place that favors Huckabee.

I really have little idea how these things work. But the experts seem to think that Huckabee has no money, no organization. Corporate America fears Huckabee, he's too independent, and aren't forking-over a dime.

The most likely effect Huckabee can have is to drain away some of Romney's early momentum and give Giuliani an easier track.

But this year is particularly confusing and unknowable on the Republican side. Will be interesting! I'd like to see Huckabee, or even McCain, roll over the insiders.