I haven't really been following the story about Mitt Romney's speech about how much he likes Jesus. No. "Following" is the wrong word altogether. I have instead been circling this story warily, squinting at it in quizzical contempt. Why are we caring, again...?
The last two presidents lied to us about oral sex and nuclear weapons. And this talking haircut's BS about the Archangel Moroni is supposed to even compete?
That's a joke. But still, didn't the current president just get caught bullshitting about Iranian nuclear weapons? That really happened, right? Why is Romney's speech, which everyone only watched to see how deft he could possibly be at not actually saying anything, news at all? Huh? Huh?
I'm afraid I know the answers to those questions, but feel free to add your own grim speculations in the comments. This was the only part of the speech that roused me from my savage torpor sufficiently to make fun of it:
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.
You can only admire the "our l'il 'ol ancestors"* quality of this bit. As well as the typo about "national forbearers." Count me in.
But then, why Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith? And where was the "setting out" from? Vermont? Ohio? Illinois? Did his extra wives make the setting out process any easier? But past the snark: are we seriously supposed to take Brigham Young as representative of a democratic ideal? Wow.
I'm not especially religious. But I'm not opposed to religion: what the hell do I know, anyway? But I am pretty sure that the religious people who will contribute something really positive to 21st-century America will be the ones who are honest about the past as well as the present. That Romney studiously avoided any hard questions about his faith tells us a lot about how seriously he takes it and indeed reveals a lot about his character: he is a weasel.
If I were religious, I'd be insulted. The real threat to religion nowadays comes from this incessant shabby manipulation of religious language for political ends. It's just vulgar.
Finally, one wonders if all the candidates will be given similar attention and time to give their views on this pressing topic. How would, say, Barack Obama skate around having to say flat-out on a public platform that even when it's explained sympathetically, Mormonism comes off as kinda bugshit crazy? I demand equal time!
(See also Phila. RMJ has not yet weighed in, the lazy bum, but it will be worth reading. This was good, for instance).
*the reference: