Romney on religion: Think of it as John Kennedy's parallisms without the tolerance

About the only remaining similarity between Kennedy's 1960 Greater Houston Ministerial Speech, in which he reaffirmed his commitment to the separation of church and state, and last night's address to the Republican fundamentalist christianist base by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is the latter's use of some of JFK's favorite sentence structures.

Romney:

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.

Mention of "separation of church and state?" Two rather iffy ones:

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.

(No mention--surprise!--of who "they" are who are intent on establishing the religion of secularism; it's enough for his GOP base to know that he knows they're out there.)

And:

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.'

Mention of "agnostics," "atheists," or "non-believers?" Zero.

Well, there's the distant plink of a first domino, isn't it? (Okay, not the first, by any means, but you know what I mean.) Does anyone think it's much of a stretch for Romney's core audience from there to the point where it's nice that you believe in God and all, but unfortunately for you it's the wrong one or you're doing it the wrong way (check the bronze)?

At least JFK made the effort to include athiests under the protection of American rights and privileges.

Does Romney really believe that agnostics and atheists don't deserve the blessings of liberty?

Hard to say. He's compromised so many of his political positions over the last year in order to woo the Christian right that it's difficult to know what, other than his own political appetites, he actually stands for anymore. Which, of course, makes him a fairly representative post-Bush Republican, but all the more unfit for office nevertheless.

Nothstine's Rule of Political Merit: Anyone who would be willing to carry a dead rat in his teeth to ingratiate himself with his extremist base should under no circumstances be allowed anywhere near the bully pulpit, the veto pen, or the red button.