What a World

The liberal blogosphere was awash this weekend with mentions of a gathering of conservatives at something called the Values Voter Summit. It seems that the evangelicals have a hard time being led by a Mormon, and many are saying some that Romney isn't *gasp* a Christian! Which is a bad thing to not be in the universe of the VVS.

Romney reacted to the accusations, which included calling Mormonism a "cult", which this statement:

Our government should respect religious values, not silence them. We will always pledge our allegiance to a nation under God. Our values ennoble the citizen, and strengthen the nation. We should remember that decency and civility are values too. One of the speakers who will follow me today, has crossed that line. Poisonous language does not advance our cause. It has never softened a single heart nor changed a single mind. The blessings of faith carry the responsibility of civil and respectful debate. The task before us is to focus on the conservative beliefs and the values that unite us - let no agenda, narrow our vision or drive us apart.

This statement reminded me that the world of the VVS and the world that conservatives claim to want is quite a horrible place. Instead of discussing world issues and determining ways to deal with them, conservatives are playing identity politics based on who believes which version of the sky daddy story. I cannot think of a more worthless way to spend time, unless your goal is to solidify the conformity of your own group, in part by driving out those who do not conform. But if the Republicans want religious purity in their leaders, then that is their prerogative. The do have many examples from history that they can use for this, like Stalin, Mao, and I think the Catholics called theirs The Inquisition.

I find the last line in that statement pretty amusing in that Romney thinks that anything he says will make any difference at the VVS. Everyone knows that VVS people base their decisions on a nebulous concept of values, rather than on anything objective. They will not be swayed to accept Romney's Mormonism just because he says a few words. These are people who will still not accept that Barack Obama was born in the US, even after he presented the document they had been demanding all along.

But I want to get back to Romney's statement, because there is an awful lot of crazy in there:

Our government should respect religious values, not silence them. We will always pledge our allegiance to a nation under God.

You might, but I prefer to follow the advice of the gentlemen that founded the country. I make no pledges and prefer to keep this god concept out of government.

Our values ennoble the citizen, and strengthen the nation.

So long as that citizen is white and male, or respects the supremacy of the white and male citizens. And if by strengthen, you mean to send all money to the military instead of education and infrastructure.

We should remember that decency and civility are values too.

Yes, they are values too, gold star for Mitt!

One of the speakers who will follow me today, has crossed that line. Poisonous language does not advance our cause.

I don’t like poisonous language either, but have you really looked at your cause, Mitt?

It has never softened a single heart nor changed a single mind.

Well, not changed a mind for the better, at least. I should commend Mitt for getting the first part of that statement right.

The blessings of faith carry the responsibility of civil and respectful debate.

This is an especially confusing statement. What are the “blessings of faith,” anyway? What extra good could come from believing in an ancient mythology despite all of the evidence that said ancient mythology is as mistaken as the rest of them? The only blessing I can think of - that doesn’t have an analog in a non-faith-based life - is the comfort in thinking that dead people are in heaven and/or one is going to heaven after death. Still, I don’t know how that “blessing” necessarily is followed by any responsibility.

But if we follow that logic further, that would mean that only faith can inspire people to be civil and have respectful debates. That is an interesting statement, since there are many people with no faith to speak of who can conduct themselves civilly and participate in respectful debate. Romney’s logic would conclude that, without faith, they have no responsibility to have civil and respectful debate, yet they do not routinely call others cruel names or throw chairs at debates. It would seem that the responsibility to be civil and respecful might not come from faith at all.

The task before us is to focus on the conservative beliefs and the values that unite us - let no agenda, narrow our vision or drive us apart.

At least, let no agenda narrow our vision any further - we don’t tolerate Muslims, gays, independent women, poor people, government workers (unless they’re in a high enough position of power), unemployed people, hippies, hipsters, anyone not Christian, and anyone under 55 who wants single-payer Medicare when they retire (and not a pathetic voucher to give to some corporation).

For how bad all of this is, I am still laughing. The Republicans are clearly self-destructing, and I think fewer Americans will be voting this year on the premise that “I voted D last time, maybe now I’ll give R a shot”. Those people couldn’t tell that the R’s made the mess in the first place, but maybe now they can see that the R’s are full of crap.