Holy Underwear.

Anyone who has an opinion that deviates from a single adjective summation does not deserve to be taken seriously as someone who ANALYZES goings-on in the political world?

Hewitt is truly a man of integrity.

That's funny, I think anybody who honestly believe that "freedom requires religion" isn't to be trusted as a president.

As an example of religious intolerance masquerading as tolerance, distorting history, misunderstanding the constitution and the environment in which it was created, pandering and lying it was magnificent indeed.

Anybody who bothers to waste time listening to Hugh Hewitt is not to be taken seriously.

Reading the National Enquirer is a better innvestment of time than paying attention to Hugh Hewitt.

Hmmmm, tell that to the founding fathers. We have seen in the the past and today how religion ensures freedom, the Inqusition and the followers of Pat Robertson come to mind.

I thought freedom required tolerance, including for those who choose not be religous.

I sometimes listen to a few minutes of his show in the car. Not very often at all. And it seems to me that he's always praising Romney, even defending him from his own callers that are not 100% behind him.

Is he part of the Romney campaign?

I know a lot of "pundits" are shills for political interests, but the degree I see in the Hewitt/Romney society is well beyond anyone else.

Weird.

Samson141,

"I thought freedom required tolerance, including for those who choose not be religous."

As does a truly good religion. So I suspect, in a way, Romney is correct.

"a truly good religion" ??

Which ones are those? Buddism? Jewish? Hindu? And for the rest - Christianity in particular (Crusades and Inquisitions anyone?) not to mention Islam, do their followers adhere to the commandments that the unbelieving be tolerated, much less respected?

By the way, have you read the speech? The damning of the "religion of secularism" strikes me as a tad intolerant. But that's just me I suppose.

I think Hugh has an extra "g" in his first name.

So I'd *love* for a reporter to ask any of these GOP holy rollers if Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson (who believed in Jesus as a teacher, but not as the Son of God) are in Hell right now.

Then I'd love someone to ask Mit what Jesus would do about Iraq.

I can dream, can't I?

Hewitt has still not changed the following typo:

"Did Romany convert anti-Mormon fanatics or secular absolutists?"

So does Hewitt subconsciously think that Mormonism is really a gypsy religion?

Just wondering...

I always thought Hewitt was such an open-minded guy...

... in the sense that listening to it will let the listener understand the conservative view of religion. Within the rhetoric about how nice freedom is, Romney did give the conservative view that secularism isn't separate from religion, but is a religion, and when the government is neutral towards religion, it promotes secularism, which means promoting a religion, therefore neutrality is impossible. We're free to be any religion we want, but we're not free to have no religion, and keeping the religion of the majority out of the public sphere, he mentioned the government putting up nativity scenes in parks, is itself the promotion of the religion of secularism.

I'm not saying it's logical or constitutional. I'm just saying that's the conservative point of view, and Romney actually did pretty well at articulating it.

My cousin used to try to end arguments with ""Don't Deny It!"

When we were about ten...

does the pundit equivalent of a six-year-old with his fingers in his ears going LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA.

Why not ask the families and relatives of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis the Bush Govt and the US Military murdered in that country what kind of "Faith" they have in America? Ask them how much "magic" is bestowed upon them by waving the maudlin American flag!

"Samson141, "I thought freedom required tolerance, including for those who choose not be religious." As does a truly good religion. So I suspect, in a way, Romney is correct."

So if A requires C, and B requires C, A = B?

Nonsense.

I understand that in his speech, Mitt Romney said or implied that freedom was a gift from God, which is pretty much what George W. Bush once said.

Setting aside the fact that freedom is actually luck of the draw (based on random chance, and relating to where you were born), and allowing that freedom may indeed be a gift from God -- isn't it presumptuous of us to steal God's thunder by trying to "give" freedom to other countries? Let God do it.

As far as Romney's speech being a masterpiece? It was a masterpiece in that he avoided discussion of his religion specifically, while still spewing rhetoric that pandered to the religious right.

We saw what happened when Bush brought religion into politics, and Romney was basically telling the religious right that he will be Bush Light.