If this doesn’t send Mitt down in flames Thursday’s speech should.
Mitt is pretty savvy. I would not count him out yet. Plus, he’s loaded with cash.
Mitt's already given us a brief summary of what he will say. (WorldNetDaily had an article it linked to Tuesday from WBZ, New Hampshire, where they quote Mitt as saying):
[Thursday's speech] "...is not a repeat or an update of the Kennedy speech," Romney said in responding to an audience question after delivering an economics presentation to the city Rotary club. "I want to make sure that we maintain our religious heritage in this country, not a particular of faith, if you will, not of a particular sect or denomination, but rather the great moral heritage that we have that's so critical to the future of this country," Romney said. "So, I'll be talking about faith in America -- not my own faith in America -- and of course I'll answer the obligatory questions, as he did."
Many FREEPERS are already defending his speech without even having one insight as to what he will say. To hear them tell it, we should just leave it up to politicians to define "faith" & the rest of us should just shut our mouths. (Since when are faith issues off limits? So "faith" becomes "politics" just because some politico hustles it into his hands for possession? I don't think so)
We need to understand in advance what Mitt will try to do on Thursday. He is going to talk about "faith" as if it's generic. (Kind of like folks talking about Thanksgiving without really identifying exactly Who we're thankful to).
Faith is NOTHING if no specific target of that trust actually exists. For example, you could exchange computer-based contact with some "identity" all your life. But if you come to find out that this was person was never who he said he was, you were really in touch with another identity.
The day we start letting politicians define faith, with so-called "conservative" FREEPERS leading that charge, is a day where politics has declared war on yet another dimension of faith!