dimanche 20 janvier 2008
jeudi 10 janvier 2008
Les primaires en Caroline du Sud, une élection décisive dans la course à la présidence
La victoire d’Hillary Clinton dans le New Hampshire a remis en cause la pertinence des sondages, qui la donnaient largement perdante. En Caroline du Sud (primaires républicaines le 19 janvier et démocrates le 26), les pronostics apparaissent ainsi difficiles à établir. Du côté démocrate, Barack Obama semble être le favori, mais sa concurrente peut à nouveau créer la surprise. Du côté républicain, le Palmetto State a la tradition historique d’élire le candidat qui reçoit au terme des primaires l’investiture du parti. Si Mike Huckabee et John McCain apparaissent cette année comme les candidats les plus à même de l’emporter, aucun des deux ne s’affirme cependant comme un véritable gagnant.
1 / L’électorat afro-américain : l’enjeu du duel Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama.
Après une défaite cuisante en Iowa, Hillary Clinton a prouvé qu’elle savait tenir tête à ses adversaires. Cependant, sa victoire dans le New Hampshire n’est pas un gage de réussite en Caroline du Sud, où les pronostics demeurent ouverts.
Forte de la popularité de son mari (notamment auprès de l’électorat afro-américain), Hillary Clinton a longtemps été considérée comme la seule démocrate qui, à terme, pouvait gagner l’élection présidentielle. En Caroline du Sud, une partie importante du socle du parti et de la communauté noire s’est tournée vers elle au cours des derniers mois, reprochant à Barack Obama sa jeunesse et son inexpérience. Largement soutenue au sein du Palmetto State, Hillary Clinton se présentait comme la gagnante de l’investiture démocrate : réalisme vs optimisme, expérience vs changement.
Or depuis la mi-décembre, la Caroline du Sud a vu arriver Barack Obama en tête des sondages. Concrètement, le candidat a affirmé sa capacité à mobiliser des voix lors des premières élections primaires : investi dans un état majoritairement blanc (l’Iowa compte moins de 3% d’électeurs afro-américains), le sénateur de l’Illinois talonne Hillary Clinton (37% contre 39%) dans le New Hampshire.
En Caroline du Sud, l’électorat afro-américain, majoritaire du côté démocrate, devrait soutenir massivement le candidat métis, a fortiori après sa victoire dans l’Iowa. D’après un sondage Insider Advantage du 7 Janvier, Barack Obama récolte 48,2% des intentions de vote au sein de la communauté noire, contre 36,8% pour Hillary Clinton.
En revanche, le vote des femmes (56% de l’électorat en Caroline du Sud) constitue l’une des inconnues du scrutin du 26 janvier. Si l’électorat féminin s’est majoritairement tourné vers Obama en Iowa, Hillary Clinton a bénéficié d’un large soutien de la part des citoyennes du New Hampshire (47% contre 32% pour le sénateur de l’Illinois).
A dix-sept jours de la primaire démocrate, les jeux sont loin d’être faits. Le retour en grâce de la candidate dans le New Hampshire a démenti tous les sondages, et le phénomène pourrait s’étendre à la Caroline du Sud. La course aux voix qui oppose Hillary Clinton et Barack Obama promet donc d’être serrée. De son côté, John Edwards n’a pas obtenu en Iowa et dans le New Hampshire des résultats qui lui permettraient d’emporter l’investiture démocrate dans son Etat natal.
2 / John McCain vs Mike Huckabee : un combat imprévisible.
La victoire de John McCain dans le New Hampshire complique la course à l’investiture républicaine et rend les pronostics difficiles à établir en Caroline du Sud. D’après le sondage Insider Advantage du 7 Janvier, Huckabee mène le jeu dans le Palmetto State avec 33% des intentions de vote contre 21% pour McCain.
Huckabee correspond en effet au profil électoral du GOP en Caroline du Sud (plus du tiers du parti est constitué par des chrétiens évangéliques). Ancien prêtre baptiste contre l’avortement et le mariage homosexuel, il séduit par son étiquette « social conservative ». Ses seuls points faibles : des positions extrêmes sur certains sujets (défense du créationnisme), et des capacités financières réduites.
De son côté, McCain pourrait voir son « momentum » se poursuivre dans le Palmetto State. Une étude du « Pew Research Center » montre que les électeurs républicains de Caroline du Sud considèrent l’Irak comme l’enjeu le plus important de ces élections présidentielles. Or McCain était le premier à critiquer la gestion de l’après-invasion et à réclamer une augmentation des troupes. Le succès du « surge », ainsi que son expérience en matière de sécurité nationale, pourraient appuyer sa candidature. Ses positions en faveur de la légalisation de 12 millions de sans-papiers constituent sa principale faiblesse. Dans un entretien téléphonique du 17 décembre, John O’Connor, journaliste politique à The State, envisageait la victoire de McCain comme l’option la plus probable en Caroline du Sud.
En revanche, après des résultats mitigés en Iowa et dans le New Hampshire (respectivement troisième et seconde positions), Romney a peu de chances d’emporter l’investiture républicaine dans le Palmetto State, où sa foi mormone constitue un véritable handicap. Or une défaite en Caroline du Sud, cumulée à ses échecs en Iowa et dans le New Hampshire, signerait probablement l’arrêt de mort de sa campagne. Sa stratégie de victoire dans les early states serait, quoiqu’il en soit, ruinée.
Commentaires :
Selon les derniers sondages, la Caroline du Sud devrait présenter des résultats similaires aux caucus de l’Iowa : Barack Obama du côté démocrate, contre Mike Huckabee du côté républicain. La victoire de Hillary Clinton dans le New Hampshire a cependant démenti les pronostics et pourrait se répéter dans le Palmetto State, où la candidate bénéficie d’une base électorale solide. Du côté du GOP, la course est également serrée, entre Huckabee, figure de proue des chrétiens évangéliques et McCain, candidat de l’establishement. A un stade des élections où tout semble possible, la Caroline du Sud donnera le ton pour les primaires à venir (5 Février), influençant de manière décisive l’ensemble du pays.
1 / L’électorat afro-américain : l’enjeu du duel Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama.
Après une défaite cuisante en Iowa, Hillary Clinton a prouvé qu’elle savait tenir tête à ses adversaires. Cependant, sa victoire dans le New Hampshire n’est pas un gage de réussite en Caroline du Sud, où les pronostics demeurent ouverts.
Forte de la popularité de son mari (notamment auprès de l’électorat afro-américain), Hillary Clinton a longtemps été considérée comme la seule démocrate qui, à terme, pouvait gagner l’élection présidentielle. En Caroline du Sud, une partie importante du socle du parti et de la communauté noire s’est tournée vers elle au cours des derniers mois, reprochant à Barack Obama sa jeunesse et son inexpérience. Largement soutenue au sein du Palmetto State, Hillary Clinton se présentait comme la gagnante de l’investiture démocrate : réalisme vs optimisme, expérience vs changement.
Or depuis la mi-décembre, la Caroline du Sud a vu arriver Barack Obama en tête des sondages. Concrètement, le candidat a affirmé sa capacité à mobiliser des voix lors des premières élections primaires : investi dans un état majoritairement blanc (l’Iowa compte moins de 3% d’électeurs afro-américains), le sénateur de l’Illinois talonne Hillary Clinton (37% contre 39%) dans le New Hampshire.
En Caroline du Sud, l’électorat afro-américain, majoritaire du côté démocrate, devrait soutenir massivement le candidat métis, a fortiori après sa victoire dans l’Iowa. D’après un sondage Insider Advantage du 7 Janvier, Barack Obama récolte 48,2% des intentions de vote au sein de la communauté noire, contre 36,8% pour Hillary Clinton.
En revanche, le vote des femmes (56% de l’électorat en Caroline du Sud) constitue l’une des inconnues du scrutin du 26 janvier. Si l’électorat féminin s’est majoritairement tourné vers Obama en Iowa, Hillary Clinton a bénéficié d’un large soutien de la part des citoyennes du New Hampshire (47% contre 32% pour le sénateur de l’Illinois).
A dix-sept jours de la primaire démocrate, les jeux sont loin d’être faits. Le retour en grâce de la candidate dans le New Hampshire a démenti tous les sondages, et le phénomène pourrait s’étendre à la Caroline du Sud. La course aux voix qui oppose Hillary Clinton et Barack Obama promet donc d’être serrée. De son côté, John Edwards n’a pas obtenu en Iowa et dans le New Hampshire des résultats qui lui permettraient d’emporter l’investiture démocrate dans son Etat natal.
2 / John McCain vs Mike Huckabee : un combat imprévisible.
La victoire de John McCain dans le New Hampshire complique la course à l’investiture républicaine et rend les pronostics difficiles à établir en Caroline du Sud. D’après le sondage Insider Advantage du 7 Janvier, Huckabee mène le jeu dans le Palmetto State avec 33% des intentions de vote contre 21% pour McCain.
Huckabee correspond en effet au profil électoral du GOP en Caroline du Sud (plus du tiers du parti est constitué par des chrétiens évangéliques). Ancien prêtre baptiste contre l’avortement et le mariage homosexuel, il séduit par son étiquette « social conservative ». Ses seuls points faibles : des positions extrêmes sur certains sujets (défense du créationnisme), et des capacités financières réduites.
De son côté, McCain pourrait voir son « momentum » se poursuivre dans le Palmetto State. Une étude du « Pew Research Center » montre que les électeurs républicains de Caroline du Sud considèrent l’Irak comme l’enjeu le plus important de ces élections présidentielles. Or McCain était le premier à critiquer la gestion de l’après-invasion et à réclamer une augmentation des troupes. Le succès du « surge », ainsi que son expérience en matière de sécurité nationale, pourraient appuyer sa candidature. Ses positions en faveur de la légalisation de 12 millions de sans-papiers constituent sa principale faiblesse. Dans un entretien téléphonique du 17 décembre, John O’Connor, journaliste politique à The State, envisageait la victoire de McCain comme l’option la plus probable en Caroline du Sud.
En revanche, après des résultats mitigés en Iowa et dans le New Hampshire (respectivement troisième et seconde positions), Romney a peu de chances d’emporter l’investiture républicaine dans le Palmetto State, où sa foi mormone constitue un véritable handicap. Or une défaite en Caroline du Sud, cumulée à ses échecs en Iowa et dans le New Hampshire, signerait probablement l’arrêt de mort de sa campagne. Sa stratégie de victoire dans les early states serait, quoiqu’il en soit, ruinée.
Commentaires :
Selon les derniers sondages, la Caroline du Sud devrait présenter des résultats similaires aux caucus de l’Iowa : Barack Obama du côté démocrate, contre Mike Huckabee du côté républicain. La victoire de Hillary Clinton dans le New Hampshire a cependant démenti les pronostics et pourrait se répéter dans le Palmetto State, où la candidate bénéficie d’une base électorale solide. Du côté du GOP, la course est également serrée, entre Huckabee, figure de proue des chrétiens évangéliques et McCain, candidat de l’establishement. A un stade des élections où tout semble possible, la Caroline du Sud donnera le ton pour les primaires à venir (5 Février), influençant de manière décisive l’ensemble du pays.
jeudi 13 décembre 2007
JFK vs ROMNEY... EXPLANATIONS
Lire les passages en bleu et en rouge, et comparer! Frightening, isn't it?
JFK vs ROMNEY
JFK'S SPEECH ON HIS CATHOLICISM
September 12, 1960 - From Houston's Rice Hotel, Senator John Kennedy is about to address a special meeting of the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to which he has been invited. During this telecast, Senator Kennedy will participate in an informal question and answer period. The telecast of this meeting is sponsored by the Kennedy-Johnson Texas Campaign Committee, and is being seen throughout Texas on a special 22-station network. The audience you are seeing is composed of clergymen of the Houston area who have been invited by the association.
"While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida – the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power – the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms – an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues – for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again – not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew – or a Quaker – or a Unitarian – or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim – but tomorrow it may be you – until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end – where all men and all churches are treated as equal – where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice – where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind – and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe – a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the Nation or imposed by the Nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would, our system of checks and balances permit him to do so – and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test – even by indirection – for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none – who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him – and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in – and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty" or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died – when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches – when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom – and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey – but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition – to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress – on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself) – instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts – why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France – and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views – for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President – in birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith – nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my Church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole Nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency – practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For, without reservation, I can "solemly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God."
FAR, FAR AWAY FROM...
ROMNEY'S SPEECH ON MORMONISM
December 7, 2007
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam’s words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
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.
When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
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.
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.
We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. 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'.
These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements.
“My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self -same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.” … “The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
“In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.”
September 12, 1960 - From Houston's Rice Hotel, Senator John Kennedy is about to address a special meeting of the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to which he has been invited. During this telecast, Senator Kennedy will participate in an informal question and answer period. The telecast of this meeting is sponsored by the Kennedy-Johnson Texas Campaign Committee, and is being seen throughout Texas on a special 22-station network. The audience you are seeing is composed of clergymen of the Houston area who have been invited by the association.
"While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida – the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power – the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms – an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues – for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again – not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew – or a Quaker – or a Unitarian – or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim – but tomorrow it may be you – until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end – where all men and all churches are treated as equal – where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice – where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind – and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe – a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the Nation or imposed by the Nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would, our system of checks and balances permit him to do so – and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test – even by indirection – for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none – who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him – and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in – and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty" or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died – when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches – when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom – and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey – but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition – to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress – on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself) – instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts – why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France – and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views – for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President – in birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith – nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my Church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole Nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency – practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For, without reservation, I can "solemly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God."
FAR, FAR AWAY FROM...
ROMNEY'S SPEECH ON MORMONISM
December 7, 2007
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam’s words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
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.
When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
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.
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.
We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. 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'.
These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements.
“My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self -same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.” … “The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
“In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.”
mercredi 12 décembre 2007
Welcome to ATL
Murders in city soar past '06 total
By Tim Eberly
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/30/07
With one month left in the year, murders in Atlanta already have topped the totals from the two previous years, and there are signs that killings could keep rising.
As of Thursday, 121 murders had been reported in the city for the year, compared to 20-year lows of 110 in 2006 and 90 in 2005, according to Atlanta police.
Atlanta police blame the rise in murders, in part, on the yearlong absence of the narcotics unit, which was disbanded after the controversial shooting of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston in November 2006.
Atlanta police spokeswoman Judy Pal said the department has an eye on the numbers.
"This is something that absolutely concerns the Atlanta Police Department because we were on a downward trend," Pal said.
"The question is: Is it going to continue [to rise]?" said Dean Rojek, a University of Georgia associate sociology professor who has studied homicides in Atlanta for three decades. "All the indications are that it should probably increase over the coming years."
The city is not coming close to bloody years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when homicides topped 200 for five straight years and peaked in 1989 at 246, according to the Bureau of Justice.
But the number of homicides is creeping back toward levels seen between 1997 and 2003, a seven-year stretch when the city averaged about 146 slayings a year.
Pal of the Atlanta police attributed the increase to two factors.
One is that the department spent a year without a narcotics unit cracking down on mid-levels drug dealers.
"We weren't out there being able to make those arrests that are so important," said Pal, adding that drugs and violent crimes go hand in hand.
Another reason, she said, is a gang authorities described as one of Atlanta's most violent in recent years.
Nine alleged members of the so-called "International Robbing Crew" have been locked up, accused of killing at least seven people in a two-year span.
Atlanta police, meanwhile, are making moves to keep homicides down, Pal said.
The department's new narcotics unit hit the streets on Oct. 1, and has seized $700,000 worth of drugs and guns in its first 45 days, she said.
____________________________
My comment: At least, we have the sun! 25°C outside on December 12!
By Tim Eberly
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/30/07
With one month left in the year, murders in Atlanta already have topped the totals from the two previous years, and there are signs that killings could keep rising.
As of Thursday, 121 murders had been reported in the city for the year, compared to 20-year lows of 110 in 2006 and 90 in 2005, according to Atlanta police.
Atlanta police blame the rise in murders, in part, on the yearlong absence of the narcotics unit, which was disbanded after the controversial shooting of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston in November 2006.
Atlanta police spokeswoman Judy Pal said the department has an eye on the numbers.
"This is something that absolutely concerns the Atlanta Police Department because we were on a downward trend," Pal said.
"The question is: Is it going to continue [to rise]?" said Dean Rojek, a University of Georgia associate sociology professor who has studied homicides in Atlanta for three decades. "All the indications are that it should probably increase over the coming years."
The city is not coming close to bloody years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when homicides topped 200 for five straight years and peaked in 1989 at 246, according to the Bureau of Justice.
But the number of homicides is creeping back toward levels seen between 1997 and 2003, a seven-year stretch when the city averaged about 146 slayings a year.
Pal of the Atlanta police attributed the increase to two factors.
One is that the department spent a year without a narcotics unit cracking down on mid-levels drug dealers.
"We weren't out there being able to make those arrests that are so important," said Pal, adding that drugs and violent crimes go hand in hand.
Another reason, she said, is a gang authorities described as one of Atlanta's most violent in recent years.
Nine alleged members of the so-called "International Robbing Crew" have been locked up, accused of killing at least seven people in a two-year span.
Atlanta police, meanwhile, are making moves to keep homicides down, Pal said.
The department's new narcotics unit hit the streets on Oct. 1, and has seized $700,000 worth of drugs and guns in its first 45 days, she said.
____________________________
My comment: At least, we have the sun! 25°C outside on December 12!
mercredi 28 novembre 2007
FLORIDA... PRECISIONS
Cette fois-ci, photos accessibles en un clic. Petit résumé du week-end prolongé de Thanksgiving.
Départ mercredi soir : Claudia (stagiaire Goethe Institute), Michi, Chris, Simon and me. Arrivée vers 00h à Jacksonville. Dodo.
Jeudi : Grâce à Claudia, Thanksgiving dinner dans une famille américaine, une vraie ! Très convivial, open-minded. Petit tour en bateau avec le grand-père et le petit-fils.
Jeudi soir à Saint-Augustine, l'une des rares villes historiques des Etats-Unis. Première colonie espagnole. Pas difficile à trouver dans les photos. Soirée dans un petit bar charmant.
Vendredi : Road trip to Tampa. Stop dans une réserve pour manatees (lions de mer).
Vendredi soir : Club à Tampa.
Samedi : Petit tour à Daytona Beach (Yeah! Le SUV sur le sable fin!) and Dali Museum. Puis plage à Clearwater (golfe du Mexique). 29°C dehors (si, si, c'est vrai, et 20°C dans l'eau).
Samedi soir : Re-club.
Dimanche : Re-plage, et départ pour Atlanta. 8 bonnes heures de route, arrivés sains et saufs!
Départ mercredi soir : Claudia (stagiaire Goethe Institute), Michi, Chris, Simon and me. Arrivée vers 00h à Jacksonville. Dodo.
Jeudi : Grâce à Claudia, Thanksgiving dinner dans une famille américaine, une vraie ! Très convivial, open-minded. Petit tour en bateau avec le grand-père et le petit-fils.
Jeudi soir à Saint-Augustine, l'une des rares villes historiques des Etats-Unis. Première colonie espagnole. Pas difficile à trouver dans les photos. Soirée dans un petit bar charmant.
Vendredi : Road trip to Tampa. Stop dans une réserve pour manatees (lions de mer).
Vendredi soir : Club à Tampa.
Samedi : Petit tour à Daytona Beach (Yeah! Le SUV sur le sable fin!) and Dali Museum. Puis plage à Clearwater (golfe du Mexique). 29°C dehors (si, si, c'est vrai, et 20°C dans l'eau).
Samedi soir : Re-club.
Dimanche : Re-plage, et départ pour Atlanta. 8 bonnes heures de route, arrivés sains et saufs!
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
