Romney’s Major Speech
UPDATE: Read Marc Moore’s post – he represented PoliGazette at the Bush library and saw it all happening before his eyes.
Watch Governor Romney’s religion speech live at PoliGazette. Ended, read live blogging post.
Romney’s campaign delivered excerpts of the speech he’ll deliver today. They’ll follow below (click on the blue read story button). Here are some blogposts on the speech: Captain’s Quarters, Riehl World View, Politico.
You can listen live to the speech at PoliGazette. I’ll watch it myself and liveblog this much anticipated speech. If Romney botches it, he’s done for. If he delivers a strong speech he might increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The updates can be recognized by the number before them. 1, 2, etc.
5. The Mormon Church will not, he says, influence his policies in any way.
6. When he, he says, puts his hand on the Bible for the oath, that will be his most high promise to God and his own faith will not influence him in any way whatsoever. He also says he will not distance himself from his faith. “My faith is the faith of my fathers,” he says.
7. He points out that some think that his faith will cause him to lose. If so, well, “so be it.”
8. “What I believe of Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” and Savior.
9. He’s not going to explain the Mormon faith in detail. He’s not the spokesman of his faith. Great line: No candidate should be the spokesman of his faith for if he’s president he needs the prayers of people of all faiths.”
10. The separation of Church and State, he says, has been taken to extremes. Some believe that religion should be completely separated from public spaces. “It’s as if they want to establish a new religion for America.” One “of secularism.” “They’re wrong.
Applause.
11. Religion shouldn’t be eliminated from the public square, he says. He should be part of US history and should be recognized in the public square.
12. He will separate Church from state, but he will not “separate us from the God Who gave us liberty.” Nor from “our religious heritage.”
13. No candidate should be subjected to a religious test. What matters is values. What’s important isn’t whether you’re an Evangelical. What matters is what values you adhere to and believe in.
14. One of the major themes of the speech is that God equals freedom. America is, in this regard, a religious nation. Freedom, liberty, is at the core of the US. America should never stop spreading and defending freedom.
15. Freedom is an important part of the Mormon faith, just as it is of any other Christian denomination. Quotes from Bible. “My faith is grounded on these truths.” They’re not perfect, but the aspirations and values of his family are those that Christ preached and taught. These will “form my presidency” he says.
16. Religious liberty: America didn’t get it as easy as it wanted. The Puritans, he rightfully pointed out, fled because of religious persecution, but then they themselves weren’t very tolerant either. It took America a long time to get where it is now in that regard. This was, finally, established – legally – in Philadelphia he says.
17. He points out that many people don’t seem to truly understand how great the American heritage is in that regard.
18. Then points out that Islamic extremism is a new religious enemy. “Any believer in religious freedom [...] has a friend and ally in me.” “We welcome our nation’s symphony of faiths,” he says. Long, long applause. Didn’t see public, possibly standing ovation.
19. Prayer: “God bless this great land, the United States of America” which was founded on religious freedom.
That’s it: great applause again. Entire Romney family goes on stage, as do the former President and former First Lady Bush, who seem to think quite highly of Romney.
Ed Morrissey liveblogged the speech as well, not at Captain’s Quarters but at his second blog, Heading Right. He picked up one some of the things I missed (better, I couldn’t always keep up):
9:36 – Opens with the connection between religion and freedom. I don’t disagree, but doesn’t religious tolerance include the openness to atheism as well? Can an atheist be President? Why or why not? If not, isn’t that a kind of religious test?
9:38 – “The authority of any church ends at the place where the affairs of the nation begins.” True,and well said.
9:45 – “I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty.” He’s speaking about the “great moral foundation” which all Americans share. So far, he’s doing better than I thought.
9:46 – “Liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.” A great line.
9:52 – “Our nation’s symphony of faith.” Another good line.
9:53 – Viewership seems peaked at 5500 or so. I wonder if that’s just CapQ readers? That doesn’t seem likely from the Sitemeter stats.
Ed concludes: “Interesting, and somewhat better than I thought. I still think that he won’t have convinced people disinclined to vote for Mormons to support him, but at least he may have made some evangelicals more comfortable with his candidacy.”
My conclusion: I think it was, generally, a great speech. He used many memorable lines and his message of (religious) freedom should appeal to many, if not most, Americans. Frankly, I think that he shouldn’t be concerned about the ones who won’t vote for him no matter what. They’re bigots. There’s no use in arguing with bigots. This speech wasn’t aimed at them, it was aimed at those who aren’t comfortable but willing to give him a chance to explain and defend himself nonetheless.
In that regard, as I said, an awesome speech. I think that many religious people can find themselves in agreement with what Romney said, and that was exactly the purpose. Whether you’re Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Hindu is irrelevant – it’s about the values.
Commenter Lynx pointed out that he also, in her opinion, seemed to attack atheists. I don’t think he did. He attacked those who want to limit the influence of religion much more than the founding fathers wanted. He criticized those who think that separation of Church and State means that religion has to be expelled from the public square completely. It has never been like that in the US, and if you think it should be, well, then Romney is indeed not the best choice for you.
Excerpts Of Governor Romney’s Remarks (As Prepared For Delivery):
“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.”
Looks fairly strong from the excerpts IMO. Ed Morrissey sees irreconcilable statements there, I guess because he does advocate embracing Christianity, not religious faith in general. My take on that though is that you can’t help but stress the Christian history and majority of our country- which doesn’t negate acceptance and complete tolerance of other faiths (so long as those faiths are compatible with our secular values of freedom).
Whatever the effects on Romney’s campaign, it seems to me that this will be a historic speech in American politics. But don’t worry, Mitt, relax…no pressure or anything LOL!
Ow. ow. owwww!!!! They need to fix the audio feed bad… nothing but a loud electronic hum and I’m pretty sure it’s not on my end.
Dustin, I wonder whether that’s our problem. Can you look at that?
“I will separate the affairs of the Church and state but I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty”
Not sure if I got that verbatum but it’s a great, great, line.
And he’s interrrupted by applause when he restates it another way, “our freedom is a gift from God, not an indulgence of government”
It’s done now. Must have been a problem when they were starting the feed. It wasn’t us; it was on all the feed locations.
As always, those who have no religion are either portrayed as bad (bad secularism bad! Have you SEEN how bad secular states are as compared to religious ones?!! geez…) or as not existing in any meaningful sense. So we get a mention of Menorahs in recognition of 3% of the population and an overt F-U for 10% of the population “this is one nation under GOD!” “We MUST acknowledge our CREATOR” etc. etc.
It is exactly as I expected, the best I could expect. An appeal to religious tolerance and unity, which I approve of of course, while clearly implying that he’s only thinking of religious Americans as counting for anything, not such an inclusive message.
I don’t think Romney’s religion should be significant in people’s votes for or against him, I just wish he could get that message across while remembering not all Americans live “under God”.
We fixed the sound.
Lynx,
I admit it may be my own perspective which prevented me from hearing it that way, but my reaction to his talk about secularism was strictly a criticism of secularists who wish to impose secularism and strike religion from the public forum.
I give him an “A” for content, a “B minus” for delivery. Got much better as he went along but he started off too nervous, combative, defensive (which is understandable, of course, but still hurt the delivery a bit IMO).
Christine, yes, he started off a bit nervous. The first time I see any one of the candidates truly being nervous. On the other hand, that also makes him human.
B- for delivery: I disagree, I think he came back very quickly. In the end, he delivered it in a great way in my opinion. The only criticism? He should’ve spoken a bit slower.
A for content: yes, I agree.
All in all, even if I’d agree with your B- still a tremendous speech, wasn’t it?
Make or break time… Well, I don’t see how it’ll break him. Now we have to wait and see whether it will ‘make’ him / whether it’ll have influence at all.
As Ed points out, I saw 5,000 viewers noted. If that’s true, that’s disappointing. On the other hand, the media will report about it, I’m sure.
Heh, yes, and since that’s often his biggest negative, perhaps it will help him
Yes, overall, great job- the content may have been strong enough to overcome the delivery problems. I don’t really think he could have done a better job- now its a matter of whether or not those bigoted against him (those in the evangelical camp who are bigotted against his particular brand of faith, as well as those in the secularist camp who oppose faith in politics in any way) will keep their minds open.
On the viewers- I imagine it was televised live too and more viewers that way, plus those who view it later or read transcripts.
Yes, I’m trying to find the archived video so I can put it up as well.
With regard to Lynx’s comment and your response to it, Michael, I think part of her reaction is due to the fact that he wasn’t inclusive of atheists/agnostics in the same way that he was inclusive of praising people of other faiths. Perhaps that was a minor weakness; he went out of his way to name the things he admired about other religions (which I thought was a great segment) but he didn’t also mention that non-religious people also share certain core values and support our freedoms (at least, those that do support all freedom, including religious freedom).
On the one hand, I can see how politically that would have been a dangerous tact since some Christian conservatives would not want him to even cede that much ground, but on the other hand Lynx is right that the nonreligious segment of America is not insignificant.
Christine, frankly, I think that most non-religious people are Democrats. In other words, it’s irrelevant for him with regards to the Republican nomination. Having said that, he spoke out – in a very compelling favor – in favor of the freedom of religion. The freedom of religion also means the freedom not to believe in a God. In other words, he could quite easily expand the theme when / if he wins the nomination.
“Freedom and religion go hand in hand, he says, if one of them is assaulted, both go down.”
Freedom protects religion and the latter shouldn’t be assaulted because of that, but freedom doesn’t need religion in order to justify or argument for itself.
“He, rightfully, compares himself to Kennedy. “A candidate shouldn’t be elected because of his faith” neither should he not be elected because of his faith.”
That depends on the faith and the behavior of those describing themselves as following that particular faith/strain. The bible or the qur’an, taken to complete legislative manifestation, ruins society and harms freedom.
“When he, he says, puts his hand on the Bible for the oath, that will be his most high promise to God and his own faith will not influence him in any way whatsoever.”
Mormonism isn’t incompatible with christianity apart from the poligamy thing. I can’t believe people care about what lies behind his policies and decisions rather than the actual policies. His faith can’t predict his policies.
““My faith is the faith of my fathers,” he says.”
Uh, duh. That’s not that uncommon. Is he defending his faith from those berating him as a “cult-member” with the fact that people he loved eternally at an impressionable age had the same faith? I dunno what he is saying here.
““What I believe of Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” and Savior.”
I am sure that makes you a moral, intelligent person, Mitt. *Why does he have to say this stuff?*
“He’s not going to explain the Mormon faith in detail. He’s not the spokesman of his faith. Great line: No candidate should be the spokesman of his faith for if he’s president he needs the prayers of people of all faiths.””
Now *that’s* actually a very important thing to point out.
“The separation of Church and State, he says, has been taken to extremes. Some believe that religion should be completely separated from public spaces.”
What the government owns isn’t to contain any promotion of a single religion and its specific thoughts. Last time I checked public space wasn’t privately owned.
““It’s as if they want to establish a new religion for America.” One “of secularism.” “They’re wrong.”"
It’s as if you sound impossibly whiny, Mitt. You’re inane.
“He will separate Church from state, but he will not “separate us from the God Who gave us liberty.” Nor from “our religious heritage.””
Humanity gave itself liberty the minute it came into existence – no separate entities have to be involved. Of course one could say that God created man and therefore gave man freedom simultaneously, but man’s freedom is an ethical must that can be derived from humanity. I think the guy brings nothing new or anything specific, so I guess his speech will be well met.
“One of the major themes of the speech is that God equals freedom.”
Nononononononononono. Self-awareness and subjectivity means freedom is a must. Huamnity means freedom. Noone gave it to us.
“Freedom, liberty, is at the core of the US. America should never stop spreading and defending freedom.”
Agreed, but it can and should be inspired to do this without religion involved.
“Then points out that Islamic extremism is a new religious enemy. “Any believer in religious freedom […] has a friend and ally in me.” “We welcome our nation’s symphony of faiths,” he says.”
Oh yes, as long as they believe in religious freedom they must be worthy of alliance/friendship. Get a grip.
” Prayer: “God bless this great land, the United States of America” which was founded on religious freedom.”
Insufficient foundation if true, and possibly a flat-out lie or at least empty rhetoric.
““I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty.” He’s speaking about the “great moral foundation” which all Americans share. So far, he’s doing better than I thought.”
Liberty isn’t given but intrinsically ethical the minute humanity came to be. Romney’s line of thinking is potentially dangerous.
““Liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.” A great line.”
Ditto.
“”Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
Sickening.
“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.”
Why should any government be affirming of something unproven? Also, what does he mena by public life, and what extent does it have. Very boring.
“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.”
Who are these “we”, Mr. I have a Boapsox?
“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.”
Yes – No – No – All religious exhibitions should be legal in public places, but they should not have to be endured by those who don’t want to see it. They shouldn’t have to spend unneccessary time on it unless they want to, nor should they have to see god mentioned everywhere if they work for the government. Just mentioning something over and over isn’t going to affirm freedom or make people more moral.
“a criticism of secularists who wish to impose secularism and strike religion from the public forum.”
I for one simply don’t think any sort of religious thinking or maxims expressed by/from a state-funded/state-owned entity/area should have to be heard or read by anyone who doesn’t want to do so.
Anyway – too much focus and over-appreciation of religious freedom apart from others and a dangerous insistence that we need god to appreciate freedom.
I wasn’t favourable to the guy anyway, but now I know I don’t have to care about him.
True, but it may be too late then. I think there was an opportunity to make the case here for tolerance that extends to all faiths and tolerance of non-faith. I imagine that his team considered that and decided in favor of the approach you are recommending, but we’ll have to see how that plays out for him.
What the heck does that mean, Xel? People have freedom of expression in the public square as long as no one has to witness their expression? Sorry, but the establishment clause does NOT protect you from the annoyance of hearing/seeing religious objects or beliefs.
Good point… but: I don’t see that hurting him.
Unless the MSM decides to go after him about that, that is.
Exactly. And, frankly, the idea that it does is one of the big lies of today.
I wasn’t impressed very much with his delivery. It was a very good speech that would have been welcome in the hands of pretty much any other Republican candidate and a couple of the Democrats. I was expecting a bit more “fire” out of Romney, considering that his personal beliefs have been under pretty much direct assault. He could have gotten a lot more out of his, but he seemed to be…bland.
That would’ve destroyed his chances of winning immediately Jimmie. He shouldn’t stand there defending the Mormon faith, he should stand there convincing people that it’s not about what faith he belongs to but about what values he believes in and that not voting for him because he’s Mormon is in breach with American values and culture.
That’s what he did.
Again, being (too) aggressive would have hurt him.
Wanna start a betting pool as to how long it will take for that to start? My money’s on MSNBC to launch the first strike by the evening news cycle.
I’m not going to bet on this.
“What the heck does that mean, Xel? People have freedom of expression in the public square as long as no one has to witness their expression? Sorry, but the establishment clause does NOT protect you from the annoyance of hearing/seeing religious objects or beliefs.”
Clarification – the government isn’t allowed to write god or ten commandments all over the place. And I DEFINITELY do not support any oaths forcing people to affirm god – it’s fascist. Religious people can do whatever repetitive and unimaginative exhibitions they want in the public space as long as they ask for the same permissions as everyone else. But no perks or government funding. I would rather eat my eyelids than pay taxes in order to have a religion promoted or seeing the ten commandments put on top of a courthouse.
Yes, because obviously the ten commandments have had no influence on our body of law. What’s the objection to including them in historical references along with other bases for Western law?
“Yes, because obviously the ten commandments have had no influence on our body of law. What’s the objection to including them in historical references along with other bases for Western law?”
Why have the government selecting a particular source of judeo-christian jurisprudence and slamming it onto a public building? No one should have to pay for that.
Schools is another matter – children should learn the origin of their country’s laws.
Xel – you’re going to have to explain which establishment of religion the Ten Commandments represent. If you can do that, then you can claim they are prohibited by the First Amendment, but only as regards acts of Congress. States and local governments are not bound by this but by their own Constitutions.
Maybe, but it’s certainly not hurting Huckabee right now.
I didn’t expect Romney to come out with a strong explanation of Mormon doctrine and why we shouldn’t be concerned by it. I did expect a more stirring defense of religion in public life and why it’s not only preferable, but necessary.
“Xel – you’re going to have to explain which establishment of religion the Ten Commandments represent.”
The wording is straight from the bible.
“If you can do that, then you can claim they are prohibited by the First Amendment, but only as regards acts of Congress. States and local governments are not bound by this but by their own Constitutions.”
Really? Some states can take the money of atheists and spend it on plaques and other stuff saying “You should have no gods except ME, the BIG CHEESE!”. Tell me which states they are so that I know which places to avoid.
Hmm, Jimmie, did you listen to the same speech I did? Because what I heard was pretty much:
Xel: you are now (I think) objecting to displays of only the Ten Commandments. Does that mean you are fine with Ten Commandments in the courthouse if there are also displays of other forms of jurisprudence from which our laws derive?
The wording is straight from the bible.
But as you also pointed out, Xel, the Ten Commandments were also the basis for judaic-Christian law for numerous societies. So because it is in the Bible it’s now inadmissable?
I. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!Religious freedom…II. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain!Blasphemy isn’t a crime.III. Remember to keep holy the LORD’S Day!Neither is working on Sunday.IV. Honor your father and your mother!No laws forcing honoring of anyone.V. You shall not kill! A basic law found in every society. Not exclusive to the JudeoChristian belief system.
VI. You shall not commit adultery!No federal laws against adultery.VII. You shall not steal! Again, basic law.
VIII. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor! Don’t commit purgery. Again basic… batting great so far.
IX. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife! Coveting is the basis of capitalism… obviously not illegal.
X. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods! See IX
Please tell me again…. how is our law based on the 10 commandments when the only commandments we follow are those found in all societies?
Dustin,
I’ll have to leave it to one of the legal scholars to explain all of the ways that our legal system has been influenced, but I’ve seen the case laid out quite convincingly. The fact that you are showing the areas that our legal system has now divested itself of the purely religious commands simply shows that our Constitution works, now, doesn’t it? We’ve pretty clearly figured out which tenets are common to all and which should be the provence of the churches.
Oh, and you shouldn’t have stricken #4 because I’m pretty sure it forms the basis of a lot of family law (respect for parental authority and all of that). And although you have a point about ‘covetousness’ and capitalism, I think it’s a stretch to apply that to #9 unless your neighbor runs a brothel
Dustin,
I’ll have to leave it to one of the legal scholars to explain all of the ways that our legal system has been influenced, but I’ve seen the case laid out quite convincingly. The fact that you are showing the areas that our legal system has now divested itself of the purely religious commands simply shows that our Constitution works, now, doesn’t it? We’ve pretty clearly figured out which tenets are common to all and which should be the provence of the churches.
Oh, and you shouldn’t have stricken #4 because I’m pretty sure it forms the basis of a lot of family law (respect for parental authority and all of that). And although you have a point about ‘covetousness’ and capitalism, I think it’s a stretch to apply that to #9 unless your neighbor runs a brothel
And as for the common ones being followed in ALL societies, the point is that all of our Western societies have had the same common history, deriving legal systems in part from judaic- Christian law.
“Xel: you are now (I think) objecting to displays of only the Ten Commandments. Does that mean you are fine with Ten Commandments in the courthouse if there are also displays of other forms of jurisprudence from which our laws derive?”
Nothing spefically belonging to one religion.
“The fact that you are showing the areas that our legal system has now divested itself of the purely religious commands simply shows that our Constitution works, now, doesn’t it?”
It also shows that the ten commandments do not belong even symbolically in tax-funded form in tax-funded buildings. Why the North Korea should I have to pay for a block of stone that says only Iahve should be allowed to be believed in?
There is a huge difference between displaying the Ten Commandments AS law and displaying them as part of the HISTORY of law.
Anti-religion activists seem determined to ignore this difference. And in doing so, I think they betray less than honorable motives.
Gee, Xel, the government has started to install foot baths in public places like schools and airports for Muslims to use in their prayers. That is for “only one religion”. Do you object to that, or are you only concerned about expenditures that relate to Christians?
“There is a huge difference between displaying the Ten Commandments AS law and displaying them as part of the HISTORY of law.”
Well, put them in a museum. Why they should be given even a sliver of credibility or transitive import by putting them on a courthouse is beyond me. Perhaps it betrays the darker motives of those who say it belongs there?
“Gee, Xel, the government has started to install foot baths in public places like schools and airports for Muslims to use in their prayers. That is for “only one religion””
They can be used by anyone, and the muslims happen to have an easier time thanks to them. These footbaths don’t represent prayers, nor do they have suras chiseled into them. Christians need churches, muslims feel they need footbaths.
Any Church I went into could be used by anyone for a place to worship, or a place to sit quietly.
Using your description – there is no difference.
“Any Church I went into could be used by anyone for a place to worship, or a place to sit quietly.
Using your description – there is no difference.”
The churches happen to have some pretty christian stuff displayed here and there. The footbaths are convenient for one particular group but don’t contain any express, specific religiosity. The churches are open to anyone, true, but they aren’t that ambiguous in their collected content.
So you decide to split this particular hair not on the Intent, but on the decoration?