Romney on Religion

I just read a response by Romney in an interview on Hannity and Colmes about the question of leaving out non-believers in his speech on religion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316687,00.html

I was glad he at least mentioned non-believers and further explained his position.

I don't agree completely with what he says, but I felt he was more inclusive of all brothers and sisters in this country. I think now he is more in line with what Obama said in a speech I watched on Obama's campaign site.

My initial feelings on the speech linger, I wish he was inclusive from the start.

Of course, I wish he said the seperation of church and state in goverment is absolute, more like Kennedy said.

I don't mind religion in public but I want it limited in government. I don't know where to draw that line.

Even though I don't believe in the supernatural or people coming back from the dead, we still say 'Merry Christmas' and have a manger in our house, and read our children the bible, during this holiday season.

But then again, we refer to stories from many traditions to our family.

god Bless Us, "Every One"!

I wanted to comment on the post about the Mormon stance on women. I joined the church at the age of 20 and was quickly offended at the way Mormons seemed to oppress women. So I spent some time researching and trying to understand these beliefs a little more clearly. I soon realized that the Mormon church in no way oppresses women. Quite the contrary. The church actually teaches that women are highly valued in the eyes of God. Women are almost held on a pedistol of respect. Women are encouraged to stay at home with their children to strengthen the family. For the same reason that Dr. Laura Sclessinger (who is not Mormon) or any other conservative family oriented person does. Because only the love, compassion, and strength of the woman can keep a strong family. And family is the most important structure on this earth, according to the church. Also, a woman is only encouraged to follow the council of her husband if he is a good and faithful man who is following God, and she is never encouraged to blindly follow him, but to act as a "help meet" or partner to him. Women are encouraged to get educations, to serve, to be independant strong thinking women. From the founding of the church, before women had the right to vote in this country, the Mormon church established an all women organization--operated by women. The Relief Society is one of the largest women's organizations in the world and has been responsible for countless relief efforts--all headed up by women. Now, I cannot speak for any individual members or families, as we all have choices and I do not doubt that there are some unrightous men out there who do not treat their women as the church would have them be treated (I havbe heard the President of the church, Gordon B. Hinckley, chastise these men numerous times). In reality, I can say that I have been to several churches in my life and there is no church in the world that teaches more love and respect for women than the Mormon church.Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant and not listening, as I once was. I would like to encourage the person who wrote that post to actually investigate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and see for themselved the truth of the treatment of women by the church itself.

TO ANDY LONDON, UK:

In meeting God, God the Father came into my heart and I just knew that it was Him, He didn't say a word, He didn't have to.

God the Holy Spirit came into my body and He didn't say a word either but He did speak thru me in response to a question I was asked and also He revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

A couple of hours after meeting the Holy Spirit, satan came down not up and I could feel the evil. For the next 24+ hours except for when it got too intense, there was a battle going on, it is hard to put into any exact words.

It wasn't at first but I did hear satan's voice and like Jesus said satan is an accuser. Some of what he said was partly true but that is a sign of a liar, the twistation of the truth, a partial truth is a lie. What he said about me was one thing but he should not have bad-mouthed others.

One of the things that he said was that I sold my soul to the devil, of course he never admitted who he was, but actually it was more like I gave it away.

Before these things happened, I had in my own way went to God in prayer and declared myself guilty, this is kind of a simplified version but my whole life actually led up to this.

I never expected to meet God and to say the least it came as quite a shock and then when I battled satan a few short hours later for 24+ hours, words can't convey.

Not then but now I am grateful that God allowed satan to do what he did and I am also grateful that I experienced hell and spiritual death but I sure wasn't at the time.

It was right after the 24+ hours that I experienced hell and spiritual death and to say that I was totally devastated would be an understatement because there are no words to put this in.

I don't know if you have ever heard of the apostle's creed but in it, it says that Jesus decended into hell, well guess what Jesus, God-Incarnate, went to hell and experienced the worst pangs of hell, he took the sin and the sins of the entire human race upon Himself and some of these hypocrites that call themselves "christian" don't have a clue about God, all they know about Him is His Name.

God's Plan is His Plan, when Jesus said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do", them means just that, "them" everyone. They still do not know what they are doing, do they?

I had to go thru what I did, you could say that it is part of the job that God chose me for.

We will all be judged whether we like it or not, that is also part of what being made in the Image and Likeness of God is about.

It is not about a formula, it is not about magic, it is about the Mysterious Plan of God.

A lot of people are in for a big surprise, some pleasantly, some unpleasantly but ultimately all is well. I have said before and I say again, God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, something to think about.

There is no hiding, not behind your religion, not behind your holy books, it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

I hope I have answered your inquiry.

Remember God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom, the seventh day will get here but night is coming first.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi Thomas

When you say you met god and satan, was it in your mind or was it actually in person? Please can you tell me what they look like and what they sound like?

Andy
London, UK

HI VICTORIA:

Thanks for reading what I wrote.

I have said before and I say again, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and also it is important what you do and why you do it and also what you know.

When I write on these posts whether I address it to one or to all of humanity, it is for all.

The bible can lead you to God but as you can probably see from some of the postings, that is not necessarily going to happen.

God is Love, a Being of Pure Love. God came up with His Plan of Salvation for All Of Humanity because since He is God, He knew that not all would repent.

Repenting, the way that I see it is taking responsibility for what you have done. I can't speak for anyone else but I know that I have done wrong.

The idea that Almighty God, Who created the entire universe and all that is in it in both the spiritual and material world, would become a human being is so mind-boggling that I can see why people would have a hard time believing it.

Plenty of people sure do try to put God in a box of their own creation when to say the least He is not the petty tryant that some seem to want Him to be.

I have met God and I know that I don't know everything but I don't have too, I am just a messenger. Even God-Incarnate did not know everything since He emptied Himself to become one of us but He did keep the very Essence of God which is why I also call Him, Love-Incarnate.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything but I am just trying to do the job that God gave to me.

I have met God and God is a Trinity and I have also met satan and satan is not nice at all. satan also used the bible, verbatim, when he tempted Jesus so satan knows the words in the bible better than any human being but as Jesus told us, satan by his very nature is a liar and a thief.

It seems that a lot of people are going to be surprised to find out that God is not the egomaniac that some try to present Him to be.

Jesus was just being truthful when He said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life no one comes to the Father except thru Me".

Plenty of people twist that statement by changing "the Father" to "God" and also by not seeing that Jesus doesn't say that there is only one way to Him.

God says more to us than we sometimes see when we only scratch the surface.

Some people that do not believe that Jesus is Who He is are followers of Him and there are others who believe that Jesus is Who He is and yet are not followers but claim to be.

God has a Plan and it is for All of His Creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

I did mention before that I was taught in second grade that we are all equal in God's Eyes and that is one of the most important things that I was ever taught.

Also I was taught in second grade that God is Love and I found out that that statement was quite literal when God the Father came into my heart.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

no one mentioned islam lib-
why are you being such a pikey?

again thanks mr baum-
you have a good heart and i like what you've said

again, i hope you dont feel i was picking on you, or trying to malign christianity-
i wasnt

its just an honest question i was reminded of when someone said the constitution was inspired by the bible-

and i thought, "where?"

but its an old question ive thought before
peace

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Are you feeling guilty about leaving your Christian religion? Are you trying to convince yourself that Islam somehow is a more socially responsible religion? Exactly what is your problem? You might also want to read some of the Papal encyclicals that deal with social justice/equality. e.g. http://www.justpeace.org/docu.htm

A sampling:

Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Workers) This encyclical of Leo XIII is considered by later popes to be the foundational social justice teaching document of the modern era. Issued in 1891, it was a response to the changed conditions brought on by the Industrial Revolution.

Quadragesimo Anno (On the Reconstruction of the Social Order) Issued in 1931, Pius XI reflects on the response of the Church and the World to Rerum Novarum, 40 years after Leo's document was promulgated.

Mater et Magistra (Christianity and Social Progress) Issued by Pope John XXIII in 1961, this encyclical proposes methodologies for the application of Catholic teaching to concrete issues.

(And again note the synopsis of the flaws in all the major religions and use those as a starting point for your search for the reality of it all)

the question was and is-

"the question is, where in the bible does it make any statements or exhortations for social equality-
where does it say people are equal? races gender etc?"

hi mr baum-

in response to your cited scripture-

the whole text-
this is applicable ONLY to describe the realtionship betweeen BAPTIZED CHRISITANS AMONGST THEMSELVES-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GALATIANS
27 For all of YOU WHO WERE BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS.
29
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendant, heirs according to the promise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

so, the saying is flanked before and after with references to THOSE IN CHRIST
and applies specifically to them- no all of mankind in any way

it is reinforced next chapter by this-
"here" being the christian community
CORINTHIANS

11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, 7 slave, free; but Christ is all and in all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

that is not to say mr baum that i do not appreciate your broad and open heart - as i do.

but clearly, both verses apply only to baptized christians in the community- NOT all of mankind.

LIB- NO ONE MENTIONED MUSLIMS YOU GOOFY PIKEY

Hmmm, strange that Mitt has not been castigated about the Mormon views toward women.

From: www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm

"Many religions have recently begun changing in an attempt to equalize the roles and responsibilities of men and women. Mormonism is one of the exceptions. The Mormon position on women has changed little since the early 1800's, when the official view was that "woman's primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband" (McConkie 844). This attitude, coupled with the doctrine of polygamy and the absolute power claimed by the men of the church, created a legacy of profound sexism which modern Mormonism has been unable to escape.

Mormonism has created an ingenious system of oppression, in which opposition towards men is tantamount to arguing with God. The Mormon religion makes no distinction between clergy and laity, at least with regard to men (Laake 9). All Mormon men are ordained as members of the "priesthood," with the absolute authority to preach the gospel, bestow blessings, prophecy, perform healings and baptisms, and generally speak for God. "Their priesthood gives them the right to advise and instruct the Saints (i.e., Mormons), and their jurisdiction extends over all things spiritual and temporal" (Snowden 134).

At age twelve, boys become members of the Aaronic, or lesser priesthood, and at nineteen become eligible for the Melchezedek, or higher priesthood. Members of either priesthood are higher authorities on everything than are non-members. Women are, of course, excluded from the priesthood. This practice in effect says that a woman's prepubescent son is more qualified to advise her than she is to advise him. The official explanation is that women are kept from having the priesthood because women are more spiritual than men, therefore, men need to have the priesthood to teach them how to be better people (Johnson 86). Women are also told that, because they have the all- important ability to bear children, men need the power of the priesthood merely to remain equal with them."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Mormonism

A more balanced view???

OK, you Mormons out there, what sayest thou? Please however do not invoke St. Paul's views on women. Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Paul has already addressed that situation.

To wit:

Professor Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Chilton's book,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

Hmmm, do you think maybe that Mohammed's scribes simply enhanced Paul's thinking about women when they wrote the koran??? Absolutely!!!!

And Deb,

Yes, you are right Mahmud Ghaznavi did destroyed in the begining only those HINDU Temples where WOMEN SCRIFICE was in open and routine practice for so many different reasons.

Would you like me to shed some on record histroy about it.

Let me tell you with hate mongering approach like you Hindu's while keep on killing your baby girls through abortion. InshAllah Muslim will again accede in numbers either by conversions towards TRUTH or by population in Present India in next 50 years!

It's HILARIOUS to watch these neofascist theocrats claw each other to pieces about their imaginary friends. Pop the popcorn, the next year is pure entertainment.

TO HUMANITY:

Paul said something to the effect that, "We are neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, free nor slave, we are all one in the Lord".

We can continue looking at other people the way that man does or we can look at others the way God does, each an individual human being made in the Image and Likeness of God.

In the above quote Gentile and Greek are interchangeable as in Jew and everyone else.

If people want to look at themselves as superior or inferior to others for any reason then that is their choice but they are only deceiving themselves.

I would like to publicly thank Sister Phillip Marie who taught me in second grade that 'We are all equal in God's Eyes'.

One of the things about being raised in a so-called free society is that you are allowed and encouraged to think, that doesn't necessarily mean that you will, but it is an option.

It does seem that some people like to look to the learned to do their thinking for them, they can be a help but sometimes you have to learn to weed out the garbage.

One day people will find out that God is a lot nicer than some think He is and a lot nicer than some even want Him to be.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I agree with Romney that a person should not be elected or rejected because of his faith. I am rejecting him for his record.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Are you trying to prove that Islamic women are better off than Christian women? Considering the restrictions imposed by the koran on women you are not going to win the debate. I assume your issue is Paul's thinking about women as spelled out in his and the pseudo Paul epistles. I would rate it flawed first century CE thinking/conduct and such passages should be deleted. Also, (as suggested many times) see the discussion of said passages in Professor Crossan and Reed's book, In Search of Paul and in Professor Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul.

Professor Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically he concludes that Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Chilton's book,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

Hmmm, do you think maybe that Mo's scribes simply enhanced Paul's thinking about women when they wrote the koran??? Absolutely!!!!

Well, I suppose there is only one question to ask of ourselves is and that question is, "Am I my brother's and sister's keeper ?". Some of these so-called Christians keep nothing but what is in the collection plates after one of those damning sermons.

Look at life in the United States today. We have a threat of terrorism, acceleration of conventional and non-conventential weapons, more drugs, more drug addicts and guns to keep the supplies flowing. Am not surprised people are snapping and committing mass murder with self homicide.

But you know, everytime someone goes berserk taking innocent lives there are those who say, "Oh yea I knew he was nuts". I ask how could you not help a person suffering ? Is it fear of addicts, alcholics or people with mental illnesses that prevents people to help them ? It is bigotry, sterotyping and discrimination to label someone evil or possessed or deranged just because an illness has been revealed in public. But again I ask as a nation what are we doing for these people ?

And why is the law so messed up that a simple search warrant based on probable cause not gained up front so as not to contaminate law enforcement and judiciary responsiblities ? If a person is a danger to themselves or society most states have laws on the books for law enforcement intervention. There is family intervention and Clergy interventions. Why is it that so-called good christians would reject SCHIPs legislation expanding healthcare to those that need it most. My opinion is that our society cannot afford to expand healthcare with government subsidies. The issue is one very close to public transportation whereby cash box revenues cannot meet normal profit.

I think that some ought to stop preaching and start getting active. The goal is not who can build the biggest church but who can help the most in need.

As far as belief systems goes there needs to be check-n-balance too. I think Bin Laden probably thought 9/11 was God ordained as some must think the invasion of Iraq was God ordained. Or a man says the dog told me to shoot couples or the voices through the walls told me to kill then kill myself or I needed help and I snapped. When the next person snaps who will be there for that person without fear, without judgement or with true faith in the Creator devoid of person ego.

Just for the record, I'm Christian. What happened to 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? If you want religious freedom, allow others their religious freedom. Don't demand that ANYONE believe exactly what you believe. Freedom of religion means just that - free to worship as you will, and believe how you will. It does not mean that a leader of the country must believe in 'The Book' (I hope that our president does NOT believe every word in the Bible literally - if so we would be stoning people, keeping women out of school, allowing polygamy, and forcing widows to lie with their husband's brother, among other things).

The Constitution does not mention a specific religion at all. There was a very good editorial in the NY Times on Dec 7 (The Crisis of Faith) about Romney's speech and the country's religious history. I quote some of the article's facts: In God we Trust was put on coins in the 1950's, during McCarthyism; Under God was put in the Pledge of Allegiance around the same time, so neither has anything to do with the Founders' intentions: George Washington himself assured the Jews in Newport that they would be welcome and 'full members' of the country. Let's leave religion in the houses of worship, and government in the capitols.

One non-religion note about Mitt Romney - the national security advisor for his campaign is Cofer Black, the former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now on the board of Blackwater. Make of that what you will.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/scahill

ya gotta love jackie henry

Kennedy and Catholicism

Jackie was once quoted as saying
"I don't know why people give Jack a hard time because he's Catholic. He's such a bad Catholic."

actaully lib you're responding to a question i asked in general and mr baum attempted to answer

the question is, where in the bible does it make any statements or exhortations for social equality-
where does it say people are equal? races gender etc?
i already know it doesn't.

as you know ive been discussing the issue form the womens equality perspective on eboo patels americas real power question-

where it also has been avoided and not answered.

mr baum made an effort- and i appreciate his outlook- but its not really an outlook derived from christianity- but from being socialized in a free society-

so, do you know of any scripture that you can post from the bible (old or new) speaks to equality of races, nationalities, or gender?

i already know many that actually speak against it- but its not my intent to degrade or disprove-

it is my intent to give christians the leeway to present their side-

its a personal study investigated many many years ago-
i asked myself the same question a long time ago-

as a christian, i searched with the most open of hearts, willing to accept even the flimsiest of scripture to support equality-

but i found the opposite-

i can widen the question to ask where equality for women occurs-

if its there- it shoud be simple and clear to present it.

Henry: Imagine Washington, Jefferson or Adams running Huckabee's TV ad with "Christian Leader" floating over his head. None of them could get elected dogcatcher today.

Or maybe they could. I wonder if the emperor has no clothes and if a good nonbeliever just said "enough" "I'm a lapsed Catholic and if that's a problem for you, tough." what would actually happen? if you run the thought experiment, the religious right would then be forced to look a bit weird running against him or her. would be interesting at least.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Again and again you demonstrate your Islamic brainwashing i.e. Islam can do no wrong. Death to those who do not believe in our warmongering, womanizing, hallucinating, illiterate founder and his plagiarizing scribes!!!!

Did Washington, Adams, or Jefferson ever say

"YOu should vote for me because I am a good Christian?"

Note the absurdity in even asking the question?

Having previous given an reply to this question. A persons capability forming a Govt should not be judged on their religious beliefs. And such remains true.(HOWEVER) I must ADD.Circumstances being,if humanity a train then it having become de-railed. Lifting ourselves from the pit which having sunk, will take all nations all people's in a common bond of understanding, all working together, pulling in the same direction. We are in need of spiritual guidance, there no doubt of such. The Lord as Allah, not being blind deaf to our plight. We can but ask for mercy compassion, for the wrongs that done. Yet,The Lord as Allah can only work through those that be more open in heart as brain, therefore such people requiered in leading all nations. Of course it understood one's ability to to quote the bible as koran, be no proof of a open heart as brain. Knowledge of GOD, understanding experience of GOD, not from books scripture's, but from GOD. It be Humanity one family, spending such effort such resources against each other be folly, it be common sense, that needed, bringing, common agreement... .. .

CCNL:

Keep your eyes (if possible mind as well) open:

YOU ARE TRYING TO DEFLECT THE BELOW GIVEN ON GROUND REALITY FACTS BY SAYING, THEY ARE UNSUBSTANTIAL.(Only in your guilty opinion)

WELL YOU CAN AVOID WATCHING YOUR REAL FACE BUT CAN'T HIDE!!!!!!!!

I'm from South East Asia and have been stayed in UK/Europe more than five years. And visiting on/off.

And have first hand experience of what is happening in your societies comparing to ours.

You ONLY compare face appearance of:

-Government Secular or tyrant oppressors (all same in any form).
- And superficial material advance appearance as your yard stick. (Which history is witness that keep on changing sides. And again it is happening, SO WAKE UP).

Your social values, daily abuse and degradation and unjust unbalance laws and there impact on your masses. I have seen FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE!

What are you trying to sell to the world??

Your morality ends up by bombing and destroying other countries by mare accusations and not a single solid proof. You claim your self’s humanists saying we don't hang multi-murderers or multi rapist and free them after double life sentence (i.e., 20 years) after good conduct. As multi killings are just another numbers for you. What if he or she is your own brother or sister then what will you do, tell me honestly? It is not humanist BUT sadism, a Sadist approach. And that is what also reflects in your over all actions also!!
-13% of your population in infected by INCEST.
-Almost same percentage of teenage pregnancies.
-25 million converted sodomites from Christianity.
-Unjust and extremely intervening and discouraging laws about marriage counter productive of general adultery and fornication acceptable in your society.
-Unjust laws about children’s guardian ship.
-Your over all HIGH crime and violence in society, so that every next women get raped in her life (does this reality also says something about your men).
- You as a whole society of weekend violent drunkards, racist and discriminators even in your believes and religions what ever they are.

Which you west love to compare with politically aggravated violence in Muslim world.

SOCIAL VALUES/PRACTICES AND POLITICAL APPEARENCES are 2 different realities.

And I/We thank to God our Muslim societies social realities/practices are mostly according to what we believe in and don't get affected easily and carried away by any Governments Fascist Law!

And that is one of the reason Why Muslims in west even after all the material appearance keep getting back to their roots and lands. BECAUSE THEY ALSO HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHER SIDE OF THE BEAUTIFUL REALITY OF SOCIALLY INTEGRATED RESPECTFUL BLISSED AND DIGINFIED EQUALLY BALACNED LIFE.

Hi CCNL:

Well guys there is news for you, which some of you might already have:

- Iran has switched all its Oil business to Euro. No more Dollar MONOPOLY.
- Middle East countries are also planning for single currency.

I AM NOW WONDERING WHICH COUNTRIES ARE THE IMMEDIATE TARGET FOR FURTHER PRE-IMPTIVE STRICKS QUICKLY BY USA TO FUTHER DESTROY THE WEPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION AND TO NEUTRALIZE THE TERRORISOM OF THE NATIONS WITH SUCH ANTI US BELIEVES OF FREEDOM (FREEDOM OF US CONTROL).

So far US has neutralized its national security threat from Iraq the 3rd biggest oil exporter and it is flowing without any possible near future threat.

Even then US currency / mortgage / stock exchange / international market are getting worse every passing moment and counting there last good days!!!!!

Now US is really pissed off by the terrorists and expected to rage another more vicious phase of war against them very soon!!!!

BINLADIN MUST BE FOUND !!!
IF TALIBAN AFGAN GOVERNMENT WITH LAND SLIDING MAJORITY ASKS FOR THE EVIDENCE, REPLY TO PAKISTAN AND BOMB AFGANISTAN!
BARBARIC FUNDAMENTALIST DARING TO ASK USA, HUH!!

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Hmmm, different authors, one message?

Finally you see the one message in "Love thy neighbor as thyself"!!!!!

Now if you could only see the one message in "Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe"!!!

as noted by the following authors:

The seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Filipino koranics,
the warmongering, koranic, Islamic Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Nation after nation in ( recent) past have voted into power the wrong party the wrong leader,the example France. Present Govt, a party as leader whom wanted only political power. French people giving them such political, in turn the French people being allowed to wollow in the illusion, are not awakened having to face harsh realities. GERMANY the same political folly ITALY the same folly AUSTRALIA as BRITAIN same political folly, etc etc etc...Will it be the same for the USA in it's election for Govt will it be another vote of convenience, the winning party gets political power, as the people returning to their slumber, where again unwilling, face the harsh realities. THE WIDER PICTURE. "AMERICAN PEOPLE" MAY ASK THE QUESTION, IF SUCH AS, FRANCE, AUSTRALIA, ITALY, GERMANY, CANADA, PAKISTAN, CHINA, WON'T FACE REALITY. THEN WHY ? SHOULD AMERICANS... .. .

My question would be: if someone doesn't have the gumption and capacity to figure out that the "Book of Mormon", regardless of their upbringing and traditions, was made up, how could they possible outsmart the neocons and re-claim our country?

mr baum- i dont want to blog the hog here- and get into it-

but that is insufficient for the question-
if it becomes inactive when another question comes along-
ill get back to it-

and yes they were the same things- they are not different things Jesus(ata) said, but different people reporting the same incident.
peace

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

I gave listings of appropriate passages then the passages themselves, all of which you could have easily found yourself. But you continue in an attempt to convince us indirectly that the bible is significantly less important and less thorough than the koran. But we know differently don't we!!!!

Bottom line though, all contemporary religions are full of flaws, embellishments and myths. Hopefully when you finally spend the time required to read what contemporary experts in the field have concluded that someday your ideas and attitude towards current organized religious profit centers especially Islam will change.

He certainly changed my mind. Now I'd vote for him.... for pope.

He sure is dreamy though.

--FIUS

TO VICTORIA:

Actually CCNL did not post the same thing three times, they are from different things that Jesus said.

Sometimes in the bible it might seem that God repeats Himself both in the Old Testament when He spoke thru His prophets and in the New Testament when God-Incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth as He was known, walked this earth.

God doesn't do that for His benefit but for ours.

You wrote, "but i cant say that it is an assertion of equality of all people-", in Genesis, basically Page One, it is written, "Let Us make man in our Image and Likeness, and God created man, male and female He created them".

Some of the people that call themselves "christian" really seem to hate page one so much so that they have removed it from their heart.

Not only are male and female different from each other but all human beings are different from each other and since God created all of us and God called it good, something to think about.

It also says that God created woman to be the helpmate of man so it goes hand in hand that man is also to be the helpmate of woman neither one better than the other but co-equals.

If we look out at the world, does it not seem that we are a bunch of childish, as opposed to child-like, human beings trying to get our own way instead of at least trying to live the way that Jesus taught?

Whether one believes that Jesus is God-Incarnate or not, what He taught is not what some people claiming to be "christian" say.

Jesus did say, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life no one comes to the Father except thru Me".

When Jesus referred to Himself as "The Way", maybe some "christians" should look at it as the way you should at least attempt to live while on this earth.

As the original apostles said, "These are hard sayings", they did get that right, didn't they?

I am not talking just about one of the things that He said and neither were they.

Also when Jesus said in that statement, "no one comes to the Father except thru Me", He did not say to God but to the Father.

Also when they asked Him how to pray He said when you pray, pray "Our Father" so simple, so direct as in "Our" as in ALL OF HUMANITY'S.

Jesus did say that there is only One Way to the Father but He did not say that there is only one way to Him. Jesus did say that He was God, that is why they accused Him of blasphemy, but He was not being boastful or arrogant about it, just being Truthful.

Another thing that Jesus said was that He would send the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, to guide us into All Truth. Another thing the the Advocate does is to help guide us thru this life.

Remember when someone asked Jesus, "What is Truth?", well that was the wrong question, the question should have been, "Who is Truth?"

God is a Trinity, I have met God. God is Love, Pure Love and one day everyone will know that. God's Plan, which He has had since before creation and is for All of His Creation, will come to Fruition.

Something for all to think about, God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. Knowing God's Name is not necessarily following Him, considering that some people follow Jesus better that don't even know Who He Is or believe it.

Remember the Beloved that went to the cross to be with Jesus when He was crucified, he loved but did not believe until he went to the empty tomb and saw and believed.

Yet while hanging on the cross Jesus said to the Beloved and to His Mom, "Behold thy Mother, Woman behold thy Son".

Jesus referred to His Mom as Woman at least a couple of times, one at the wedding feast of Cana and also on the cross and in Genesis God said, "I will put enmity between you [satan] and the Woman, something to think about.

The bible really is about a God that not only created us but loves us, All of us, I guess some people would rather that all the warts and imperfections of mankind be removed and the bible be so sugar-coated as to be sickening but it is about us and it is still unfolding.

As I have said before, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom, All of you.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

that why i asked where it occurs in the bible lib-
and you reposted the same thing i did 3 times anyway

contribute something or stop being an idiot looking for wrongs that arent there

Brothers $ Sisters...We may find fault in each other, that to be expected. We are all victims of religious brainwashing. Hundreds of years, of such nonsense. Generation after generation put under the constant, unrelentless, brainwashing. We see the end product ATHEIST'S creature's of night, worshiping the void, praiseing darkness. Brothers $ Sisters we must awake, destruction of humanity, will not stop the ATHEIST, once having mastered space flight, they will then seek out destroying all life forms, it per'aps too late for humanity on planet Earth, but together we can stop the Prince of darkness, from invading other worlds ... .. .

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Might want to spend added time looking up proper biblical passages before commenting:

Added references besides Mark 10: 42-45

(1a) Mark 9:33-35 = Matt 18:1,4 = Luke 9:46,48b, (1b) Mark 10:41-45 = Matt 20:24-28, (1c) Matt 23:11, (2) Luke 22:24-27, (3) John 13:1-17;

(1a) Mark 9:33-35

9:33 Then they came to Capernaum; and when he was in the house he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the way?" 34 But they were silent, for on the way they had argued with one another who was the greatest. 35 He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, "Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all."

=Matt 18:1,4
18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 He called a child, whom he put among them, 3 and said, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

=Luke 9:46,48b
9:46 An argument arose among them as to which one of them was the greatest. 47 But Jesus, aware of their inner thoughts, took a little child and put it by his side, 48 and said to them, "Whoever welcomes this child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me; for the least among all of you is the greatest."

(1b) Mark 10:41-45

10:41 When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. 42 So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 43 But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."

= Matt 20:24-28
20:24 When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."

(1c) Matt 23:11

The greatest among you will be your servant.

(2) Luke 22:24-27

22:24 A dispute also arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 But he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

(3) John 13:1-17

13:1 Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him. And during supper 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4 got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself. 5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?" 7 Jesus answered, "You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand." 8 Peter said to him, "You will never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no share with me." 9 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" 10 Jesus said to him, "One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean. And you are clean, though not all of you." 11 For he knew who was to betray him; for this reason he said, "Not all of you are clean." 12 After he had washed their feet, had put on his robe, and had returned to the table, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord--and you are right, for that is what I am. 14 So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. 15 For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. 16 Very truly, I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.

hi mr baum-
i hadnt noticed that i posted anonymous-
that was victoria in that post you referred to-
oops
actually, where does that statment occur in the bible?

this is all i could find-

"In Mark 10:42-45 Jesus said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be slave of all."

i find this to be a warning against personal arrogance-

but i cant say that it is an assertion of equality of all people-

but i appreciate your effort
peace

TO ANONYMOUS:

On 12-9-2007 at 2:48 AM You Posted, "you wrote-
"Whether or not you believe that Jesus is Who He is or not, remember when Jesus said, "Do not lord it over others as the rulers of this world do", sounds like social-equity, does it not?"

actually mr baum that doesnt speak of social equity to me at all- but simple humility-
but it is still a beautfiul thought no mtter what-".

Maybe that is what humility in action is, believing and trying to live the statement, "We are all equal in God's eyes".

Thank you for the post, we are all in this together.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

jeferson died for your sin!
jefersonism or christianism?secularism or humanism?they all the same,all none but mankind,all are food eaters and bathroom goers.what is this eternal truth about mankind tells mankind?
1-mankind is hole-y not holy not absolut.
2-mankind does not never not leave his belive in the closet when he/she go public,mankind take his/her belive where ever he/she goes all the way to the governement.
3-the attempet (or the delusion)of trying to separate mankind from his/her belive when he/she go public is no more no less than dividing mankind head into private and public,one at home and another one at the public office!
4-jef or chris both are mankind,both separate themselfs from the true messeage of the creator god of mankind,where the word of the creator god suppose to be the governer.both practice separation of the state from the creator god,both are not for real ,both died for the sin of mankind,there is no diference between the church of christ and the tempel of lord jeferson .
5-there is no way to understand mankind unless you study the book and the constitution of the creator of mankind.
6-in order to understand the history and back ground of mankind you need to refer to the huge reference of the creator of mankind.

It is a complex issue one wishing to attain the ultimate in spiritual development, yet balance that with survival in the material. Where lifes be dependent on the other, it takes many skills to build an home, to keep alive the human form. If an person a good doctor, should then judged on their spiritual beliefs ? answer must be No that the doctors faith religious standing be of no concern. As with politicians, having ability, the moral standing, servants of the people. What important, be justice served on domestic front, as upon the international stage. The ultimate aim of humanity, being with continued spiritual development, comes, Spiritual Enlightenment. The gateway to Spiritual Enlightenment being through the material realm, thus, we having to make the use of all talents, they, spiritual as material. Reality as illusion, truth being all nations all people's, being one family... .. .

MAY be OT, but I don't think it is.

Just watched Tom Brokaw's show on 1968 on the History Channel. I lived thru 1968, and it was a profoundly turbulent year -- but it ended with the Apollo space program circling the moon. THE MOON.

Rational thought & the scientific method got us there. Magical, mystical thought had NOTHING to do with it. Supernatural Great Ooga-Boogas had NOTHING to do with it. Mysterious, indefinable "forces" had NOTHING to do with it. Rational thought and the scientific method had EVERYTHING to do with it.

When I heard Romney PRAISING irrational, magical, mystical thought -- instead of CONDEMNING it as the basic curse of mankind, which it IS -- I KNEW he was just another charlatan.

Irrational, magical, mystical thought should have DIED when we got to the moon. It has just increased. I despair. We are fools.

from M's column today, quoting Jon Krakauer, who wrote a book about the Mormons

Mr. Krakauer can envision a Mormon making an “excellent president.”

“The Mormon approach to family life is amazing, and there are a lot of good things about the faith,” he said. But he worries that “the Mormon Church, while more welcoming, is still not a place that grants women and blacks equal status, and it’s a terrible place to be gay. The leadership is authoritarian, male, white and absolutely intolerant of dissent.”

The problem with Mitt is not his religion; it is his overeager policy shape-shifting. He did not give a brave speech, but a pandering one. Disguised as a courageous, Kennedyesque statement of principle, the talk was really just an attempt to compete with the evolution-disdaining, religion-baiting Huckabee and get Baptists to concede that Mormons are Christians.

“J.F.K.’s speech was to reassure Americans that he wasn’t a religious fanatic,” Mr. Krakauer agreed. “Mitt’s was to tell evangelical Christians, ‘I’m a religious fanatic just like you.’”

The backdrop, he said, is “the wickedly fierce competition between Mormons and Southern evangelicals to convert people.”

The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial.

Mitt was right when he said that “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.” Now if he would only admit he’s describing himself.

The Problems are with Romney, NOt Mormons

I agree with my friend Parker.

The Mormon Church is not going to try to unduly influence Romney if he wins, and Romney won't tilt his political positions to please other Mormons.

He doesn't need to.

He will, as he did in the speech, tilt his political statements and positions to please evangelicals.

Basically, a continuation of Bush's taking evangelicals into account in rhetoric and policy.

This speech was almost totally designed to show the evangelicals that he is a good Christian.

Of course he did not disavow his Mormonism. among other things, that would be politically stupid.

But he sure did downplay it, while UP-playing his Christian credentials and the need for a Christian government in this Christian nation that tolerates Jews and Muslims.

ploegh-
how can you come to a site called onfaith-an interfaith discussion blog-
engage in a question that integrates relgion and politics-
and then complain about the subject?

clearly- WE care enough to discuss it-
WAPO cares enuogh to post it-

whay are YOU here?

Enough already! Who cares about religion when it comes to running a government? Competence and integrity count for more than any particular book of very human fables and foibles you happen to enjoy reading or -worse- that you choose to use for personal inspiration. I like reading poetry myself. But please, leave that religious nonsense at home or in your houses of worship. As long as the alleged word of god runs off a very human and fallible printing press (did anyone hear him/her dictate that stuff?), let's leave it out of the discussion. Religion very, very bad!

ANONYMOUS...One cannot bring the (BBC) BRITISH BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION to account, it being so powerful. It's funding by public, be enforced by law, giving it an yearly income of $billions. British political parties, for their part given free access to the BBC it an platform spinning out the hourly, daily, political cunning deceit. Their appearances earn large amounts for party coffers, as individual members. The public whom funding the BBC but brushed out of the picture.

Romney either ignorant or a disingenuous panderer

Mitt Romney was either disingenuous or woefully ignorant of the intent of our nation's founders and the constitution that governs us when he explained his religious beliefs on December 6. While he played lip service to "separation of church and state," he indicated that he did not intend to abide by it.

Romney stated, "The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square." He is parroting the false claim of the evangelicals to whom he is pandering. The intent of our founders was to prevent religion from receiving special treatment from our government. The First Amendment decrees, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It does not state establishment of a religion (i.e., state religion), but establishment of religion--in other words all religion.

Romney added, "We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust." This is a personal religious belief of Romney. It is not to be decreed by the man or woman in the White House. It certainly was not stated by our founders who declared that we are a nation solely under "We the People." God, Christ and Christianity are conspicuously absent in the text of Constitution. Whether Romney accepts it or not, many of America's best and brightest do not "indeed trust in God."

In pandering to Christian conservatives he decried the removal of "the acknowledgement of God" from the public domain. Our founders intended that "acknowledgement of God" come solely under the purview of the individual and his or her conscience. The government is to be neutral toward religion. The Constitution gives every American the right to acknowledge his or her god in anyway they see fit privately or with willing participants. However, neither the president nor a citizen has the right to use the government to influence religious beliefs. Religious symbols and prayers on public property, as advocated by Romney, do just that.

Romney further stated that, "We share a common creed of moral convictions." However, there are as many moral convictions as there are religious denominations. If he truly believes there is "a common creed of moral convictions," then as president he will be a dictator of morality.

This country has been badly damaged by a pastor-in-chief. Bush governs by asking God to bless America and imploring the citizenry to pray for the victims of natural disasters and his God-inspired war. Let's bring reason back to the White House. Vote for a candidate who relies on reason and supports separation of church and state.

To the anonymous who quoted Hitchens:
Hitchens appears to be well read, but I question the scope of his reading. One must understand the context of the John Adams parallelism to understand what he meant. Read the Federalist Papers. The term "religion" as Adams used it could more easily be understood as meaning "moral convictions and practice", which doesn't exclude atheists.

For Hitchens to think that Romney would be "in trouble with some Mormons" shows an ignorance of the subject of Mormonism, Mormon adherents' strong belief in the U.S. constitution including the separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion or no religion, and the leadership model within the Mormon church that includes a "council of Twelve" whose decision-making involves open discussion with different viewpoints, all well listened to before any decision is made. (One could try and find a replay of a recent press conference with Henry B Eyring who spoke of this process openly and candidly in October 2007 on SLC station KSL.)

ANANYMOUS...Be it not truth that United Kingdom Islanders, must make the yearly payment of $500 to the BBC that such is enforced by law,that the (BBC) BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION have had tens of thousands of Islanders fined imprisoned for not making such payment. Is it not further truth many United Kingdom Islanders regard the BBC as a vile corrupt organization, as British politicians, being no better in moral standing, criminals whom place not on TV to spin lies deceit, rather for appalling levels of fraud, as corruption, they belonging in prison... .. .

Today anyone going to church and or saying that is a member of follower of X religion is saying that is his/her faith. The word faith has been prostituted in a way that has become a common word. Faith is different from been religious. Faith is believing without doubts faith is all that we believe to be the truth, not what we think is the truth.
Going to church every Sunday and giving you money to the church does not make a faithful person.
When Jesus passing by some farming area saw a man on his knees praying and a little bit ahead he saw an other man cursing, Jesus said " In Truth I trust the man that is cursing more than the one that was praying.
Visiting the church and been a giver is just a hypocrisy. better go into your room close the door and pray and let what you think be between you and the father.
Know yourself and where you come from before wasting your time believing in fairy tails.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Nothing in your "muslimed" version of the world will ever trump this basic truth:

"Until the koran is "DEFLAWED", no one is safe!!!!!!!! "

In the United Kingdom, which a tiny island of the coast of France. We are a very fortuate people. Politicians on our Island, always start as end a speech saying, we knowing the peoples needs, are ever humbled servants of the people. Therefore in the United Kingdom we have no need of political debate, only trust in political our parties. Each family pay yearly amount of about $500 to the, (BBC) Thus the $billions then used to fund, BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION, with such free financial backing they enabled daily, to invite our politicians on to the TV screen, that the political messages from our politial leaders contiue into every home. We be an Island as people, that blessed,having politicians whom, having dedicated their lives to serve the people... .. .

CCNL:

SEEMS LIKE THE NAIL HIT RIGHT ON THE HEAD
THATS WHY YOU ARE TRYING TO DEFLECT THE BELOW GIVEN ON GROUND REALITY FACTS BY SAYING, THEY ARE UNSUBSTANTIAL.(Only in your guilty opinion)

WELL YOU CAN AVOID WATCHING YOUR REAL FACE BUT CAN'T HIDE!!!!!!!!

I'm from South East Asia and have been stayed in UK/Europe more than five years. And visiting on/off.

And have first hand experience of what is happening in your societies comparing to ours.

You ONLY compare face appearance of:

-Government Secular or tyrant oppressors (all same in any form).
- And superficial material advance appearance as your yard stick. (Which history is witness that keep on changing sides. And again it is happening, SO WAKE UP).

Your social values, daily abuse and degradation and unjust unbalance laws and there impact on your masses. I have seen FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE!

What are you trying to sell to the world??

Your morality ends up by bombing and destroying other countries by mare accusations and not a single solid proof. You claim your self’s humanists saying we don't hang multi-murderers or multi rapist and free them after double life sentence (i.e., 20 years) after good conduct. As multi killings are just another numbers for you. What if he or she is your own brother or sister then what will you do, tell me honestly? It is not humanist BUT sadism, a Sadist approach. And that is what also reflects in your over all actions also!!
-13% of your population in infected by INCEST.
-Almost same percentage of teenage pregnancies.
-25 million converted sodomites from Christianity.
-Unjust and extremely intervening and discouraging laws about marriage counter productive of general adultery and fornication acceptable in your society.
-Unjust laws about children’s guardian ship.
-Your over all HIGH crime and violence in society, so that every next women get raped in her life (does this reality also says something about your men).
- You as a whole society of weekend violent drunkards, racist and discriminators even in your believes and religions what ever they are.

Which you west love to compare with politically aggravated violence in Muslim world.

SOCIAL VALUES/PRACTICES AND POLITICAL APPEARENCES are 2 different realities.

And I/We thank to God our Muslim societies social realities/practices are mostly according to what we believe in and don't get affected easily and carried away by any Governments Fascist Law!

And that is one of the reason Why Muslims in west even after all the material appearance keep getting back to their roots and lands. BECAUSE THEY ALSO HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHER SIDE OF THE BEAUTIFUL REALITY OF SOCIALLY INTEGRATED RESPECTFUL BLISSED AND DIGINFIED EQUALLY BALACNED LIFE.

Romney said: "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom."

Romney is 'historically impaired'. Personal 'freedom' for everyone was a concept that arose from the intellectual secular humanist ideals of the 'Enlightenment' and the 'Age of Reason'... an the idea was the antithesis of 'religion'. "Freedom' arose... and became POSSIBLE... only AFTER the oppressive thrall of Christianity was shrugged off.

"Freedom is the distance between church and state." ~ Unknown

Romney said: "Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

Nonsense... tolerance for 'religion' REALLY equates to tolerance for gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-deception, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity. The fact that a person with NO religious beliefs CANNOT get elected to high public office in this country condemns us all... and will be a shameful footnote in history books of the future... presuming, of course, that we can somehow manage to survive this monumental stupidity and even HAVE a future.

Romney said: "A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

Nonsense... one's religious beliefs (faith) reveals the extent of one's gullibility and stupidity. That is important information, when electing a President.

Romney said: "Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance."

Of course they are a basis for criticism. Christians believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was tricked by a malvolent entity (disguised a talking snake... with legs) into eating a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop. That, my friends, is insane. Mormonism has the distinction of being even MORE ('though only slightly) insane than that. How is that NOT a basis for criticism?

Romney said: "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... rather, it is a legitimate question. An honest answer to such a question would reveal the extent of the candidates gullibility and stupidity. The fact that Romney objects to answering this question serves to reveal that he does not WANT people to know how gullible and stupid he actually is.

Romney said: "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."

No. To the contrary, 'some' have taken note of how 'religion' has begun to encroach on government, even to the extent of heavily influencing foreign policy, policy on the environment, foreign aid (think 'condoms'), etc. 'Some' are striving to PRESERVE the guarantees provided in the Constitution.

“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.” ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, Washington Post, May 24, 1981

“We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.” ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, Washington Post, May 24, 1981

"I don't know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord returns." ~ James Watt, Former (US) Secretary of Interior, to a Congressional committee in 1981, quoted from "A Brief History of the Apocalypse"

Romney said: "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."

Utter bloody nonsense. References to the 'Creator' in the Declaration of Independence... the intellectual product of atheists and Deists operating under the influence of the secular humanist ideals that arose from the 'Enlightenment' and the 'Age of Reason'... were included as a sop(***) to religionists... an inconsequential term which (to the authors... Jefferson and associates) meant nothing more than 'nature'... but left the religionists free to interpret as Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, or whatever other invisible, magical sky-fairy they might imagine. Such are the consequences of compromise.

In any event, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document... it is a historical document. The operative LEGAL document (the Constitution) contains NO reference to or mention of a 'creator'... or a 'god'... or Jesus... or Christianity.

(***) Definition (for those that need it)... sop: noun - a thing given or done as a concession of no great value to appease someone whose main concerns or demands are not being met.

OK, folks... here's the scoop... the bottom line. A non-Christian... or a non-believer... CANNOT get elected to high public executive office in the USA (Jesse Ventura is duly noted as an exception... except the electorate did not KNOW that he was a non-believer when he was elected.) This is an unwritten rule... but it is so firmly established that an admitted non-believer would not even ATTEMPT to run for high public executive office, knowing that it would be an exercise in futility.

NOW... consider the fact that less than 5% of elite scientists and innovators are 'believers'. The most intelligent... the best critical-thinkers... the most highly qualified pool of potential leaders that we have is AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED from consideration... because of the gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-deception, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and drooling stupidity that DEFINES religious 'faith' and 'belief'.

Truly... given that, as a nation, it is within our power to correct this... and we do nothing... we deserve whatever befalls us.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

"Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat." ~ John Morley

"Atheist's prayer: "Dear God... if you're there... please protect me from your followers." ~ Unknown (variations are sometimes seen on bumper-stickers)

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~ Robert Heinlein

"When a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing to be happy forever, or that a certain belief is necessary to ensure eternal joy, there is in that man no spirit of concession.  He divides the whole world into saints and sinners, into believers and unbelievers, into God's sheep and Devil's goats, into people who will be glorified and people who are damned." ~ Robert Ingersoll, Some Reasons Why

"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'Does not'!" ~ Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org

What would you have told him (Romney) to say?

"As with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and variations thereof, Mormonism has significant flaws in its founder and foundations. The basic message of "love your neighbor as yourself", however, remains.

That will be the theme of my administration!!!!

And my decisions will not be tainted by any Mormon rules that are in opposition to that theme.

And there will no one in my administration who does not believe in my basic message. "

"For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to

be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes

to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be

concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish

them."

Sir Thomas More (1478 - 1535), Utopia, Book 1

"-http://www.quotationspage.com/search.php3?Author=Sir+Thomas+More&file=

other"

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Deflect all you want with unsubstantiated data, the bottom line still is:

"Until the koran is "DEFLAWED", no one is safe!!!!!!!! "

I recommend reading this for starters...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/16Croper-more.html

CCNL:

Equally balanced life of rich or poor!

CCNL:

I'm from South East Asia and have been stayed in UK/Europe more than five years. And visiting on/off.

And have first hand experience of what is happening in your societies comparing to ours.

You ONLY compare face appearance of:

-Government Secular or tyrant oppressors (all same in any form).
- And superficial material advance appearance as your yard stick. (Which history is witness that keep on changing sides. And again it is happening, SO WAKE UP).

Your social values, daily abuse and degradation and unjust unbalance laws and there impact on your masses. I have seen FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE!

What are you trying to sell to the world??

Your morality ends up by bombing and destroying other countries by mare accusations and not a single solid proof. You claim your self’s humanists saying we don't hang multi-murderers or multi rapist and free them after double life sentence (i.e., 20 years) after good conduct. As multi killings are just another numbers for you. What if he or she is your own brother or sister then what will you do, tell me honestly? It is not humanist BUT sadism, a Sadist approach. And that is what also reflects in your over all actions also!!
-13% of your population in infected by INCEST.
-Almost same percentage of teenage pregnancies.
-25 million converted sodomites from Christianity.
-Unjust and extremely intervening and discouraging laws about marriage counter productive of general adultery and fornication acceptable in your society.
-Unjust laws about children’s guardian ship.
-Your over all HIGH crime and violence in society, so that every next women get raped in her life (does this reality also says something about your men).
- You as a whole society of weekend violent drunkards, racist and discriminators even in your believes and religions what ever they are.

Which you west love to compare with politically aggravated violence in Muslim world.

SOCIAL VALUES/PRACTICES AND POLITICAL APPEARENCES are 2 different realities.

And I/We thank to God our Muslim societies social realities/practices are mostly according to what we believe in and don't get affected easily and carried away by any Governments Fascist Law!

And that is one of the reason Why Muslims in west even after all the material appearance keep getting back to their roots and lands. BECAUSE THEY ALSO HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHER SIDE OF THE BEAUTIFUL REALITY OF SOCIALLY INTEGRATED RESPECTFUL BLISSED AND DIGINFIED EQUALLY BALACNED LIFE.

Moody, Moody, Moody and Like-Thinkers,

There are 1 billion plus Muslims in the world because of "sword-forced" conversion and forced procreation. Considering the contemporary Islamic truth/death squads and "koranic" rules, things have not changed. Give freedom to the Muslim masses trapped under Islamic terror and tyranny and watch what happens!!!!

Any idea how many Muslims have access to this discussion??

And if I lived in Iran or other Islamic states and noted that "Mohammed was an illiterate, warmongering, womanizing, hallucinating Arab who had contemporary or future scribal henchmen writing their own "koranic" militant agendas for plundering/looting the lands of non-believers", I would be beheaded. Does that disturb you?

hey henry-
yes- its not likely ill be priming my old man to be first laddie anytime soon-

i cannot imagine anyone really looking to romneys speech for some kind of enlightenment-
hes a politician- he wants the right to back him-
he said- im a christian just like you- vote for me-

i have extremely low expectations of politicians myself-

but ill tell you what-
i DO respect his conviction
i respect conviction in any person-
when a person believes something and says out loud what they believe- especially if its off the beaten track-
hes standing up for his faith anyway-

he could have softpedaled and pandeered a heck of a lot more-
stephan-
how can atheists complain when a believer says they dont believe their way is a valid one- when atheists think religious people are basically mindless?

well- so what?

i actually didnt see such a bigotry- but im not sensitized to it-

there seems to be some major war happening between the right and their attacks on athesits and the left right now-
you'll have that- its an election year coming up-

just a question- not intended to start anything- mild curiosity here-

do you personally consider religious people intellectually and psychologically equal to atheists?

but you know- we are all entitle to our opinions, eh?
peace all

thanks mr baum-
i get carried away with the ideas of things sometimes- i hope you didnt feel like i was attacking you in anay way-
you wrote-
"Whether or not you believe that Jesus is Who He is or not, remember when Jesus said, "Do not lord it over others as the rulers of this world do", sounds like social-equity, does it not?"

actually mr baum that doesnt speak of social equity to me at all- but simple humility-
but it is still a beautfiul thought no mtter what-

Questions, Answers on Islam
Why do we need to know about Islam?
• Islam is the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity, and will soon be the second largest in America.
• Muslims are, and will increasingly be, our neighbors, our colleagues and our fellow citizens.
• Our ignorance about Islam distorts our view of one-fifth of the world’s population and causes us to misinterpret important events and phenomena in the US and abroad.
• Peace and safety cannot be achieved in ignorance, but can be promoted through knowledge and the understanding that grows from knowledge.

Why do we need to know about Islam?
• Islam is the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity, and will soon be the second largest in America.
• Muslims are, and will increasingly be, our neighbors, our colleagues and our fellow citizens.
• Our ignorance about Islam distorts our view of one-fifth of the world’s population and causes us to misinterpret important events and phenomena in the US and abroad.
• Peace and safety cannot be achieved in ignorance, but can be promoted through knowledge and the understanding that grows from knowledge.

How did Islam originate?
Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam originated in the Middle East, where monotheism had flourished for many centuries. In the sixth century of our era, Makkah was emerging as a new commercial center with massive new wealth but also with a growing division between rich and poor that challenged the traditional system of Arab tribal values and social security. This was the time and the social environment in which the Prophet Muhammad received his divine revelation and called all to return to the worship of the one God and to a socially just society. Muhammad is thus not considered the founder of a new religion but rather a religious reformer.
The revelations Muhammad received emphasized social justice, corrected distortions of God’s revelations in Judaism and Christianity, and warned that many had strayed. The revelations called on all to return to what the Qur’an refers to as the “straight path” of Islam, the path of God, which was being revealed one final time through Muhammad, the last or “seal” of the prophets.

What do Muslims believe?
Like Jews and Christians, Muslims are monotheists. They believe in one God, the creator, sustainer, ruler and judge of the universe. Muslims believe in prophets—not just the Prophet Muhammad, but also the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, including Abraham and Moses, and of the New Testament, Jesus and John the Baptist. They also believe in angels, heaven, hell and the Day of Judgment. Islam teaches that God’s revelation was received in the Torah, the New Testament and the Qur’an. Thus, Muslims view Jews and Christians as “people of the book,” communities of believers who received revelations through prophets from God in the form of scriptures or revealed books.

As Christians view their revelation as both fulfilling and completing the revelation of the Old Testament, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad received his revelations from God, through the angel Gabriel, to correct human error that had made its way into the scriptures and belief systems of Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, Muslims believe, Islam is not a new religion with a new scripture; rather, Islam is the oldest religion, because it represents the original as well as the final revelation of the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

What role does Muhammad play in Muslim life?
During his lifetime and since, Muhammad has been the model for Muslims to follow as they strive to do God’s will. In contrast to what is often a spiritualized Christian view of Jesus, Muslims look upon and love Muhammad as an entirely human figure—but one who had great spiritual as well as political insight and was guided by God. In turn, they look to his example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, when to wash or pray, how to divide an inheritance, how to make love and war. Muslims’ observations or remembrances of what the Prophet said and did were passed on orally and in writing. These detailed records of Muhammad’s actions, interactions, judgments, decisions and dicta provide guidance for Muslims as to what is required to follow the word of God.

Where do most Muslims live?
Muslims are the majority in 56 countries worldwide, including Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq and Nigeria. In addition, significant Muslim populations can be found in India, China, the Central Asian republics and Russia, as well as Europe and America, where Islam is the second- and third-largest religion, respectively. The majority of Muslims are not Arab—in fact, only 20 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims originate from Arab countries. The largest Muslim populations are in Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.

Are all Muslims the same?
There is one divinely revealed and mandated Islam, but there are many human interpretations of Islam. There are Sunni and Shii Muslims, representing 85 percent and 15 percent of the world’s Muslims, respectively. Within these two major branches are diverse schools of theology and law; in addition, Islam has a rich mystical tradition. The basic unity of Islamic belief and practice expresses itself in diverse ways within many different cultures around the world.

Who are the Muslims in America?
Although estimates vary considerably, it is safe to say that there are at least six million Muslims in America today, making Islam the third-largest religion in the country, after Christianity and Judaism. Muslims have been present in America since the time of Columbus. Moriscos (Spanish Muslims forced to hide their faith) migrated to both Spanish and Portuguese settlements in America. In addition, between 14 and 20 percent of the African slaves brought to America from the 16th to the 19th century were Muslim, although they were forced to convert to Christianity. Other Muslims, particularly Indians and Arabs, also immigrated as free persons during this period and were able to maintain their spiritual, cultural and social identity.
The numbers of Muslims in America increased in the late 19th century with the arrival of significant numbers of immigrants from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Many settled in the Midwest and Canada, found blue-collar jobs and assimilated into American society. After World War II, significant numbers of immigrants from Palestine and elites from the Middle East and South Asia came to America. In recent decades, many students from the Muslim world have come to study, and many well-educated professionals and intellectuals have come from South and Southeast Asia as well as from the Middle East for political and economic reasons. Many Muslim immigrants have worked hard to sustain their Islamic identity and pass it down to their children, and to establish institutions and community structures—including mosques, Islamic centers, Islamic schools, Islamic publication organizations, interest-free financial institutions and charitable organizations—to support these goals.

About two-thirds of America’s Muslims today are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. The other third is made up of African-American and other converts to Islam. The largest Muslim communities in the United States are in Boston, New York, Detroit, Dearborn, Toledo, Chicago, Houston and Los Angeles/Orange County.

How is Islam similar to Christianity and Judaism?
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism, are all monotheistic faiths that worship the God of Adam, Abraham and Moses—creator, sustainer and lord of the universe. All stress moral responsibility and accountability, Judgment Day and eternal reward and punishment.

All three faiths emphasize their special covenant with God, Judaism through Moses, Christianity through Jesus and Islam through Muhammad. Christianity accepts God’s covenant with and revelation to the Jews but traditionally has seen itself as superseding Judaism with the coming of Jesus. So, too, Islam and Muslims recognize Judaism and Christianity, their Biblical prophets (among them Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus) and their revelations (the Torah and New Testament).

Peace is central to all three faiths, which use similar greetings: shalom aleichem in Judaism, pax vobiscum in Christianity and salaam alaikum in Islam. All three phrases mean “peace be with you.” Yet leaders of each religion—Joshua and King David, Constantine and Richard the Lion-Hearted, Muhammad and Saladin—have engaged in holy wars to spread or defend their beliefs.

What is Islamic law?
The word islam means “surrender [to the will of God],” and the will of God is articulated in Islamic law, whose purpose is to regulate two types of interactions: those between human beings and God—that is, worship—and those among human beings—that is, social transactions. Throughout history, Islamic law has remained central to Muslim identity and practice, for it constitutes the ideal social blueprint for the believer and provides a common code of behavior for all Muslim societies.

In addition to the Qur’an and the Sunnah (example) of Muhammad, Sunni Muslims recognize two other official sources to guide the development of Islamic law: comparative analogical reasoning (qiyas) and consensus (‘ijma). Shii Muslims accept the Qur’an and Sunnah as well as their own collections of the traditions of Ali and other imams.

The Qur’anic texts provide moral directives, laying out what Muslims should aspire to as individuals and achieve as a community. The Sunnah of Muhammad, recorded in hundreds of thousands of individual narratives describing the Prophet’s private and public life and his individual and communal activities, illustrates Islamic faith in practice, and supplements and explains Qur’anic principles. Qiyas is used to determine parallels between similar situations or principles when no clear guidance is found in the Qur’an or Sunnah. The fourth source of law, ‘ijma, or consensus, originated from Muhammad’s reported saying, “My nation will never agree on an error.” This came to mean that consensus among religious scholars could determine the permissibility of an action.

Differences exist between the major Islamic schools of law that reflect the different geographical, social, historical and cultural contexts in which the various jurists were writing. In the modern world, Islamic law faces the challenge of distinguishing the divine prescriptions and eternal principles of the Qur’an from regulations arising from human interpretations in response to specific historical situations.

Is Islam compatible with democracy?
In pre-modern times all the world’s religions supported monarchies and feudal societies and then moved to accommodate modern forms of democracy. Similarly, Muslims today are debating the relationship of Islam to democracy. While most wish for greater political participation, government accountability, freedoms and human rights, there are many different ways to achieve these goals.

There are various reactions to democratization in the Muslim world. Some argue that Islam has its own mechanisms and institutions that do not include democracy. Others believe that democracy can only be fully realized if Muslim societies restrict religion to private life.

Still others contend that Islam is fully capable of accommodating and supporting democracy. They argue that traditional Islamic concepts like consultation (shura) between ruler and ruled, community consensus (‘ijma), public interest (maslaha) and interpretation (ijtihad ) can support parliamentary forms of government.

Many believe that, just as the modern democracies of America and Europe accommodate diverse relationships with religion, Muslims too can develop their own varieties of democratic states that are responsive to indigenous values.

Why don’t Muslims practice separation of church and state?
While Christians believe in rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God, Muslims believe that their primary act of faith is to strive to implement God’s will in both their private and public lives, calling all to worship God,
promoting what is good and prohibiting what is evil. In their view, religion cannot be separated from social and political life because religion informs every action that a person takes.
The Qur’an proclaims that, like Jews and Christians before them, Muslims have been called into a covenant relationship with God, making them a community of believers who must serve as an example to other nations (Chapter 2 Verse 143) by creating a moral social order. The Qur’an states, “You are the best community evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong” (3:110).
In the ideal Islamic state, the political authority carries out the divine message. Such a state is a nomocracy, a community governed by God’s law, and not a theocracy or autocracy that gives power to the clergy or ruler. It should provide security and order so that Muslims can carry out their religious duties. Legal processes in a truly Islamic state implement rules and judgments from the Shariah , rather than creating new legislation.
Does the Qur’an condone terrorism?
The Qur’an does not advocate or condone terrorism. Islam, like all world religions, neither supports nor requires the illegitimate use of violence or acts of terrorism. Islam does permit, and at times requires, Muslims to defend themselves, their families, their religion and their community from aggression.
The earliest Qur’anic verses dealing with the right to engage in a defensive jihad, or struggle, were revealed shortly after the emigration of Muhammad and his followers to Madinah in flight from their persecution in Makkah. At a time when they were forced to fight for their lives, Muhammad is told: “Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged—surely God is able to help them—who were expelled from their homes wrongfully for saying, ‘Our Lord is God’” (Chapter 22 Verse 39). The defensive nature of jihad is clearly emphasized in 2:190: “And fight in the way of God with those who fight you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors.”
The Qur’an also provided detailed guidelines and regulations regarding the conduct of wars: who is to fight and who is exempted (48:17, 9:91), when hostilities must cease (2:192) and how prisoners should be treated (47:4). Most important, passages such as Chapter 2 Verse 294 emphasized that the response to violence and aggression must be proportionate.
However, Qur’anic verses also underscore that peace, not violence and warfare, is the norm. Permission to fight the enemy is balanced by a strong mandate for making peace: “If your enemy inclines toward peace, then you too should seek peace and put your trust in God” (8:61), and “Had God wished, He would have made them dominate you, and so, if they leave you alone and do not fight you and offer you peace, then God allows you no way against them” (4:90). From the earliest times, it is forbidden in Islam to kill noncombatants.
But what of those verses, sometimes referred to as the “sword verses,” that call for killing unbelievers, such as “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush” (9:5)? This is one of a number of Qur’anic verses that are selectively cited to demonstrate the supposedly violent nature of Islam and its scripture. In fact, however, the passage above is followed and qualified by, “But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat , then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind” (9:5). The same is true of another often quoted verse: “Fight those who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, Nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, Nor hold the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book,” which is often cited without the line that follows, “until they pay the tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

Are Women Second-Class Citizens in Islam?
The status of women in Muslim countries has long been looked to as evidence of “Islam’s” oppression of women in matters ranging from the freedom to dress as they please to legal rights in divorce. The true picture of women in Islam is far more complex.

The Qur’an declares that men and women are equal in the eyes of God; man and woman were created to be equal parts of a pair (Chapter 41 Verse 49). The Qur’an describes the relationship between men and women as one of “love and mercy” (30:21), so that men and women are to serve as “members of one another (3:195), as “protectors, one of another” (9:71). They are to be like each other’s garment (2:187).

Men and women are equally responsible for adhering to the Five Pillars of Islam. Chapter 9 Verses 71–72 states, “The Believers, men and women, are protectors of one another; they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil; they observe regular prayers, pay zakat and obey God and His Messenger. On them will God pour His mercy: for God is exalted in Power, Wise. God has promised to Believers, men and women, gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein.” This verse draws added significance from the fact that it was the last Qur’an verse to be revealed that addressed relations between men and women. Some scholars argue, on the basis of both content and chronology, that this verse outlines the ideal vision of that relationship in Islam—one of equality and mutuality.

Women have been assigned second-class status in Muslim society based upon a misinterpretation of the Qur’an’s Chapter 4 Verse 34, which says “Men are the guardians of women, (on the basis) that God has granted some of them merits greater than others and (on the basis) that they spend of their property (for the support of women).” However, contemporary scholars have noted that the “guardianship” referred to in this verse is based upon men’s socioeconomic responsibilities for women. It does not say women are incapable of managing their own affairs, controlling themselves or being leaders, nor does it say that all men are superior to, preferred to or better than all women.

Another justification of second-class status for women may have been derived from the Qur’anic stipulation (2:282) that two female witnesses are equal to one male witness. If one female witness errs, the other can remind her of the truth. Over time, this was interpreted by male scholars to mean that a woman’s testimony should always be given half the weight of a man’s. Contemporary scholars point out that the verse specifies witnessing in cases of a written transaction, contract or court case. At the time the Qur’an was revealed, most women were not active in business and finance, and a woman’s expertise in these fields was likely to have been less than a man’s.

Another area in which gender discrimination has been apparent historically is in the matter of divorce. The Qur’an, however, guarantees women equality with respect to the right of divorce. The Qur’an also restricts the practice of polygamy. Chapter 4 Verse 3 commands, “Then marry such of the women as appeal to you, two, three or four; but if you fear that you cannot be equitable, then only one.” A corollary verse, 4:129, states, “You will never be able to treat wives equitably, even if you are bent on doing that.” Contemporary interpreters have argued that these two verses together prohibit polygamy and that the true Qur’anic ideal is monogamy.
The 20th century has brought numerous significant reforms for women’s rights in both the public and the private spheres. In the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries, women have the right to public education, including at the college level. In many countries, they also have the right to work outside the home, vote and hold public office. Particularly notable in recent years have been the reforms in marriage and divorce laws.

Why does Islam separate men and women?
Many, though not all, Muslim societies practice some gender segregation, the separation of men and women in public spaces. Thus, in many mosques men and women have separate areas for prayer or are separated by a screen or curtain, and unmarried men do not mix with unmarried women except in very specific contexts, such as a meeting between two potential spouses that occurs in the presence of a chaperone.

The practice of separation has both religious and cultural origins. Muhammad’s wives were told to keep themselves apart from society. In the Qur’an (Chapter 33 Verses 32–33) we see, “O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any of the other women. If you fear God, do not be complaisant in speech so that one in whose heart is a sickness may covet you, but speak honorably. Stay quietly in your homes and do not display your finery as the pagans of old did.” Verse 53 tells Muslim men, “And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from before a screen. That makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs.”
The practice of segregation is also tied to the concept of women as a source of sexual temptation for men. Social interaction between unrelated men and women is regarded as potentially leading to immoral sexual activity. Because modesty and chastity are prized virtues in Islam, some Muslims therefore believe that unrelated men and women should have no contact with each other.

Opinions today vary about the necessity of separation of the sexes. Many Muslims continue to hold fast to the belief that women are the culture-bearers of Islam, as well as the source of male honor, but they also believe that the requirements of modesty can be met through appropriate dress and the limitation of interaction with unrelated males.

John L. Esposito is accepted by Muslims and Christians alike as one of America’s foremost expositors of Islam. He is University Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, and Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. His more than 30 books include What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, The Oxford History of Islam and, forthcoming in spring 2004, The Islamic World: Past and Present.
This article appeared on pages 21-28 of the September/October 2003 print edition of Saudi Aramco World.

Posted by John L. Esposito on July 20, 2007 10:59 AM

In a perfect world, Governor Romney (and every other candidate seeking public office) would have acknowledged that in a pluralistic society one must surrender absolutism and dogma grounded only in religious faith in favor of tolerance, reasoned dialogue and respect. Political leaders may be informed by their personal beliefs, but must be cautious not to impose their faith-based ideology on others in the absence of a secular rationale.

More disturbing than Romney's rhetorical pandering was his willingness to conflate patriotism and faith, and his outright bigotry toward non-believers. Such overt discrimination against other (and smaller) religious minorities would have been met with outrage; favoring religious belief over atheism or humanism deserves no less.

Unfortunately this speech was directed to evangelicals and simply reinforces the perception that Romney will say and do anything. Personally I could less that's he's a mormon. What bothers me is that in one breath he says a person should not be rejected or accepted because of their faith in the political arena and then goes on to in my view ease evangelicals doubts about his faith so that they can vote for him. Shame on you Romney. It simply reinforces my view that although you are your father's son you lack your father's character.

I would have said, "Please be seated sir, the boat is already taking on water."

And also from the KJV in The second letter by Peter, "...to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of god and our saviour Jesus Christ:"

PE2 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
PE2 1:6 and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
PE2 1:7 and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
PE2 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
PE2 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our lord Jesus Christ.
PE2 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
PE2 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
PE2 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
PE2 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of god spake as they were moved by the holy ghost.
PE2 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
PE2 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
PE2 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
PE2 2:4 For if god spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
PE2 2:5 and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
PE2 2:6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
PE2 2:7 and delivered just lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
PE2 2:8 ( for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful
deeds;)
PE2 2:9 the lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations,
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
PE2 2:10 but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of
uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
PE2 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring
not railing accusation against them before the lord.
PE2 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
PE2 2:13 and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
PE2 2:14 having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
PE2 2:15 which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
PE2 2:16 but was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
PE2 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
PE2 2:18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
PE2 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
PE2 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the lord and saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
PE2 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
PE2 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

The next chapter explains the consequences of the negative of the predeeding and it's consequent remainder. In other words, he is explaining the process of the deterioration of the quality of life with an eventual catastrophe contingent on negligence of sound principles of the human frailty against the immense forces of the universal physical system in the relative balance that is so perfect as to allow the fagility of life to exist in the potential peril of it's imbalance.

Two falsehoods often repeated of late by journalists who seem to believe that they know everything about everything:
1. We all worship the same god.
2. Everyone who believes in "Jesus Christ" is a Christian.

The first is patently false. The Bible is replete with examples of God being wrathful against false gods [Thou shalt have no other gods before me]. Krishna, Baal, and YHWH are hardly the same deity, for example. Neither are YHWH and Allah.

The second begs the question, which Jesus Christ? About 2,000 years ago, Paul warned of many a different Jesus and many a different gospel being preached. The problem has only grown worse as doctrines and dogmas have proliferated over the centuries.

It is ironic that political candidates spend time first convincing the public that they are devoted to their religion, then secondly assuring the public that they will disregard their religion while in office. Religion presupposes God, and for Christians God presupposes Jesus Christ. Vowing to put God and Jesus on the back burner while serving in government is hardly an indorsement for trustworthiness and sincerety. "Because thou art lukewarm, I will spew thee out of my mouth." Makes me want to retch, too.

Jesus Christ never killed anyone, neither did he advocate killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. He laid down his life rather than kill, and commanded his disciples to follow his example. "It is sufficient that a disciple be as his Master, and a servant as His Lord." Now we have ersatz Christians waging war and killing in the name of Jesus Christ (anything a Christian does, he does in the name of Jesus Christ). It is blasphemy.

The government belongs to all its citizens without exception. For instance, as a Christian, I am opposed to homosexuality, but I am constrained to do them (or anyone) no harm, and they are entitled to all the rights and privileges that can be afforded any of us by the government.

The founding fathers were wise to separate church and state. Like oil and water, they don't mix.

The government has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. If you are consumed with political ambition, by all means run for office, but for heavens sake shut up about your faith. When you run, we know where you stand.

From the King James version,

TI1 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of god and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

TI1 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.These things teach and exhort.

TI1 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent
not to wholesome words, even the words of our lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

TI1 6:4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

TI1 6:5 perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

TI1 6:6 But godliness with contentment is great
gain.

TI1 6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.

TI1 6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

TI1 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

TI1 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

TI1 6:11 But thou, O man of god, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

TI1 6:17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living god, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

TI1 6:18 that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

TI1 6:19 laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Hmmm, my belief system?

Pointing out flaws in religion via history, realism and common sense btw is not thumping superiority but simply stating the obvious.

Specifics:

1. "Until the koran is "Deflawed", no one is safe!!!

2. "Deflawing" of all the religions (specifics given many times) will eventually lead to a convergence of rules similar to the Commandments (minus the first three) and the Code of Hammurabi and will be analogous to those rules and codes currently being followed by good men and women of any or no belief in the supernatural.

3. It all started with the Big Bang possibly ignited by the Singularity (if there is one) which will be followed by the Gig GnaB as the universe eventually recycles itself.

4. And life as we know it will probably end with another large meteor encounter!!!!

I was hoping that Christopher Hitchens would post a column on this subject. He did, but it's over at Slate. Here it is:

Holy Nonsense
by Christopher Hitchens, Slate

Reposted from:
http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/

MITT ROMNEY'S WINDY, WORTHLESS SPEECH.

Almost the only clever thing about Gov. Mitt Romney's long-denied and long-delayed but obviously long-prepared "response" was its location at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, which allowed him to pose (prematurely, I'd say) in front of a presidential seal as well as a thicket of American flags. Composed chiefly of boilerplate, the windy speech raised the vexed question of the candidate's religious affiliation—and thus broke the taboo on mentioning it—without setting to rest any of the difficulties that make it legitimate to raise the issue in the first place.

Actually, and in fairness, one should say "any but one" of those difficulties. Romney did avow, early on and in round terms, that "no authorities of my church" could ever exert any influence on his decision-making as chief executive. This may get him in trouble with some Mormons, and it does invite the question of why he adheres to a sect whose "prophet" is a supreme commander, but it is the most he could have been asked to say, as well as the least. Actually, the more he goes in one direction, the more he may find it is Mormons who are developing reservations about him. There is already grumbling in the ranks about his statement that the Bible is the revealed word of God, an absurd belief that Mormons do not truly profess, because they feel it is lacking an even more absurd later revelation to Joseph Smith. There are also those who think that Romney's disowning of past Mormon polygamy is too opportunistic, since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does still offer the consolation prize of multiple wives in heaven (just like the sick dream of Mohamed Atta).

Trying to raise himself above this swamp of nonsense—the existence of which is his responsibility, not mine—the governor mainly treated us to evasion and a rather shifty attempt to change the subject and rewrite the historical record. It may be true that Romney "saw my father march with Martin Luther King" (though the candidate himself, who was of age to do so at the time, doesn't claim to have joined in), but that doesn't answer the question about official Mormon racism, which lasted 10 full years after Dr. King had been murdered, or of what Mitt Romney did or said about this at the time.

Romney does not understand the difference between deism and theism, nor does he know the first thing about the founding of the United States. Jefferson's Declaration may invoke a "Creator," but, as he went on to show in the battle over the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, he and most of his peers did not believe in a god who intervened in human affairs or in a god who had sent a son for a human sacrifice. These easily ascertainable facts are reflected in the way that the U.S. Constitution does not make any mention of a superintendent deity and in the way that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention declined an offer (possibly sarcastic), even from Benjamin Franklin, that they resort to prayer to compose their differences. Romney may throw a big chest and say that God should be "on our currency, in our pledge," and of course on our public land in this magic holiday season, but James Madison did not think that there should be chaplains opening the proceedings of Congress or even appointed as ministers in the U.S. armed forces. Trying to dodge around this, and to support his assertion that the founders were religious in the Christian sense, Romney drones on about a barely relevant moment of emotion in 1774 and comes up with the glib slogan that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Any fool can think of an example where freedom exists without religion—and even more easily of an instance where religion exists without (or in negation of) freedom.

This does not mean that freedom of religion is not as important as freedom from it, yet Romney makes himself absurd by saying that Mormons may not be asked about the tenets of their faith, lest this infringe the constitutional ban on a religious test for public office. Here is another failure of understanding on his part. He is not being told: Answer this question in the wrong way, and you become ineligible. He is being told: Your family is prominent in a notorious church that proselytizes its views in a famously aggressive manner. Are you only now deciding to make a secret of your beliefs? And if so, why? Would he expect a Scientologist to be able to avoid questions about L. Ron Hubbard? Does the governor of Massachusetts who publicly tried for mob applause by demanding that we "double Guantanamo" (whatever that meant) add that the detainees must not be asked what branch of Islam they favor? If an atheist was running against him, would Romney make nothing of the fact? His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.

According to the admittedly very contradictory scriptures of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth warned his disciples and followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and mocked for their faith. After all, how likely was it that God had decided to reveal himself to only a few illiterate peasants in a barbarous backwater? Those who elected to believe this stuff were quite rightly told to expect a hard time, and the expression "fool for God" or "fool for Christ" has been with us ever since. That concept has some dignity and nobility. Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity) is the well-heeled son of a gold-plated church who wants to assume the pained look of martyrdom only when he is asked if he actually believes what he says. A long time ago, Romney took the decision to be a fool for Joseph Smith, a convicted fraud and serial practitioner of statutory rape who at times made war on the United States and whose cult has been made to amend itself several times in order to be considered American at all. We do not require pious lectures on the American founding from such a man, and we are still waiting for some straight answers from him.

Nat Dodge, Meet Victoria

She is a Muslim

In your esteemed Mitt Romney's America

she could never be president

because she fails the Religious Test
that Romney unmistakenly outlined
though He said he opposed Religious Tests.

You MUST be a Christian to be elected President.

Nat: you got it backwards.
Romney's speech was a travesty of the principle of Separation of Church and State.

Read Rabbi Saperstain on this site (who also would not, as a Jew, qualify to be president)

He tells you exactly and perfectly the three Enormous Failings of Romney's Speech

TO VICTORIA:

You wrote, "where does it say that all men(let alone WOMEN) are equal?", on page one it says, "Let us make man in our Image and Likeness" and God created man, male and female.

You also wrote, "it is such an incredible (meaning not believable)stretch of all reason to conclude that Jesus(ata) was referring in any way to future governments", what Jesus said was His Kingdom was not of this world and that is exactly what He meant.

Another thing that you wrote was, "actually Jesus(ata) refers to himself as a man 72 times in the bible
thats alot", Jesus wanted to get thru our hard heads that, yes He was just as human and you and I.

Another thing that Jesus said to Phillip was "Phillip, how long have you been with Me, if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father", this seems rather straightforward and simple, does it not?

Whether people believe it or not Jesus flat out said He was God.

Two of the longest running heresies are that Jesus was only human and that Jesus was God and not human but only pretending to be.

You asked, "any injunction to merit freedom of speech, expression, religion?", Jesus never forced Himself on anyone but He did extend the invitation to "Come follow Me".

And then, "so, ill make the same challenge i made on antoehr question-where in the bible does one find any social equality exhortations?
any injunction to merit freedom of speech, expression, religion?", "And the Truth shall set you free".

Who knows maybe the founding fathers were Divinely inspired whether they knew it or not, that if people had basic human rights such as freedom of speech, expression and how they wished to express gratitude that it was just the right thing to do.

As someone made in the Image and Likeness of God why should I have to "merit" basic freedoms that all should have.

Jesus treated people with Love and compassion, He did NOT treat people like garbage. Jesus did not treat women with contempt and as less than men. Jesus also said that we should become CHILD-LIKE, not childish.

Whether or not you believe that Jesus is Who He is or not, remember when Jesus said, "Do not lord it over others as the rulers of this world do", sounds like social-equity, does it not?

Sometimes it seems that people don't want freedom for themselves or for others, they would rather be told just what to do and when to do it and how to do it. Is that being truly human?

God created us with free will, whether we like it or not and we are responsible for what we do whether we accept that responsibility or not.

I was taught in second grade that we are all equal in God's eyes, something to think about? Remember in the bible God says, "My ways are not your ways and My thoughts are not your thoughts".

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It is unfortunate that Mitt Romney has to answer to religious bigots and ignotant fools about what he believes. His was one of the all-time American speeches. He said what we Americans needed to hear. His candidacy is a test of religious tolerance in this country, a test that we are miserably failing.

This speech really scared me. I thought Bush was bad. I was wrong.

There is no room in Romney's America for those who don't believe in God but do work to care for others, nor is there room for me, who practices a spirituality that has nothing to do with his Jesus or his God. That's NOT my country.

If he wants to put up a creche in a public square, he'd better be prepared to encounter Pentacles, Menorahs and other symbols that are unlike his.

I respect his right to believe whatever he believes.. but when it comes down to a question of someone's 'bible' vs. America's Constitution, there is no contest. As someone on a thread a while back put it: 'My Constitution trumps your scripture every time'.

What also alarms me is that he wants to rewrite history and confuses his version of Christianity with the Deism of the founding fathers, thereby destroying religious liberty (or the right to practice no religion) for all.

And the fact that more and more supposedly 'educated' people are believing these things about this being founded as a "Christian nation" says to me that we're doing a really lousy job of educating our children in history and science. What it IS and what it ISN'T.
What our country was founded on and what it wasn't. And what those who did so actually believed.

No wonder Europe doesn't want too much to do with us these days. They're too busy leaving us in the dust.

hi henry- you surely are holding down the fort here- i appreciate your insight into mormonism.

liberated- i must say, it is interesting that you feel free to criicize (in a condescending and kind of arrogant way) what everyone else believes-

you never say what YOU believe that is so superior.

LIBERATED- WHY DONT YOU ENLIGHTEN US FOR ONCE WITH YOUR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM OF CROSSANIZED CHRISTIANITY AND SHOW US HOW IT IS SO SUPERIOR T ALL THE RELIGIONS YOU DECONSTRUCT?(rather clumsily)

youre like a crabman terrified to come out, and piching everyone who comes near you- petrified someone is going to call you on what makes your philosophy so superior-
i guess if you never state it- stay on the offensive- no one ever asks-

Mr Baum- Jesus(ata) said 'my kingdom is not of this earth" in response to a direct question from pontius pilate-

the jews they were expecting (according to prophecy by isaiah) a POLITICAL messiah- who would come riding a horse, and vanquish the occupiers(romans)

Jesus(ata) wasnt making a prophecy about how future governments should eschew being made in his name-
he wasnt talking about a theocracy vs. non-theocracy

he was answering a direct accusation from pilate -
the charge that he was saying he was king-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. 13 It was morning. And they themselves did not enter the praetorium, in order not to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover.
29
So Pilate came out to them and said, "What charge do you bring (against) this man?"
30
They answered and said to him, "If he were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you."
31
At this, Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law." The Jews answered him, "We do not have the right to execute anyone," 14
32
33
So Pilate went back into the praetorium and summoned Jesus and said to him, "AThen they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. 13 It was morning. And they themselves did not enter the praetorium, in order not to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover.
29
So Pilate came out to them and said, "What charge do you bring (against) this man?"
30
They answered and said to him, "If he were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you."
31
At this, Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law." The Jews answered him, "We do not have the right to execute anyone," 14
32
15 in order that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled that he said indicating the kind of death he would die.
33
So Pilate went back into the praetorium and summoned Jesus and said to him, "ARE YOU THE KING OF THE JEWS"
34
Jesus answered, "Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?"
35
Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?"
36
Jesus answered, "MY KINGDOM DOES NOT BELONG TO THIS WORLD. IF MY KINGDOM DID BELONG TO THIS WORLD, MY ATTENDANTS (would) BE FIGHTING TO KEEP ME FROM BEING HANDED OVER TO THE JEWS. BUT AS IT IS, MY KINGDOM IS NOT HERE."
37
So Pilate said to him, "Then you are a king?" Jesus answered, "YOU say I am a king. 16 For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice."
38
Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" When he had said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in him.
39
But you have a custom that I release one prisoner to you at Passover. 17 Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?"
40
They cried out again, "Not this one but Barabbas!" 18 Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.

34
Jesus answered, "Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?"
35
Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?"
36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants (would) be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here."
37
So Pilate said to him, "Then you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say I am a king. 16 For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice."
38
Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" When he had said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in him.
39
But you have a custom that I release one prisoner to you at Passover. 17 Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?"
40
They cried out again, "Not this one but Barabbas!" 18 Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

it is such an incredible (meaning not believable)stretch of all reason to conclude that Jesus(ata) was referring in any way to future governments

it is a specific and pointed answer to a specific question
(kind of slippery at that)

actually Jesus(ata) refers to himself as a man 72 times in the bible
thats alot

im sorry people for hogging the blog like that-
america was founded by deists
the constitution doesnt mention Jesus(ata) but the creator

thats pretty broad (as i think it should be)

so, ill make the same challenge i made on antoehr question-
where in the bible does one find any social equality exhortations?
any injunction to merit freedom of speech, expression, religion?

where does it say that all men(let alone WOMEN) are equal?

it just doesnt

i welcome someones input on this

TO MOODY:

You wrote, "-I and Father are the one.
means we are on the same side, the rightous side)", it does not say "are the one", it says "are One", there is a big difference.

You also wrote, "-If you have seen me you have seen the father, I'm the way and the truth.
(means like on their times all the previous Prophets are the way and the truth and who have seen them seen the Father OR the way of the Father OR the way choosen by the Father). None of the prophets said this. NONE.

I don't know what country you live in and if having a bible is allowed but what is written in the koran is twisting what is written in the bible.

Just because some people twist what the bible says does not mean that it isn't true.

When satan tempted Jesus, he quoted verbatim from the bible but took it out of context stripping it of what it really meant.

satan knows what is written in the bible better than any human being and he is very intelligent but he is not nice at all, as Jesus said about satan, "he is a liar and a thief and he is also a deceiver".

Do you know what satan hates about the USA? The ideals that this country was founded on, even tho this country has never lived up to those ideals, it has tried.

Like I have said before, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliation or lack thereof.

As the bible says, TRUE RELIGION is taking care of widows and orphans which is taking care of anyone that is worse off than yourself which is everyone since all of us are worse off than everyone else in one way or another.

Mankind seems intent on the 'us and them mentality' when we are all created by God, like it or not.

I have tried to answer your questions just because you don't like the answers that I have given doesn't negate them.

God, the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God, has a Plan and it is unfolding before our very eyes and it is for ALL OF CREATION, the new heavens and the new earth.

We will all be judged and it is important what we do and why we do it and what we know.

God is Love, Pure Love, I thank God for that and that God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Your reply does not address the list of flaws in Islam? Why is that? Hmmm, of course it is your Three B Syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Islam's koranic "theology" which was borrowed/plagiarized from the ancients. And all attributed to a "pwtfft"!!! Give us a break!!!!

Interesting how Joe Smith kept the plagiarizing going with his hallucinations of the "angel" Moroni. At least Smith/Moroni did not "preach" death to the infidel. Mitt Romney at least does not have to explain that one away!!!!

And of course, I trust you still have a copy of the Five Step Program to "Deflaw" Islam and the koran.

CCNL:

Some how I don't dislike you, but sympathize to you!

Hopefully you will figure out some day what is in your poor mind!

-:

Sunday approaches.

Consider doing an informal survey, -:.

In your Sacrament, SS, and RS/Phd meetings, ask if your ward members believe the Romney candidacy has resulted in positive exposure of LDS beliefs? Ask if members' friends at work or in the neighborhood have asked uncomfortable questions about church doctrine? Remind them that the election is a year away and if they are looking forward to more of the same if MR is nominated? Then four years of every mistake a President Romney makes being placed at the feet of Mormonism?

I'll do the same, and I'll report back.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Again, where are the errors in the following:

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the stupidity and conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Below Anonymous is me!

Thomas Baum:

Christians always have there own decieving way with there language.

-I and Father are the one.
means we are on the same side, the rightous side)

-If you have seen me you have seen the father, I'm the way and the truth.
(means like on their times all the previous Prophets are the way and the truth and who have seen them seen the Father OR the way of the Father OR the way choosen by the Father).

And please don't avoid many QUESTIONS raised in by my previous 2 mails.
LIKE YOUR CHURCH AND PREISTS ALWAYS DO!!! NEVER CAME TO OPEN PUBLIC DEBAT WITH MUSLIMS??????

Questions like few mentioned below:
1- To whome Jesus(A.S) use to prostrate? Does God prostrate in front of any body???
2- To whome he refered greater them him?
3- To which people house Jesus(A.S) prefer to come again, (i)to the house of people how claim they love him (christians) BUT BREAK EACH AND EVERY LAW HE CAME TO FULFIL or (ii) to the house of people who follow each and every law of Jesus(A.S) as well which he came to fulfil (We muslims)???

AND ALL THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS IN MY PREVIOUS MAILS? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU DARE TO ANSWER?

One needs to see through the FABRICATED LIES which are constantly REVISED AND REMOVED till today and hardly left with any authenticity.

The Romney Faith Speech blogs are afire with too much rhetoric for even a zealous blog-o-phile to keep up with; however, yesterday I analyzed a moderate blog (linked to the WP) solely for the purpose of discovering how those bloggers judged Mitt’s performance. I came up with the following statistics:

There were 257 messages on the blog itself when I started tabulating the data. Of those messages, 52 were replies, banter, retorts, and other comments that were off topic. I disregarded those messages. So, I had 205 messages to work with. I selected two main categories: Great Speech (GS) or Lousy Speech (LS). I separated both categories into subcategories with qualifiers: GS and I’m now voting for Mitt; GS but I’m voting for Huckabee or Paul or Fred or Obama (this one snuck in there from somewhere); GS but I’m still anti-Mormon; GS - Other. Please note – there were no great speech but I’m for Rudy, McCain, Hunter, or any other candidate from either party. The LS was divided into three sub-categories: LS and Anti-Christian, LS and I’m Anti-Mormon, and LS - Other.

One hundred forty-seven individuals (72%) thought the speech was great – words like a hit, moving, about time a candidate inspired the people, beautiful, stirring… Fifty-eight individuals (28%) thought the speech was lousy. Words like pandering, slick, yawner, anti-gay (like Obama it just kinda snuck in there), failure, and patronizing… you get the picture. The world is full of opposites.

Of the 72% that thought the speech was great but there was a qualifier (45 or 31%) here is how the sub-categories broke down:

GS now for Mitt – 17 (38%)
GS for Huckabee – 6 (13%)
GS for Paul – 7 (16%)
GS for Fred – 3 (7%)
GS for Obama – 1 (2%)
GS but I’m Anti Mormon – 4 (9%)
GS – Other – 7 (16%)

Of the 58 individuals that thought the speech was lousy, the 3 sub-categories were:

LS and Anti-Christian – 9 (16%)
LS and Anti-Mormon – 31 (53%)
LS Other – 18 (31%)

You can draw your own conclusions. And, I’ll be the first to admit that depending on the blog you observe you will get differing results, esp. among the atheists, agnostics, humanists, and "infidels of every denomination." There continues to be the grumble of anti-Mormon sentiment that is, in my opinion, founded on ignorance, bigotry, and intolerance. Some have called Mitt’s religion a red herring, self-serving, and pandering; however, prejudice will always remain even among those who profess intellectual piety – you can witness many of them acting like jackals sniffing at the blood of opportunism in “what Mitt forgot” OpEds and other divisive articles or blogs on the Internet.

For me, I continue to be impressed by Mitt. Over the years he has worked hard to be worthy of the mantle of Leadership that this country needs to move forward into a future of world community and commerce. And while the MSM stand ready to crucify, belittle, and try to subvert the politics of electing a leader of faith and values, my desire is that the American people will see through the rhetoric, bigotry, and propaganda and nominate Mitt because he is a man of integrity, intelligence, leadership, and compassion.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme

Pagels' book The Gnostic Gospels says of the 1st century christians:

"Diverse forms of Christianity flourished (like the Mormons and the Evangelicals etc today- HJ) in the early years of the Christian Movement, Hundreds of rival teachers all claimed to teach "the true doctrine of Christ (as Huckabee and the Mormons do today - HJ), AND DENOUNCED THE OTHERS AS FRAUDS. All claimed to be the Authentic tradition"

(Kenny: my apologies for misreading you).

To Henry James:

You’ve misunderstood my previous post. I never said I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, rather I was trying to clarify the how the Constitution works, which is namely to point out that people wanting to know about Romney’s religious beliefs does not violate the Constitution. Romney’s assertion that it does so shows that 1) he either does not understand the Constitution or 2) he is misinterpreting it for political advantage.

Which of these characteristics do you want in a President?

Romney and Christian Political Authority
An Historical Perspective

Romney's position that Christian faith is a necessary qualification for the Presidency has echoes of the original Christian History.

The fundamental tenet of Christian Supremacy - that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, regaining his earthly body - has ambiguous underpinnings EVEN in the Christian Bible. Some accounts (Luke's) are consistent with the interpretation that disciples may have been seeing a Ghost or Apparition rather than a body (read Chapter 1 of Elaine Pagels' great book, the Gnostic Gospels).

As Pagels says in that chapter: the Whether or not one accepts the resurrection story as literally true, "the doctrine of bodily resurrection serves a *political function*: it legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter. From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of Papal authority to this day."

Romney is claiming an analagous "Christian right to succession" for the Presidency of the US.

Ironically, the basis of the Mormon claim to the THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH is that the Catholics strayed from the God-authorized line of authority and priesthood, and that line was restored to Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saints in 1830.

BUT: not all contemporaneous Christ followers believed in a literal resurrection. That was the story that had the most political clout.
"

I did not hear his speech but I would like to say something about seperation of church and state.

Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", did He not?

So anyone trying to set up a Christian theocracy is going against what Jesus so plainly spoke. Throughout roughly the last 2000 years, some have tried to set up a theocracy in different places and if they were trying to set up one in Jesus's Name than they were actually going against what he said.

So it seems that the founding fathers were Divinely inspired in having seperation of church and state and if you do not believe in the Divine than they were inspired.

This is not to say that you shouldn't have beliefs, considering that everyone has beliefs.

Seperation of church and state is suppose to mean that the state does not impose any religion on anyone but also does not get in the way of anyone worshipping as they wish but only to the point where they are not forcing themselves on others in any way, shape or form, isn't that kind of close to what it is suppose to mean?

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

OH TOM Me thinks you have not heard of the word DIVERSITY!!!

Exactly which part of the republican party are you apart of? LOL LOL LOL

The OTHER Paper,
the NYTs (communist godless rag)

notes today in its lead editorial:

Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

I think they got this right.

Did Romney's speech receive the approval of any of the religious cults that comprise the Democrat party base (i.e., the pagan left, the atheist left, the feminist left, the tree hugger left, the earth worshipping left, the socialist left, the race baiting left or the fundamentalist homosexualist left)?

Has Romney's speech received the approval of any of the religious cults that comprise the Democrat party base (i.e., the pagan left, the atheist left, the feminist left, the tree hugger left, the earth worshipping left, the socialist left, the race baiting left or the fundamentalist homosexualist left)?

Has Romney's speech received the approval of any of the religious cults that comprise the Democrat party base (i.e., the pagan left, the atheist left, the feminist left, the tree hugger left, the earth worshipping left, the socialist left, the race baiting left or the fundamentalist homosexualist left)?

Kenny notes that
"The Constitution protects both a Mormon’s right to be President and a voter’s right to vote against a Mormon."

The Constitution also protects Kenny's right to vote on a bigoted and uninformed basis, which is what he seems intent on doing.

Romney can not be *required* to explain his religious beliefs, and the voter can not be required to disregard the voter's prejudices against a candidate based on that candidate's religious background.

Unfortunately, 25% of our voters are like Kenny, they would never vote for a Mormon regardless of her political positions and public record.

Scary, ain't it.

Gov. Romney is quoted as arguing that the Constitution’s provision that “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" is being violated when he is asked to explain his religious beliefs. But this is based on a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution.

Legally, the Constitution’s prohibition on religious discrimination applies to the government, not citizens. The Constitution secures religious liberty for U.S. citizens. This prohibits the government from disqualifying a person from public office based on their faith. But it also guarantees a citizen’s right to act—even vote—based on their religious convictions. The Constitution protects both a Mormon’s right to be President and a voter’s right to vote against a Mormon.

Yesterday, Mitt Romney spoke of, “a new religion in America - the religion of secularism.”"

As Keith Olberman so deftly pointed out on his show last night (while speaking with Gene Robinson), Romney's speech supposedly advocating religious tolerance identified secularism as "a new religion in America"...and then proceeded to call for intolerance against this new religion!

Romney - his stupidity on full display yesterday - didn't get the disconnect of his remarks. As a member of a minority religious sect in the larger Xian faith, one would think that Romney would be especially attuned to the hypocrisy of advocating tolerance for all "religions" while at the same time singling out another "religion" as a target of scorn. But, through either stupidity or strategy, he didn't.

One should consider such personality traits/intellectual deficiencies when deciding who is and who isn't qualified to be president, especially after the disaster we've suffered through with gw bush occupying the highest office in the land.

After yesterday's hate speech, any THINKING American will immediate disqualify Romney from serious consideration. The fact that vast segments of the public and the punditry are blind and deaf to the intolerance displayed by Romney shows how far we still have to go as a people to live up to the ideals enshrined in our Constitution.

The chances for 2008 being a watershed in this regard look bleaker with each passing minute. Romney's speech is yet another step down the slippery slope of intolerance and scape-goating that has been so well greased by gw bush and his religious supporters.

God save us from the godly.

Henry: good point. had I been more careful, I would have said it's the evangelicals who are the source of the bigotry that didn't exist then, and by general population, I meant to exclude the evangelicals as a group.

JoeT: you are correct about the despicable hypocrasy in Romney's position. How stupid can the American public be if they don't see the blatant contradiction in

No Religious Test, BUT>>>+++
You Must be a Believing Christian

The one point you miss is that
there IS lots of prejudice against
ANY Mormon Candidate today.

unlike Udall and Romney sr's day.

25% of the population say they would not vote for a Mormon at all. another despicable fact.

best

Henry

Anonoman makes the Ridiculous and Bigoted Statement

"Missing from all this is the fact that Mormons have a set of beliefs that are, let's face it, downright wrong and potentially dangerous:"

Oh, and the beliefs of ALL the other religions are *downright right*.

Mormons hold NO dangerous beliefs. Radical Muslims (not mainstream) might have dangerous beliefs, but to say Mormons do is bigoted and ignorant.

All religions have "strange beliefs". Virgin births, the Sun stopping in the sky, burning bushes, etc etc etc

Shameful comment from M. A.

Such a positive and inclusive speech requires a 'bravo' from all believing Americans. The non-believers must at least admit that Mitt Romney looked presidential and is as capable of leading this country as any president in recent memory. It's interesting to me to see sentiment bordering on hate speech of those who opposed the speech. Where has the civility gone in our country? What do you expect when you take God out of the equation?

The speech was total hypocrisy. First, it was not about the general public fearing Mormons (they don't - George Romney and Mo Udall ran without the subject ever coming up). It was (as Charles Krauthamer writes today) about Huckabee in Iowa claiming to be the Christian, and polls showing evangelicals in Iowa squirming at a Mormon. Second, he invokes the "no religious test for office" clause as a convenient way of not describing his religion, then turns around and proclaims Jesus his lord and saviour (so he can fool evangelicals into not paying attention to the fact that no evangelical theologian thinks Mormons are christians), and then proclaims that you have to have some religion to be an American at all (atheists are not welcome). despicable.

Hmmm, the Democratic Party majority controls Massachusetts yet Milt Romney, a Republican, was elected by said Democrats as their governor. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, atoning for their sins for electing the Christian Teddy "DUI ED" Kennedy all these years??

Or was it because Milt is an impressive, articulate leader with sufficient personal funds so he does not have to sell his soul for campaign contributions????

Missing from all this is the fact that Mormons have a set of beliefs that are, let's face it, downright wrong and potentially dangerous:

1) Native Americans are really Jewish settlers from the Middle East who came by boat sometime in the 5th century BC - there goes Native American identity in a big way;

2) These are the "latter days" - a dangerous apocalypticism that could propel all sorts of mischief;

3) The belief that all other religions are not true;

4) The belief that a good practicing Mormon can potentially become the equal to God

These, and others, result from the fact that the religion is a modern religion that does not have the benefit of hundreds of years of theology and critical thought.

If Mitt Rommney is correct and that faith will help him in his decision making process, then the question that needs to be asked is that when has religion been on the right side of any argument? Did religious institutions abolish slavery? Did religious institutions condemn hitler during the holocaust? Religion seems to have the worst record of doing anything correctly and I sincerely believe it should not be something the leader of a diverse nation considers when making his mind up. To do so it to only invite a decision that will once again be on the wrong side of history.

Romney's America has no room for non-believers, ie: Americans he conveniently excludes as Americans through his gross mis-telling of history. Funny how Romney didn't bother mentioning the 1796-7 Treaty of Tripoli as he put forward the fanciful idea that the USA is a Xian nation. ("As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.")

If anyone doubts that Romney doesn't tolerate non-believers, they need look only at the person who introduced him yesterday. That was none other than GHW Bush, a man who stated quite clearly and loudly that he believes that atheists are not "real" American citizens. That exchange took place in 1987, and Poppy Bush has never apologized to atheists for his remarks to journalist Robert Sherman, to whit:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

That money quote from Poppy Bush bears repeating:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

So, here we have a person (Poppy) who is bigoted against atheists introducing a candidate (Romney) who is...bigoted against atheists. 300 million Americans to chose from to make an introduction, and you pick a person of power who - in his public statements - is openly and uniquely bigoted against atheists. Well, this atheist got your message loud and clear, Mitt.

Imagine the outrage if, say, Louis Farrakhan introduced a candidate who believed in religious diversity...as long as you weren't Jewish.

Can anyone tell me the difference between this imaginary scenario as it relates to Jews and yesterday's shameful performance by Romney as it relates to non-believers? There is none, Romney's hollow gestures to inclusiveness notwithstanding.

When a person says freedom comes from God and that this concept is embodied in the Republic's founding documents, that person is professing a Natural Law philosophy -- that American freedom has a divine basis. This is what many in the Federalist Society believe and, when he stops with the red herrings and ad hominem attacks, what Rush Limbaugh says is the basis for what he calls "American Exceptionalism." So do many evangelicals and Romney. But not the principal Founding Fathers: they were deists and believed that freedom came from reason (which may or may not be a gift from God). Nor John Locke and the other 17th Century thinkers who inspired the French and American Revolutions. Romney is free to believe what he wants; but he has his history wrong.

We DON"T live in a Country Where We Can
Worship as We Please

You have to be a believing Christian
or be able to fake it (as REagan did)
in order to be elected President.

You can't be a Muslim
You can't be an ATheist (you have less chance than a felon, and MUCH less chance than Larry Craig).

Romney emphasised his Christian bona fides because HE HAD TO to get elected

while mentioning the word Mormon just once.

BTW: it is ignorant prejudice to vote against any candidate BECAUSE he is a Mormon.

Mr. Romney made a fairly good political-religious speech seeking the support of religious Republicans in 2008. Sen. Kennedy made an excellent politcal-legal speech explaining Article VI and Amendment I of our Constitution for all time.

Do we really live in a country where we are free to worship as we please?
I believe we need to look past Mitt Romneys religion and more at the success he has had in business, The Salt Lake Olympics and in government. There were many in JFK's time that criticized the Catholic church. I have attended many churches and there is good in each one. But I am also sure that we could find fault in each one also. I think it is like "ART"-we each have our own "taste in Art"-but does that make it wrong?
America is in trouble...can we afford NOT to have Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States?
Please visit- http://evangelicalsformitt.org/ and see for yourself that even some Evangelicals know Mitt can do the job-AND DO IT WELL.

Sally, great comment you made on MSNBC after Mitt's speech. It was expertly ignored by Chris and Joe.

Well not many posts are responding to the title of this thread so instead of telling Mitt the Mormon what he should have said, here are some questions he should have answered. Thank you to Stan Green for posing these questions along with other thoughts and comments here http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/590893.aspx?ArticleID=2179404

"Do you believe the Mormon scriptures and what has been reinforced by every so-called "prophet" of the Mormon church, that black skin is a curse from God for being descended from an evil race of people?"

"Do you believe that Joseph's Myth was, what he said he was, the greatest man who ever walked the face of the earth, save Jesus Christ himself, despite the fact that he was also a serial rapist, a pedophile, a convicted con-man and had sex with other men's wives? If the current Profit asked to have sex with your wife would you let him like Joseph Smith's followers did back in his day?"

"Do you believe that you will become a God someday? Did you really swear an oath in the temple to devote all of your might mind and strength to building up Zion (the Mormon church) or slit your throat and spill your bowels on the ground if you ever revealed the covenants you took in the temple?"

"Mr. Romney, you say that there is not freedom without religion and no religion without freedom, what about freedom from religion? Shouldn't those of us who favor a secular government, like the framers of the US constitution, be allowed to enjoy the freedom from religion, which they established? In Other Words, will you be able to represent the interests of the the millions of Atheists, Deists, Pantheists and Agnostic Americans, or will it just be the "Christians" you consider Americans?"

Regards

Andy
London, UK

I watched the commentary by Ms Quinn and Mr. Meacham this evening on the Charlie Rose show and questioned the intent of Ms Quinn as she delivered her prepared diatribe.

I had no knowledge of her background and so the wikipedia representation of her gave me some insight. She is a profound a-theist. And not to put to fine a point on it, instead of being anti-Christ, she would consider herself anti-God.

She mentioned that Mormons are secretive. She said that you cannot go into their temples to see the things they do but then tried to quote an "oath" that is supposedly taken in the temple. Where did she get that?

Did it ever occur to her, I wonder, that instead of being so "secret" that the term describing the activity in a Temple is sacred.

If she were to become worthy she would be allowed entrance "in full faith and fellowship" into the "House of the Lord" where no unclean thing should enter.

Someone has told her what happens in the Temple. That someone had to be a witness of it. Either entering the sacred walls through deception or after an unrepentant bout of sinning was not allowed back in and turned bitter, this informer has disclosed sacred things, not secret ones. And as the person who pays their tithe openly "to be seen of men", they shall have their reward.

They say that there are no athiests in foxholes. I say that there are no atheists without their own God(s) to whom they give their devotions.

Romney's speach illustrates perfectly the problem of the Mormon religion with respect to mainstream America. It seems Mormonism must really be one of the private religions of America and cannot have a powerful public influence let alone threaten separation of church and state.

Romney's speach demonstrates that for Mormonism to try to have a more profound and public influence it must essentially be watered down--in fact lose its eccentricities and be virtually indistinguishable from a generic Christianity.

If Romney is sincere in his speech he is not a Mormon but a typical Christian American. If he is insincere in his speech and truly believes in the eccentricities of Mormonism, and of course is merely watering down his speech, he is not only fighting a losing battle, Mormonism will be thrust in the spotlight as never before and be in a truly make or break situation and it will be cast over the public mind in such a way that virtually every Mormon will have to choose whether to be Mormon or come within the fold of one of the traditional Christian denominations.

Being a Catholic or Protestant or Jew is much easier because they seem much more compatible with a generic American religious life and also have a deep tradition which makes an oscillation between a deep private belief and general public admission as natural as breathing.

Mormonism on the other hand seems to depend inordinately on its eccentricities which makes a clash between it and other religions and the American public sphere. It has to depend on its eccentricities to be Mormonism and not other Christian denominations, but this just makes it more fragile and doomed to be private rather than public--and in fact doomed all the more the more it tries to cast itself over the public sphere.

I would not vote for Romney because we certainly do not need a man in office with just another conflict on top of all the conflicting issues which permeate the soul of American life. Do I really have to point out all the contradictions we live with every day? Do we really on top of everything else have to struggle with whether the tenets of Mormonism should be something we should turn to? Our problems are enough. We need a man with a mind firmly impressed on the main issues and with the will and intellect to solve them.

That man is not Mitt Romney.

Thomas & Ross,

1- I havent qouted the exact words but more or less the same expresion.

2- One better speak upon evidence and not upon personal opinion. Read both the books and evaluate your self which is human/satan handy work keep on changing taking out lies/ incorrect maths/information and which is divine unchanged/correct?
And ask your self does God lies and decieve or satan????

3- I would also expect your answer to my questions in this post and previous???

Thomas Baum,

I don't mind your language because by now I came to conclusion that it is common norm in west, false accusations and slinging dirt on others IGNORING CONCRETE PROOFS.
And now in reply to your post: BRINGING PROOF FROM YOUR OWN BIBLE BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN IT SO YOU NEED IT TO VARIFY,
AS MUSLIMS PROOF AND WHAT WE BELIEVE IS QURAN.

Lies or Truth: Evidence speaks for it self.

1- There is not a single verse in ANY VERSION of Bible where Jesus (A.S) said, worship me OR I'm god. Instead he said,” I speak what I hear from father”, “My Father is greater than me."

2- Again word "Trinity" is not mentioned in ANY VERSION of the Bible. The closest verse to trinity that,” Father, Holy Ghost & spirit is one" is thrown out in your REVISED VERSION on Bible. As all your high priests said,” It was a concoction, fabrication, addition, a lie in the Bible, as no such verse is found in the most ancient scriptures".
So please ask your own priests who is lying and fabricating??????

3-We Muslims FOLLOW more in Jesus (A.S) commandments then you Christians:

(You say, you love Jesus (A.S.), but you disobey his every commandment).

4-From Adam to Jesus (PBUT) MENTIONED IN YOUR BIBLE, all prophets when prayed to God, they prostrated like we Muslims.
Do you follow Jesus, how to pray?

5- In ALL Bibles more than 3 times Jesus said swine-pig in forbidden to eat. We Muslims follow him, but you Christians follow PAUL and disobey Jesus (A.S.) commandments.

6- More than 4 occasions in ALL Bibles Jesus (A.S) told wine has bad attributes on the humans. But Paul quotes the "FIRST MIRACLE OF JESUS" and since then wine is flowing like water in Christendom and NOT AT ALL in Muslimdom. (Bible said water tasted like wine and never said turned into wine).

7- Jesus said," I came to keep all the commandments of the God and not to break them". But you Christians broke EACH AND EVERY of them.
Hale-aluu-Yaa to Church, Paul, Mathew, John and Luke!!!!!

8-According to Christian Bible first miracle of Jesus (A.S.) was turning water taste like wine and recovering the shortage in the gathering. But according to Quran the first miracle of Jesus was talking to Jews when he was infant in his mother’s arms.

When after birth, Mary came:
9-According to the BIBLE she told the Jews that she hear voices and then had a child birth. Do you believe your daughter or sister, if she come and tell you she had birth after hearing voices? Do you think when she had told that to the Jews, they would have believed it???
But Quran tells that the Jews accused her, she knows that Jesus (A.S) was the miraculous birth. So she told the Jews ask the infant. And miraculously Jesus (A.S) talked to them and told them to be nice and respectful to my mother as she is among the highest of the pious. Quran gives highest respect to Mary, even there is a complete chapter by her name in Quran. You have chapters named by Mathew, Luke, John or lying Paul and many others but not a single by his mothers name Mary.
Which version would you like to tell to your children, HEARING VOICES AND GETTING PRAGNANT or MIRACULOUS TALK????

10-Christians says Jesus (A.S) was the BEGOTTEN SON. What are you trying to apply here? So what you are trying to put in all the humans throat is that the All Mighty God who made every thing miraculously from Adam to every thing of this world needs to come done to seed…. (God forgive us for such satanic thinking). Allah tells in Quran that when He wants to do some thing, He just says and it happens. He begets not nor He begotten. Human miracles are not the proof of any kind of divinity. Jesus (A.S) was the prophet like all other prophets with miracles.

11-Christians says Jesus (A.S) get crucified for there sins. And a son of god (not mentioned any where in the Bible he himself never said that). And dozens of Bible verses proving that he was not died through crucifixion. You Christians are also divided about it.
So basically what you are making to swallow us (the whole human race) is that the whole nation rape, kill and do bad atrocities and when brought for justice there King hang his own son instead of punishing them. IT DOES REALLY MAKE SENSE! Hale- alu- Yaa PAUL and the greatest deceiving of the human history.

4- Jesus says “ He is jealous God only pray to Him”. But Christians are eager to make partner to Him. We Muslims only pray to God and don’t make any partners to Him.

So I am asking you a question:

Next time does Jesus (A.S) come to the house of people who are obeying his commandments OR who are TOTALLY disobeying his commandments???

I read the prepared text of the speech in the N.Y. Times and did not listen to it. Here was my immediate reaction as written on another blog site:

The only remark in Romney's speech with which I agreed 100 percent was "We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny." What I take from that bit of text is not what Romeny meant. But there are plenty of eager, would-be theocrats who would be delighted to impose tyranny over all Americans, and most of these theocrats are not Muslims.

What I find most noteworthy in Romney's speech is not the cherry-picking of various vague concessions to relgious feeling in the writings or speeches of John Adams and other Founding Fathers, or the distorted picture Romney paints of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, or even his hypocritical citation of the prohibition of religious tests (Please recall Romney's statement to a Florida GOP group, in February of this year, that a "person of faith" is needed "to lead this country" -- with the clear implication that a person who has no religious faith is unqualified to be President).

No, the most noteworthy feature of Romney's speech is the complete absence of even a small crumb of a concession to the millions, if not tens of millions, of Americans who are non-believers, or fence-sitters, most of whom are as sickened as I am by Romney's speech today and the mentality (If I may stretch that word perhaps too charitably) behind it.

Romney could have said that Americans who have no religious belief are as fully American as any other. But he didn't. And I assume this was an intentional omission by a guy who certainly has the most business smarts of all the Republican candidates.

BTW, Maybe Romney orally added that "those who believe and those who don't" can vote for a candidate who's best for America, etc., but it's not in the prepared text of his speech, and even if Romney added a token reference to "those who don't [believe]," it's hardly an acknowledgement that we atheists are also Americans.

I hope (but without much confidence, and certainly without "faith") that in about 5 years, enough Americans will vocally declare themselves to be sick enough of all of this shallow god-talk that elected officials and political candidates (many, many of whom are closeted atheists or fear-stricken "believers in belief") will drop the pretense, stop the pandering, and let us have our First Amendment back.

Appreciated Jon Meacham's points tonight on Charlie Rose:

Romney's exclusion of "non-believers" was somewhat out of line with the founding principles and therefore disappointing.

The real "test" is whether American's can be true to the founding principles and not reject somebody on the basis of their faith.

I think the speech was good enough to put this to rest, and Romney will likely win the republican nomination. Giuliani is too "wild and crazy" a guy for Republican sensibilities and Huckabee faces fiscal challenges and is playing his Christianity card too strongly.

Darden Cavalcade
Romney may be a embarrassment to " tens of thousands of them" but to the other 11 and a half million LDS followers, we look at him with pride, proud that someone like him can stand in the spotlight and show true character. The church leaders don't present personal opinion to church followers, they simply say to vote on what your heart tells you.

I would not have voted for Romney anyway but I can't understand how anybody can believe today's speach was anything but pandering to the evangelical religious right. That was quite a tightrope he walked: pandering to this scarily influencial force while at the same time trying to appear sincere in his own religious beliefs. Personally, I was disgusted by this speech. Freedom requires religion? Really? How about those of us who have strong moral convictions, love our country and have deep faith - in peace, in justice, in truth and in freedom- and who are not religious? Who, in fact, believe religion has no place in government?

The Church of Jesus Christ is by far and away the one true Christian Church on the face of the earth. I grew up a baptist and played basketball for a Methodist college,and 14 years ago I joined the Church. None of us get payed, we are a lay church. Did anyone ever notice how happy we are? Look in anyones eyes of another faith and you will not see the glow we have. The people who haven't read the reformed gospel as well as the Old and New Testament, are the Infedel and the Gentiles. My God bless George Will, he hasen't a clue. As we go foward most all go backward. Merry Christmas

The Church of Jesus Christ is by far and away the one true Christian Church on the face of the earth. I grew up a baptist and played basketball for a Methodist college,and 14 years ago I joined the Church. None of us get payed, we are a lay church. Did anyone ever notice how happy we are? Look in anyones eyes of another faith and you will not see the glow we have. The people who haven't read the reformed gospel as well as the Old and New Testament, are the Infedel and the Gentiles. My God bless George Will, he hasen't a clue. As we go foward most all go backward. Merry Christmas

The Church of Jesus Christ is by far and away the one true Christian Church on the face of the earth. I grew up a baptist and played basketball for a Methodist college,and 14 years ago I joined the Church. None of us get payed, we are a lay church. Did anyone ever notice how happy we are? Look in anyones eyes of another faith and you will not see the glow we have. The people who haven't read the reformed gospel as well as the Old and New Testament, are the Infedel and the Gentiles. My God bless George Will, he hasen't a clue. As we go foward most all go backward. Merry Christmas

i liked this statement by romney (im not voting for him)

" A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

Thanks, Sally, for your comment at the end of the
MSNBC coverage. I am a Buddhist and feel left out
of the discussion entirely by those who compete for the Religous Right votes.

'Don't jump,' said the christian to the man on the ledge. 'Think of your wife and children.' 'I don't have a wife and children,' said the man. 'Well think of your parents, then.' 'My parents are dead.' 'Then think of Jesus.' 'Who's Jesus ?' 'Jump, you bas****... .. .

Correction: I meant to say that Jesus WILL NOT be voting in this election.

Sally I was watching the speech and also heard you speak up for those of us who are non-believers. I am not sure what Victoria N is referring to his speech but I heard what Andy heard. That freedom REQUIRES religion. So are we non-believers not entitled to freedom?

Let's give religion a break now for this political campaign. Jesus is voting in this election and we need to get off this bandwagon.

cavalcade- click on onfaith panelsits in the upper corner-
thats a list of the panelists here
not all panelists choose to repsond to questions

With the exception of Dr. Marty's article, I was disappointed with the quality of your panelists' remarks. One had his panties in a twist because Romney's speech on his personal faith as a Mormon didn't address seven ancillary and largely irrelevant issues. One adapted 1500 words from one of his books on the faith of Latinos. The fourth...well, it still baffles me what his point was.

Are there no women spiritual leaders whom you could have asked to comment? No blacks? No Muslims? No atheists? Are we to understand that spirituality, christianity, and religion as interpreted on this site are the exclusive province of males and whites in particular?

What did other Mormons think about Romney's speech? His candidacy has been an embarrassment to tens of thousands of them. Do you suppose they might have wanted space to write?

How about waking up!

With the exception of Dr. Marty's article, I was disappointed with the quality of your panelists' remarks. One had his panties in a twist because Romney's speech on his personal faith as a Mormon didn't address seven ancillary and largely irrelevant issues. One adapted 1500 words from one of his books on the faith of Latinos. The fourth...well it still baffles me what his point was.

Are there no women spiritual leaders whom you could have asked to comment? No blacks? No Muslims? No atheists? Are we to understand that spirituality, christianity, and religion as interpreted on this site are the exclusive province of males and whites in particular?

What did other Mormons think about Romney's speech? His candidacy has been an embarrassment to tens of thousands of them. Do you suppose they might have wanted space to write?

How about waking up!

To preserve the good life for Americans be at an high cost for all other nations their people's. American people's live in an bubble of illusion far removed from reality, an illusion endlessly supported by USA Media, as the movie industry. Truth being, The land of the free, Defenders of democracy, all but utter nonsense. The Political speeches but to please the religious fanatics in getting their vote, while state that Government seperate from religion, that law not being made on religious beliefs. ( Such be known as to have one's cake and eat it.) For the USA contiueing living the good life, all Americans have closed eyes, as ears, to reality, of having plundered the planet, where they having left an trail of appalling death destruction . Where Internatial law being abandoned, it seems as ISRAEL the USA having the God given right, backed with Military Power to behave as please... .. .

thats a pretty large supposition

all i had to do was borrow from ms nikolovs post-

""Those who believe and those who don't" could support a candidate according to what's best for America, according to the Constitution."

the purose of his speech was to define his own religious stance and more importantly how it would affect or not affect his policy making and decision making capacity.

i think he accomplished that

there are other ways to construe that

freedom requires religion to be represntative of all
(as the overwhelming statistics in america claim that most americans consider themselves relgious or believers in god)

or maybe to him personally, freedo requires religion

i think his reference to non-believers trumped such a supposition being made

Thank you Sally Quinn.

I was watching and listening to Mr. Romney on NBC and was just thinking about the concept of seperation of church and state. The very next clip was of you mentioning the same point.

Perhaps we are the only 2 who remember.

I don't care whether Romney is a Mormon, Presbyterian, Hindu, or any other person of faith. What offended me about his speech was that he thinks freedom and religion are necessary counterparts. He actually said that freedom requires religion. So if you're not religious you can't enjoy freedom?!? That's nonsensical. It's also insulting to the millions of people who seem perfectly capable of living moral, upstanding, freedom-loving lives that don't include religion.

Romney fundamentally misconstrued what it means to have freedom of religion in this country. Romney seems to think that the premise behind that principle is that everyone in America is religious, and thus nobody should get to dictate which particular brand of religion is the right one. But whether individual citizens practice a faith or not is irrelevant. This country was not founded on religion and does not need religion to survive. Romney tried to justify his creed by comparing the US to Europe, where, he noted, the great cathedrals are now largely empty. But that's a completely circular and self-serving rationale. I'm not sure how pointing to a continent that is less religious proves that we need more religion in our lives.

JFK himself said:
"Let us remember that the Mormons of a century ago were a persecuted and prosecuted minority, harried from place to place, the victims of violence and occasionally murder, while today, in the short space of 100 years, their faith and works are known and respected the world around, and their voices heard in the highest councils of this country.
As the Mormons succeeded, so America can succeed, if we will not give up or turn back."
- September 26, 1963

I think Romney did a good job of demonstrating that today.

Dear Ms. Quinn,
I don't know if you really heard the speech. How could you say he left out Atheists? Mr. Romney specifically said that he hoped that in America, "Those who believe and those who don't" could support a candidate according to what's best for America, according to the Constitution. He DID include those who follow any religion and those who may not. His speech was very important to show that he could lead America according to "The Constitution" and NOT according to the "Book of Mormon."
THERE IS ONE RELIGION I KNOW OF, that could not say that they could lead according to any country's Constitution, because the Koran is the only book they must live and rule by. Since it is NOT the Mormons who have that rule, you MUST do your research.

AT LEAST MR. ROMNEY WOULD BE PRESIDENT FOR "ALL" THE PEOPLE.

Dear Ms. Quinn,
I don't know if you really heard the speech. How could you say he left out Atheists? Mr. Romney specifically said that he hoped that in America, "Those who believe and those who don't" could support a candidate according to what's best for America, according to the Constitution. He DID include those who follow any religion and those who may not. His speech was very important to show that he could lead America according to "The Constitution" and NOT according to the "Book of Mormon."
THERE IS ONE RELIGION I KNOW OF, that could not say that they could lead according to any country's Constitution, because the Koran is the only book they must live and rule by. Since it is NOT the Mormons who have that rule, you MUST do your research.

AT LEAST MR. ROMNEY WOULD BE PRESIDENT FOR "ALL" THE PEOPLE.

Dear Ms. Quinn,
I don't know if you really heard the speech. How could you say he left out Atheists? Mr. Romney specifically said that he hoped that in America, "Those who believe and those who don't" could support a candidate according to what's best for America, according to the Constitution. He DID include those who follow any religion and those who may not. His speech was very important to show that he could lead America according to "The Constitution" and NOT according to the "Book of Mormon."
THERE IS ONE RELIGION I KNOW OF, that could not say that they could lead according to any country's Constitution, because the Koran is the only book they must live and rule by. Since it is NOT the Mormons who have that rule, you MUST do your research.

AT LEAST MR. ROMNEY WOULD BE PRESIDENT FOR "ALL" THE PEOPLE.

Dear Ms. Quinn,
I don't know if you really heard the speech. How could you say he left out Athiests? Mr. Romney specifically said that he hoped that in America, "Those who believe and those who don't" could support a candidate according to what's best for America, according to the Constitution. He DID included those who follow any religion and those who may not. His speech was very important to show that he could lead America according to "The Constitution" and NOT according to the "Book of Morman."
THERE IS ONE RELIGION I KNOW OF, that could not say that they could lead according to any country's Constitution, because the Koran is the only book they must live and rule by. Since it is NOT the Mormans who have that rule, you MUST do your research.

AT LEAST MR. ROMNEY WOULD BE PRESIDENT FOR "ALL" THE PEOPLE.

Wow! Well done Mitt Romney.... !!!