I am someone with 'no particular faith' and until this moment I had not even thought that I might ever be barred from participating in an interfaith movement or organization. My perception of interfaith movements (such as Interfaith Youth Core) is that they are built on the objectives of creating peace and building bridges. I am glad to see, Mr. Patel, that you acknowledge the value of the contribution that people who have no religion can bring to the table. Although I belong to no religious group I strive to learn what I can about different faiths and am looking forward to my upcoming work in an Islamic country.

It is disappointing that Romney alienated and attacked atheists, but it doesn't surprise me as a political strategy. I'm quite sure that this was his intention. It is clearly linked to his need to maintain his voters.

Once more, a man of faith offers a commentary that skirts the fundamental issue at the heart of the role of religion, not just in America, but in the lives of all human beings. Mr. Patel even throws a sop at the issue, as if to let us know that he knows it exists, and then quickly runs away from it.

I refer to the fundamental question of whether religion is needed at all as the source of morality. Mr. Patel gives it a back-handed recognition with his one-sentence dismissal of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Let me try to summarize Mr. Patel's viewpoint. He recognizes the self-evident: there are many different religions on this planet. Each of them--certainly the major ones like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--claim that it is the only path to salvation. Each claims that it, and only it, represents God's will on earth and his plans for eternity. That raises an obvious problem. The adherents of each religion must view the adherents of the others as enemies. God himself decrees that one is right and all the others wrong. There must be a winner and losers. This establishes a dynamic that inevitably leads to conflict, as history well shows. But good people like Mr. Patel do not like conflict. They prefer to appeal to the better angels of our nature. So, Mr. Patel does what? He establishes an interfaith council to promote interfaith cooperation. In sum, Mr. Patel, in the name of religion, establishes a movement to attempt to wring out of religious believers the basic beliefs of their religions--so they can learn to live together in peace and harmony, which--according to Mr. Patel--is what religion is all about to begin with.

And Mr. Patel is apparently perplexed by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who look at this convoluted thinking and ask the logical question--what the hell is this all about? If, in the end, being good means being inspired by inspiration rather than doctrine; if it means upholding the moral principles that are at the heart of America; if it values religious pluralism over religious exclusivity; if being good values tolerance over intolerance--then why do not human beings go directly there and eliminate the middleman--religion--that is antithetical to all the above? Why don't we just become tolerant, moral people self-inspired to do good--without first acquiring a religion that works against all that and then having to establish an interfaith movement to get us back on the right path?

While evading this central issue, Mr. Patel shows his naivete on specific points. He is shocked, shocked to discover that Mitt Romney not only failed to include atheists in his circle of tolerance but went out of his way to pick a fight with them. Oh, gee. Once more, we only have to look just beneath the surface of the tolerant words of a reputed man of faith to discover his bigotry and bias toward groups that don't agree with him. For Mr. Patel, not a major defect, just a minor flaw. After all, Mitt Romney is a Believer, and he mouths platitudes quite well--how could he be seriously defective?

Mr. Patel ignores the consensus of other commentators on Romney's speech. Romney did not address the American people to convince them that he was not a religious fanatic. He addressed Christian fundamentalists to convince them that he is every bit as much of a fanatic as they are. Mr. Patel's failure to recognize that fact raises doubts about the depth of his thinking on this issue.

Once more, a man of faith offers a commentary that skirts the fundamental issue at the heart of the role of religion, not just in America, but in the lives of all human beings. Mr. Patel even throws a sop at the issue, as if to let us know that he knows it exists, and then quickly runs away from it.

I refer to the fundamental question of whether religion is needed at all as the source of morality. Mr. Patel gives it a back-handed recognition with his one-sentence dismissal of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Let me try to summarize Mr. Patel's viewpoint. He recognizes the self-evident: there are many different religions on this planet. Each of them--certainly the major ones like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--claim that it is the only path to salvation. Each claims that it, and only it, represents God's will on earth and his plans for eternity. That raises an obvious problem. The adherents of each religion must view the adherents of the others as enemies. God himself decrees that one is right and all the others wrong. There must be a winner and losers. This establishes a dynamic that inevitably leads to conflict, as history well shows. But good people like Mr. Patel do not like conflict. They prefer to appeal to the better angels of our nature. So, Mr. Patel does what? He establishes an interfaith council to promote interfaith cooperation. In sum, Mr. Patel, in the name of religion, establishes a movement to attempt to wring out of religious believers the basic beliefs of their religions--so they can learn to live together in peace and harmony, which--according to Mr. Patel--is what religion is all about to begin with.

And Mr. Patel is apparently perplexed by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who look at this convoluted thinking and ask the logical question--what the hell is this all about? If, in the end, being good means being inspired by inspiration rather than doctrine; if it means upholding the moral principles that are at the heart of America; if it values religious pluralism over religious exclusivity; if being good values tolerance over intolerance--then why do not human beings go directly there and eliminate the middleman--religion--that is antithetical to all the above? Why don't we just become tolerant, moral people self-inspired to do good--without first acquiring a religion that works against all that and then having to establish an interfaith movement to get us back on the right path?

While evading this central issue, Mr. Patel shows his naivete on specific points. He is shocked, shocked to discover that Mitt Romney not only failed to include atheists in his circle of tolerance but went out of his way to pick a fight with them. Oh, gee. Once more, we only have to look just beneath the surface of the tolerant words of a reputed man of faith to discover his bigotry and bias toward groups that don't agree with him. For Mr. Patel, not a major defect, just a minor flaw. After all, Mitt Romney is a Believer, and he mouths platitudes quite well--how could he be seriously defective?

Mr. Patel ignores the consensus of other commentators on Romney's speech. Romney did not address the American people to convince them that he was not a religious fanatic. He addressed Christian fundamentalists to convince them that he is every bit as much of a fanatic as they are. Mr. Patel's failure to recognize that fact raises doubts about the depth of his thinking on this issue.

Excuse me, but you know and I know that Mitt Romney is not a Christian. The Book of Mormon is nothing more than sexist, racist cult material, made up by a human being, with human needs and feelings, those being lust and hatred. I do understand that for the times, racism was at an all time high, hatred of slaves permeated society, so Joseph Smith's demonizaiton of Africans is understandable. But no matter what Mormons say, it is still part of their doctrine and beliefs, so they are still racists. God and Christ had nothing whatsoever to do with this so called "religion", and I am incredibly shocked that evangelicals have taken him and his beliefs in. They should be more versed than I in the teachings of the bible and what God has to say about not having any other god's before him, he being a jealous god himself. I simply don't understand the willingness of these so called learned evangelicals to accept the Book of Mormon, a tome so blasphemous as to send one straight to the depths of hell for merely considering it. I don't understand why they don't rebuke Mormons for their cult religion, or rebuke it as thing of Satan himself, and I surely don't understand you for agreeing with this cult mess. I don't even understand why our scholar theologians don't come forward to state that this is a cult religion and not of God and an abomination before him. Where are our scholars on this? Why don't they speak out against this religious cult, out it for what it really is, a hoax and a pox on mankind? Satan's got their tongues and blinded them to this crock of religion, and that's all right. It just means that I will not be on the planet Kolob, or any other planet for that matter, that I will be in heaven with my father and my lord and savior Jesus Christ. And I will be a good Christian and tell you this; believe only that Jesus is lord and master, accept him only, and no other before him, and you are saved. If you accept Romney's religious beliefs, then I feel sorry for you. Do his religious beliefs make him unfit for the office of the presidency? For me they make him all that is undesirable because he is full of racial hate and prejudice, and nothing can convince me that he is not. Mormon faith states that Satan is a black man, and that black people are demon followers of Satan. Those are inherent beliefs of that faith, and since they haven't changed, then Mitt Romney, a race hater, is unfit to become president. If I am wrong, or incorrect, then you may rebuke me, but as usual, I don't see any discussion of what should be the real point and examination, The Book Of Mormon and how it all came to be. This should be the real discussion which you have all, heretofore, avoided. Until we can discuss this, then all else is really in vain, isn't it? You will continue to enable this man and his "religion" as if nothing is wrong, and that is the problem. By the way, I am black, but I don't feel like the demon that I supposedly am.

Excuse me, but you know and I know that Mitt Romney is not a Christian. The Book of Mormon is nothing more than sexist, racist cult material, made up by a human being, with human needs and feelings, those being lust and hatred. I do understand that for the times, racism was at an all time high, hatred of slaves permeated society, so Joseph Smith's demonizaiton of Africans is understandable. But no matter what Mormons say, it is still part of their doctrine and beliefs, so they are still racists. God and Christ had nothing whatsoever to do with this so called "religion", and I am incredibly shocked that evangelicals have taken him and his beliefs in. They should be more versed than I in the teachings of the bible and what God has to say about not having any other god's before him, he being a jealous god himself. I simply don't understand the willingness of these so called learned evangelicals to accept the Book of Mormon, a tome so blasphemous as to send one straight to the depths of hell for merely considering it. I don't understand why they don't rebuke Mormons for their cult religion, or rebuke it as thing of Satan himself, and I surely don't understand you for agreeing with this cult mess. I don't even understand why our scholar theologians don't come forward to state that this is a cult religion and not of God and an abomination before him. Where are our scholars on this? Why don't they speak out against this religious cult, out it for what it really is, a hoax and a pox on mankind? Satan's got their tongues and blinded them to this crock of religion, and that's all right. It just means that I will not be on the planet Kolob, or any other planet for that matter, that I will be in heaven with my father and my lord and savior Jesus Christ. And I will be a good Christian and tell you this; believe only that Jesus is lord and master, accept him only, and no other before him, and you are saved. If you accept Romney's religious beliefs, then I feel sorry for you. Do his religious beliefs make him unfit for the office of the presidency? For me they make him all that is undesirable because he is full of racial hate and prejudice, and nothing can convince me that he is not. Mormon faith states that Satan is a black man, and that black people are demon followers of Satan. Those are inherent beliefs of that faith, and since they haven't changed, then Mitt Romney, a race hater, is unfit to become president. If I am wrong, or incorrect, then you may rebuke me, but as usual, I don't see any discussion of what should be the real point and examination, The Book Of Mormon and how it all came to be. This should be the real discussion which you have all, heretofore, avoided. Until we can discuss this, then all else is really in vain, isn't it? You will continue to enable this man and his "religion" as if nothing is wrong, and that is the problem. By the way, I am black, but I don't feel like the demon that I supposedly am.

Once more, a man of faith offers a commentary that skirts the fundamental issue at the heart of the role of religion, not just in America, but in the lives of all human beings. Mr. Patel even throws a sop at the issue, as if to let us know that he knows it exists, and then quickly runs away from it.

I refer to the fundamental question of whether religion is needed at all as the source of morality. Mr. Patel gives it a back-handed recognition with his one-sentence dismissal of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Let me try to summarize Mr. Patel's viewpoint. He recognizes the self-evident: there are many different religions on this planet. Each of them--certainly the major ones like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--claim that it is the only path to salvation. Each claims that it, and only it, represents God's will on earth and his plans for eternity. That raises an obvious problem. The adherents of each religion must view the adherents of the others as enemies. God himself decrees that one is right and all the others wrong. There must be a winner and losers. This establishes a dynamic that inevitably leads to conflict, as history well shows. But good people like Mr. Patel do not like conflict. They prefer to appeal to the better angels of our nature. So, Mr. Patel does what? He establishes an interfaith council to promote interfaith cooperation. In sum, Mr. Patel, in the name of religion, establishes a movement to attempt to wring out of religious believers the basic beliefs of their religions--so they can learn to live together in peace and harmony, which--according to Mr. Patel--is what religion is all about to begin with.

And Mr. Patel is apparently perplexed by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who look at this convoluted thinking and ask the logical question--what the hell is this all about? If, in the end, being good means being inspired by inspiration rather than doctrine; if it means upholding the moral principles that are at the heart of America; if it values religious pluralism over religious exclusivity; if being good values tolerance over intolerance--then why do not human beings go directly there and eliminate the middleman--religion--that is antithetical to all the above? Why don't we just become tolerant, moral people self-inspired to do good--without first acquiring a religion that works against all that and then having to establish an interfaith movement to get us back on the right path?

While evading this central issue, Mr. Patel shows his naivete on specific points. He is shocked, shocked to discover that Mitt Romney not only failed to include atheists in his circle of tolerance but went out of his way to pick a fight with them. Oh, gee. Once more, we only have to look just beneath the surface of the tolerant words of a reputed man of faith to discover his bigotry and bias toward groups that don't agree with him. For Mr. Patel, not a major defect, just a minor flaw. After all, Mitt Romney is a Believer, and he mouths platitudes quite well--how could he be seriously defective?

Mr. Patel ignores the consensus of other commentators on Romney's speech. Romney did not address the American people to convince them that he is not a religious fanatic. He addressed Christian fundamentalists to convince them that he is every bit as much of a fanatic as they are. Mr. Patel's failure to recognize that fact raises doubts about the depth of his thinking on this issue.

Once more, a man of faith offers a commentary that skirts the fundamental issue at the heart of the role of religion, not just in America, but in the lives of all human beings. Mr. Patel even throws a sop at the issue, as if to let us know that he knows it exists, and then quickly runs away from it.

I refer to the fundamental question of whether religion is needed at all as the source of morality. Mr. Patel gives it a back-handed recognition with his one-sentence dismissal of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Let me try to summarize Mr. Patel's viewpoint. He recognizes the self-evident: there are many different religions on this planet. Each of them--certainly the major ones like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--claim that it is the only path to salvation. Each claims that it, and only it, represents God's will on earth and his plans for eternity. That raises an obvious problem. The adherents of each religion must view the adherents of the others as enemies. God himself decrees that one is right and all the others wrong. There must be a winner and losers. This establishes a dynamic that inevitably leads to conflict, as history well shows. But good people like Mr. Patel do not like conflict. They prefer to appeal to the better angels of our nature. So, Mr. Patel does what? He establishes an interfaith council to promote interfaith cooperation. In sum, Mr. Patel, in the name of religion, establishes a movement to attempt to wring out of religious believers the basic beliefs of their religions--so they can learn to live together in peace and harmony, which--according to Mr. Patel--is what religion is all about to begin with.

And Mr. Patel is apparently perplexed by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who look at this convoluted thinking and ask the logical question--what the hell is this all about? If, in the end, being good means being inspired by inspiration rather than doctrine; if it means upholding the moral principles that are at the heart of America; if it values religious pluralism over religious exclusivity; if being good values tolerance over intolerance--then why do not human beings go directly there and eliminate the middleman--religion--that is antithetical to all the above? Why don't we just become tolerant, moral people self-inspired to do good--without first acquiring a religion that works against all that and then having to establish an interfaith movement to get us back on the right path?

While evading this central issue, Mr. Patel shows his naivete on specific points. He is shocked, shocked to discover that Mitt Romney not only failed to include atheists in his circle of tolerance but went out of his way to pick a fight with them. Oh, gee. Once more, we only have to look just beneath the surface of the tolerant words of a reputed man of faith to discover his bigotry and bias toward groups that don't agree with him. For Mr. Patel, not a major defect, just a minor flaw. After all, Mitt Romney is a Believer, and he mouths platitudes quite well--how could he be seriously defective?

Mr. Patel ignores the consensus of other commentators on Romney's speech. Romney did not address the American people to convince them that he is not a religious fanatic. He addressed Christian fundamentalists to convince them that he is every bit as much of a fanatic as they are. Mr. Patel's failure to recognize that fact raises doubts about the depth of his thinking on this issue.

Once more, a man of faith offers a commentary that skirts the fundamental issue at the heart of the role of religion, not just in America, but in the lives of all human beings. Mr. Patel even throws a sop at the issue, as if to let us know that he knows it exists, and then quickly runs away from it.

I refer to the fundamental question of whether religion is needed at all as the source of morality. Mr. Patel gives it a back-handed recognition with his one-sentence dismissal of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Let me try to summarize Mr. Patel's viewpoint. He recognizes the self-evident truth: there are many different religions on this planet. Each of them--certainly the major ones like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--claim that it is the only path to salvation. Each claims that it, and only it, represents God's will on earth and his plans for eternity. That raises an obvious problem. The adherents of each religion must view the adherents of the others as enemies. God himself decrees that one is right and all the others wrong. There must be a winner and losers. This establishes a dynamic that inevitably leads to conflict, as history well shows. But good people like Mr. Patel do not like conflict. They prefer to appeal to the better angels of our nature. So, Mr. Patel does what? He establishes an interfaith council to promote interfaith cooperation. In sum, Mr. Patel, in the name of religion, establishes a movement to attempt to wring out of religious believers the basic beliefs of their religions--so they can learn to live together in peace and harmony, which--according to Mr. Patel--is what religion is all about to begin with.

And Mr. Patel is apparently perplexed by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who look at this convoluted thinking and ask the logical question--what the hell is this all about? If, in the end, being good means being inspired by inspiration rather than doctrine; if it means upholding the moral principles that are at the heart of America; if it values religious pluralism over religious exclusivity; if being good values tolerance over intolerance--then why do not human beings go directly there and eliminate the middleman--religion--that is antithetical to all the above? Why don't we just become tolerant, moral people self-inspired to do good--without first acquiring a religion that works against all that and then having to establish an interfaith movement to get us back on the right path?

While evading this central issue, Mr. Patel shows his naivete on specific points. He is shocked, shocked to discover that Mitt Romney not only failed to include atheists in his circle of tolerance but went out of his way to pick a fight with them. Oh, gee. Once more, we only have to look just beneath the surface of the tolerant words of a reputed man of faith to discover his bigotry and bias toward groups that don't agree with him. For Mr. Patel, not a major defect, just a minor flaw. After all, Mitt Romney is a Believer and mouths platitudes quite well--how could he be seriously defective?

Mr. Patel ignores the consensus of other commentators on Romney's speech. Romney did not address the American people to convince them that he was not a religious fanatic. He addressed Christian fundamentalists to convince them that he is every bit as much of a fanatic as they are. Mr. Patel's failure to recognize that fact raises doubts about the depth of his thinking on this issue.

"Mr. Romney may be a mega wealthy businessman and a successful politician with a Mr. Rogers air, but he is from a faith community that nearly 50% of Americans view unfavorably. That he has made it this far in public life in America says something very positive about him and this country."

No, it doesn't, Mr. Patel.

It says how far an SOB can get with money behind him while pandering to religious fanatics who may grumble about Mormonism, but still demand queer and non Judeo-Christian people suffer.

'Tolerance' to the Right wing is, 'Everyone is free to worship my god as they please, unless they aren't a liberal about it.'

Nothing new here. Christians are always tearing at each other. The rest of us wonder about the sects and try to live.

Gods help us if that becomes America, too.

Mr. Patel: I enjoyed your article. I felt largely the same way you did about the speech. The use of the term "Radical Islam" or "Islamic Terrorists," which several of the Republican candidates use frequently, bothers me: it is too broad of a term. Nor do I like the term "Jihadist," since it only focuses on one aspect of a term that is spiritually very meaningful to many peaceful Muslims. Also, Romney's comments on secularists seemed a little too broadly condemning. I wasn't sure if he was suggesting that those who seek to establish secularism as an established "state religion" are wrong or if secularism itself is inherently wrong. If the former, I agree; if the latter, I disagree, since I feel people should be free to beleive or disbelieve, and that right ought to be protected. Whatever he meant, most have interepretted it to be the latter.

But other than those points, I was impressed with the speech. I thought Romney was wise not to go into specifics about Mormon theology. As a Mormon myself, I am not at all embarrassed about my faith, but I agree that Romney does not need to become a spokesman for Mormonism. If people want to learn about what Mormons beleive, there are plenty of other Mormons beside Romney who would be happy to provide answers. And the increase in the nation's religious literacy would defintely be a good thing. We would all do well to learn a little more about our neighbors, be they Mormon, Muslim, or of any other religious conviction.

Mr. Patel: I enjoyed your article. I felt largely the same way you did about the speech. The use of the term "Radical Islam" or "Islamic Terrorists," which several of the Republican candidates use frequently, bothers me: it is too broad of a term. Nor do I like the term "Jihadist," since it only focuses on one aspect of a term that is spiritually very meaningful to many peaceful Muslims. Also, Romney's comments on secularists seemed a little too broadly condemning. I wasn't sure if he was suggesting that those who seek to establish secularism as an established "state religion" are wrong or if secularism itself is inherently wrong. If the former, I agree; if the latter, I disagree, since I feel people should be free to beleive or disbelieve, and that right ought to be protected. Whatever he meant, most have interepretted it to be the latter.

But other than those points, I was impressed with the speech. I thought Romney was wise not to go into specifics about Mormon theology. As a Mormon myself, I am not at all embarrassed about my faith, but I agree that Romney does not need to become a spokesman for Mormonism. If people want to learn about what Mormons beleive, there are plenty of other Mormons beside Romney who would be happy to provide answers. And the increase in the nation's religious literacy would defintely be a good thing. We would all do well to learn a little more about our neighbors, be they Mormon, Muslim, or of any other religious conviction.

Mr. Patel: I enjoyed your article. I felt largely the same way you did about the speech. The use of the term "Radical Islam" or "Islamic Terrorists"--which many of the Republican candidates use frequently, bothers me; it is too broad of a term. Nor do I like the term "Jihadist," since it only focuses on one aspect of a term that is spiritually very meaningful to many peaceful Muslims. Also, Romney's comments on secularists seemed a little too broadly condemning. I wasn't sure if he was suggesting that those who seek to establish secularism as an established "state religion" are wrong or if secularism itself is inherently wrong. If the former, I agree; if the latter, I disagree, since I feel people should be free to beleive or disbelieve, and that right ought to be protected. Whatever he meant, most have interepretted it to be the latter.

But other than those points, I was impressed with the speech. I thought Romney was wise not to go into specifics about Mormon theology. As a Mormon myself, I am not at all embarrassed about my faith, but I agree that Romney does not need to become a spokesman for Mormonism. If people want to learn about what Mormons beleive, there are plenty of other Mormons beside Romney who would be happy to provide answers. And the increase in the nation's religious literacy would defintely be a good thing. We would all do well to learn a little more about our neighbors, be they Mormon, Muslim, or of any other religious conviction.

++++++
It is a role that guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere.
++++++

Eboo, this is a caricature. What they recognize is that as much as liberals would like to erect a disconnect between liberal religion and fundamentalism, no such framework is possible. Liberal religion helps sustain fundamentalism in many different ways, for example, by legitimating its core concepts of centralized, transcendent authority and the supernatural, and also by creating a pool of believers who are all potential fundamentalists -- only a tiny number of atheists ever become fundamentalists.

Thus liberals try to have it both ways -- they help create and sustain the people they despise, and then legitimate themselves in the contrast, all they while claiming that their beliefs are a matter of individual action, and there are no interesting structural features to Christianity or to the way they relate to fundies. This structural feature of liberal belief is a very twisted game, and many of us who are not religious are deeply tired of it.

Being a principled opponent like Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris is not the same as being an "enemy." If you sat and talked with either of those men, you'd find them to be interesting, impassioned, and extremely civil. They are not your enemies.

Michael

++++++
It is a role that guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere.
++++++

Eboo, this is a caricature. What they recognize is that as much as liberals would like to erect a disconnect between liberal religion and fundamentalism, no such framework is possible. Liberal religion helps sustain fundamentalism in many different ways, for example, by legitimating its core concepts of centralized, transcendent authority and the supernatural, and also by creating a pool of believers who are all potential fundamentalists -- only a tiny number of atheists ever become fundamentalists.

Thus liberals try to have it both ways -- they help create and sustain the people they despise, and then legitimate themselves in the contrast, all they while claiming that their beliefs are a matter of individual action, and there are no interesting structural features to Christianity or to the way they relate to fundies. This structural feature of liberal belief is a very twisted game, and many of us who are not religious are deeply tired of it.

Being a principled opponent like Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris is not the same as being an "enemy." If you sat and talked with either of those men, you'd find them to be interesting, impassioned, and extremely civil. They are not your enemies.

Michael

++++++
It is a role that guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere.
++++++

Eboo, this is a caricature. What they recognize is that as much as liberals would like to erect a disconnect between liberal religion and fundamentalism, no such framework is possible. Liberal religion helps sustain fundamentalism in many different ways, for example, by legitimating its core concepts of centralized, transcendent authority and the supernatural, and also by creating a pool of believers who are all potential fundamentalists -- only a tiny number of atheists ever become fundamentalists.

Thus liberals try to have it both ways -- they help create and sustain the people they despise, and then legitimate themselves in the contrast, all they while claiming that their beliefs are a matter of individual action, and there are no interesting structural features to Christianity or to the way they relate to fundies. This structural feature of liberal belief is a very twisted game, and many of us who are not religious are deeply tired of it.

Being a principled opponent like Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris is not the same as being an "enemy." If you sat and talked with either of those men, you'd find them to be interesting, impassioned, and extremely civil. They are not your enemies.

Michael

Forgive my cynacism: if Romney says his father marched with MLK, i say "I'm from Missouri...show me". I cannot just take his word that his father marched, so I want to see proof.

Can you imagine Jesus trying to escape the law (like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young)?

I cannot.

Christian? Not even close.

Send Mitt Romney, and the rest of his cult, packing.

Still alive old man? I thought you were gone...

Its funny how you seem to blend into the background of the blogs now...no one even notices you anymore...

CCNL -

Still alive old man? I thought you were gone...

Its funny...after a while you seem to blend into the background of these blogs and I barely notice you...

Sorry about the multiple posts. They weren't showing up on my screen. It seems to happen to a lot of people. Anyways, my apologies.

Dear Mr. Patel,

Thank you for such a fair and nuanced analysis of Romney's speech. As a Mormon, I agree with most of your assessment. I cringed when he gave the very general title of Islam to the extremist Muslims. I don't think Mormons would like Warren Jeff's Movement to be called "polygamist child-bride-marrying Mormonism." However, I also think he redeemed himself a bit when including Islam among his list of religions that "draw people closer to God." This was the most Mormon aspect of his speech in that it expressed a quasi-universalism that has always found a place in Mormon discourse and scriptures and of which I am proud. I would have liked to have seen Romney include non-believers in the diverse American community he was painting. My kinship with them as fellow human beings is no less because they are not religious. In fact, because Mormonism posits an inherent divine nature for all of humanity it is consistent with our theology that human beings can possess the qualities of goodness and justice, even divinity, independent of religion. Also, we need to be sensitive to our fellow minorities that are as vulnerable as us to prejudice by the Christian majority. The church has done a good job, as of late, at decrying prejudice against Muslims because of the actions of a few. I would like to hear strong statements like I hear in the LDS General Conference coming from all Mormon Political Leaders. I think we need to also be allies to atheists, with whom we share a high status of vulnerability. A recent Vanderbilt study found that Southern Evangelicals hold biases against Mormons and Atheists to an equal degree. I think the Romney's statement about "some secularists" establishing the "religion of secularism" primarily decried, as did Obama's speech, attempts to eliminate religious discourse from the public sphere. Alone, it does not constitute the demonization of secularists. What made it look bad, I think, was this being coupled with their omission from the American community Romney was describing. Secularist discourse and religious discourse are both needed in the public square so the interests of both can be heard and protected. We need pluralism, not secularism or one particular religious tradition being represented. I consider both to be vital and wonderful aspects of the American Landscape.

One thing I take exception with is the characterization of the Mormon discourse on race pre-1978. Though the ban gives the impression that discourse on race was uniform and nuanced among Mormon leaders before that time, there were actually official church statements expressing support for the civil rights movement in the 60s. There was a tribute made in the LDS church general conference to Martin Luther King by Mormon Apostle Hugh B. Brown. The Mormon Priesthood ban rested on the importance of lineage to holding the Abrahamic/Old Testament Priesthood in LDS thought, rather than necessarily any uniform views on Black inferiority. Quantitative date during pre-1978 actually found Mormons to be less racist than the general American Population (see book "All of the Children of Abraham"). Even the verse in Mormon scriptures used to justify the Priesthood ban states that though Pharaoh because of his Hamitic lineage was cursed according to the Priesthood, the Hamitic lineage was also "blessed with knowledge and great wisdom." This doesn't really paint a picture of inferiority. This verse from the Book of Mormon was always there "he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33). I am glad these contradictions were resolved before my time. I understand the majority of Mormons struggled with them quite a bit before the 1978 revelation.

Best to you my friend,

John

The question you should be asking is, Are Christians really Christians? Almost all the beliefs of all Christian denominations contradict almost all of the teachings of Christ.

Dear Mr. Patel,

Thank you for such a fair and nuanced analysis of Romney's speech. As a Mormon, I agree with most of your assessment. I cringed when he gave the very general title of Islam to the extremist Muslims. I don't think Mormons would like Warren Jeff's Movement to be called "polygamist child-bride-marrying Mormonism." However, I also think he redeemed himself a bit when including Islam among his list of religions that "draw people closer to God." This was the most Mormon aspect of his speech in that it expressed a quasi-universalism that has always found a place in Mormon discourse and scriptures and of which I am proud. I would have liked to have seen Romney include non-believers in the diverse American community he was painting. My kinship with them as fellow human beings is no less because they are not religious. In fact, because Mormonism posits an inherent divine nature for all of humanity it is consistent with our theology that human beings can possess the qualities of goodness and justice, even divinity, independent of religion. Also, we need to be sensitive to our fellow minorities that are as vulnerable as us to prejudice by the Christian majority. The church has done a good job, as of late, at decrying prejudice against Muslims because of the actions of a few. I would like to hear strong statements like I hear in the LDS General Conference coming from all Mormon Political Leaders. I think we need to also be allies to atheists, with whom we share a high status of vulnerability. A recent Vanderbilt study found that Southern Evangelicals hold biases against Mormons and Atheists to an equal degree. I think the Romney's statement about "some secularists" establishing the "religion of secularism" primarily decried, as did Obama's speech, attempts to eliminate religious discourse from the public sphere. Alone, it does not constitute the demonization of secularists. What made it look bad, I think, was this being coupled with their omission from the American community Romney was describing. Secularist discourse and religious discourse are both needed in the public square so the interests of both can be heard and protected. We need pluralism, not secularism or one particular religious tradition being represented. I consider both to be vital and wonderful aspects of the American Landscape.

One thing I take exception with is the characterization of the Mormon discourse on race pre-1978. Though the ban gives the impression that discourse on race was uniform and nuanced among Mormon leaders before that time, there were actually official church statements expressing support for the civil rights movement in the 60s. There was a tribute made in the LDS church general conference to Martin Luther King by Mormon Apostle Hugh B. Brown. The Priesthood ban rested for the most part on the importance of lineage to holding the Abrahamic/Old Testament Priesthood in LDS thought, rather than necessarily any uniform views on Black inferiority. Quantitative data during pre-1978 actually found Mormons to be less racist than the general American Population (see book "All of the Children of Abraham"). Even the verse in Mormon scriptures used to justify the Priesthood ban states that though Pharaoh because of his Hamitic lineage was "cursed according to the Priesthood", the Hamitic lineage was also "blessed with knowledge and great wisdom." This doesn't really paint a picture of inferiority. This verse from the Book of Mormon was always been part of the Mormon cannon "he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33). I am glad these contradictions were resolved before my time. I understand the majority of Mormons struggled with them quite a bit before the 1978 revelation.

Best to you my friend,

John

Mr. Patal,

Thank you for such a fair and nuanced analysis of Romney's speech. As a Mormon, I agree with most of your assesment. I cringed when he gave the very general tital of Islam to the extremist Muslims. I don't think Mormons would like Warren Jeff's Movement to be called "polygamist child-bride-marrying Mormonism." However, I also think he redeemed himself a bit when including Islam among his list of religions that "draw people closer to God." This was the most Mormon aspect of his speech in that it expressed a quasi-universalism that has always found a place in Mormon discourse and scriptures and of which I am proud. I would have liked to have seen Romney include non-believers in the diverse American community he was painting. My kinship with them as fellow human beings is no less because they are not religious. In fact, because Mormonism posits an inherent divine nature for all of humanity it is consistent with our theology that human beings can posess the qualities of goodness and justice, even divinity, independant of religion. Also, we need to be sensitive to our fellow minorities that are as vulnerable as us to prejudice by the Christian majority. The church has done a good job, as of late, at decrying prejudice against Muslims because of the actions of a few. I would like to hear strong statements like I hear in the LDS General Conference coming from all Mormon Political Leaders. I think we need to also be allies to atheists, with whom we share a very high status of vulnerability. A recent Vanderbilt study found that Southern Evangelicals hold biases against Mormons and Atheists to an equal degree. I think the Romney's statement about "some secularists" establishing the "religion of secularism" primarily decried, as did Obama's speech, attempts to eliminate religious discourse from the public sphere. Alone it does not constitute the demonization of secularists. What made it look bad, I think, was this being coupled with their ommission from the American community Romney was describing. Secularist discourse and religious discourse are both needed in the public square so the interests of both can be heard and protected. We need pluralism, not secularism or one particular religious tradition being represented. I consider both to be vital and wonderful aspects of the American Landscape.

One thing I take exception with is the characterization of the Mormon discourse on race pre-1978. Though the ban gives the impression that discourse on race was uniform and unnuanced among Mormon leaders before that time, there were actually official church statements expressing support for the civil rights movement in the 60s. There was a tribute made in the LDS church general conference to Martin Luther King by Mormon Apostle Hugh B. Brown. The Mormon Preisthood ban rested on the importance of lineage to holding the Abrahamic/Old Testament Preisthood in LDS thought, rather than necessarily any uniform views on Black inferiority. Quantitative date during pre-1978 actually found Mormons to be less racist than the general American Population (see book "All of the Children of Abraham"). Even the verse in Mormon scriptures used to justify the Preisthood ban states that though Pharoah because of his Hamitic lineage was cursed according to the Preisthood, the Hamitic lineage was also "blessed with knowledge and great wisdom." This doesn't really paint a picture of inferiority. This verse from the Book of Mormon was always there "he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33). I am glad the contradiction between church policies, doctrines and scriptures were resolved before my time. I understand the majority of Mormons struggled with them quite a bit before the 1978 revelation.

Best to you my freind,

John

Mr. Patal,

Thank you for such a fair and nuanced analysis of Romney's speech. As a Mormon, I agree with most of your assesment. I cringed when he gave the very general tital of Islam to extremist Muslims. I don't think Mormons would like Warren Jeff's Movement to be called "polygamist child-bride-marrying Mormonism." However, I also think he redeemed himself a bit when including Islam among his list of religions that "draw people closer to God." This was the most Mormon aspect of his speech in that it expressed a quasi-universalism that has always found a place in Mormon discourse and scriptures and of which I am proud. I would have liked to have seen Romney include non-believers in the diverse American community he was painting. My kinship with them as fellow human beings is no less because they are not religious. In fact, because Mormonism posits an inherent divine nature for all of humanity it is consistent with our theology that human beings can posess the qualities of goodness and justice, even divinity, independant of religion. Also, we need to be sensitive to our fellow minorities that are as vulnerable as us to prejudice by the Christian majority. The church has done a good job, as of late, at decrying prejudice against Muslims because of the actions of a few. I would like to hear strong statements like I hear in the LDS General Conference coming from all Mormon Political Leaders. I think we need to also be allies to atheists, with whom we share a very high status of vulnerability. A recent Vanderbilt study found that Southern Evangelicals hold biases against Mormons and Atheists to an equal degree. I think the Romney's statement about "some secularists" establishing the "religion of secularism" primarily decried, as did Obama's speech, attempts to eliminate religious discourse from the public sphere. Alone it does not constitute the demonization of secularists. What made it look bad, I think, was this being coupled with their ommission from the American community Romney was describing. Secularist discourse and religious discourse are both needed in the public square so the interests of both can be heard and protected. We need pluralism, not secularism or one particular religious tradition being represented. I consider both to be vital and wonderful aspects of the American Landscape.

One thing I take exception with is the characterization of the Mormon discourse on race pre-1978. Though the ban gives the impression that discourse on race was uniform and unnuanced among Mormon leaders before that time, there were actually official church statements expressing support for the civil rights movement in the 60s. There was a tribute made in the LDS church general conference to Martin Luther King by Mormon Apostle Hugh B. Brown. The Mormon Preisthood ban rested on the importance of lineage to holding the Abrahamic/Old Testament Preisthood in LDS thought, rather than necessarily any uniform views on Black inferiority. Quantitative date during pre-1978 actually found Mormons to be less racist than the general American Population (see book "All of the Children of Abraham"). Even the verse in Mormon scriptures used to justify the Preisthood ban states that though Pharoah because of his Hamitic lineage was cursed according to the Preisthood, the Hamitic lineage was also "blessed with knowledge and great wisdom." This doesn't really paint a picture of inferiority. This verse from the Book of Mormon was always there "he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33). I am glad these contradictions were resolved before my time. I understand the majority of Mormons struggled with them quite a bit before the 1978 revelation.

Best to you my freind,

John

BURFORDHOLLY (below) on Mitt's speech has the best one-liner: "Sounds like the Book of Revelations to me, with Romney campaigning for the job of the Beast."

The author of this piece clearly does not know the fundamentals of Christianity. He is as ignorant of what Christianity is about as is Jimmy Carter, who, as a Southern Baptist, resembles one who fell off the back of a peanut truck.

Mitt Romney will will be the next President of the U.S., the worlds most powerful nation because he, as a Morman, can change idea horses many times in the middle of the river. He is, and will be an expert at pleasing almost everyone but satisfying none.

"...guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere."

The first clause doesn't seem to be accurate:

"While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence." p20 The End of Faith

That quotation could be worked into support for the second clause, or we could let them speak for themselves:

"In the best case, faith leaves otherwise well-intentioned people incapable of thinking rationally about many of their deepest concerns; at worst, it is a continuous source of human violence." p223 The End of Faith

Patel writes:

"For a while, I was convinced that religious pluralism would be built mostly by the religious. But increasingly I’ve come across people of no particular faith who want to be part of this work also. They read newspapers, they’ve got Muslim and Jewish and Mormon friends, they realize that something is up with religious identity in this historical moment and they want to be part of the solution and not the problem.

"Mitt Romney treated them like the enemy.

"It is a role that guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere."

You make it sound as if atheists like Hitchens and Harris can only make their anti-religion points when provided with a cartoon of a target like Mitt Romney.

On the contrary, the "new atheists" rather make mince meat out of the arguments offered by the most-accomplished and most-well-versed of the religious apologists plying their trade these days. In fact, anyone who has watched Hitchens in action will know that he is much tougher and exacting on opponents like Jon Meecham who are closer to his intellectual level than he (Hitchens) is on intellectually challenged and so-simplistic-as-to-be-laughable argument debaters like Dinesh D'Sousa.

It really isn't about "find[ing] any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere." One needn't look very far or wide at all to find any such thing. History stares us in the face, as do the thoughts of religionists like Mitt Romney.

Patel writes:

"For a while, I was convinced that religious pluralism would be built mostly by the religious. But increasingly I’ve come across people of no particular faith who want to be part of this work also. They read newspapers, they’ve got Muslim and Jewish and Mormon friends, they realize that something is up with religious identity in this historical moment and they want to be part of the solution and not the problem.

"Mitt Romney treated them like the enemy.

"It is a role that guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere."

You make it sound as if atheists like Hitchens and Harris can only make their anti-religion points when provided with a cartoon of a target like Mitt Romney.

On the contrary, the "new atheists" rather make mince meat out of the arguments offered by the most-accomplished and most-well-versed of the religious apologists plying their trade these days. In fact, anyone who has watched Hitchens in action will know that he is much tougher and exacting on opponents like Jon Meecham who are closer to his intellectual level than he (Hitchens) is on intellectually challenged and simplistic-argument debaters like Dinesh D'Sousa.

It really isn't about "find[ing] any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere." One needn't look very far or wide at all to find any such thing. History stares us in the face, as do the thoughts of religionists like Mitt Romney.

Patel writes:

"For a while, I was convinced that religious pluralism would be built mostly by the religious. But increasingly I’ve come across people of no particular faith who want to be part of this work also. They read newspapers, they’ve got Muslim and Jewish and Mormon friends, they realize that something is up with religious identity in this historical moment and they want to be part of the solution and not the problem.

"Mitt Romney treated them like the enemy.

"It is a role that guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere."

You make it sound as if atheists like Hitchens and Harris can only make their anti-religion points when provided with a cartoon of a target like Mitt Romney.

On the contrary, the "new atheists" rather make mince meat out of the arguments offered by the most-accomplished and most-well-versed of the religious apologists plying their trade these days. In fact, anyone who has watched Hitchens in action will know that he is much tougher and exacting on opponents like Jon Meecham who are closer to his intellectual level than he (Hitchens) is on intellectually challenged and so-simplistic-as-to-be-laughable argument debaters like Dinesh D'Sousa.

It really isn't about "find[ing] any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere." One needn't look very far or wide at all to find any such thing. History stares us in the face, as do the thoughts of religionists like Mitt Romney.

Romney's lack of concern for the non-religious is demeaning to the millions of Americans who refuse church indoctrination. His "holier than thou" persona is sickening to people of rational mindsets.

Romney's lack of concern for the non-religious is demeaning to the millions of Americans who refuse church indoctrination. His "holier than thou" persona is sickening to people of rational mindsets.

"...guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere."

The first clause doesn't seem to be accurate:

"While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence." p20 The End of Faith

That quotation could be worked into support for the second clause, or we could let them speak for themselves:

"In the best case, faith leaves otherwise well-intentioned people incapable of thinking rationally about many of their deepest concerns; at worst, it is a continuous source of human violence." p223 The End of Faith

"...guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere."

The first clause doesn't seem to be accurate:

"While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence." p20 The End of Faith

That quotation could be worked into support for the second clause, or we could let them speak for themselves:

"In the best case, faith leaves otherwise well-intentioned people incapable of thinking rationally about many of their deepest concerns; at worst, it is a continuous source of human violence." p223 The End of Faith

"...guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere."

The first clause doesn't seem to be accurate:

"While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence." p20 The End of Faith

That quotation could be worked into support for the second clause, or we could let them speak for themselves:

"In the best case, faith leaves otherwise well-intentioned people incapable of thinking rationally about many of their deepest concerns; at worst, it is a continuous source of human violence." p223 The End of Faith

"...guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere."

The first clause doesn't seem to be accurate:

"While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence." p20 The End of Faith

That quotation could be worked into support for the second clause, or we could let them speak for themselves:

"In the best case, faith leaves otherwise well-intentioned people incapable of thinking rationally about many of their deepest concerns; at worst, it is a continuous source of human violence." p223 The End of Faith

"...guys like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are only too happy to play. They will find any excuse possible to say that religious moderates are really religious extremists in disguise or that religion anywhere is a threat to civilization everywhere."

The first clause doesn't seem to be accurate:

"While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence." p20 The End of Faith

That quotation could be worked into support for the second clause, or we could let them speak for themselves:

"In the best case, faith leaves otherwise well-intentioned people incapable of thinking rationally about many of their deepest concerns; at worst, it is a continuous source of human violence." p223 The End of Faith

thank you Mr. Patel for your nice articles. I am looking into joining your core... I read a lote of your articles in the past...excellent journalism.

Ooops "i" meant to sayth, "...Make HONORABLE [not 'horible'] Humate Kind..'

TRIVIA: Apocalyptically; Did you know that "MORIAH" , Land of, a/k/a "ZION" (Eberue: for "Penis" or Coochy Poochy, circumcised or not, so to speaketh), from which the Term 'Zion' {note: In Arabic it is called ALL TAQiYAH or 'Zibby'}arose naked & in Miracle & never in any kind of [Biblical] SIN or as CURSE, thereof written, said, nor thought!

"Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds."

- by Zoroaster, aka Ahura MAZDA, (Note: It was the "THREE WISE MEN", in the Xmas Displays et al, that are the 3 Zoroastrians whom Witnesseth his Hon. Mr. Jesus, while an infant in BETHLAHAM via their Astrology (not Astrononmy, not Zodiac) that make the WINTER SOLTICE a special event for MORMONS et al Judeo-Christians so happy in O.U.R. Holy Cosmic genuine Birth Story's!

Praise the Holy No-MAN LORD, ALLAH, YAWEH, ADENOi, ISHVARi, et al....!

It's definitely not impossible that someone told Romney that widening the gap between the secular and religious - more precisely, socially conservative monotheists - was a good political gambit. In fact, it's almost certain, assuming he needed to be told. Along with voter suppression, dividing the country over something and grabbing the bigger piece has been standard Republican strategy since the days of Nixon.

Hmmm, what we know about the LDS et al:

1. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

2. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

3. Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties???????

4. "Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

5. Moroni was a "pretty talking fictional thingie" or would a better description be "one of the many hallucinations seen by founders of the major religions" or " a clone of the fictional Gabriel" or "Moroni the golden hornblower", or "son of Mormon, the propheteer/profiteer", or "actually Nephi", or "good buds with John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, and Elias all who ministered to Joseph Smith as angels" or as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

6. "Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd.[2] Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure—the golden plates. Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah.[3]

7. "Old time" Mormonism as well as "old time" Catholicism, Islam and Judaism relied and rely on prophets and prophecies (for profit?).

Taking the modern view that includes reality and common sense, the correct term would be Mormonism as well as Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism relied and rely on fortune ($$$$$?) telling (for profit?).

Theologically speaking, these religious fortune tellers require that God knows the future i.e. if God does not know the future (is not omniscient) then no human knew or knows the future.

As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, God is not omniscient. Please read, pause and contemplate the following by Schillebeeckx:

Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Bottom line:

LDS is a cult based on hallucinations and "palgiarizations" which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir!!!!!!

Presumably, Romney's definition of "secularists" extends to more than just the 10% who call themselves that.

It's a label that could be applied to anyone that does not want their church to support the governments latest goofy agenda.

Romney is asserts that the president has broad powers to define religions as un-American.

That sounds like the Book of Revelation to me, with Romney campaigning for the job of the Beast.

To those of us non-Mormons living in the intermountain West, the dichotomy between LDS and non-LDS is a daily reality. Their's is, in large measure, a secret closed society. Their influence on all aspects of society, however, from politics to education, is overwhelming. If one happens to be a "gentile" in a predominately Mormon community, you are ostracized and excluded from participating not only in church-related activities, but also in civic affairs. In general, they see themselves as mainstream -- as long as mainstream is measured against a 1950's standard. While their beliefs should be the subject for objective reporting since Romney has made it an issue, I also think the society that flows from the religion bears examination. Romney will always be a missionary, a fact which has significant implications if he should be elected.

"...they want to be part of the solution and not the problem."

Thank you for saying that, brother.

The GOP fancies itself a sanctuary for the Haves and Have Mores and not just materially. Christians and Mormons fancy themselves as spiritual Have Mores while viewing Jews and Muslims as more or less Haves. The unpersuaded are the unwanted Have Nots. Married heterosexuals are the "family values" Have Mores, adult single heterosexuals are the Haves, and as you might guess, Gays are the Have Nots. American born are Have Mores, legal noncitizens are Haves, and Illegals are Have Nots. The GOP platform is simply that Have Nots of any sort deserve and need to be underprivileged as an incentive to aspire to become like Republicans. '

“But there are many secular people who believe in freedom, equality and pluralism – and who contribute a good deal to this great nation – and for them, Romney seemed to have only fighting words. That’s a mistake.”

Amen brother! I’m glad to hear that you include secularists in your Interfaith Youth Core organization.

I think that our main problem today is not our lack of tolerance of any particular faith in the USA, but rather our unqualified support for the apartheid state of Israel in its oppression of the Palestinian people. And those who may argue that this is not a faith based conflict are kidding themselves.

"Mitt Romney gave us an America with, as the Harvard religion scholar Diana Eck would say, “a wider sense of we.”"

Ok. So Romney was promoting respect and tolerance for all religions in the US, while at the same time lambasting the 'religion of secularism'. Eh??

"It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Dude, have some tolerance.

Thank you to Patel and Brooks (NY Times) to speak up about the exisitance of nonreligious people.

It is time that we think virtue for virtues sake. Could human not able to judge what is right and wrong without gods? Gods have been the mathods through out history, for good and bad purposes, as human history have witnessed. Hope we as good human beings continue to develop to be inclusive for all things with good purposes without needing to regard to the religious linkages. Let us be independent thinkers and doers, based on good humanity.

The real problem is that Romney is sending a mixed message. On the one hand he wants us to believe that the precise religious affiliation of a presidential candidate doesn't matter (wink wink), but that he really, really is a Christian, REALLY. It's too bad he didn't have the courage of his convictions to say, in the context of a presidential campaign, "it doesn't matter if a Mormon or any other candidate is a Christian, and it shouldn't matter."

Romney is a product of the cult Mormon culture that that nurtured (read brainwashed) him from childhood.

His first loyalty is to his god as his god directs through the prophet and leadership (of which he is a part) in SLC. Please make no mistake about that.

Romney's purpose is to promote the cult. Make no mistake about that.

He will do whatever it takes to achieve his prophets objective. Make no mistake about that.

Flip flopping is seen as god changing his mind - perfectly acceptable. Make no mistake about that.

Please note that Mormonism is a all about control though guilt in order to bleed the believer. Make no mistake about that - though I suppose it is true of most faiths (belief in something that can neither be proven nor disproved).

SLC teaches that they are destined to govern our nation in the name of the true God.

Please do not support Romney.

The danger of the outspoken religious including Romney is that they are so full of the belief that their way is right, they believe others need to believe in and practice the same dogma. This zeal is the seeds of religious extremism - Christian, Mormon, Muslim, whatever.

Extremism brings about the need to force others to conform - be it political pandering against religious freedom like Romney or, more extreme, Islamic terrorists murdering in the name of Allah.

There was a time in America where religious bigotry was not a public display or part of politics. People respected the Constitution and the separation of church and state. Since he was a missionary (and probably before), Romney has been trying to cram the LDS faith down everyone else's throat. There is no doubt he will loose this zeal as President.

Eboo,

You noted:

"Imagine if John Edwards, Hilary Clinton or John McCain gave a speech on faith. Would it have been awaited with breathless anticipation by the pundits? Become a top story on all the 24-hour news channels? Made the front page of The New York Times and dominated its OpEd page for several days after? "

The anwser is Yes.

And each would have started their speech with that famous quote:

"Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe."