RSS Feed
The Three Faces of Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney is scheduled to give a major address about Faith and Values this Thursday. What with all the "Kennedy in Houston" spin and parallels being bandied about it might be helpful to take stock of what we have learned about his campaign thus far.
Media representations of Mitt Romney’s religiosity have oscillated between two opposing themes. The first might be called Romney the Mormon.
No shortage of journalistic angles here. Will anti-LDS prejudices surface as White Evangelicals (among others) consider a candidate who enthusiastically shares their agenda? How closely does the former governor of Massachusetts live by the precepts of his religion? And what exactly are the precepts of his religion, anyhow?
Mindful that ignorance and longstanding biases might lead reporters to explore exceedingly unflattering answers to these questions, the campaign shrewdly and preemptively countered with a different storyline: Romney the Man of Faith.
With Dwight D. Eisenhower serving as his medal-bearing, green-uniformed patron saint, Romney loves to riff on Ike’s famous dictum: “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.”
Team Romney has deployed this strategy with impressive efficiency. The former governor of Massachusetts relentlessly presents himself as just another Christian 'fella. When queried by journalists about odd aspects of the Mormon faith--aspects which I as an atheist want to stress are no more, or no less, odd than what can be found in just about any other religion--Romney typically responded with either vague platitudes or silence. (An example of the latter occurred when he refused to engage a reporter who asked him about specialized Mormon undergarments).
But the centerpiece of a plan designed to win over the Evangelical mainstream consists of making generous rhetorical use of Scripture. In my forthcoming book about the abuse (and occasional use) of the Bible in American politics, I observe that few current candidates thump the sacred writ as consistently as Romney.
On this score, he merits comparison with that unrivaled master of the politicized biblical citation, George W. Bush. Both know how to give Conservative Christian audiences the Good (Book) Stuff. Both know how to weave an Old or New Testament verse into their rhetoric. But in accord with his strategy of backgrounding his LDS affiliation, Romney also knows how not to weave Mormon scriptures into his oratory. Those waiting for him to invoke The Pearl of Great Price in South Carolina are sure to be disappointed.
All of this religious imaging has served to overshadow a third and, I think, more interesting face of this candidate. This would be Romney the Jaw-Droppingly Successful CEO. To glimpse this side of Romney one might consult his autobiographical Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games.
In this text, which chronicles his stewardship over the once-tarnished Salt Lake City Olympiad, Romney the Mormon and Romney the Man of Faith are but minor characters. Instead, its central protagonist (a Harvard MBA and formerly the founder and CEO of Bain Capital Partners) appears as a bottom-line-obsessed rationalist, enamored of “strategic audits,” budget austerity, and the art of negotiation.
If you like managerial human interest stories then this is the book for you! When reading Romney's account of his executive world view (for what seems like thousands of pages) one encounters a narrative voice so down-to-earth, so clinically business-like and, dare I say, so secular, that one wonders if Mayor Michael Bloomberg was his ghostwriter.
If Romney can ride the The Man of Faith strategy to his party's nomination, he will need to engage in two difficult maneuvers. First, he must weld together a Republican base that has been torn asunder over the past year. Next, he will need to let his secular countenance shine forth. This will be his only chance of appealing to voters, be they believers or nonbelievers, who loathe the type of Faith and Values politicking that he has engaged in up to now.
Coming Friday: I analyze Romney's much anticipated Faith and Values speech.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
December 4, 2007; 8:05 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Postscript to the Republican Debate |
Next: Romney Plays the Atheist Card
Posted by: Great boys | January 31, 2008 8:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear JC -
More food for thought from an article posted today:
Researchers: Human Evolution Speeding Up
RANDOLPH E. SCHMID | December 10, 2007 08:07 PM EST |
WASHINGTON — Science fiction writers have suggested a future Earth populated by a blend of all races into a common human form. In real life, the reverse seems to be happening. People are evolving more rapidly than in the distant past, with residents of various continents becoming increasingly different from one another, researchers say.
"I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed," explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. "The opposite seems to be true."
"Our species is not static," Harpending added in a telephone interview.
That doesn't mean we should expect major changes in a few generations, though, evolution occurs over thousands of years.
Harpending and colleagues looked at the DNA of humans and that of chimpanzees, our closest relatives, they report in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found.
That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant past, Harpending explained.
"Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology, creating new opportunities for adaptation," the study says. "The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations, as well as the appearance of many new genetic responses to diet and disease."
And they found that different changes are occurring in Africans, Asians and Europeans.
Most anthropologists agree that humans first evolved in Africa and then spread to other areas, and the lighter skin color of Europeans and Asians is generally attributed to selection to allow more absorption of vitamin D in colder climate where there is less sun.
The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because "we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt," Harpending adds. "And with a larger population, more mutations occurred."
In another example, the researchers noted that in China and most of Africa, few people can digest fresh milk into adulthood. Yet in Sweden and Denmark, the gene that makes the milk-digesting enzyme lactase remains active, so almost everyone can drink fresh milk, explaining why dairy farming is more common in Europe than in the Mediterranean and Africa, Harpending says.
The researchers studied 3.9 million gene snippets from 270 people in four populations: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa's Yoruba tribe and Utah Mormons who traced their ancestry to northern Europe.
Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he thinks the researchers reasoning regarding rapid adaptive change is plausible.
The study mainly points to an overall expansion in the human population over the past 40,000 years to explain the genetic data.
"Yet the archaeological record also shows that humans increasingly divided themselves into distinct cultures and migrating groups _ factors that seem to play only a small role in their analysis. Dividing the human population into finer units and their movement into new regions _ the Arctic, Oceania, tropical forests, just to name some _ may have also forced quicker adaptive evolution in our species," Potts said.
Potts, who was not part of the research team, added that he liked the report "because it points to how genetic data can be used to test a variety of ideas about recent human adaptation."
Two years ago Harpending and colleague Gregory M. Cochran published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews _ those of northern European heritage _ resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors.
Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes, they suggested. That evolution also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.
The new study was funded by the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Aging, the Unz Foundation, the University of Utah and the University of Wisconsin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071210/evolution-speedup/
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 10, 2007 8:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
I will certainly love to respond to your questions including Biblical texts that support the idea that it is a divinly inspired text. But you have given me a great deal of homework and reading so I must respectfully ask your patience in understanding that I have not forgotton but that I am trying to repsond as best I can.
One item that I must clarify immediately is where you state the following:
As far as "the intent of the Bible," it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you are arguing that it all comes down to whatever the individual wishes to make of the intent. This is a perspective that you could only have as a person living in the 20-21st centuries.
I am not sure how you would have gotten this idea from my writing in fact it is a bit concerning and I will review what I wrote to see what makes you think I believe that. What I purposed to communicate is that the message of the Bible is this in a nut shell - God creates man --> man sins against God --> man can no longer enjoy the presence and other blessings of God in his (man's) state of sin --> God sends His son as a representative of Himself to offer men the opportunity for reconcialiation. I think that is very different than saying that the Bible is whatever we interpret it to be.
To continue you say:
This statement is incredibly presumptive, for it presumes that the theories of creation and evolution are on a level plane - that they are equal explanations for how things came into being.
Yes! We agree, my point exactly. How beautifully you have summed up my feelings of these two teachings. On the other side of the coin, imagine if you held the Bible to be the word of God how presumptive it would be for someone to claim that another seemingly contradictory theory is on the same plane.
Also concerning the definition of religion or religious let me pull your attention to an occurance in Matthew chapter 12. You will need to read on your own, biblegateway.com is a good online option. (You can choose which version you may like). Here Jesus' actions are calle into quesion by the pharisees who were what we may call "profesional religionists" to borrow one of your terms. Jesus sharply reprimands them because they were questioning Jesus and his disciples picking heads of grain on the Sabbath as well as questioning healing on Sabbath. Jesus reminds them first of all that He is the Lord of the Sabbath and second of all that it is the sick man who needs help who would take precedence over "religious observance" of the law. You see the pharisees had become mired in law keeping and had lost sight of the purpose behind the law. Jesus spoke to this problem several times and many times his discourse was directed towards the pharisees whom nobody could accuse of being irreligious. Being a Christian, a TRUE Christian is not about following man made traditions and doctrine, however it is all about making radical revolutionary changes to follow a timeless radical revolutionary who challenged the religion of his day of that to come. This is the Christ that I follow.
Also, one day once we deal with your questions, I would like to write some about the Christian/biblical view of worship because that is often a very misunderstood concept and it is highly worth examining.
Thanks and now I am going to watch a movie with my wife. I hope you have a nice evening.
Posted by: JC | December 9, 2007 8:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear JC -
Thanks for your response. I can't really fault you for being selective in which of my questions I asked because I probably asked too many as I made multiple posts.
I also believe that I have you at a bit of a disadvantage in this discussion, for while I am well-versed in the Bible, you yourself admit that you aren't at all versed in science. Your previous statements have made that clear, and your latest statement - that "science and Christianity are...at odds" - is the perspective of a religionist. Science - emphatically - does NOT feel at odds with Xianity or any religion for the simple fact (and, it is a fact) that the religious "question" doesn't enter into the scientific proposal. To aver that science is "at odds" with religion is to aver that science is at odds with fairies.
That brings me to your statement: "My whole point in even mentioning what I did about the teaching of creation vs. evolution was that it isn't fair nor is it intellectually honest for one only one view point to be presented." This statement is incredibly presumptive, for it presumes that the theories of creation and evolution are on a level plane - that they are equal explanations for how things came into being. They aren't. Your statement is akin to my saying, "the teaching of Christianity vs. Mithrasism was that it isn't fair nor is it intellectually honest for one only one view point to be presented." I'm sure that as a Xian, you would reject such a statement as being pure folly, which leads me to believe that you might consider - as do I - your original statement to be folly were you as well-versed in science as you seem to be in things Biblical.
As far as "the intent of the Bible," it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you are arguing that it all comes down to whatever the individual wishes to make of the intent. This is a perspective that you could only have as a person living in the 20-21st centuries.
For instance, in a previous post, you took me to task for not realizing that the dream in Daniel that I cited would have been read a certain way by the people who were living at the time it was written. Fair enough. Yet, in the very next paragraph, you dismiss my quoting of Bible verses that indicate pretty clearly that the Bible proposes that earth is flat by saying, "Now for the other passages that you quote, I really don't see that they say the earth is flat."
I find that to be selective reasoning, and reasoning informed by scientific/secular knowledge that was not available to the writers of the OT. If you were honest about it, you might say, "yes, those verses indicate that the people who wrote the OT thought the earth was flat. Everybody did back then."
In fact, the idea that the earth wasn't flat but that it was a sphere didn't come about until 300-200BC, or so, well after the OT was written. The Book of Daniel was written around 600BC, and Aristotle didn't come up with the idea of a spherical earth for another 300 years (and Aristotle wrote that the flat earth concept was the belief of Leucippus and Democritus who lived roughly 100 years before him).
So, it seems that you are faced with a choice here: agree that the Bible proposes a flat earth, OR, try to retrofit what the Bible proposes by denying that it's what it said to begin with. I would argue that if you are invoking the zeitgeist of contemporary thought when it relates to King Neb's dream, that the same should hold for the flat earth. The big problem for the Xian in accepting the flat earth of the Bible is that it makes one thing very clear - the Bible was written by men, not god. For if god had written the Bible, surely it would be fairly teeming with scientific facts that would have been unimaginable to the people who were alive when the Bible was written.
In other words, had the Bible proposed a spherical earth, or had it spoken about marsupials and micro-organisms, ie: ideas that ancient Middle Eastern man could not have imagined, but an all-knowing god certainly would have, then, I might be impressed.
But, perhaps you can help me here. Perhaps you can point me to verses in the Bible that clearly AGREE with the universe as it has been revealed by modern science. Since I was kind enough to comply with your request to provide verses that speak of a flat earth, perhaps you might be kind enough to provide verses that propose a spherical earth, stars that are billions of miles away (not stars as tiny points of light hanging in a "firmament" a few miles above the earth's surface) and the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
Let me guess - your answer will again be that the Bible isn't a scientific text.
I'd like to continue this conversation, but to have a *fruitful* conversation, I believe that I need to suggest in the politest of terms that you familiarize yourself with evolutionary theory from a reputable source, rather than limiting yourself to the pseudo-science that seems to inform your present positions. Two good sources for learning about evolution are:
www.talkorigins.org/
and
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
My hope would be that by familiarizing yourself with what science ACTUALLY says about evolution you would be in a better position to present cogent arguments, rather than doing what you're doing now, which is presenting the strawman arguments of the ID/Bible literalist crowd, which are NOT the arguments or positions of true science.
Closing point: would you agree that the following statement is an accurate descriptor of your Christain faith?:
"the service and worship of God; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance; a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
I ask this because that just happens to be the dictionary definition of the word, "religion." By that definition, would you say that you are "religious," or not?
Thanks for the discussion.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 9, 2007 1:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
It is late and I can barely see the screen to reply to all of your many questions and comments. To begin with here is a passage from Romans 2:12-15 (NIV) that speaks to your comment regarding the Mosaical law.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Romans 2:12-15
This passage is written to the early church members of Rome who grappling with bringing two cultures together being the Jewish and the Gentile in this case. It is interesting to note that allow the Gentile did not have the Mosaical law as the Jew, they did have the law written on their hearts which actually sounds similar to what you have said about people have a "moral code" within themselves. Although you would credit that moral code to humans themselves and I along with the scripture credit that moral code to God. So regarding your question as to the laws of the Jews and other ancient cultures I believe this passage gives us an interesting perspective.
Another passage I happened upon as I looked for the aforementioned passage in Romans 2 was this from Romans 1:18-23 (NIV) and I think it speaks for itself.
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
I quote this at the risk of you and others labeling me as threatening my views with condemning to hell those who don't agree with my views. Please don't hear me say that. That would be indeed silly. However, I do think it is interesting that these two passages from Romans point to the fact that all men have at least some rudimentary knowledge of God and of his "eternal power and divine nature" as it says 1:20. And I think that were we to develop that concept further the more one knows about God the greater his or her responsibility for applying that knowledge to their personal life. My goal and my aim is to live up to the responsibility that I have been entrusted with.
Now back to our discussion on evolution, I really am not the expert here. There are actually many very brilliant Christian scientists who could go tit for tat with you and you would probably find that much more scintillating. I however can listen to your questions and answer them the best I can.
There are two things that I would like for you to understand. First of all, my point was never to argue anyone on this forum the veridity of creation vs. evolution. In fact many Christians believe in a hybrid "theory" stating that God started things in motion by creating and then evolution continued the work He started. I don't necessarily hold that view but there are many Christians that do which you may find of interest Mr. Mark.
My whole point in even mentioning what I did about the teaching of creation vs. evolution was that it isn't fair nor is it intellectually honest for one only one view point to be presented. You ask several times if I would contest so many other scientific theories in other fields and my answer is as a Christian I certainly would question those theories if it I perceived that theory to directly contradict what the Bible teaches. You see as much as you disdain Christians, you must at least concede the fact that the Bible is the Christian's guide and standard and when something contradicts what that guide and standard says well isn't logical that the Christian would question it?
Science has its place but left to govern itself it is rendered heartless. As science stands alone what consciousness or heart does it posess? You argue that science's morality comes from the very same process of evolution and I argue that God has placed a divine quality within us and some choose to recognize it and others choose to deny it.
On to my second point, the Bible as I have repeteadly stated is not meant to give us a complete view on the workings of nature or physical science. The point of the Bible is to lay out a history of God's presence throughout time and what His plan is for each individual. That Bible is not a scientific text. The Bible is a story of redemption, love and forgiveness. What does science tell you or anyone for that matter about how to love, how to forgive, how to break free from the grip of bitterness, anger, fear, guilt, etc... Science cannot answer those questions as some questions regarding science the Bible does not answer because the two things have vastly different purposes.
The intent of the Bible Mr. Mark is so that you and I and all of humanity can read about spirituality which is actually something very different from religiosity. In your posts you indirectly call me several times a religionist. That makes no sense. I do not follow a religion. In fact if you recall, Jesus railed against the Pharisee's for their religiosity. In the scriptures we read that true religion is taking care of the widows and orphans, meaning that true religion is not a rigid structure of does and donts however it is a base of principles that play out in different ways but that all have the same root which is love. But not any love, a divine love that was expressed in its purest and most perfect form through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
What are the basic principles and roots of science? Knowledge? Knowledge without wisdom and again those are two very different things is extremely dangerous. I would challenge you that science as great as it is and as beneficial as it is for humanity is only truly helpful when it is paired with wisdom of how to apply such knowledge. According to what I believe the best wisdom of how to apply knowledge, and that includes scientific knowledge in a loving and humane way comes from the best example of love and wisdom which we find recorded in the passages concerning Jesus. I
I would pose to you again the suggestion that science and Christianity are only at odds when one tries to ignore the existance of the other. I do not ignore the existence of science, but I do employ scriptures to help me temper scientific knowlege with love and a belief in God. Do I believe that God is powerful enough to have orchestrated the beginning of the world through evolution? Of course I do. But the point is not the how in this case, it is the who. For you Mr. Mark there is no who but ourselves. I however look out and see the stars, the sun, the moon, nature in all of its glory and I cannot fathom that it is all coincedence. No, I believe that a great power or force is behind the creation of the earth we inhabit and that power or force is God. Science helps me to appreciate with even greater depth the creation, it certainly does not diminish my faith. In fact the more we know about the sheer miracle of life the more concrete my faith becomes that there was an intelligence behind it all.
I look forward to hearing your reaction and comments.
Posted by: JC | December 9, 2007 12:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Don't wish to be annoying, but one final observation.
JC writes:
"It is all just a matter of where you put your trust. The explanation I choose to trust is actually much more complete than evolution."
Yes, the religious explanation is "more complete" in the sense that it PRETENDS to offer answers, but it's also an answer that depends entirely on fantasy and superstition for its "completeness."
If that's your standard for what constitutes an "explanation," you're welcome to it. Forgive me if I find your "complete explanation" akin to the "complete explanation" most of us give our five-year-olds when they ask, "Mommy, who put all of those presents under the Xmas tree?"
A scientist and a religionist happen upon a crime scene. There's a victim lying there with a gunshot wound to the head. There are two identical pistols in the room, both recently fired and both missing rounds of ammunition.
The scientist examines the scene and says, "here's what we know. There's a dead body here with a gunshot wound to the head. The door was locked, so it looks like a suicide, though I can't be sure. The calibre of the slug we recovered matches these weapons, so there's a good likelihood that it came from one of these guns. The problem is, until we run extensive ballistic tests, we won't know which gun was actually used. Moreover, recent advances in ballistics show it to be a less-exact science than was previously believed. Ergo, we may never be able to determine which gun was used or whether this was a suicide or a staged murder."
To which the religionist replies, "well, if you can't offer a complete answer to all that, then you can't prove that that person is really dead."
That's the thing about your "complete" religious explanations. It would be one thing if they were speculations made in the absence of evidence. It would even be acceptable if they were theories based upon competing evidence. But they aren't. They're explanations made in spite of and in defiance to solid evidence, evidence that is being rejected for the sole reason that it does not comport with the stultifying dogmae of religious tradition.
So, I'll say it again - you're welcome to your standard of truth on what constitutes explanations, complete or partial. For me, I choose to not insert god or any supernatural agent into the equation simply because I don't have a "complete" answer at this given moment. God's gaps are fast shrinking in this scientifically aware world of ours, and I say, good riddance to a bad idea (god) that has long ago overstayed its welcome.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 8, 2007 4:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
JC writes:
"...the Bible was not written as a scientific text."
You say that, AND YET, you hold the conceit that your religious beliefs allow you to SELECTIVELY debate/dismiss whatever science you wish if and when said science heaps doubt upon your non-scientific religious beliefs.
I wonder if there are other sciences that you debate as readily as you debate evolution? How about the science behind your car's internal combustion engine, your computer or our ability to predict the weather? Are those sciences 'just theories" that are "up for debate?"
What do you think about medicines that owe their very creation to a reliance on evolutionary study and principles? Do you think science's understanding and treatments of bacterial infections is "up for debate" as that understanding and those treatments are ENTIRELY PREDICATED on the theory of evolution? (BTW - if you want to see natural selection taking place before your eyes, just watch as bacteria evolve and mutate in as little as 15 minutes).
JC also writes:
"Which is what I mean when I say that the theory of evolution is subject to change and modification."
This is where uninformed religionists always fall down in trying to dispute the FACT of evolution. Let me make it simple for you: the BASIC "theory of evolution" is NOT subject to change and modification. The FACT of evolution has been proven over and over again. It is OBSERVABLE in real time. Its PREDICTIVE QUALITIES inform and serve as the basis for many of the other sciences we now take for granted.
What is modifiable in ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY is the DEPTH OF OUR UNDERSTANDING of said theory, and that understanding modifies (changes) with every scientific breakthrough.
Think of it this way: baseball is still baseball even if the strike zone is modified or the height of the pitcher's mound is raised. A curve ball did actually curve even before science could explain HOW it curved (many believed the curve ball was an optical illusion before science proved it curved. The trick to the knowledge is that the curve ball curves DOWNWARD, not sideways).
But to the religionist, re-defining the strike zone or raising the pitcher's mound negates the ENTIRE GAME OF BASEBALL! Proving HOW the curve ball curves REMOVES THE SUPERNATURAL BEAUTY and FAITH-DERIVED EXPLANATION from the curve ball.
Of course, the contrast to the scientific method is the fallacy of religion-derived "knowledge" of our world. Think about it: both religion and the scientific method are products of man's mind. One is in ascendency as a RELIABLE, PROVABLE, TESTABLE and REPLICATE-ABLE explainer of how our world and universe functions, one is in retreat. Which is which?
Finally, JC writes:
"For you yes it was all just a statistically impossible mere coincidence and I believe that God made things just so that we could live and thrive."
Who - besides the religionist - argues that the theory of natural selection relies on "mere coincidence" for its explanation of things? What definition of the word "selection" implies mere coincidence? The theory isn't called "natural coincidence," is it?
And, if god "made things just so that we could live and thrive," then god is a pretty poor designer, isn't she? Do you really believe that god made a largely chaotic and unpredictable universe just so YOU could be alive at this time on a tiny speck of dust in an unremarkable far reach of our galaxy? Wow. That's ego-centric thinking! Do you really believe that god sat idly by for, oh, 98,000 years of the existence of homo sapiens, and then - 2,000 years ago - decided she had really had enough, and that it was time to send a savior to mankind? Do you really believe that a god who was so displeased with as paltry an act as Onan "spilling his seed" on the ground (masturbating) that he struck him dead, can - in our age - shrug off the outright assault on his existence by atheists like me as not being displeasing enough to garner even a whimper of complaint from an eternally jealous god?
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 8, 2007 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
JC writes:
" as I stated in a previous post, if there is no God, then who has the right to say what is true or what is right or wrong? It is all subjective, therefore we get to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong."
There's a simple and elegant answer to your question, and it is this: our morals and ethics have evolved over time, from our earliest days as hunter gatherers to now. At some point, man realized that there was value in the family/tribal unit. That's no big deal - the lower species realized the same thing, they just didn't evolve to the point where they could consider it rationally, as did we. Our morals were not given by any god. They were hard-earned by our distant ancestors, and they have evolved - and continue to evolve - to where we are now.
Morals and ethics are the better angels of our evolutionary past. They are - if not our birthright - our evolved right as a species. Religion - that is, any religion that posits a god as the giver of our morals - is the outright theft of our own better selves.
Tell me this - if our morals were given by god, what did men do before god deigned to hand them down? Specifically, what did the Jews do before the 10 Commandments were given by god? Did they go around murdering their fellow Jews with no concern that there would be consequences? Did they regularly sleep with livestock because they didn't worry about consequences? What about the cultures who preceded the Hebraic culture, those cultures who had laws against murder and theft? Did they receive their walking orders from their "false" gods, or was Yahweh the actual giver of their laws as well? If so, how does that make the laws he gave to the Jews any better than the laws he gave the Egyptians?
As far as "worshipping" things - that is just another religious conceit. Atheists don't worship men or anything. Worship is no more a concept for non-believers than is a game of cricket a concept to a micro-organism. That said, were I to elect to worship men, I would most certainly be inclined to worship scientists and writers on the level of, say, an Emerson, rather than worshipping the men who wrote the Bible. If there is no god, that is who you are actually worshipping, isn't it?
One more thought: we are, you and I, both atheists in the larger sense of the world. By that, I mean that you and I are equal in our disbelief in the thousands of gods man has created for himself. I just go one step further than do you - I include the Hebrew god in my list of imaginary gods. You do not.
BTW - the OT states quite clearly that there ARE other gods. Not "imaginary" other gods, other gods. In fact, the Hebrew god was not strong enough to defeat a certain god (see Judges) because the Canaanite's army had chariots of iron. What's that say about the omnipotence of the Hebrew god?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 8, 2007 12:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What I meant to say concerning the beginning of the earth was "just the right distance from the sun" thanks
Posted by: JC | December 8, 2007 7:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
just the right distance from the sun is what I meant to say
Posted by: JC | December 8, 2007 7:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark you say:
that respect DOES NOT EXTEND to my being forced to believe or to aver that there is even a shred of truth to what you believe,
When did I ask you to believe what I do? I only was stating that I have just as much right to believe what I choose as you do and so do my children.
You quote:
Daniel 4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.
4:20 The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth.
As you have mentioned you have read the Bible in its entirety then you must be aware that what you have quoted here is from a dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. As in other dreams recorded in the Bible and as in our own dreams there are things that we "see" that we would not see while awake. Additionally the entire book of Daniel as well as Revelations is to be read differently because they both were written during times of great persecution and for that reason the language is fantastical and the purpose of that was to encourage believers while at the same time maintaining safety from the authorities who were responsible for the persecution. Daniel was written during the Babylonian exile, when many Jews were taken as captives into Babylon. The language of Daniel was very understandible to the Jews in Babylon because they understood it to be a message of hope and deliverance. So this perhaps will help to explain the passages you quote from Daniel and Revelations.
Now for the other passages that you quote, I really don't see that they say the earth is flat. You are again reading the Bible as a scientist remember the Bible was not written as a scientific text. These passages are pointing to the fact that God is omnipotent and that His presence is everywhere and all times. As you have already made clear you would not believe that either, but that is an entirely different concept that what you are trying to show with those scriptures.
Most importantly though Mr. Mark I do not feel the compulsion as you do to make everything that I read in the Bible fit my logic or understanding. God is so great and so wonderful how could we expect our human minds to have the capacity to understand Him completely?
I believe that the Bible is His word and because of that of course there will be things that I do not understand completely. For you Mr. Mark everything must be logical and rational. I believe in a spiritual world that we do not see and that we have barely begun to understand. In this spiritual realm there are things that happen that do not fit the confines of science which is just as man-made as you would say religion is. Therefore following your logic, science is just as prone to error and human folly as religion is. Which is what I mean when I say that the theory of evolution is subject to change and modification.
It is all just a matter of where you put your trust. The explanation I choose to trust is actually much more complete than evolution. Evolution fails to answer where did all that matter come from? Was it just a matter of mere chance that the stars alligned just right and our planet was formed just the right distance from the earth so that life could begin and be sustained. For you yes it was all just a statistically impossible mere coincidence and I believe that God made things just so that we could live and thrive.
You said:
Only a religionist says such things. I put my "faith" in science the way you put your "faith" in the belief that your car will start 99% of the time you turn the key. That doesn't mean that you worship your car or its ignition switch, does it? That doesn't mean that you look to your car for moral guidance, does it? Didn't think so.
Of course you don't worship your car or look to it for moral guidance, we all know that Mr. Mark. You worship yourself and other men. Science elevates men to the position of deity because it doesn't allow for any other deity. Therefore, as I stated in a previous post, if there is no God, then who has the right to say what is true or what is right or wrong? It is all subjective, therefore we get to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. So you keep on worshiping men and "as for me and my household" we will worship God. Just keeping it real.
Posted by: JC | December 8, 2007 7:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear JC -
If I might respond:
"As a linguistics major who has studied extensively the theories of second language acquisition as well education theory I understand full well what theory means to particular fields."
Would you say that those "theories of second language acquisition and education theory" are "only" theories, as you posit for the theory of natural selection? In other words, are they fact or conjecture?
"Of course scientists would like to disprove the existence of God."
Absolutely untrue. Science attempts to prove positives. Along the way of proving positives of a particular hypothesis, other hypotheses may become less likely or moot...or are - to a high degree of certainty - disproved. God is such a hypothesis. The scientist's relationship to the hypothesis of god as a probable answer for why things work the way they do is the same today as it was when LaPlace uttered his famous phrase to Napoleon when explaining the abscence of god in his discovery of black holes: "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse,"
"Moving on, regarding your statements on the Bible, please give me the chapter and verse where it says the earth is flat."
Daniel 4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.
4:20 The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth.
The only way a tree could be in "the sight thereof of ALL the earth" would be if the earth was flat.
Deut. 13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth.
The ends of the earth? Does a sphere have ends? No, but a flat surface does.
Matt. 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
Up a mountain with Satan where every kingdom on earth could be seen. Again, how does that happen on a sphere? And if this passage is meant allegorically, then why bother with the ascent of the mountain to enable the view "of the world?"
Rev 7 speaks of 4 angels sitting on the "4 corners of the world." Again, flat earth.
Psalm 33 speaks of god sitting above the earth, "From the place of his habitation he looks upon all the inhabitants of the earth."
Flat earth.
"Because of your disdain for the Bible, I am taking a leap but I am assuming you have never read it all."
Like most leaps of faith, yours is off target and not based in reality. I have, in fact, read the entire Bible a couple of times and studied it extensively.
"Putting faith in science."
Only a religionist says such things. I put my "faith" in science the way you put your "faith" in the belief that your car will start 99% of the time you turn the key. That doesn't mean that you worship your car or its ignition switch, does it? That doesn't mean that you look to your car for moral guidance, does it? Didn't think so.
Faith is the most over-rated commodity on the planet. I'm with Sam Harris on this one - I look forward to the End of Faith.
"it is very important for those reading the Bible to know when it is speaking literally and when it is not."
And who, exactly, determines such things? Biblical scholars? Different sects? The individual? None of it is provable, so its ALL speculation and opinion, isn't it?
Do you believe the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman really happened? Did you happen to know that many Biblical scholars say that story is a very late addition to the Bible that wasn't included in the earlier versions, and that it is most likely a fabrication of some later scribe? Does that matter to you, or do you slough it off as "just some theory?"
"But in our day and age when we decry each other for insensitive remarks and prejudice how does your treatment of me and other people of faith fit in with all that?"
As long as "you and other people" treat the proven facts of science as "just theories" while elevating fantasy, myth and speculation to the level of "divinely revealed truth," then I will continue to decry your baseless and insensitive - and ignorant -remarks like the ones you continue to make about science and, by extension, truth and logic.
Where do you and "other people of faith fit in with all that?" Well, I'd say that as an American, you are entitled to your beliefs. I, as a fellow American, respect your right TO BELIEVE what you believe. HOWEVER, that respect DOES NOT EXTEND to my being forced to believe or to aver that there is even a shred of truth to what you believe, and it certainly doesn't extend to my being required to place any unprovable fantasy you might entertain as being on an equal footing with long-proven and incontrovertible scientific facts.
In other words, the long-proven FACT of evolution cedes no truth or ground to religious-driven inanities like creationism, any more than the proven fact that we live on a sphere must offer equal footing to the Bible's fantastic assertion that the earth is flat.
IF you advocate the teaching of creationism (ID) along with evolution in our schools, then tell me this: should we immediately follow our astronomy classes with those in astrology? Should the classes in alchemy precede or follow those in chemistry? Should our medical schools teach the bleeding of patients as equal or better treatments than prescribing medication?
"So have at it, because when you speak against Christians it is really not the individual whom are against it is Christ."
As Christ never existed except as a mythological religious archetype drawn from Jewish mythology, one cannot speak "against Christ" any more than one can speak "against Zeus" or "against Odin." Even if one wanted to concede the person-hood of Jesus (which I don't), one is still speaking only against a man, not a godman. There are no gods, so there can be no blasphemy.
Trust me, JC, Jesus isn't getting insulted when he is spoken against for the simple reason that there's no one there to get insulted. No, I'm afraid it is you and the other humans in the fantasy-based community who are the ones getting insulted. Why not just own up to that truth and leave out the defense of the imaginary god as a pretext for your own sense of victimhood?
"I would love for you to be as scholarly and intellectually honest with the Bible as much as you would like me to be so with scientific theory."
I accept your challenge. I think you'll find that I am quite well versed in things Biblical. I look forward to your surprising me with your depth of scientific knowledge and understanding.
In the meanwhile, I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you on points Biblical. I've learned things about the Bible from this forum before, though by "things" I don't mean truths.
I look forward to our coming chats.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 8, 2007 12:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
As a linguistics major who has studied extensively the theories of second language acquisition as well education theory I understand full well what theory means to particular fields. In fact I understand it enough to know that theory is a man made system or model set up to understand a particular part of life. Theories are always up for debate and modification that is a scientific view of theory. There is no infallible theory, including that of evolution.
Of course scientists would like to disprove the existence of God. Why debate that? The more that man can disprove God the easier it is for us to become gods ourselves. Thus it becomes easier for us to create our own truths and our own realities which is precisly where secular Europe is and where you Mr. Mark I presume are. In your eyes there is no absolute religious or spiritual truth but the need for absolute truth is strong within us as humans that when that void is created it is filled by having faith in absolute scientific truth.
Science is good and beneficial for society, but unlike you it is not religion or god. I worship a different god which you do choose to not recognize.
Moving on, regarding your statements on the Bible, please give me the chapter and verse where it says the earth is flat. Additionally the Bible was not written as a scientific text, it does have scientific information in it but its purpose is to tell humans about their condition of needing God. You evidently think science is going to give you all the answers, I look to the Bible for my answers.
Because of your disdain for the Bible, I am taking a leap but I am assuming you have never read it all. The Bible is like other books in that if you just pick out little parts out of context you will come up with grave misunderstandings. As we have read in the post about the Republican debate, it is very important for those reading the Bible to know when it is speaking literally and when it is not.
It suits your purpose to quote passages without looking at the context. I would love for you to be as scholarly and intellectually honest with the Bible as much as you would like me to be so with scientific theory.
Again, you aren't superior nor are you smarter than me just because you just to put your faith in science. You put your faith in science and I put my faith in God and his written word.
When people such as yourself speak down to people of faith nothing positive results as is the same when people of faith do likewise. You evidently seem to think though that because of your "enlightened" state and because of my "ignorant" state that you should be free to speak to me as rudely as you have. So have at it, because when you speak against Christians it is really not the individual whom are against it is Christ. So of course if you don't believe in Him I guess that is not a big deal for you. But in our day and age when we decry each other for insensitive remarks and prejudice how does your treatment of me and other people of faith fit in with all that?
Posted by: JC | December 7, 2007 7:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear JC -
You take offense that some of us consider you to be unlearned - stupid, as you call it.
Yet what are we to believe about a person who writes "evolution is only a theory, not a fact"? As Chris Everett pointed out in her clearly worded post, the word "theory" when used in a scientific context refers to a body of FACTS. The scientific use of the word "theory" has NOTHING whatsoever to do with CONJECTURE. Conjecture DOES enter into the scientific method, but it happens at the level of the HYPOTHESIS. A scientific theory is a PROVEN and FACTUAL scientific hypothesis.
Further, the use of the word "theory" to denote a body of fact is NOT limited to science. I went to university as a music major, and we had Music Theory classes every day. These classes explained the FACTS behind the inner workings of music, harmony, rhythm etc. This body of facts constituted the field of music theory.
Yet, if I were to apply YOUR LIMITED and CONTEXTUALLY ERRONEOUS definition to the word "theory" to music theory, I would need to say, "music is just a theory, it isn't a fact."
You also write:
"As a Christian first of all I do not believe that science and faith in God are mutually exclusive, however where the two diverge I would always go with what the Bible says as opposed to Dr. So and So from the University of Such and Such. This doesn not mean that I or others like me is stupid, ignorant or narrow minded."
Well, yes it does mean exactly that you are ignorant, narrow-minded and stupid. Do you believe the Bible when it states that the Earth is flat? How about the Bible's assertions that fire-breathing dragons and unicorns exist? How about Jesus' assertion that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (it isn't) and that the mustard seed grows into a mustard tree (there are no trees in the mustard family)? How about the Bible's assertion that bats are birds (they're not. They're mammals)? What do you think of the Bible's description of the cockatrice - a serpent born of a hen's egg who can kill a person simply by looking at them?
Are these Biblical attempts at scientific explanation the kind of things that you believe over scientific research/explanations, and NOT ONLY of A doctor from A university, but from the research of millions of scientists working on thousands of experiments over decades and decades, experiments that have produced VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE and TESTABLE results?
If your answer is "yes," well...I'll leave it to others to come up with descriptors for such intellectual blindness and cowardice in the face of clear, compelling and often incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 7, 2007 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
At least the nations leading newspapers editorial pages get it:
From the NY Times:
Faith vs. the Faithless
By DAVID BROOKS
...“But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.
The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious.”...
And again from the NY Times:
Editorial
The Crisis of Faith
“Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office...
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.
Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”
Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.
Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy...
CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?”
The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.
From the Washington Post:
No Freedom Without Religion?
There's a gap in Mitt Romney's admirable call for tolerance.
“RELIGIOUS liberty is, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared yesterday, "fundamental to America's greatness." With religious division inciting violence across the globe, he is right to celebrate America's tradition of religious tolerance. He's right, too, that no one should vote against him, or for him, because he is a Mormon. We only wish his empathy for religious minorities such as his own extended a bit further, to those who do not believe in God...
"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government," Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.
Posted by: Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA | December 7, 2007 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Let me respond to those of you who seem to think my faith in God must equate lower intelligence on my part. Lest I sound arrogant, let me not say I am defending my own intelligence, just simply arguing the point that faith does not equal dimness.
There is a trend in secular post-modern socities to replace rationalism and science for religion. You see man needs something to explain life and for some that is religion for others it is science. Those who would not even allow the presentation of the theory of creation are perhaps simply defending their "faith" just as much as some Christians defend their beliefs on creation.
As a Christian first of all I do not believe that science and faith in God are mutually exclusive, however where the two diverge I would always go with what the Bible says as opposed to Dr. So and So from the University of Such and Such. This doesn not mean that I or others like me is stupid, ignorant or narrow minded. It means that I have chosen a standard by which to live my life which is the Bible. Others have chosen another standard which is science and where biblical teaching and science diverge, they instead choose to side with science.
Some also have the arrogant belief that their faith in science should somehow supercede others faith in God and what is written about Him in the Bible. Is that fair? The faithful scientists get to dictate what is taught and have the right to trample on the faithful Christian? Many of you seem to think so.
Perhaps one day when all sides of our spiritual and political spectrums decide they have something to learn from the other side instead of always looking to condescend then we will experience a new era in this nation and in this world. When the religious condescend it does not work to gain respect and credence for their faith. The same is true when the those faithful to the religion of science are condescending towards the Christian.
Maybe when you decide to talk to me instead of down to me is when I will listen and take to heart what is said. When I am called ignorant and stupid, please understand that everything that follows is automatically thrown out as invalid because the messenger has invalidated him or herself.
It is a relatively new and very western concept that the natural world and spiritual world are two very different areas of life. Throughout the world most cultures interweave their worldview of the "natural" and "spiritual" so this is why the concept of forcing Christian children to learn evolution without even the mention of creation is particularly offensive and hurtful. The Christian worldview sees everything through a biblical or spiritual lens, therefore even something as "scientific" as the evolution theory is not something that is easily accepted over what is taught in the Bible about creation.
Stop judging, stop hating, stop stereotyping.
Posted by: JC | December 6, 2007 10:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
P.S. Thank you :)
Posted by: Aida Bode | December 6, 2007 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
LOL Henry, "where"... is not separated from "on which" though there is a coma to simply make the sentence understood, in which case it seems you did.
Posted by: Aida Bode | December 6, 2007 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Aida
Oh, you mean, will he use the book of Mormon,
as our new Muslim congressman used the Koran?
Since Mormons believe the Bible is the "word of God", as Mitt so stumblelingly noted the other day, and since it is in his political interest to downplay his Mormonism,
my bet is on the Bible.
As far as Where he puts his hand?
I don't get that one.
Posted by: Henry James | December 6, 2007 2:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have only one question. If Romney will be chosen president and he'll swear as one, where will he place his hand, on which bible?
Posted by: Aida Bode | December 6, 2007 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You are welcome Eric.
I have found all of your representations so far to be fair, whether I agree with them or not.
love
Henry
Posted by: Henry James | December 6, 2007 1:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Henry James:
Re: "That's what I said. Thanks."
So you did! You're welcome.
And thank you Henry for being fair. You never seem to let something get misrepresented even though you may not agree with it yourself. I appreciate that.
Posted by: Eric | December 6, 2007 12:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Tom
pretty uninformed and bigoted remark. as well as morally odious.
you give us atheists a bad name
if you are one.
Henry
Posted by: Henry James | December 6, 2007 10:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It's shameful that Mitt Romney feels compelled to give a speech to the American people proving he is "Christian enough" to be their president. It's downright frightening that he must do so because Mike "I'm no monkey" Huckabee is surging in the polls. Let's face it folks: A true intellectual giant and proud non-Christian such as Thomas Jefferson could never get elected in today's America. We're doomed.
Posted by: RC | December 6, 2007 10:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Eric,
You wrote: "Two of the Thirteen Articles of faith in the Mormon Church are as follows: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where, or what they may. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." The answer to your question then is that it is a tenet of the LDS church for its American members to uphold the American constitution. To not do so would be to violate the law of the land and thus his religious obligations."
Thank you for this clarification.
Posted by: GeorgiaSon | December 6, 2007 8:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Tom,
You may vote as you please, but you'd be voting on an incorrect premise....
The Mormon Church does not practice polygamy, does not believe in white supremacy, and believes that revelation is available to all people. In other words, Romney is not claiming to be endorsed by God.
I know you use the cult word to incite anger and backlash, but I'm pretty bored with it at this point, so yawn on that one.
Posted by: Eric | December 6, 2007 1:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Lay off it, Jacques. You're Jewish, after all....
Posted by: tom | December 5, 2007 11:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Okay, let's not vote against Mitt because he's a Mormon. Let's vote against him because he's a member of a cult that believes in polygamy, believes in white supremacy, believes in God talking directly to current candidates. I think those are proper issues.
Posted by: tom | December 5, 2007 11:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Very interesting. But this resident of Massachusetts wonders why the Fourth Face of Mitt Romney seems to be almost studiously neglected by people who write about him -- ROMNEY THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS. One might think that Romney's accomplishments (and lack of them), his campaign promises and gubernatorial performance, should figure mightily in people's assessment of his fitness for the American Presidency. Or is that kind of job experience just too boring and wonkish for pundits and ordinary Americans?
Posted by: MikeA | December 5, 2007 6:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Very interesting. But this resident of Massachusetts wonders why the Fourth Face of Mitt Romney seems to be almost studiously neglected by people who write about him -- ROMNEY THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS. One might think that Romney's accomplishments (and lack of them), his campaign promises and gubernatorial performance, should figure mightily in people's assessment of his fitness for the American Presidency. Or is that kind of job experience just too boring and wonkish for pundits and ordinary Americans?
Posted by: MikeA | December 5, 2007 6:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Eric
That's what I said.
thanks.
Henry
Posted by: Henry James | December 5, 2007 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Gerogiason:
You wrote:
"Mitt Romney is bound to adhere to the doctrines set forth by the leaders of the Mormon Church. It is a condition of his faith. He has no choice in the matter. How he resolves this contradiction between the requirements of his faith and the Constitution’s requirement of separation of church and state is a legitimate matter of public debate."
Two of the Thirteen Articles of faith in the Mormon Church are as follows: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
The answer to your question then is that it is a tenet of the LDS church for its American members to uphold the American constitution. To not do so would be to violate the law of the land and thus his religious obligations.
Posted by: Eric | December 5, 2007 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Steven
I appreciate your sentiments.
Romney is pulled in a few directions on this one because:
1. There is significant anti mormon prejudice in the electorate, esp among southern republicans, so he wishes that group would forget about his faith.
2. For the last 35 years, a candidate for president has had to show that he was a believing Christian, so Romney would like people to think the same about him.
3. His private preference may well be not to talk about his faith, but factors 1 and 2 above complicate things.
As far as your using scriptures with your friends, i think that is a normal thing to do. the king james bible is the most important book in western literature, and literate people should have some acquaintance with it whether or not they are believers.
i am sure you realize that many of your friends have different faiths, or no faith, and you can incorporate that understanding into your quotation process either implicitly or explicity as you see fit, and I'm sure you do.
But i think you are right, quoting can often help communication.
Posted by: Henry James | December 5, 2007 5:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is only a guess, but as a Mormon I am guessing that Romney would prefer to not bring religion into this race nearly so often. It is just brought up so often, whether he wants to talk about it or not. This is a secular office he is running for and I expect he would like to keep it that way, even though his guiding principles may align with Judeo/Christian thinking.
When I'm at the office I don't quote scriptures, but in a conversation where it comes up and my audience is not LDS, I'll usually use a Biblical scripture that we can both relate to, rather than a scripture that only I can relate to. That seems fine to me, because the goal is to communicate.
Posted by: Steven | December 5, 2007 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OK Norrie
you esoteric country coot you...
I;ll bite:
who the heck is Roman Grant.
Posted by: Henry James | December 5, 2007 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I made a boo-boo, which exemplifies why you should not believe anything you read about another religion unless you get it from the source. She was BORN in 1909. She did not found the religion prior to her revelation.... :-)
Posted by: Carol | December 5, 2007 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh, and Anna:
I can't vouch for the accuracy of ANYTHING posted on the aforelinked site. I'd suggest you look for their own website and see what they have to say. The only thing I really know about a Course in Miracles is that its founder was a woman....
Posted by: Carol | December 5, 2007 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anna,
A Course in Miracles was founded by Helen Schucman in 1909.
Sorry for copying and pasting, but here: In 1965, Helen Schucman began hearing a voice that would later identify himself as Jesus. She and her colleague, William Thetford, scribed the conversations into a three volume series that was published in 1976 1.
Sacred or Revered Texts: A Course in Miracles is the sacred text, which includes a text, a workbook for students, and a teacher's manual.
Size of Group: Over 1 and a half million copies of The Course have been sold, and over 2,200 study groups now meet worldwide.
There's more, if you're interested. http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/course.html
I'm pointing this out, not to promote it, but because of your belief that no woman has ever started a religious movement....
Posted by: Carol | December 5, 2007 4:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Henry James, Mr. Mark, et al,
As one who has lived on the same street that Joseph Smith did when he was thirteen or fourteen years old, I feel particularly qualified to ask Mr. Romney this 5th question:
Mitt,
Do you consider Roman Grant to be a role model for you or others? Please explain.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | December 5, 2007 3:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela
I agree. Though I am an ex mormon who has many criticisms of the church,
it is an ignorant prejudice to think that Mormons are qualiltatively different from any other mainstream religion.
And as I told ignorant Anne, don't make statements about Mormon beliefs when you don't know what you're talking about.
If you want to know IF Mormons believe in the Father, the Son, and the hOly Ghost,
go to Mormon.org indeed. Don't listen to your fundamentalist turf-protecting preacher.
Anti Mormon ignorant prejudice is no more noble than anti Gay ignorant prejudice.
Posted by: Henry James | December 5, 2007 2:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Will someone just please visit LDS.org to get the FACTS on the Mormon faith? Why doesn't the media get the doctrines of this church right? There are so many weird ideas about mormons out there, but if you look at their actual doctrines, you'll get an understanding. There are so many religions that have "different" beliefs or ways of doing things...Jews wear unique religious things, have totally different ways of showing their relgion than catholics, but does that make one weird and another normal? www.mormon.org or lds.org
Posted by: angela | December 5, 2007 1:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
HENRY JAMES:
I refrained from responding to Anna because I knew someone else would, more eloquently than I. So Anna, ditto me on Henry's post.
I'll just add that Jesus himself would fall under the same category, with respect to Judaism. In fact, what we have here is an infinite regress - EVERYONE falls under the category with respect to the prevalent religion of the time.
Posted by: Chris Everett | December 5, 2007 1:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You folks are so worried bout how religious (or not religious) your next president is. In my opinion, you should be more concerned if he/she will continue our immoral and unconditional support for the Israelis over the Palestinians; and what he/she will do to free us from our disastrous dependence on Middle East oil and from the control of the Israeli AIPAC lobby.
Here is another interesting site on the Israeli technological marvel.
Yup, Israel is a technological marvel. That’s why the Israelis need to hog 80% of the Palestinian’s water supply.
http://www.fmep.org/analysis/articles/water_policy_maher.html
…“According to recommended standards of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S Agency for International Development (USAID), a minimum of 100 liters a day per capita are needed for balanced and healthy domestic consumption in rural households. In contrast, BâeTselem, the Israeli human rights organization, documents that Israeli per capita consumption of water already reaches 350 l/day, about five-times Palestinian consumption. Per capita consumption of water in Israeli settlements, most of which are strategically located directly above main water extraction sources, can reach even higher levels, estimated at seven-fold the Palestinian consumption rate. In contrast, Palestinian consumption rates per capita vary between 35-80 l/d, well below WHO and USAID recommendations, and in some communities, water consumption can dip to as low as 7 l/d under certain conditions…”
So Israel confiscates most of the West Bank water, to the point that Palestinians there do not even have what the UN and the US government both regard as the minimum necessary to sustain human life, while Jewish settlers - accustomed to living in their native Europe or America - water grass lawns and fill swimming pools with water taken from under the feet of the Palestinians, while the Palestinians are rarely allowed to drill wells.
So you Israelis go ahead and live well at the expense of your oppressed neighbors on your stolen land. My government will guarantee the continuation of your illegal existence and fund your atrocious behavior with billions of my tax dollars. Live long and prosper, until the world wakes up and puts a stop to your despicable treatment of the rightful owners of your stolen land.
Posted by: Rick Jones, Fredericksburg, VA | December 5, 2007 12:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Caedmon,
Your paranoia leads me to almost call the men in the white coats.
I will never vote for him,
but Romney has a public record of 35 years
in both business and government as Governor.
There is no TRACE of danger that he is Messianic or Mormon Churcch directed in his public or business life, any more than any other church goer.
He is NOT the bogey man.
George Bush consulted his "higher father" in going to war with Iraq. Romney or Huckabee or Obama or Clinton is going to tell you they believe in God and pray. Beyond that, they are first of all politicians.
Don't fuel the irrational prejudice against the unknown Mormon that others have in the US.
Posted by: Henry James | December 5, 2007 12:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mitt Romney insists that the LDS Church will have no influence on government policy if he is elected.
However, when Romney went through the secret LDS temple endowment ceremony he would have taken the oath to observe the Law of Obedience. He would also have promised before God, angels and witnesses to “accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”
As with all politics it is instructive to “follow the money”. Romney has traveled many times to Utah, home of the LDS church and a substantial percentage of its adherents, to raise money for his campaign. Utah ranks second only to California in the campaign cash raised – an impressive feat considering that California’s population is significantly larger.
If Romney should be elected, would he view the US Presidency as something the Lord has blessed him with? Would he keep his sworn oath to consecrate that blessing to the LDS Church? If not, is he willing to publicly disavow the oath he made before God, angels, and witnesses?
Posted by: caedmon | December 5, 2007 12:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Addendum to Anna Night
What "unnatural" things do Mormons believe in?
and, they DO believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. What are you taling about? Do you know?
Posted by: Henry | December 5, 2007 12:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anna Knight
You're Kidding, Right?
You write "I have a serious issue with the new religions that some 'man' (never a woman) decided that he knows more than did the people who lived at the time"
AND THEN
you note that you are a "Christian" agnostic who was baptised as a Southern Baptist.
Were there Southern Baptists in the Bible?
Didn't Peter and Paul found the Christian Church, which was what coalesced into the Catholic (NOT the Southern Baptist) church?
All of today's believers/agnostics are deciding on their own version of the truth of "what people did who lived at the time." (there was NO "Christian Church" while Jesus was alive. there were followers of Jesus, IF Jesus actually existed, and IF all the undocumentable stories about what he did on the earth are true, in either Matthew or Mark or someone else's version..
The Mormons have as much right to their interpretation as the Southern Baptists or the Lutherans do. And they DO believe in Jesus.
Joseph Smith's story that God and Jesus appeared to him is hard to believe. But so is the story that God appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, or that Moses saw a bush that burned and was not consumed.
Posted by: Henry James | December 5, 2007 12:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't have the slightest idea what Eisenhower was talking about and his comment is deeply offensive. I have no religious faith, and prefer to, as the song goes, let the mystery be. That means I'm can't help build American democracy? What a crock.
Posted by: newageblues | December 5, 2007 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mitt Romney is in all probability a good person. But as a Christian, I have a serious issue with the new religions that some 'man' (never a woman) decided that he knows more about what God intended for people, than did the people who lived at the time, and subsequent to that era. The audacity of arrogance displayed by not just the founders of the Morman Church, but all individual and so-called churches that display unnatural rules and thoughts is incredibly naive.
While I was baptized 'Southern' Baptist more years ago than I care to remember, I now consider myself to be an Agnostic.
Also, I vehemently disagree with the Catholic religion, and their foundation of leadership which is similiar to the 'new' religions of today, at least it has a deeply embedded history where people actually believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Posted by: Anna Knight | December 5, 2007 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JC my beloved friend
You are missing a few subtleties in my post.
First, as was obvious to virtually all readers, I was being ironic in proposing a constitional amendment. Neither am I in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (or virtually any constutional amendment).
And clearly, someone who is a creationist has every RIGHT to run for President. In my not so humble opinion (I am paid for my opinions) no one SHOULD vote for such a person, but everyone has a Right to vote for them.
I/we tolerate all sorts of people who believe all sorts of crazy things. We still think their beliefs are crazy, and they may think the same about us. It IS a free country.
Your analysis of "theory" and your apparent understanding of Science is VERY limited. You need to do more reading.
A President who uses the kind of "factual analysis" you use with regard to evolution when she is evaluating whether Iraz has weapons of mass destruction will be much more likely to get us into another senseless war than someone whose ability to evaluate the Truth of various propositions is at a higher level.
And you should know that there is NO intellectual respectability (truth-value attribution) for Intelligent Design or Creationism even in this country, let alone the rest of the world.
Teach your children whatever you want. They will grow up intellectually handicapped in a world that is less and less merciful to ignorance.
Posted by: Henry james | December 5, 2007 11:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JC:
You're the pot calling the kettle black.
Evolution IS taught as theory. No teacher of evolution ever told the class, "believe this or you're going to hell." Has anyone teaching ID ever said, "IT'S OK TO NOT BELIEVE THIS?"
You are the victim of a robbery. While you were way too young to think for yourself, still at the age where what all adults said was absolutely so, the adults held the GUN OF HELL to your head and said it would never be taken away. Is it a permanent fixture now? Am I, BGone going to hell is the test for that. If you say I am then you're as stuck as a bug on fly paper.
Evolution is not being shoved down your throat but you want to shove ID down my throat, make it the law of the land and thus empower even more those who abuse children with nightmare making threats of hell. Believe what you like and keep your nose out of what other people believe.
Science properly taught begins with what theories are, rules engineers can use. And, most important of all, theories must be proved and the proof repeatable over and over again. What kind of engineering does ID lead to? Got any proof of ID? The Bible? Ha!
The Bible is a proved hoax http://www.hoax-buster.org
Hoax is the best option. There's http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul for those who FAITH the Bible is the word of some supernatural being. Caution is advised when worshiping supernatural beings. God can't be expected to go real easy on Devil worshipers and especially those that worship Lucifer, the one that tried to throw God out.
Try a little faith in God for a change of pace. Hoax buster is the truly divinely inspired scripture. You know, like Moses, Muhammad and Joseph Smith. Only difference is hoax buster makes no claim of divine inspiration. But we know, (wink-wink) that we are all God's children including Mr Hunt so everything we do is divinely inspired. It's just a matter of which sacred scripture one chooses to faith. You'll find faithing God rather refreshing after the stuffy religious cons with their threats of hell complete with faith in Devil.
Posted by: BGone | December 5, 2007 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JC:
You're obviously intelligent and articulate, but you seem to have fallen for the creationist propaganda that evolution is "just a theory" as opposed to a fact. Would you say the same for the theory of relativity, atomic theory, cell theory or germ theory? The fact is, the pinnacle of scientific endeavor is "theory". In science, facts are the data that are collected in order to test theory. So far, and overwhelmingly, evolution has passed all tests with flying colors. From phenotypic evidence. From fossil evidence. From geological evidence. From radiological evidence. From bacteriological evidence. From demographic evidence. From agricultural evidence. In fact, the theory of evolution is remarkable in terms of the variety of evidence types that can be used to test it.
This does not mean that all questions have been answered. In particular, the question of life's origins is still quite unresolved (maybe not to you, but that's a matter of faith, not religion). But this does not constitute disproof. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Every scientific discovery has been preceeded by a period during which the discovery has not yet been made. And in most cases, religious institutions have done everything in their power to prevent scientific progress.
I hope you are informed enough not to respond with Discovery Institute tripe about irreducible complexity (bacterial flagella, blood clotting, immune systems, ears, eyes, etc.) or improbability (a la airplane-constructing tornados). The fact is, the Discovery Institute's statements are lies and they know it. Just read Behe's own testimony in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.
I do recognize that the concept of irriducible complexity is potentially a scientific one, assuming that it can be unambiguously defined, which it currently isn't. Then, if it could be demonstrated that the existing laws of nature could not, even in principle, produce some irreducibly complex thing, the inadequacy of our current scientific theory would be demonstrated. Of course, in order to conclude an intelligent designer, you would then have to prove that NO set of natural laws exist that could explain the irriducibly complex thing.
Good luck!
The fact is, the Bible is archaic, and its testable claims are those of its authors who knew very little about the natural world. It's not at all surprising that they are often (usually) wrong. To put yourself at odds with science because of these old mistaken beliefs would be a real shame. I'm sure there are parts of the Bible that you don't take literally. For example, I assume you don't stone people to death. I'm sure you are also aware of contradictions within the Bible itself. Like two mutually exclusive creation stories. Or two separate versions of the ten commandments, one of which has a commandment that simultaneously blesses a person for the beliefs of his grandfather but curses him for the beliefs of his father. What's wrong with using Stephen J. Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" whereby science is the path of knowledge of nature, and religion is the path of knowledge of the soul. Couldn't this fall under Jesus' admonition to render unto Caesar that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's? Doesn't the finiteness of your human mind require you to accept that you can't (even in principle) actually understand the Bible in toto, assuming that it is the word of an infinite God?
Posted by: Chris Everett | December 5, 2007 10:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Do as I say, not as I do is Romney's "family values" as CNN reports illegal immigrants landscaping Romney's mansion.
This good Christian/Mormon demonizes Latinos for political gain while taking advantage of their cheap labor himself (maybe because the physical Mormon God, who lives on Kolob, marked them with darker skin, it's OK)
Is this an aspect of his religion, his politics, or both? Maybe he will tell us in his speech.
Posted by: Roy | December 5, 2007 8:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Pardon my cliche, but Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates are hurting from the fact that their own chickens are coming home to roost. You want to make your religion a center piece of your political appeal? Fine. Just don't cry fowl when your religious beliefs and practices are then subjected to minute review. (Oops. I meant "foul.")
I remain baffled by the idea that it is almost un-American to question a self-proclaimed man of faith how his faith will influence his acts as President. You make your bed, you lie in it. (There I go again). That question is particularly pertinent when the candidate’s religion is an hierarchical religion, that is, one that has a recognized body of people—or one person—who establish church doctrines; and requires that all church members adhere to those doctrines. Mitt Romney is bound to adhere to the doctrines set forth by the leaders of the Mormon Church. It is a condition of his faith. He has no choice in the matter. How he resolves this contradiction between the requirements of his faith and the Constitution’s requirement of separation of church and state is a legitimate matter of public debate.
But there’s that Catch 22. How can you proclaim that your faith is the center piece of your life and governs every aspect of your conduct—and then, the minute you decide to run for president, turn around and say, “Just forget the whole thing?” In the case of Mitt Romney, how can you reach middle age proclaiming your fidelity to the Mormon Church—including its requirement that you obey the edits of the Church Elders—and then turn around a proclaim that you will be free of that requirement as president? How can you do that?
In short, how can you do the right thing as required by the Constitution—without thereby being revealed as a world-class hypocrite? You are either a practicing Mormon, or you are a practicing hypocrite.
I await Mitt Romney’s answer to this conundrum.
Posted by: GerogiaSon | December 5, 2007 8:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
So let me just get it straight. Me, a Christian should compromise my beliefs on the creation of earth because others disagree. My children should have to have their faith discredited? Our presidents should have to believe in evolution?
Why do people like you think it is such a sin when Christians stand up for their beliefs when they themselves at the same time mandate theirs?
The reason the teaching of evolution is so controversial has a lot to do with the fact that it is not taught as theory however it is taught as fact. Isn't liberalism all about inclusiveness and tolerance of other beliefs. I would suggest that liberalism as it has become in our current day is not inclusive and not tolerant. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is full of prejudice, intolorence and agorrance.
Everyone must accept that there is no God? Everyone must accept the THEORY of evolution?
Everyone must accept that their faith is untrue and that the secular approach to the world is?
Has the secular approach helped Europe? Has it helped Cuba? Did it help it the former Soviet Union? Why is now that the Christian church (all denominations) is experiencing phenominal growth in Russia. It is because people and socities cannot make it up as they go. They need a standard, a constant.
Anyway, in 1 Peter Christians are told that they are to live as foreigners wherever they may live. That is true, no matter what country we may find ourselves in we could never expect non-Christians to be accepting. In fact the experience in the United States should be seen as quite the anomily that is quickly conforming to the rest of the world and the rest of history.
It is not surprising the constant attacks against Christianity, what is particularly troubling though is the hypocrisy. The fact that certain camps pass themselves off as so open, so accepting, so tolerant, so appreciative of diversity and yet at the same time are capable of such obvious prejudice and stereotyping.
Posted by: JC | December 5, 2007 6:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris Everett:
My link?
"That" link gives you two choices, the Bible is a hoax based upon the life of a "would be" son of God, Amenophis IV and the Bible is divinely inspired by the "would be" God, the fallen angel Lucifer.
I haven't decided myself. There may be supernatural beings and then there may not be supernatural beings - can't prove one way or the other. I hate to guess and put other people's eternal lives at risk. Don't you?
Given no option, only worshipers of the supernatural beings behind "sacred scriptures" are qualified to be president, well, caution is suggested. Maybe that would tend to disqualify?
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is simple enough for anyone to understand. I'm told that goes several fold for R-Catholics.
I've made a point here and elsewhere to request rebut from the leaned Biblical scholars but none has come. So I'm left to believe that fellow got that story real straight, presuming the Bible was inspired by supernatural beings of course. And, not knowing the existence of or not of supernatural beings.
I don't expect anyone who frequents this blog to actually be able to read those ancient documents. I do think it's a bit presumptive to ignore them yet claim the Bible has a historical basis. Amenophis IV did everything both Jesus and Moses did and a couple of rather unique ones. Either two people in the historical record "chased the money changers from the temple of God" or Amenophis IV and Jesus are but one person - just as an example of one.
I've also asked the question about just what is "faith" IN? Turns out no one wants to answer that question either. Obviously Mitt Romney's faith is first and foremost in the truthfulness of Joseph Smith. That's to say nothing of the fact that God cannot be identified so Joe had no real idea if, presuming he was truthful, the supernatural being with whom he conversed was from heaven or hell.
Can you help me. What's to say Moses, Muhammad and Joesph Smith all three misidentified the beings from whom they got all their information. Is that asking too much? Can you say which place those beings came from, heaven or hell? Is faith in God or Moses, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith?
Oh! Sorry, faith is in sacred scriptures, Bibles and so on. Only the correct versions of course which is where this conversation began.
-Regards
Posted by: BGone | December 4, 2007 5:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
BGONE:
I've been to your link and I must admit I'm a little confused. Is your thesis that God exists, Lucifer exists, Hell exists, and that Lucifer created the biblical religions (or ALL religions) as a way of leading people into Hell?
Posted by: Chris Everett | December 4, 2007 4:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris
While I agree that some beliefs are sufficiently nutty that any candidate who holds them should not get your vote (i just proposed a constitional amendment against electing a creationist)
I am sure Romney would tell you he believes in Evolution. And Romney is probably smarter than both you and me.
I think it is un-American to vote against someone SOLELY because s/he is a Mormon. If my Mormon brother were running, you should vote for him, cuz he'd be pretty good (and he's a lawyer too).
If Harry Reid were running, you shouldn't disqualify him because he is a Mormon. Or Mike Levitt. or Richard Bushman.
Mormon beliefs are no wackier than Muslim beliefs or Christian beliefs generally. They are just more recent, a dubious distinction.
Posted by: Henry James | December 4, 2007 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
George Packer in his New Yorker Blog
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker
addresses the differences between Kennedy and Romney in an interesting way.
Big Point: Romney and other Republicans can NOT say, like Kennedy did, that Religion
sHOULD be irrelevent to the voting decision
because every candidate now, democrat or republican, needs to say that they are a believer.
On the criticism that Packer and others make that Romney never PUBLICLY opposed the racism in the church before its reversal in 1978: well, I didn't either (though I left the church in 1967), and you'd vote for me for president, wouldn't you? if i were alive.
Posted by: HJ | December 4, 2007 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
HENRY JAMES:
You write "it is idiotic and treacherous and anti-American to vote against Romney just because he is a Mormon."
I disagree. Although all religions are superstitions and are therefore of a kind (detrimental delusions), I think there are varying degrees of credulity required in order to believe them, and Mormonism, based on my lay aquaintance with it, seems to require a lot, especially since its origins are relatively unobscured by history. That's a minus in my book. There is also the matter of specific doctrine, and although I don't know what Mormon doctrines are of greatest concern, I would, for example, vote against a young earth creatonist, all else equal, on the basis that a creationism-believing president is a source of risk relative to a non-creationist. The mormon doctrine of eternal marriage might bode ill.
It's also not anti-American to vote against Romney due to his religious beliefs - quite the opposite. If Mormonism is a litmus test issue for some, then so be it. A bit narrow but hey, it's America!
Posted by: Chris Everett | December 4, 2007 4:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think we should propose a constitutional amendment that
Anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution is ineligible for the Presidency.
It is seriously not in our national interest, in the current global economic competitive world, for us to have a President who is so backward intellectually.
I agree that Obama's pandering is troublesome.
I hope he Repents.
And MM, you are definitely correct that anyone who wants the job is a little nuts. The sanest president in the last 50 years was the accidental one, the one who didn't get elected.
Posted by: Henry James | December 4, 2007 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Henry -
I don't worry about Romney because he will never get the nomination. The Xian fundies will never allow it.
Huckabee worries me. Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, trumpets his crazy faith on his sleeve and runs TV ads with the words "Christian Leader" emblazoned across them has disqualified himself from my consideration. BTW - I have the same problem with Obama's obvious pandering to the religious crowd.
It doesn't matter, of course. I'll end up voting for the D, no matter who it is. I've come to the conclusion that any person who wants that job is a bit nuts to begin with. I'm looking to support the less-nutty candidate, and that's always the Democrat.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 4, 2007 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Henry: your last point is the one made by Richard Cohen in his editorial. Frankly, I think Romney will put his religion aside if and when elected (a good thing). He just can't resist trying to make the most of it in the meantime. The only silver lining for Huckabee is that his seriousness about religion apparently contributes to some of his more moderate views, such as his refusal to jump on the rabid anti immigrant bandwagon. not much of a silver lining, though.
Posted by: JoeT | December 4, 2007 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark
I totally agree that your questions are appropriate ones. And I hope Romney answers them Thursday.
My point in regard to your good questions is that I think there are satisfactory answers to them. I would be more sanguine about Romney in regard to your questions than I would be about Huckabee, for instance.
cheers
Henry
Posted by: Henry James | December 4, 2007 3:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Henry James, you said "i would vote against him, but not because he is a Mormon."
I hope you would vote for the candidate of your choice based upon something well beyond "voting against" the other candidate. When enough people do that the mud slinging will stop. I get an average of more than one derogartory E-mail a day about Hillary, all from "born again" types. I'm supposed to vote against her?
Very pointed questions Mr Mark. I'm afraid they will never be asked and as Henry points out there are "off the shelf plain vanilla" answers. Lucifer lives in a round room - no such thing as cornering Him or His worshipers. Actually, those old con men figured it all out many moons ago.
What America needs is a good 5 cent cigar. No? Maybe someone could have a vision, speak to God's agent and straighten the whole mess out. You know, something that absolutely everyone can believe. Like the Lord's prayer, ...Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven OR ELSE HELL... Simply put, you better believe it. Does any of these "God voters" not say that, you better believe it, OR ELSE HELL? Hell is gun to head that works. Gun to voters head is unlawful but only the candidate that says "God wills it" will be elected - because of gun to voters head.
Posted by: BGone | December 4, 2007 3:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Henry James is right on target in his last post. I agree with him that weird beliefs are common to all religions. In fact, they're necessary to hold such beliefs. That provides a zero-net for anyone professing any religious belief. Ergo, weird religious practices are a moot point.
Which is why my questions were limited to the areas of Constitutional authority and civil rights, ie: things that a US presidential candidate must consider and must have an opinion/track record on as it relates to the job for which they are asking us to hire them.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 4, 2007 3:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Questioning Mormon Beliefs
Concerned and others cite "strange" Mormon beliefs, and dubious history of the church founder.
Does Islam have any "strange" beliefs, and was its founder blameless in his personal history.
Should we therefore not elect a Muslim president of the US.
All of you of fair mind and average intelligence get the point.
Virtually all religions have strange beliefs and imperfect founders.
Very relevent to the question of whether we should believe those beliefs and people.
IRRELEVENT most of the time to whether we should vote for a member of that sect.
Henry
Posted by: Henry James | December 4, 2007 2:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
addendum to Roy
if i were Romney
i would say that i favor the continuation of giving shock treatment to gays without their consent in order to cure them.
Henry
(who would have been gay while alive if i had had any sexual activity whatsoever)
Posted by: Henry James | December 4, 2007 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hopefully Governor Romney will discuss the following, troubling items:
Mormonism appears to be a secretive cult based on the hallucinations of one Joe Smith which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir???
Latter-day Saints believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah????
"Some scholars have theorized that Joe 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."?????
And then there is that Garden of Eden in Missouri??
Considering, however, Romney's presence, speech making/articulation, moral record, and organizational / leadership experience, he appears to be the best Republican candidate even with all his Mormon "baggage".
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 4, 2007 2:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark raises good questions. As a 20 year Mormon who is now an ex-Mormon, let me answer them the way Romney should and probably will:
1. The leader of my church has the final say on matters *within* the Church. But the Church has always believed in obeying the law of the land, and the Government sphere is separate from the religious sphere.
As John Kennedy says, I do not speak for my church on matters of public policy, and my church does not speak for me.
2. See #1 answer. My faith is very important to me. But my church does not speak for me in matters of public policy (though I just happen to agree with them on any issue of substance, but that is a coincidence).
3. I regret the Church's position before 1978, and was very happy when it changed. As to what I did about it: that is a tough question. Like Henry James, I exspressed my disagreement to many of my fellow Mormons, but I did not march in the streets of Salt lake City.
My Henry James opinion is that it is idiotic and treacherous and anti-American to vote against Romney just because he is a Mormon.
i would vote against him, but not because he is a mormon.
Posted by: Henry James | December 4, 2007 2:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Add one more to Mr. Mark's three questions:
4. What is Romney's position on using electroshock to "cure" gays?
Posted by: Roy | December 4, 2007 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There are legitimate questions that Romney should be asked about his faith, and they have nothing to do with magic underwear anymore than a Baptist should be asked about wearing a robe. All religious beliefs are fantasy based, and the accoutrement that attach themselves to those beliefs - like magic underwear, robes, candles, crosses, yarmuckles, etc. - are simple amusements.
No, the real questions that Romney needs to be asked about his faith in relationship to the job he would do as president are:
1. The Mormon religion teaches that their prophet is the highest authority on Earth, even higher than the authority invested in our Constitution. Does Mr Romney believe this to be true or false, and why?
2. The Romney clan are no mere garden-variety Tabernacle-going Mormons. Their family has long been one of the movers and shakers in the faith. How does such a close and INTEGRAL relationship with Mormonism forged at the power center of the Church shape Romney's view of the world? Again, ask the "Kennedy Question" of Romney, ie: faith v the Constitution.
3. Until 1978, the Mormon Church held that blacks were inferior, descendants of Ham. Until 1978, blacks were not permitted to hold offices in the Mormon Church. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. Did he support the Church's anti-black bias until that point, or did he work to change that bias?
I'll take serious answers to those 3 questions for starters.
Posted by: Mr Mark | December 4, 2007 12:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker:
I said something yesterday? To be sure, it was divinely inspired for we are all God's children?
You got a dog in this fight? We're looking for the "God vote" not a fight.
Miss Hillary and other D's are courting the RR, (not Rolls Royce but arriving in one) showing up at prayer meetings? Is it legitimate to ask to which God they are praying? I agree with the RR. It's the wrong God.
1/3 of the RR has already re-registered D - according to NBC news. They must think the D God is alright or maybe the "God vote" is a little more concerned with "their" lives than that of unborn-unwanted babies?
Mohler is all worried sick about Mormons. Don't believe in their God, (vote)? Anything legit to worry about there? Mormon is just another faith - belief in the same God?
Posted by: BGone | December 4, 2007 12:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bgone,
You ought to practice what you preached yesterday. It made a lot more sense.
Posted by: Parker | December 4, 2007 10:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Will a Bishop, or two makes a vote for Rudy a sin like was done for Kerry? Too busy settling law suits this time?
Posted by: BGone | December 4, 2007 10:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mormons, ALL Mormons are first and foremost missionaries. Take NBC's Tom Brokaw for instance. Missionary instance that is.
There's a whopping big difference between what Kennedy said that was so and what Romney cannot say. Kennedy said that his religion was getting in the way of the issues, like, Matsu and Kemoy. Today religion is the issue, not a non issue that's in the way of real issues.
Therefor, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is the real political counter-issue for which all candidates should be forced to account. The last one would smear his/her own mother and has already "sold his/her souls" in hopes of beatinhg the odds. Unlike Lucifer they hope they will win and not get cast into the abyss of loser. Losing is hell ya know.
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." Thus, "faith, family and football" are the real issues all must address. They will get to family and football once faith is all settled up. Didn't Pat Robertson already make his pick?
God has spoken but no one is listening - except Pat and Rudy.
Posted by: BGone | December 4, 2007 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Hi, my sites:
88377d5df3dfe2bd5301c9f7b1627724