A Sufficient Speech

Mr Coulson,

Please do not confuse your "orthodox" Christian with Orthodox Christianity.

First the Catholics and then the Protestants left the Orthodox teachings of the Holy Fathers centuries before the Mormans came up with their version of religion.

It would bode well for all to repent the heresies and novelties of modern day man and return to the teachings of the Apostles.

(Twilight Zone Music) do-do-do-do-do....

How did that post get printed yesterday, when I posted it today?

It would sure be nice to see people not grossly misrepresent what others say, especially those who consistently congratulate themselves on their rationality.

For example, we read the above commnet from Reply to Arrogant Colson:

"COLSON: "Christians believe that government exists to preserve order and do justice."

Meaning: And other religions and atheists believe the opposite?

Have ANY proof of your outlandish statements?

Let me answer for you: Of course not -- Right Wing fundies like you need no 'stinking' proof!!!!! Truth and proof are the LAST things from your mind."

Now, did Colson say ANYTHING about what he thinks atheists believe in regards to government...? No.
He said nothing. But Reply to Arrogant assumed that because atheists are have different beliefs than Christians, Colson must therefore think atheists want the opposite of what Christians want. But he said no such thing.

Atheists were irrelevant to his topic. Maybe that bugs atheists, not to be included -- but they can't always be the center of attention.

I don't wish to single out Reply to Arrogant, because a LOT of people on this forum do this with great frequency. They overstate, falsely extrapolate, wildly exaggerate, distort, and misrepresent what Romney said in his speech. And then they call themselves intellectual, rational, reasonable, enlightened, and all the rest.

I'd like just ONE of them to restate Romney's speech in a way that ROMNEY would recognize, and then there could possibly be a dialogue.

And that's Why ol'Chucky is officially irrelevant in this century.

Please fade away....
it's time for truth now.

Neo-America: "I can't believe it's not Theocracy!"

Shut up, Reasonable. Swear to the Gods, if I gotta stay up till four in the morning convincing *one more* Christian soul that their being bipolar is not about 'the devil,' I assure you I will puke on your holy shoes.*

You take care of your own,

Or you shut up.

This is how it is, now.

Shut up, Reasonable. Swear to the Gods, if I gotta stay up till four in the morning convincing *one more* Christian soul that their being bipolar is not about 'the devil,' I assure you I will puke on your holy shoes.*

You take care of your own,

Or you shut up.

This is how it is, now.

I would sure be nice to see people not grossly misrepresent what others say, especially those who consistently congratulate themselves on their rationality.

For example, we read above from Reply to Arrogant Colson:

"COLSON: "Christians believe that government exists to preserve order and do justice."

Meaning: And other religions and atheists believe the opposite?

Have ANY proof of your outlandish statements?

Let me answer for you: Of course not -- Right Wing fundies like you need no 'stinking' proof!!!!! Truth and proof are the LAST things from your mind."

Now, did Colson say ANYTHING about what he thinks atheists believe in regards to government...? No.
He said nothing. But Reply to Arrogant assumed that because atheists are have different beliefs than Christians, Colson must therefore think atheists want the opposite of what Christians want. But he said no such thing.

Atheists were irrelevant to his topic. Maybe that bugs atheists, not to be included -- but they can't always be the center of attention.

I don't wish to single out Reply to Arrogant, because a LOT of people on this forum do this with great frequency. They overstate, falsely extrapolate, wildly exaggerate, distort, and misrepresent what Romney said in his speech. And then they call themselves intellectual, rational, reasonable, enlightened, and all the rest.

I'd like just ONE of them to restate Romney's speech in a way that ROMNEY would recognize, and then there could possibly be a dialogue.

I would sure be nice to see people not grossly misrepresent what others say, especially those who consistently congratulate themselves on their rationality.

For example, we read above from Reply to Arrogant Colson:

"COLSON: "Christians believe that government exists to preserve order and do justice."

Meaning: And other religions and atheists believe the opposite?

Have ANY proof of your outlandish statements?

Let me answer for you: Of course not -- Right Wing fundies like you need no 'stinking' proof!!!!! Truth and proof are the LAST things from your mind."

Now, did Colson say ANYTHING about what he thinks atheists believe in regards to government...? No.
He said nothing. But Reply to Arrogant assumed that because atheists are have different beliefs than Christians, Colson must therefore think atheists want the opposite of what Christians want. But he said no such thing.

Atheists were irrelevant to his topic. Maybe that bugs atheists, not to be included -- but they can't always be the center of attention.

I don't wish to single out Reply to Arrogant, because a LOT of people on this forum do this with great frequency. They overstate, falsely extrapolate, wildly exaggerate, distort, and misrepresent what Romney said in his speech. And then they call themselves intellectual, rational, reasonable, enlightened, and all the rest.

But you guys are anything but rational. It's all emotional! Duh!

I'd like just ONE of them to restate Romney's speech in a way that ROMNEY would recognize, and then there could possibly be a dialogue.

I would sure be nice to see people not grossly misrepresent what others say, especially those who consistently congratulate themselves on their rationality.

For example, we read above from Reply to Arrogant Colson:

"COLSON: "Christians believe that government exists to preserve order and do justice."

Meaning: And other religions and atheists believe the opposite?

Have ANY proof of your outlandish statements?

Let me answer for you: Of course not -- Right Wing fundies like you need no 'stinking' proof!!!!! Truth and proof are the LAST things from your mind."

Now, did Colson say ANYTHING about what he thinks atheists believe in regards to government...? No.
He said nothing. But Reply to Arrogant assumed that because atheists are have different beliefs than Christians, Colson must therefore think atheists want the opposite of what Christians want. But he said no such thing.

Atheists were irrelevant to his topic. Maybe that bugs atheists, not to be included -- but they can't always be the center of attention.

I don't wish to single out Reply to Arrogant, because a LOT of people on this forum do this with great frequency. They overstate, falsely extrapolate, wildly exaggerate, distort, and misrepresent what Romney said in his speech. And then they call themselves intellectual, rational, reasonable, enlightened, and all the rest.

I'd like just ONE of them to restate Romney's speech in a way that ROMNEY would recognize, and then there could possibly be a dialogue.

I would sure be nice to see people not grossly misrepresent what others say, especially those who consistently congratulate themselves on their rationality.

For example, we read above from Reply to Arrogant Colson:

"COLSON: "Christians believe that government exists to preserve order and do justice."

Meaning: And other religions and atheists believe the opposite?

Have ANY proof of your outlandish statements?

Let me answer for you: Of course not -- Right Wing fundies like you need no 'stinking' proof!!!!! Truth and proof are the LAST things from your mind."

Now, did Colson say ANYTHING about what he thinks atheists believe in regards to government...? No.
He said nothing. But Reply to Arrogant assumed that because atheists are have different beliefs than Christians, Colson must therefore think atheists want the opposite of what Christians want. But he said no such thing.

Atheists were irrelevant to his topic. Maybe that bugs atheists, not to be included -- but they can't always be the center of attention.

I don't wish to single out Reply to Arrogant, because a LOT of people on this forum do this with great frequency. They overstate, falsely extrapolate, wildly exaggerate, distort, and misrepresent what Romney said in his speech. And then they call themselves intellectual, rational, reasonable, enlightened, and all the rest.

I'd like just ONE of them to restate Romney's speech in a way that ROMNEY would recognize, and then there could possibly be a dialogue.

Reasonable: I believe you are reading way too much into your history. You are reading founding fathers to the effect that religious people are motivated to be moral, and that they certainly should not leave their religion behind when they lead. They go a bit further and wonder where they would be without their religion, but they leave it there. None of our founding fathers would ever suggest that a non-believer in a christian activist god is unfit to serve (or we would have had a different set of presidents for a couple decades after our founding). And remember that they included Deism within their definition of religion when they made the comments you qoute. Evangelicals today would consider Deists to be atheists, so be careful what you qoute 200 years later.

Truth is un truth.

Truth is, Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit and used the word "he".

OT speaks of the words "we" in the original Hebrew when referring to God in the first person.

There are many concepts in the Scripture that are truth that are not referred to by name. The trinity has been mainstream Christian theology for quite some time, and is truth.

>>Oh Brother Colson, didn't Romney tell you Mormons don't believe in the Trinity?

The 'Trinity' is a man made term/situation that appears nowhere in scripture.

Just because the world of religion has been duped by those that tell us that we must beleive in it (got a bright idea that they 'knew' something) doesnt mean someone who does not recognize it is anymore incapable than one who does embrace it.

The 'Trinity' is part of the religious deception that grips this world that Rev 12:9 refers to, by the way.

It was sufficient to help capture the idiot vote I guess.

Nothing condemns Romney's speech more than the fact that Chuck Colson praises it. No use regurgitating here all the usual rebuttals to Chuckie's nonsense. Let me say, for the record, some brief words about his statement that "our freedom and form of government presuppose a people living by religious values." Quite aside from the dubious empirical truth of that statement, one always has to ask Chuckie: Even if it's true, what has it got to do with you? Or George Bush? Or Pat Robertson? Or any of the other self-annointed exemplars of religious values? If you and those others represent religious values, Chuck, you have just delivered resounding proof why people with religious values should be banned from public life.

For those of you who haven't yet explored other forum in On Faith, I highly recommend you check out Susan Jacoby and the comments on her commentary. You will find it highly rewarding, in large part because may sensible people blow the likes of Chuck Colson out of the water.

"The United States government was created by geniuses so it could be run by idiots." How sad, seven years into the disastrous presidency of our current holy roller idiot, to watch Republican candidates vying with each other over which is the biggest idiot.

Romney's speech was insulting to anyone with an average or higher IQ, and for someone with more than just a passing knowledge of US politics. If a neophite had written this column, I would maybe conclude that s/he had been conned by Romney. However, since Colson is a con man himself, I have to conclude he's in on the con. At least I get to daydream about Mitt and Chuck getting thrown in adjoining cells.

OK, I read that backwards somewhere, but, enough of this jibba-jabba. Who's driving this thing, anyway? :)

" almaden:

"Would Colson rather be governed by a competent atheist rather than an incompetent Christian? Of course not."

But he'd say otherwise for his own gain. Just like this guy.

What Romney did was to distract from his religious controversy by opening a new front, against the ones that are faithless. Inviting Christians, Jews, Muslims,... but explicitly pushing against atheists.

What was it:" no freedom without religion, no religion without freedom."

That's a clear statement and not a good perspective.

Sure, lets make the US a theocracy. After all, that system has worked so well in the Middle East...

Oh Brother Colson, didn't Romney tell you Mormons don't believe in the Trinity? Didn't he tell you Mormons worshop a physical God who lives on the planet Kolob? Maybe he forgot because he knew narrow minded Christian extremists like you would be mortified to have a President who believed such
"Un-Christian" things.

Alamden- Obviously you believe the lie that the founders thought that all religion should be kept 100% out of the political arena, which illustrates you don't know the history of the separation clause and what the founders really thought about it.

The founders were the ones who put the Chaplain in place in the Senate , for example. The separation clause was not meant to keep people of faith out of the public arena, my friend. It was put there to ensure that one denomination did not dominate over another by being named the "church of the United States" for example. Washington said ::Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

So , even though many of them were simply deists, they held religion in esteem and wanted it to have a influence, but wanted ALL citizens to have representation. Of course, this means the atheist crowd also.

COLSON: "Christians believe that government exists to preserve order and do justice."

Meaning: And other religions and atheists believe the opposite?

Have ANY proof of your outlandish statements?

Let me answer for you: Of course not -- Right Wing fundies like you need no 'stinking' proof!!!!! Truth and proof are the LAST things from your mind.

Would Colson rather be governed by a competent atheist rather than an incompetent Christian? Of course not. Colson would savagely attack with unctuous rhetoric such an impertinent office-seeker.

And Colson ignores what Romney left out of his speech and what Kennedy put into his speech long ago: THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. The Founders were unequivocal about this. But the Mittster, and Colson, are equivocal.

That's why Colson, the Mittster and their ilk are tone deaf to what the Founders and their Constitution, the core of our national identity, are all about. That is why Colson and the Mittster are un-American in the deepest possible sense.

A religious man ignores everything and slathers praise on Romney. I am just so shocked. Ignore the fact that Mitt is a fli-flopper beyond compare and bows to the "religion of the convenint." He'll say or do anything he thinks will get him votes. If that's how his Christianity informs his public policy, then Christianity must be nothing more than a popularity contest. And the founding fathers were very careful not to create or theocracy, where all our decisions ran through the cheese-cloth of faith. They provided a secular government under which religion could flourish. Not the other way around. Mr. Colson needs to review his history.

Breaths and beautiful sounds.

In the amazing
song of a little
blackbird chanting
alone in a beautiful
dream I hear
glimmers of magical
quietness, the love
for the dark and
a tender idea
recalling the silence.

*silly voice.*

Sufficient, yes, For me to poop on!

If Romney doesn't know that the office he's running for is to represent *all* Americans, then he, like others in the Republican field, has no business even running.

You just didn't just give Nixon advice, you rat, you lied, committed criminal acts, and tried to suborne the constitution. Your half-wit coreligionists didn't have to forgive you, they celebrate your treason. Any other decent human being condemns you.
You lied for Nixon, now you're doing it for Jesus.

I'm not a Christian. This whole idea of turning the US into a Christian nation is just as scary to me as Osama bin Laden turning the world into a Muslim enclave. Romney's attitude that he only needs to show that he's Christian enough to not offend non Mormons is not reassuring.

I'm not a Christian. This whole idea of turning the US into a Christian nation is just as scary to me as Osama bin Laden turning the world into a Muslim enclave. Romney's attuitude that he only needs to show that he's Christian enough to not offend non Mormons is not reassuring.

Chuck,

My wife and children are very upset with Governor Romney because he clearly stated that no one in our family can be considered a good American citizen because we are not "believers".

A nice sentiment for a potential President of all the people to express, isn't it.

Your applauding his speech says a lot about you and none of it is good.

If elected, how long will it take Mitt to start building concentration camps in the California desert for us bad American citizens? He probably thinks we're terrorists too.

The Boy Scouts of America, chartered by Congress, will not allow Buddhist boys to join the Scouts because Buddhists don't believe in "God".

What federal opportunities and privileges will President Romney deny our family because we don't believe in "God".

Will we still be allowed to deduct our property taxes for the federal income tax?

if only Romney had been up to Luther's example. Romney was pandering to evangelicals by hiding from his religion behind the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution, hoping they won't consult their ministers who would tell them he's no Christian. far from defending his right not to be, he was pretending to be just like Huckabee on the faith bandwagon.

and Luther was implicitly saying even nonbelievers could make perfectly good political leaders. Romney hasn't the nerve.