An Eloquent Defense of Religious Liberty and Diversity

Good advice re Romney; however, what is your BEST advice for getting Huckabee's #'s up?
*of course, voting, BUT...
*Enthusiastic Public Rallies??
*NEVER GIVING UP!!!!!
My comment: just because there are stronger candidates in areas, ie foreign policy, handling Iraz, etc....What are knowlegable advisors for???No candidate can know everything about everything! His heart, morals, ability of reach a wonderful dialogue with the people....AND, about spending...he improved the condition of his state, education, roads, social and physical
improvements necessay to a functioning state,creating opportunities for the common man to rise above his circumstances by education, training and the means to be a contributing member of society.

Good advice re Romney; however, what is your BEST advice for getting Huckabee's #'s up?
*of course, voting, BUT...
*Enthusiastic Public Rallies??
*NEVER GIVING UP!!!!!
My comment: just because there are stronger candidates in areas, ie foreign policy, handling Iraz, etc....What are knowlegable advisors for???No candidate can know everything about everything! His heart, morals, ability of reach a wonderful dialogue with the people....AND, about spending...he improved the condition of his state, education, roads, social and physical
improvements necessay to a functioning state,creating opportunities for the common man to rise above his circumstances by education, training and the means to be a contributing member of society.

I'm sure you're aware of McCain's stance on embryonic stem cell research............???????????

I'm sure you're aware of McCain's stance on embryonic stem cell research............???????????

Reading these blogs was and eye-opener for me. Although a Latter-Day Saint for 30 years, I've never heard of such things as have been listed here! Secretive? If you only knew, we can't keep secrets, we blab everything to everyone. If you want to know something, ask one of us. Blood oaths, what an imagination! Most of us don't even cut up our own chickens from the grocery store, although I did attend a class on how to do it once. I am sorry that people with individual beliefs not associated with a specific religion were offended by Mitt Romney's speech. We "Mormons" don't think of free-thinking individuals as the ones who attack and distort our practices and beliefs. They are usually the ones who comment, "Three hours on Sundays just to learn about Jesus! That's too long"! No leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would ever think of forcing anyone to do anything, especially a non-member. Romney has been attacked for his variance on several worldly issues--abortion and homosexual rights and more. Isn't it clear by now that as a man he doesn't believe these are in keeping with God's Plan for mankind or each individual, but he will not force his own beliefs on anyone? Our role as Latter-Day Saints is to educate others on how to recognize God's hand in all things and to truly know Our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ whom He sent, as well as strive to become more like Him and become better people, friends, and more caring about other's needs.

Anyone who believes, as Gov. Romney apparently does, that "freedome requires religion" is, on the face of it, at serious variance with reality.

To cite one easily found example: Europe is free and mostly secular.

What was he thinking? I know he was pandering to the Iowa evangelicals, but doesn't he know that if he gets the Republican nomination, he'll be in a situation where he can't say things like "freedom requires religion" without having real problems with a good-sized (that is, the educated) chunk of the electorate?

I think the Republican Party has morphed into the SCWPP (Southern Christian White People's Party).

Since when did the so-called "Republican" Party become the "Christian Republic" party?

Or is it becoming a European style party of "christian democrats" . . . w/ a looming Romney-Huckabee ticket?

Backed by the ECT [Evangelicals & Catholics Together] neo-con intellectual faith-hucksters over at First Things?

Chris Mathews has it "right" - I paraphrase - "Since when is there a 'religious test' to be the Republican candidate for president, let alone POTUS?"

Dr. Land
I have appreciated your leadership in the ERLC as well as in the Conservative Resurgence. However, I believe you are becoming more political than scriptural. I believe you are far off base and it does appear you prefer Mitt. Sir, he may be nice, passionate, and a good speaker but that does not make voting for him right. No, sir, you have not endorsed him but are you going to vote for him?

Travis Smalley

Civic Humanist is right; "faith" is a synonym for "trust," and is a misnomer when applied to relgious people. In fact, I hate that phrase "person of faith." It is the journalist's euphemism for "relgious person" or "relgious fantatic."

It is said that President Bush is a "person of faith." But as far as I can see, his religion is pretty primitive and not well thought out; he doesn't really seem to have much along the lines of religion to offer at all, except cliches, platitudes, and himself.

". . . discrimination against a person of any faith opens the door to discrimination against people of all faiths." ???

Richard Land - another pre-posterist - putting a propositional cart before the necessary conceptual horses!

His little essay is a nest of conceptual confusion, at best, and rhetorical disingenuousness, at worst. Let's assume - under the principle of charity - the former.

His implication, like that of Romney, that the rest of us are "non-believers" shows both conceptual and epistemic ignorance, maybe carelessness.

Like the earlier appropriation of the word 'gay' for the self-designation of a cultural sub-group, the appropriation of 'believer' & 'belief' & 'faith' by another - sometimes overlapping - subgroup sows conceptual confusion & serves only to accelerate the decay of American English.

Briefly: How may & should one designate a belief for which there is not or - in principle - cannot be empirical evidence?

Simply: Faith: Pistis! [Trusted Beliefs]

Hence: Everyone is a "person-of-faith" since everyone lives by mental states that can only be described as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen", including scientists in both their empirical & theoretical endeavors.

The cognitive state of faith, therefore, is constitutive of human nature. To think otherwise is itself a paradoxical mental state!

Eloquent? Religious Liberty? Diversity? I don't think so. Those of Mr. Romney's ilk just don't get it. To me, the 1st Amendment guarantees "Freedom of Conscience" to every American...nothing more and nothing less.

In a nation of 300 million souls, I suggest there are 300 million "religions"; no two of which are identical. I think the Founders understood that "religion" is not something you 'buy off the rack' with everybody believing--and practicing--the same thing, even among the members of a particular sect or cult.

Each and every one of us ought to have the freedom to believe or not believe according to one's own conscience...not according to some hyped-up "one size fits all" creed. My own unique beliefs represent an amalgam of 'secular humanism', unitarianism, stoicism and other religious/philosophical beliefs I have picked up on my life's journey. It would be the height of arrogance to expect (as Mr. Romney does) that other members of our diverse society share the same beliefs that I have come to accept through my conscience over the years.

...and another thing:

I am no fan of Mormonism, but they are like the Jews: everyone likes to beat up on them; I have no interest in beating up on them.

This is for Keith Edward

I looked up "blood oath" in Widipedia as you suggested. While it did seem pretty graphic, any dope can see that it was purely metaphorical, and not intended to be taken literally. These funny little ceremonies remind me more of Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn's blood oaths than anything from the Free Masons (not there's anything wrong with the Free Masons).

You forgot to mention this part of the article:

"...there was no documented instance in which a person was killed or committed suicide for having violated the oaths of secrecy of the Endowment."

And by the way, don't Christians drink the blood and eat the body of Christ? I believe this is metaphorical, although Catholic theologians tell Catholics that it is literal, although almost no Catholics really believe it to be so.

I have known alot of Mormons in my career as a human being. I do not believe it is true that Mormons are secretive and have alot of secret ceremonies. I do notice, though, that they, as a group, as a sect, do seem to have a preoccupation and fascination with ceremonies and rituals, which to me seem trivial and unnecessary, and they do not disucss this very openly to outsiders, because they feel vulnerable to ridicule.

From my perspective as a non-theologian, it seems perfectly obvious that Mormons are a Protestant Church. When a Baptist or a Catholic theologian calls Mormons "apostates," I am incredulous, because, all Mormons have to do is reply (and they do) that the Baptists and the Catholics are "apostates." Who is right? Each side has an army of learned and educated theologians to "prove" that the others are apostates. If it weren't so dangerous, it would be comical. In fact, the very concept of "apostasy" is silly, absurd, childish, and unsophisticated, a sign of backward and primitive thinking.

There is no religious qualitication for being an American. Any Christian who does not understand that should study it and think about it. If a person is an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, a doubter, unchurched, or if a person is a pagan, a Moslem, a Jew, or a Buddist, so what? To relegate them to an inferiour status because of their religion is un-American. What is more, it is un-Christian; it is blatantly and flamboyantly un-Christian. Why cannot Christians see that?

Mit Romney did not say any of these things.

Separation of church and state? From an AP article.

"In an article to be published Sunday in The New York Times, Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Romney, vying to become the first Mormon elected president, declined to answer that question during an interview Wednesday, saying church leaders in Salt Lake City had already addressed the topic."

Honesty v. Pandering. Personal v. political. Interesting to note the venues of the two "relegion" speeches. Kennedy's tent was much larger. Can we expect a speech from Rudy on family values? Kennedy's speech follows.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LAvHHTt2czU&feature=related

Honesty v. Pandering. Personal v. political. Interesting to note the venues of the two "relegion" speeches. Kennedy's tent was much larger. Can we expect a speech from Rudy on family values? Kennedy's speech follows.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LAvHHTt2czU&feature=related

For those that find the fact that Mormon's engage in secret ceremonies and must take vows that promise to allow themselves to be harmed, please reference the wikipedia.com entry for "Blood Oath". I quote a snippet:

The [Mormon] participants promised that if they were ever to reveal the gestures of the ceremony, they would be subject to the following:

* Stage 1 : "my throat ... be cut from ear to ear, and my tongue torn out by its roots;"
* Stage 2 : "our breasts ... be torn open, our hearts and vitals torn out and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field;"
* Stage 3 : "our body ... be cut asunder and all your bowels gush out."

Each of the penalties was accompanied by a gesture known as the "execution of the penalty" which simulated the cutting or tearing described in the oath. The oaths and their accompanying gestures resembled certain oaths performed in Freemasonry rituals.

The fundamental problem is 2 fold:

1) the Mormon church is very secretive. They have secret ceremonies in which a person must to vow to submit to torture if they ever revealed church secrets. In addition, the church has a structure and policies that rival the CIA. And if Mormons deny the previous points, ask them to give you the text of various ceremonies over the last 10 or 15 years -I rest my point.

2) The Mormon church has a history of really WEIRD prophecies. Chief of which is that their founder and subsequent "prophets" said that God told them to commit polygamy (also known as adultery).

HOW can anyone trust a person to be president, when they won't reveal what the secret vows are that they took in the Mormon church? AND who belongs to a faith that takes left turns against common sense and good morals?

RAE:

You're right that personal insults have no place in intellectual discussions.

I do admire Mitt Romney for his accomplishments in life.

On a political speech on religion, I don't want a canidate to talk negitively about my beliefs, imply that my beliefs don't bring about freedom, and don't invite me to be their friend.

I want a speech about religion, about a canidate's beliefs, to include all brothers and sisters to the table.

Rae wrote :

Romney's speech wasn't great and it certainly wasn't a JFK-style speech, but I also didn't conclude that he was specifically excluding non-believers.

Rae, how am I to interpret the sentiment expressed in ROmney's statement "Freedom requires belief"? especially when the context of the rest of the speech and the surrounding discussion makes it clear that my particular flavor of belief doesn't count as belief? If freedon requires belief, what is a 'non-believer' to expect. Certainly not freedom.

"...the intellectual non-calibar of Mr Land..."

Dr. Land graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University and earned his doctorate from Oxford. You may disagree with his assessment of Romney's speech, but that doesn't make him an idiot. Declaring all dissenting positions "stupid" because they aren't yours is a common characteristic of pseudo-intellectualism.

Romney's speech wasn't great and it certainly wasn't a JFK-style speech, but I also didn't conclude that he was specifically excluding non-believers. That assertion is a knee-jerk reaction after having listened with suspicion rather than an open mind.

"...Hitler had a heart-felt conviction..."

Certainly, one's heart-felt convictions can be pure or evil. There is no profound point made there. But Dr. Land showed quite a bit of his character when commenting on Romney's "heart-felt convictions" because Dr. Land certainly disagrees with them. Southern Baptists and Mormons are not at all compatible so the fact that Dr. Land was willing to sit with Romney, listen to him, give him some advice, and find something praiseworthy to say about him says a lot about Dr. Land's character. Despite their many, many theological and doctrinal differences, he listened with an open mind and tried to really hear what Romney was actually saying without imposing his own personal agenda on the message he heard. He could have, as many of the posters here have done, dismissed Romney outright because of his religious convictions, but he didn't. I think he was fair and open-minded, if a bit off on his assessment of the speech.

1. I'm an atheist, and I, along with most of the posters, find Romney's speech to be offensive but intimating that my non-belief is somehow unworthy.

2. Although I don't want the State to scrutinize a candidate's religion, I certainly reserve the right to do so. Anyone whose faith argues against Evolution, for example, is, in my opinion, dumber than a brick, and certainly does not deserve my vote. S/he is entitled to her/his opinion, but certainly not my vote.

3. You write:"Nothing generates more eloquence than heart-felt conviction."

Let me point out that Hitler had a heart-felt conviction that Jews should be exterminated, and he certainly was eloquent; witness the millions of Germans who adored him. That doesn't make his convictions, or eloquence, anything but a monstrous evil.

Romney: "I'm one of you, and it's us against them".

My my my my my ---

you reasonable anti-dogmatists are taking over the world, ain't ya?

at least by the evidence on this thread, and indeed most of the responses to Romney's sniveling speech.

Is it just that
a. people literate enough to write on this web site are not fooled by the blatant pandering and principle-less politicising of religion that romney engaged in?
b. people who would defend Romney are NOT literate enough to write here?

i dunno. and of course, people of the intellectual non-calibar of Mr Land are exposing themselves to ridicule by writing for people who can actually read.

Henry the elitist

What I took it to mean was, "if I'm elected, atheists had better pack their bags and move elsewhere, because I don't consider them to be full-fledged American citizens."

As a Pagan, I'm certain that his sentiments also apply to me and mine.

"He also spent no time trying to define, describe, or defend Mormon beliefs, just as JFK similarly did not do so for Catholicism. And, I might add, he should not have been expected to do so."

I think everyone should be expected to justify their beliefs, religious or not. What do you faithful types have to fear from public inquiry, anyway? (nevermind, I know the answer)

The legal admonition against "religious tests" is not about public vetting but about institutionalized (or semi-institutionalized) requirements for office. The public has a right to ask whatever questions they think are relevant. Faith-held beliefs should not be hidden from public scrutiny.

And beside this, if Romney thinks it's unfair for the people to expect that he justify his religious beliefs, then it's doubly unfair for him to claim that "freedom requires belief".

Either religion is off the table or its on the table. He's trying to have it both ways with his demand that it's both required and off limits.

I agree that "..discrimination against a person of any faith opens the door to discrimination against people of all faiths." The problem happens when extremists, including Christian extremists, conveniently decide the beliefs of others is not really a "faith" and can be dismissed or discriminated against. If I believe, for example, that Wiccan is not a "faith" in my narrow little mind, I can exclude them (accidentally or not) from military memorial services or refuse to put their insignia on the tombstones of their fallen service people.

Romney is a master of semantics. His biases depend on what the definition of "faith" is. His opinion that "faith" is defined as an organized religion and is required for freedom, reflects his upbringing and pandering to evangelicals and even more dangerously, foretells of his policies to those without "faith" when he is president.

It's rather appalling that so many religious people have applauded this speech when it was so rife with religious bigotry toward the non-religious. Imagine if he'd said "Freedom needs white people!" in addition to making a few derogatory statements about brown people (because they're simply taking brownness too far and trying to turn it into a religion of its own!). Would anyone defend him then? Are people so blinded by their religion that they can't see that by excluding non-believers and attacking secularism that he did basically the same thing? *bangs head on table*

Mr. Land begins his article with applause for a speech that he has recommended for a year, with a special personal invitation to spend time with Gov. Romney for the purpose:

"...to have an open and free-wheeling discussion about his candidacy and the questions he needed to answer to get a serious hearing from Evangelicals."

Thus, the premise of Gov. Romney's speech. Then,

"...he made it clear he was an “American running for President,” not the candidate of any religious group."

"..He asked Americans to judge him on his character, his record, his public policy views and his vision for the nation’s future—not on his person religious beliefs—that would be un-American, unconstitutional—and unfair."

Does no one see the irony in this? Is this an example, such as one might see in the book "Mistakes were made (but not by me)" of cognitive dissonance?

And for a candidate to advertise his "faith" as a reason we should consider him an exceptional candidate, without the conviction that he should then be candid about what that "faith" entails, is another irony I'll never understand.

Integrity, honesty, intelligence, etc are not owned by the "faithful."

Brother, you left out your neighbors, friends, and patriots of no faith. We have a stake in this also.

"All Americans of religious faith have a significant stake in the principles Gov. Romney articulated and defended in his speech."

Romney the politician tried to have it both ways: tolerate my religion, but attack the secularists. This does not make for a credible argument for religious tolerance.

You summarize only the religious tolerance half of Romney's speech. I can only hope that you are hearing what you want to hear instead of actively promoting his hypocrisy.

Religion was not an issue when JFK gave his speech. Today religion is the issue. And, as many Baptists said would happen with a Cagtholic president, 1960 there was a tunnel dug to the Vatican from which springs the divided America, theoretical tunnel.

Pope John XXIII inaugurated "Ecumenical-ism" and moved Catholics towards protestants by redoing services etc. Took advantage of JFKs popularity and people saying Catholics don't really have horns. Do Mormons have horns?

At that time the Que was taken from Eisenhower's adding, "under God" to the pledge to disguise religion in the word "faith." The logic was simple. The average person is incapable of two level deep thinking and that moved religion at least three deep.

Government anti communist propaganda created the notion that those who chose no religion were unAmerican. The "bandwagon" effect from that has catapulted religion to a point of boldness well beyond reality, 1960 for sure. Now those buzzards come home to roost.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Lucifer's fee for the souls of the ministry shall be paid by the gullible who have been victimized by "Ecumenical" which does not apply to Mormons.

But wait a minute. Surely the official, (All but Catholics are heretics) representative of Jesus, the Pope welcomes everyone into his fold. It must be the Baptists that are the problem. Don't tell me the Mormons are catching the Catholics in numbers? Already passed the Baptist?

Isn't the problem as viewed by religion the selection of the one who shall run the kingdom of Jesus while we anxiously await His return? Anybody got any stats on how much Baptist ministers have racked in on the notion Jesus was coming Y2K? But can you prove Jesus isn't coming? The father of Jesus, Lucifer is already here and better represented by far than God. Maybe Pagans honor God? No one else does.

Religion is the great enemy of Democracy. Seeks to install a religious to lead, (Huck?). Shall that be a Baptist or a Mormon? That is the question being answered that rules out Democracy. Romney at least hinted at the notion one's religion should not sway h/er decisions in office. Would you vote for a pacifist?

One man's eloquence is another man's stupidity.

Mr.Romney, A.K.A. Mr. Panderer, seems capable of any utterance. While cloaking his discussion of religious freedom in inflated historical cliches, he obviously was appealing to the Republican evangelical base: "...freedom requires religion" is clearly code for "I will support your agenda...regardless of whose freedoms are trampled." Doubtful he'll deliver...depends on the prevailing political winds.

Americans need politicians to move beyond preaching that freedom of religion means only freedom to believe any branch of Christianity, preferably those branches that are conservative.
Romney's major contribution to the discussion of religious freedom is to illuminate the opportunist games of many politicians.

Mr.Romney, A.K.A. Mr. Panderer, seems capable of any utterance. While cloaking his discussion of religious freedom in inflated historical cliches, he obviously was appealing to the Republican evangelical base: "...freedom requires religion" is clearly code for "I will support your agenda...regardless of whose freedoms are trampled." Doubtful he'll deliver...depends on the prevailing political winds.

Americans need politicians to move beyond preaching that freedom of religion means only freedom to believe any branch of Christianity, preferably those branches that are conservative.
Romney's major contribution to the discussion of religious freedom is to illuminate the opportunist games of many politicians.

Yet another person wearing blinders. My goodness man! I think the Republicans need to employ a guy to smack them whenever they say stupid things.

you must have missed most of the speech. after saying he shouldn't explain his religion, he did. at least the part about Jesus being Lord and saviour. somehow that was OK. oh, that's the belief he wants us to know because he wants to fool evangelicals.

sure he mentioned freedom. freedom to be a good christian, tolerate some other faiths, and make sure nonbelievers can't serve in government and don't bother good christians who don't want the separation of church and state to get in the way.

The juxtoposition of Romney's speech with Kennedey's and finding similarities between them seems forced to me. What I take from JFK's speech was his assertion that religion is a private matter and he should not be judged as unworthy on the basis of his faith. Romney told me that his faith is a foundation of the job he would do in office, and that he should be judged as worthy because of his.

JFK mentioned that it may be the Unitarian who is next held in suspicion. As a Unitarian Universalist and a Pagan I was left feeling not only suspect by Romney, but excluded. While I do not identify as a secular person, as a believer in Liberal Religion I stand with those who value secular government and public life.

I do not oppose public expressions of faith. I do oppose the comulsary Christianity that I heard Gov. Romney espouse in his address. The media discussion of the speech - this forum included - has often pondered how Romney would approach 'non-believers'. This term only furthers the feelings of exclusion and anger I feel. Because I do not believe as Romney and the majority of Americans do my belief system is completely negated? How free is that.

I realize that the conversation in America has evolved in the past 4 decades. But Romney's speech in front of an audience selected to be supportive has very little in common with the speech JFK gave in front of his not-so-carefully selected audience. JFK asked that Americans of all faiths be included in the conversation about public policy. Romney was begging to be invited into a small exclusive group that would prefer not to give credence to my values.

I have read and listened to JFK's speeches, and Romney is no JFK.

What a lot of baloney you wrote, Sir:

"All Americans of religious faith have a significant stake in the principles Gov. Romney articulated and defended in his speech."

Maybe so, but the 23%-25% of the population that has no discernable or particular religious "faith" has no stake in his principles: he attacked that large goup of Americans as not coming within the ambit of "good citizens."

"...he helped the country and the cause of religious freedom even more."

No, he helped neither.

He hurt the country by fostering civil strife in the area of religion.

He certainly didn't help religious freedom. He attacked non-believing citizens and said they were not good for America.

If he becomes President will he make us non-believers wear the equivalent of yellow Stars of David so that the good-citizen believers will be warned of our approach?

You and Mr. Romney should be ashamed of yourselves.

You have dishonored the American tradition of religious toleration.

"He also spent no time trying to define, describe, or defend Mormon beliefs". Well, actually, yes he did. Romney went to great pains to define Mormonism as a Christian faith. That may or may not be true--I'm not a Christian myself but suspect that many, if not most, non-Mormon Christians do not consider Mormons to be "true Christians"--but it's too bad Romney didn't have the courage of his convictions and say that it doesn't matter whether Mormons are Christians or not, and that it shouldn't matter. Instead he wants to have it both ways, implying that the particulars of a presidential candidate's religious (read Christian) faith don't disqualify him, but at the same time that Mormons (including Romney himself, of course) really, really, REALLY ARE Christians.