All Comments (60)

Dear Jeff P.

Moderate: let me suggest some additional reading:"

...

Thanks, with Christmas coming up, I just might ask Santa for one or two of those. Our house is kind of overflowing with all manner of books. I have a pretty good collection of the Jesus Project by Funk, A. N. Wilson, and the boys.

In turn, to round out your sources, I would suggest Luke Timothy Johnson's "The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels"

Also, Peter Kreeft has many fine volumes in his hundred or so books on theology and logic. His Socratic Logic is a true gem in the era dumbing down. Fine points of logic and argumentation.

I read both sides, myself. You simply can't form a well rounded opinion without doing so.

All the best.

I don't mind that the canidates talk about their religious beliefs. I don't want them to point out my belief and imply that I am not free and I cannot be a friend of theirs. That goes for both factions of the Democratic-Republican party.

Lisa, a lot of Dems are concerned about Obama and HRC's "God-talk", too.

test

(Apologies if this double-posts. It had seenmed even th glitch would let posts through:)

" The Moderate:

"Dear Pagan Place,

"Have you thought about doing a You Tube debate question along the lines of:

"Dear Mr. Romney, We of faiths differing from yours wonder what you think of our rights to free exercise? What if we are not Christians? What if we are not Mormons? What if we are not Jewish? What then do you think? Are we free to differ from you?

"It would be fun to see how he answered that one."

Actually, my YouTube debate question for the Republicans goes like this:

'This one is for any candidate. If elected, how will you drown out the screams of utter despair and desolation from a beleaguered nation?'

It's about like that. :)

" The Moderate:

"Dear Pagan Place,

"Have you thought about doing a You Tube debate question along the lines of:

"Dear Mr. Romney, We of faiths differing from yours wonder what you think of our rights to free exercise? What if we are not Christians? What if we are not Mormons? What if we are not Jewish? What then do you think? Are we free to differ from you?

"It would be fun to see how he answered that one."

Actually, my YouTube debate question for the Republicans goes like this:

'This one is for any candidate. If elected, how will you drown out the screams of utter despair and desolation from a beleaguered nation?'

It's about like that. :)

Lisa,
Obama did not give the Romney speach...he gave his own. He gave a speech about his religious belief that was personal and did not leave out of the American citizenship those of us who are alternative religious or not religious at all. I take it you are republican...I carecognize the whine.

We have not had the Democratic Party claiming to be the party of God...no Dem pastor has told his/her congregation that if they vote any certain way they will go to hell...that has been in the Republican baliwick.

The Dems can be religious, or not..we do not care. We do not own God...not any of them. That is your private matter...Yes religion, like how much money you earn or what you do with your partner in your bedroom is not any of our business.

terra

Hey everyone it has been awhile since I last posted but I have read through the comments (found a job and they let us use the web) I enjoy all the diffrent and diverse personalites on here it is a releif to see that so many can and do use rational thinking! However some of us on here are rather rude and attack rather than voice an opionion for reveiw by our peers...

Concerned, what the heck has jihadist done to you, and why are you soooo adament in making yourself have no credibility with anyone on here by blantantly assaulting everyone who doesn't scream for the destruction of Islam. NO ONE CARES about your 'crack-pot' theories and conspiracies dealing with Islam...sorry but I could see you being the type to say "OBAMA-OSAMA"...you are an intelligent person, and you have in the past displayed great rationality when approaching subjects, but you also have no control over other's beleifs...so give it a rest!

I just wanted to say it is getting cold now and it is also becoming a world that is moving backwards instead of forwards, so get ready for the holidays and enjoy the time with family and friends and show the Love that all of you have. Remember that while politics and religion and all these debates are important FAMILY always trumps arguments on the web. Hope you all have a blessed and safe Holiday season, hope you all are filled with good food and great presents, and remember that those of us without family are the ones that need Love the most during these Great Times.

Peace be unto You All

-MONK-

PS if this posts twice sorry recived an error message and tried again...

Lisa - I suspect we may not agree politically but you're right about the dems getting a pass on religious hucksterism - Obama did it right here in S. Carolina in a local Baptist church and sounded absolutely preacher-like in his delivery (this is second-hand reporting since I didn't attend). Now Oprah is doing the preaching and giving him a little breathing room.

For my money, selling religion and politics together stinks to high heaven, and I don't support or condone it in any candidate - you would think the global mess that Bush the born again Christian created might put on damper on religion in this election but apparently not - some folks seem to believe we have to put the right Christian in office to resurrect a born-again nation. Here enter Huckabee and Romney. This is pure hogwash if you ask me.

You have to ask yourself - do these politicians have real religious zeal, or is it just a sophisticated marketing ploy?? With politicians you never know, and for me this creates even more doubt than usual - remember Elmer Gantry!!

Lisa - I suspect we may not agree politically but you're absolutely right about the dems being immune from negative press on religious pandering (a word for the 'lose forever' list in 2008).

Obama did it right here in S. Carolina and struck an absolutely preacher-like pose when he presented his spiel in a Baptist church.....frankly I wasn't crazy about it, and it definitely theorcratized his message.

Of course now Oprah is doing his preaching for him, and I guarantee you this is designed to let him step back from the 'pulpit' a foot or two. That said, I don't cotton to quasi-religious prosetylizing on the political stump.

You would think that the global mess Bush the born-again Christian has made of things would put a damper on religion in this election, but to the contrary, lots of folks seem convinced that by putting the right born-again Christian in office we can all be 'resurrected' as a born-again nation. Here enter Huckabee and Romney -

Or is it all just religious hucksterism - a well crafted sales pitch??? Hey, you never can tell with politicians!

Remember Elmer Gantry..........

sorry for the multiple, multiple posts!

my computer had a hiccough, or so did I!

Jeff P

Parker--thanks for clarifying some of your definitions.

I rather consider the US constitution as a construction of very forward-thinking individuals with the vision to see that our country would grow, change, and progress, and that the arrangement of the "balance of powers" would insure a method of debating, amending, and improving on the constitution and the government of the people, for the people.

The virtuous use of the term "theocracy" with the implication that it would characterize a "divinely sanctioned government" is on a very slippery slope in my view. In every sense of the definition, North Korea is exactly that kind of government.

I do applaud your last paragraph, and it would be my hope too that an informed, voting public could elect leaders to do just that.

Lisa: Barak Obama probably wouldn't ever feel the need to make such a speech. I expect never to hear him referred to as a "theocrat." I'd be curious to hear your definition of "theocracy."

Intelligent Evangelical Response: thanks for the link. By what I could tell, the most of the message I could understand would be summarized as "hey, we don't really agree with the guy's theology but we love the fact that he has some sort of faith and is willing to keep it in the public arena..." As if faith is virtuous onto itself, and that there's merit in making it a public issue, but also to insist that it should be "respected" in some form or fashion. To me this is nonsense.

Parker ; thanks for clarifying some of your definitions.

I rather consider the US constitution as a construction of very forward-thinking individuals with the vision to see that our country would grow, change, and progress, and that the arrangement of the "balance of powers" would insure a method of debating, amending, and improving on the constitution and the government of the people, for the people.

The virtuous use of the term "theocracy" with the implication that it would characterize a "divinely sanctioned government" is on a very slippery slope in my view. In every sense of the definition, North Korea is exactly that kind of government.

I do applaud your last paragraph, and it would be my hope too that an informed, voting public could elect leaders to do just that.

Lisa: Barak Obama probably wouldn't ever feel the need to make such a speech. I expect never to hear him referred to as a "theocrat." I'd be curious to hear your definition of "theocracy."

Intelligent Evangelical Response: thanks for the link. By what I could tell, the most of the message I could understand would be summarized as "hey, we don't really agree with the guy's theology but we love the fact that he has some sort of faith and is willing to keep it in the public arena..." As if faith is virtuous onto itself, and that there's merit in making it a public issue, but also to insist that it should be "respected" in some form or fashion. To me this is nonsense.

Parker Jeff P here; thanks for clarifying some of your definitions.

I rather consider the US constitution as a construction of very forward-thinking individuals with the vision to see that our country would grow, change, and progress, and that the arrangement of the "balance of powers" would insure a method of debating, amending, and improving on the constitution and the government of the people, for the people.

The virtuous use of the term "theocracy" with the implication that it would characterize a "divinely sanctioned government" is on a very slippery slope in my view. In every sense of the definition, North Korea is exactly that kind of government.

I do applaud your last paragraph, and it would be my hope too that an informed, voting public could elect leaders to do just that.

Lisa: Barak Obama probably wouldn't ever feel the need to make such a speech. I expect never to hear him referred to as a "theocrat." I'd be curious to hear your definition of "theocracy."

Intelligent Evangelical Response: thanks for the link. By what I could tell, the most of the message I could understand would be summarized as "hey, we don't really agree with the guy's theology but we love the fact that he has some sort of faith and is willing to keep it in the public arena..." As if faith is virtuous onto itself. To me this is nonsense.

Parker, thanks for clarifying some of your definitions.

I rather consider the US constitution as a construction of very forward-thinking individuals with the vision to see that our country would grow, change, and progress, and that the arrangement of the "balance of powers" would insure a method of debating, amending, and improving on the constitution and the government of the people, for the people.

The virtuous use of the term "theocracy" with the implication that it would characterize a "divinely sanctioned government" is on a very slippery slope in my view. In every sense of the definition, North Korea is exactly that kind of government.

I do applaud your last paragraph, and it would be my hope too that an informed, voting public could elect leaders to do just that.

Lisa: Barak Obama probably wouldn't ever feel the need to make such a speech. I expect never to hear him referred to as a "theocrat." I'd be curious to hear your definition of "theocracy."

Intelligent Evangelical Response: thanks for the link. By what I could tell, the most of the message I could understand would be summarized as "hey, we don't really agree with the guy's theology but we love the fact that he has some sort of faith and is willing to keep it in the public arena..." As if faith is virtuous onto itself. To me this is nonsense.

Parker, thanks for clarifying some of your definitions.

I rather consider the US constitution as a construction of very forward-thinking individuals with the vision to see that our country would grow, change, and progress, and that the arrangement of the "balance of powers" would insure a method of debating, amending, and improving on the constitution and the government of the people, for the people.

The virtuous use of the term "theocracy" with the implication that it would characterize a "divinely sanctioned government" is on a very slippery slope in my view. In every sense of the definition, North Korea is exactly that kind of government.

I do applaud your last paragraph, and it would be my hope too that an informed, voting public could elect leaders to do just that.

Lisa: Barak Obama probably wouldn't ever feel the need to make such a speech. I expect never to hear him referred to as a "theocrat." I'd be curious to hear your definition of "theocracy."

Intelligent Evangelical Response: thanks for the link. By what I could tell, the most of the message I could understand would be summarized as "hey, we don't really agree with the guy's theology but we love the fact that he has some sort of faith and is willing to keep it in the public arena..." As if faith is virtuous onto itself. To me this is nonsense.

Parker, thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your definitions better.

I, however, give credit for our constitution to a group of very forward-thinking people (men and women)--I like to think they were "freethinkers", and also give credit to the people who spend their lives trying to apply and interpret what it means, as time marches forward, and as we grow and progress and change as a people and as a nation.

In that respect, I'll never be able to believe a divine intervention or creation of our constitution. That's why the strategic placement of strongly ideological judges can be devastating to our country's well-being--it's in the interpretation of the constitution.

I also believe a "theocracy" as defined as a "divinely sanctioned government" is a very slippery slope to travel. It leaves open a world of opportunity for the gods to "inspire" the leaders, based on their beliefs. I think history has a few examples (notable recent ones closer to home), both religious and non-religious, where leaders felt "sanctioned." In that definition, North Korea is no doubt a "divinely sanctioned government", and as Christopher Hitchens likes to point out, the only way to leave N. Korea's "hell" is to die.

Lisa: and why wouldn't "theocrat" be applicable widely to the republican candidates? Did you listen to their national debate? Who are the base, why is this "On Faith" discussion taking place? Why are there objections from religious leaders to what he said in his speech ? Why did Romney give the speech--it wasn't to appease the Democrats...or non-believers... Why do people (of both parties) see such unpleasant irony in his comparison to JFK's speech? What is your definition of a "theocrat?"

Parker, thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your definitions better.

I, however, give credit for our constitution to a group of very forward-thinking people (men and women)--I like to think they were "freethinkers", and also give credit to the people who spend their lives trying to apply and interpret what it means, as time marches forward, and as we grow and progress and change as a people and as a nation.

In that respect, I'll never be able to believe a divine intervention or creation of our constitution. That's why the strategic placement of strongly ideological judges can be devastating to our country's well-being--it's in the interpretation of the constitution.

I also believe a "theocracy" as defined as a "divinely sanctioned government" is a very slippery slope to travel. It leaves open a world of opportunity for the gods to "inspire" the leaders, based on their beliefs. I think history has a few examples (notable recent ones closer to home), both religious and non-religious, where leaders felt "sanctioned." In that definition, North Korea is no doubt a "divinely sanctioned government", and as Christopher Hitchens likes to point out, the only way to leave N. Korea's "hell" is to die.

Lisa: and why wouldn't "theocrat" be applicable widely to the republican candidates? Did you listen to their national debate? Who are the base, why is this "On Faith" discussion taking place? Why are there objections from religious leaders to what he said in his speech ? Why did Romney give the speech--it wasn't to appease the Democrats...or non-believers... Why do people (of both parties) see such unpleasant irony in his comparison to JFK's speech? What is your definition of a "theocrat?"

For an evangelical response to Romney's speech, check out:

http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2007/12/romney-speaks-out.html

I'm amazed at how easily we trot out the word "theocrat" when Republicans are involved. Barak Obama could have given the same speech and I'm positive no charges of "theocrat" would be filed.

Thanks, Moderate.

I agree that our country was founded on both Judeo-Christian and secular ideas.

And as for the future, I hope and think it will keep that character.

But in a political campaign speech on religious ideas, I don't want them to go out of their way to exclude me - to point me out.

Jeff P.,
Thanks for trying to understand my logic. I agree that the current administration has tried to go around the checks and balances that I think were divinely inspired, but reading Thomas Friedman and others lately I think that the Congress has done its job in "forcing" the hand of the executive branch such that we are now in a better position in Iraq, with a favorable outcome possible. That was an example of checking and balancing the executive branch by means of the action of the legislative branch. I think that is a healthy, if very messy process.

Since I think the U.S. consititution was divinely inspired by a process of many different opinions being expressed freely and openly and compromises reached that have stood the test of time, then I assert that a divinely sanctioned government must have that balance of power and those checks and balances in place, and the executive must get the very best minds with many different opinions together to dialogue openly, disagree, compromise, and come to well-thought-out decisions including understanding their consequences.

The current administration failed on many such points, so that's why I said it is way opposite to any sort of "theocracy" which to me implies divinely sanctioned government. I abhor any attempt by the executive branch to assert authority or undermine the checking and balancing implied in the constitution.

I think divine Providence wants synergy among humankind, which means open dialogue looking for the best solutions to complex problems from different viewpoints, each of which may contain elements of truth that yield a resulting decision that is better than the opinion of a few who go off into a corner and get us all into a mess by badly informed, irresponsible decisions. Thanks again trying to understand, and best wishes to you.

Parker, thanks for your response.

I'm sorry I can't follow your logic, but am grateful for your attempt.

"What they [GWB admin] did was opposite to a theocracy.."?

Confidence in "checks and balances.." in the last seven years?

"Divinely inspired.." constitution?

Divine providence as not being "an authoritarian Being.."?

These are statements I really can't argue, as I believe we have very different definitions for key words in each statement. Oh well, go figure. Ultimately, yep I think it will have to come out in the vote!

Jeff P.,
Good morning. I suppose I should respond...
I have sufficient trust in the checks and balances within our federal and state governments that I don't get any feeling of a move toward a "theocracy". Since I think the U.S. constitution was divinely inspired, then I think if a "theocracy" were to be established it would pretty closely mirror the original constitution and Bill of Rights, requiring laws, a court system, checks and balances, and so forth.

It would also have broad input from many viewpoints with educated, responsible, morally grounded opinions. You see, I don't see divine Providence as an authoritarian Being. I see such a Being as synergistic, with strong advocacy for self-governance by enlightened choices motivated by a deep sense of the individual worth of each person.

I agree with you that the Bush/Cheney decision-making was flawed, and did not consider the advice around them. So what they did was opposite to theocracy or good government IMO, and I am grateful that the Congress has attempted to exercise the very balance of power that the Founding Fathers envisioned. It's all a messy process.

I agree that you should vote for whom you will--so will I.

Moderate: let me suggest some additional reading:

Skeptics and True Believers, Dr. Chet Raymo
Origins, Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On Human Nature, Edward O. Wilson
Kingdom Coming, Michelle Goldberg
God on Trial, Peter Irons
Freethinkers, Susan Jacoby
Doubt, a History, Jennifer Michael Hecht
With God on Our Side, Michael Weinstein
Science Matters, Robert Hazen and James Trefil
The Varieties of Scientific Experience, Carl Sagan
A Brief History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson

Anything by Marcus Borg, regarding the historical Jesus, is very interesting.
Anything by Richard Dawkins, in his writings on evolutionary science, is interesting.

Incidentally, Newton also considered his alchemy as much as his physics--what am I to make of that?

Parker: the above reading list reveals some significant issues regarding the silly, "liberal-media-sources" concern for the attempts at a theocracy. I for one am afraid it can very literally evolve into a theocracy right under your nose, and you'd be oblivious to it.

As for "ethical tone," I've had enough of your "values" and "moral" superiority defining my choices of candidates and leadership for this country. We've seen the "morality" of the last 7 years, unless we've been covering our eyes. You can rest assured I'll be voting against anyone with the political claim that they own the "moral" agenda. Your "values" are clearly not my "values."

Rev. Thistlethwaite and Washington Post/Newsweek:

There are, as we have seen both here and in other media sources, many different ways to look at Romney's speech and his foundational values. One thing I haven't seen is a discussion about an aspect of choosing a president during this stage in our country's history that I still think is a major consideration, due in part to the Clinton days and even in part to the current administration. That major consideration involves ethical leadership and example. Hillary hasn't inspired that from my vantage point, so I am interested in who can win the presidency and will have that example that is so needed. This does not mean a leader can't change their mind on issues, but it means their life should show in its details what they want to be known for in public as to their honesty, integrity, and the care they have taken with their own children.

Your use of the term "theocracy" shows a deliberate attempt to mislead through mischaracterization as far as I'm concerned, but it is what I expect from liberal media sources, so it is not surprising in the least. But it does bear an element of making sense, in that a president is somewhat of a figurehead, a sort of "father of our country" in the eyes of children--so I hope the parents in this country will vote based on the ethical tone our next leader will set for America.

Brian,

I would recommend a couple of books on the relationship and theology:

The Emperor's New Mind
Concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics
by Roger Penrose

Penrose gives an estimate of the probability that the universe as we have it is accidental. Hint: it is really low.

The Fire in the Equations
Science, Religion & the Search for God
Kitty Ferguson

Stephen Hawking endorses this one.

Isaac Newton
James Glieck

Newton considered his theology more important than his physics.

A Logical Journey
Hao Wang

One of the few close associates of Kurt Godel recounts his conversations on the theological implications of Godel's proof. Einstein was another of Godel's associates at the Institute for Advanced Study.

Out of My Later Years
Albert Einstein

Brian I would only qualify, reading your second post, that science can't explain everything. The scientific method does appear to be the best way to reliably answer hypotheses, but having recently been reminded by "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, we really don't know very much yet.

Having said that, I'll put my money, the safety of my family's health, and the potential reversing of environmental man-made damage in the hands of science, given a choice between it and the gods.

Excellent post. Brian, you describe exactly how I feel, thank you.

Dear Henry,

To avoid confusion I will tag this for you.

{humor}
Yep, it's a free country. If you want to swim in the shallow end, with Elaine, you are within your rights to do it. You can read Golden Books too, if you like. Lots of people like rap music, too.
Enjoy.
{/humor}

Did you get the Mitch Hedberg CD?

Moderate,
That is a great idea!
Paganplace...that would be interesting. How would any of the candidates answer that question?

Why can't On Faith ask that of those who want to be our president(too)?

If we are invisible no one has to deal with the question.

Are we Americans too? if not they can go hang for my tax money...because we are not represented.
terra

Thanks Moderate

I was going to put some stock in those thousands of smart people who consider The Gnostic Gospels a great book,

but if YOU don't like it,
I won't put any stock in anyone else's opinion.

I'll check back with you when I finish, but since you are right about everything else, I am sure you are right about this.

Dear Brian,

"It requires faith in the idea that pure science is infallible, which so far has never been disproven."

Ever hear of the luminiferous Ether?

Science offers the best we have by way of theories at a given point in time and technology. The true strength of science is that it admits that it is incomplete and at times wrong to progress to better theories. We do get better over time, but truly we are not the Gods who created the universe, or even the world.

Dear Pagan Place,

Have you thought about doing a You Tube debate question along the lines of:

Dear Mr. Romney, We of faiths differing from yours wonder what you think of our rights to free exercise? What if we are not Christians? What if we are not Mormons? What if we are not Jewish? What then do you think? Are we free to differ from you?

It would be fun to see how he answered that one.

Dear Henry James,

I read that Pagels book. It was a shallow and breezy reprise of some early church nonsense.

BTW The reason they made the canon is that people like the Gnostics who made stuff up as the "secret teachings" to which they alone were privy, and Marcion who dumped everything but Luke and Paul, among others.

Dear Henry James and Brian,

"Atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is the disbelief in any religion. We only believe in facts that can be proven by empirical, physical evidence and sound logic."

"Moderate was only moderately using his reasoning when he called atheism and secularism "religions.""

Not even "moderately" using reason on that particular line. The :^)) symbol means "Like, dudes, that was a joke. You don't get literal with a joke. If you do not think a joke is funny, then say, 'Like, dude, that was not funny to me. Try to tell a more funny one tomorrow! Because that one did not work.'" ;^)))

(With apologies to Mitch Hedberg. If you get the voice to read that in. If you don't, you should get a CD from the late, great, Mr. Hedberg)

We could have a persiflage debate if you want, though.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme

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

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

JoeT: Romney is just following the maxim that it is the sign of a mature mind to be able to hold two totally contradictory ideas without going crazy. :-)

Henry: though I was impressed with the poster who noted that Romney described the secular fringe as proponents of a new religion, and then turned around and said that intolerance of that religion was just fine. ;-)

Brian's Rant
is entirely Justified

Moderate was only moderately using his reasoning when he called atheism and secularism "religions."

Of course, Moderate can define words any way he wants, but if he wants to communicate with the rest of us, he needs to use words according to their commonly accepted definitions.

Religion is pretty universally defined in its First definition as
"the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance" (Merriam Webster online).

A-theists clearly do NOT worhip God or the Supernatural.

It is only Moderately intelligent to call atheism a religion.

the moderate,

Atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is the disbelief in any religion. We only believe in facts that can be proven by empirical, physical evidence and sound logic. There is nothing logical about a god existing. This is why believers must take the famous "leap of faith" which is essentially a leap OVER evidence, logic and reason. You must jump over these absolutes to arrive at faith, which often contradicts the aforementioned sources of knowledge. If religion was substantiated by evidence and logic, there would be no need for a leap of faith, it would just be common sense.

Atheism does not require a leap of faith. It does require "faith" in a sense, but not in a religious sense. It requires faith in the idea that pure science is infallible, which so far has never been disproven. Even if humans don't have the answers to everything, science does, and the answers are there for us to find in the future, if we follow the logic and evidence that science has given us.

This is not a religious belief because it is based solely on empirical evidence - things we can see, touch and measure - not on imaginative, unsupported thinking. We use our imaginations only to predict the great things that science can lead us to, but we never believe something that doesn't have a firm infrastructure of proven fact supporting this.

It's simple, and I'm tired of people trying to call Atheism and secularism religions. Secularism is religious neutrality and Atheism is literally "not theism," where theism is the belief in any supernatural being.

Addicted,

Romney clearly referenced the rights of Muslims to practice their religion -- who do not recognize Jesus as their Savior. How many religions must he individually spell out before you get the idea that respects freedom of religion?

Addicted

Mormons DO believe in freedom of religion,

but Romney DOES propose a Religious Test in this "Christian Nation" if

in addition to choosing your Church (no mention of the No-Church people)

you want to be President of the United States.

Despicable. Hypocritical pandering.

Eric and Idealist

Both of you state how Mormons are believers in freedom of religion. I dont know enough about Mormonism to comment on that, but either way, how does that pertain to the issue at hand? The issue at hand is whether Romney believes in freedom of religion. And from his speech, it seems that Romney believes in freedom of religion, as long as the religion aspiring to be free believes in Jesus Christ as a savior.

No one seems to have picked up on this, but after Romney says that there are some religious questions it is okay to ask of a political candidate, the FIRST question he mentions (and elevates it to fundamental status) is "What do I believe about Jesus Christ?". Religious test anyone?

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

Dear Friend,

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

1.) Atheism is a religion, too. So the statement is vacuously true. :^))

2.) But seriously, I think the Romney is talking about the historical notion that because we are all children of God (or Allah, or The Gods if you please), we are all sacred, and so should be free. This is embedded in the founding documents of the nation. This may be "theocracy", but it is were we came from as a culture.

Quo Vadis America? I know not.

But this whence we came.

Thank you, Susan, for sticking up for all points of view.

Certainly, I admire Romney for as a business person and administrator. For these qualities alone, I considered him a worthy canidate to lead our country.

But he left me out when he said: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

I think religion is a natural and necessary development in human societies.

But freedom...freedom requires religion. Religion to me is an administrative vehicle that sometime keeps us away from god...from freedom. It can restrict thought as we become ethnically, religiously, and nationally isolated from the rest of humanity.

That is not to say that some people who are athiests, especially when initially becoming athiests, don't close their mind to the purpose, origion, communal, and phychological aspects of religion.

I want someone who will bring us together, not slice and dice us to get a nomination.

Jesus, Bhudda, Ghandi...where are you?

Rev. Thistlethwaite,
I respectfully disagree with you as to the notion that Romney is ascribing to a "Christian America". As a Mormon myself, I am very much aware that Mormons not only respect the religious pluralism that pretty much defines America, but believe that all of the dialogue and disagreements that led to the Constituion being "divinely inspired," including both the separation of church and state and the separation and balance of powers in the branches of government, were evidence of the inspiration of collective governance rather than single authoritarian governance.

If by "theocracy" you mean a president who gets the thoughts and opinions of many great minds with different points of view and then makes an informed decision while also calling upon divine Providence for a sense of whether a decision is inspired or is "going it alone"--much like Lincoln did who appointed men to his cabinet who he knew would disagree with him--then I suppose that term has a very broad meaning and can encompass Romney or any other Mormon, for that is what I believe divine Providence expects us to do.

Thanks for your candid point of view.

Dear PaganPlace:

"Hillary's a social conservative with ties to Christian Dominionist
groups...."

What exactly are these Christian Dominionist groups? Most of the Pat Robertson style Christians seem to hate Hillary with a passion. For that matter, a lot of my Main Line Protestant friends don't care for her either. Neither do many of my Catholic friends.

This is an honest question, not an accusation. I just don't know who you are addressing with this.

Dear Susan,

"Twenty-five references to freedom, free and liberty cannot finally disguise that in Mitt Romney’s view, you better have faith and the right faith if you want to be an American."

If you were to go back and do you homework on the 1960 campaign, you would see that the protestants raked Kennedy over the coals with stuff dredged up from the Reformation. I remember that election well, and as a young Roman Catholic I was appalled by the blind prejudice, fear, and loathing that were focused on the young Kennedy. Strangely, Kennedy did not stage a religious coup, but rather turned out to be a Liberal Democrat. Who knew he would do that?

Perhaps he was assassinated just in time to prevent the coup. The gunman on the grassy nole maybe was aiming to prevent his conspiracy to establish a theocracy and force everyone to become an RC. :^))

The your Main Line, and old line, paranoia against Romney reminds me of 1960, and the old adage: "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Shame on you.

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

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

I dunno, Efave.....

Could it be possible the Republican party doesn't have our best interests at heart, somehow?

*gasp*

Susan - thanks for noticing and commenting on Romney's Christian exclusivity.

I wonder now if we non-believers could get any of the other candidates to publicly include us among American patriots - and what would happen to their poll numbers if they did.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Hillary's a social conservative with ties to Christian Dominionist groups.... the media keeps saying she's a frontrunner cause *she's the candidate they want*.

Have to say, at least she's competent, but... Being a Democrat doesn't actuallymean you're a liberal, already.

Gods.

Well, Terra, in 'See the Whole Board' terms, he's the right-wing nut that's supposed to come to the forefront on cue while we all tool on Romney.

There are limited media outlets, these days, their moves become predictable.

Huckabee's gonna make a play for it, either everyone'll flock behind him after casting Romney (who's no bargain, anyway) into the 'outer darkness' or he'll seem to be a Christian 'White Horse' against Giuliani, who probably shouldn't have lasted five minutes in destructive politics as they are... the dude has *one* admirable moment in his career, which was to walk down the street in front of a camera late in the day on 9/11 and look competent while Bush was hiding...

(of course, by then Biden had appeared on TV and talked sense rather than just looking good) ...But it was better than looking confused and continuing to read goat stories . Still, Done.)

It's all a racket. The media corps have been telling us we all love Hillary when.. ummm... Does anybody love Hillary? She's been a frontrunner in the corporate media since all we heard about her was Rush on Oxycontin ranting about how she's the W*** of Babylon... I mean, she'd be more *competent* than Bush, but does anyone like her?

Anyway, this is all BS. I don't care if they pick Romney or Huckabee, I want my damn freedom. And I want competence.

And I want answers.

By the Gods, I want answers.

You bet Romney's a theocrat, in spite of this Mormon thing, ...he doesn't want religious freedom, he just wants in on the theocracy. He's shown it.

Mitt Romney is an theocrat. He subscribes to the "Christian Nation" view...which is just a way to further the theocrate platform. He subscripes to the idea that his God is the One and Only God and anyone that does not agree is Anti American.

Harry Reid is a Mormon..it has nothing to do with the religion, it has to do with the personal view of religion.

Harry Reid helped a Pagan wife get the Pentacle on her Wiccan dead soldier husband's headstone, who was killed in Afghanistan. Harry Reid did not say Only Monotheists are American. That soldier and the others that were Pagan yet died for this country were just as American. As is all the people who see a different face of God then Mitt Romney, or do not believe in any god.

Mitt Romney is a pandering theocrat.
Ask him about health care or infrastructure...ask about the returning soldiers who are brain damaged or will need care for the rest of their lives..ask him why Bush lied about the NEI report about Iran and if he agrees.

terra

"This is astonishing since the freedom from being forced to ascribe to belief is one of the fundamental American freedoms and a genuine achievement in human history."

I think you meant "freedom from being fo