Romney's JFK speech [Archive]

nbs2

Dec 6, 2007, 03:23 PM

With his performance as of late, I was worried that this was going to bomb. For the last few weeks, the Romney camp has been struggling to stay on point and maintain eye contact.

But, this was really well done. It avoided going into doctrinal issues, and even made a case that the vagaries of doctrine have no place in government. Instead of a speech that could have set the faith back 10 years as far as public understanding goes, I think it did a great job of presenting the faith to some of its biggest detractors.

Will this speech appeal to everybody? Probably not. But, I think it will appeal to all but the most militantly opposed to religion or Mormons in particular. I don't imagine that those two groups number more than 5% of the country (figure 1/3 of those who don't believe in God (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm), and then roughly the same number of anti-Mormons).

zioxide

Dec 6, 2007, 03:25 PM

Lord Blackadder

Dec 6, 2007, 03:39 PM

I would never vote for anyone who believes that "freedom requires religion".

Then phrase "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" is actually somewhat oxymoronic. Without freedom to worship (or not worship) as we choose, religion becomes suppressed. But bringing a religion (or group of religions) into government almost necessarily represses other faiths, as well as atheism.

Please explain how freedom requires religion - if it was up to religion to guide policy we'd all be teaching our youngsters about intelligent design, and the NIH would be funneling billions of dollars to the Discovery Institute. :eek:

What the heck are you talking about, Mitt Romney? We don't need religion in government; we need better fiscal responsibility, reform of social services and effective foreign policy - THAT'S what you should be talking about.

Sometimes this campaign makes me feel I'm watching one of those born-again Christian TV channels.

adrianblaine

Dec 6, 2007, 03:54 PM

In fact, I feel that I'm more free than religious people like him, because I don't live my life based on some 2 thousand year old book with a set of antiquated rules that have absolutely no relevance in today's society, nor do I live my life wondering if some invisible man in the sky is pleased with what I'm doing or if he'll smite me and send me to hell. I'm free to live my life how I want. That's freedom.

I don't want to start a religious debate, as this has been discussed in multiple threads already. I just want to point out that Christianity based on the teaching's of Christ, it is not about following antiquated rules that have no relevance today. Love your fellow man and God. That's it. I don't see how that makes a Christian less free. And the invisible man in the sky doesn't choose where we end up based on our actions. We get to choose.

I don't think this sounds anything like JFK really. JFK made it very clear that he was an American running for president who happened to be Catholic. Romney's speech sounds very much like he's a Mormon running for president.

Please explain how freedom requires religion

He's got it half true, although I'm probably thinking of it differently than him. Freedom requires all schools of thought to be available.

nbs2

Dec 6, 2007, 03:57 PM

I would never vote for anyone who believes that "freedom requires religion".

Then phrase "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" is actually somewhat oxymoronic. Without freedom to worship (or not worship) as we choose, religion becomes suppressed. But bringing a religion (or group of religions) into government almost necessarily represses other faiths, as well as atheism.

I don't think he's arguing for a mingling of the two. In context, he is arguing for religious freedom. Without the freedom to worship, where, how, or what you will, there is imposition of the will of few upon all of society. He also argues that faith (as opposed to religion) has guided American leaders since George Washington, and that he believes that having that faith guide you can, and should, lead you in the right direction - but that letting religion dictate your actions will invariably violate the history of the nation and force failure in upholding your duty as President.

Taken with the rest of his speech Clause A defines the existence of religion, in all its varieties, as evidence that freedom (religious and political) is flourishing; Clause B notes that without religious freedom, religion will die.

ucfgrad93

Dec 6, 2007, 04:00 PM

In fact, I feel that I'm more free than religious people like him, because I don't live my life based on some 2 thousand year old book with a set of antiquated rules that have absolutely no relevance in today's society

So, loving your neighbor, doing good to others, and many other positive concepts in the Bible are irrelevant today? How sad that you feel that way.

leekohler

Dec 6, 2007, 04:10 PM

So, loving your neighbor, doing good to others, and many other positive concepts in the Bible are irrelevant today? How sad that you feel that way.

No- but that's not what it seems to do much of these days, especially in the political arena. When religion involves itself in politics, it becomes about telling others what to do and denying others' rights because you think your book tells you to.

ucfgrad93

Dec 6, 2007, 04:12 PM

No- but that's not what it seems to do much of these days, especially in the political arena.

The message is the same, just because people don't follow it doesn't mean that the message is irrelevant.

Romans 13:9 "The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Personally, I believe the world would be a better place if everyone tried to live up to this passage.

Lord Blackadder

Dec 6, 2007, 04:17 PM

Taken with the rest of his speech Clause A defines the existence of religion, in all its varieties, as evidence that freedom (religious and political) is flourishing; Clause B notes that without religious freedom, religion will die.

If that is what he meant he should have made it explicit rather then boiling it down to what is a much less meaningingful, if glib, phrase.

In fact, I feel that I'm more free than religious people like him, because I don't live my life based on some 2 thousand year old book with a set of antiquated rules that have absolutely no relevance in today's society, nor do I live my life wondering if some invisible man in the sky is pleased with what I'm doing or if he'll smite me and send me to hell. I'm free to live my life how I want. That's freedom.

So, loving your neighbor, doing good to others, and many other positive concepts in the Bible are irrelevant today? How sad that you feel that way.

Actually, you're both wrong. Freedom is the ability for you two to live in the same country and accept each others' differences while working together for a common good that doesn't exclude anyone. We're all in this together, for better or worse.

adrianblaine

Dec 6, 2007, 04:19 PM

The message is the same, just because people don't follow it doesn't mean that the message is irrelevant.

There will always be people that give "groups" of people a bad rap. Always. It's up to everyone to keep an open mind and remember this when dealing with anyone. If someone chooses to be predjadice against a group of people based on misleading or false information, it is plain ignorance IMO.

Romans 13:9 "The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Personally, I believe the world would be a better place if everyone tried to live up to this passage.

You remind me of me on this forum about 6 months ago. (neither a good or bad thing, just an observation)

Of course the world will be a better place. But as a any Christian should know, the sin in the world prevents this from ever happening as long as there is sin still present.

ucfgrad93

Dec 6, 2007, 04:21 PM

it becomes about telling others what to do and denying others' rights

Like when politicians decide I can't smoke at restaurants, have to wear a seatbelt in my car, can't spank my child? (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4582708/detail.html?subid=22100410&qs=1;bp=t)

Don't see any religious reasoning used behind those things.

leekohler

Dec 6, 2007, 04:27 PM

ucfgrad93

Dec 6, 2007, 04:30 PM

When religion involves itself in politics, it becomes about telling others what to do and denying others' rights because you think your book tells you to.

I don't either. What's your point? All those examples are just as wrong.

The point is that you said religion when mixed in with politics involves denying other people's rights. That is already happening, without religious involvement.

leekohler

Dec 6, 2007, 04:35 PM

The point is that you said religion when mixed in with politics involves denying other people's rights. That is already happening, without religious involvement.

Then I see no reason to add fuel to that fire with religion when it is not supposed to be involved in politics in the first place. We obviously have enough to deal with already, don't we? Or are you simply making an excuse for religion?

yg17

Dec 6, 2007, 05:43 PM

adrianblaine

Dec 6, 2007, 05:50 PM

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

The bible isn't all good things, plenty of crazy **** in there too, like" uncircumsized boys should be abandoned
Stay away from those who worship another god (yeah, that's real tolerant)
Those who break the sabbath should be executed
Homosexual acts are an abomination and kill a man who has sex with another man
Anyone who blasphemes or curses should be stoned to death.
Kill those of other faiths
Execute anyone who will not listen to a priest
Women cannot wear mens clothing and vice versa (hey, if thats your thing, why should a book stop you?)and I haven't even gone through half the list

Where does Christ condone or promote any of these things? The religion is called Christianity for a reason.

mactastic

Dec 6, 2007, 05:50 PM

yg17

Dec 6, 2007, 05:52 PM

Where does Christ condone or promote any of these things? The religion is called Christianity for a reason.

I never said Christ said those, I said the bible has all the crazy irrelevant laws

EricNau

Dec 6, 2007, 05:52 PM

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

The bible isn't all good things, plenty of crazy **** in there too, like" uncircumsized boys should be abandoned
Stay away from those who worship another god (yeah, that's real tolerant)
Those who break the sabbath should be executed
Homosexual acts are an abomination and kill a man who has sex with another man
Anyone who blasphemes or curses should be stoned to death.
Kill those of other faiths
Execute anyone who will not listen to a priest
Women cannot wear mens clothing and vice versa (hey, if thats your thing, why should a book stop you?)and I haven't even gone through half the list
Quite frankly, that list is the reason why skeptics have such a bad name. The majority of Christians realize the Bible requires interpretations and cannot always be taken in a literal manner (as the skeptics have done). When someone creates a list like that, it simply shows their ignorance of the topic, and their intolerance of others.

leekohler

Dec 6, 2007, 05:55 PM

Try as I might, I can find no right to smoke, drive without a seatbelt, or hit your child, in the Constitution...

I can't find anything to deny it either. Or did I miss the nanny state section? ;)

adrianblaine

Dec 6, 2007, 05:55 PM

I never said Christ said those, I said the bible has all the crazy irrelevant laws

of which none I practice. Some "Christian" religions may practice some of those obscure irrelevant laws, but that is not what Christianity truly is.

skunk

Dec 6, 2007, 06:04 PM

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.This falsely implies that "under God" was in the Founders' text.

ucfgrad93

Dec 6, 2007, 06:08 PM

Try as I might, I can find no right to smoke, drive without a seatbelt, or hit your child, in the Constitution...

Just like I can't find a right to abortion, either, yet a lot of people seem to think its in there.

EricNau

Dec 6, 2007, 06:13 PM

Just like I can't find a right to abortion, either, yet a lot of people seem to think its in there.
It's covered under the ninth. ;)

FrankBlack

Dec 6, 2007, 06:29 PM

Romney is an idiot.

I hated him as a governor.

There's no way in hell I'd vote for him for President.

I don't give a **** if he's Mormon or not. He has **** policy ideas. That's why I'm not voting for him. Not because of his religion.

I still haven't figured out just what he did, during his four years in office. I meant besides pose for pictures and grin a lot.

So, you must have religion, in order to have freedom? That sort of conflicts with this, doesn't it? (talk about kicking the hornet's nest,,,)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Ugg

Dec 6, 2007, 06:46 PM

Quite frankly, that list is the reason why skeptics have such a bad name. The majority of Christians realize the Bible requires interpretations and cannot always be taken in a literal manner (as the skeptics have done). When someone creates a list like that, it simply shows their ignorance of the topic, and their intolerance of others.

I think what it proves is that xianity was a very intolerant religion for hundreds of years. It has most decidedly evolved over the years but needs to continue to evolve if it's going to remain relevant in the modern world.

The thing about evolution though is that at some point religion will evolve to the point where the truth is discovered to be the sun, not the son. If only that day would arrive soon!

yg17

Dec 6, 2007, 06:51 PM

I think what it proves is that xianity was a very intolerant religion for hundreds of years. It has most decidedly evolved over the years but needs to continue to evolve if it's going to remain relevant in the modern world.

Exactly. I know most xtians don't want to kill all the gays or stone an unmarried woman who has sex to death or any of that, but it does show that despite what others have said, the bible does have a lot of stuff that's extremely outdated and irrelevant.

mactastic

Dec 6, 2007, 07:16 PM

I can't find anything to deny it either. Or did I miss the nanny state section? ;)
Hey, if the righties can pass that off as logic, so can I!

MacNut

Dec 6, 2007, 08:02 PM

solvs

Dec 7, 2007, 02:12 AM

The message is the same, just because people don't follow it doesn't mean that the message is irrelevant.
Our problem is with those who don't follow it, but claim to.

Personally, I believe the world would be a better place if everyone tried to live up to this passage.
And we wouldn't have problems with any of them if they did, but also left us alone to our beliefs, especially if it doesn't affect them or anyone else in the slightest.

Like when politicians decide I can't smoke at restaurants, have to wear a seatbelt in my car, can't spank my child? (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4582708/detail.html?subid=22100410&qs=1;bp=t)
Second hand smoke, injuries from accidents costing tax payer money, and people beating their kids. Does it go too far sometimes? Well sure, especially with that last one. I was hit but refuse to do so myself no matter how much kids push me because it never seemed to do any good and only seems to promote violence as a solution, but that's just me. But what does 2 homosexuals getting married do? Other than put money into the economy? I don't like when Dems go overboard on these types of things either. I don't think any of us do. Yet unlike what you mentioned, Dems aren't pushing them as main and divisive issues the way the religious right pushes against things like gay rights.

Where does Christ condone or promote any of these things? The religion is called Christianity for a reason.
And if Christians were more like that, again, there wouldn't be a problem. But a vocal minority of them are, and even the Dems cater to them, which is the problem. Gandhi once said something like "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians". It's been rather apt lately. We aren't talking about those who aren't like that.

This falsely implies that "under God" was in the Founders' text.
Sad that someone not from here knows that better than we seem to.

Added in the 1950's BTW for those who don't know.

Isn't the basic ideas of religion, chose from right and wrong. What is so wrong about doing what is right?
Nothing, be great if they did.

I think I'd rather have a president with morals then anything else.
I'd rather have a competent ethical one than someone who talks about religion but actually doing pretty much the opposite.

yg17

Dec 7, 2007, 02:12 AM

Isn't the basic ideas of religion, chose from right and wrong. What is so wrong about doing what is right?

I think I'd rather have a president with morals then anything else. The sad thing is that the guy who is a Mormon is the only one to have 1 wife.:p

But you don't need religion to have morals, ethics and a sense of right and wrong. And being religious doesn't mean you have those.

hulugu

Dec 7, 2007, 02:45 AM

Frankly, I don't understand the value of a religious politician. As Romney said: "As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

So, what inherent value does this religious man bring? If his moral compass is guided by his religion than how can he cast it aside so easily for an effectively secular doctrine by following the rule of law. Which oath is he willing to break?

Why couldn't the man have simply echoed Kennedy's words instead, rather than muddling the issue with his grab-bag of mediocre American history and the empty platitude "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom?"

Romney is so busy trying to straddle the fence between his religion and the automatic moral points that appear to be awarded for having "faith" and the oath that he is required to serve by as President, that the man is simply caught by the seat of his pants. Rather than having the bravery to echo Kennedy's insistence that the US was a nation of laws, instead Romney offers up the Top-Ramen version.

walangij

Dec 7, 2007, 04:55 AM

So, what inherent value does this religious man bring? If his moral compass is guided by his religion than how can he cast it aside so easily for an effectively secular doctrine by following the rule of law. Which oath is he willing to break?

Why couldn't the man have simply echoed Kennedy's words instead, rather than muddling the issue with his grab-bag of mediocre American history and the empty platitude "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom?"

Romney is so busy trying to straddle the fence between his religion and the automatic moral points that appear to be awarded for having "faith" and the oath that he is required to serve by as President, that the man is simply caught by the seat of his pants. Rather than having the bravery to echo Kennedy's insistence that the US was a nation of laws, instead Romney offers up the Top-Ramen version.

Romney is just "too perfect" IMO, too much perfect = I don't believe him. The speech was directed to everyone but moreso to the religious right and the strong base of voters who vote on morals rather than policy :confused:

And all this talk about Christianity, I don't understand the intolerance of others towards it. Lots of stuff said about it, it is very true, Christianity has been altered and interpreted in very disgusting ways in the past and even at present. But I don't think this warrants any attack on the general religion of billions across the globe. Religion is religion, something very dear to people, as are your own personal beliefs. I believe that all beliefs are valid, somewhat odd as a Christian to believe that. If only my Christian peers were more tolerant to other beliefs and if the opposite was true.

That said, I do not like how Romney is positioning himself at all. Morals play such a small role as president that it is nonexistent. Anyone remember those "Man of God" books about Bush after 9/11? Policy is what matters, and when candidates focus on morals and beliefs, it troubles me that these issues are at the forefront of the minds if many citizens.

zap2

Dec 7, 2007, 05:03 AM

Personally, I believe the world would be a better place if everyone tried to live up to this passage.

Yes, I think it would be a better place if everyone DID live up to it....trying won't make the world better, unless people really live up to it.

More importantly, people don't need an old book to tell them to do that....and that book also promote many bad things

Iscariot

Dec 7, 2007, 08:15 AM

Like when politicians decide I can't smoke at restaurants, have to wear a seatbelt in my car, can't spank my child? (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/4582708/detail.html?subid=22100410&qs=1;bp=t)

Don't see any religious reasoning used behind those things.

All of these actions have the serious potential to harm or kill another individual. It's not about your right to smoke at restaurants, not wear a seatbelt or spank your child, it's about your server and fellow patron's rights to not inhale second-hand smoke, your fellow passengers rights not to be crushed by your body in a collision, and children's rights not to be spanked.

luminosity

Dec 7, 2007, 08:31 AM

I thought the speech was terrible, and it made him look frankly bigoted against those who don't believe in God or in organized religion.

It was pointed out yesterday that JFK minimized religion in his speech, while Romney did the opposite (rather, he minimized his own particular faith). "Freedom requires religion"? It most certainly does not. It definitely requires the freedom to be free from religion, however.

Swarmlord

Dec 7, 2007, 09:17 AM

It's covered under the ninth. ;)

What?

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Perhaps you meant the 10th where the at best it's left to the states by definition.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Exactly. I know most xtians don't want to kill all the gays or stone an unmarried woman who has sex to death or any of that, but it does show that despite what others have said, the bible does have a lot of stuff that's extremely outdated and irrelevant.

The Old Testament might, but we're on the New Convenant these days. Use the back half of the Book for directions. The front half is for historical context.

imac/cheese

Dec 7, 2007, 10:02 AM

... Policy is what matters, and when candidates focus on morals and beliefs, it troubles me that these issues are at the forefront of the minds if many citizens.

I disagree. The morals of a president are extremely important. Those morals set the groundwork for all their decisions for the policies that do not yet exist. Policies change constantly, but someone's moral code is much less malleable.

Unfortunately, it is often difficult to determine what someone's true moral code is until you see them in action for quite some time.

hulugu

Dec 7, 2007, 10:15 AM

I disagree. The morals of a president are extremely important. Those morals set the groundwork for all their decisions for the policies that do not yet exist. Policies change constantly, but someone's moral code is much less malleable.

Unfortunately, it is often difficult to determine what someone's true moral code is until you see them in action for quite some time.

This strikes me as just the problem. Every president has posed as a moral, upstanding citizen, so how do we separate the wheat from the chafe? Historically speaking, our best presidents have been ambivalent about religion, so how important is religion as a guide for presidents.

Naimfan

Dec 7, 2007, 10:18 AM

"Freedom requires religion"? It most certainly does not. It definitely requires the freedom to be free from religion, however.

Well said.

nbs2

Dec 7, 2007, 10:25 AM

So, you must have religion, in order to have freedom? That sort of conflicts with this, doesn't it? (talk about kicking the hornet's nest,,,)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It goes hand in hand. A society must be willing to embrace those with a given religious value just as much as it does those without that value, to be free. Religion isn't going anywhere, and any society that removes religion from public view is a society that has prohibited the free exercise thereof.

So, once again (a) freedom requires religion and (b) religion requires freedom.

(a) a free society will allow religion to flourish; if religion is quashed or otherwise not tolerated to exist in the public face, society is constricted and not free

(b) without freedom, religion cannot survive; allowing people to worship what they choose, and not worship what they choose, is essential to creating the faith that is the lifeblood of religion

In the end, religion is simply a designation of where your faith lies. Whether the faith rests in Allah, Brahma, Buddha, Jesus, Man, Yahweh, or anybody else, doesn't matter. There is faith and there is religion. If we cannot tolerate the faith of those that disagree with us, we quash our ability to imbibe freedom.

Naimfan

Dec 7, 2007, 10:34 AM

nbs2--

I'd agree that the free expression of religion requires freedom, but I don't think you've shown that religion is an element of freedom. I think you can have freedom without religion.

imac/cheese

Dec 7, 2007, 10:37 AM

This strikes me as just the problem. Every president has posed as a moral, upstanding citizen, so how do we separate the wheat from the chafe? Historically speaking, our best presidents have been ambivalent about religion, so how important is religion as a guide for presidents.

I separate the wheat from the chafe ( :) ) by looking at voting record. What a politician says during a campaign has little to do with what they will do in office (compasionate conservatism, anyone?) and does not necessarily show their moral code, but if you look back through their voting history you can see what type of moral values they hold dear.

Since religion is so different to each and every person, I think it is difficult to determine how important it would be as a presidential guide. I feel that a president following Christ's teachings would have our country doing as much as we could to help others within our on country and throughout the world. The US military machine would be used solely for humanitarian purposes. Our lands would be open to all who needed a place to live and food to eat. The government would not go into debt and it would pay back everything we owe. We would be good stewards of the environment.

Sometimes I wonder how the republican party was so successful in courting the religious...

Swarmlord

Dec 7, 2007, 12:50 PM

mactastic

Dec 7, 2007, 12:58 PM

Sometimes I wonder how the republican party was so successful in courting the religious...
I could tell you, but the answer would probably be deemed offensive by many Christians...

imac/cheese

Dec 7, 2007, 01:03 PM

I could tell you, but the answer would probably be deemed offensive by many Christians...

I personally would love to hear your take on it.

mactastic

Dec 7, 2007, 01:45 PM

I personally would love to hear your take on it.Well let's see if I can do this without greatly offending any of the religious among us.

Two aspects of religious belief play into this. First, once you're willing to swallow an unproven story as fact, it becomes easier to swallow the next unproven story (we will make better leaders than they will) as fact, particularly if it's sold with the right packaging.

Second, if you are used to submitting to authority figures who base their authority in religious scriptures, you are more easily swayed by people who present themselves as authorities wrapped up in the religion of the people they are attempting to sway. And when the authorities of the religions are publicly backing said political party it makes it even easier.

Many of these people were actually convinced God had chosen Bush to be president. And the leaders, who crave power as much as politicians do, were happy to let that impression remain, in order to deliver voters in the hope that it would get them access to power. In some cases, that appears to have happened. If James Dobson didn't deliver votes, he wouldn't have the power that he has.

nbs2

Dec 7, 2007, 02:16 PM

nbs2--

I'd agree that the free expression of religion requires freedom, but I don't think you've shown that religion is an element of freedom. I think you can have freedom without religion.

I think that it comes down to the universality of religion. Organized religion and religion are two very distinct concepts. While religion has been around since the dawn of man, and will always be around, I don't think it is possible to have a comprehensive history of organized religion.

Even if only one person, somewhere, believes in a higher power, there is religion under the classic definition. I assert that religion is simply a container that defines the destination of your faith. That is, all have religion, the question is where is the ultimate end of your faith. But, I digress.

I believe that until the end of mankind, there will always be at least one person who puts his faith in the traditional higher power defined religion. As we have agreed, any attempt to deny that one man his right to believe, is a loss of freedom. Because there will always be at least one who believes, freedom needs religion.

I understand your view is that freedom does not require religion as a foundational or structural element, but free expression and existence are linked.

imac/cheese

Dec 7, 2007, 02:20 PM

Well let's see if I can do this without greatly offending any of the religious among us.

I am not easliy offended, but I do like to hear what others think of us Christians.

Two aspects of religious belief play into this. First, once you're willing to swallow an unproven story as fact, it becomes easier to swallow the next unproven story (we will make better leaders than they will) as fact, particularly if it's sold with the right packaging.

You believe we are gullible because we have faith in an "unproven story" and that our gullibility leads to us being easily fooled by immoral leaders. To paint the picture that all Christians that are republicians are gullible is a very broad brush indeed. The Chistians I know are a rather diverse group of people from all walks of life that believe in Christ for large variety of reasons. I personally believe becuase of my own experiences and the difference that He has made in my life. To me the story is not at all unproven, because I am living proof of the story. I can see where it is unproven to others, but it is definitely not unproven to the Christians I know. To try to make that faith analogous to being fooled by a politician is qutie a stretch in my opinion. The politician has not made any difference in my life and the proof that he is a better leader than others does not even exist.

Second, if you are used to submitting to authority figures who base their authority in religious scriptures, you are more easily swayed by people who present themselves as authorities wrapped up in the religion of the people they are attempting to sway. And when the authorities of the religions are publicly backing said political party it makes it even easier.

I submit to the leader of my church about the same manner in which I sumbit to the leadership of my boss. The pastor is the church leader, not my personal authority. He is a man just like my boss is a man and they are both subject to human errors. My pastor knows more about the bible than I do just like my boss knows more about engineering than I do. I respect that knowledge but often disagree with both of their conclusions. I will agree that if the church authorities publicly back a party it makes it easier for many church followers to vote the same way. But most of the pastors I know are not involved in politics and do not attempt to sway their churches votes.

Many of these people were actually convinced God had chosen Bush to be president. And the leaders, who crave power as much as politicians do, were happy to let that impression remain, in order to deliver voters in the hope that it would get them access to power. In some cases, that appears to have happened. If James Dobson didn't deliver votes, he wouldn't have the power that he has.

Well, I personally believe God chose Bush to be president, just as He chose Clinton before him. That is because I believe in God's sovereignty. But I don't think that Bush is the best president, but just that he is president because it is part of God's plan.

I do not know of any Christians that believed before the 2000 election that Bush was anointed by heaven to be the president.

I will make my own proposal as to why the Christians follow the republican party. 1-Abortion 2-The facade of conservatism

And of course, those are the people with whom those who disagree with equality for women will point to as they proceed to paint the entire movement with their broad brush.

You have succesfully painted the Christian republicans with a very broad brush.

Naimfan

Dec 7, 2007, 02:24 PM

I think that it comes down to the universality of religion. Organized religion and religion are two very distinct concepts. While religion has been around since the dawn of man, and will always be around, I don't think it is possible to have a comprehensive history of organized religion.

Even if only one person, somewhere, believes in a higher power, there is religion under the classic definition. I assert that religion is simply a container that defines the destination of your faith. That is, all have religion, the question is where is the ultimate end of your faith. But, I digress.

I believe that until the end of mankind, there will always be at least one person who puts his faith in the traditional higher power defined religion. As we have agreed, any attempt to deny that one man his right to believe, is a loss of freedom. Because there will always be at least one who believes, freedom needs religion.

I understand your view is that freedom does not require religion as a foundational or structural element, but free expression and existence are linked.

I appreciate what you wrote. I would suggest that freedom allows for religion, but that religion is not necessary to freedom. A definitional question, I think, because if we use your broad definition of religion then you are certainly correct. But I think that if we define "religion" as you suggest, any kind of belief system would suffice, and I don't feel as if that is a "good" definition (being too broad).

leekohler

Dec 7, 2007, 02:39 PM

I think that it comes down to the universality of religion. Organized religion and religion are two very distinct concepts. While religion has been around since the dawn of man, and will always be around, I don't think it is possible to have a comprehensive history of organized religion.

Even if only one person, somewhere, believes in a higher power, there is religion under the classic definition. I assert that religion is simply a container that defines the destination of your faith. That is, all have religion, the question is where is the ultimate end of your faith. But, I digress.

I believe that until the end of mankind, there will always be at least one person who puts his faith in the traditional higher power defined religion. As we have agreed, any attempt to deny that one man his right to believe, is a loss of freedom. Because there will always be at least one who believes, freedom needs religion.

I understand your view is that freedom does not require religion as a foundational or structural element, but free expression and existence are linked.

On the contrary- what you said only illustrates that religion needs freedom. By your standard, we could argue that the US isn't a free country at all for so many reasons.

skunk

Dec 7, 2007, 02:50 PM

(a) a free society will allow religion to flourish; if religion is quashed or otherwise not tolerated to exist in the public face, society is constricted and not free

(b) without freedom, religion cannot survive; allowing people to worship what they choose, and not worship what they choose, is essential to creating the faith that is the lifeblood of religionThis is simply nonsense: there are plenty of theocratic societies around which prove that religion can flourish in an unfree society, and in fact religion can in most cases be the main cause of that lack of freedom. The survival of religion is nothing to do with freedom, and freedom has nothing to do with religion.

While religion has been around since the dawn of man, and will always be around, I don't think it is possible to have a comprehensive history of organized religion.Why on earth not?

Even if only one person, somewhere, believes in a higher power, there is religion under the classic definition.If only one person, somewhere, believes in a higher power, there is delusion under the classic definition, but these assertions are equally vacuous. One believer "somewhere" has no meaningful effect on anything.

I believe that until the end of mankind, there will always be at least one person who puts his faith in the traditional higher power defined religion. As we have agreed, any attempt to deny that one man his right to believe, is a loss of freedom. Because there will always be at least one who believes, freedom needs religion.This is utter gobbledegook. We have not agreed any such thing. Everyone has the freedom to believe anything they fancy, irrespective of any statutes or proscriptions to the contrary. How can they be stopped? What does this prove?

I understand your view is that freedom does not require religion as a foundational or structural element, but free expression and existence are linked.What are you talking about? :confused:

I personally believe becuase of my own experiences and the difference that He has made in my life. To me the story is not at all unproven, because I am living proof of the story.Of course it is unproven. You believe because of the difference your belief has made in your life, that is all. The argument is circular. Well, I personally believe God chose Bush to be president, just as He chose Clinton before him. That is because I believe in God's sovereignty. But I don't think that Bush is the best president, but just that he is president because it is part of God's plan.In other words, (a) voting is pointless, and (b) god has lousy judgment.

nbs2

Dec 7, 2007, 02:54 PM

I appreciate what you wrote. I would suggest that freedom allows for religion, but that religion is not necessary to freedom. A definitional question, I think, because if we use your broad definition of religion then you are certainly correct. But I think that if we define "religion" as you suggest, any kind of belief system would suffice, and I don't feel as if that is a "good" definition (being too broad).

I think in the end it's a question of how far we have to go to be consider freedom. If that one man is denied his free expression (if we take that as a fundamental human right), he las lost freedom. Can we take that as an indictment of a whole country?

As an aside, I still think that, in context, Romney was referring to religious freedom. That with out religious freedom, religion fails. His reference to the state religions of Europe as examples where so many churches stand empty standing in contrast to the lack of state religion in the US where churches are overflowing coupled with his overarching intent to get people to realize that electing not electing a person President solely because he isn't Protestant is tantamount to establishing a state religion. And if those voters (primarily in the South) want to do that, they are setting their own faiths up for the falling away we see in Europe today.

Remember, campaigns are stratagized. It's not accident that he gave this speech in TX instead of in the NE/NW/SW.

On the contrary- what you said only illustrates that religion needs freedom. By your standard, we could argue that the US isn't a free country at all for so many reasons.

Would you say that the US is a free county?

Come on lee - that's a softball just waiting for you to hit it out of the park

mactastic

Dec 7, 2007, 03:01 PM

I am not easliy offended, but I do like to hear what others think of us Christians.

You believe we are gullible because we have faith in an "unproven story" and that our gullibility leads to us being easily fooled by immoral leaders. To paint the picture that all Christians that are republicians are gullible is a very broad brush indeed. The Chistians I know are a rather diverse group of people from all walks of life that believe in Christ for large variety of reasons. I personally believe becuase of my own experiences and the difference that He has made in my life. To me the story is not at all unproven, because I am living proof of the story. I can see where it is unproven to others, but it is definitely not unproven to the Christians I know. To try to make that faith analogous to being fooled by a politician is qutie a stretch in my opinion. The politician has not made any difference in my life and the proof that he is a better leader than others does not even exist.
I suppose I could make a crack about courts of law and the definition of "proven", but I'll refrain.

Suffice it to say that our definitions of "proven" are very different. Self-referential proof is not sufficient in my book. I can see how some would be willing to make that leap, just as I can see how many (not all) of those same people would make the leap with political leaders.

I submit to the leader of my church about the same manner in which I sumbit to the leadership of my boss. The pastor is the church leader, not my personal authority. He is a man just like my boss is a man and they are both subject to human errors. My pastor knows more about the bible than I do just like my boss knows more about engineering than I do. I respect that knowledge but often disagree with both of their conclusions. I will agree that if the church authorities publicly back a party it makes it easier for many church followers to vote the same way. But most of the pastors I know are not involved in politics and do not attempt to sway their churches votes.
So when someone you submit to as a leader tells you they support a certain candidate, you're telling me that has no effect?

You're telling me Oprah will have no effect for Obama? It's the same thing. People look to her (God only knows why, but that's a different matter) as a leader. They respect her opinion. For more than a few people, the fact that Oprah supports Obama will be all they need to hear. For others, it will be a major consideration in their decisions.

Well, I personally believe God chose Bush to be president, just as He chose Clinton before him. That is because I believe in God's sovereignty. But I don't think that Bush is the best president, but just that he is president because it is part of God's plan.
So you're arguing that everything is pre-ordained? Nothing we do in the here and now will change which candidate God has chosen?

I do not know of any Christians that believed before the 2000 election that Bush was anointed by heaven to be the president.
I do.

I will make my own proposal as to why the Christians follow the republican party. 1-Abortion 2-The facade of conservatism
The abortion issue does have something to do with this, particularly because many religious organizations that have evolved around this issue are more politically active than say poverty organizations or anti-death penalty organizations. But any Christian who pulled the lever because of abortion was willfully ignoring the GOPs horrible record on other aspects of life that Jesus spoke to. Thus I must conclude that they were either doing so out of ignorance or because they were misled by their leaders.

You have succesfully painted the Christian republicans with a very broad brush.
Your "broad brush" comparison is inaccurate. My comment about the broad brush was related specifically to a subset of radicals versus the entire group. You're not suggesting that Christians who supported Bush are in any way "radicals", are you?

In any case, I'm not trying to say all Christians are Republican, or necessarily follow these tendancies. But some surely do.

imac/cheese

Dec 7, 2007, 03:06 PM

Of course it is unproven. You believe because of the difference your belief has made in your life, that is all. The argument is circular. In other words, (a) voting is pointless, and (b) god has lousy judgment.

I realize it is scientifically unproven, but I have seen enough proof of the power of faith to believe in it. Therefore, God has proven to me through His actions that He exists. At least that is my belief. ;)

Voting is by no means pointless. Without people voting, no one would ever be elected to any position. Just because God has His own plan, doesn't mean that He won't use us to execute it.

His judgement was only lousy if His plan was for the U.S. to become a better nation over the past 8 years.

mactastic

Dec 7, 2007, 03:12 PM

I realize it is scientifically unproven, but I have seen enough proof of the power of faith to believe in it. Therefore, God has proven to me through His actions that He exists. At least that is my belief. ;)
So, in other words, you're perfectly willing to swallow a story you recognize as being unproven?

Voting is by no means pointless. Without people voting, no one would ever be elected to any position. Just because God has His own plan, doesn't mean that He won't use us to execute it.
Does God choose the victor in all elections, or just US elections?

His judgement was only lousy if His plan was for the U.S. to become a better nation over the past 8 years.
:rolleyes:

skunk

Dec 7, 2007, 03:15 PM

<Round and round we go>Circularity, thy name is imac/cheese.

imac/cheese

Dec 7, 2007, 03:32 PM

Suffice it to say that our definitions of "proven" are very different. Self-referential proof is not sufficient in my book. I can see how some would be willing to make that leap, just as I can see how many (not all) of those same people would make the leap with political leaders.

I have heard many people say the same thing about self-referential proof, that have later changed their tune when the proof was provided to them. I was one of those people.

So when someone you submit to as a leader tells you they support a certain candidate, you're telling me that has no effect?

You're telling me Oprah will have no effect for Obama? It's the same thing. People look to her (God only knows why, but that's a different matter) as a leader. They respect her opinion. For more than a few people, the fact that Oprah supports Obama will be all they need to hear. For others, it will be a major consideration in their decisions.

Many people are influenced by sorts of leaders. Personaly, neither my boss nor my pastor have the influence over me to choose a specific candidate and neither have ever tried to influence me towards a specific candidate. I do see how the leaders of the major religious organizations have influence just Oprah does. Are you suggesting that the leaders of the religious organizations are all in it for political power? How did these leaders get to these positions? I would argue (without proof) that these were religious people guided by their reigious morals and beliefs that set out to make a difference and discovered they have quite a bit of political influence (just like Oprah).

The abortion issue does have something to do with this, particularly because many religious organizations that have evolved around this issue are more politically active than say poverty organizations or anti-death penalty organizations. But any Christian who pulled the lever because of abortion was willfully ignoring the GOPs horrible record on other aspects of life that Jesus spoke to. Thus I must conclude that they were either doing so out of ignorance or because they were misled by their leaders.

The reason they are more politically active is because they see our government allowing actions that are morally and ethically abhorent to them. Poverty organizations are also very active but just not politically because their is not much they can do politically compared to what they can do locally though the use of volunteer labor. I personally wish the anti-death penalty religious organizations would become more main stream within the party. To me that is something morally and ethically abhorent but most Christian republicans do not seem to care. I would conclude that most Christians that pulled the lever for the right would have done so because they feel that the abortion issue is the most glaring political issue that they see government doing something about. They do not see government helping much in the way of poverty (I personally have mixed views) and they do not care about the death penalty issue.

Your "broad brush" comparison is inaccurate. My comment about the broad brush was related specifically to a subset of radicals versus the entire group. You're not suggesting that Christians who supported Bush are in any way "radicals", are you?

In any case, I'm not trying to say all Christians are Republican, or necessarily follow these tendancies. But some surely do.

My broad brush comparison was used becuase you were painting a very broad picture of the Christian republicans, while at the same time you were condeming painting with a broad brush. I realize that there is a differnce between the radical feminists and the religious right that is not captured in my analogy, but a similar broad brush was used in both examples.

I will concede that there are many in the religious right that operate pretty much exactly as you described. But there are many, even among the GOP, that do not go along with everything the party believes.

skunk

Dec 7, 2007, 03:34 PM

I would argue (without proof)No change there, then. :)

mactastic

Dec 7, 2007, 03:54 PM

I have heard many people say the same thing about self-referential proof, that have later changed their tune when the proof was provided to them. I was one of those people.
But surely you have to realize that what you call proof is only proof because you say it is?

Many people are influenced by sorts of leaders. Personaly, neither my boss nor my pastor have the influence over me to choose a specific candidate and neither have ever tried to influence me towards a specific candidate. I do see how the leaders of the major religious organizations have influence just Oprah does.
So these influential people don't have any influence over you, but you can see how they might have it over others, as I suggested?

Are you suggesting that the leaders of the religious organizations are all in it for political power? How did these leaders get to these positions? I would argue (without proof) that these were religious people guided by their reigious morals and beliefs that set out to make a difference and discovered they have quite a bit of political influence (just like Oprah).
All? No. Most? Maybe. Some? Definitely. Just look at the scandal consuming the Oral Roberts ministry right now. And while they may have started out, as you say, with good intentions; somewhere along the way some of them get seduced by earthly pleasures, including power, wealth, and yes even meth-fueled sex with male prostitutes.

The reason they are more politically active is because they see our government allowing actions that are morally and ethically abhorent to them.
So you're saying that groups other than the anti-abortion crowd do not see our government allowing actions that are morally or ethically abhorrent to them? That's a pretty sweeping generalization.

Poverty organizations are also very active but just not politically because their is not much they can do politically compared to what they can do locally though the use of volunteer labor.
Not true. Anti-poverty organizations chould be pushing for legislation aimed at helping their cause just as vociferously as the anti-abortion organizations do.

I personally wish the anti-death penalty religious organizations would become more main stream within the party. To me that is something morally and ethically abhorent but most Christian republicans do not seem to care. I would conclude that most Christians that pulled the lever for the right would have done so because they feel that the abortion issue is the most glaring political issue that they see government doing something about. They do not see government helping much in the way of poverty (I personally have mixed views) and they do not care about the death penalty issue.
I wish they were too. Same with environmental issues and other things Christ spoke to. Unfortunately they appear to be calculating what will bring out the most votes, and working to capitalize on those votes. Not an action exclusive to any one group or political persuasion by any means, but it's the truth.

My broad brush comparison was used becuase you were painting a very broad picture of the Christian republicans, while at the same time you were condeming painting with a broad brush. I realize that there is a differnce between the radical feminists and the religious right that is not captured in my analogy, but a similar broad brush was used in both examples.
I wasn't trying to paint all Christians that way. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

I will concede that there are many in the religious right that operate pretty much exactly as you described. But there are many, even among the GOP, that do not go along with everything the party believes.
Of course. They are the quiet, reasonable, non-radicals. It's a shame that groups get identified by them, wouldn't you agree?

imac/cheese

Dec 7, 2007, 04:16 PM

All? No. Most? Maybe. Some? Definitely. Just look at the scandal consuming the Oral Roberts ministry right now. And while they may have started out, as you say, with good intentions; somewhere along the way some of them get seduced by earthly pleasures, including power, wealth, and yes even meth-fueled sex with male prostitutes.

Those damn eathly pleasures!

So you're saying that groups other than the anti-abortion crowd do not see our government allowing actions that are morally or ethically abhorrent to them? That's a pretty sweeping generalization.

I don't think my statement implied a sweeping generalization. I see the groups that see the government allowing morally and ethically abhorent actions are more politically active than groups that are out for other causes. People, in general, are not poor because the government allows abhorent actions. They are poor for a whole variety of other reasons that were recently discussed in another thread.

Not true. Anti-poverty organizations chould be pushing for legislation aimed at helping their cause just as vociferously as the anti-abortion organizations do.

If government bans abortion, legal abortions would stop. If the government comes up with a new plan to fight poverty, it might or might not do anything. While at the same time those anti-poverty groups out on the streets are having major impact on the poor and helping people in their local communities.

I wish they were too. Same with environmental issues and other things Christ spoke to. Unfortunately they appear to be calculating what will bring out the most votes, and working to capitalize on those votes. Not an action exclusive to any one group or political persuasion by any means, but it's the truth.

Can't argue with that.

Of course. They are the quiet, reasonable, non-radicals. It's a shame that groups get identified by them, wouldn't you agree?

It is.

mactastic

Dec 7, 2007, 04:19 PM

If government bans abortion, legal abortions would stop. If the government comes up with a new plan to fight poverty, it might or might not do anything. While at the same time those anti-poverty groups out on the streets are having major impact on the poor and helping people in their local communities.
But if the government bans abortion, will that stop abortions any more than a ban on poverty would stop poverty?

I think you know the answer to that question, as you alluded to it with the word "legal".

imac/cheese

Dec 7, 2007, 04:25 PM

But if the government bans abortion, will that stop abortions any more than a ban on poverty would stop poverty?

I think you know the answer to that question, as you alluded to it with the word "legal".

By no means would it stop abortions. And it would create very dangerous conditions for the illegal abortions that would occur. It would also make criminals out of many scared young women. But it would also greatly reduce the overall number of abortions that take place.

skunk

Dec 7, 2007, 04:28 PM

But it would also greatly reduce the overall number of abortions that take place.How would you be able to tell?

mactastic

Dec 7, 2007, 04:29 PM

But it would also greatly reduce the overall number of abortions that take place.
That's just your opinion. You have to admit, you have no way to verify that claim.

imac/cheese

Dec 7, 2007, 04:46 PM

That's just your opinion. You have to admit, you have no way to verify that claim.

Correct, the only proof I have on this one is common sense. So call it a theory if you wish. I doubt anyone that wouldn't have gotten an abortion while it was legal would suddenly decide to get one if it became illegal, so an abortion ban would not increase the numbers of abortions in any manner. Many people are law abiding citizens and would not wish to break the law to get an abortion so those people would not get abortions. Another group would not be willing to get an abortion in a dangerous location or in unsanitary conditions so those would also reduce the number of abortions performed. Others yet would not be willing/able to pay an expensive price for a blackmarket abortion so the number would be reduced even further. The lack of accessibility to illegal abortion clinics would further reduce the numbers. Of course, the other side is that some girls would drink bleach, throw themselves down stairs, starve themselves, or anything else they could think of to find a way to get rid of the fetus, creating a whole new mess of problems to deal with.

mactastic

Dec 7, 2007, 04:56 PM

Correct, the only proof I have on this one is common sense. So call it a theory if you wish. I doubt anyone that wouldn't have gotten an abortion while it was legal would suddenly decide to get one if it became illegal, so an abortion ban would not increase the numbers of abortions in any manner. Many people are law abiding citizens and would not wish to break the law to get an abortion so those people would not get abortions. Another group would not be willing to get an abortion in a dangerous location or in unsanitary conditions so those would also reduce the number of abortions performed. Others yet would not be willing/able to pay an expensive price for a blackmarket abortion so the number would be reduced even further. The lack of accessibility to illegal abortion clinics would further reduce the numbers. Of course, the other side is that some girls would drink bleach, throw themselves down stairs, starve themselves, or anything else they could think of to find a way to get rid of the fetus, creating a whole new mess of problems to deal with.
'Tis possible. Maybe even likely.

But I would argue that government could reduce poverty by a similar amount through their actions. Sure, it wouldn't stop all poverty, but if they snapped their fingers and declared abortion illegal and offered a broad-ranging attack on poverty, both would have some effect and neither would completely eliminate the respective problem.