Mitt Romney using Gospels and not Constitution?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Nov 28, 2016.

  1. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #1
    I go to a Mormon college, having decided to study some more again, and I understand why some truly believe their version of Christianity is the only version, though I don't agree with those assertions.

    I further agree that faith drives a lot of decisions of a lot of Mormons (but not all), and some may not hold the same weight of separation of church and state that non-Mormons and the unreligious have. To me, separation of church and state keeps us forever strong and we can't compromise on this, ever.

    So listening to all the commentary and debate right now with the world who no longer trusts us, wouldn't it be more appropriate, with non-Christian allies, to have a Secretary of State guided by our laws and our Constitution, and not the Gospels? At one point in his life, he was dedicated to spreading the Gospel in his world view, but the Secretary of State job is just the opposite by design. There are plenty of important allies who don't believe in Jesus and what if Mitt goes missionary on us? You can't force religion on anybody and his understanding of law versus theocracy is out of step with most Americans, and certainly the world.

    Thoughts?

    PS- I think a more open-minded, secular Rudy Giuliani would be a better fit. Rudy presided over the largest and most religiously diverse city in the United States and knew how to listen to many different world views.
     
  2. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #2
    I agree with your fundamental argument but not your conclusion. Giuliani is a disaster.
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #3
    Sure did, by inserting undercover agents and mass surveillance of religions he is belligerently bigoted against.
     
  4. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
  5. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #5
    I don't particularly care for either one of them.
    But I do agree that anyone holding a federal office should be guided by the Constitution and federal law first.
     
  6. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #6
    I think if it's between Giuliani and Romney, and that seems to be the short list, with some outsiders calling for Newt, I think Giuliani is the lesser of two evils. If Trump were smart, he would keep Kerry, and if Trump really wanted to unite this divided nation, but I think it's come down to the NYC mayor or 2012 GOP nominee for Secretary.
     
  7. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #7
    Worst. List. Ever.
     
  8. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #8
    I am not too concerned with Romney for the same reason I wasn't concerned with Kerry.

    After confirmation the Secretary of State then serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed without cause.

    I think we all expect the Secretary of State’s religious beliefs would not interfere with their job performance.

    As professionals they should be capable of ignoring extra-policy factors such as their religious beliefs.

    If not, then the President should certainly remove them.
     
  9. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #9
    David Petraeus would be better than either Mittens or Ghouliani. And Petraeus is a horrible choice.
     
  10. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #10
    Trump has 4000 people to pick and they are all pretty bad.

    I hope that he gets moderate to mainstream republicans of even Romney and Giuliani, over the likes of Bannon and Ted Cruz.

    It's not about if the administration will be republican or not, but about whether it's mainstream republican or Teavangelical fascists. It's not a great choice we have and DeVos and Bannon were certainly too far right of center, but we need to hope Trump doesn't just fulfill a narrow Bible belt audience and at least goes broad within the party. That being said, the GOP has become right wing versus "more" right wing, so very little out there is a good choice.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 28, 2016 ---
    Petraeus would be better than those two, I agree.
     
  11. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #11
    Oh, the irony.
     
  12. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #12
    Unless it's the list for the carnival's dunk tank.
     
  13. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #13
    Which "Mormon college" do you go to?
     
  14. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #14
    [​IMG]
     
  15. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #15
    Petraeus: Finally a Secretary of State who knows how to handle classified emails!!

    :confused:
     
  16. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #16
    My thought too. I actually like Petraeus and would be happy if he was nominated, but wouldn't he have to have a security clearance and could he get one? I'm guessing he could, one way or the other.
     
  17. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #17
    Petraeus shouldn't hold any further government positions at all. He was a fine officer but then he let his little head start doing his thinking and we don't need any more of that.

    If I had to pick between Mitt and Rudy I'd take Mitt he's not exactly a Trump enthusiast so he'll stand up to Trump and is popular enough that firing him will have consequences
     
  18. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #18
    The gospel according to Joseph Smith?
     
  19. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #19
    "Separation of church and state" doesn't mean that religious people can't serve in public office. It doesn't even mean that their religious beliefs can't influence their governing decisions. It means that the government can't impose a religion on people. The OP seems to be suggesting either (1) religious people must be barred from holding public office, or (2) people in public office may only make decisions that do not agree with any religious principles, or (3) both.

    EDIT: The OP seeks "to have a Secretary of State guided by our laws and our Constitution, and not the Gospels," as though they're mutually exclusive. They aren't. I reject the notion that someone who believes in the Gospels is incapable of being guided by our laws and the Constitution, and I'm borderline insulted at the suggestion.
     
  20. CaptMurdock, Nov 30, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016

    CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #20
    I'm with you so far.


    Aaaannd...this is where it gets a little grey.

    The underlined is a bit of a strawman, dontcha think?

    The difference is between "incapable" and "unwilling."
     
  21. Carlanga macrumors 604

    Carlanga

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #21
    just stop name dropping, you are ruining your own argument lol
     
  22. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #22
    You think so? You really think there's a constitutional dilemma with someone growing up with a religious background and then supporting legislation that agrees with it?

    Not in the slightest. Go back and read the OP. It supports having "a Secretary of State guided by our laws and our Constitution, and not the Gospels." One, and not the other - in other words, mutually exclusive. I said, and the passage you highlighted, was that this suggests allowing someone to hold public office only if they make decisions that do not agree with the Gospels.

    In the end, the argument is the same; you're trying to pick nits.
     
  23. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #23
    Supporting legislation that contravenes the meaning and intent of the Establishment Clause? You betcha there's a dilemma.

    I don't care if the decisions "agree with the Gospels" or not, only with constitutional law.[/QUOTE]
     
  24. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #24
    Can you give us an example of legislation that violates the establishment clause? Because unless an hypothetical law sought to establish a religion, I don't see this scenario ever coming up.
     
  25. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #25
    There have have been several lately trying to make the Bible the official state book or Christianity make the official religion and don't forget the ability to discriminate on the basis of deeply Held beliefs.
     

Share This Page