Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by P-Worm, Dec 6, 2007.
"Freedom requires religion"
Well, I guess according to Romney, I'm not free
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.
That was no JFK speech.
Romney's going to have a very hard time convincing the religious bigots on the right that he isn't a member of a weird cult.
And since the religious wrong seems to control the GOP primary process, Romney's going to find it's a very hard fall.
The biggest benefactor of all this will be Huckabee, but he's got his own "Willie Horton" problem going on right now, and his campaign team seems ill equipped to deal with it.
God, I'm glad I'm not a Republican this time around. Talk about holding your nose while voting...
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, and then roughly the same number of anti-Mormons).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like when politicians decide I can't smoke at restaurants, have to wear a seatbelt in my car, can't spank my child?
Don't see any religious reasoning used behind those things.
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.
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?
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.
Try as I might, I can find no right to smoke, drive without a seatbelt, or hit your child, in the Constitution...
I never said Christ said those, I said the bible has all the crazy irrelevant laws
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 can't find anything to deny it either. Or did I miss the nanny state section?
of which none I practice. Some "Christian" religions may practice some of those obscure irrelevant laws, but that is not what Christianity truly is.
This falsely implies that "under God" was in the Founders' text.