Mitt Romney's Faith Speech

[JoeChalupa]

The man nailed it. Although he only mentioned Mormons once in his speech he sounded very presidential, ala JFK, and did a good job that I think evangelicals will respond too. This is the base he was going after, IMO.
I don't think a candidate's religious beliefs should have anything to do with how they will run the country although I think Huckabee may disagree since he's pushing his Christianity in his campaign.

Well done Mitt.

[AZLouis]

"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders," Romney said.

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone," he said.

As a man with no religion I guess I am not free.

Sweet though, maybe he can get in and not pay attention to facts and advice and instead pray to the almighty for answers in leading this country. While others pray for answers on how to destroy it.

[101A]

The man nailed it. Although he only mentioned Mormons once in his speech he sounded very presidential, ala JFK, and did a good job that I think evangelicals will respond too. This is the base he was going after, IMO.
I don't think a candidate's religious beliefs should have anything to do with how they will run the country although I think Huckabee may disagree since he's pushing his Christianity in his campaign.

Well done Mitt.Except that Mormons are nuts.

[xrayzebra]

The man nailed it. Although he only mentioned Mormons once in his speech he sounded very presidential, ala JFK, and did a good job that I think evangelicals will respond too. This is the base he was going after, IMO.
I don't think a candidate's religious beliefs should have anything to do with how they will run the country although I think Huckabee may disagree since he's pushing his Christianity in his campaign.

Well done Mitt.

I heard excerpts and yes Joe he did a fine job and did
sound Presidential. Now if he can just follow-up with
the rest of his campaign. He will have my vote.


I loved the fact on how he talked about how our
government was founded. It needs to be talked about
a heck of a lot more.

[JoeChalupa]

I heard excerpts and yes Joe he did a fine job and did
sound Presidential. Now if he can just follow-up with
the rest of his campaign. He will have my vote.


I loved the fact on how he talked about how our
government was founded. It needs to be talked about
a heck of a lot more.

And how is that? Are you gong the way of "it was founded on Christianity"?

[clambake]

I loved the fact on how he talked about how our
government was founded. It needs to be talked about
a heck of a lot more.
if this were true you'd have a man-crush on ron paul. you've made another false claim.

[xrayzebra]

And how is that? Are you gong the way of "it was founded on Christianity"?

Are you saying it wasn't? I do say it was. And don't
start the usual Thomas Jefferson quotes. There were
other founders.

[xrayzebra]

if this were true you'd have a man-crush on ron paul. you've made another false claim.

Ron Paul has some good points. Just that he has some
other points I do not necessarily care for.

[JoeChalupa]

Are you saying it wasn't? I do say it was. And don't
start the usual Thomas Jefferson quotes. There were
other founders.

True but it was Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that gave us religious liberty and church-state separation.
Yes there were other founders but in no way was Christianity ever to be the religion of America.

[xrayzebra]

True but it was Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that gave us religious liberty and church-state separation.
Yes there were other founders but in no way was Christianity ever to be the religion of America.

I didn't say "The Religion". I said "founded" on
the principles of Christianity. All the founders agreed
that no "official" "government" religion should exist. But
they did not forbid the government from recognizing
religion did exist.

[Extra Stout]

I had a discussion this week about whether believing in the total depravity of man was compatible with believing in the viability of democracy.

What would the Founders have thought?

[clambake]

they would have thought that we're trading a soldiers life for a quart of pennzoil

[Extra Stout]

Oh.

[Extra Stout]

In Mitt's speech about faith, did he talk about his holy underwear?

[clambake]

In Mitt's speech about faith, did he talk about his holy underwear?
i'd forgotten about that :dizzy

[AFBlue]

I didn't say "The Religion". I said "founded" on
the principles of Christianity. All the founders agreed
that no "official" "government" religion should exist. But
they did not forbid the government from recognizing
religion did exist.

Many of the founders were Diests, not Christians. Sure they recognized religion, but the founding principles were not solely based in Christianity.

If that were the case, perhaps it would say "In Jesus Christ We Trust" on printed money.....but it doesn't.

[101A]

I had a discussion this week about whether believing in the total depravity of man was compatible with believing in the viability of democracy.

What would the Founders have thought?Compatible?

I'd say it necessitate's it as being the best (although certainly not perfect) option because of it. Although, because of that depravity, the majority's will must be checked by STRONG individual rights.

[AFBlue]

As a man with no religion I guess I am not free.

Sweet though, maybe he can get in and not pay attention to facts and advice and instead pray to the almighty for answers in leading this country. While others pray for answers on how to destroy it.

Were you going to vote for him anyway? I highly doubt it.

Besides, I doubt you'll find any of the candidates playing down their religion in the coming months. Whether they're truly religious or not, expect every candidate to re-affirm their faith in Christ, talk about how often they go to church, and how they pray to God for guidance.

Looks like you're SOL....j/k :lol

[Extra Stout]

Compatible?

I'd say it necessitate's it as being the best (although certainly not perfect) option because of it. Although, because of that depravity, the majority's will must be checked by STRONG individual rights.
But if man is totally depraved, then that means only those who have been transformed by grace could be competent to make moral choices in government, does it not?

[Extra Stout]

Were you going to vote for him anyway? I highly doubt it.

Besides, I doubt you'll find any of the candidates playing down their religion in the coming months. Whether they're truly religious or not, expect every candidate to re-affirm their faith in Christ, talk about how often they go to church, and how they pray to God for guidance.

Looks like you're SOL....j/k :lol
Hillary has been a guest preacher at the pulpit of a few left-leaning Methodist churches before.

[PixelPusher]

I didn't say "The Religion". I said "founded" on
the principles of Christianity. All the founders agreed
that no "official" "government" religion should exist. But
they did not forbid the government from recognizing
religion did exist.
Our government was "founded" on Greco-Roman institutions of government; there's nothing inheritly "Christian" about a Republic or Democracy...Christianity, like most religions, is a top-down autocracy, more suitable to monarchies.

[Extra Stout]

Our government was "founded" on Greco-Roman institutions of government; there's nothing inheritly "Christian" about a Republic or Democracy...Christianity, like most religions, is a top-down autocracy, more suitable to monarchies.
I'd be curious for you to explain your assertion that most world religions are top-down autocracies.

[PixelPusher]

I'd be curious for you to explain your assertion that most world religions are top-down autocracies.
"Christ is King"

EDIT: "Most" is probably an overstatement, since i have Christianity and Islam on the brain. I don't imagine there are a great many religions that eschew religious authority figures for a "vote" on beliefs.

EDIT 2:...ok, the Episcopalians voting on the gay thing would count. :lol

[Extra Stout]

"Christ is King"

EDIT: "Most" is probably an overstatement, since i have Christianity and Islam on the brain. I don't imagine there are a great many religions that eschew religious authority figures for a "vote" on beliefs.

EDIT 2:...ok, the Episcopalians voting on the gay thing would count. :lol
Other than the Roman Catholics, I don't think any of the major world religions has a rigid universal ecclesiocracy.

[JoeChalupa]

Long live the Pope!!

[Extra Stout]

Long live the Pope!!
Pretty impressive scholar, ol' Benedict is.

[scott]

So long as you're Christian, you should never have to face a religious test, just as the constitution says!

[Extra Stout]

So long as you're Christian, you should never have to face a religious test, just as the constitution says!
I've had more than one discussion with a fundamentalist claiming that that very clause needs to be amended out.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

alright, i've let these bullshit assertions go on unchallenged for too long. precisely what warrant can you people provide for this country being built on Christian values?

these mindless assertions are starting to piss me off

[Mr. Peabody]

I loved the fact on how he talked about how our
government was founded. It needs to be talked about
a heck of a lot more.

Do you parrot everything Rush says on his show? He spent an entire segment today saying this exact same thing.

[scott]

alright, i've let these bullshit assertions go on unchallenged for too long. precisely what warrant can you people provide for this country being built on Christian values?

these mindless assertions are starting to piss me off

They are warranted by the simple fact that its what they choose to believe, and there is nothing you can say/demonstrate/prove to make them believe anything to the contrary.

[Spawn]

They are warranted by the simple fact that its what they choose to believe, and there is nothing you can say/demonstrate/prove to make them believe anything to the contrary.

No matter how many facts you bring up that contradicts this belief?

[scott]

No matter how many facts you bring up that contradicts this belief?

Have you ever tried to reason with these people? You are welcome to give it a shot...

[spurster]

This country was based on many things, but I would say the primary one is a balance between natural rights and the social contract. There are not too many republics or democracies in the Bible.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you parrot everything Rush says on his show? He spent an entire segment today saying this exact same thing.


Xray is guilty as charged. I will give him credit though because he doesn't deny that he listens to hush. I just wich ray would expand his choices to receive the news and opinions from somoeone other than an entertainer..

[JoeChalupa]

Xray is guilty as charged. I will give him credit though because he doesn't deny that he listens to hush. I just wich ray would expand his choices to receive the news and opinions from somoeone other than an entertainer..

I concur. I listen to Rush and Sean Hannity to try to get a better understanding of conservatives and their views. I have views and values that agree with many conservatives. I don't know why they think they have a monopoly of values.

[xrayzebra]

Do you parrot everything Rush says on his show? He spent an entire segment today saying this exact same thing.

Good for Rush.

[xrayzebra]

They are warranted by the simple fact that its what they choose to believe, and there is nothing you can say/demonstrate/prove to make them believe anything to the contrary.

Scott would like to read President George Washington's
First Inaugural Speech, it just might enlighten you to
how our founding fathers felt. I would point you to
his closing paragraph. But he refers to their belief in
God thoughout the speech.

OurDocuments.gov Home Page
www.ourdocuments.gov December 7, 2007
Transcript of President George Washington's First Inaugural Speech (1789)

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

Among the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years--a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions all I dare aver is that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it might be affected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof of the confidence of my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the motives which mislead me, and its consequences be judged by my country with some share of the partiality in which they originated.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

By the article establishing the executive department it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The circumstances under which I now meet you will acquit me from entering into that subject further than to refer to the great constitutional charter under which you are assembled, and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications I behold the surest pledges that as on one side no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire, since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the system, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good; for I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience, a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for the public harmony will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.

To the foregoing observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honored with a call into the service of my country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed; and being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself any share in the personal emoluments which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the executive department, and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed may during my continuance in it be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

Transcription courtesy of the Avalon Project at Yale Law School.
Page URL: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=11&page=transcript
U.S. National Archives & Records Administration
700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20408 • 1-86-NARA-NARA • 1-866-272-6272

[George Gervin's Afro]

Are we talking about his faith? Or the collective faith of the country when he made this speech? I believe in God but I don't want my govt invloved in the religion business..

[xrayzebra]

Are we talking about his faith? Or the collective faith of the country when he made this speech? I believe in God but I don't want my govt invloved in the religion business..

GGA you know the answer to your question. But just
don't want to accept the answer.

There is no doubt on what principles our country was founded. None whatsoever. It was founded on Christian
principles. Whether anyone wants to accept that premise is
really up to them. I just wanted to show on what
principles our first President said in his first address to
the nation on these principles.

[George Gervin's Afro]

GGA you know the answer to your question. But just
don't want to accept the answer.

There is no doubt on what principles our country was founded. None whatsoever. It was founded on Christian
principles. Whether anyone wants to accept that premise is
really up to them. I just wanted to show on what
principles our first President said in his first address to
the nation on these principles.


is the about bill o'reilly's ridiculous war christmas? what's your point? So we can agree tha this country's LAWS originated from chrsitan principles but that doesn't change the fact that there is a seperation of church and state. You seem to ignore that..

[clambake]

god saved his love for the US.

a country just over 200 years old.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

GGA you know the answer to your question. But just
don't want to accept the answer.

There is no doubt on what principles our country was founded. None whatsoever. It was founded on Christian
principles. Whether anyone wants to accept that premise is
really up to them. I just wanted to show on what
principles our first President said in his first address to
the nation on these principles.

What he said doesn't make it a fact. :rolleyes

[balli]

For the record, as someone whose lived in Utah for 24 years I'd like to say I find religion paramount to a President's campaign. At least in this case. I'm not sure if I'd call myself a christian. Probably more of just a theist. Whether or not one is Christian though doesn't matter. You can't really make the argument that belief in the right type of christian values (ie: aguape love) is bad for anyone.

I will say this though. Mormons are delusional, selfish and crazy. The entire purpose of their religion is to, after death, ascend to the level of godhood over ones own planetary realm. I don't care whether you think religion should or should not be considered; A man who thinks he is capable of becoming a god unto his own world is not fit to run the nation.

If Mitt deluded himself into believing in this cult, who the hell else knows what he's capable of believeing. It's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of sanity. Plain and simple. And nothing is more insane than mormonism.

[boutons_]

"Mitt deluded himself into believing in this cult'

He was born into a Mormon family, his grandparents being polygamists who fled to MX to avoid prosecution.

As an adult, tearing down and inspecting what you were born into, received from your family, and then deciding to accept or reject it is often difficult.

Romney is obviously, accurately tatooed as a devout, practicing, believing Mormon, too late to change his spots. I'd say, and hope, that he's fucked as a candidate. What the fuck could a president who believes in "continuing revelation" come up with as revealed to him. We already know how fucked up the world is due to God telling dubya to invade Iraq.

His yesterday's "religion requires freedom, freedrom requires religion" is scary bullshit. Freedom is a fairly recent political/social construct. Religion is supposed to be transcendant and spiritual, but American religion makes it material, political, venal. The success of the "Christian" supremecists is that they have confused America about Caesar vs God, Christ himself making the crystal clear distinction.

How can both parties continue to put forward such horrendously weak candidates, compounded by horrendously weak and over-extended, too-long campaigns? Does it really take 2 years for Americans to elect a President? The system is fucked.

As George Carlin said, maybe something else (besides the politicians) sucks around here. Maybe it's the citizens who suck.

[spurster]

Here's an easy one for all of you. Where does this quote come from?

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

[Extra Stout]

Here's an easy one for all of you. Where does this quote come from?

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
Probably Thomas Jefferson. Am I right?

[boutons_]

found it:

http://nobeliefs.com/document.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess that ends this thread. nice find.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't find what Mitt Romney said scarey at all. Not one bit. I think he spoke from the heart and I believe him.

[boutons_]

"I think he spoke from the heart and I believe him."

I do, too. Sincerity and authenticity are prized only because they are so absent in American public life. eg, the response that Ron Paul is getting is due to not only what he says, but his non-pandering, non-vote grubbing authenticity. Unfortunately, there aren't enough people in the USA who value a Ron Paul to get him elected.

Willard also has serious success in business (although born wealthy, like so many other plutocrats) and running a Dem/liberal state government as a Repug. Pretty impressive guy and record. And he seems physically fit, if nothing other than from eating according to Mormon dietary guidelines. Probably the best operational record of any candidate. Certainly much better record than the total loser currently in the WH.

But Willard hasn't convinced me he can keep his weird-ass, radical, fringe bizarre cultish beliefs out of his Executive functioning.

[xrayzebra]

god saved his love for the US.

a country just over 200 years old.

And one of the most prosperous, victorious and free
countries that ever existed.

Just maybe he did bestow his blessings on us for trying to
base our government on his teachings.

Think about it.

[clambake]

And one of the most prosperous, victorious and free
countries that ever existed.

Just maybe he did bestow his blessings on us for trying to
base our government on his teachings.

Think about it.
think about reading the thread.

[George Gervin's Afro]

And one of the most prosperous, victorious and free
countries that ever existed.

Just maybe he did bestow his blessings on us for trying to
base our government on his teachings.

Think about it.


I didn't realize God played favorites..

[xrayzebra]

think about reading the thread.

Which part did I miss? That someone said "Our government
was based on Christian principles"

or

That the above statement should end the thread

or

George Washingtons speech?

Or the part where I ask someone to think above what
made this country into what it is?

Because the law of the jungle is not what made us what
we are. I can promise you that!

[clambake]

ray, i don't have a time machine to take you back where you belong.

[xrayzebra]

I didn't realize God played favorites..


Then you have never read the bible. He most surely does.

[xrayzebra]

ray, i don't have a time machine to take you back where you belong.

I thought you had everything. And what part of the ages
do I belong in......... :lol

[clambake]

I thought you had everything. And what part of the ages
do I belong in......... :lol
in the time that evolution forgot.

[boutons_]

thought-deficient XZ exhorting us to "think about it" :lol

[xrayzebra]

in the time that evolution forgot.


You know evolution is only a theory, don't you? And if it
is fact, then it could not miss a period and it is not a living
thing so it cant forget.............come on get with the
program!

[xrayzebra]

thought-deficient XZ exhorting us to "think about it" :lol

You are capable of thinking, aren't you boutons. In the
club you post some pretty coherent things. Here, hmmmm,
well, lets say you other language kinda comes out. You
know profane.

[clambake]

i am suggesting that the time missed was your birthdate. the present passed you long ago. but don't fret, i like dinosaurs.

[101A]

"Mitt deluded himself into believing in this cult'

He was born into a Mormon family, his grandparents being polygamists who fled to MX to avoid prosecution.

As an adult, tearing down and inspecting what you were born into, received from your family, and then deciding to accept or reject it is often difficult.

Romney is obviously, accurately tatooed as a devout, practicing, believing Mormon, too late to change his spots. I'd say, and hope, that he's fucked as a candidate. What the fuck could a president who believes in "continuing revelation" come up with as revealed to him. We already know how fucked up the world is due to God telling dubya to invade Iraq.

His yesterday's "religion requires freedom, freedrom requires religion" is scary bullshit. Freedom is a fairly recent political/social construct. Religion is supposed to be transcendant and spiritual, but American religion makes it material, political, venal. The success of the "Christian" supremecists is that they have confused America about Caesar vs God, Christ himself making the crystal clear distinction.

How can both parties continue to put forward such horrendously weak candidates, compounded by horrendously weak and over-extended, too-long campaigns? Does it really take 2 years for Americans to elect a President? The system is fucked.

As George Carlin said, maybe something else (besides the politicians) sucks around here. Maybe it's the citizens who suck.
Here's to you, B.

Damn fine post.

[xrayzebra]

Here's to you, B.

Damn fine post.

Yeah, damn fine post. Loved all those references to
system and how you described them.....really great.

By the way where did you learn all those four letter words?
And don't be scared. The troops will protect you. Okay?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then you have never read the bible. He most surely does.


what if we worship the wrong God? Are we fucked?

[violentkitten]

as long as he doesn't force american kids to ride around my neighborhood on bikes while wearing short sleeve white dress shirts with black ties in order to count the number of heathens in my household i dont care.

[scott]

No matter how many facts you bring up that contradicts this belief?

So, has this question been answered yet?

[Extra Stout]

Then you have never read the bible. He most surely does.
That is a very Presbyterian thing to say.

[Mr. Peabody]

Then you have never read the bible. He most surely does.

Yes, because a supernatural ultimate creator deity has nothing better do with his time than to interfere in human affairs. :rolleyes

[Mr. Peabody]

what if we worship the wrong God? Are we fucked?

There's no way we worship the wrong God. We're right and every other faith in the history of mankind is mistaken and going to hell.

[clambake]

Yes, because a supernatural ultimate creator deity has nothing better do with his time than to interfere in human affairs. :rolleyes
:lmao

not to mention that he demands your worship :downspin:

[George Gervin's Afro]

There's no way we worship the wrong God. We're right and every other faith in the history of mankind is mistaken and going to hell.


I hope I'm worshiping the right God.. :oops

[PixelPusher]

:lmao

not to mention that he demands your worship :downspin:
God constantly craves attention and validation.

[boutons_]

"God constantly craves attention and validation."

and MONEY!

http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2006/10/god-needs-your-money.html

[Extra Stout]

Our government is based upon Christian principles in the sense that it is a Western nation, and Western culture is imbued with Christian principles, or, more specifically, Western Christian principles.

But that's common among the entire West. Sweden still has a polity guided by Christian principles, even though most Swedes abandoned religion generations ago (they self-deprecatingly call it 'atheistic piety').

We're blind to it because it's the cultural background. We assume our Western way of thinking is just common to the human condition, as opposed to being our own cultural perspective, one upon which the fingerprints of Christianity are smeared all over.

When one says the nation was founded upon Christianity or Christian principles, one must be clear about whether one is talking about colonization, or about the establishment of the government of the independent United States of America.

In the former case, religious faith was indeed the foundation of several of the colonies. With regard to the Constitutional government, its overriding influence was the Enlightenment. While some of the Founding Fathers mixed their rational humanism together with their orthodox Christian faith, others were nominal churchgoers at best, who subscribed to Deism, which denied the existence of a personal God (i.e., one who got involved in the lives of individuals) in favor of a detached Creator. The language used in reference to God in all these early documents is straight from the Enlightenment. We assume it is coterminous with orthodox Protestant Christianity because... well, we want to... and also today we're more accustomed to humanists denying the existence of God outright, rather than just making him a nebulous, non-specific deity.

There is a tie with the early colonists, however, in the context of religious freedom. The early colonists came to America in order to practice their faith apart from the overbearing arm of the state Church of England. The Episcopal Church wanted to be the state church in the United States just as the Church of England was back in Britain. Many of the Founding Fathers remembered the plight of the early colonists and fought the Episcopals, bringing about the principles of religious freedom according to personal conscience we enjoy today.

It would be kind of silly to suppose that only the United States figured out the true Biblical principles of government, a good 1700-plus years after Jesus began His Church, and after millions upon millions already had lived and died in the faith... or do we perhaps believe in "continuing revelation," too?

[Extra Stout]

Yes, because a supernatural ultimate creator deity has nothing better do with his time than to interfere in human affairs. :rolleyes
Ah, but to God a day is like a thousand years. Oh, and he never sleeps.

Imagine how much you could get done in a day if it lasted a thousand years. You could probably even get the baseboards vacuumed.

[Extra Stout]

And one of the most prosperous, victorious and free
countries that ever existed.

Just maybe he did bestow his blessings on us for trying to
base our government on his teachings.

Think about it.
I thought about it, and then I went back and checked the Bible. And you're right! "Blessed are the prosperous... blessed are the victorious... blessed are the free..." It's right there after 2 Hezekiah.

[Extra Stout]

It's funny... between about the fourth and sixteenth centuries, Christians were convinced that the correct Biblical form of government required a Christian Holy Roman Emperor. If only they'd read their Bibles, we could have had American-style democracy since late antiquity!

[Mr. Peabody]

I hope I'm worshiping the right God.. :oops


Odds are that you are not. When you consider the multitude of religions in the history of the world and the number of different denominations within those religions (Christianity alone has how many denominations?), the odds are extremely low that you are in the right one. Oh well, maybe hell is not as bad as they make it out to be.

[Extra Stout]

Odds are that you are not. When you consider the multitude of religions in the history of the world and the number of different denominations within those religions (Christianity alone has how many denominations?), the odds are extremely low that you are in the right one. Oh well, maybe hell is not as bad as they make it out to be.
Jesus likened it to a burning pit of garbage. Other places it is made out to be like a lake of fire.

There has always been a lot of uncertainty and difference of opinion in Christianity on what happens to people who aren't Christians, but who never actually got the chance to reject Christianity outright because they never really heard about it. In America, we're pretty certain that pretty much everybody goes to hell because we think in very black & white, yes-or-no, A-therefore-B-therefore-C linear terms, and plus we're kind of Calvinist, and Calvinists believe in something called double predestination, in which a loving, merciful, gracious God creates some people specifically for the purpose of damning them to eternal torment in hell, because he finds that enjoyable and gratifying.

In the much more barbaric Middle Ages, theologians grappled with this, suggesting that those beholden of "invincible ignorance" regarding Christianity had an indeterminate fate. In the East, they deal with it apophatically, speculating that while one can know where the Church is, one cannot know where the Church isn't.

[Mr. Peabody]

This piece is by Christopher Hitchens, so some of you may dismiss it from the get go, but it is an interesting read.


Holy Nonsense
Mitt Romney's windy, worthless speech.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007, at 5:40 PM ET

Almost the only clever thing about Gov. Mitt Romney's long-denied and long-delayed but obviously long-prepared "response" was its location at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, which allowed him to pose (prematurely, I'd say) in front of a presidential seal as well as a thicket of American flags. Composed chiefly of boilerplate, the windy speech raised the vexed question of the candidate's religious affiliation—and thus broke the taboo on mentioning it—without setting to rest any of the difficulties that make it legitimate to raise the issue in the first place.

Actually, and in fairness, one should say "any but one" of those difficulties. Romney did avow, early on and in round terms, that "no authorities of my church" could ever exert any influence on his decision-making as chief executive. This may get him in trouble with some Mormons, and it does invite the question of why he adheres to a sect whose "prophet" is a supreme commander, but it is the most he could have been asked to say, as well as the least. Actually, the more he goes in one direction, the more he may find it is Mormons who are developing reservations about him. There is already grumbling in the ranks about his statement that the Bible is the revealed word of God, an absurd belief that Mormons do not truly profess, because they feel it is lacking an even more absurd later revelation to Joseph Smith. There are also those who think that Romney's disowning of past Mormon polygamy is too opportunistic, since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does still offer the consolation prize of multiple wives in heaven (just like the sick dream of Mohamed Atta).

Trying to raise himself above this swamp of nonsense—the existence of which is his responsibility, not mine—the governor mainly treated us to evasion and a rather shifty attempt to change the subject and rewrite the historical record. It may be true that Romney "saw my father march with Martin Luther King" (though the candidate himself, who was of age to do so at the time, doesn't claim to have joined in), but that doesn't answer the question about official Mormon racism, which lasted 10 full years after Dr. King had been murdered, or of what Mitt Romney did or said about this at the time.

Romney does not understand the difference between deism and theism, nor does he know the first thing about the founding of the United States. Jefferson's Declaration may invoke a "Creator," but, as he went on to show in the battle over the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, he and most of his peers did not believe in a god who intervened in human affairs or in a god who had sent a son for a human sacrifice. These easily ascertainable facts are reflected in the way that the U.S. Constitution does not make any mention of a superintendent deity and in the way that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention declined an offer (possibly sarcastic), even from Benjamin Franklin, that they resort to prayer to compose their differences. Romney may throw a big chest and say that God should be "on our currency, in our pledge," and of course on our public land in this magic holiday season, but James Madison did not think that there should be chaplains opening the proceedings of Congress or even appointed as ministers in the U.S. armed forces. Trying to dodge around this, and to support his assertion that the founders were religious in the Christian sense, Romney drones on about a barely relevant moment of emotion in 1774 and comes up with the glib slogan that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Any fool can think of an example where freedom exists without religion—and even more easily of an instance where religion exists without (or in negation of) freedom.

This does not mean that freedom of religion is not as important as freedom from it, yet Romney makes himself absurd by saying that Mormons may not be asked about the tenets of their faith, lest this infringe the constitutional ban on a religious test for public office. Here is another failure of understanding on his part. He is not being told: Answer this question in the wrong way, and you become ineligible. He is being told: Your family is prominent in a notorious church that proselytizes its views in a famously aggressive manner. Are you only now deciding to make a secret of your beliefs? And if so, why? Would he expect a Scientologist to be able to avoid questions about L. Ron Hubbard? Does the governor of Massachusetts who publicly tried for mob applause by demanding that we "double Guantanamo" (whatever that meant) add that the detainees must not be asked what branch of Islam they favor? If an atheist was running against him, would Romney make nothing of the fact? His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.

According to the admittedly very contradictory scriptures of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth warned his disciples and followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and mocked for their faith. After all, how likely was it that God had decided to reveal himself to only a few illiterate peasants in a barbarous backwater? Those who elected to believe this stuff were quite rightly told to expect a hard time, and the expression "fool for God" or "fool for Christ" has been with us ever since. That concept has some dignity and nobility. Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity) is the well-heeled son of a gold-plated church who wants to assume the pained look of martyrdom only when he is asked if he actually believes what he says. A long time ago, Romney took the decision to be a fool for Joseph Smith, a convicted fraud and serial practitioner of statutory rape who at times made war on the United States and whose cult has been made to amend itself several times in order to be considered American at all. We do not require pious lectures on the American founding from such a man, and we are still waiting for some straight answers from him.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

[Jesus]

The only time I play favorites is when the Cowboys are playing.

[Mr. Peabody]

The only time I play favorites is when the Cowboys are playing.

It makes sense. The Cowboys are America's team and America is God's favorite country; therefore, the Cowboys must be God's favorite team.

[Extra Stout]

It makes sense. The Cowboys are America's team and America is God's favorite country; therefore, the Cowboys must be God's favorite team.
The Cowboys were going to make Texas Stadium a dome, until God asked them to leave a hole in the roof so he could watch.

[Extra Stout]

If Jesus could do it all over again, he would have come to Philadelphia in the 1780's instead of Jerusalem in the first century.

But, had he done that, the 1780's would have been the first century rather than the 1780's.

[boutons_]

wow, agree or disagree, Hitchens can write.

[JoeChalupa]

He can write, but he's an asshole


I despise pompous atheists

Romney was simply trying to put across the message that religion matters (just not his religion)

I concur. :tu

[boutons_]

"message that religion matters"

Religion may matter to individuals, but Religion has no part in the secular form of government of the extremely diverse, pluralistic, law-based US, and stating that doesn't make me, or the FFs, atheist.

Speaking of assholes, Hitchens ripped Willard's sanctimonious, fuzzy bullshit a new asshole.

What does Hitchens' supposed atheism have to do with his critique of Willard?

[PixelPusher]

Jesus likened it to a burning pit of garbage. Other places it is made out to be like a lake of fire.

Cleveland Rocks!

[JoeChalupa]

I still say Mitt made his point quite eloquently. But that is just me and I'm no atheist.

[PixelPusher]

Mormonism...in cartoon form!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo

[Mr. Peabody]

Mormonism...in cartoon form!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo

I like the South Park take -- South Park (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fbzoNT7iKY)

[boutons_]

Willard speech was essentially grovelling to the other, fringe American "Christian" sects, esp the "Christian" supremecists who control the Repug party. Willard knows these other "Christians" are necessary for him to win.

But as Catholic Kennedy's speech was a plea to be accepted as American in pluralistic America, the point Willard's speech is a plea to the Christian supremacists to be accepted as a Christian. With the sub-text that non-Christians, secular/atheistic/agnostic Americans are inferior people, and aren't really includedd a Americans. ie, Willard is grovelling to the excluding fringe, extreme "Christian" supremacists.

[whottt]

Willard speech was essentially grovelling to the other, fringe American "Christian" sects, esp the "Christian" supremecists who control the Repug party. Willard knows these other "Christians" are necessary for him to win.

But as Catholic Kennedy's speech was a plea to be accepted as American in pluralistic America, the point Willard's speech is a plea to the Christian supremacists to be accepted as a Christian. With the sub-text that non-Christians, secular/atheistic/agnostic Americans are inferior people, and aren't really includedd a Americans. ie, Willard is grovelling to the excluding fringe, extreme "Christian" supremacists.


Here (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/pinko.htm)

[boutons_]

With equal eloquence, I retort, go fuck yourself, Whott

[xrayzebra]

It makes sense. The Cowboys are America's team and America is God's favorite country; therefore, the Cowboys must be God's favorite team.

Well after today, you might say: Mr. Peabody hit the
nail rite square on the head. What a finish to a
frustrating game. Those Cowboys know how to finish.
:drunk

[Mr. Peabody]

I despise pompous atheists



I despise pompous individuals regardless of their religion. However, I do agree that there is a certain smugness among the holy trinity (Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris) of the atheist movement. Part of this may stem from the fact that they are not just atheists, but anti-theists.

[Mr. Peabody]

It's precisely the atheistic kind of pomposity that drives me crazy

I mean. Shit, you don't believe in God? Great. Leave the other 90% (made up figure) of the world alone.

Right, because believers just want to be left alone to practice their religion in private, but those damn atheists are always out there trying to convert them.

[Mr. Peabody]

at least pompous religious assholes probably really believe that their religion mandates that they be pompous

Yeah, I think many people share the belief that being religious gives one the right to be an asshole.

[Nbadan]

Square peg, meet round hole...


..and one you folks in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond can expect to see and hear more about in TV ads, mail pieces and emails very, very soon.

National Review, the flagship journal of the conservative movement*, has decided to get behind Romney.

The whole piece is worth reading, but in short it came down to Romney's fulfilling NR's two main criteria: they believe he's "the most conservative viable canddiate."

The full endorsement isn't entirely glowing, as the editors acknowlege some of his shortcomings. But there is an important and robust defense therein that could not come at a better, more critical time for Team Mitt.

Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1207/A_big_endorsement_for_Mitt.html)

[LaMarcus Bryant]

http://www.drudgereport.com/rom.jpg
Look at that chin! Look at his whiteness! His ability to entice the christian right!

That man was born to be MY president!

[JoeChalupa]

Mormon or not, I do have to admit that Romney is one presidential looking mofo. That grey hair is classic.

[boutons_]

Yep, Willard has that generic look of a president from central casting, sorta like the prez in the shitty movie Independence Day.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Mormon or not, I do have to admit that Romney is one presidential looking mofo. That grey hair is classic.


The fact that he looks presidential in itself does not offend me, but the fact that during the "Dark horse" phase of his campaign THATS ALL THE FUCKING NEOCONS MENTIONED ABOUT THIS FUCKER, on paper AND tv pisses me off to no end (however it makes sense, grab the stupidest of the constituency first)

Back when the common marriott did not know who the hell this guy was, we were introduced to him not by his standings, voting records, values, etc, but by:

"Look how presidential he looks" "Look at that chin" "Look how he's perfectly aged and white he is"

It's complete and utter bull shit.

Now he's actually trying to pull the, "Well my professed faith doesn't allow non-adherents inside its temples, but I'm also religious, therefore I'm a good candidate and the christian right should like me even though I flipflopped on abortion" (makes sense, trying to grab the next level of stupid, after his pretty face is already imprinted on their minds)
GMAFB
Its all so predictable....and the neocons who are stupid enough to be fooled by this guy should be strapped to a rocket and sent into the sun.

[jochhejaam]

In America, we're pretty certain that pretty much everybody goes to hell because we think in very black & white, yes-or-no, A-therefore-B-therefore-C linear terms,
Could you expound on your personal belief regarding that statement Stout?
To a high degree Matthew 7; 13-14 would seem to substantiate that reasoning, although "few make it", and "many don't make" sounds less extreme than your "pretty much everybody goes to Hell".

[JoeChalupa]

The fact that he looks presidential in itself does not offend me, but the fact that during the "Dark horse" phase of his campaign THATS ALL THE FUCKING NEOCONS MENTIONED ABOUT THIS FUCKER, on paper AND tv pisses me off to no end (however it makes sense, grab the stupidest of the constituency first)

Back when the common marriott did not know who the hell this guy was, we were introduced to him not by his standings, voting records, values, etc, but by:

"Look how presidential he looks" "Look at that chin" "Look how he's perfectly aged and white he is"

It's complete and utter bull shit.

Now he's actually trying to pull the, "Well my professed faith doesn't allow non-adherents inside its temples, but I'm also religious, therefore I'm a good candidate and the christian right should like me even though I flipflopped on abortion" (makes sense, trying to grab the next level of stupid, after his pretty face is already imprinted on their minds)
GMAFB
Its all so predictable....and the neocons who are stupid enough to be fooled by this guy should be strapped to a rocket and sent into the sun.

Well, whether I like to admit it or not, in our era how one performs on TV or on the web does make a difference. Perhaps not much but it does effect people even if they do not know it. We all make perceptions of people, however slight, on how they appear to us.
Kukinich suffers from this, IMO. He simply doesn't look presidential.
Then again Bush can easily blow up my theory.
I'd vote for John McCain before any of the other republican candidates. I also get a feelign that Mitt Romney is a straight forward kind of man and I don't care what his religion is. He does impress me though but I still like McCain.

[Extra Stout]

Could you expound on your personal belief regarding that statement Stout?
To a high degree Matthew 7; 13-14 would seem to substantiate that reasoning, although "few make it", and "many don't make" sounds less extreme than your "pretty much everybody goes to Hell".
I don't know what happens to people who never hear the gospel. The Bible makes it clear that given the choice, few actually will choose true faith (as opposed to the cultural, nominal kind), and it exhorts believers to spread the gospel, but it never makes clear what happens to people who don't actually hear it.

You have your verse, and I have one in Romans that says people are held accountable for what they know.

One cannot say that it is an obvious or easy question, or else why would very smart people who are completely orthodox in their thinking have grappled with it for two millenia?

On the other hand, Calvinism has an easy answer: they go to hell. And not only do they go to hell, but God created them for the express purpose of sending them to hell, and made sure they never heard the gospel, because somehow that glorifies him.

And that fits very nicely into the American idiom of turning theology into an equation.

[jochhejaam]

You have your verse, and I have one in Romans that says people are held accountable for what they know.

Agreed, and I would assume that those that are held accountable for what they know are a segment of the “few” that are referred to in Matt.


(FWIW - I think it's safe to assume that the "few" refers to a small percentage, but when you consider that billions have lived since the beginning of creation, that "few" would still be quite a large crowd)