Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-07-2007, 03:45 PM   #136
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


That's a non-sequitor and you know it.
Why? I don't judge a person by their past. I don't judge a movement by their origins. I don't judge a business by their start up.

I judge them by who they are now and what they stand for.

So with a religion I would judge by what it's doing now and it's teachings.

Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977

You said nothing about your religion's past? Please read your post again.


Hmmm. I just did. Am I missing your point?[/B]
"In the first hundred years after Christ, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire through word-of-mouth. When persecuted, Christians willingly became martyrs."

That's not talking about your religion's past?

Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977

Christianity is certainly no different, but it can't be singled out as exclusively problematic, and certainly can't be judged on it.
Like all other religions.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:46 PM   #137
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

This might explain why there seems to be such a huge difference between the Jesus of the New Testament versus the "Warrior Christ" that many people seem to see instead.


like the ass-kicking Christ at the end of "the passion."
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:47 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i'd understand religion as a vastly more complex thing, and it's evolution is as important as it's birth, but there are so many ways of looking at something so culturally and historically influenced that i don't think there's really a right answer here. i can accept that it is one way, but the best? i dunno.
I don't disagree with you about the changing nature of religion, but since Christianity is meant to be following in the principles of Christ, it seems that it's instructive to see how his early followers walked -- as well as Mohammed's or whomever.

I also don't disagree with anitram's comments about early Christianity being divorced from policy. I think there's a point at which Christians need to learn to let stuff go, for pity's sake. At the same time, given that we live in a country where things like the democratic process and representative government allow people a voice in how they are to be governed, I don't know where the appropriate line is between allowing and encouraging Christians to vote, and letting our votes get hijacked by Washington jackals. I'm very conflicted on a lot of these issues, and can see both sides. But I'm not going to be told what I can or can't do. And I'm certainly not going to let people start saying things like "Romney's practically a jihadist" without speaking up.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:48 PM   #139
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i agree here.

and if you want to keep your version of Christianity vibrant and dynamic, better work on secularism so you're free to practice how you want when you want. let's keep it from becoming so dominant in all aspects of socio-political life.
Pluralism, Irvine. Not secularism.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:48 PM   #140
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:42 AM
We're not talking about the line between allowing and encouraging Christians to vote. Everyone should vote.

But a person's religious views should have nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:49 PM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




like the ass-kicking Christ at the end of "the passion."
You mean the martyr Christ through the Passion? Maybe you should see the movie first, dude...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:50 PM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
We're not talking about the line between allowing and encouraging Christians to vote. Everyone should vote.

But a person's religious views should have nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.
What about a person's race? Or gender? Or socio-political background?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:55 PM   #143
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
And I'm certainly not going to let people start saying things like "Romney's practically a jihadist" without speaking up.

i appreciate your struggle, and i think any thinking person should and does struggle with these things, and i appreciate that you called me out on my intentionally provocative comment.

but i think my point still stands. there's not so much difference between those who want Christ's Kingdom on Earth and those who would restore the Caliphate. there's not much difference between those who place the 10 Commandments outside the state supreme court and those who point to the Koran as their constitution. in fact, i'd argue that the only things that prevent some Christians from transforming into the Islamic radicals (and we haven't even touched on how this can get all Holy War) is that most Christians live in secular societies that are relatively affluent, especially compared to the Muslim world.

were social and historical conditions different, i think we'd very easily see Christian suicide bombers and "crusadists."

again, i champion secularism because it is by definition neutral. it is not a religion. it's bogus to try to pull out some stunning insight that says that secularism becomes a religion. you could say that Statism can become a religion (and you'd be right to point out Stalin and Pol Pot), but Statism is not secularism, and to conflate the two is intellectually lazy.

personally, i don't actually care if kids sing Christmas carols in school. i don't care if there's a nativity scene in a public square. i do think that some people can get a little obnoxious about this stuff, though i full understand where they are coming from. i don't think many Christians realize just how unimportant religion is in the lives of so many people, and also how it isn't an all-encompassing source of self-identity for many people, and how nervous people get when talk shifts to how stuff that's nearly totally subjective and individual and personal take on some cosmic objective reality in the mind of the believer.

and then there's the whole destructive aspect of all religions, which the US has mercifully been spared from, but that's because of secularism, as Europe provides such a great model of this.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:55 PM   #144
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Pluralism, Irvine. Not secularism.

pluralism, Nathan, is impossible without secularism.

secularism treats everyone as equally unimportant. hence, you are all free to go about making yourself feel more special.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:58 PM   #145
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


You mean the martyr Christ through the Passion? Maybe you should see the movie first, dude...


dude, i saw the movie. it's the most violent, sadistic, and homoerotic thing i've seen since "apocolypto."

and, dude, the ass-kicking Christ who rises at the end, his eyes firmly fixed forward, the swelling triumphant music, the holes in the hand -- GARRGH!!! there's some ass to kick, and i know who's first on the list ...
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:58 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


What about a person's race? Or gender? Or socio-political background?
Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Sort of the whole point, isn't it?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 04:18 PM   #147
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:42 AM
i'm sorry, but i can't not post some of this from my favorite pro-war atheist:

[q]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).

[...]

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.
[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 04:41 PM   #148
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,983
Local Time: 10:42 AM
He said he shouldn't have to apologize for his religious beliefs yet he only said the word Mormon once. Why? Was that accidental?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 05:26 PM   #149
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,983
Local Time: 10:42 AM
I liked what John Edwards said about it-that he would be a President of all, believers and non-believers the same and equally. After all that is what the President must do, he/she does not pick and choose who he/she is the President of and answers to. Maybe the atheists could cut Mitt's lawn and/or paint his house

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/1...in_america.php

Romney Spokesman Won't Say If Atheists Have Place In America
By Eric Kleefeld - December 7, 2007, 9:48AM

A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday

It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 06:08 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Sort of the whole point, isn't it?
It must be very easy for you to segment your life into boxes. The sum total of who we are is not irrelevant. We are who we are, and our politics reflects that, and for better or worse, for many of us, our faith reflects and informs our values, the decisions we make daily.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com