Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Some hair accident in the morning, and he is a wax statue. 
Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion
- Thread starter MaxFisher
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
INDY500 said:
I know it's tough to be always in the minority here in FYM, to feel like everyone's ganging up on you.
Please understand that anything I say is not with the intent of "piling on the lone conservative who wandered into the 'wrong part of town'" and if that is the effect of my posts, I apologize. I hope you won't give up on responding to these issues. Your perspective is worthwhile and should be heard (and challenged, I suppose,
But I think that's true for all of us).I do think you're misreading most of us though. I really do believe in the principles on which the U.S. is founded. I think "negativity" you're reading here has more to do with:
A) a challenge to America to live up to it's ideals. It's important to remember where we've failed to live up to those ideals (after all those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it right) as well to be aware of where our nation may be falling short today. That's not guilt, that's not negativity, that's not America-hating. That, my friend, is love of country and the best kind of patriotism.
B)a disagreement over exactly what those founding principles were. You understand the Christian faith to be among those founding principles. I, on the other hand, understand that most of the people at the time of this nation's were Christians of one stripe or another and thus Christianity was just sort of "assumed" by the founding fathers. However, the principles of this country were strictly--and rightly--areligious. NOT anti-religious, but neither for nor against it. We disagree on that point but again, that does not amount to anti-Americanism on my point and true blue patriotism on yours.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Exactly, maycocksean.
I guess I'd equate the U.S. to one's family. You've got relatives that may have done some pretty crappy stuff. You're going to criticize each other, you're going to argue with each other, there's days you may even say you hate each other, whether you mean it or not. But at the end of the day, they're still your family and you still feel a connection to them, you still love them and support them (unless what they've done is absolutely reprehensible), and you will try and work things out with them so that life is better for all involved.
And while you criticize and argue with your family, when an outsider comes in and starts picking at them, you're the first to come to your family's defense. That's the kind of relationship I feel I have with this country.
Angela
I guess I'd equate the U.S. to one's family. You've got relatives that may have done some pretty crappy stuff. You're going to criticize each other, you're going to argue with each other, there's days you may even say you hate each other, whether you mean it or not. But at the end of the day, they're still your family and you still feel a connection to them, you still love them and support them (unless what they've done is absolutely reprehensible), and you will try and work things out with them so that life is better for all involved.
And while you criticize and argue with your family, when an outsider comes in and starts picking at them, you're the first to come to your family's defense. That's the kind of relationship I feel I have with this country.
Angela
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
maycocksean said:
I think there is a big group of conservatives who agree with INDY. I'm not exactly sure where this definition came from, but I think it's one that INDY uses daily... It's a constant misreading.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
I can't state my position any better than Sean and Angela just did.
The liberals and conservatives are always going to have differing viewpoints. The discussion between them, even the disagreements, are healthy and necessary. It's a block against the excesses of either side.
With all the vitriol being thrown by both sides, we probably don't much trust each other, or respect each other. Maybe that's OK.
Leads for lousy discussion, though. When I hear the stuff the conservatives say about liberals, I don't recognize myself. I know they are wrong. I guess it works the other way around too. So I have to stop and think.
It's funny because I think in the end, America will dismiss both extremes. Or probably more accurately fluctuate between the two extremes until it finds some sort of imperfect balance between them. We're kind of a schizoid society. But I don't think America will tolerate the excesses and it will swing back and forth, with neither side ultimately winning. The best we partisans can wish for is that it swings more often to our side than not.
What neither side realizes is we can influence the direction the country takes, but we can't control it. I expect both sides to continue to try to influence it. And until we can hash out some common ground, we might not like each other very much. But we're not mortal enemies.
The liberals and conservatives are always going to have differing viewpoints. The discussion between them, even the disagreements, are healthy and necessary. It's a block against the excesses of either side.
With all the vitriol being thrown by both sides, we probably don't much trust each other, or respect each other. Maybe that's OK.
Leads for lousy discussion, though. When I hear the stuff the conservatives say about liberals, I don't recognize myself. I know they are wrong. I guess it works the other way around too. So I have to stop and think.
It's funny because I think in the end, America will dismiss both extremes. Or probably more accurately fluctuate between the two extremes until it finds some sort of imperfect balance between them. We're kind of a schizoid society. But I don't think America will tolerate the excesses and it will swing back and forth, with neither side ultimately winning. The best we partisans can wish for is that it swings more often to our side than not.
What neither side realizes is we can influence the direction the country takes, but we can't control it. I expect both sides to continue to try to influence it. And until we can hash out some common ground, we might not like each other very much. But we're not mortal enemies.
Last edited:
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
Note to self. I'm coming across as annoyingly earnest in this thread.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonosSaint said:
Not at all! I love it when you're earnest.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well, unfortunately there's a group of entrepeneurs out there (Rush, Hannity, and dare I say Medved, for example) who are finding it very lucrative to promote and stir up the misreading.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Not at all, BonosSaint, your post was fantastic . I fully agree with every word you said, especially this part:
*Nods* I think most Americans are pretty in the middle on issues-they lean to the left on some things, lean to the right on others, and really want the fringe groups on both sides to just shut up already. I really think (and hope) that this next election shows people who can see good in both viewpoints rising up and voting en masse at the polls-it's high time their voices finally got heard over the extremists on both sides.
I like to think I try and stay respectful towards those I disagree with, that's what I fully intend to do in debates, but if I happened to offend anybody in this thread, or any other ones, I do apologize. I'm just as stubborn and passionate about my views as anyone else is, and sometimes I think that gets the better of me. So to those I've had debates with, I mean no ill will towards any of you, and I hope we can continue to have respectful, energetic debates in the future, no matter what it is we're discussing. I love hearing other ways of thinking. It's fascinating to see another side to a topic.
Angela
. I fully agree with every word you said, especially this part:BonosSaint said:
*Nods* I think most Americans are pretty in the middle on issues-they lean to the left on some things, lean to the right on others, and really want the fringe groups on both sides to just shut up already. I really think (and hope) that this next election shows people who can see good in both viewpoints rising up and voting en masse at the polls-it's high time their voices finally got heard over the extremists on both sides.
I like to think I try and stay respectful towards those I disagree with, that's what I fully intend to do in debates, but if I happened to offend anybody in this thread, or any other ones, I do apologize. I'm just as stubborn and passionate about my views as anyone else is, and sometimes I think that gets the better of me. So to those I've had debates with, I mean no ill will towards any of you, and I hope we can continue to have respectful, energetic debates in the future, no matter what it is we're discussing. I love hearing other ways of thinking. It's fascinating to see another side to a topic.
Angela
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
okay, so i am a little surprised, but the conservative Cal Thomas writing for the very conservative www.townhall.com (a website i know many conservatives in here enjoy) nails it when it comes to Romney's speech. after praising the speech itself, he goes on to say this:
[q]What no one mentioned (so I will) is the curious practice by a substantial number of voters who require our presidential candidates to acknowledge faith in God. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a "religious test" for office, but that hasn't stopped many, especially in Iowa, from requiring statements of evangelical faith before deciding for whom to vote.
Does one expect to know the spiritual bona fides of an individual, other than pastor or religious worker, for any other job?
In the 1970s, a curiosity called the "Christian Yellow Pages" made the rounds of churches and certain businesses run by evangelicals. It contained names of professions one finds in the regular Yellow Pages - plumbers, taxi drivers, auto mechanics, dry cleaners - except these were owned and operated by certified, God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians. The clear implication was that businesses found in the Christian Yellow Pages would do a better job at a better price than the presumed "heathen" who advertised in the bigger yellow book.
I never saw any data that proved a connection between faith in Jesus and the ability to repair a car at a reasonable cost, so I usually went with the shop that did the best job at the lowest price and didn't bother to ask if the repairman went to church.
Voters who require statements of faith from presidential candidates risk disappointment. Many evangelicals who voted for Jimmy Carter regretted having done so when they saw his post-election policies and what they regarded as his incompetence as president. Bill Clinton could quote Scripture, but not many would hold him up as an evangelical icon, given his roving eye and impeachment for lying under oath.
Much of this fixation on audible faith has to do with evangelicals having been ignored by culture following the embarrassment associated with the Scopes Trial 82 years ago. Emerging from their political catacombs in the late 1970s, these Christians basked, if not in new respect, then in the intoxication that comes with public attention. They were told they were now players in the kingdom of this world and in presidential politics. Their leaders were invited into the corridors of political power. They exchanged real power and its ability to transform lives for temporal power, which changes little of lasting importance.
While requiring politicians to express belief in Jesus and the Bible, many evangelical voters ignore Christ's statements about the source of genuine power. They also conveniently forget what Christ said about how they would be regarded and treated by a world that had rejected Him (and still does as the best-selling atheistic works of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins attest). It was Jesus, in whom Mitt Romney said he believed, who warned, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first" (John 15:18) and "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also" (John 15:20). Those warnings are not the creed of contemporary evangelicals who think persecution is a negative newspaper editorial or a disparaging remark by a skeptic on a cable TV show. Too many contemporary evangelicals want the blessing without obeying their real commander in chief, who said doing things His way would bring real persecution.
This election should be more about competence and less about ideology, or even faith. It shouldn't matter where - or if - a candidate goes to church, but whether he (or she) can run the country well, according to the principles in which the voter believes. And, if those principles include a person of faith, so much the better. God can be the ultimate check and balance on earthly power.
If a car hits me, I care more about whether the ambulance driver knows the way to the nearest hospital and the skills of the emergency room doctor than where they stand with God. That's the attitude we should have toward those who desire to be president of the United States in a fallen world.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/12/12/the_faith_factor
[/q]
[q]What no one mentioned (so I will) is the curious practice by a substantial number of voters who require our presidential candidates to acknowledge faith in God. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a "religious test" for office, but that hasn't stopped many, especially in Iowa, from requiring statements of evangelical faith before deciding for whom to vote.
Does one expect to know the spiritual bona fides of an individual, other than pastor or religious worker, for any other job?
In the 1970s, a curiosity called the "Christian Yellow Pages" made the rounds of churches and certain businesses run by evangelicals. It contained names of professions one finds in the regular Yellow Pages - plumbers, taxi drivers, auto mechanics, dry cleaners - except these were owned and operated by certified, God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians. The clear implication was that businesses found in the Christian Yellow Pages would do a better job at a better price than the presumed "heathen" who advertised in the bigger yellow book.
I never saw any data that proved a connection between faith in Jesus and the ability to repair a car at a reasonable cost, so I usually went with the shop that did the best job at the lowest price and didn't bother to ask if the repairman went to church.
Voters who require statements of faith from presidential candidates risk disappointment. Many evangelicals who voted for Jimmy Carter regretted having done so when they saw his post-election policies and what they regarded as his incompetence as president. Bill Clinton could quote Scripture, but not many would hold him up as an evangelical icon, given his roving eye and impeachment for lying under oath.
Much of this fixation on audible faith has to do with evangelicals having been ignored by culture following the embarrassment associated with the Scopes Trial 82 years ago. Emerging from their political catacombs in the late 1970s, these Christians basked, if not in new respect, then in the intoxication that comes with public attention. They were told they were now players in the kingdom of this world and in presidential politics. Their leaders were invited into the corridors of political power. They exchanged real power and its ability to transform lives for temporal power, which changes little of lasting importance.
While requiring politicians to express belief in Jesus and the Bible, many evangelical voters ignore Christ's statements about the source of genuine power. They also conveniently forget what Christ said about how they would be regarded and treated by a world that had rejected Him (and still does as the best-selling atheistic works of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins attest). It was Jesus, in whom Mitt Romney said he believed, who warned, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first" (John 15:18) and "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also" (John 15:20). Those warnings are not the creed of contemporary evangelicals who think persecution is a negative newspaper editorial or a disparaging remark by a skeptic on a cable TV show. Too many contemporary evangelicals want the blessing without obeying their real commander in chief, who said doing things His way would bring real persecution.
This election should be more about competence and less about ideology, or even faith. It shouldn't matter where - or if - a candidate goes to church, but whether he (or she) can run the country well, according to the principles in which the voter believes. And, if those principles include a person of faith, so much the better. God can be the ultimate check and balance on earthly power.
If a car hits me, I care more about whether the ambulance driver knows the way to the nearest hospital and the skills of the emergency room doctor than where they stand with God. That's the attitude we should have toward those who desire to be president of the United States in a fallen world.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/12/12/the_faith_factor
[/q]
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I think religious litmus tests are inappropriate for politicians. As my dad once said, "Even the cleanest politicians are at least a little dirty." A candidate should be able to express his religious views without getting harassed for it, but to put the same premium on religious beliefs as, say, foreign policy experience is a big problem.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
No pun intended here, but amen to Mr. Thomas. He's absolutely right-we don't care about religious beliefs for any other job, the job of president should be no exception.
And I agree with you as well, nathan.
Angela
And I agree with you as well, nathan.
Angela
MadelynIris
Refugee
I can't even get my pastor to pass a religious litmus test. How can I expect a presidential candidate?
lol
lol
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
MadelynIris said:
Amen to that!!
I have quite a few republican friends who I will say, I warned about Bush, not Republicans, just Bush.
When we talk about the campaign, we never talk about what a candidates faith is. We talk about policy, climate, the ecomomy and where the country is now and who may be able to bring about a change in the least amount of time. None of us agree on most anything, lol, but faith is not the deciding factor of anyone's choice. However, we do agree we never again want to see policy made or based on a candidate or a presidents interpetation of their religious beliefs.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Irvine511 said:
I guess that means Romney shouldn't expect too many votes, huh. . .
Seriously though. . .this selection from the townhall pretty much sums up how I feel about the assumption of faith and politics.
And I want to add that as much as I admire and agree with the opinions expressed, I'm also impressed with the tone in which they were expressed. Reasonable, thoughtful, logical--compelling without resorting to the cheap tricks of demogaguery. If the author indeed supported Romney's speech in the rest of the article I'm sure I would have disagreed with him but if he maintained the same tone I would have disagreed respectfully.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
I'm probably just being obtuse and missing some really obvious connection, but I couldn't follow how the Bible passages he quotes were supposed to tie into his larger point about a candidate's personal faith being irrelevant to whether or not to support them. Unless he's taking them to mean 'If you're not being slaughtered then you're doing it wrong,' but that seems like it would raise more problems than it solves.
One of the comments at the end makes an interesting argument about the presidential, as opposed to parliamentary, nature of our system tending to lend itself to this way of thinking (i.e. insistence on a candidate who shares your religious beliefs) in that the head of government and head of state are one and the same, therefore we tend to want and expect our president to reflect the 'face of the nation' in ways a prime minister wouldn't be expected to. Obviously that theory can only go so far, since the 'evangelization' of politics Thomas refers to extends way beyond just the office of President, but still I thought it was an interesting observation.
Didn't Cal Thomas used to be a higher-up in the Moral Majority?
One of the comments at the end makes an interesting argument about the presidential, as opposed to parliamentary, nature of our system tending to lend itself to this way of thinking (i.e. insistence on a candidate who shares your religious beliefs) in that the head of government and head of state are one and the same, therefore we tend to want and expect our president to reflect the 'face of the nation' in ways a prime minister wouldn't be expected to. Obviously that theory can only go so far, since the 'evangelization' of politics Thomas refers to extends way beyond just the office of President, but still I thought it was an interesting observation.
Didn't Cal Thomas used to be a higher-up in the Moral Majority?
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
yolland said:
I think his point was that the Christian faith isn't supposed to be about making it big in the "halls of power" so to speak (in fact sometimes, though not always, you end up being at odds with "the world" as Jesus was). Thus, the faith of a person shouldn't have any bearing as to whether we should vote for them, as their faith, at least Biblically, isn't necessarily directly connected to their ascent to power.
It's not to say that a Christian can't be a politician or be powerful but Scripture doesn't consider it the birthright of Christians to be in power and there are some real spiritual hazards to gaining political power.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
-
