Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion - Page 23 - 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 12-09-2007, 10:21 PM   #331
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel

Keep in mind Iowa also tends to lean Democratic as well,
True although Bush did win it narrowly in 2004 by 10,000 votes.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 10:22 PM   #332
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:45 AM


you know what's funny?

i've read these before.

but, as you say, Slavery and the Native American Genocide are exactly What Jesus Would Do.

after all, no one else matters in Western Civilization, right?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 10:25 PM   #333
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


It seems that when we were (supposedly) more of a Christian nation is when we outright stole the land of the Native Americans and enslaved an entire race of people. A lot of good our supposedly more "Christian" nature did us then. . .


come on Sean, don't you see?

sure, slavery was bad and all, but it got your people out of the jungle and gave them Jesus. none of that ungodly animal worship. after all, Africa is where it is today because of a lack of Jesus. if they had more Jesus, then there'd be more food and stuff.

surely that's worth 50m in lives?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-09-2007, 11:29 PM   #334
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:45 AM
[q]It was a pitch designed to say that whatever doctrinal differences Mormons have with mainstream Christians, they are trivial compared with the war against secularism.

So we were told, rather baldly: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom . . . Freedom and religion endure together or perish alone.” Of course freedom and religion can go together. But freedom requires religion? There are many free, secular societies where this doesn’t seem an exhaustive explanation. And while freedom of conscience can indeed be defended by religious doctrine – just read your John Locke or Second Vatican Council – it has also in history been persecuted and repressed by religion. Why were Locke and the second council even necessary?

And then you noticed that Romney’s embrace of pluralism does not actually include atheists or agnostics or those with no faith at all. This was not a minor oversight. In fact those who want to preserve a secular hue to public debates were given no quarter: “It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

Romney, moreover, explicitly stated a core religious doctrine of his: “There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the saviour of mankind.” If his point were to say that it is irrelevant what your religion is when you run for president, merely that you have a religion, then why this explicit statement? It tells his audience that he is not a Jew or a Muslim.

In his famous 1960 speech to the Houston ministers, John F Kennedy issued no such theological credo. And the explanation for Romney’s doing so is pretty simple: he wants the political benefit of being a Christian without the political cost of being a Mormon “Christian”. The speech was therefore a purely political manoeuvre, as is almost everything that comes out of Romney’s mouth. In order for a Mormon to win over the Christian right, he has to unite with them against a common foe: the religion of secularism.

To do that, he needs to have a broad public embrace of Christ, but not of the actual doctrines of his own church. Recall that Romney is not just a Mormon but has served as a bishop, and for nine years was a stake president – a position of considerable authority and power within his denomination. He knows the doctrines as well as anyone, but he will only explain that part of them that reassures the Christian right.

Will they be reassured? That remains to be seen. By touting active faith as the prerequisite for American public life, Romney appeals to those who see religion primarily as a benign force in American culture. He effectively says to the Christianist right: I’m with you on abortion (even though he long wasn’t), on gay rights (even though he once claimed he’d be more pro-gay in the Senate than Ted Kennedy) and in favour of appointing justices who would get out of the way of Christian majoritarianism. So forget about our theological differences. What matters is that someone believes in something and advances your political agenda.

Romney, it should be remembered, is not the first Mormon to run for president. That distinction is awarded to the founder of Mormonism himself, Joseph Smith Jr, who ran in 1844 on an abolitionist platform and in defence of the rights of religious minorities. Mormon political history has long been strongly secularist in this respect – because Mormons were once a sect brutally persecuted by majority Christians.

But in that campaign, Smith coined a term that strangely resonates today. “There is not a nation or a dynasty now occupying the earth which acknowledges almighty God as their lawgiver,” Smith told the Neighbor newspaper in Nauvoo, Illinois. “I go emphatically, virtuously and humanely, for a theodemocracy, where God and the people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men in righteousness.”

Theodemocracy: the blending of government with a universally Christian populace in which faith is the prerequisite of public office. This is the vision of America that Romney is proposing. He has behind him the power brokers of the Protestant right, the theocons of the Catholic right, the Mormon church and the vested interests of a Republican party elite that, in the wake of George W Bush, wants to extend the theodemocratic principles of an antisecular movement.

Romney has in front of him all those – believers and nonbelievers – who feel that too overt a religious identity in the public square is a dangerous tyranny of the majority, and the true believers whose faith is not instrumental to anything but itself.

And that’s why, in my view, what Romney represents is not quite as benign as he makes it out to be. I would have had no qualms in supporting a Mormon for the presidency, as long as he vows to represent people of all faiths and none. But Romney decided against that. That matters. It is veiling intolerance under the guise of tolerance. [/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 03:31 AM   #335
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
True although Bush did win it narrowly in 2004 by 10,000 votes.
Which really baffles me to no end, but then again, the fact that any state voted for that guy again in 2004 confuses me.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 12-10-2007, 12:11 PM   #336
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you know what's funny?

i've read these before.

He had you at "open-minded students of our history ought to feel more guilt than pride" didn't he?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 01:24 PM   #337
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


He had you at "open-minded students of our history ought to feel more guilt than pride" didn't he?


i'm a sucker for genocidal apologia.

and in Medved's world, where there's no nuance, one must choose as if it's all Sophie's Choice: EIZER YOU FEEHL ZEE GUILT OR ZEE PRIDE! CHOOZ VUHN! ZEE OZTHER VEE VILL DROWN!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 05:36 PM   #338
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:45 AM
I love how you Americans impersonate the German accent.

But I especially love Conan O' Brien doing Schwarzenegger.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 05:58 PM   #339
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
I love how you Americans impersonate the German accent.


i promise you, every time i substitute a "Th" with a "Zee," it's done with love.

i have visited your country half a dozen times and have loved every inch of it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 06:10 PM   #340
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:45 AM
No worries, my marketing teacher is talking exactly the way you wrote there. And even worse, he is speaking in German grammar.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 09:02 PM   #341
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Read my post again. I said nothing about whether America was the "only" country to enslave people--the fact is that slavery was counter to the principles on which our country was founded. It was also counter to the principles of Christianity (and yes, I know many Christians realized that and were at the forefront of ending slavery. . .). I also said nothing about what happened to the Native Americans being genocide. I wouldn't have thought to use the term. I simply said we outright STOLE the Indians land--a point I daresay even Medved would be foolish to dispute.

I made two points, both of which you neatly skipped with these townhall links.

1. I questioned the value of a kind of "tip of the hat" to God in our public life. Speaking as a Bible-believing Christian I know there is plenty of Scriptural evidence that God has no use for the kind of lip service you described.

2. I said that a time when our nation was (supposedly) was more "Christian" was concurrent with time when slavery existed and we stole the land of the Native Americans. Perhaps you'd like to suggest that slavery would have gone unchallenged today due to our more secular public climate?

Care to address these specific points?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 12-10-2007, 11:48 PM   #342
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:45 AM
" Estimates remain inevitably imprecise, but range as high as one third of the slave “cargo” who perished from disease or overcrowding during transport from Africa. PERHAPS THE MOST HORRIFYING ASPECT OF THESE VOYAGES INVOLVES THE FACT THAT NO SLAVE TRADERS WANTED TO SEE THIS LEVEL OF DEADLY SUFFERING: THEY BENEFITED ONLY FROM DELIVERING (AND SELLING LIVE SLAVES, NOT FROM TOSSING CORPSES INTO THE OCEAN)"

Wow, I never really thought to feel sorry for the slave traders, that the MOST horrifying aspect of the voyage would be loss of profit. Poor slave traders.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-11-2007, 12:56 AM   #343
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:45 AM
^ And then there's this one...

"THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA...No honest observer can deny or dismiss this nation’s long record of racism and injustice, but it’s also obvious that Americans of African descent enjoy vastly greater wealth and human rights of every variety than the citizens of any nation of the Mother Continent."

Look on the bright side, folks...sure, your great-grandparents' lives sucked big-time, but how can you say that wasn't worth it when you consider the sweet deal you've got today!
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 12-11-2007, 01:35 AM   #344
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Look on the bright side, folks...sure, your great-grandparents' lives sucked big-time, but how can you say that wasn't worth it when you consider the sweet deal you've got today!


are you saying you want the terrorists to win?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-11-2007, 01:40 AM   #345
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint


Wow, I never really thought to feel sorry for the slave traders, that the MOST horrifying aspect of the voyage would be loss of profit. Poor slave traders.


Medved is objecting to that anti-American Steven Spielberg's depiction of the slave trade in "amistad."

you know, the anti-american who made "private ryan."
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 04:45 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