Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion - Page 25 - 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 12-11-2007, 07:32 PM   #361
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Some hair accident in the morning, and he is a wax statue.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-11-2007, 09:05 PM   #362
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: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
I guess I might as well counter with more Medved.

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/co...tainted_legacy



Seriously, how can some of you people possibly celebrate or enjoy Thanksgiving or the 4th of July while perpetually flagellating yourself with such a heavy load of liberal guilt?

Mock...insult...mock...insult...mock...insult.

Well here's the good news...your burden can be lifted. All it requires of you is you to try defend something -- anything -- about the country for a change.
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.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 12-11-2007, 09:11 PM   #363
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: 19,271
Local Time: 08:37 AM
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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-11-2007, 09:53 PM   #364
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


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:

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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-11-2007, 10:59 PM   #365
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:37 AM
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.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 12:57 AM   #366
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Note to self. I'm coming across as annoyingly earnest in this thread.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 03:46 AM   #367
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: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Note to self. I'm coming across as annoyingly earnest in this thread.
Not at all! I love it when you're earnest.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 03:48 AM   #368
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: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.
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.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 04:51 AM   #369
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: 19,271
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Not at all, BonosSaint, your post was fantastic . I fully agree with every word you said, especially this part:

Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
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.
*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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 02:58 PM   #370
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:37 AM
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/C...e_faith_factor

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 03:40 PM   #371
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 02:37 PM


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.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:17 PM   #372
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: 19,271
Local Time: 08:37 AM
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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:22 PM   #373
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 09:37 AM
I can't even get my pastor to pass a religious litmus test. How can I expect a presidential candidate?

lol
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 12-12-2007, 08:01 PM   #374
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
I can't even get my pastor to pass a religious litmus test. How can I expect a presidential candidate?

lol
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.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 12-13-2007, 01:09 AM   #375
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: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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]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)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/C...e_faith_factor

[/q]
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.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean 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 09:37 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