Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion - Page 5 - 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 12-06-2007, 11:39 PM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Romney has stated his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 12:08 AM   #62
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
There's a difference between public faith and faith that gets mixed in with policy.
But this is where it gets hazy, because in practice you can't order voters not to allow their religious sensibilities to affect their political stances. There might be a few instances which fit a narrow surface reading of faith-as-policy--teaching creationism, which is specifically Bible-based, in science classes, perhaps--but when you're talking issues like whether abortion or polygamy should be legal, it gets a whole lot stickier. Should senators be allowed to cite Bible/Koran/etc. passages, or otherwise appeal to divine authority, during debates on the Senate floor? or when addressing constituents on the issues in their capacity as senator? Even if the answer to both of those is No, that doesn't mean the influence won't still be there. And there are all kinds of issues on which a politician's vow to always "make my decision in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest," to quote Kennedy, in reality points to no particularly obvious conclusion, because there's no agreed-upon infallible standpoint from which to determine what the "national interest" is with regard to that particular issue.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 12:13 AM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


What public policy of Romney's as governor of Massachusetts was influenced by his Mormon faith.


[q]"We need to have a person of faith lead the country," - Mitt Romney, February 17, 2007.[/q]

it's not the Mormon faith, it's the assumption of faith that's the problem, and the presentation of faith as a qualification for higher office.

this is why we're the laughingstock of the rest of the world.

let's get out of the 11th century.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 12:19 AM   #64
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 08:24 PM
[q]
Romney’s America: No Room for Non-Believers
Published by Ryan Sager December 6th, 2007 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics.

Watching Mitt Romney’s big Mormon Speech this morning, I found myself unsurprised that I was unmoved; one probably wasn’t going to like this speech terribly unless one were already decided for Mitt Romney. I was (moderately) surprised, however, at how utterly cynical and offensive Romney’s speech ended up being. In short, if we didn’t know it before, we now know that in Mitt Romney’s America, there is no room for those without “faith.” What’s more — and this we already did know — Mitt Romney is willing to mislead people about his religion, while categorizing all follow-up questions about his religion as a form of “religious test.”

The most remarkable thing about Romney’s address — and even folks at National Review picked this out, notably Ramesh Ponnuru — is that is wrote atheists and agnostics out of the American nation. Whereas even President Bush, whose own cynical politics have done so much to pit believers versus non-believers, has long gone out of his way to include “good people of no faith at all” in his vision of America. While the president’s need to qualify that phrase with the word “good” might be offensive, it’s a warm embrace of the faithless compared to Romney’s declaration that “freedom requires religion.”

Got that? Those of us who don’t believe in Christianity, those of us who don’t believe in God, those of us who don’t believe in the divinity of human-written holy books have no place in the American experiment, can’t be relied on to uphold the principles of our Constitution, and don’t have the morality necessary to keep a Republic.

If any of this is not what the former governor meant, by all means let him correct himself. I emailed the Romney campaign this morning asking where atheists and agnostics fit into his vision of America. I’ve gotten no response of any kind, and I don’t expect one. Marginalizing non-believers is too central to Romney’s primary strategy for him to speak one word on their behalf. Romney may say that, “A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.” But his vision of who constitutes “the people” includes only the faithful.

As to Romney’s disingenuousness about his own religion, one need only note that the word “Mormon” appeared but once in his speech. (Kennedy mentioned the word Catholic roughly 20 times.) What’s more, he pulled this little number.

On the one hand, he declared:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

So, presidential candidates shouldn’t delve into the doctrines of their churches? I suppose the key word is “distinctive.” Romney is more than willing to talk about the doctrines of his faith when it might accrue to his benefit. Such as … a paragraph earlier in the same speech:

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 Savior of mankind.

It wasn’t quite as misleading as his comments about the Bible in the last debate (where he declared it the “word of God,” despite major differences Mormons have with Christians over the reliability of the Bible).

So, it’s OK to talk about the tenets of Mormonism so far as it presents Evangelical Christians with the impression that there are no major differences between the two faiths. Talking about it any further, dastardly religious test. Got it.

There was at least one line from Romney, though, that was worth the price of admission: “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.”

Amen, brother.[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 12:23 AM   #65
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
But this is where it gets hazy, because in practice you can't order voters not to allow their religious sensibilities to affect their political stances. There might be a few instances which fit a narrow surface reading of faith-as-policy--teaching creationism, which is specifically Bible-based, in science classes, perhaps--but when you're talking issues like whether abortion or polygamy should be legal, it gets a whole lot stickier. Should senators be allowed to cite Bible/Koran/etc. passages, or otherwise appeal to divine authority, during debates on the Senate floor? or when addressing constituents on the issues in their capacity as senator? Even if the answer to both of those is No, that doesn't mean the influence won't still be there. And there are all kinds of issues on which a politician's vow to always "make my decision in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest," to quote Kennedy, in reality points to no particularly obvious conclusion, because there's no agreed-upon infallible standpoint from which to determine what the "national interest" is with regard to that particular issue.
I understand the haziness on some issues. There's influence, sure. But your arguments have to be logical. It doesn't make sense to me in the least that a candidate can say, "I'm against homosexual rights because my religion says it's wrong." ... I wait. But that's it. They've nothing else to add.

And that's the problem. Religion should be an influence, not a reason. Your morals can be BASED in religion, sure. But once religion starts leaking into the policy, that's the problem.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 12:31 AM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well what about his stance on gay marriage? It's purely religious.
It's a believe based on religion and maybe even a political policy decision, but how did it actually effect policy and the citizens of Mass?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 12:31 AM   #67
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

But this is where it gets hazy, because in practice you can't order voters not to allow their religious sensibilities to affect their political stances. There might be a few instances which fit a narrow surface reading of faith-as-policy--teaching creationism, which is specifically Bible-based, in science classes, perhaps--but when you're talking issues like whether abortion or polygamy should be legal, it gets a whole lot stickier. Should senators be allowed to cite Bible/Koran/etc. passages, or otherwise appeal to divine authority, during debates on the Senate floor? or when addressing constituents on the issues in their capacity as senator? Even if the answer to both of those is No, that doesn't mean the influence won't still be there. And there are all kinds of issues on which a politician's vow to always "make my decision in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest," to quote Kennedy, in reality points to no particularly obvious conclusion, because there's no agreed-upon infallible standpoint from which to determine what the "national interest" is with regard to that particular issue.
Well just like you can be influenced by an artist without copying them, you can be influenced by your faith without pushing it. There's nothing stopping voters voting based on their faith, but there is something stopping law makers using purely faith to influence the law.

I think abortion and polygamy can debated without faith even entering the room, therefore they are legitimate issues to discuss as politicians. Now voters on the other hand can vote based on these issues any way they please.

But an issue like gay marriage, I haven't seen one secular argument to even make this an issue. It's pathetic really.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 12:34 AM   #69
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

It's a believe based on religion and maybe even a political policy decision, but how did it actually effect policy and the citizens of Mass?
I'm talking purely about his presidential platform. Regardless, if you can't present a secular reasoning behind it, even if it is influenced by your religion, I don't want to hear it. It has no place.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 12:35 AM   #70
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

It's a believe based on religion and maybe even a political policy decision, but how did it actually effect policy and the citizens of Mass?


are gay people not citizens?

i guess not -- for if they were believers, they wouldn't be gay, and if you're not a believer, then you just don't count in Romney's America.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 12:39 AM   #71
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
it's very simple.

there's a difference between saying, "i go to church on sundays and my faith influences my worldview," versus someone saying, "i consult the bible before i vote," or, worse, someone asks you about your rise in the polls, and you respond by saying, "There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people. That’s the only way that our campaign can be doing what it’s doing. And I’m not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite. There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that a little will become much, and it has. And it defies all explanation, it has confounded the pundits. And I’m enjoying every minute of them trying to figure it out, and until they look at it, from a, just experience beyond human, they’ll never figure it out. And it’s probably just as well. That’s honestly why it’s happening.
I'd laugh if it wasn't so scary...

It reminds of Bono's quote about people thanking God for their Grammy or whatever. He says something to the effect of, "I can just imagine God saying, 'don't give me credit for that shite chorus'." Well you get the point.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 01:19 AM   #72
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: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well what about his stance on gay marriage? It's purely religious.
Eh. . .it's more likely purely political.

To be honest, Romney's Mormon faith doesn't bother me at all. All the Mormons I know tend to be very tolerant of other faiths (even as they may be very fervent about their own)--I'm guessing largely because of their long history of persecution in this country. I think this country would be safer from state/church mixing with a Mormon president than with your average evangelical candidate.

No, my concerns with Romney have to do with what I sense is an unparallelled cyncism in his campaign. He seems very sophisticated and "presidential" but lacking in deep conviction. I'm not sure where he REALLY stands, but I know he sounds compelling. To be honest, he worries me more than any of the other Republican candidates, because he is smooth enough that I fear many people will buy what he's selling. The speech was a masterpiece, really, of patriotic rhetoric and emotionalism. That's what worries me.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 01:55 AM   #73
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Eh. . .it's more likely purely political.
What I meant, was the stance in general is purely religious. I haven't seen one secular stance that makes sense.


Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

No, my concerns with Romney have to do with what I sense is an unparallelled cyncism in his campaign. He seems very sophisticated and "presidential" but lacking in deep conviction. I'm not sure where he REALLY stands, but I know he sounds compelling. To be honest, he worries me more than any of the other Republican candidates, because he is smooth enough that I fear many people will buy what he's selling. The speech was a masterpiece, really, of patriotic rhetoric and emotionalism. That's what worries me.
I agree. Though his speech was absolutely transparent and full of so much bullshit to me, I can see where a lot of people would fall for this stuff, we've seen a few in here.

I mean don't make a point of quoting a line about diversity to me, and then not be able to answer my points about it.

His speech went beyond rhetoric, a lot of it was just pure lies.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-07-2007, 02:07 AM   #74
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: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Though his speech was absolutely transparent and full of so much bullshit to me, I can see where a lot of people would fall for this stuff, we've seen a few in here.


While many people in this nation continue to view Fox News as a credible source of news, a man like Mitt Romney has a very good chance of winning the election. Both use the same type of manipulative tactics to win support for their views.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 12-07-2007, 02:45 AM   #75
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


a man like Mitt Romney has a very good chance of winning the election. Both use the same type of manipulative tactics to win support for their views.
You know it's very interesting. I've seen very outspoken "christian" conservatives go from saying 'I would never vote for him' to 'I'm thinking about it'.

So it is scary. Let's face it, the "christian" conservative base is pretty strict, we've only had one Catholic elected if I remember right. So I wonder if this growing support is due to 'we don't really have anyone on our side, he's the closest so he'll do'. Or if there is an actual opening of minds...

I would love for it to be an opening of minds, but I have my doubts.

But in the long run I could care less about his religion, his stances are what bother me.

That and his hair.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

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 08:24 PM.


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