Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion

[Irvine511]

I still think Melon inadvertently summed it up best when he called people of faith "reactionary zealots." No wonder people are frustrated.

i'm honestly suprised at how someone as smart as you loses all grasp of nuance when it comes to the discussion of religion.

we're talking about political language here. if you read Melon's post, he said that he himself is a person of faith, but do you think Romney is speaking to Melon at all when he talks about "people of faith" in this speech? do you think Romney is talking to, say, Bono? yolland?

no. Romney is talking to a clearly defined, politically undrestood, focused-grouped, polled, and directly-marketed-to group of people, usually refered to as White Evangelical Protestants.

 

[Irvine511]

Hmmm.... does radical Islam, and I'm talking the folks that call for the destruction of all non-islamic government's in the world pose a bigger threat to Germany than Scientology? Probably so. I doubt Germany would ever take action like this toward fundamentalist islam. Why? Cause Osama would call for Jihad that would burn the country down, one suicide bomber at a time.

Bullshit.

and what on earth does this have to do with Romney's bemoaning "empty cathedrals" in europe?

would, say, Muscular Christianity be able to stand up to the Muslim masses?

 

[financeguy]

the rise of radical Islam in Europe has nothing to do with the status of Christianity on the Continent and everything to do with the inability of European nations to effectively assimilate their Muslim immigrants.

Agreed.

 

[INDY500]

I find the "empty cathedrals" line a great metaphor for what's occurring all around us in Western civilization. Forget Muslims assimilating for a moment, how many native Westerners feel like aliens in their own culture because they are ignorant of (not taught) the literature, history, morality and philosophies that make us who we are -- and the role that Christianity had in shaping them.
The very values of the West are based on Christianity, what happens to those values when that foundation is allowed to crumble and the cathedrals become empty?

Perhaps Muslim immigrants find it hard to assimilate because there is no one around to explain to them why they should.

 

[BVS]

I don't understand this question. Likewise, where do you stand when one's "non-faith" infringes upon another's rights.

In other words, "what's faith got to do with it?"

You serious?

Show me an example and we'll talk.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I find the "empty cathedrals" line a great metaphor for what's occurring all around us in Western civilization. Forget Muslims assimilating for a moment, how many native Westerners feel like aliens in their own culture because they are ignorant of (not taught) the literature, history, morality and philosophies that make us who we are -- and the role that Christianity had in shaping them.
The very values of the West are based on Christianity, what happens to those values when that foundation is allowed to crumble and the cathedrals become empty?

Perhaps Muslim immigrants find it hard to assimilate because there is no one around to explain to them why they should.

It's not as if we abandoned the values that came with Christianity.
Sure, the core of the Enlightenment movement was the Christian belief, we just got rid of the bastardisation the Catholic church made it to be.

Today we have a very liberal Christianity in most parts (and still other parts of Europe remain very conservative) and an increasing part leaves the churches for various reasons (many still believe, but prefer to be free of the instiutionalised religion), but it doesn't mean there is any vacuum or that we are in any other state of "lacking something". We still have certain values that are grounded in the Christian teachings, and we still expect, and try to teach, immigrants to respect our values.

 

[anitram]

The very values of the West are based on Christianity, what happens to those values when that foundation is allowed to crumble and the cathedrals become empty?

Perhaps Muslim immigrants find it hard to assimilate because there is no one around to explain to them why they should.

Poor argument given how well Muslims are integrated in Canada, which is far less religious or Christian than the US.

Europe does not have a history of immigration the way North America does. It is far more protectionist. My grandfather is German (by virtue of which my Mom and her sister also have citizenship). My parents briefly considered emigrating to Germany, but we would all essentially have to change our names back to her maiden name in order to "disguise" ourselves simply because Germans were not particularly accepting of outsiders. I don't mean to the last one, but as a nation, they are simply not as open to immigrants the way Canada or the USA are. And I don't know what element of racism there may exist against non-white immigrants, but I have a lot of family in Germany (and Austria) who are white and Christian immigrants and frankly they never really felt like they 100% belonged nor did any of them ever say they are German. As opposed to all of us in Canada who will say we are Canadian of ___ ethnicity.

So to me, this has little, if anything to do with a lack of attendance in churches or a rise in secularism and all to do with European intolerance to immigration as compared to North American tolerance.

 

[Irvine511]

I find the "empty cathedrals" line a great metaphor for what's occurring all around us in Western civilization. Forget Muslims assimilating for a moment, how many native Westerners feel like aliens in their own culture because they are ignorant of (not taught) the literature, history, morality and philosophies that make us who we are -- and the role that Christianity had in shaping them.
The very values of the West are based on Christianity, what happens to those values when that foundation is allowed to crumble and the cathedrals become empty?

Perhaps Muslim immigrants find it hard to assimilate because there is no one around to explain to them why they should.

i'm sorry, but i think this is preposterous. while some places in the US remain quite religiously conservative, is it any wonder why anyone who's different flees these places as soon as they possibly can for the bigger, more liberal metropolis? people feel like aliens inside a strict, confining culture that refuses to let them be who they are, and a culture that often punishes those that stray too far from the fold. these are the values of conservative Christianity as well. people feel like aliens when they are told that they don't fit, that they aren't good enough, that they aren't pious enough, that they have fallen short of the arbitrary standards set by sealed off communities. they do not feel like aliens when they live in a culture that provides a vast array of means and methods by which to self-create.

and, most importantly, people do not feel like aliens inside a SECULAR culture that views all religions as equally unimportant, and thus people are left alone to self-create, self-define, and, to quote someone else, to "live, work, and pray" as they best see fit, not as said communities might see fit.

also, the "values" of the West of course have Christian roots, but i'd argue that contemporary life is far, far more based on The Enlightenment and 19th century Continental philosophy than anything in the Bible. in fact, if you want a true Biblical culture, go back to the Middle Ages in Europe. for it was only when Europe broke from these traditional values with the Englightenment that centuries of religious warfare began to subside.

John Locke has more to do with how we live than Jesus Christ.

 

[Irvine511]

So to me, this has little, if anything to do with a lack of attendance in churches or a rise in secularism and all to do with European intolerance to immigration as compared to North American tolerance.

but it gave Romney a moment to Euro-bash.

it's really not much different than slipping "under God" into the pledge like they did in the 1950s FOR NO OTHER REASON than to distinguish our culture from the "godless" communists. nothing, but NOTHING, to do with our "Christian" founding fathers or whatever.

again, i encourage everyone to go and read the Hitchens article i posted further. you might not agree, but it's about the most entertaining evisceration of a candidate i've read in a long time.

 

[melon]

The very values of the West are based on Christianity, what happens to those values when that foundation is allowed to crumble and the cathedrals become empty?

That strikes me as a rather narrow, self-serving view of what created "Western Civilization." No discussion of this subject is complete without a thorough discussion of the ancient Greek and Roman contributors, who created the foundation, Latin-speaking Christian philosophers who maintained such knowledge for a few hundred years after the Empire fell until they, too, disappeared, the Islamic philosophers who maintained the best of the West and the East, the later Christian philosophers that took this knowledge from the Spanish Moors (via the Spanish Jews who translated it), then finally secular European philosophers who kept up this knowledge long after the great medieval philosophers like Aquinas had died and Christianity completely lost interest in these subjects (coinciding, interestingly, in Islam's decline in such interests too).

The "very values of the West" are based on the contributions of all these groups, and to exaggerate the importance of Christianity is intellectually dishonest.

 

[phillyfan26]

i'm sorry, but i think this is preposterous. while some places in the US remain quite religiously conservative, is it any wonder why anyone who's different flees these places as soon as they possibly can for the bigger, more liberal metropolis? people feel like aliens inside a strict, confining culture that refuses to let them be who they are, and a culture that often punishes those that stray too far from the fold. these are the values of conservative Christianity as well. people feel like aliens when they are told that they don't fit, that they aren't good enough, that they aren't pious enough, that they have fallen short of the arbitrary standards set by sealed off communities. they do not feel like aliens when they live in a culture that provides a vast array of means and methods by which to self-create.

and, most importantly, people do not feel like aliens inside a SECULAR culture that views all religions as equally unimportant, and thus people are left alone to self-create, self-define, and, to quote someone else, to "live, work, and pray" as they best see fit, not as said communities might see fit.

Exactly.

I'm a relatively liberal minded person growing up in a very conservative household. I don't discuss religion or politics with my family. It just doesn't happen. The few times I've tried, I can tell that I have completely different views than my family. I'm very alienated in that sense, so faith and politics, two major issues, never come up. Ever. We're all Catholics and we go to Church, but we don't talk about faith. And the only conversation I ever had about politics with my mother just showed me that we don't share the same values.

I don't feel resent towards them for it, but I do feel a bit alienated from having intellectual discussion with them on issues, knowing their values contrast so much with mine, that ultimately I'm going to be lectured about how the reason I don't understand their views is that I haven't experienced enough of the world to see the conservative side.

Quite frankly, I feel the same way talking to conservatives on here: that I'm just stubborn and angry and I ignore their side. It's not true. They think I'm some kind of secular wiseass (well, the wiseass part might be true ) who has no respect for religion. It's not true. I know where they come from. I just don't agree with it. Conservatives in general are very alienating, to me, because they're so set in their beliefs that any other beliefs are just ridiculous. Maybe that's why I've become more liberal: I see too much of the argument from both sides to be conservative.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Ditto phillyfan's post, although my immediate family all shares pretty similar views when it comes to religion. I haven't been near a church in years, because I didn't feel comfortable reciting the exact same words along with everyone else, I didn't like being told to pray at the same time everyone else did, and in this way, and stuff like that. And then, even though our church was Lutheran, they for some reason started incorporating Catholic practices into the church. Nothing wrong with the Catholic faith, but...my family's not Catholic, so that was a bit of a problem, too.

And then when I hear about all the other sorts of shunning that Irvine alluded to, I'm even less interested in going to church. I've absolutely no doubt that there are churches out there that are not so restrictive and stingy and clique-ish, and should I find one of them, I'd be happy to step in and see what's up. Until then, so long as some churches out there feel this need to try and make everyone conform to their lifestyle, their beliefs, etc., there's going to be problems. There are many, many reasons why churches aren't filling up nowadays, to blame it on one thing (and to target another religion in the process) makes no sense.

Angela

 

[Strongbow]

I really don't see why so many people are upset about politicians talking about their faith. If U2's faith, often expressed in the songs you so devotedly listen to does not bother you, why would this? Are people upset that the Edge claims a spiritual force works through them to help create their music, as he says on the Unforgettable Fire documentary? The mentioning of faith and spiritual things does not necessarily mean that the individual does not respect those with different views.

 

[phillyfan26]

Did you honestly just compare politicians trying to put faith into policy to U2 putting faith in their songs? Really?

 

[Strongbow]

Did you honestly just compare politicians trying to put faith into policy to U2 putting faith in their songs? Really?

If you are entertained by the one, it seems strange that you would be so hostile to the other. Honestly, get over it. The vast majority of politicians have mixed religion and politics in various ways since the United States became a country.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I really don't see why so many people are upset about politicians talking about their faith.

It doesn't-talking about one's faith in and of itself is never bad. What bothers me is when they try and push their faith onto others.

If U2's faith, often expressed in the songs you so devotedly listen to does not bother you, why would this?

Read answer above.

Are people upset that the Edge claims a spiritual force works through them to help create their music, as he says on the Unforgettable Fire documentary?

First off, spiritual force-well, that's universal. That could mean anything.

Second, there's a bit of a difference between someone claiming they were spiritually inspired to create music that I can CHOOSE whether or not to listen to and somebody who may possibly be running this country claiming to be inspired to make laws based on what their religion says.

The mentioning of faith and spiritual things does not necessarily mean that the individual does not respect those with different views.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't always mean that. Unfortunately, I think there's a few politicians in this election that don't seem to show much respect for those who aren't of their faith.

Angela

 

[BVS]

I really don't see why so many people are upset about politicians talking about their faith. If U2's faith, often expressed in the songs you so devotedly listen to does not bother you, why would this? Are people upset that the Edge claims a spiritual force works through them to help create their music, as he says on the Unforgettable Fire documentary? The mentioning of faith and spiritual things does not necessarily mean that the individual does not respect those with different views.

One I listen to and has no power over my rights, the other does. You can't be serious.

 

[phillyfan26]

If you are entertained by the one, it seems strange that you would be so hostile to the other. Honestly, get over it. The vast majority of politicians have mixed religion and politics in various ways since the United States became a country.

It doesn't seem strange at all, actually. You're comparing music to politics. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[Strongbow]

One I listen to and has no power over my rights, the other does. You can't be serious.

So I take it you would not vote for Bono to be Mayor of Dublin one day if you were a Dubliner? It seems strange to be so hostile and afraid of something that your entertained by despite the obvious distinction between music and politics. If anything, U2 are certainly believers in combining all three, music, religion, and politics.

 

[Strongbow]

It doesn't seem strange at all, actually. You're comparing music to politics. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And what did Adam Clayton say about comparing or combining music and politics in Rattle And Hum.

 

[phillyfan26]

You don't seem to understand. It's not about being religious in your life. It's about religion in policy.

Bono's never attempted to alienate groups of people in his own country due to their religious views.

 

[phillyfan26]

And what did Adam Clayton say about comparing or combining music and politics in Rattle And Hum.

That it's OK to write politics into music?

Again, not even remotely relevant to the argument.

 

[Strongbow]

It doesn't-talking about one's faith in and of itself is never bad. What bothers me is when they try and push their faith onto others.



Read answer above.



First off, spiritual force-well, that's universal. That could mean anything.

Second, there's a bit of a difference between someone claiming they were spiritually inspired to create music that I can CHOOSE whether or not to listen to and somebody who may possibly be running this country claiming to be inspired to make laws based on what their religion says.



You're absolutely right, it doesn't always mean that. Unfortunately, I think there's a few politicians in this election that don't seem to show much respect for those who aren't of their faith.

Angela

Well, how is Romney pushing his faith on anyone with this speach any more so than U2 is pushing their faith on anyone with a song?

I think its rather obvious what the Edge is speaking of on the Unforgettable Fire documentary.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

So I take it you would not vote for Bono to be Mayor of Dublin one day if you were a Dubliner?

Somehow I get the feeling Bono wouldn't use his faith to start wars or ban gay marriage or something along that line, so I'd trust him to run a place more than I would somebody like Romney.

We're not "hostile" or "afraid" of religion at all. Some of us here DO belong to various faiths, are religious to varying degrees. We just firmly believe in keeping one's faith out of the law-making process. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Angela

 

[Strongbow]

You don't seem to understand. It's not about being religious in your life. It's about religion in policy.

Bono's never attempted to alienate groups of people in his own country due to their religious views.

And how do you know that Romney is attempting to alienate groups of people in his own country due to their religious views with this speech? I don't think the goal of this speech was to alienate anyone. Its rather easy to take what someone says and claim it means their intolerant of people with certain views.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well, how is Romney pushing his faith on anyone with this speach any more so than U2 is pushing their faith on anyone with a song?

Well, let's see, the fact that he seems to exclude anyone who is non-religious, the fact that he seems to indicate that having faith is of some importance when it comes to dealing with issues facing this country... He can't put any of that into practice now, because he isn't president. But if he were to be, he's basically stating now that he would use religion as a means to decide the laws of this country.

Once again, I can turn off a song that is overly religious if I don't like it. I cannot do that with a president who uses religion to enforce laws. What they do will affect me. Therefore, it's a bit more important.

Besides that, U2 has more of a tendency to speak in universal terms and does not exclude anybody with their more spiritual/religious songs.

I think its rather obvious what the Edge is speaking of on the Unforgettable Fire documentary.

I'd have to watch it again to see what all you're referring to. But once again, there is a difference between feeling inspired to create some sort of art based on spiritual feelings, art which you have a choice as to whether or not you want to look at/listen to/whatever, and running an entire country and implementing laws based on spiritual feelings, laws which will have an effect on both those who share the leader's faith and those who do not..

Angela

 

[Strongbow]

Somehow I get the feeling Bono wouldn't use his faith to start wars or ban gay marriage or something along that line, so I'd trust him to run a place more than I would somebody like Romney.

We're not "hostile" or "afraid" of religion at all. Some of us here DO belong to various faiths, are religious to varying degrees. We just firmly believe in keeping one's faith out of the law-making process. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Angela

When did Romney use his faith as a justification to start a war or ban gay marriage?

Can you honestly say that no politician is ever impacted by their religion or where ever they get their sense of morality or other beliefs when making policy? Plus, how would you ever be able to objectively determine that independent of what the candidate actually says?

When it comes to this, is Jimmy Carter really any different from Mitt Romney or George Bush?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

When did Romney use his faith as a justification to start a war or ban gay marriage?

1, I was saying "someone like" Romney-somebody who has beliefs similar to his could do, and has done, things like that (Bush has certainly used his faith as a means to justify those sorts of issues, after all).

2, he hasn't started either of those things, but he sure supports them. And I feel he would likely continue to support them should he become president. The question then is whether or not he'd enact laws based on his beliefs in regards to those issues. If his speech is any indication, I'd say he would.

Can you honestly say that no politician is ever impacted by their religion or where ever they get their sense of morality or other beliefs when making policy? Plus, how would you ever be able to objectively determine that independent of what the candidate actually says?

I know full well many politicians are impacted by their religion when making policy. What we're saying is that that needs to stop. They can use their faith to determine their own personal views, but when it comes to making laws, they have to look beyond that and realize that what they do will impact people who may very well not be of their faith, and judge whether or not what they decide to do is fair and works for the country as a whole or not.

As for how to determine it, well, I guess I'd say I'd pay attention to their actions. If I see a pattern of their religion influencing their law-making process, I'm going to determine that this is a common thing with them.

When it comes to this, is Jimmy Carter really any different from Mitt Romney or George Bush?

I wasn't alive when Jimmy was president, so I can't comment on how much his religion influenced his policy-making. I know it was a factor, as I've heard him reference his faith in the past in the few things I've observed regarding him, but to what extent, I'm not sure.

Angela

 

[phillyfan26]

Well, how is Romney pushing his faith on anyone with this speach any more so than U2 is pushing their faith on anyone with a song?

I think its rather obvious what the Edge is speaking of on the Unforgettable Fire documentary.

U2's not pushing their faith on anyone. It's music. You don't have to listen.

It's unbelievable to me that you don't grasp this.

 

[BVS]

So I take it you would not vote for Bono to be Mayor of Dublin one day if you were a Dubliner? It seems strange to be so hostile and afraid of something that your entertained by despite the obvious distinction between music and politics. If anything, U2 are certainly believers in combining all three, music, religion, and politics.

You really seem to be missing the point.
Bono's religion wouldn't matter to me if he were running, it would be his platform. Now if part of his platform contained legislation that was purely religious and not for the best of Dublin, then hell no I wouldn't vote for him.

If his religion said mustaches are an abomination so he was going to move to ban mustaches, this is a purely religious view and has no part in politics. Just like an ammendment to ban gay marriage is a purely religious view and has no part in our politics.