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.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
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
Blue Crack Supplier
maycocksean said:
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
Blue Crack Supplier
[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]
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]
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Strongbow said:
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
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Irvine511 said:
He had you at "open-minded students of our history ought to feel more guilt than pride" didn't he?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
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!
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I love how you Americans impersonate the German accent. 
But I especially love Conan O' Brien doing Schwarzenegger.
But I especially love Conan O' Brien doing Schwarzenegger.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Vincent Vega said: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.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
No worries, my marketing teacher is talking exactly the way you wrote there. And even worse, he is speaking in German grammar.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
INDY500 said:
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?
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
" 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.
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.
Last edited:
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
^ 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!
"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!
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
yolland said:
are you saying you want the terrorists to win?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
BonosSaint said:
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."
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I guess I might as well counter with more Medved.
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/c...12/05/resisting_the_smear_of_a_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.
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/c...12/05/resisting_the_smear_of_a_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.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
maycocksean said:
I'd like to Maycocksean but I'm feeling a little pissy (see above) and need a break from all the negativity during this season. Your 1st point is interesting. Let me just say that I beleive the Founders understood the need for both private AND public religion. Public religion is not meant to be a watered-down substitute for private religion, but must exist to allow all Americans to speak in reverent tones and share common virtues without the sectarian dogma of individual churches.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
you know, it is possible for some of us to keep more than one thought and/or emotion in our brains at once, and to view complex things, like nations or history, as neither all good nor all bad, but rather a mixture of the good and the bad.
i routinely defend the US against lazy Euro-centri anti-Americanism.
let's see you criticize something about the country (that won't be fixed by snorting another line of Jesus).
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
INDY500 said:
wtf? speak in reverent tones? about what? why should yolland speak reverently about Jesus? why should the lady who does the Buddhist meditation session i occasionally attend speak reverently about Jesus? why should any atheist speak reverently about the fabrication of god?
this is one of the challenges of being an American. you have to actually seek to make connections and forge common virtues. they are not handed to you by the state like they are in more homogeneous, blood-and-soil countries. we are the most diverse country on earth, and that's precisely *why* American patriotism -- flag waving, singing the national anthem -- is so much more overt than it is in, say, Germany. it takes work for a Texan to find a connection to a New Yorker, and assuming that all heart Jesus is not a good way to go about this.
so here's the challenge to you: find something to feel good about America that has nothing to do with your religious values (because, remember, as we've learned over and over again, the "founding fathers" weren't your kinds of Christians, most didnt believe in a God that intervened, not even in Colorado church shootings, and most didn't much care about the crucifixion) and rests totally upon finding common ground with people who are very different from you.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
I carry no guilt. Doesn't mean I don't feel shame for our dark periods as well as pride in our bright and shining periods (even though I bear no responsibility for either). I've never seen America in a singular light. We ask the world to admire us for our standard. I just want to see that we keep to that standard and don't make excuses when we fall from it. I don't want the symbol of America. I want the reality of America.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Editor And Publisher
GALLUP: Romney Speech Flopped? Large Numbers Still Say They Won't Vote for a Mormon
By E&P Staff
Published: December 11, 2007 11:25 AM ET
NEW YORK A new Gallup Poll finds that better than one in six Americans, including similar numbers of Republicans and Democrats, indicate they would not support their party's nominee for president if that person were a Mormon.
The poll was conducted from Dec. 6 to 9, immediately following the major speech by Republican presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney, in which he addrssed voter concern about his Mormon religion. The percentage of Republicans who now rule out voting for a Morman, 18%, is just one point lower than it was in March.
This stand against voting for a candidate based on one such factor is unusually high. Gallup observes: "Four percent of Americans (including 3% of Republicans) say they would not vote for a Catholic, 5% would not vote for a black, 12% would not vote for a woman, and 12% would not vote for a Hispanic."
Earlier this year, however, Gallup found 28% of Americans saying they would not vote for someone who is on his third marriage.
GALLUP: Romney Speech Flopped? Large Numbers Still Say They Won't Vote for a Mormon
By E&P Staff
Published: December 11, 2007 11:25 AM ET
NEW YORK A new Gallup Poll finds that better than one in six Americans, including similar numbers of Republicans and Democrats, indicate they would not support their party's nominee for president if that person were a Mormon.
The poll was conducted from Dec. 6 to 9, immediately following the major speech by Republican presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney, in which he addrssed voter concern about his Mormon religion. The percentage of Republicans who now rule out voting for a Morman, 18%, is just one point lower than it was in March.
This stand against voting for a candidate based on one such factor is unusually high. Gallup observes: "Four percent of Americans (including 3% of Republicans) say they would not vote for a Catholic, 5% would not vote for a black, 12% would not vote for a woman, and 12% would not vote for a Hispanic."
Earlier this year, however, Gallup found 28% of Americans saying they would not vote for someone who is on his third marriage.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
INDY500 said:
Here's what you don't get: I don't feel guilty about our nation's past, because I wasn't there. I didn't do it. I just don't celebrate or endorse the wrongdoings of the past. It's not all or nothing, though people on this board, including yourself, try to reduce the issues to black and white frequently. And that's where my little "Point going over your head" graphic would come in.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
Irvine511 said:
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
INDY500 said:
But same-sex marriage is an exception to the "without the sectarian dogma of individual churches" rule?
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
INDY500 said:
I celebrate both holidays happily every single year, thank you. On the 4th of July I celebrate the good things this country has done during its run and keep my hope that the country continues to do good things. On Thanksgiving I always reflect on the good things in my life that I am thankful for and hope that others will be able to find happiness in their lives.
INDY500 said:
I do. Whenever I hear somebody bash the U.S., I'm one of the first to kill whatever stereotypes they throw out. When I hear of good things that people in this country have done, I'm among the first to praise them, and stories like that fill me with pride and make me glad to live here.
I fully agree, there's a way to bring up the problems of our past without making today's generations feel guilty for the sins of their ancestors. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring it up when necessary. We need to keep it in mind so we never fall into the same traps again. And there are still some areas the U.S. needs to improve in, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing them out. It's not bashing so much as it is us saying that we know the U.S. is way better than that. We want this country to be looked at with admiration and respect, and in order to do that, we have to address the problems that are keeping us from obtaining that.
Angela
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
I'm sorry if my post inadvertently distracted from Sean's very worthwhile questions. But honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.INDY500 said:
Let me try approaching it from another angle and minus the incredulous sarcasm. My mother lost her entire family to the Holocaust. But, while one can never safely second-guess history, it's likely that had WWII and all the transformations it brought about never intervened, then yes, she probably wouldn't have had the 'standard of living' she has today nor the educational opportunities. But can you not see how offensive it would be for me to try to frame that to her as a 'silver lining' or a 'compensation'? It isn't, and it never will be. This has nothing to do with a demand that anyone beat their heads against the wall and chant 'woe is me' every day, much less not appreciate and put to good use what we have in the here and now. It's just the principle that you don't seek to frame mass tragedies as blessings in disguise. There are worthy lines of argument to be drawn upon against reparations (since that was the topic at hand), but this isn't one of them.yolland said:
Last edited:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
^ bring it on.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
He looks like a wax statue there
Similar threads
