Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


No, that's what he's saying, in words that aren't so blatant. Only people who read that literally don't come off with a strong impression of anti-secularism there.

Well, then along those lines, I could easily claim from what you said above that you did not need his speech to form this opinion about him.

[Moonlit_Angel]

'Kay, how about this, then:

Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]Romney Spokesman Won't Say If Atheists Have Place In America
By Eric Kleefeld - December 7, 2007, 9:48AM

A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday

It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/1...in_america.php

[/q]

What does that say to you?

Angela

[phillyfan26]

Oh, you mean his stances, background and political party aren't enough for me to judge him on his ... political stances?

I'm not judging his character. I'm judging his politics.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
'Kay, how about this, then:



What does that say to you?

Angela

An aid, not Mitt Romney himself, declines to comment about something and all of sudden were claiming this and that about Romney.

Seems more like a witch hunt to me.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by phillyfan26
Oh, you mean his stances, background and political party aren't enough for me to judge him on his ... political stances?

I'm not judging his character. I'm judging his politics.

I think you have a point with his stances and maybe his background, but do you honestly judge someone simply by which political party they are apart of?

[phillyfan26]

No. By their politicaly party, background, and stances, like I said.

How did you make that leap?

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally posted by Strongbow
An aid, not Mitt Romney himself, declines to comment about something and all of sudden were claiming this and that about Romney.

Seems more like a witch hunt to me.

The part in bold wasn't from an aid, that was from Romney himself. Thoughts on that?

Angela

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Strongbow



An aid, not Mitt Romney himself, declines to comment about something and all of sudden were claiming this and that about Romney.

Seems more like a witch hunt to me.

Uh, she bolded Romney's quote that literally says seculars are wrong.

[U2DMfan]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I actually don't know of any and I'm not against gay marriage myself. I don't know if it was illegal in the USSR or not, but tend to think that it was not legal, which would have meant that there would have been a non-religious arguement against gay marriage, but I have no idea what that would have been.

Homosexuality itself was considered illegal in the USSR.

The Soviet Union believed in sacrificing personal liberty for the collective good. They did not extend human rights to everyone and certainly weren't a model for a moral secular government.

Now if the USSR banned homosexuality, much less gay marriage perhaps the reasons were totally secular but to use this as a platform to state the legitimacy of secular opposition is pretty hideous.

Now, you aren't endorsing that train of thought but you are propping up an argument based on it. Perhaps you could just admit that using the USSR as an example of what a legitimate secular viewpoint might look like, was a bad idea. You may not mean to say that but you are absolutely implying it.

Here is an idea, lets forget about communist governments that tried to squash freedoms and talk about democracies who actually want to extend all personal liberties to the individual.

So, we have the United States. We have opposition to basic freedoms to one particular group. Gay marriage. Yeah. the "fags", the last bastion of whipping post bigotry.
I ask you, what is the legitimate secular argument against it?
And when you can't come up with one, don't feel bad, neither can Mitt or anyone else.

This is the point where the wall of separation is supposed to stand up for basic freedoms extended out to everyone. If you don't believe they are equal, because of religous dogma or socialist tyranny, it hardly matters. You're painfully wrong.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


The part in bold wasn't from an aid, that was from Romney himself. Thoughts on that?

Angela

Not any different than what your doing from the other end of the table. Again, it does not mean he believes non-religious people are not Americans.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by U2DMfan
Now if the USSR banned homosexuality, much less gay marriage perhaps the reasons were totally secular but to use this as a platform to state the legitimacy of secular opposition is pretty hideous.

Now, you aren't endorsing that train of thought but you are propping up an argument based on it. Perhaps you could just admit that using the USSR as an example of what a legitimate secular viewpoint might look like, was a bad idea. You may not mean to say that but you are absolutely implying it.

Here is an idea, lets forget about communist governments that tried to squash freedoms and talk about democracies who actually want to extend all personal liberties to the individual.

So, we have the United States. We have opposition to basic freedoms to one particular group. Gay marriage. Yeah. the faggies, the last bastion of whipping post bigotry.
I ask you, what is the legitimate secular argument against it?
And when you can't come up with one, don't feel bad, neither can Mitt or anyone else.

This is the point where the wall of separation is supposed to stand up for basic freedoms extended out to everyone. If you don't believe they are equal, because of religous dogma or socialist tyranny, it hardly matters. You're painfully wrong.

Exactly.

The bottom line is this:

I don't know any secular who is against gay marriage.

I don't know anyone who is against gay marriage who isn't against it on anything other than religious grounds.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by U2DMfan


Homosexuality itself was considered illegal in the USSR.

The Soviet Union believed in sacrificing personal liberty for the collective good. They did not extend human rights to everyone and certainly weren't a model for a moral secular government.

Now if the USSR banned homosexuality, much less gay marriage perhaps the reasons were totally secular but to use this as a platform to state the legitimacy of secular opposition is pretty hideous.

Now, you aren't endorsing that train of thought but you are propping up an argument based on it. Perhaps you could just admit that using the USSR as an example of what a legitimate secular viewpoint might look like, was a bad idea. You may not mean to say that but you are absolutely implying it.

Here is an idea, lets forget about communist governments that tried to squash freedoms and talk about democracies who actually want to extend all personal liberties to the individual.

So, we have the United States. We have opposition to basic freedoms to one particular group. Gay marriage. Yeah. the "fags", the last bastion of whipping post bigotry.
I ask you, what is the legitimate secular argument against it?
And when you can't come up with one, don't feel bad, neither can Mitt or anyone else.

This is the point where the wall of separation is supposed to stand up for basic freedoms extended out to everyone. If you don't believe they are equal, because of religous dogma or socialist tyranny, it hardly matters. You're painfully wrong.

Someone claimed that opposition to gay marriage could only come from a religious point of view. All I did was point out that was not true, with the example of the USSR and you confirmed that.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


Exactly.

The bottom line is this:

I don't know any secular who is against gay marriage.

I don't know anyone who is against gay marriage who isn't against it on anything other than religious grounds.

Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally posted by Strongbow
Not any different than what your doing from the other end of the table.

What am I (or what are those who agree with me) doing ?

Originally posted by Strongbow
Again, it does not mean he believes non-religious people are not Americans.

No. But he doesn't seem to think their views on keeping religion and politics separate are worth noting.

Angela

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Strongbow
Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?

You're missing the point entirely.

[U2DMfan]

By the way, best thread in weeks and weeks.

Originally posted by Strongbow


Someone claimed that opposition to gay marriage could only come from a religious point of view. All I did was point out that was not true, with the example of the USSR and you confirmed that.

I know Strongbow, my point was that you are implying that this is a legitimate viewpoint or argument.

Not "legitimate" in that you endorse it, "legitimate" as in, "hey, they were secular and they thought XYZ so clearly there is an argument to be made" It's like saying the moon doesn't cause tides because it's made of spare ribs. It's an argument, sure. How legitimate is it? It's not.

The original poster (who said opposition to gay marriage was faith-based) probably thought it was implied that we are having a discussion about legit points of view.

To answer your second question: "Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?" I think they thought that homosexuals were basically subhuman. That's not the kind of secular arguments we should be talking about. That's all I wanted to say.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by U2DMfan
Not "legitimate" in that you endorse it, "legitimate" as in, "hey, they were secular and they thought XYZ so clearly there is an argument to be made" It's like saying the moon doesn't cause tides because it's made of spare ribs. It's an argument, sure. How legitimate is it? It's not.

The original poster probably thought it was implied, that we are having a discussion about legit points of view. You found one example, possible there are others. Find one that is legit and I think it's easier to say that there is a standard for secular opposition to gay marriage.

To answer your second question: "Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?" I think they thought that homosexuals were basically subhuman. That's not the kind of secular arguments we should be talking about. That's all I wanted to say.

Yes, I did assume it was implied that I meant legitimate arguments.

Everything you said here pretty much sums up my thoughts.

[BVS]

Wow, I don't know if we've ever had anyone talk AROUND the subject this much ever.

Strongbow, I don't even know if you have a true stance about anything in this discussion.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by U2DMfan
By the way, best thread in weeks and weeks.



I know Strongbow, my point was that you are implying that this is a legitimate viewpoint or argument.

Not "legitimate" in that you endorse it, "legitimate" as in, "hey, they were secular and they thought XYZ so clearly there is an argument to be made" It's like saying the moon doesn't cause tides because it's made of spare ribs. It's an argument, sure. How legitimate is it? It's not.

The original poster (who said opposition to gay marriage was faith-based) probably thought it was implied that we are having a discussion about legit points of view.

To answer your second question: "Well, then how would explain opposition to it in the USSR?" I think they thought that homosexuals were basically subhuman. That's not the kind of secular arguments we should be talking about. That's all I wanted to say.

No, all I was saying was that opposition to gay marriage was not something that only came out of religion. I have no idea what a secular arguement against gay marriage would be, but the Soviets obviously had one.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by phillyfan26




You're missing the point entirely.

You said the following:

I don't know anyone who is against gay marriage who isn't against it on anything other than religious grounds.

Since the Soviets did not have any religion, what grounds did they oppose gay marriage on?