Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.

hmmmm......Its ok, have a good time, try a pint of snakebite.

[maycocksean]

What Strongbow needs is Financeguy. (Isn't he atheist but opposed to gay marriage or does my memory fail me?)

I think it's needlessly simplistic to insist that only religious people could possibly be opposed to gay marriage. There are "secular" people who are opposed to gay marriage; secular people "opposed" to homosexuality. The reasons they have? Pretty weak I'd guess (and probably appealing to a vague sense of what's "traditional" and "normal.") But the root for their stance is the same as the root for religious folks' opposition--good old fashioned prejudice. It's clumsy and ugly but at bottom for all opponents of gay marriage is this unpleasant "argument": "It's just WEIRD"

As for Romney, I don't think he "truly" hates secular people anymore than I think he's "truly" an evangelical at heart. (If he has any real beliefs at all--which I wonder about sometimes--it's that the evangelicals are all wrong and would be better off as Mormons). His speech was POLITICAL! He was wooing a particular group of people, trying to make them feel comfortable with him and willing to say whatever he needed to say to reach that end.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Strongbow


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.

You do realize their system failed? Right? So there were issues with their system. The fact that you bring it up is astonishing...

All societies thought that minorities were somehow inferior at once(religious or secular). Be it left handed people, dwarfs, etc...

But we are talking about the year 2007 and we are talking about a democracy. Show me one, just one secular argument in todays time that isn't religious that says gay marriage is worthy of a ban... Just one. I dare you!!!

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You do realize their system failed? Right? So there were issues with their system. The fact that you bring it up is astonishing...

All societies thought that minorities were somehow inferior at once(religious or secular). Be it left handed people, dwarfs, etc...

But we are talking about the year 2007 and we are talking about a democracy. Show me one, just one secular argument in todays time that isn't religious that says gay marriage is worthy of a ban... Just one. I dare you!!!

I can't show any arguement, securlar, religious, alien, drunk, etc. against gay marriage. All I was saying was that opposition to gay marriage could come from something other than religion. It has nothing to do with democracy or systems of government or what year it is.

[BVS]

Originally posted by maycocksean
What Strongbow needs is Financeguy. (Isn't he atheist but opposed to gay marriage or does my memory fail me?)

I can't remember this person's paticular stance, but yes there have been athiest that have been opposed, but it always came down to status quo and bigotry. I have never seen one logical athiest view on the ban.

Originally posted by maycocksean

I think it's needlessly simplistic to insist that only religious people could possibly be opposed to gay marriage. There are "secular" people who are opposed to gay marriage; secular people "opposed" to homosexuality. The reasons they have? Pretty weak I'd guess (and probably appealing to a vague sense of what's "traditional" and "normal.") But the root for their stance is the same as the root for religious folks' opposition--good old fashioned prejudice. It's clumsy and ugly but at bottom for all opponents of gay marriage is this unpleasant "argument": "It's just WEIRD"

But the overall point being made in this thread, is not whether there are non-religious arguments being made for the issue, it's what points are CONSTITUTIONAL!!! This is something many in this thread don't get.

Originally posted by maycocksean

As for Romney, I don't think he "truly" hates secular people anymore than I think he's "truly" an evangelical at heart. (If he has any real beliefs at all--which I wonder about sometimes--it's that the evangelicals are all wrong and would be better off as Mormons). His speech was POLITICAL! He was wooing a particular group of people, trying to make them feel comfortable with him and willing to say whatever he needed to say to reach that end.

Well I agree and disagree to a point. I think this speech was to prove to the religious right that he was CC as anyone else. That's all, he was trying to prove that a Mormon could be like Bush.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I can't show any arguement, securlar, religious, alien, drunk, etc. against gay marriage. All I was saying was that opposition to gay marriage could come from something other than religion. It has nothing to do with democracy or systems of government or what year it is.

Of course it comes from anywhere, but you have to have SOMETHING to back it up when you introduce into a democracy, right? I mean you don't want a president that just introduces law based on his psychic, right?

There needs to be logical reasoning behing legislation. Hopefully you agreed with me on this. If not this argument is useless.

So if your argument is purely religious than it's useless, so we get back to the original question asked, the one you've talked around.

Give me one logical reason why in a democracy two women can't get married?

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Of course it comes from anywhere, but you have to have SOMETHING to back it up when you introduce into a democracy, right? I mean you don't want a president that just introduces law based on his psychic, right?

There needs to be logical reasoning behing legislation. Hopefully you agreed with me on this. If not this argument is useless.

So if your argument is purely religious than it's useless, so we get back to the original question asked, the one you've talked around.

Give me one logical reason why in a democracy two women can't get married?

I've not talked around that at all, I've already answered that at least twice including my last response.

[BVS]

No, you haven't. You said how you don't know where you stand but you said nothing about why a president should be running on such a stance.

Should a president be allowed(constitutionally) to run on a platform that has stances that are purely religious?

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
No, you haven't. You said how you don't know where you stand but you said nothing about why a president should be running on such a stance.

Should a president be allowed(constitutionally) to run on a platform that has stances that are purely religious?

If you actually look at what you asked and my response above, you will see that I answered the question.


You can run on any damn platform you want(provided its not breaking the law or puting someone in immediate danger), and its unlikely that whatever your platform is, that its technically purely religious, meaning not a single non-religious person would vote for it.

[BVS]

So you'll stand behind any president that gets voted in and they start legislating their religious views?

[BonosSaint]

Romney intended this speech to say nothing and imply everything and the speech achieved the purpose, much like most speeches on faith by politicians of every stripe.

I'm confused as to whether some of the posters are equating gay marriage with civil union as none of the top tier Democratic candidates openly supports gay marriage but each supports civil union (coincidentally as do much of their base and most Americans) , opposed to Romney, Giuliani (now), Huckabee who support neither (coincidentally mirroring the views of the base they wish to court)

Politicians will say what will get them elected. So I don't pay much attention when a candidate speaks of his faith or totes a Bible (or Book of Mormon) around. Since the vast majority of Americans at least pay lip service to some sort of faith, I'd be surprised if most candidates didn't pay at least lip service to it. I expect politicians to be politically opportune. I also expect both nominated candidates to modify their positions once they are facing the general election. As a secularist, I find the faith talk so much blah-blah so I'm not particularly offended by it only by the fact that it lowers the bar of discussion (not that people of faith lower the bar but the vagueness and the sound bites do)

What I do watch is the social implications of the particular brand of faith they are espousing. On the most simple level, if that particular brand of faith is exclusionary, I will not support that candidate. If it is inclusionary, I likely will.

[yolland]

Originally posted by maycocksean
What Strongbow needs is Financeguy. (Isn't he atheist but opposed to gay marriage or does my memory fail me?)

I think it's needlessly simplistic to insist that only religious people could possibly be opposed to gay marriage. There are "secular" people who are opposed to gay marriage; secular people "opposed" to homosexuality. The reasons they have? Pretty weak I'd guess (and probably appealing to a vague sense of what's "traditional" and "normal.") But the root for their stance is the same as the root for religious folks' opposition--good old fashioned prejudice.

No, you're thinking of Aussie. Who's a problematic example to cite because by his own admission, though now an atheist, he was raised Catholic and still agrees with Catholic moral teaching on this particular issue. Essentially his argument was this: Gay people are predisposed to the immoral behavior of homosexuality due to an inborn flaw in their nature, just as certain others are born unnaturally predisposed to violent behavior. While its being inborn is good enough reason for the state to not actively persecute homosexuality, "the sacredness of marriage" on the other hand (he used that phrase repeatedly, in multiple threads) should be reserved for people who can procreate as nature intended (i.e. heterosexuals), lest we wind up celebrating unnatural and "sickening" immorality (he used that term repeatedly too) and, worse, tempting even those who aren't cursed with said inborn flaw into switching sides because it now seems "cool" (he asserted that a cousin of his "converted" to homosexuality for the latter reason).

In other words, straight Thomistic natural law doctrine, only minus the Prime Mover. Which philosophically speaking throws a major monkey wrench into the "argument," because the ability of teleological arguments to bridge science and ethics rests on their presumption of precisely that. It's an interesting example only insofar as it highlights the contrast between religious arguments against homosexuality (which while critiqueable like anything else are still structured like proper arguments, with thought-out progressions from premises to conclusions) and the "secular arguments" which no one's been able to produce thus far. I've certainly known lifelong nonreligious people who opposed gay sex, gay marriage or both, but I've never known one who could articulate anything resembling an "argument"--just baldfaced assertions like "It's gross" "It's not natural" "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and it should stay that way" etc.

The Stalinist "argument" (it was Stalin who criminalized homosexuality in the USSR) was to the best of my knowledge not a proper argument either--no real theory behind it, just the usual babble about bourgeois moral decadence and Germanic-fascistic pathologies (remember this was the 1930s) which served as catchall legal justification for all manner of inherited sociocultural prejudices at the time. It probably also helped that Stalinist policies concerning women and family were strongly pronatalist and needless to say, two men weren't going to be producing future proletarians together--though I don't think that was per se part of the "argument."

As for Romney, I don't think he "truly" hates secular people anymore than I think he's "truly" an evangelical at heart. (If he has any real beliefs at all--which I wonder about sometimes--it's that the evangelicals are all wrong and would be better off as Mormons). His speech was POLITICAL! He was wooing a particular group of people, trying to make them feel comfortable with him and willing to say whatever he needed to say to reach that end.

I doubt anyone in here literally thinks he "hates" nonreligious people, but I also think it's a stretch to suggest that he didn't in truth believe a thing he was saying and was merely desperately casting for approval. Clearly he's religious, clearly he has strong social conservative leanings, most likely he also finds evangelical conservatives' key political goals enough in accord with his own to sincerely offer them his services as the man to do the job (if they'll have him, which they probably won't), despite significant general theological differences with them. Which takes us back to square one on the question of whether religion-based justifications for legislation are acceptable.

[BonosSaint]

Point taken on whether or not a politician is sincere in his/her faith. Although yolland didn't address my post, I actually forgot to add in that I have no reason to believe that Romney's (or others') faith is not sincere and assume it is (which I did intend to add and was an unfortunate omission) I do believe lip service would be paid whether or not the faith is sincere or whether it is fervent or casual, whether a belief in an Almighty really has any relevance regarding governing a secular nation.

That being said, I think most people would have problem with a religious viewpoint in a candidate that did not gel with their social positions, no matter how sincere the faith. So, on the whole, I think the faith issue is a red herring.

[phillyfan26]

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

Certainly on no rational ground. I don't think it matters. Why? Because they didn't have to have a reason to do things like this.

C'mon, Strongbow, you're smarter than this.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Strongbow
I can't show any arguement, securlar, religious, alien, drunk, etc. against gay marriage. All I was saying was that opposition to gay marriage could come from something other than religion. It has nothing to do with democracy or systems of government or what year it is.

I'm sure opposition to freedom could come from something too. But can we not exact tolerance? And I mean real, classic tolerance, which means "view all people with equal respect, but be elitist with ideas."

If you, nor I, nor anyone here, can come up with a rational argument, then I think it's safe to say there is none.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by melon


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.

I try to keep my posts succinct and brief. We were talking about Christian cathedrals, I agree however,
so to your point I would say that Western civilization is based on classical civilization (Greece and pre-Christian Rome) as well as Christianity which is itself based on Judaism. The latter being the greater influence however.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Irvine511




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.

Don't take my word for it, read Nietzsche.
He called our western values (which he also said were based on Christianity) "shadows of the gods" and said it was just a temporary illusion that they would continue to flourish long after being separated from the philosophy which from whence they came.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by INDY500


Don't take my word for it, read Nietzsche.
He called our western values (which he also said were based on Christianity) "shadows of the gods" and said it was just a temporary illusion that they would continue to flourish long after being separated from the philosophy which from whence they came.

i've read Nietzsche.

i've also read a lot of other books. including Enlightenment-era philosophy.

it's never just one thing.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


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.

Good point about organized religion. Europe hasn't abandoned religion nearly to the degree that they have abandoned "organized religion." But to Romney's speech, some of us feel it is of the utmost importance that we continue to acknowledge our religious history, character and faith; not just in private, but publicly. Not in a pious or theological way, but as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and others have. The God on our money, monuments and to which we swear oaths. The God of public religion, Creation and providence.

[BonosSaint]

Romney apparently had no strong desire to address faith until Huckabee came into the mix. I don't think Giuliani by the stretch of anybody's imagination was a faith candidate and with just Giuliani challenging, Romney was the faith candidate by default. Huckabee's surge changed the game plan.