phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
Probably the right strategy for the GOP nomination.
But a horrible speech from an independent standpoint.
But a horrible speech from an independent standpoint.
I'd say he was a plagiarist.BonoVoxSupastar said:
But what if these exact words were said by a Muslim?
If an American of Muslim faith can answer these questions in the affirmative, what makes you think I'd somehow object if he said the other stuff?Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
INDY500 said:
I'd say he was a plagiarist.
But, quoting another line from Romney's speech.
If an American of Muslim faith can answer these questions in the affirmative, what makes you think I'd somehow object if he said the other stuff?
What would you think about Romney's exact words being said by a Muslim?
INDY500 said:
Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
If an American of Muslim faith can answer these questions in the affirmative, what makes you think I'd somehow object if he said the other stuff?
What would you think about Romney's exact words being said by a Muslim?
Bluer White said:Independents don't have some sense of natural law?
Bluer White said:Independents don't have some sense of natural law?
phillyfan26 said:Probably the right strategy for the GOP nomination.
But a horrible speech from an independent standpoint.
INDY500 said:Out of curiosity, have you ever read the JFK, in who's footsteps Romney is walking here, speech on his faith in 1960?
...Like Kennedy and his Catholics, Romney presumably has a lock on the Mormon vote. But that bloc is much smaller, perhaps five or six million strong. And instead of being concentrated in swing states, Mormons reside largely in intermountain states that for the most part are already solidly Republican. In the key states where Romney faces an early test, he isn't likely to find many Mormons, no matter what he says on Thursday.
Then there are the differing thresholds. For one thing, Kennedy needed to lower the fears of Vatican control of American policy, so he could flatly state that he would not be taking orders from Rome and that his faith was a private matter. Romney at a minimum needs to do that—to say that even though Mormons believe that the head of their church is a prophet who receives God's living word, he would not be taking orders from Salt Lake City—but must do more. Kennedy could wall off his private beliefs from his public policy and be fine, since Democrats especially were happy to keep the two apart. But Romney is in—let's not forget—a Republican primary fight, where base voters want to know that your faith informs your policy. It's almost a disqualifier to say it has no real influence on you.
Kennedy and his team thought the problem they faced was ignorance, which could be addressed by educating voters. But Evangelicals believe Mormonism is a faith that views the Bible as requiring revision, and that when Romney says Christ is his Saviour, he doesn't mean it the same way evangelicals do. Those aren't misunderstandings, they are real differences of faith. As a Romney-backing Evangelical told me in October, "Some of my people—a lot of them—are just never going to go there."
And that brings up another crucial difference between Romney's predicament and Kennedy's. You could call it the fervor gap. Like the Southern Baptists, Mormons are a professing religion: they want to spread the word, win converts, save souls. This isn't a problem for a lot of Americans. But it is a problem for many conservative Christians. Many of them believe that if the G.O.P. nominates Romney—much less if the country elects him as President—Mormons will gain a stronger hand in the all-important business of saving souls. To them, the stakes of that struggle are as great or greater than any fight about a political office.
Actually, I believe he did.phillyfan26 said:
I have in fact.
Kennedy says:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."
Romney did not.
Which, actually, begins the paragraph which ends with a part of the speech which I singled out as one of my favorites. The part that addresses the, forgotten by some, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion of the First Amendment.We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.
But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
phillyfan26 said:And that section you quoted at the end I disagree with. He defines the public domain differently than I do.
INDY500 said:
Which candidate most closely mirrors your view of the public domain or square?
Uh oh, he said holiday season..."...and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."
phillyfan26 said:I mean, my belief is that religion should be public for the individuall. But it shouldn't be in things like law and politics.
INDY500 said:
Which, actually, begins the paragraph which ends with a part of the speech which I singled out as one of my favorites. The part that addresses the, forgotten by some, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion of the First Amendment.
yolland said:
Uh oh, he said holiday season...
BonoVoxSupastar said:So what about the Muslim or the Scientologist that want to put up in the public square?
Irvine511 said:
but if you want to live in Christian Iran, just go ahead and say so.
INDY500 said:
Well, the violet to your red in this vastly overstated spectrum of belief systems would be me asking if you would prefer to live in the equivalent of the old secular Soviet Union.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I knew this one wouldn't get answered...
phillyfan26 said:There's a difference between public faith and faith that gets mixed in with policy.
INDY500 said:
I thought I answered. If a Muslim, Scientologist, Hindu or Atheist for that matter, could give Romney's speech (minus the small bit of theology), at the least, I would have less of a problem than some seem to be having with the public faith of Romney, Huckabee or President Bush.
INDY500 said:
What public policy of Romney's as governor of Massachusetts was influenced by his Mormon faith.