Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


This has to be the most ignorant thing I've read in FYM in quite some time.

Are you really so blind to reality that you can't tell the difference between this speech and a jihadist call to action? Did he say one thing about Christ? About the founder of Mormonism? Or did he repeatedly call to the common threads of religion in this country?

ETA: this thread really astounds me in its utter disregard for people of faith -- who constitute the vast, vast majority of people in this country. You realize that you're disregarding the deeply felt perspectives and beliefs of about 95% of American citizens, right? Regardless of whether they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

BVS - just because you don't care about religion, does not mean it does not matter to others.

And the line about America being in the 11th century -- cute.

i will plead guilty to some hyperbole, but i will not plead guilty to the parallel between the stated Al Qaedian restoration of the caliphate to the evangelical call for a "Kingdom" on Earth.

it's the same thing. and it's 11th century.

and 95% of the country are not white protestant evangelicals, and the speech was heavily Christian in tone, even if not explicitly about Christ.

and it did say that there's no room in America for people with no faith. i think as faith goes and how deeply you claim to feel it, you'd find that you're probably in the minority.

this was a Red Meat speech meant to align himself against the "secular humanists." he could have used the word "communist" or whatever polemical noun in whatever historical context and it would have amounted to the same thing.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Here's a question -- is pluralism the same thing as secularism?

pluralism is impossible without secularism.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


That's funny, since people like Obama, Hilary, Bono, etc seem to equate "people of faith" with progressive, compassionate, caring, active people.

and i'd say that all of them are using the term to mobilize self-identified people of faith in order to achieve their own ends.

it's as loaded and specific and test-marketed and focused-grouped and polled a term as "soccer mom."

and, finally, i find it funny, this defensiveness that "people of faith" seem to have, when they then turn around and claim 95% of the population.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by nathan1977
This has to be the most ignorant thing I've read in FYM in quite some time.

Are you really so blind to reality that you can't tell the difference between this speech and a jihadist call to action? Did he say one thing about Christ? About the founder of Mormonism? Or did he repeatedly call to the common threads of religion in this country?

ETA: this thread really astounds me in its utter disregard for people of faith -- who constitute the vast, vast majority of people in this country. You realize that you're disregarding the deeply felt perspectives and beliefs of about 95% of American citizens, right? Regardless of whether they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

And the line about America being in the 11th century -- cute.

OK, I'm a Catholic who goes to church every Sunday. And I completely agree with what Irvine says. So, it's not a "disregard for people of faith."

I agree with what Melon said: Romney's tone was "I hate the same people you do, so it's OK to vote for me!"

[anitram]

Originally posted by melon

Now that we've come to equate "people of faith" with "far-right, anti-intellectual conservative Republicans," there is the very realistic possibility that future generations of Americans will reject religion en masse, because they will be unable to separate the political connotations of "people of faith" with the reality that religion, at its core, does not necessarily conform to any one ideology nor does it necessarily demand that one hold preposterous, anti-intellectual beliefs like "young Earth creationism" or "intelligent design."

There is a better than realistic possibility given the strong precedent.

On our continent, you have a very good example of Quebec, which reached a high point of religious hysteria with Duplessis who legislated as if he was presiding over a theocracy. For years, secularists and minorities (particularly those who were Jehovah's Witnesses) faced anything from mild discrimination to blatant discrimination. Eventually the courts got fed up and began to interpret the Constitution correctly, and with that Duplessis' end really began. Now you have the most secular society on the continent resulting from a quasi-theocracy. Eventually self-rejection kicks in and when I look at factions in the US, I often think of Quebec and I often think that the religious right is very shortsighted in failing to see how they may be sowing the seeds for exactly this type of response. That would be, the great irony, of course.

Usually, secularism is borne of extreme religiosity. It is as it has always been.

[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]

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


OK, I'm a Catholic who goes to church every Sunday. And I completely agree with what Irvine says. So, it's not a "disregard for people of faith."

Equating Romney's comments about our common humanity regardless of our religious differences with "the streets will run red with the blood of the infidels" is about as ignorant a comment you can make.

I agree with what Melon said: Romney's tone was "I hate the same people you do, so it's OK to vote for me!"

Really? How so?

[BVS]

Originally posted by nathan1977

Really? How so?

I hate Europeans.
I hate those liberals who don't think this is a Christian nation therefore they are stealing you nativity scenes from our courthouse yards.
I hate atheists, those bastards are telling our children they came from monkeys.

ETC, ETC...

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Equating Romney's comments about our common humanity regardless of our religious differences with "the streets will run red with the blood of the infidels" is about as ignorant a comment you can make.

the caliphate = Kingdom Here on Earth

unless, of course, you think that there's something particular to Islam that makes it more prone to violence. after all, historically, Christians have made many streets run red with blood in the name of Christ.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I hate Europeans.
I hate those liberals who don't think this is a Christian nation therefore they are stealing you nativity scenes from our courthouse yards.
I hate atheists, those bastards are telling our children they came from monkeys.

ETC, ETC...

Huh. You know, I just went and checked the transcript of his speech, and I don't see where he said any of that.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Huh. You know, I just went and checked the transcript of his speech, and I don't see where he said any of that.

Romney clearly positioned himself against "the secularists." he identified a common enemy with the white evangelical protestants, and thusly attempted to forge a union of distrust, if not hate, that will gloss over their rather large theological differences.

[BVS]

Really? You don't think these are all concerns of this paticular audience? Please.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511




the caliphate = Kingdom Here on Earth

unless, of course, you think that there's something particular to Islam that makes it more prone to violence.

One can judge a movement by its interpretation by its earliest followers.

In the first hundred years after Christ, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire through word-of-mouth. When persecuted, Christians willingly became martyrs.

In the first hundred years after Mohammed, Islam spread throughout the East by the sword. People were either converted or murdered. (Including many Christians.)

You tell me.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


You tell me.

you just answered my question.

and this is why we have secularism, and this is why you can sit so comfortably with your understanding of your own exceptionalism.

you have the secularists to thank for your own deeply felt religiosity.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511


he identified a common enemy with the white evangelical protestants, and thusly attempted to forge a union of distrust, if not hate, that will gloss over their rather large theological differences.

Gosh, I went and read his speech, and there was a surprising lack of hate in his words. Where do you see hate?

And encroaching secularism is more than just a concern to white evangelical protestants.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Gosh, I went and read his speech, and there was a surprising lack of hate in his words. Where do you see hate?

And encroaching secularism is more than just a concern to white evangelical protestants.

i see the hate in the exclusion of the agnostics and the atheists and the only mildly religious -- in fact, anyone who views religion as anything less than something to center one's whole identity around. and there was the clear identification of a common enemy. something to say that you're both against, since if Romney pointed out commonalities, the WEP's would be quick to point out the differences that seem to be so earthshakingly important to them.

there is no encroaching secularism. there's only maintenance. secularism does not encroach, it merely maintains boundaries against the wildly self-absorbed "War on Christmas" folk.

[BVS]

Originally posted by nathan1977


One can judge a movement by its interpretation by its earliest followers.

In the first hundred years after Christ, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire through word-of-mouth. When persecuted, Christians willingly became martyrs.

In the first hundred years after Mohammed, Islam spread throughout the East by the sword. People were either converted or murdered. (Including many Christians.)

You tell me.

You just proved every point I've been trying to make. You ignore your religions own past. And you really don't believe that this speech was about all religions, you judge the other religion, they aren't equal in your eyes.

[Irvine511]

his speech wasn't about other religions.

it was about Christianity, with a shout out to God's "special people" who just need to be "perfected," the Jews. and the Jews are super-important to the WEPs, 'cause they've got to build the temple and all.

[melon]

Originally posted by nathan1977
One can judge a movement by its interpretation by its earliest followers.

In the first hundred years after Christ, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire through word-of-mouth. When persecuted, Christians willingly became martyrs.

In the first hundred years after Mohammed, Islam spread throughout the East by the sword. People were either converted or murdered. (Including many Christians.)

The only trouble with this logic is the fact that we're dealing with a religion that started as a minority that later became hegemonic, versus a religion that started a hegemony, more or less.

Once Christianity achieved hegemony, however, it was most certainly prone to intolerance and murder. The Christianization of the Germanic tribes, in particular, was noted as quite bloody, such as Charlemagne's massacre of Saxons that refused to convert to Christianity. In fact, Jews were, more often than not in the Middle Ages, happier to live in the Muslim empires than in Christian Europe.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You just proved every point I've been trying to make. You ignore your religions own past.

I said nothing about my own religion's past. What's there to say? Christianity's own sordid past is out there for all to see. I merely made the point (which neither you nor Irvine have yet to refute, by the way) that the earliest followers of a religion are the best judges of that religion's principles, and the earliest followers of Jesus and the earliest followers of Mohammed are two radically different groups of people. I'm not surprised Irvine doesn't think that's legitimate, since in the past he's tried to make the point that religions are all basically making the same point (a point which has been refuted by myself and others). But am I wrong?