Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion

[BVS]

Nathan, let's go back to a point that you ignored earlier.

Do you believe that the majority is always right?

When I said all humanity is equal. Why is that so hard for some to believe?

You responded:

"Because people have the freedom to disagree with you, BVS."

Do you really think that right to disagree, also gives you the right to deny rights?

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511


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.

Reading the posts on this board, however, one would get a much different view of secularism.

And you should probably broaden your language about whites being the only ones to whom religion matters, since culturally speaking, an identity deeply-held in faith cuts across races and cultures.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


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?

i don't agree that "judging a religion is best done by judging it's first followers" is a good rubric.

what's this "point" that all religions are making, and how have you responded (i'll ignore refuted) to it?

[BVS]

Originally posted by nathan1977


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?

You said nothing about your religion's past? Please read your post again.

Yes you are wrong, Melon's post shows you why.

Do you judge someone by their childhood? I don't.

[phillyfan26]

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.



Really? How so?

But his comments weren't about our common humanity. His comments were about his similarities with conservative Christian evangelicals.

And the how so's been addressed. You've gotta learn to look at what he means. You're taking everything literally and at face value.

[anitram]

Originally posted by nathan1977


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

You certainly can.

The early Christians were preoccupied with preparing their hearts for the arrival of the Kingdom and the return of Christ who was going to come like a "thief in the night." They had no interest in overthrowing Rome or setting up any kind of theocracy, and explicitly rejected offers from the Jewish population to join them in a revolt because they precisely had no interest for worldly pursuits. They did not find it an offense to live in a polytheistic society, because they had to prepare their souls for the kingdom of God, not their cities or their nations.

Christians today seem to operate under a belief that it is unacceptable to live in a non-Christian society and therefore they must legislate Christian-based views and push their religion into the public and political sphere.

So yes, let us take a look at the early followers - it would be quite interesting.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511


i don't agree that "judging a religion is best done by judging it's first followers" is a good rubric.

Why not? Melon's point is valid -- once in a position of dominance, religions tend to be oppressive -- but since that holds true for any social movement, religion is hardly isolated in that regard. So the best judge of a religion's principles are its earliest followers, before it came into a position of dominance.

what's this "point" that all religions are making, and how have you responded (i'll ignore refuted) to it?

I recall an exchange we had earlier this year about the difference between Nirvana and Heaven, for starters, and how they were two vibrantly different concepts.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Reading the posts on this board, however, one would get a much different view of secularism.

And you should probably broaden your language about whites being the only ones to whom religion matters, since culturally speaking, an identity deeply-held in faith cuts across races and cultures.

ahhh, but you don't see religious African-Americans voting Republican in the way that WEPs do, nor do you see Catholic Latinos voting that way either.

and this was a speech by a Republican for the Republican base.

and it's not that religion matters, but HOW it matters and HOW it manifests itself in life and especially in politics. Memphis's family is told, in no uncertain terms, who Jesus would vote for. do black churches or latino churches do the same? are they actively identified and pursued in the way that the WEPs are?

it's all about numbers, and the creation of identification by political strategists.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Why not? Melon's point is valid -- once in a position of dominance, religions tend to be oppressive -- but since that holds true for any social movement, religion is hardly isolated in that regard. So the best judge of a religion's principles are its earliest followers, before it came into a position of dominance.

i'd understand religion as a vastly more complex thing, and it's evolution is as important as it's birth, but there are so many ways of looking at something so culturally and historically influenced that i don't think there's really a right answer here. i can accept that it is one way, but the best? i dunno.

I recall an exchange we had earlier this year about the difference between Nirvana and Heaven, for starters, and how they were two vibrantly different concepts.

but both get at the same thing -- what happens when i die?

that i'd agree with.

[nathan1977]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Do you judge someone by their childhood? I don't.

That's a non-sequitor and you know it.

You said nothing about your religion's past? Please read your post again.

Hmmm. I just did. Am I missing your point?

Yes you are wrong, Melon's post shows you why.

No, it doesn't. Melon's post picks up the history after Christianity became the dominant religion of Rome, which everyone pretty much agrees is a bad idea. Power corrupts absolutely in any socio-/political-/religio- movement; Christianity is certainly no different, but since it can't be singled out as exclusively corrupt, it certainly can't be judged on it.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511


Memphis's family is told, in no uncertain terms, who Jesus would vote for. do black churches or latino churches do the same? are they actively identified and pursued in the way that the WEPs are?

Have you seen Obama's preaching from the pulpit tour? How about the Rev. Jesse Jackson? Or the Rev. Al Sharpton?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977

Power corrupts absolutely in any socio-/political-/religio- movement; Christianity is certainly no different, but it can't be singled out as exclusively problematic, and certainly can't be judged on it.

i agree here.

and if you want to keep your version of Christianity vibrant and dynamic, better work on secularism so you're free to practice how you want when you want. let's keep it from becoming so dominant in all aspects of socio-political life.

[melon]

Originally posted by anitram
Christians today seem to operate under a belief that it is unacceptable to live in a non-Christian society and therefore they must legislate Christian-based views and push their religion into the public and political sphere.

I'd say that modern Christianity is a variant of medieval "Germanic Christianity."

Consequently, Christianity had to be made palatable to these Migration Age warlords as a heroic religion of conquerors, a rather straightforward task, considering the military splendour of the Roman Empire compared to the comparatively primitive Germanic armies, and the legendary victory of Constantine the Great under the sign of the Labarum.

Thus early Germanic Christianity was presented as an alternative to native Germanic paganism and elements were syncretized, for examples parallels between Woden ["Odin"]and Christ. A fine illustration of these tendencies is the Anglo-Saxon poem, "Dream of the Rood," where Jesus is cast in the heroic model of a Germanic warrior, who faces his death unflinchingly and even eagerly. The Cross, speaking as if it were a member of Christ's band of retainers, accepts its fate as it watches its Creator die, and then explains that Christ's death was not a defeat but a victory. This is in direct correspondence to the Germanic pagan ideals of fealty to one's lord.

This might explain why there seems to be such a huge difference between the Jesus of the New Testament versus the "Warrior Christ" that many people seem to see instead.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by nathan1977
Power corrupts absolutely in any socio-/political-/religio- movement; Christianity is certainly no different, but since it can't be singled out as exclusively corrupt, it certainly can't be judged on it.

Bingo.

So, why does the GOP want to make Christianity the all powerful religion of the United States?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Have you seen Obama's preaching from the pulpit tour? How about the Rev. Jesse Jackson? Or the Rev. Al Sharpton?

is this comparable to the mobilization of the evangelicals that started with the 1994 elections? are religious African-Americans comparable in numbers to the WEPs in the Bible Belt? i'd also add that these are guest speakers, these are not the pastors/reverends/priests who have much more intimate relationships with churchgoers who are telling them how to vote.

and i actually find it kind of distasteful that Obama is so explicitly religious in some of his stumping. and i found the Democratic "faith forum" or whatever it was called rather childish, or at least politically immature.

but that's me. and i'm still voting for Obama because at least he's inclusive, and i don't see him picking any fights with the "secularists" like Romney just spent 20 minutes doing.

[BVS]

Originally posted by nathan1977


That's a non-sequitor and you know it.

Why? I don't judge a person by their past. I don't judge a movement by their origins. I don't judge a business by their start up.

I judge them by who they are now and what they stand for.

So with a religion I would judge by what it's doing now and it's teachings.

Originally posted by nathan1977

You said nothing about your religion's past? Please read your post again.

Hmmm. I just did. Am I missing your point?[/B]

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

That's not talking about your religion's past?

Originally posted by nathan1977

Christianity is certainly no different, but it can't be singled out as exclusively problematic, and certainly can't be judged on it.

Like all other religions.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by melon

This might explain why there seems to be such a huge difference between the Jesus of the New Testament versus the "Warrior Christ" that many people seem to see instead.

like the ass-kicking Christ at the end of "the passion."

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511



i'd understand religion as a vastly more complex thing, and it's evolution is as important as it's birth, but there are so many ways of looking at something so culturally and historically influenced that i don't think there's really a right answer here. i can accept that it is one way, but the best? i dunno.

I don't disagree with you about the changing nature of religion, but since Christianity is meant to be following in the principles of Christ, it seems that it's instructive to see how his early followers walked -- as well as Mohammed's or whomever.

I also don't disagree with anitram's comments about early Christianity being divorced from policy. I think there's a point at which Christians need to learn to let stuff go, for pity's sake. At the same time, given that we live in a country where things like the democratic process and representative government allow people a voice in how they are to be governed, I don't know where the appropriate line is between allowing and encouraging Christians to vote, and letting our votes get hijacked by Washington jackals. I'm very conflicted on a lot of these issues, and can see both sides. But I'm not going to be told what I can or can't do. And I'm certainly not going to let people start saying things like "Romney's practically a jihadist" without speaking up.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511



i agree here.

and if you want to keep your version of Christianity vibrant and dynamic, better work on secularism so you're free to practice how you want when you want. let's keep it from becoming so dominant in all aspects of socio-political life.

Pluralism, Irvine. Not secularism.

[phillyfan26]

We're not talking about the line between allowing and encouraging Christians to vote. Everyone should vote.

But a person's religious views should have nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.