Excerpts from Romney's speech about his religion

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Speaking from the hell bent secular Europe, at least here in Germany no one cares the least bit about "Frohe Weihnachten" (Merry Christmas), nativity plays or any other Christian elements of the Christmas holidays.

I really don't understand what's the problem of those people.

I hope they still hold the Passion Play every 10 years in the village of Oberammergau. I mean, they've only been doing it for 400 years.

[BVS]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Quothing BVS on page one:
"I always have to laugh when someone uses religion and deversity in the same sentence."

Um, context. I mean that anyone like Mitt who uses religion and diversity in the same sentence is laughable. I should have clarified since quoting Mitt wasn't enough.

But it is laughable. You say diversity, yet you bash Europe, atheist, you want to deny rights to certain individuals, etc. It's ridiculous.

Earlier I said all humanity is equal, and you responded with "they have the right to disagree with you". How is that diversity? Please tell me.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally posted by nathan1977
Quoth Irvine a few pages back:
"the white evangelical Protestant 'base' has far, far more in common with the 'evildoers' than they yet know."

Well, if you look at the language some of the leaders use and the language the "evildoers" use, there are some similarities. There's similarities between every fanatical fringe of a religion. That's not wrong. I'm assuming that was more in reference to the spokespeople of the white evangelical Protestant faith instead of a blanket stereotype of all white evangelical Protestants-we don't know all of them, so how can we claim that about them?

Originally posted by nathan1977
Quothing BVS on page one:
"I always have to laugh when someone uses religion and deversity in the same sentence."

Probably because for the longest time, the two words haven't exactly lived in perfect harmony together? It shouldn't be something to laugh at, I agree. But sadly, as of now, it is. BVS's point has been proven right in this thread.

Originally posted by nathan1977
Quoth Irvine a few pages back:
"we're the laughingstock of the rest of the world. let's get out of the 11th century."

This country is looked down upon right now by the rest of the world. You can't contest that. And some of the ideals we're still clinging to other people are going to find weird, 'cause they let go of them a long time ago.

Originally posted by nathan1977
Quoth Melon a few pages back:
"'people of faith' has become a loaded term for 'reactionary zealot.'"

By some people, it has. melon didn't necessarily say they agreed with that definition, just that a lot of people do indeed see it that way nowadays.

I really think those people you quoted have a general respect for religion-I've seen them show respect before. They are merely pointing out the few within it that are screwing it up. And I'm betting part of it is just frustration and heat of the moment ranting, too. I totally agree, we should try and avoid stereotypes. But there is some truth in these quotes, too, that is worth considering.

Angela

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But it is laughable. You say diversity, yet you bash Europe, atheist, you want to deny rights to certain individuals, etc. It's ridiculous.

I guess I missed where he bashed Europe and atheists. Is describing the cathedrals of Europe empty bashing them?

Earlier I said all humanity is equal, and you responded with "they have the right to disagree with you". How is that diversity? Please tell me.

Our exchange earlier came out of your description of running for president under your own list of perspectives (which, sure, included a belief that all humanity is equal, but which was hardly the only value you posted), and refusing to understand why people wouldn't get it. I said that people have the right to disagree with you, which they do. *shrug*

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by INDY500

I hope they still hold the Passion Play every 10 years in the village of Oberammergau. I mean, they've only been doing it for 400 years.

I can't say for sure, but it's a pretty conservative area and I can't imagine they stopped doing so.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Phillyfan said: "Everyone should vote. But a person's religious views should have nothing to do with it. Nothing at all." This perspective has been shared on this board before, the idea being, "leave your faith outside the voting booth." My whole point is, you can't, and telling people to do so, is both naive and insulting.

but i'd argue that the presentation of faith as a reason to vote for someone -- which has been the Bush/Rove strategy -- and the religious-ization of certain political issues (abortion especially) has nothing to do with what you're talking about. of course Judaism matters to Joe Lieberman, and it might inform how he views, say, Middle Eastern politics. but what we've seen since 1994 is the full-scale copting of WEP's by Republicans and the demanding (and fulfilment of that demand in a conscious coordination by religious leaders and GOP leaders) of a specific brand of faith as a requirement before one could even consider voting for them.

ask yourself this: why do WEP's consistenlty vote against their economic self-interest?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


I guess I missed where he bashed Europe and atheists. Is describing the cathedrals of Europe empty bashing them?

yes. he linked the lack of religiosity in modern europe to the rise of islamofascism in european cities.

[BVS]

Originally posted by nathan1977


Our exchange earlier came out of your description of running for president under your own list of perspectives (which, sure, included a belief that all humanity is equal, but which was hardly the only value you posted), and refusing to understand why people wouldn't get it. I said that people have the right to disagree with you, which they do. *shrug*

But this is where the problem lies with speeches like this.

"wouldn't push for creationism being taught in science classes, because it's not a science."

^Because many people of faith are using their "faith" to turn a blind eye on really is science. This isn't an opinion.

"wouldn't push ammendments denying rights to certain people because some people of my religion interpret that some people are sinners."

^Well I'm sure you can see why this is an issue, this doesn't make humanity equal.

"had no problem with nativity scenes on private property, but they don't belong in front of a courthouse."

^Because people of faith will use their "faith" to ignore the fact that there are others of other faiths that need our courts to represent them as well.

"All humanity is equal. I don't care if you are white, black, straight, gay, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, athiest, etc you will all have an equal playing ground and all have the same rights.

Why is that so fucking hard for people?"

I honestly can't see why this IS so hard. But it is, like you said, and this is exactly why this is dangerous. I'm sorry you can't see this.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511




yes. he linked the lack of religiosity in modern europe to the rise of islamofascism in european cities.

This only makes sense. You can't ignore an ideological vacuum that allows other ideologies to thrive.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by nathan1977
Phillyfan said: "Everyone should vote. But a person's religious views should have nothing to do with it. Nothing at all." This perspective has been shared on this board before, the idea being, "leave your faith outside the voting booth." My whole point is, you can't, and telling people to do so, is both naive and insulting.

You shouldn't vote on someone based on their religious views. Why is that hard to understand? I think that's a completely reasonable expectation. I'm not saying religion can't influence beliefs. I'm saying religion can't influence policy and can't influence voting. Vote based on beliefs, not on religion. Too many people ignore beliefs and focus on religion. And Mitt Romney wants the votes of people who will completely ignore his stances. That's what my point is: his speech was about getting the votes of people who don't care about the politics. His speech is about getting votes from people who want the President of the United States to be the, for lack of a better term, head of the protestants.

You seem to think his speech was for something else. I, and many others here, have read between the lines, which are barely even lines. It was pretty obvious from his speech what he was doing.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by nathan1977


This only makes sense. You can't ignore an ideological vacuum that allows other ideologies to thrive.

it's totally wrong.

the rise of radical Islam in Europe has nothing to do with the status of Christianity on the Continent and everything to do with the inability of European nations to effectively assimilate their Muslim immigrants.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by Irvine511




it's totally wrong.

the rise of radical Islam in Europe has nothing to do with the status of Christianity on the Continent and everything to do with the inability of European nations to effectively assimilate their Muslim immigrants.

I don't think we're talking past each other here. In an ideological vacuum, new ideologies will rise to the foreground, and in a relativistic society, might winds up making right.

[nathan1977]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


You seem to think his speech was for something else. I, and many others here, have read between the lines, which are barely even lines. It was pretty obvious from his speech what he was doing.

I could honestly give two rips about Romney's speech, or about Romney for that matter. I'm not voting for him (I'm personally leading towards Obama). I'm much concerned about the attitudes expressed on this board. The fervency on individuals on this board is emblematic of why there is so much animosity on the other side.

I still think Melon inadvertently summed it up best when he called people of faith "reactionary zealots." No wonder people are frustrated.

[BVS]

Originally posted by nathan1977


I could honestly give two rips about Romney's speech, or about Romney for that matter. I'm not voting for him (I'm personally leading towards Obama). I'm much concerned about the attitudes expressed on this board. The fervency on individuals on this board is emblematic of why there is so much animosity on the other side.

I still think Melon inadvertently summed it up best when he called people of faith "reactionary zealots." No wonder people are frustrated.

Honestly I think you have a hard time understanding the context that isn't explicitly laid out for you... You aren't a constant poster, so that can be understood. Many of us "know" each other well enough where we can speak and know the context of the speaker, so we may get lazy in spelling out the context of our view.

For the most part I think this discussion has gone pretty well. There's been some misunderstandings, some ignored questions, and some hyperbole on all sides.

But the one thing that bothers me the most, is that you keep ignoring or talking around this certain issue... Is where do you stand when one's "faith" infringes upon another's rights? Does majority still rule in this case?

[U2DMfan]

Originally posted by nathan1977


I don't think we're talking past each other here. In an ideological vacuum, new ideologies will rise to the foreground, and in a relativistic society, might winds up making right.

The idea of an idealogical vaccum is predicated on the fact that idealogues would leap frog faiths in lieu of the ones they have abandoned.

Where in reality, most idealogues who are disenchanted with their faiths either just become less zealous or disavow it altogether. So I don't really buy this concept at all.

Maybe you could elaborate on this. I don't see it as realistic.

[yolland]

I have to say I didn't personally detect any generalized animosity towards religious people in the thread. Perhaps if I were a moderate or progressive evangelical some of it might have hit unpleasantly closer to home; I'm not sure. What melon actually said was that people of faith "has become a loaded term" for reactionary zealot, yet that in a "connotation-free world", he too would feel fully comfortable labeling himself a person of faith. In other words, in evangelical conservative political rhetoric there's a pattern of invoking a symbolic, 'person-of-faith' Everyman voter who embodies not just the presence of religious belief, but a commitment to a political agenda of getting certain specifically religious goals important to evangelicals enshrined in legislation (keeping gay marriage illegal, making abortion illegal, opposition to sex education in schools, getting creationism into school science curriculums, etc.). That goes a bit beyond what the rather innocent-sounding phrase 'influenced by religious beliefs' suggests in that it's highly organized, and organized along openly religious lines at that. I think it's a bit misleading to analogize that process to, say, African-American or women's groups hosting forums in which candidates court their votes by promising to prioritize certain issues important to those groups, because it's quite possible (and, indeed, the norm) for the candidates they ultimately throw their support behind to not be black/female at all--just someone whose platform they like on "our" issues, which is all they were hoping for to begin with. I really don't think you can credibly say that's the norm for evangelical conservative groups, both because the candidate's personal faith really does matter to them, and (relatedly) because the prioritization and framing of those issues is so intimately linked to an evangelical conservative perspective that any candidate who doesn't fit that description themselves is unlikely to satisfy. While it would be hyperbole to equate the realization of those goals with established state religion per se, I think one can understand the concern--after all, had established state religions not had the history they did (and do) of circumscribing personal liberties for the sake of religious-mandated imperatives, they probably wouldn't hold anything like the disreputable place they generally do in the Western mind.

While Romney's speech, as several posters have already noted, was clearly looking to play up what Romney has in common with evangelical conservatives ("There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind") while offering a few feelgood nods in the direction of certain affinity-inspiring traits associated with some religious minorities (the "ancient traditions of the Jews", the "commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims"), I can certainly understand why nonreligious Americans might have found it particularly alienating, on account of the "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" theme running throughout it--wholly uncountered by anything resembling e.g. GWB's "good people of no faith at all" nod, which Irvine cited earlier. Taken literally, it would appear to suggest that nonreligious Americans are innately less capable of cherishing and preserving "freedom" than religious Americans--and, after all, who wants someone who doesn't value "freedom" influencing politics, let alone holding public office? And while Romney doesn't explicitly say so, it's difficult not to get the impression that when he invokes the "establishment" of a "new" (state?) "religion" of "secularism," he means that to be taken in light of his "freedom requires religion" theme...ergo, opposition to the agenda of those whose support he seeks, and in particular to its explicitly religious-based nature, constitutes an attack on "freedom." Effectively: You're telling me it violates others' personal liberty to deny marriage to gay people on the grounds that our religion says homosexuality is wrong...well, right back at ya: you're violating our personal liberty by protesting that that's an illegitimate basis for defining the law of the land. It's a clever rhetorical maneuver, because it dances around the loaded question of just how different the tailoring of laws which affect everyone to suit the explicitly religious agenda of some particular religious group really is in practice from having an established state religion.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by nathan1977


This only makes sense. You can't ignore an ideological vacuum that allows other ideologies to thrive.

This only makes sense if you ignore so much context that nothing remains.
To call our liberal religiosity and atheism a ideological vacuum is insulting.

[MadelynIris]

But the one thing that bothers me the most, is that you keep ignoring or talking around this certain issue... Is where do you stand when one's "faith" infringes upon another's rights? Does majority still rule in this case?

I don't understand this question. Likewise, where do you stand when one's "non-faith" infringes upon another's rights.

In other words, "what's faith got to do with it?"

[MadelynIris]

it's totally wrong.

the rise of radical Islam in Europe has nothing to do with the status of Christianity on the Continent and everything to do with the inability of European nations to effectively assimilate their Muslim immigrants.

Bullshit.

Why is it always the government's fault on not being able to effectively assimilate immigrants?

Wait, you are right. It actually is Germany's Government's fault for not assimilating Scientologists.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- Germany's top security officials said Friday they consider the goals of the Church of Scientology to be in conflict with the principles of the nation's constitution and will seek to ban the organization.

The German government considers Scientology a commercial enterprise.

The interior ministers of the nation's 16 states plan to give the nation's domestic intelligence agency the task of preparing the necessary information to ban the organization, which has been under observation for a decade on allegations that it "threatens the peaceful democratic order" of the country.

Hmmm.... does radical Islam, and I'm talking the folks that call for the destruction of all non-islamic government's in the world pose a bigger threat to Germany than Scientology? Probably so. I doubt Germany would ever take action like this toward fundamentalist islam. Why? Cause Osama would call for Jihad that would burn the country down, one suicide bomber at a time.

Bullshit.

[Vincent Vega]

Germany employed the guest workers program in the 1960's and beginning of 1970's and promoted Germany as an employer in countries such as Italy, Greece and Turkey. This call was answered by some thousand immigrants from those countries, because back then we had full employment in Germany and many Germans refused to take jobs like coal mining or garbage collection as they could chose better jobs to perform.
What the German government then, and in later decades, ignored or forgot to take into account was that these great times will have an end, which started in the 1970's. They thought, once the guest workers aren't needed anymore they will go home by themselves, hence they didn't see the need for extensive immigration policy. But those guest workers stayed because conditions and prospects here in Germany were much better than back home, and furthermore part of what they earned here was sent home to their families. These families relied on theirs income.

Over time, whole city quarters were inhabited by people from Turkey, and to a smaller extent Arabs in general, Italians and Greeks. Berlin today is the largest Turkish city outside Turkey.
But we didn't really integrate them. Many people, especially women, from first generation immigrants, today don't speak any German. Sometimes eighty per cent of students in school classes are from Turkey and other countries of the middle east. The children also often hardly speak any German.
And something very typical for immigrants of all nations can be seen among second and third generation immigrants: They are more Turkish than the Turks. And they are more conservative than Turks in Turkey. They kill their sisters because she has a German boyfriend. They view Germans as being inferior. And so on.
Those are problems we are facing not only, but also because there was no real immigration policy. German governments since the late 1970's ignored the fact that people that came here as guest workers will be staying. This was, because in their short-sightedness they didn't tell those guest workers that they actually are guest workers.

I don't say it's bad that the guest workers stayed here, and I'm not advocating that previous governments should have thrown them out. I'm just saying that these governments were too lazy to develop some functioning system of integration.
Today, with a birth rate of 1.3, we are also relying on immigration, though it is not clear to what extent.

Your other point, that what Scientology faces will not extent to Muslims, you should consider some points: Scientology in Germany is not considered a church, but a sect, a dangerous one. Islam is a church.

Your comment regarding fundamentalist Islam, well, you made the point yourself: bullshit!