Religion & Politics rant - making new friends

[Harlan Huckleby]

Last week, Mitt Romney said he would not allow a Muslim in his cabinet. The bizarre explanation was because there are so few Muslims in this country.

Even Sadam Hussein had a couple Christians in his cabinet, for fuck's sake.

Last night in Romney's Great Humanitarian speech, he goes after non-believers. He says that Christians are pitted against Secularists, those that want strict seperation of church & state are trying to make Secularism the state religion. Wonder if there will be any agnostics allowed in his government?

I doubt Romney is a biggot. I doubt Romney has any problem at all with Muslims, Agnostics, Athiests, gays, or anybody else. Romney is a power-crazed jerk who will say anything to gain political advantage.

It's ironic that Romney's "Ich Bin Ein Mormon" speech was compared to JFK's speech on Catholicism. Kennedy's message was simple: keep religion out of the public sphere. Romney attempts to use his Christianity to garner votes in an us-against-them fashion.

I would MUCH rather see a hardcore bible-thumper like Huckabee in office. I disagree with him on most social issues, but he does not villify non-Christians.

[Joemailman]

This was an act of desperation because he is losing Christian conservative voters as Huckabee rises in the polls. I don't think it will enable him to save Iowa, and I don't think it will sell very well in New Hampshire either.

[mraynrand]

Kennedy's message was simple: keep religion out of the public sphere.

Could you possibly be any more wrong? The answer is none, none more wrong.

[mraynrand]

I disagree with him on most social issues, but he does not villify non-Christians.

Please point out how Romney in any way villified non-Christians.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas
September 12, 1960

Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God.

[Freak Out]

I did not listen to Romney and would NEVER listen to a candidate when all they are going to talk about is how they are a faithful Mormon/Methodist/Jew/Muslim or whatever and I have to believe that more Americans would have listened if he was going to unveil his economics policy or foreign policy. I'm sick and tired of the God bless America crowd demanding that the candidates all be good Christians. I want a president that is not afraid to come out and say mind your own business.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I want a president that is not afraid to come out and say mind your own business.

Amen, Brother Freak Out. Can I get a witness!

[hoosier]

I disagree with him on most social issues, but he does not villify non-Christians.

Please point out how Romney in any way villified non-Christians.



"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"

He doesn't villify non-Christians in this quote, just non-believers. Unless you think that associating non-believers with unfreedom isn't villificaition.

[Joemailman]

Text of Romney's speech. Not a bad speech, although the line about "No freedom without religion" does seem to be a shot at non-believers.


Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Speech

Governor Romney’s “Faith In America” Address (As Prepared For Delivery):

“Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.

“It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

“Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

“America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

“Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

“There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

“There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

“Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

“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. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

“There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

“I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

“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.

“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

“Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. 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?

“They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

“We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’

“The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

“These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me…’

“My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

“Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

“It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

“We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

“I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

“Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom… killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

“The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

“In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

“Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. ‘They were too divided in religious sentiments’, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

“Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

“And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God … they founded this great nation.

“In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty.’ And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, ‘with freedom’s holy light.’

“God bless the United States of America.”

[Scott Campbell]

I did not listen to Romney and would NEVER listen to a candidate when all they are going to talk about is how they are a faithful Mormon/Methodist/Jew/Muslim.........


Would you listen to Barack talk about how being a black man might shape his presidency? Would you listen to Hillary talk about how being a woman might shape her presidency?

Mormons were persecuted in this country. And there is still prejiduce against them today as evidenced by the polls regarding people who wouldn't vote for a Mormon.

[Scott Campbell]

Ugly:


Wonder if there will be any agnostics allowed in his government?

Uglier:


Romney attempts to use his Christianity to garner votes in an us-against-them fashion.

Ugliest:


It's ironic that Romney's "Ich Bin Ein Mormon" speech.......

[Deputy Nutz]

Bob Saget just said, "Shut the fuck up". Thats right the guy from Full House.

[Scott Campbell]

Last week, Mitt Romney said he would not allow a Muslim in his cabinet.



Why lie about this Harlan? You must really have an ax to grind with the guy.

Here's the unflattering account written by the Christian Science Monitor that the Romney camp is distancing itself from:




Mansoor Ijaz wrote in a Christian Science Monitor column published today that Romney said he “cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified” for a Muslim in his administration, in light of the percentage of Muslims living in the U.S.

Romney's camp responded:

CBS News asked Romney to provide his version of the encounter, which occurred at an event that was closed to media.

“His question was, 'did I need to have a Muslim in my cabinet to be able to confront radical jihad and would it be important to have a Muslim in my cabinet,'" said Romney. "And I said, ‘No I don’t think that you have to have a Muslim in the cabinet to be able to, to take on radical jihad any more than during the Second World War we needed to have a Japanese-American to help us understand the threat that was coming from Japan,’ or something of that nature.”

Romney said that instead of filling his cabinet posts with ethnicity in mind, he would choose his cabinet members based on merit.





Your racially charged account of what transpired seems ridiculously inflamatory. Did you otherwise enjoy Las Vegas?

[Joemailman]

Romney nay need more than a good speech to hold off Huckabee in Iowa. A Newsweek poll http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/huckabee_surges.htmlconducted on Wednesday and Thursday shows Huckabee opening up a huge lead in Iowa. It is so different from any other polls that it makes you wonder. However, it is finally getting to the point where these polls are worth looking at. Iowa is less than a month away.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God

Oh do we now? What about the polytheists? Or people who see God as detached from mankind's doings? And the clear implication is that unbelievers are unAmerican.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why lie about this Harlan? You must really have an ax to grind with the guy.

Here's the unflattering account written by the Christian Science Monitor that the Romney camp is distancing itself from

since the Romney camp is distancing themselves the report is a lie?



Mansoor Ijaz wrote in a Christian Science Monitor column published today that Romney said he “cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified” for a Muslim in his administration, in light of the percentage of Muslims living in the U.S.

Sounds credible to me. Or you can choose to believe the version of the Romney Camp, call people liars. Your choice.

[mraynrand]

I disagree with him on most social issues, but he does not villify non-Christians.

Please point out how Romney in any way villified non-Christians.



"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"

He doesn't villify non-Christians in this quote, just non-believers. Unless you think that associating non-believers with unfreedom isn't villificaition.

I don't see any 'villification' there. Sorry. Some day you may realize it's OK to have an idea that differs from someone else without necessarily labeling them as evil or villains. Plus, I don't exactly agree with him. The ability to freely practice any religion (having true religious freedom) requires freedom, but true belief doesn't necessarily require you to be free. Some of the greatest believers practiced their religion in the absence of freedom and practiced it at the cost of their freedom and their lives. Historically, freedom has depended heavily on the religious. I don't know if freedom can exist without it, and I suspect we'll never know, since I think religion will always be with us. Also, it's fair to say that many religions have limited freedom, in some cases that limited freedom is the freedom of licentiousness while other religions have restricted freedom of action, expression of independent thought or practice of other religions. Some religions have a history of removing your head if you don't convert. All religions are not equal - that is implicit in Romney's remarks. The amazing thing about our country is that the Judeo Christian values and the thinking of the rationalists (among others) allowed for the creation of a secular government and religious pluralism.

[mraynrand]

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God

Oh do we now? What about the polytheists? Or people who see God as detached from mankind's doings? And the clear implication is that unbelievers are unAmerican.

The vast majority do. That's the point. It's OK if you don't believe that liberty is a gift from God. The amazing thing about the U.S. is that you can say this openly, even write NY Times best sellers promoting these ideas, and you not only will NOT be persecuted, you will be applauded and lauded by many. If that's not freedom, what is?

[Scott Campbell]

Why lie about this Harlan? You must really have an ax to grind with the guy.

Here's the unflattering account written by the Christian Science Monitor that the Romney camp is distancing itself from

since the Romney camp is distancing themselves the report is a lie?



Mansoor Ijaz wrote in a Christian Science Monitor column published today that Romney said he “cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified” for a Muslim in his administration, in light of the percentage of Muslims living in the U.S.

Sounds credible to me. Or you can choose to believe the version of the Romney Camp, call people liars. Your choice.



Harlan, the point is that I can't find anyone besides you that accused him of saying what you claimed he said "Last week, Mitt Romney said he would not allow a Muslim in his cabinet."

And I still think your claim is ridiculous and inflamatory.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Romney nay need more than a good speech to hold off Huckabee in Iowa....Iowa is less than a month away.

Joe, sorry to piss in your punch bowl yet again, but all the pundits I listen to say Huckabee is still a very, very long shot. Romney has virtually unlimited funds, and strong, well managed state organizations across the country. Huckabee winning Iowa is not enough to overcome his overall weakness, Iowa is an odd and uncharacteristic place that favors Huckabee.

I really have little idea how these things work. But the experts seem to think that Huckabee has no money, no organization. Corporate America fears Huckabee, he's too independent, and aren't forking-over a dime.

The most likely effect Huckabee can have is to drain away some of Romney's early momentum and give Giuliani an easier track.

But this year is particularly confusing and unknowable on the Republican side. Will be interesting! I'd like to see Huckabee, or even McCain, roll over the insiders.

[Joemailman]

But Romney did not say that most Americans believe that religion is a gift from God. He seemed to suggest that it is a unanimous opinion of Americans. It is easy to see how some would feel that Romney is suggesting that non-believers are lesser Americans than those who have a belief in God. [/b]

[mraynrand]

But this year is particularly confusing and unknowable on the Republican side. Will be interesting! I'd like to see Huckabee, or even McCain, roll over the insiders.

Romney and Giuliani are insiders?

[mraynrand]

But Romney did not say that most Americans believe that religion is a gift from God. He seemed to suggest that it is a unanimous opinion of Americans. It is easy to see how some would feel that Romney is suggesting that non-believers are lesser Americans than those who have a belief in God. [/b]

Freedom is a gift from God. He's explaining what the Majority of American believe, and what historically has been believed and was a central component of the country's foundation - and he's talking about it in the context of God, religion and government. There are secularists who reject God, but still believe that there are inalienable rights that can be attributed to natural law. Romney could explain this, but it takes away from the power of his argument and also is a bit of a confusing distraction.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But Romney did not say that most Americans believe that religion is a gift from God. He seemed to suggest that it is a unanimous opinion of Americans. [/b]

And Guiliani does the full Bill O'Reilly when he defines a secular government as one dominated by the Secularist religion.

It's as if an absence of religion in government is an endorsement of irreligiousity.

I can see how religious people might feel this way. But the alternative boils-down to promotion of the mainstream religion (chrisitianity) by the government. Or at a minimum, a comingling of church and state.

On a related note: you can spot a Chrisitian Supremacist when you hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian values." This is a hoot. Jewish people and organizations are historically STRONGLY for seperation of church and state. You are unlikely to ever hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian" from a Jew. They typically want no part of any mainstream domination movement. That phrase is used constantly by Bill O'Reilly, who is unabashadly for defining us as a Christian nation. It is a ploy to sound more inclusive.

[Joemailman]

Romney nay need more than a good speech to hold off Huckabee in Iowa....Iowa is less than a month away.

Joe, sorry to piss in your punch bowl yet again, but all the pundits I listen to say Huckabee is still a very, very long shot. Romney has virtually unlimited funds, and strong, well managed state organizations across the country. Huckabee winning Iowa is not enough to overcome his overall weakness, Iowa is an odd and uncharacteristic place that favors Huckabee.

I really have little idea how these things work. But the experts seem to think that Huckabee has no money, no organization. Corporate America fears Huckabee, he's too independent, and aren't forking-over a dime.

The most likely effect Huckabee can have is to drain away some of Romney's early momentum and give Giuliani an easier track.

But this year is particularly confusing and unknowable on the Republican side. Will be interesting! I'd like to see Huckabee, or even McCain, roll over the insiders.

Well, my post only was referring to Iowa. Romney still holds a solid lead in almost all of the polls in New Hampshire. To me, the real question is Giuliani. He is nowhere in Iowa, trails Romney badly in New Hampshire, barely leads in the latest Michigan polls (which aren't very recent), and is in a 4-way dogfight in South Carolina. At some point he has to win a primary, or electability becomes an issue.

[Freak Out]

I did not listen to Romney and would NEVER listen to a candidate when all they are going to talk about is how they are a faithful Mormon/Methodist/Jew/Muslim.........


Would you listen to Barack talk about how being a black man might shape his presidency? Would you listen to Hillary talk about how being a woman might shape her presidency?

Mormons were persecuted in this country. And there is still prejiduce against them today as evidenced by the polls regarding people who wouldn't vote for a Mormon.

If they want to tell me how their race or gender or religion has prepared them to lead the country that's great but I don't want to hear about "freedoms holy light" and how the founders "sought the blessing of the creator"...and "our constitution was made for a moral and religious people". Spare me. Mormons were persecuted in this country and still are misunderstood to a certain extent...just like Blacks and Jews and Muslims and Native Americans and Women...blah blah blah...I'm sick and tired of it being made a campaign issue...unless of course they want to bring about Armageddon....but that guy might be out of office before he gets the chance.

[mraynrand]

On a related note: you can spot a Chrisitian Supremacist when you hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian values." This is a hoot. Jewish people and organizations are historically STRONGLY for seperation of church and state. You are unlikely to ever hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian" from a Jew. They typically want no part of any mainstream domination movement. That phrase is used constantly by Bill O'Reilly, who is unabashadly for defining us as a Christian nation. It is a ploy to sound more inclusive.

What is a 'Christian Supremacist?' HH, you are a living example that the most ignorant shout the loudest. 'Judeo-Christian' is typically used to describe the religious foundation of our country. 'Judeo' isn't used to be more inclusive, it's definitional. Christianity didn't spring forth from thin air, it has a strong grounding in (guess which religion - if you don't know, check out the Bible. There is an old testament and a new testament - surprisingly, both can be found in Christian churches!) We are a Christian nation by heritage defined by Judeo-Christian values, with a heavy dose of the rationalists. Defining what the nation is doesn't equate to a push for supremacy of any kind. Clearly the U.S. is moving in a secular direction, despite it's deeply Christian background.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, my post only was referring to Iowa. Romney still holds a solid lead in almost all of the polls in New Hampshire. To me, the real question is Giuliani. He is nowhere in Iowa, trails Romney badly in New Hampshire, barely leads in the latest Michigan polls (which aren't very recent), and is in a 4-way dogfight in South Carolina. At some point he has to win a primary, or electability becomes an issue.

I believe Guiliani is still leading the national polls. He's strong in a lot of big states, like Florida. He has little appeal in the early contests.

Guiliani is an odd duck. I don't mind him too much. I'm surprised at his support in the republican party.

[Scott Campbell]

Mormons were persecuted in this country and still are misunderstood to a certain extent...just like Blacks and Jews and Muslims and Native Americans and Women...blah blah blah...I'm sick and tired of it being made a campaign issue.



When legit polls show that people won't vote for someone simply because of ethnicity, gender or religious background, its plainly an issue. It's not being "made" into anything. It is what it is.

[Scott Campbell]

He seemed to suggest that it is a unanimous opinion of Americans.


I think the speech was poorly worded, and it could affect my vote. As you note, you can interpret many of his sentences with "seemed to suggest". You can't say he actually said it. But he certainly did leave much of the speech open to interpretation.

I'd prefer that candidates didn't leave things like this open to interpretation.

[Harlan Huckleby]

'Judeo-Christian' is typically used to describe the religious foundation of our country.

you might just as well refer to the Hellenic foundations of our country. Western values descend from the ancient Greeks, after all.

the point is that the phrase "Judeo-Christian" is used by right-wing Christian groups who wish to emphasize a religious commonality. It sounds neutral and inclusive. But Jewish organizations have a history of minority status that resists this sort of centralized coercian. I've never heard a Jewish person use that phrase. Or a moderate Christian group.

Here's a point of view:
The Judeo-Christian Oxymoron (http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_oxymoron.html)

The next time I hear that phrase "Judeo-Christian" from someone who is not a right-winger will be the first time.

[the_idle_threat]

Mormons were persecuted in this country and still are misunderstood to a certain extent...just like Blacks and Jews and Muslims and Native Americans and Women...blah blah blah...I'm sick and tired of it being made a campaign issue.



When legit polls show that people won't vote for someone simply because of ethnicity, gender or religious background, its plainly an issue. It's not being "made" into anything. It is what it is.

I don't consider gender, ethnicity or religious background in deciding who I would vote for. I DO consider trustworthiness.

I distrust Mormons, and would be less inclined to vote for one, because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect. I think Mormons bring this so-called "persecution" on themselves.

One man's opinion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Crisis of Faith
Published: December 7, 2007

Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office.

Mr. Romney spoke with an evident passion about the hunger for religious freedom that defined the birth of the nation. He said several times that his faith informs his life, but he would not impose it on the Oval Office.

Still, there was no escaping the reality of the moment. Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy. He cited the Declaration of Independence’s reference to “the creator” endowing all men with unalienable rights and the founders’ proclaiming not just their belief in God, but their belief that God’s hand guided the American revolutionaries.

Mr. Romney dragged out the old chestnuts about “In God We Trust” on the nation’s currency, and the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance — conveniently omitting that those weren’t the founders’ handiwork, but were adopted in the 1950s at the height of McCarthyism. He managed to find a few quotes from John Adams to support his argument about America’s Christian foundation, but overlooked George Washington’s letter of reassurance to the Jews in Newport, R.I., that they would be full members of the new nation.

He didn’t mention Thomas Jefferson, who said he wanted to be remembered for writing the Declaration of Independence, founding the University of Virginia and drafting the first American law — a Virginia statute — guaranteeing religious freedom. In his book, “American Gospel,” Jon Meacham quotes James Madison as saying that law was “meant to comprehend, with the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”

The founders were indeed religious men, as Mr. Romney said. But they understood the difference between celebrating religious faith as a virtue, and imposing a particular doctrine, or even religion in general, on everyone. As Mr. Meacham put it, they knew that “many if not most believed, yet none must.”

The other myth permeating the debate over religion is that it is a dispute between those who believe religion has a place in public life and those who advocate, as Mr. Romney put it, “the elimination of religion from the public square.” That same nonsense is trotted out every time a court rules that the Ten Commandments may not be displayed in a government building.

We believe democracy cannot exist without separation of church and state, not that public displays of faith are anathema. We believe, as did the founding fathers, that no specific religion should be elevated above all others by the government.

The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific declarations of religious belief (like Mr. Romney saying he believes Jesus was the son of God) is a step toward imposing that belief on all Americans. That is why they wrote in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

And yet, religious testing has gained strength in the last few elections. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, has made it the cornerstone of his campaign. John McCain, another Republican who struggles to win over the religious right, calls America “a Christian nation.”

CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?”

The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.

[Scott Campbell]

Mormons were persecuted in this country and still are misunderstood to a certain extent...just like Blacks and Jews and Muslims and Native Americans and Women...blah blah blah...I'm sick and tired of it being made a campaign issue.



When legit polls show that people won't vote for someone simply because of ethnicity, gender or religious background, its plainly an issue. It's not being "made" into anything. It is what it is.

I don't consider gender, ethnicity or religious background in deciding who I would vote for. I DO consider trustworthiness.

I distrust Mormons, and would be less inclined to vote for one, because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect. I think Mormons bring this so-called "persecution" on themselves.

One man's opinion.


Well, at least you admit it.

Do you distrust Catholics because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect?

Mormon's are no longer persecuted in this country. But they certainly were. And if you don't think they were, then you probably just don't understand their history. They suffered a level of persecution that would not be tolerated today, though what they went through pales in comparison to the suffering of blacks and native Americans.

[the_idle_threat]

Well, at least you admit it.

Do you distrust Catholics because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect?

Well, I was raised Catholic, so they don't have any secrets from me. :P But seriously---this strikes me as a silly question. What Catholic "secrets" are you referring to? As far as I know, anybody is welcome in any Catholic church, and anyone can attend a Catholic ceremony, including a Catholic wedding (not that anybody would particularly WANT to ... *snore*). Non-Catholics are not supposed to participate in Communion, but they don't have to leave the room during the ceremony. Compare that to the Mormon Temple and Mormon weddings. I recall being told a story once about a Mormon marrying someone who was not Mormon, and the parents of either the bride or groom (I forget which) were left outside the temple, disallowed from attending the ceremony, because they were not Mormons.



Mormon's are no longer persecuted in this country. But they certainly were. And if you don't think they were, then you probably just don't understand their history. They suffered a level of persecution that would not be tolerated today, though what they went through pales in comparison to the suffering of blacks and native Americans.

I'm aware that Mormons experienced some persecution in the past. Along with just about everyone else in history. *Yawn* And you admitted yourself that it doesn't happen anymore. It's a dead issue. That's what I meant by "so-called." Not really a good choice of words on my part, though, I admit.

But I do think you're conflating present distrust in a Mormon leader---which, I think, is justifiable---with persecution---which is never justifiable. It's one thing to distrust somebody who wants to be the country's political leader, is religious or at least claims to be guided by his religous faith, but subscribes to a faith that most of the country doesn't understand and can't understand, because so much of the church's teachings go on behind closed doors. It's another thing entirely to advocate persecution. I'm in the former camp, but definitely not in the latter (no pun intended).

I will admit that I could be extremely misinformed on the Mormon religion. It's my understanding that it's kind of like a cross between Christianity and Freemasonry, with secret ceremonies and exclusive venues that are closed to outsiders---like is seen in Freemasonry---overlaying general Christian principals and teachings. It's that Freemasonry/secrecy angle that does not exist in Catholicism or any other major Christian sect that I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I do mean that, too. I'm more interested in gaining a better understanding than I am in being "right," if "right" I am not.

But if I am right in my understanding, then it's simple human nature to be at least a bit wary. Secret ceremonies and closed venues give the impression that there's something to hide. That might sound unfair, but it's a fact. It's hard to have complete trust in a would-be leader whose moral guidance comes from a faith that gives the impression of having something to hide.

[Freak Out]

The President is supposed to represent the people of the country and lead the nation in many respects.....but not in prayer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The President has always led the people in prayer. Go back and look at some of the great presidential speeches of all-time.

[MJZiggy]

Well, at least you admit it.

Do you distrust Catholics because of all the secrecy surrounding that particular religious sect?

Well, I was raised Catholic, so they don't have any secrets from me. :P But seriously---this strikes me as a silly question. What Catholic "secrets" are you referring to? As far as I know, anybody is welcome in any Catholic church, and anyone can attend a Catholic ceremony, including a Catholic wedding (not that anybody would particularly WANT to ... *snore*). Non-Catholics are not supposed to participate in Communion, but they don't have to leave the room during the ceremony. Compare that to the Mormon Temple and Mormon weddings. I recall being told a story once about a Mormon marrying someone who was not Mormon, and the parents of either the bride or groom (I forget which) were left outside the temple, disallowed from attending the ceremony, because they were not Mormons.

This part is true to a point. My brother married a Mormon woman and they eventually eloped because, yes, our side of the family would have been unable to attend the ceremony. But the reason we were given for our exclusion was more along the lines of that they wanted the wedding in a shrine and the Mormons consider the shrines to be holy places that only Mormon people should be admitted to.

I know that they have some strange beliefs (and underwear), and I don't trust Romney, but it has nothing to do with his denomination. I have no problem with his faith as long as he doesn't try to push it on me--just like I have no problem with Catholicism as long they don't try to push their guilt on me. That means YOU, Mom!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

The irony couldn't be any richer: Romney is standing up against the bigotry of evangelical (especially) Christians towards Mormons. And he does so by finding common cause in bigotry towards non-believers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The President has always led the people in prayer. Go back and look at some of the great presidential speeches of all-time.

Every politician is going to appeal to the majority. You don't see anybody in the WI Governor's family wearing Bears gear.

We have 537 people in Congress, and darned if not one of them is agnostic or atheist. Isn't that amazing! Quite a pious bunch.

Someday we'll have a politician with the courage to not wear religion on his sleave. None in sight yet.

[HarveyWallbangers]

There are a lot of us that don't mind having a "religious" politician... provided they live their life according to those principles. A lot of them aren't. I blame the politicians. Not the religion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There are a lot of us that don't mind having a "religious" politician.

Being religious is not a problem. The problem is the litmus test and the pandering.

[Joemailman]

Peggy Noonan, who was a Reagan speechwriter, wrote this article about the Romney speech, Like many Republicans, she is concerned that certain elements of the religious right have too firm a grip on the GOP.

PEGGY NOONAN

Mormon in America
How Mitt Romney came to give The Speech--and how he did.

Friday, December 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Did Mitt Romney have to give a speech on religion? Yes. When you're in a race so close you could lose due to one issue, your Mormonism, you must address the issue of your Mormonism. The only question was timing: now, in the primaries, or later, as the nominee? But could he get to the general without The Speech? Apparently he judged not. (Mr. Romney's campaign must have some interesting internal polling about Republicans on the ground in Iowa and elsewhere.)

But Mr. Romney had other needs, too. His candidacy needed a high-minded kick start. It needed an Act II. He's been around for a year, he's made his first impression, he needed to make it new again. He seized the opportunity to connect his candidacy to something larger and transcendent: the history of religious freedom in America. He made a virtue of necessity.

He had nothing to prove to me regarding his faith or his church, which apparently makes me your basic Catholic. Catholics are not his problem. His problem, a Romney aide told me, had more to do with a particular fundamentalist strain within evangelical Protestantism. Bill Buckley once said he'd rather be governed by the first thousand names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard faculty. I'd rather be governed by Donny and Marie than the Washington establishment. Mormons have been, in American history, hardworking, family-loving citizens whose civic impulses have tended toward the constructive. Good enough for me. He's running for president, not pastor. In any case his faith is one thing about Mr. Romney I haven't questioned.

It is true that some in his campaign thought a speech risky, but others saw it as an opportunity, and a first draft was ready last March. In certain ways Mr. Romney had felt a tugging resistance: I've been in public life--served as governor, run the Olympics, run a business. I have to do a speech saying my faith won't distort my leadership?

In May he decided to do it, but timing was everything. His campaign wanted to do it when he was on the ascendancy, not defensively but from a position of strength. In October they decided to do the speech around Thanksgiving. Mr. Romney gathered together all the material and began to work in earnest. Then they decided it would get lost in the holiday clutter. They decided to go after Thanksgiving, but before Dec. 15. The rise of Mike Huckabee, according to this telling, didn't force this decision but complicated it.

The campaign fixed on Dec. 6, at the College Station, Texas, library of George H.W. Bush, with the former president introducing him, which would lend a certain imprimatur (and mute those who say his son's White House is pulling for Rudy Giuliani).

It is called his JFK speech, but in many ways JFK had it easier than Mr. Romney does now. The Catholic Church was the single biggest Christian denomination in America, representing 30% of the population (Mormons: 2%, six million). Americans who had never met a Catholic in 1920 had by 1960 fought side by side with them in World War II and sat with them in college under the GI bill. JFK had always signaled that he held his faith lightly, not with furrow-browed earnestness. He had one great question to answer: Would he let the Vatican control him? As if. And although some would vote against him because he was Catholic, some would vote for him for the same reason, and they lived in the cities and suburbs of the industrial states.

Mr. Romney gave the speech Thursday morning. How did he do?

Very, very well. He made himself some history. The words he said will likely have a real and positive impact on his fortunes. The speech's main and immediate achievement is that foes of his faith will now have to defend their thinking, in public. But what can they say to counter his high-minded arguments? "Mormons have cooties"?

Romney reintroduced himself to a distracted country--Who is that handsome man saying those nice things?--while defending principles we all, actually, hold close, and hold high.

His text was warmly cool. It covered a lot of ground briskly, in less than 25 minutes. His approach was calm, logical, with an emphasis on clarity. It wasn't blowhardy, and it wasn't fancy. The only groaner was, "We do not insist on a single strain of religion--rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." It is a great tragedy that there is no replacement for that signal phrase of the 1980s, "Gag me with a spoon."

Beyond that, the speech was marked by the simplicity that accompanies intellectual confidence.

At the start, Mr. Romney was nervous and rushed, his voice less full than usual. He settled down during the second applause, halfway though the text--"No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths." From that moment he was himself.

He started with a full JFK: "I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith." No "authorities of my church" or any church, will "ever exert influence" on presidential decisions. "Their authority is theirs," within the province of the church, and it ends "where the affairs of the nation begin." "I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law." He pledged to serve "no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest." He will not disavow his religion. "My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

Bracingly: "Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it." Whatever our faith, the things we value--equality, obligation, commitment to liberty--unite us. In a passage his advisers debated over until the night before the speech, Mr. Romney declared: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind." He made the call. Why? I asked the aide. "Because it's what he thinks."

At the end, he told a story he had inserted just before Thanksgiving. During the dark days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, someone suggested the delegates pray. But there were objections: They all held different faiths. "Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed." At this point in Mr. Romney's speech, the roused audience stood and applauded, and the candidate looked moved.

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we've bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

[the_idle_threat]

There are a lot of us that don't mind having a "religious" politician... provided they live their life according to those principles. A lot of them aren't. I blame the politicians. Not the religion.

Normally I don't mind having a religious politician, as long as I understand their religion.

I blame the religion---at least a little bit---when I'm supposed to trust somebody who lives by the religion's priciples, but the religion hides those "principles" from anybody who isn't of the same faith. The public doesn't really know what it's getting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But Romney did not say that most Americans believe that religion is a gift from God. He seemed to suggest that it is a unanimous opinion of Americans. [/b]

And Guiliani does the full Bill O'Reilly when he defines a secular government as one dominated by the Secularist religion.

It's as if an absence of religion in government is an endorsement of irreligiousity.

I can see how religious people might feel this way. But the alternative boils-down to promotion of the mainstream religion (chrisitianity) by the government. Or at a minimum, a comingling of church and state.

On a related note: you can spot a Chrisitian Supremacist when you hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian values." This is a hoot. Jewish people and organizations are historically STRONGLY for seperation of church and state. You are unlikely to ever hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian" from a Jew. They typically want no part of any mainstream domination movement. That phrase is used constantly by Bill O'Reilly, who is unabashadly for defining us as a Christian nation. It is a ploy to sound more inclusive.

True. Very True. You'll never hear a Jew ever say Judeo Christian.

We all know that this country is Christian. And, if there is a choice between the Judeo (old testament) and Christian (new testament) we know which way things will fall.

Tyrone and his family know that diamonds are easily transportable.

[SkinBasket]

Tyrone and his family know that diamonds are easily transportable.

Diamonds, eh? That's what you're callin them these days?

[Freak Out]

Did anyone get the chance to see Rudy on Meet the Press yesterday?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

His giggling is just a little.......girlish?

I read somewhere that his Law firm Bracewell Guiliani is defending KBR in a lawsuit filed by US soldiers. Anyone else hear that he had a priest/rapist on his campaign staff?

[Harlan Huckleby]

You'll never hear a Jew ever say Judeo Christian.

We all know that this country is Christian. And, if there is a choice between the Judeo (old testament) and Christian (new testament) we know which way things will fall.

Ocassionally you hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian-Islamic." This is really more meaningful. The Torah & Old Testement are greatly overlapped. And the Qaran is essentially Muhammad introducing these same stories/concepts to the polytheists of Arabia. The Qaran also includes parts of the New Testement, Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet.

So Jews, Christians & Mulsims come from a common tradition. But they are different cultures now. I don't see how Jewish tradition informed our country. We were founded by Puritans, and other Christians who Garrison Keillor says "came to America to seek a religious oppression not possible in their country of origin." There were some Jewish settlers in early America in the deep south (seems kind of funny now), but not that many.

I watched a panel discussion on religion-state issues on CSPAN, and the three Jewish people all were uncomfortable with the "Judeo-Christian" phrase. It makes sense. Their history is that of a minority struggling to maintain their identity. They don't want to be lumped into some majoritarian movement.

I know "Judeo-Christain" has a legitimate historical meaning, but in the context of recent debate on the seperation of church/state, it is frequently used as a marketing tool by Christians who want to put prayer in school and gays in the closet.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You'll never hear a Jew ever say Judeo Christian.

We all know that this country is Christian. And, if there is a choice between the Judeo (old testament) and Christian (new testament) we know which way things will fall.

Ocassionally you hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian-Islamic." This is really more meaningful. The Torah & Old Testement are greatly overlapped. And the Qaran is essentially Muhammad introducing these same stories/concepts to the polytheists of Arabia. The Qaran also includes parts of the New Testement, Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet.

So Jews, Christians & Mulsims come from a common tradition. But they are different cultures now. I don't see how Jewish tradition informed our country. We were founded by Puritans, and other Christians who Garrison Keillor says "came to America to seek a religious oppression not possible in their country of origin." There were some Jewish settlers in early America in the deep south (seems kind of funny now), but not that many.

I watched a panel discussion on religion-state issues on CSPAN, and the three Jewish people all were uncomfortable with the "Judeo-Christian" phrase. It makes sense. Their history is that of a minority struggling to maintain their identity. They don't want to be lumped into some majoritarian movement.

I know "Judeo-Christain" has a legitimate historical meaning, but in the context of recent debate on the seperation of church/state, it is frequently used as a marketing tool by Christians who want to put prayer in school and gays in the closet.

There are quite a number of synagogues down south..mostly fallling apart. Not that strange. No formal immigration standard..so whatever port. Charleston is as viable as Boston. Many arrived thru louisiana. Also, their skills as merchants and traders were more needed in an agragrian south than more industrialized north.

Jews were in america starting back in 1654.

Puritans: Never heard Keillor on that, makes sense. I always think of the puritans as ultra religious jerks. Think about it. It wasn't like england was some sort of raving cauldron of liberalism and tolerance. yet, it was to much for them. And, the Dutch couldn't handle the puritans either. How much of an ass do you have to be to have the dutch on your ass? They even tolerated the jews. ;)

Jews do have a shared background, but are far from being like Christians. They don't view god the same way, don't have the same relationship with god, don't view our religion the same way, don't view being gay the same way, don't view sex the same way, etc.

Jews, culturally, prolly are closer to muslims than christians.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I see muslims and christians being the most similar of that triad. Jews accept converts, but essentially mind their own business. Muslims & Christians are aggressive in spreading their beliefs. Which is why they are perpetually in such tense conflict.

As far as the issue of sexuality, my information is anecdotal, but the Jews I've known fuck like bunnies. :)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I see muslims and christians being the most similar of that triad. Jews accept converts, but essentially mind their own business. Muslims & Christians are aggressive in spreading their beliefs. Which is why they are perpetually in such tense conflict.

As far as the issue of sexuality, my information is anecdotal, but the Jews I've known fuck like bunnies. :)

Muslims: I meant that they have a shared culture and are hated by christians.

Rabbits: Umm, “Go forth and multiply” was the first commandment in the Bible. Jews take their bible very seriously. ;)

There is another commandment that men satisfy their wives. God asks to much from JEWS. ;)

From King David to Ron Jeremy...jews have always taken a strong interest in sex.

Jews and sex: Judiasm views sex as a natural act, no different than eating or drinking. And both of those done properly are beneficial to the body...as is sex. Improper eating/drinking leads to problems as does improper sex.

Jewish law, followed by a minority is a bit conservative. But, even Conservatives wrote a tract about meaningful non married sex vs. promiscuity.

[Freak Out]

All this talk about Judeo Christian values....

FZ:

I want a nasty little Jewish princess
With long phony nails and a hairdo that rinses
A horny little Jewish princess
With a garlic aroma that could level Tacoma
Lonely inside
Well, she can swallow my pride

I want a hairy little Jewish princess
With a brand new nose, who knows where it goes
I want a steamy little Jewish princess
With over-worked gums, who squeaks when she cums
I don't want no troll
I just want a Yemenite hole

I want a darling little Jewish princess
Who don't shit about cooking and is arrogant looking
A vicious little Jewish princess
To specifically happen with a pee-pee thats snappin
All up inside
I just want a princess to ride

Awright, back to the top...everybody twist

I want a funky little Jewish princess
A grinder; a bumper, with a pre-moistened dumper
A brazen little Jewish princess
With titanic tits, and sand-blasted zits
She can even be poor
So long as she does it with four on the floor
(vapor-lock)

I want a dainty little Jewish princess
With a couple of sisters who can raise a few blisters
A fragile little Jewish princess
With Romanian thighs, who weasels n lies
For two or three nights

Wont someone send me a princess who bites
Wont someone send me a princess who bites

[Freak Out]

Just stick with the issues please.

Huckabee questions tenet of Romney's Mormon faith
Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:36am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said he considers his rival Mitt Romney's Mormon faith a religion, not a cult, but questioned whether Mormons believe "Jesus and the devil are brothers."

Huckabee raised the question on his own in an interview to appear in The New York Times magazine on Sunday, and ignited a new flap in the up-for-grabs race to be the Republican Party's nominee in the November 2008 presidential election.

Huckabee was asked if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. "I think it's a religion," he said in the interview, published on the newspaper's Web site on Wednesday. "I really don't know much about it."

Then he asked: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Romney, who has tried to dispel conservative Christians' worries about the Mormon faith, responded on NBC's "Today" show on Wednesday.

"I think attacking someone's religion is really going too far. It's just not the American way. and I think people will reject that," the former Massachusetts governor said.

"That's been something that's been leveled at our church over many many years and of course that's been set straight now," he added.

Huckabee, a Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor, has surged in public opinion polls and is now ahead of Romney in polls in Iowa, which holds its caucus, the first test of the U.S. state-by-state nominating season, on Jan 3.

He made the comment before Romney gave a major speech last week trying to dispel fears about his church, known formally as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, particularly among conservative Christians, an important voting bloc. Romney said he believes Jesus Christ is the son of God and savior of mankind, and that his White House would not be controlled by his church.

Romney responded with a sharp attack on Huckabee's positions on issues such as immigration and taxing and spending. "I think Mike was desperately hoping we would get through this without people taking a close look at his positions and his record," he said.

(Reporting by Joanne Kenen, editing by Lori Santos)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All this talk about Judeo Christian values....

FZ:

I want a nasty little Jewish princess
With long phony nails and a hairdo that rinses
A horny little Jewish princess
With a garlic aroma that could level Tacoma
Lonely inside
Well, she can swallow my pride

I want a hairy little Jewish princess
With a brand new nose, who knows where it goes
I want a steamy little Jewish princess
With over-worked gums, who squeaks when she cums
I don't want no troll
I just want a Yemenite hole

I want a darling little Jewish princess
Who don't shit about cooking and is arrogant looking
A vicious little Jewish princess
To specifically happen with a pee-pee thats snappin
All up inside
I just want a princess to ride

Awright, back to the top...everybody twist

I want a funky little Jewish princess
A grinder; a bumper, with a pre-moistened dumper
A brazen little Jewish princess
With titanic tits, and sand-blasted zits
She can even be poor
So long as she does it with four on the floor
(vapor-lock)

I want a dainty little Jewish princess
With a couple of sisters who can raise a few blisters
A fragile little Jewish princess
With Romanian thighs, who weasels n lies
For two or three nights

Wont someone send me a princess who bites
Wont someone send me a princess who bites

God, how i hate zappa's lyrics. I know i'm suppose to think he is a genius and such, but his humor is sophomoric at best.

However, since he was half arab and part french, it does make me wonder about him. Lyrics seem a bit hostile.

Just as concerned with stereotypes that aren't accurate. Jews and garlic? Huh? Jewish princesses and hairdos that rinse? Wrong group.

[Freak Out]

All this talk about Judeo Christian values....

FZ:

I want a nasty little Jewish princess
With long phony nails and a hairdo that rinses
A horny little Jewish princess
With a garlic aroma that could level Tacoma
Lonely inside
Well, she can swallow my pride

I want a hairy little Jewish princess
With a brand new nose, who knows where it goes
I want a steamy little Jewish princess
With over-worked gums, who squeaks when she cums
I don't want no troll
I just want a Yemenite hole

I want a darling little Jewish princess
Who don't shit about cooking and is arrogant looking
A vicious little Jewish princess
To specifically happen with a pee-pee thats snappin
All up inside
I just want a princess to ride

Awright, back to the top...everybody twist

I want a funky little Jewish princess
A grinder; a bumper, with a pre-moistened dumper
A brazen little Jewish princess
With titanic tits, and sand-blasted zits
She can even be poor
So long as she does it with four on the floor
(vapor-lock)

I want a dainty little Jewish princess
With a couple of sisters who can raise a few blisters
A fragile little Jewish princess
With Romanian thighs, who weasels n lies
For two or three nights

Wont someone send me a princess who bites
Wont someone send me a princess who bites

God, how i hate zappa's lyrics. I know i'm suppose to think he is a genius and such, but his humor is sophomoric at best.

However, since he was half arab and part french, it does make me wonder about him. Lyrics seem a bit hostile.

Just as concerned with stereotypes that aren't accurate. Jews and garlic? Huh? Jewish princesses and hairdos that rinse? Wrong group.

Sophomoric is the point here.....his lyrics weren't what made his music so great for most fans though.

[Freak Out]

All this talk about Judeo Christian values....

FZ:

I want a nasty little Jewish princess
With long phony nails and a hairdo that rinses
A horny little Jewish princess
With a garlic aroma that could level Tacoma
Lonely inside
Well, she can swallow my pride

I want a hairy little Jewish princess
With a brand new nose, who knows where it goes
I want a steamy little Jewish princess
With over-worked gums, who squeaks when she cums
I don't want no troll
I just want a Yemenite hole

I want a darling little Jewish princess
Who don't shit about cooking and is arrogant looking
A vicious little Jewish princess
To specifically happen with a pee-pee thats snappin
All up inside
I just want a princess to ride

Awright, back to the top...everybody twist

I want a funky little Jewish princess
A grinder; a bumper, with a pre-moistened dumper
A brazen little Jewish princess
With titanic tits, and sand-blasted zits
She can even be poor
So long as she does it with four on the floor
(vapor-lock)

I want a dainty little Jewish princess
With a couple of sisters who can raise a few blisters
A fragile little Jewish princess
With Romanian thighs, who weasels n lies
For two or three nights

Wont someone send me a princess who bites
Wont someone send me a princess who bites

God, how i hate zappa's lyrics. I know i'm suppose to think he is a genius and such, but his humor is sophomoric at best.

However, since he was half arab and part french, it does make me wonder about him. Lyrics seem a bit hostile.

Just as concerned with stereotypes that aren't accurate. Jews and garlic? Huh? Jewish princesses and hairdos that rinse? Wrong group.

Perhaps you should actually listen to some of his music besides the run of the mill titties and beer stuff. Stereotypes that aren't accurate? Hostile? :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

All this talk about Judeo Christian values....

:beat: one more kick:

there's really no such thing as Judeo-Christian values. Or at least it makes no more or less sense than saying Pakistan is built upon Judeo-Islamic values.

Did anybody catch Alan Keyes in the Republican debate yesterday? Wow, that guy is a live wire. I like him though, just because he is such a smart, effective and civil advocate. He said that the answer to our educational problems is to have prayer and religious education in schools. Only by obtaining this moral grounding, can a student have the self-discipline to study math and science. And most astounding, he said that we have a "national creed" that we need to rally around.

At least Alan Keyes tells you what he really wants.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Huckabee questions tenet of Romney's Mormon faith

I think Huckabee made an off-hand, idiotic remark. I can't imagine he thought this would be an effective political ploy. (You need to have underlings do this sort of dirty smearing, and then react publicly with revulsion!)

[hoosier]

All this talk about Judeo Christian values....

:beat: one more kick:

there's really no such thing as Judeo-Christian values. Or at least it makes no more or less sense than saying Pakistan is built upon Judeo-Islamic values.

Did anybody catch Alan Keyes in the Republican debate yesterday? Wow, that guy is a live wire. I like him though, just because he is such a smart, effective and civil advocate. He said that the answer to our educational problems is to have prayer and religious education in schools. Only by obtaining this moral grounding, can a student have the self-discipline to study math and science. And most astounding, he said that we have a "national creed" that we need to rally around.

At least Alan Keyes tells you what he really wants.

Yeah, even if it would mean taking us back to the days of the Puritans. But what's so astounding about the national creed line? Isn't that basically what all Repub candidates are saying?

[Harlan Huckleby]

But what's so astounding about the national creed line? Isn't that basically what all Repub candidates are saying?

OK, this is a first for me. I have no friggin idea what "national creed" means but it creeps me out. Obviously "creed" has a religious connotation.

[K-town]

But what's so astounding about the national creed line? Isn't that basically what all Repub candidates are saying?

OK, this is a first for me. I have no friggin idea what "national creed" means but it creeps me out. Obviously "creed" has a religious connotation.

Creed creeps me out, too. Can't stand Scott Stapp and his Jesus Christ pose in all those videos. Ack.
Wait...wrong creed?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All this talk about Judeo Christian values....

FZ:

I want a nasty little Jewish princess
With long phony nails and a hairdo that rinses
A horny little Jewish princess
With a garlic aroma that could level Tacoma
Lonely inside
Well, she can swallow my pride

I want a hairy little Jewish princess
With a brand new nose, who knows where it goes
I want a steamy little Jewish princess
With over-worked gums, who squeaks when she cums
I don't want no troll
I just want a Yemenite hole

I want a darling little Jewish princess
Who don't shit about cooking and is arrogant looking
A vicious little Jewish princess
To specifically happen with a pee-pee thats snappin
All up inside
I just want a princess to ride

Awright, back to the top...everybody twist

I want a funky little Jewish princess
A grinder; a bumper, with a pre-moistened dumper
A brazen little Jewish princess
With titanic tits, and sand-blasted zits
She can even be poor
So long as she does it with four on the floor
(vapor-lock)

I want a dainty little Jewish princess
With a couple of sisters who can raise a few blisters
A fragile little Jewish princess
With Romanian thighs, who weasels n lies
For two or three nights

Wont someone send me a princess who bites
Wont someone send me a princess who bites

God, how i hate zappa's lyrics. I know i'm suppose to think he is a genius and such, but his humor is sophomoric at best.

However, since he was half arab and part french, it does make me wonder about him. Lyrics seem a bit hostile.

Just as concerned with stereotypes that aren't accurate. Jews and garlic? Huh? Jewish princesses and hairdos that rinse? Wrong group.

Perhaps you should actually listen to some of his music besides the run of the mill titties and beer stuff. Stereotypes that aren't accurate? Hostile? :lol:

I've heard practically everything..stopping around 92 or so.

Stereotypes: Jews and garlic isn't a very common stereotype. What foods do you think jews eat with garlic?

Hostile: In this song. Very familiar with it. Are you saying because he is a great musician that he can't have foibles?