Religion & Politics rant - making new friends

[Harlan Huckleby]

Re: Religion & Politics rant - making new friends

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]

Re: Religion & Politics rant - making new friends

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]

Re: Religion & Politics rant - making new friends

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.