- ‹ previous
- 4085 of 8793
- next ›
Romney to Atheists: Drop Dead
Drop dead? Well, not really. But close. In his much-hyped speech today, Mitt Romney offered this short observation to Americans eager to know his thoughts about theology and politics:
Freedom requires religion.
That's an intriguing notion. Does that mean those who are not religious cannot be free? Are atheists or agnostics not truly free people? Is belief in a deity a prerequisite for embracing and living in freedom? Seems as if Romney does not fully appreciate an idea he pushed in his speech: tolerance.
Elsewhere in the speech, there was a line that took a fair bit of chutzpah to utter:
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
Romney was, of course, talking about spiritual beliefs. He wasn't talking about his beliefs regarding abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, or gun control--beliefs he has jettisoned for the 2008 campaign. During the address, Romney remarked, "Americans do not respect believers of convenience." The coming election might put that proposition to the test.
What more would we need to know about this flip-flopper?
He is NOW:
pro-life
pro-war
pro religion in the Whitehouse
and pro-cultism.
He stands for everything that I am against.
By the way, I earned my freedom by serving my country in battle.
Mit is another "chickenhawk" who will demean the very ones who fought for his "freedom."
Who but a devout Mormon will vote for this man?
I think old Mitt was referring more to religious beliefs, not spiritual beliefs.
For those of us that believe in spirituality and not religion, there is a big difference.
Spirituality a connection to God, (take your pick as to which one) and it's dogma free.
Religion is an oppressive collection of rules and regs made to keep the people under control.
Mitt still has five eligible sons.
Romney also expressed his support for all the ways that our government sends the message that atheists are second class citizens.
He also compared the anti-choice movement to the abolition and civil rights movements. This was misogynistic and a rather blatant insult to African-Americans.
ChaxC: Spirituality is religion. The belief that humans have spirits is a religious belief, as is any belief in a god.
The good part about Romney's speech is that now I no longer have to feel guilty about my visceral hatred for the DELETED. Before I was worried there might be a component of my hatred for the candidate based on his Mormon beliefs, but now the hatred I feel for the intolerant scumbucket is based firmly on his religious intolerance.
The problem is, all the candidates, if pushed to say anything on the subject, will echo Romney's sentiments to one degree or another.
Well, you could interpret that a couple ways, will it become a misdemeanor to be Without Declared Faith? Will
you have to wear a little
colored cross on your shirt
to designate yourself by denomination, a little moon crescent for muslim, and will
there be any good clubs you
can get into by showing your
Jesus card? Jesus points? Jesus 10% discount at Penny's?
One good thing you can do
with bibles is roll spliffs...
also, if you have any furniture in the house that sits unevenly, the Word will
bring things back to the straight and narrow, or at least the flat and level.
Religion is a scam, and this billionaire is a HUGE scamster. If he thinks we'll pay a church tax, then HE's stoned...matter of fact, turn that around, make churches pay a fair amount of money annually for a business license...and let's have open books on all those little charities. The Senate's going after some of those a-holes as we speak...transparency.
Jesus is watching, you know...
yeah....
ChaxC - "Religion is an oppressive collection of rules and regs made to keep the people under control."
I agree whole-heartedly. When I read that "Freedom requires religion" line my first thought was "But religion is the antithesis of freedom.
My favorite paradox of the entire speech was the accusation that a "religion of secularism" was being promoted. Wasn't the whole point of the speech religious tolerance? Why won't he tolerate what he himself labels a religion (although I personally dispute that characterization).
Among other things, Romney's statement that religion and freedom are mutually dependent seems a convenient way to invalidate the faiths of the many religious prisoners at Guantanamo.
"Romney also expressed his support for all the ways that our government sends the message that atheists are second class citizens."
The only second class citizen here is Mitt himself for preaching his moronic views and wasting the nation's time with his desperate attempt to compare himself to JFK.
"Who but a devout Mormon will vote for this man?"
I would think that any self respecting mormon would be taking offense to the fact that ol' Mitt seems to be embarrassed or only partially out of the closet about his mormonism. Why should any mormon give their vote to Romney when he doesn't even have a sack to stand up for what he apparently believes?
"...a convenient way to invalidate the faiths of the many religious prisoners at Guantanamo."
I find it vexing that most christians (and muslims) always seem to forget the fact that muslims/christians worship the same god of abraham and really can't comprehend how similar their faiths actually are. You'd think they would all get along.
I think it would be great if there was a candidate who professed beliefs in Zeus. What a fun election year it would be!
libhomo,
In my perception of reality, spirituality isn't a belief, it is knowledge. It is my personal connection with God. There are no rules, no one telling me how to approach God, just the simple knowledge of my experiences and feelings.
Of course, I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, (unlike the religious types, regardless of which religion), I'm just expressing what I know.
You can feel or believe what you want.
"Religion is an oppressive collection of rules and regs made to keep the people under control."
And I suppose socialism/communism (which MoJo seems to love) isn't?
"Of course, I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, (unlike the religious types, regardless of which religion)"
And forcing a faithless society on everyone is prefectly OK.
When I see people wear their faith on their sleeve, I remember Jesus threw people out of the temple because they were money changers.
Mitt Romney is clearly a dilusional hack. He is NOT fit for president...he's as brainwashed as they get and I refuse to be brainwashed by him...who is he to say that freedom requires religion...in my view, and I think that a LOT of people would agree with me on this, true freedom is that of NO religion whatsoever!
I will not be oppressed by your religious/spiritual crap, Mitt, I simply will not!
As Newt once said: The Constitution states the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Thomas Paine is quoted as saying: "Religion is the most evil institution ever created by man for the enslavement of mankind..."
Hmmm,Freedom requires Religion?
Then tell us all Mitt why do the Mormons require you to tie 10% of your money to them to be a member.Thats not a very free decision.Religions do not cater to freedom, they cater to rules. The carrot and stick approach to life.As governor in Massachusetts you required everyone to have health insurance,whether they could afford it or not. Did you you allow people the freedom to make a free willed decision? No you did not. WE have lost our freedoms in America to the rich and the corporate lobbies,which is why I choose not to live there anymore. Thats freedom.
I can see why Jesus would throw Romney out of the temple, he was a great money changer at Bain Capital. Actually,he made a fortune changing money
Why are people here so terrified of rules? Rules are what keep civil societies from falling into anarchy.
Religion is not oppression, it is not enslavement. When was the last time any of you have actually READ what the moral principles are of Judaism, Christianity or even Islam?
Churches do not force people to give their money. No, not even the LDS (try research, it opens one's eyes and mind). Offerings are ALWAYS voluntary, they are free will offerings to assist the church as well as helping thos in the community in need.
Catholic Charities will give to the needy as it can and does not discriminate on one's faith.
I can't understand why you all have such hatred for religion, apart from a fear of answering to something higher then yourself.
"Religion is not oppresive,
"Religion is not oppresive, is not enslaving"
Try being a Mormon for a few years, and you'll see why we think think. I'm an ex-Mormon, and the best decision I ever made was leaving this cult.
"LDS does not force tithing. Do 'research.'"
Why don't you. If you don't pay a full tithe, you can't get a temple recommend. Without a temple recommend, you can't go to the temple to perform rituals Church leaders say are essential for salvation.
"Why don't you study the prinicples of Judaism/chrisiantiy/Islam to see what they TRULY believe?"
Why don't you try reading the Old Testament for once. Atheists love quoting it to show why they don't believe in God. God gave the death penalty for ANYTHING, even if you pick up sticks on Sunday. He is sexist and homophobe in there. Admits to jealosy when He says "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Once, Israel went to war and won so they brought home prisoner. Moses told them to kill all the women and children except for females under the age of 10 who were then raised in Jewish families.
All religious belief is belief in the supernatural. Religions create an us/them class in which the "them" is viewed as negative. I do not believe in the supernatural. It is repellant to me that a presidential candidate has to claim relgious belief to get elected. Mormons are thugs. When they founded Salt Lake City wagon trains of settlers heading west would stop there to re-supply. The Mormons would charge the non-believers exorbitantly and then ambush them after they headed out. They would kill everyone off and take their supplies back.
To the poster who said he/she couldn't understand why we had hate for religion?
Well poster, read closer to all that i have seen comment. The hate is for hypocrits and the corrupt Bible thumpers in the Far Right. More plainly, the Bush bunch. Romney is a fake of the lowest type.
A Muslim, a Christian and a Jew walked into this busy blues bar by the bay.
As the Mormon took the stage to sing His praise the others gathered their thoughts concerning the tune. They all liked sweets and spices to varying degrees in their food. Faith, music as well, is no different in their minds.
If it supplies the healthy benefits of nutritious cuisine or gets your foot to tapping then all is well. But if it consumes the host's mind with violent realities and causes famine, desease and death... that just won't do.
If religion is but a recipe to life then you have to consider that it is made for consumption. Which type of benefit do you wish to have from your Sunday morning meal?
How will it affect your mindset when dealing with the trevails of conscious life?
What of your dreams?
Just as a good cook gathers willing customers, in the same manner that a tight blues band gets the ladies dancing, religion is just that; a meal on a plate.
The inumerable writers and some times so-called prophets of "religion" in it's whole have just been playing chef in the Kitchen of Life. If they followed a good recipe from the start and made it as appealing or better than the original then more power to them. But if the resultant loaf of bread is moldy and sour in taste then you must toss it out for the dogs or into the compost it goes.
An inferior cook is fired if the clientele do not approve. Joseph Smith was a fair cook, in a sense. His restaurant took off when he added some apprentices who could follow his recipe and add their own seasoning.
Ever notice the changes that occur in a band when a new player sits in and jams? Just like a new pastor, rabbi or iman showing up at prayer. Some times if your lucky you get a Sammy Hagar and the future looks good, other times you get that Gary dude, or what ever, it just don't fit. Even the best of recipes gets old and needs some tweaking. There will always be a slight change to the menu with a new cook in the kitchen.
If your willing to swallow that first bite, then by all means do so, after some meditative mastication please.
As Tawny put it, "Mitt Romney is clearly a delusional hack." He has done religion in general a disservice by expressing himself publicly. May God save us from such faithfuls.
Maybe the word 'mormon' should be shortened to 'moron'...
I get so tired of holier-than-thou holy men like Mitt (what kind of name is Mitt anyway?), preaching that you have to believe in Him (not Her) in order to be a moral person. People have committed and ARE committing the worst imaginable atrocities in the name of religion. Religion gives one an excuse to do anything to one's fellow human beings. Perhaps that's what makes it so enduring - that, plus the promise to eliminate the certainty of Personal Extinction, to ascribe conscious intent to random events (or, at least events where we can answer the "How" but never the "Why" because there is no intelligence behind them), and that somehow, there is fairness in the universe, though, oh boy, it can be awfully mysterious. It's been shown that Atheists are no less moral than anyone else - and perhaps slightly MORE moral. That's not surprising given thelatest scientific discoveries that show morality is hard-wired into the human brain, except in the case of sociopaths and certain church leaders. Think of it this way: if you believe in God, you can always blame Him, or better yet, the Devil, for making you do something. But if you believe there is no God, the buck stops with You.
"Religion is not oppression, it is not enslavement."
Not to detract from the original article, but actually psychological oppression can be found in all current religions. Ask any devout follower and see if they have ever felt guilt in "the eyes of [ insert deity here ]" for doing or having certain natural desires. I can go on, but I feel you should do your own research.
"When was the last time any of you have actually READ what the moral principles are of Judaism, Christianity or even Islam?"
All the time, however, this is a baseless argument as there is no evidence religious folk have more moral convictions than atheists, agnostics and other non-believers. In fact, I would argue the latter is far more peaceful and in tune with humanity....which ironically, wouldn't that be what Jesus, God and the like would want anyways??
Personally I find the most "religious" actually know the least of their own religion, while those who are more knowledgeable of the particular faith in question tend to become more distant and eventually unsubscribe from the dogma all together...in my own observations.
I think that most of us that consider ourselves critical thinkers, and "open-minded" people, need to be very careful not to do the very thing that the right-wing politicians do, as in stereotyping, assuming, and passing along falsehoods and half-truths. Don't be calling others hypocrites and then close up your own mind by assuming that you know ALL of the answers. Fact check first, evaluate according to your own belief system, and then come up with your own decision. Don't just spew vitriol toward certain religions if you don't personally understand what you are talking about. Remember that Harry Reid is also a Mormon. The LDS church is politically neutral. I think that one should vote (or not) for Mitt Romney solely on his political position. Let's please leave religion out of it! (And why such nasty comments about Mormons? ---Mormons have suffered numerous persecutions in US history including a government extermination order) The Mormons that I know are kind, honest and caring people that do good works...
Mitt is not blessed with having a keen mind. He just blurt out crap, no supporting rational just blahblahblahblahblah.....blah.
"The Mormons that I know are kind, honest and caring people that do good works..."
Again, this is not because they are Mormons. They most likely would be kind people if they were Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc.
I've known Mormons that are kind and I've known some that have gotten themselves into quite a bit of trouble. But none of it has anything to do with being Mormon.
Please stop equating religious convictions to morality. Given the historical pasts of the abrahamic faiths, they really should be the last groups to dictate moral behavior anyways.
First, let me state that I am a Mormon, just so you all know where I am coming from.
G.F. Jump: Can you please cite where you get this information. I know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but I have not heard of what you describe.
JDGal: Well spoken.
Scott Baker: We believe that God gave us free choice, so what we do is up to us. We are free to choose the path, but not free to choose the consequences. As for the morality of Atheist/non-Atheists, I think we need to agree on what values we hold dear, and to rate accordingly. For example, if I value "being kind to strangers" higher than you do, and you believe that "taking care of your family" is more important, then if I were to help my neighbor and you were to protect your family at a given time, we would probably each think the other less holy than ourselves. I chose those examples as they are both positive, and not inflamatory (sp?).
Christoper Flynn: Actually Moron was the grandfather of Ether. See Ether, chapter 11.
For those who are concerned about people believing other that Mormonism: Please see Article of faith #1
Jeff, not to take anything away from your comments, but I thought it would have been great if you had any comments regarding Romney and his speech as well since you are Mormon. Being an Atheist I do take offense to Mitt's comments however and will call him delusional any day of the week. However, I believe he obviously is not speaking for Mormons as a whole. Although, I do believe his success for winning his party's nomination is pretty much over as the faith-based Republicans can't seem to get over his Mormon beliefs.
There are good and bad people in ALL walks of life, every religion or non-religion. Human beings make mistakes. However, if one's faith encourages them to "love one another as thyself" and performs regular acts of service for others, then I would consider that to be good for society. Mormons believe that all are free to worship as they please (or not to worship as they please, according to the dictates of their own conscience). I am not a Romney supporter (I like Edwards), but I am pretty sure that everyone freaking out about Mitt Romney trying to push his faith on everyone is NOT what he is trying to do. He is trying to pander to the right-wing. I do not believe that he believes in legislating his religion. I am more afraid of "neo-cons" than the Osmonds. Let's get over this ridiculous fetish with his religion.
Steve-O: I understand your concern. I have it when people tell me that they care about me and that I am going to Hell because of my faith. As with JDGal, there are good people in all walks of life, and to say that one is better because "your's is worse" is well, a bunch of crap.
As for your questions about what Romney said, here goes (http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Faith_In_America)
3rd paragraph ("thank you Mr. President", not included): Let's stop importing oil. This would have a twofold effect: First, less of an effect on the environment (if you believe the man made global warming argument); secondly by not enriching those that would do us harm (the 9/11 terrorists did come from a certain part of the world). Concerning the breakdown of the family, this does concern me, but a concern of our church leaders is that we are just the same as everyone else with our divorce rate.
4th paragraph: I read religious liberty, which includes not being religious. The same is not true for taxes or automobile insurance.
5th paragraph: those are John Adams' words that he is quoting. I am an Adams' fan (you can cue the Addams family music, if you like, here...)
6th Paragraph: I have to do more investigating on this one. I have no overt objection to the statements, but have nothing to prove it. I have to study and think about it for a while. I am a believer in freedom and responsibility being intertwined. You cannot have one without the other. I tell my children that. If I tell them to clean the kitchen, then they have the freedom to do it as they please (they don't have the freedom to destroy it in the process). However, if I tell them exactly how to do it (say, put the plastic dishes on the bottom rack, and have the heated dry cycle), I am responsible for the outcome. Come to think of it, freedom requiring religion...Religion does temper the animal in us with conseqeunces for our actions (i.e. thou shalt not steal). It also gives us the consequences of not being able to get away with comething, just because we don't get caught. It is also a salve for those that are wronged, as their oppressor will get a: their just desserts (in hell, if you like), or b: forgiveness for their sin, upon repentance. So, if freedom requires religion, then I am leaning towards that tenet of his argument.
I suppose we could go through history and look at those that use God as a reason to kill or oppress people (The witch trials) vs. those that use their own megalomania to justify the same (Stalin, Hitler, Mao). Either way, it is wrong. If you are in the sights of either one, there is no lesser of two evils; you are dead either way. However, for those using the Bible, Quran, or whatever to oppress people, they have a double problem: 1. They have the oppressed rebelling against them, or, after they die, they get to spend eternity contemplating their decision. For the people that are atheists, they have their legacy to worry about, and/or their own value system to justify their actions (right or wrong). The trouble with that method (in my view, but I am open to disagreement) is that the whims of men are subject to change (especially when things aren't going so well), and usually the weakest and the enemies of the one in power are subjected to their cruelty. I am, by no mean, saying that atheists are crueller or meaner than religious zealots (in fact, many times it is the opposite... see the Taliban and the Inquisition). what I am saying is that, in the end, those that have religion are subject to a final ultimate judgement by their God, and atheists are subject to a judgement by history and their fellow man.
OK... next paragraph (for those of you keeping up, this one starts with "Given our grand..." Religious tolerance wasn't real evident for us back in the 1800's, you know with Gov. Bogg's extermination order...
Next one... nice throwback to Kennedy. Also, the constitution does state that no religious test shall be used.
As for our church... Yes, most of the members are conservative. (Holy cow, a Mormon admitted the members of the church are conservative! News flash!... OK, I do have a sarcastic side...) Our local church leaders get a letter from the First Presidency expressly stating that the church does not endorse any candidate, nor should any politicizing be done from the pulpit, lecturn, or in any capacity where the leaders are acting in their church offices. The intent and explicit content of the letter is to state that the church is not to be used for politics. In fact, the church directories explicitly say that the directory is only to be used for church purposes (such as calling a member for an appointment). There are those that have used it for selling things, and they are quickly and clearly told not to do so.
The "let me assure" paragraph... That is a tricky one. Will gordon B. Hinckley call Mitt and tell him to go to war with Canada? Probably not. Will Mitt call the church leaders and ask what he should do? Quite possibly, but so did Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Bush-41 and 43, as well as Johnson. They talked to Billy Graham for advice.
As for the rest of the speech, I will comment on anything you like, but one thing I would like to say about the paragraphs that followed the ones that I have already commented on. I don't think a person should distance himself from his religion for political purposes, as this comes as close to the core as one can get. This is their eternal perspective on what is happening today. that old line, "in 20 years will this really matter?" becomes, "in eternity, will what I do today really matter?" So, if a person that thinks that being the president and losing their soul is a good deal, then do we really want that person? If an atheist suddenly finds religion to get votes, is that any worse or better?
In closing on this post, I welcome any honest question, such as the one that you put, Steve-O. Please ask. I will do my best to answer them.
Steve-O... I guess I went a little long on that last one.
What, specifically, did Mitt say that offended you?
I also realized that I did not capitalize Atheist in my post. I was going with the idea that theism and atheism are belief systems, and not titles. I am sorry for doing that.
I am also LDS and I am NOT a right-wing Republican. I am getting sick of Mormons getting dumped on. I appreciate many viewpoints and I wish that more people could come to the table and discuss issues without name-calling and hysteria. Haven't we all had enough of that during these horrendous Bush years? Thanks for your comments, Jeff in Sherwood.
New Rule: ANY one, regardless if they believe in the Christian God, Buddha, Poseidon or the Easter Bunny, now has to start paying taxes if they want a voice in the political process. I'm sick and tired of tax-exempt 'religious' entities being allowed a voice in a totally different process; the running of this country. It's bad enough the corporations have an unfair advantage over the commoners...
It's laughingly apparent that NONE of the politicians believe what they're saying about their religious beliefs, or they'd all be cringing every second waiting for the lightning they so fully deserve to strike them. Hypocrites, all! Except Dennis Kucinich.
I agree with you there, signalfire.
Now, the Oxford English dictionary defines religion as:" the belief in a superhuman controlling power."
Contrast control...and freedom. Personally, I believe in a God..sort of. But my personal beliefs should never be imposed upon anyone, and certainly have no place in running the country.
I don't believe a person's moral character is necessarily benefited (sic?) by belief in religion. There are many mysteries remaining in this world, and it is a fool than thinks he has "the" answer--and I speak to both Atheists and Christians here. Aleister Crowley, a figure shrouded in mystery and a lot of false propaganda (he was actually somewhat of a genius with a very good sense of humor)says, in "Magick in Theory and Pratice, that magick is the science of the unseen..it is not "supernatural," science merely hasn't caught up with "magick." Think of the prism..we see one dimension of light..but in reality, it is made up of many "invisible spectrums"--invisible, at least, to our naked eye. Quantumn mechanics has shown that at the sub-atomic level, particles behave in inexplicable ways--being at two places at the same time, for instance. Unfortunately, science has become isolated, and without a subsequent development in philosophy that compares to the leaps in science. Mankind is still, psychologically, in many ways a child...I believe this lack of new frontier (although Robert Anton Wilson is usually at the forefront, and has some very interesting paradigmshifts to consider) in philosophy and psychology is because we just,,don't have the time..to sit..and think..anymore. And I think there is a level of being that could be called "spirtual" that has nothing to do with the supernatural: it is the balancing of the subconscious, often achieved in sleep and dreams..it is the sense of something beyond the mundane, those moments of epiphany when answers seem within grasp like a giant golden moon on the horizon. Without meaning, man stagnates. But it is up to each of us to decide what meanings our lives will have, and how broad our horizons will be.
I have faith in the coolective human wisdom and on the capacity of human- beings to solve their problems without the help of any super-natural being. My religion is Humanism; without any fiath in any deity/Allah/God whatsoever.
I am tired of hearing media pundits decry the "bigotry" of people reluctant to vote for a Morman. It is the bigotry of the Mormon church and its practices that subjugate women and minorities that give me pause. My concerns are based on familiarity with LDS history and practices, informed by issues and stories my Mormon friends conveyed. (I WOULD vote for one of them, because they are willing to take the long view.) I would not vote for a Mormon--or anyone else--who is unwilling to examine his/her own beliefs. To question and risk change demonstrates greater courage and faith than simply regurgitating the offical dogma of any tradiiton.
Wanda: I totally agree with you on the person unwilling to examine his/her own faith deal. I believe that it is incumbent on everyone to examine their beliefs, challenge them, and come to a conclusion.
Alan: You do have excellent points, and as Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." could explain God. What if God were so advanced (intellectually, spiritually, and physically) from us that we believe it to be magic or supernatural? I do believe that your ideas are well thought out, and well articulated.
Humanist: You too have an excellent point. It reminds me of the story of the person who died and met with God and asked Him, "We had so many wars, famine, inhumanity, and cruelty in the world. You had the power to stop it. Why didn't you?" God answered, "I gave you the power of choice. You saw these problems; why didn't you stop it either?" As a different view on not needing the help of a god (I am paraphrasing you), Lincoln once said, "Without the assistance of the divine being, I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail."
Essentially, it seems to be that this discussion is the merits of theism vs. atheism. For me, here are my preferences (in order):
1. A righteous theist who believes in the constitution.
2. A righteous atheist who believes in the constitution.
(these being very close to each other)
3. A theist that believed what they were doing was right, and is right.
4. An atheist who believed what they were doing was right, and is wrong.
(again, both very close.)
5. An atheist, who believes what they are doing is right, but wrong. (I believe they can be convinced).
6. A theist, who belives what they are doing is right, but is wrong. (I don't think they can be convinced.)
The above list refers to decisions that are secular, not those that have to do with their religious beliefs.
In closing, I would vote for someone that had a copy of Rudyard Kipling's If poem (http://www.swarthmore.edu/~apreset1/docs/if.html), and held to the tenets prescribed therein. (and for the Hillary fans, substitute "Woman" and "daughter" in the last line. My daughters' rooms have the edited version there.
Slanted Tom: I am a devout Mormon, and a Ron Paul fan, but your post is exclusionary, not inclusionary. (i.e. If you are "A", and only "A" will do "B", but that doesn't mean that all "A"'s will do "B")
Until the atheists begin to pull up their courage and drag themselves out of the closet with their beliefs, the polititians will continue to use this bible scam against us. We will continue to be second class and the percentage will stay at 14%, which is, I think, media created to keep us from feeling too powerful. I'm sure the true number of atheists in the U.S is much larger. Just drive around on Sunday morning and see what percent go to church. Maybe 10% if they're lucky.
Oh crap... I did it again with the theism and Atheism thing. Please let me know if that is offensive to you. I do not mean to insult or demean anyone with my posts, I am posting them in a spirit of intellectual, spiritual, and political curiosity and an effort to get my point heard in a cogent, honest manner.
JDGal: Thank you for your kind words. I kinda figured that you were LDS by your use of the code word: Gal. I haven't met any other group of women that use that word to describe themselves. ;)
To everyone on here, have a great day, and if you have other plans, I hope you enjoy them!
Norman: I think there is a flaw in your logic. Theism and Atheism (I caught myself this time!!!) are a belief on whether there is ane existence of a God, and not a belief in going to church. I think if you did that drive tomorrow, and knocked on the door of everyone not going to church (OK, the Mormon in me coming out... ;), you may run into some Muslims (holy day is Friday), Jews and Seventh Day Adventists (holy day is Saturday), people who went to church earlier/later in the day, and a lot of people guiltiy feeling like they didn't go to church because the (insert favorite football team here) is playing. You may run into some agnostics as well (who believe in God, but not a particular religion). Also, I would classify Polytheists into the Theism category, as well as Deists.
Bottom line: I don't think that just because you don't go to church, you are an Atheist; an Atheist is pretty clearly defined as one that does not believe in a God.
(Sigh) Norman, and the rest of you -- you mean well, but once AGAIN all the lists regarding who gets slighted (or not), who gets invited to the table by the candidates and their supporters leaves us gays lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders out out. I believe conservatives do it deliberately; progressives, I fear, are just damned insensitive. We're pretty much only remembered when we are forced to point ourselves out for inclusion. Try to remember and include us on your own, will you -- so this space can be utilized not for complaining but for stressing new ideas in the campaignings? At the times we lgbt's are approached to support something, most of us do it gladly. But, dammit, show us you remember us, as well, and MAYBE we can be less suspicious of your lack of motivations. It's inexcusable that you forget us; the all-inclusive (that word again!) reason to help us is because the right is against us, and the more you include us the more votes against Romney. It's as simple as that. The man's only value (virtue?) is that he's square-jawed enough to look good on a postage stamp.
As a recovering Mormon myself, it is somewhat amusing seeing the Romney campaign run aground on religious intolerance, which the Mormons give out just as much as he is now getting from the Christian bigots.
He deeply deserves this, after pandering away the Romney family liberal tradition with shameful war-mongering, religious bigotry, homophobia, and immigration demagoguery, all to get the lunatic Christian right wing vote.
But they won't give it because he is a Mormon. Only a genuine crazy like Huckabee, gets their vote. Merely pretending to be a right wing nutcase, which Romney has done so well, is not good enough for the lunatic fringe.
As an ex-Mormon, I emphatically disagree that the Mormon church is not political. From my experience, right wing propaganda spews forth across the pulpit with great regularity. The members doing this are never told that this is inappropriate, but any member that espouses a liberal view is treated like a pariah.
Homophobia is official Church policy. God simply does not make mistakes such as Gay people.
Mormons are just as crazy about abortion as right wing fundies.
Women cannot hold the priesthood which means that pretty much any doctrinal and adminstrative decisions are decided by men. Mormon organizing across the country was very effective in protesting the Equal Rights Amendment.
I could probably go on for quite some time.
Well Jeff in Sherwood, You being sick about people dumping on Mormans is a little off the mark. What I see with these comments is that people see through the fakie Mitt Romney and has nothing to do with his religion, if any. I don't care what he believes, I just know that he is a piece of crap.
You telling people to examine our faith and come to a solutions points out to me that you are a self rightous so and so. I don't feel the need to examine what I believe or don't believe and come to any kind of conclusion. You take care of your own holier than though misconceptions and let others think what they please. No one needs your rules.
Then I read that you are a Ron Paul fan and that says it all right there. Why should I have expected anything different????
Dewey: I am sorry if I came off as self-righteous. Let me explain what I meant concerning your points:
Sick about people dumping on Mormons: I think that JDGal and others did that. All I ask is honest questions about it. I may not know the answer, or give one that you like, but I will do my best to explain what I think.
Me telling people to examine your faith: I am not commanding that you do that. I am suggesting that people, as a whole, should do that to verify that what they believe is actually true. Here is a non-religous example:
Stem cell research: The right wing thought that embryonic stem cell research was wrong, and the left thought it was OK (these are generalizations, I do realize), and the benefits exceeded the objections of the right, while the right, going on the assumption that life began at conception thought that the moral issue outweighed the benefits promised by this research. This argument played out 6-8 years ago.
When it was discovered that adult stem cells could replicate what embryonic ones could do (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206145301.htm) (and yes, I have looked at both sides, being a Type I diabetic, there are benefits to me as well) it turned into a win-win situation. I'm sure that both sides honestly believe in what they did, but new data made the argument moot.
So, my point (and posts are) is to encourage open minded people (like myself) to re-examine what they believe to be truth. For the most part, most people 99% of the time will come back to the same place they were before. But, if you read the poem I cited earlier,
"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,"
I hope that I have done that with your post and characterizations of me.
Being a Ron Paul fan: There are others that suggested that only a Mormon would vote for Mitt Romney. I hoped by revealing whom I supported, based on his philosophy (I think he is more of a constitutionalist than a placater. Kind of the Dennis Kucinich of the right; both don't really care about brown nosing the electoratel they both just tell it like it is.) Can you please explain to me why being a fan of Mr. Paul "says it all?"
Again, I apologize if I come off as "holier than thou" or "self righteous". I have endeavored to be open minded, truthful about what I beleive, and open to criticism. If I have failed in this regard, I should probably rephrase what I have said. I really believe that the differences that we have in this country are best solved by looking for a "third way", such as the stem cell example posted above.
On another vein; there is a way that others have used to deflect criticms of Mormonism. This is the "you do it too" argument. I have refrained from this, as my (probably both of our) mom said, "two wrongs don't make a right."