How will Mitt Romney handle the subject of his Mormon faith during a much-anticipated speech on Thursday? He gave some clues yesterday, dispelling notions that he would focus mainly on allaying any doubts about his Mormon faith.?I am not going to be giving a J.F.K. speech,? he said, referring to John F. Kennedy?s speech during the 1960 campaign in which Kennedy, then the Democratic nominee for president, promised that the national interest – not his Catholicism – would dictate his policies.?I am going to be talking about the role of religion, faith in America and in a free society.? While Mr. Romney may touch on questions of his own faith lightly, in his comments and those of his aides, it seemed that Mr. Romney?s speech could likely go in a different direction than Kennedy?s, and call for a robust role for faith in public life, without favoring a particular religion.Mr. Romney, who said he drafted the speech Thursday, has been considering the speech for some time, but never as attempt to deal with questions about Mormonism.?I certainly am not a spokesman for my faith,? he said. ?I am not running for pastor-in-chief.?
This guy likes playing both sides of the fence. He’s not the pastor in Chief, but he calls for a “robust roll of faith”…which he will dictate. Translation: Pastor in Chief. Can you say “Bush with magic underwear”?What’s wrong with Kennedy’s speech? Is it wrong to put national interest AHEAD of mythology and personal religion? Is that really a bad thing, Governor?
Crap. Half my post disappeared. Xmas gremlins?
Uh-huh. Good luck with that. Been there, tried that, ordered the t-shirt, it never came.
Well, I like the humor, but the “My God Is the One True God” schtick is still falling on deaf ears. I don’t hear anything new in the arguments.
I am glad that you are hopeful and happy, my friend. Why don’t you just be glad that I am too, and let’s leave it at that?
From jcc:
Funny how the majority of atheists are trying to do things to make this planet a better place as opposed to xtians (in their effort to get to “a better place”) who embrace the idea of an “Armageddon”.
for jcc,
Since you are against SOCAS, you wouldn’t mind if Mitt decided to run the country according to his version of christianity? Stop for a minute and THINK about it. SOCAS protects BOTH sides!
Pot…kettle…black
What commodity do you use to buy gawd’s favor? He did help to sell your house, didn’t he?
It seems as if the one who wrote this has no hope at all.
Check it out, I don’t believe in gods or goddesses, and I have WAY MORE HOPE THAN YOU!
Krystalline Apostate:
What? Then it must be only during your NREM sleep cycles? Why can?t you just admit that you can?t ignore my posts?especially ones not directed to you? If what I profess here really was as vacuous as you assert then why can?t you just ignore me? You?d think that wouldn?t be such a hard thing to do, right? My guess is (and I?ve said this before) that deep down inside, you still got quite a fire raging in your psyche over the existence of God but you just can?t seem to put it out. Whenever you think you have, I come along and say something that rekindles it again which sends you scurrying to the keyboard thinking you can kill the messenger again.
Interesting? That?s two posts in a row where you?ve dropped your shields and muzzled your usual rage toward me? I know, it?s tough trying to keep a handle on those moments of truth?
the media should make sure the people know what, if any religion a candidate subscribes to and what that religion teaches and the history of that religion.atheist should be subject to same scrutiny such as what is out moral belief system humanist,communist etc.mitt’s saying hey i believe in jesus too gives no deep insight into is worldview in light of his flipflop on abortion and gay rights he should be pressed hard to explain himself.
As I pointed out earlier, as part of the Law of Consecration, Mitt took an oath to put his religion first.
So when he says he will put the Contitution (which disagrees with his church’s teachings in some cases first, he either lied to his church or is lying to the public.
Either way he is a LIAR as well as being a delusional religious idiot.
Of course jcc et al wouldn’t mind having the country run according to the mor(m)on church as they’re opposed to SOCAS.
666:
Do you know that for a fact (i.e. did you read that in one of my posts–if so, could you please cite it?) or are you just making that assumption about me?
jcc,
I asked you if you were a proponent of SOCAS earlier in this thread, to which you replied “No” along with some other blather.
In his letter to the Danbury Baptists (in order to clarify what the first amendment meant), Jefferson explained very clearly that government and religion shouldn’t be intertwined. And you know it.
The part that I find ridiculously amusing is that you will accept someone’s (third party hearsay) interpretation of the book of hate (bible), but you won’t accept the clarification made by the person who wrote it in the first place.
Rather disingenuous of you, but why should I expect any better from you. Typical xtian behavior.
666:
My apologies. I thought perhaps that my blockquoting:
would be sufficient to convey the context of my reply. Since that obviously wasn?t the case, let me try again: Could you please cite a post of mine that indicates that I ?wouldn’t mind having the country run according to the mor(m)on church??
My apologies, but I?m at a loss as to your alluding that I have said anything about Jefferson?s letter. Would you please cite such a post of mine? Would you also mind pointing out why you refer to the Bible as a ?book of hate??
Oh, and may I take this opportunity to state once again that I?m a proponent of the ?establishment? and ?exercise? clauses of the First Amendment as they were written?and not as imputed by activist jurists?
As I?ve indicated previously, I make no pretense for my abject lack of intelligence, but as for being intentionally disingenuous here, I believe that I am blameless. Have I given you cause to expect disingenuousness from me previously?
You should because it is what I?m called to be as a follower of Christ. May I presume an equivalent expectation from your religion?
Has anyone else noticed the similar structure of the posts of phreedum and jcc. That is, completely disregard the words and just look at the structure (I don’t think you shall miss anything).
Danger,
Yes, structurally, lemmings are the same. : )
jcc,
disingenuous: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating
If you are not being disingenuous, you have to be dumber than a box of rocks and there is no purpose continuing any kind of “debate” with you.
Just like arguing with a fence post.
Of course, if you are really that stupid, you might want to have someone help you across the street as that can be dangerous.
Bye bye boob!
666:
You make a lot of accusations but make no references to specific instances of such behaviors.
As I?ve said, I make no excuses for my obvious intellectual shortcomings, and as for why you?ve chosen to react to me with such hostility when I?ve been nothing but respectful and considerate of you, then I agree; continuing to converse with you here is pointless.
God bless.
jcc,
Last shot at this. Try and follow along as there are nested parentheses invoved.
In stating that you do not support Separation of Church and State, the implication for anyone of at least average intelligence (which would include you (hence the term disingenuous – pretending you’re not intelligent enough to understand)) is that it would be just fine if the US were to be a theocracy under
(OK, I used Mor(m)onism as an example but if you were, once again, not being disingenuous you would have readily understood (which I believe you actually did) that you could have inserted Hinduism, Islam, or any religion (other than your particular brand)
the rule of a religion (again, other than yours). This is where Jefferson’s letter comes in (even though you do not mention it, you are aware of it and understand the significance of it as it actually mentions a wall of separation between government and religion (once again this is being disingenuous as you know that this letter is essential to understanding the second amendment as Jefferson intended it.) which was to reassure the Danbury Baptists that religion and the government should/would not be intertwined!
Are you calling Jefferson (who was at least one of the people responsible for writing the Constitution) a
because he took the time to explain it (with no objection from the other founding fathers BTW) so that it would not be misconstrued by people such as yourself. I’ve said it before, SOCAS protects BOTH sides.
As far as going back through all the posts that you have engaged in “disingenuous” behavior, I have a life.
And this little exercise in futility has already taken up too much of my time (which I can only assume was your sole purpose all along – is that because you have no friends so you come here to get some attention?)
I can only feel sorry for you that you don’t realize that you can learn to THINK for yourself.
As far as “book of hate”, you claim that you have just read it.
You might need to reread it if you don’t see the hate being spewed throughout it. Ether that, or you have serious comprehension dificulties (or you are once being disingenuous).