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?
jcc,
This is what I asked (I think you understand that):
goddamnit, why can’t the christian god idea at least get the blockquotes correct. On its best day the christian god idea is worthless.
karen pleaded:
karen, if I were a christian there is no way I could refuse that request.
jcc,
No jcc, there is only one christian that comments on this blog who cares. You jcc are simply someone who wants to score fantasy points.
For a mormon it would be bishop-in-chief or elder-in-chief or something. They don’t have pastors. The mormons can be VERY deceptive so the fact that he used the phrase pastor-in-chief really doesn’t indicate anything about his true intentions. However, he did say he wasn’t running for pastor-in-chief so he may very well be considering his role as something-in-chief as opposed to the President of the United States, which at one time was considered a democracy with equal rights and all that stuff.
karen:
The same mankind whose very existence is destroying the planet?even the fabric of the universe by simply observing it?
A future you most likely won?t live to see? And a future where the combined populations, economies and consuming power of China and India overwhelm the economy and standard of living of the US?
The same secularism that is becoming the state mandated religion of Secularism where the Peter Singers of the world can ?euthanize? your disabled child to free up resources for the sake of a species of wildlife?
Amidst catastrophic man-made global warming, unchecked over population, chronic shortages of resources, dead oceans, pandemics of tropical diseases, mountains of garbage, depleted ozone and rampant birth defects?
Not a problem with state-sanctioned Secularism and Singer in charge?animals over people?yeah!
Yes, hope springs eternal when it?s left in the hands of humans.
Oh, just an eternity spent walking in paradise face to face with the God who created me.
jcc
Is there another mankind? Didn’t realize you were such a pessimist.
I don’t have to see it to have hope for it. I’m not that selfish.
>blockquote> And a future where the combined populations, economies and consuming power of China and India overwhelm the economy and standard of living of the US?
Gee, maybe if we had a president without an imaginary friend whispering in his ear to spend trillions on an illegal war and an education system that taught science
and critical thinking, we’d have a better economy and a public better suited to maintain jobs, a higher standard of living and competition in the global market.
That’s a new one on me. I’ll have to look it up and get back to you.
Global warming-they can take the heat. My daughter’s always cold anyway.
Unchecked over-population-Not because of me or mine. It’s the religious who don’t practice birth control. As far as I know, my kids aren’t planning to relocate to any overpopulated areas.
Chronic resource shortage-like what? Gas? What resources haven’t you been able to get?
Dead oceans-How long do you think my kids are gonna live, exactly?
Pandemics of tropical diseases-Here’s where science comes in and makes an immunization. Jeez, you’re morbid, no wonder you need somebody to pray to.
Mountains of garbage-Ok, OK. I missed garbage day again. I promise I’ll get it to the curb next Wednesday. Sheesh.
Depleted ozone-Again, how long do you think my kids will live? Do you want to add the sun exploding to the list too?
Rampant birth defects-Um, none of my kids has any. I’m getting this strange mental image of them being accosted by rampant birth defects: POW! BOP! ZAM! I know, they can call Batman! But seriously, how do RBD hamper my kids’ lives?
Gotta look up that Singer guy. He really pissed in your cornflakes, didn’t he? I seriously doubt state-sanctioned secularism would give a second thought to the welfare of my cats, actually. I’m just going to have to provide for them in my will.
Well, for some of us, that’s true. But you seem to be very focused on the negative. Maybe it’s from all that Bible-reading. It can be a very depressing experience. Perhaps you should take in a show. A musical. Annie maybe. “The sun’ll come out, tomorrow…bet your bottom dollar, there’ll be sun…”
Yeah, I figured that.
But what about in the short term, like before you die?
jcc:
Fabric of the universe?!? WTF are you talking about?
No worries there: most of the inhabitants of either country are aborting fetuses based on their gender.
Really, your shallow right-wing rhetoric is just getting ridiculous.
I’d call strawman, but I don’t know enough about Singer, nor do I care. Until said philosopher is appointed to cabinet, or some other gov’t position, that’s just casuistry.
Oh, sweet reason! Has he finally got the gist of it? Say it ain’t so!
Your deity really sucks at its job, doesn’t it?
Or, to cop a phrase from Twain – “If there is a God, he is a malign thug.”
Wow, what a comic book world you live in.
Singer’s ideas will likely never rise to dominance – he’s way too radical.
That’s a pretty thought – a completely empty hope – evidence perhaps of an arrested romantic development in your right hemisphere – but you just keep on keepin’ on.
Thanks for sharing.
This sort of derangement is better shared w/a therapist – which of course, you can’t afford, which is why you talk to those voices in your head.
Try being voice-free for a while. The silence is…gratifying.
jcc
Um-kay, I read about Singer on Wiki, and I thought, sounds like he’s thinking with my brain, only smarter. I didn’t see anything about baby killing till the criticisms at the very end. So I went to the source for one of the quotes about him and found this:
This does seem very damning. In the wiki article he argues that he’s taken out of context, but I don’t see how that first sentence quoted could be helped by context, unless the child was terminal, in pain that couldn’t be controlled, and on life support.
I don’t agree him on this, but would like to know just what are his criteria for when it is not wrong at all. I do support voluntary euthanasia, but that would be for an adult. However, I don’t see any support for your claim of
Unless you have a link for this, I think you’re overdramatizing here.
I agree with the man on his stance on animal rights and speciesism. And even though I’m not a vegetarian, I think the way animals are raised and slaughtered (inhumanely) for consumption is almost as morally reprehensible as killing a disabled child.
Hey KA
You feeling any better dearheart?
It’s in the craft section at WalMart. I think they import it from China and India.
karen:
I feel well enough to LOL at that. Thanks, darlin’.
karen:
I?m not. You opened the door for me to quote (just a few things) from the secular liberal?s handbook of doom and gloom.
For the record, none of what I listed causes me worry in the slightest. The world doesn?t need to be ?saved? by us, it already has a Savior. The future is, and always will be bright and sunny precisely because of the hope that I have. As for Singer, he?s but the tip of the iceberg of secular moral relativists who are incrementally destroying the culture by slowing removing our basic human freedoms.
All that Bible reading (as you noted earlier) has given me new perspectives, clearer vision, and better ways of communicating with you.
Krystalline Apostate:
What? This wasn?t on your beloved BBC?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19626313.800-
has-observing-the-universe-hastened-its-end.html
You might want to drop by Drudge now and then to see what?s really going on in the world?
jcc:
Ummm…no it wasn’t. & since your link was to a circular that requires a subscription, I couldn’t read the whole thing.
Words in sentences like ‘might be’, or ’suggesting’, or even ‘question’ fall w/in the purview of “this is an idea.”
Yup. Billions will burn, all-righty. If you can’t see the sociopathic pathology behind that, then I lose all hope for you.
Don’t let that keep you from sharing.
Oh. It doesn’t.
Yikes. Slippery slope, alarmism, monochromia, paranoia, I mean you seriously have the works, mein freund.
You may want to consider getting yourself examined.
Oh, that’s right, the APA is a left-wing institution in league w/the evil ’secularists’.
Conspiracy theorist as well. Are you aware of how…nutty this all sounds?
Krystalline Apostate:
Terribly sorry. Here, try this link (searching the web for this kind of stuff is real easy? I just Googled ?universe destroy observe? and there it was!)
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/12/astronomers_blamed_for_death_o.html
?You really think I?m jumpin? on that doomsday bandwagon?
But, I thought you?d done that years ago?
Already did that. Was weighed in the balance and found wanting? But, not to worry, my heart belongs to Jesus!
Krys:
Sorry, that link got truncated. Try this:
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/12/
astronomers_blamed_for_death_o.html
Hey KA,
I have a problem. You might also be afflicted. It is almost impossible for me to refrain from responding to statements as outrageous as I have witnessed recently from theists.
I had forgotten how deranged is the jcc. I really thought that any sensible being would come away from having read the bible as a more intelligent, informed person regarding the myths which pepper said scribble.
jcc had a crisis of faith and needed to find reason to believe. As with most theists he had a feeling and hunted for evidence that would back up this emotion.
I am very disappointed in him. There is no hope for his salvation. He is destined to follow the example of the Masochist Paul and plead for the forgiveness of his manifold sins, whilst loathing the retched body in which he walks.
Again, I am astounded that he could not see the errors and down right stupidity of that book. It surpasses all understanding.
jcc also is oblivious to the fact that Ned Flanders is only likable as a professionally-written cartoon character. When a real person acts like Flanders it’s just creepy.
jcc
OH, Criminy! You tricked me into exposing my true thoughts on the #8 atheist blog! I’m gonna get kicked out of the Secular Librools’ Club, cos I never got the handbook and I don’t worry about the right things! Ewww, they might just make me sit in the room wall-papered with head-shots of W as penance! (And they have the gall to complain about waterboarding!) I think I’d rather be kicked out. Well, you must be pleased.
Obeah:
I usually ignore the Phallacymaster – but while jcc is a whetstone on which I sharpen my blade, I’m beginning to feel some real pity for the guy.
I mean – HOLY CRAP, allegory is the quicksand into which many minds become mired.
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).