Post by: roo_ster on December 06, 2007, 03:59:24 PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019206.php
I am not wholly convinced of its necessity, but you never know what the opposition will sling if he is the nominee. Ask Bobby Jindal about his first run for LA governor or the ex-hubby of 7of9.
I thought it was very well-delivered, not that that is the full measure of a leader.
He mentioned many concepts near and dear to lovers of liberty. More than that, he spoke in the language of liberty and respectfully of oaths and commitments. It was the opposite of post-modern cant and would have been like nails on a chalkboard to the likes of Michel Foucault, Jaques Derrida, or any of the contemporary lit crit weenies.
I would not have let his Mormonism get in the way of my voting for him, though I suspect some might. This speech would be likely to ally any fears they might have. For those who despise him for his religion (whatever the flavor), probably will still despise him. I doubt anything he could say could assuage those steeped in anti-clericalism.
Disclaimer: I prefer several other GOP candidates to Mitt Romney and he will not get my vote in the primary. I have, however, softened a bit towards him over the last month or so.
Post by: Regolith on December 06, 2007, 04:15:58 PM
Post by: Nitrogen on December 06, 2007, 07:56:20 PM
Not that i'd vote for the man, but his religion has nothing to do with that decision.
Post by: Iain on December 06, 2007, 10:39:04 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on December 07, 2007, 02:56:55 AM
Post by: Balog on December 08, 2007, 12:31:35 PM
I don't care what church he attends. He's still a shameless two-faced statist.
Amen.
Anyone have a link to a transcript? Sound doesn't work here.
Post by: Kyle on December 08, 2007, 03:11:37 PM
I shook his hand and got a picture taken with him and we had a short friendly chat. He delivered a short speech and answered a few questions. The dude is an airhead, and it scares me that he has as much support as he does. "The last time we ammended the constitution was in 1920 or 1930..." Smart guy
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 08, 2007, 04:12:29 PM
Later that day, I attended a private fundraiser lunch ($1000 a plate, not that I paid; good food too) for Romney at the San Antonio Country Club.
I shook his hand and got a picture taken with him and we had a short friendly chat.
I shook his hand and got a picture taken with him and we had a short friendly chat.
Dood! That's certainly going to hinder any future political aspirations you might have!
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 10, 2007, 07:09:16 AM
It angers and dissapoints me that so many Americans are hung up on what religion Romney is. It shouldn't matter.
How many Americans are hung up on it? I doubt it's really that many, but maybe there are studies that say otherwise.
Post by: mtnbkr on December 10, 2007, 07:31:29 AM
How many Americans are hung up on it? I doubt it's really that many, but maybe there are studies that say otherwise.
Based on one of the radio call in shows I listened to last week, there are quite a few. Folks should be ashamed at the things they believed regarding the Mormon faith. At times I thought they were confusing Mormonism with Scientology.
The show wasn't a Rush/Hannity type show, but a local politics and events type. The host is about as middle of the road as you can get.
Chris
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 10, 2007, 07:35:58 AM
How many Americans are hung up on it? I doubt it's really that many, but maybe there are studies that say otherwise.
Folks should be ashamed at the things they believed regarding the Mormon faith. At times I thought they were confusing Mormonism with Scientology. Such as? Mormonism is actually quite bizarre. If Islam and Scientology had a child...
Post by: mtnbkr on December 10, 2007, 07:41:50 AM
Kind of like claiming the beliefs of David Koresh were a defining characteristic of Christianity.
Oddly enough, there was a very large Mormon community at the Baptist college I attended. The Mormons were more "Christian" than the "real" Christians. Many of those were posers or hypocrits.
Chris
Post by: roo_ster on December 10, 2007, 08:03:25 AM
I would suggest you do a little research on the tenets of Mormonism before condemning folks for making claims as to its oddity. That is, if the truth of the matter has any weight or if the unsympathetic nature of the callers overwhelms any facts they might get right.
Also, if that "one Mormon" happens to be the church leader or another who is responsible for Mormon orthodoxy, it is much more significant than some fellow off in a compound in the middle of nowhere.
IMO, this is America. They are free to believe in and practice oddity as much as they like. Also, others are free to comment on such oddities and speculate how this might influence a candidate's actions while in office. IIRC, the 1st Amendment address both of those issues.
Like I wrote in my OP, I would not let Mitt's Mormon faith keep me from voting for the guy.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 10, 2007, 08:13:37 AM
Quote
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."
No, it does NOT. What does that mean? You have to have religion? What if you don't want religion?
I like Huckabee a lot better. He's a religious man, but he also is quite aware that not everyone shares his views, and he respects them. He's said he doesn't mind atheists, and respects them if they are honest, and it's their right.
THAT is what America is about. If you want to be religious? You can. Your choice. Don't want to be religious? That's fine too.
Freedom does not require religion, Mitt. Freedom allows religion.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 10, 2007, 08:31:28 AM
One person claimed it was a major tenet of Mormon belief that God lives on some planet (forgot the name) and has multiple wives. That was the belief of one Mormon. Another was that Mormons believed Blacks were sinners cast out during some biblical battle.
Kind of like claiming the beliefs of David Koresh were a defining characteristic of Christianity.
Kind of like claiming the beliefs of David Koresh were a defining characteristic of Christianity.
Not at all. The above teachings are by no means obscure doctrines of some splinter cult of the LDS. The LDS may prefer to avoid saying such things now, of course.
I should point out that Romney's Mormonism isn't a big sticking point for me, voting-wise.
I should further clarify what I meant about the Islam/Scientology comment. Mohamed and J. Smith are similar in claiming to be prophets in the Biblical tradition and gaining their revealed truth about what happened thousands of years ago by obscure, untestable methods. Also, their revelations contradict the apparent teachings of the Bible, which are said to have been corrupted. Like Scientology, Mormon doctrine speaks of souls/spirits carrying on intergalactic battles prior to inhabiting earthly bodies in the present day.
Romney lost any attention from me forever at this sentence.
No, it does NOT. What does that mean? You have to have religion? What if you don't want religion?
Quote
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."
No, it does NOT. What does that mean? You have to have religion? What if you don't want religion?
You think he was saying that you, personally, have to be religious? I don't know where you're getting that.
I think what he meant was that moral ideas, like freedom, can only be grounded in religious ones. That is, a non-religious community has no basis for absolute morality. Therefore, "freedom" and "rights" could be defined in any way the majority desires. The implication being that, without religious folk, America would abandon moral ideas like freedom or rights. That doesn't mean that you personally would be forced to believe in any particular religious system.
But then, he doesn't seem to explain himself very well, so I could be wrong about what he is trying to say.
Post by: mtnbkr on December 10, 2007, 08:57:07 AM
mtnbkr:
I would suggest you do a little research on the tenets of Mormonism before condemning folks for making claims as to its oddity. That is, if the truth of the matter has any weight or if the unsympathetic nature of the callers overwhelms any facts they might get right.
I would suggest you do a little research on the tenets of Mormonism before condemning folks for making claims as to its oddity. That is, if the truth of the matter has any weight or if the unsympathetic nature of the callers overwhelms any facts they might get right.
I took a Mormon caller's comments at face value. He claimed those items were not mainstream beliefs. Not being a Morman, I can't really confirm that any more than I could confirm some of the obscure passages of the Bible are part of mainstream beliefs without spending significant time studying current teachings. What bothered me more was the attitude on the part of Christian callers that insinuated Mormons were part of some evil cult.
Chris
Post by: Racehorse on December 10, 2007, 08:59:59 AM
One person claimed it was a major tenet of Mormon belief that God lives on some planet (forgot the name) and has multiple wives. That was the belief of one Mormon. Another was that Mormons believed Blacks were sinners cast out during some biblical battle.
Kind of like claiming the beliefs of David Koresh were a defining characteristic of Christianity.
Kind of like claiming the beliefs of David Koresh were a defining characteristic of Christianity.
Not at all. The above teachings are by no means obscure doctrines of some splinter cult of the LDS. The LDS may prefer to avoid saying such things now, of course.
Actually, as a mormon, I can tell you that mtnbkr is actually correct. Those ideas are not "doctrine" at all, but rather speculation on the part of some. There are lots of obscure things in mormon history that many critics proclaim to be doctrine, but are not taught by the church at all.
As for mormon beliefs being strange, I can see how some would see it that way. But in reality, to an outsider the beliefs of any religion are strange. It's just a matter of perspective.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 10, 2007, 09:22:10 AM
I think what he meant was that moral ideas, like freedom, can only be grounded in religious ones. That is, a non-religious community has no basis for absolute morality. Therefore, "freedom" and "rights" could be defined in any way the majority desires. The implication being that, without religious folk, America would abandon moral ideas like freedom or rights. That doesn't mean that you personally would be forced to believe in any particular religious system.
I don't agree. I think that being a decent human being can be part of a humanist perspective, and that one can do so simply because they're a decent human beings. Rescuing a trapped animal or putting a band-aid on a sad kid that hurt themselves makes you feel good in an indefinable way because that's part of being a good human being. No other species has evolved to the level of intellect and self-awareness that they can help or heal others, even those not of their species, just for the sake of doing so. We're the only species that evolved beyond basic competition (at least most of the time) and that's what makes us special. And we're the only species that can contemplate its own awareness.
As for why one does good things, I don't need arcane rituals that humans have come up with to explain why, or to enforce why. I just do it.
When I look at the modern holy books, I see the system that's in vogue now. I know that it hasn't existed very long, in fact, about two thousand years. Before that, there were other belief systems that persisted far longer. The Greco-Roman pantheon. The Egyptian pantheon. The Sumerian.
Like it or not, a harsh bit of reality is what is considered religion today, the dominant religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, in 3000 years, might be regarded as we regard the Egyptian pantheon. Times will change, ideas will change. There will be something completely new that people call religion, likely. The Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks were devout to their religions, too. Amun and Isis were real to the Egyptians and were prayed to. The Norse peoples, likewise. Odin was real to them. Native Americans were, and some still are. Now they're regarded as mythology. Before what we call prehistory, there were many other religions, the details of which have been lost. Some Neanderthals put flowers and objects in the graves of their dead. What were their rituals that inspired them to do that? Viewed from that perspective, of the vastness of time and how many things have come before, it looks a bit different to me.
YMMV.
(And there's a vast gulf between nihilistic atheists, which are depressing and pretty pointless, and those who simply believe in the human potential to continually evolve, without bounds, using what we've done with philosophy and science thus far as evidence.)
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 10, 2007, 01:13:29 PM
Quote
As for why one does good things, I don't need arcane rituals that humans have come up with to explain why, or to enforce why. I just do it.
I think you meant to say "arcane scriptures" or "beliefs." Because rituals don't explain things. But the point is that you "just do it," meaning whatever you think is right. As I said, you don't have a basis for absolute moral guidelines, such as "Freedom of Speech." You might believe in it, but you can't give another secularist a sufficient reason why they must believe it, too. With a religious person (depending on their religion) you have some common moral beliefs to which you can appeal.
Quote
And there's a vast gulf between nihilistic atheists, which are depressing and pretty pointless, and those who simply believe in the human potential to continually evolve, without bounds, using what we've done with philosophy and science thus far as evidence.
Well, there you go. We've "evolved" past the point where common people need guns, right? We've evolved to the point that govt. can now monitor all speech for our own safety, without endangering our rights, right? Right? You believe we can evolve, right? Show it, comrade!
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 10, 2007, 01:24:34 PM
Not being a Morman, I can't really confirm that any more than I could confirm some of the obscure passages of the Bible are part of mainstream beliefs without spending significant time studying current teachings.
Every obscure passage of the Bible is "part of mainstream beliefs." Not every errant interpretation of every scripture is "mainstream," and not every Christian believes or practices all of the Bible. But, nevertheless, it is not at all uncommon or out-of-the-mainstream to affirm the truth of the entire Bible.
Quote
What bothered me more was the attitude on the part of Christian callers that insinuated Mormons were part of some evil cult.
There are different meanings to the word "cult." In theological terms, Mormons are without doubt a cult of Christianity. That is, they affirm their Christianity, while at the same time following a book (or books) they believe to be superior to the Bible, and denying certain Christian doctrines that are sine qua non to Christianity. Sociologically, no they wouldn't necessarily be a cult in that sense. I.e., a small group devoted to a central leader, brain-washing, minute control of the lives of each member, etc.
Post by: seeker_two on December 10, 2007, 01:26:57 PM
Post by: roo_ster on December 10, 2007, 02:14:03 PM
BTW, I would have preferred the "hearty Scandinavian laughter."
Post by: Marnoot on December 13, 2007, 10:06:47 AM
Quote from: fistful
Like Scientology, Mormon doctrine speaks of souls/spirits carrying on intergalactic battles prior to inhabiting earthly bodies in the present day.
Yes, fistful, we believe that we as spirits carried on great "intergalactic battles," with X-Wings, Enterprise-class starships, Vipers, Tie Fighters and Death Stars! Moses took on the role of Admiral Ackbar, Elijah was Captain Picard and Peter was Admiral Adama. Satan was the Emperor, with his many minions taking on the roles of stormtroopers, the Borg, and the Cylons.
I love it when other people tell me what I believe. As Racehorse stated, the odd "beliefs" stated are those of individuals and never taught as doctrine.
Regarding fistful's horrible misinterpretation quoted above, the "war" we believe occurred in heaven is stated quite plainly in Revelation 12. Check your Bible there, fistful. War of words, not worlds, is what we believe happened.
Editedd four sppeling.
Post by: zahc on December 13, 2007, 10:18:23 AM
Quote
Times will change, ideas will change. There will be something completely new that people call religion, likely.
There already is, and it's called 'science'. There are even churches, clergy, and doctrines, inter-sect-ular arguments over unprovable 'beliefs', and you can even buy indulgences in the form of carbon credits.