Romney Speech

Romney is all about freedom of religion as long as you have one. Otherwise, you're the enemy...the devil. I love how these politicians spin the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to suit their own purposes.

we are a secular nation! the founding fathers were christians, but they all knew to leave god out of government, because discrimination on the grounds of religion was what forced the founders of the english colonies from england in the first place.

we are a secular nation! the founding fathers were christians, but they all knew to leave god out of government, because discrimination on the grounds of religion was what forced the founders of the english colonies from england in the first place.

robert wrote:

Secularists have been using government to fight religion for years. Why can't religionists use the same tool. not to convert but just to be able to continue as we always have and allow religion in life?

say what? seriously, what are you saying? how can "religionists" use the same tool, i.e., government, to fight secularism without trying to force conversion?

and are really suggesting that anyone in the US has tried to use government to prevent religion "in life"?

please.

robert wrote:

yetanotherchick wrote:

Romney's beliefs about religion are scary to me- not because he's a Mormon, but because despite his claim that he will not mix religion and politics, it seems that his intent is to use the government to fight "secularism" and non-Judaeo/Christian religious influences on society.

Secularists have been using government to fight religion for years. Why can't religionists use the same tool. not to convert but just to be able to continue as we always have and allow religion in life?

I think that a religion that ofers firm family values and allows/tolerates others to bbelieve as they wish should be celebrated. (11th article of faith of the LDS church.)

Other than asking that religion not be jammed down our throats in places paid by our tax dollars - how have secularists "used" goverment to "fight" religion?

Why is it important for people of faith in this country to pretend that everyone is christian? Why are they in favor of a form of government that encourages everybody to be the same? Why can't they understand that "morality" comes from something other than god? Otherwise people of faith would always be more "moral" than those without faith - and there are certainly more than enough examples to show that's not true.

Part of me feels like I shouldn't say anything - because the point of this speech is for "secularists" to be outraged by the speech so that evangelicals can say - "hey, this Romney isn't so bad compared to those evil athiests." If evangelicals fall for that parlor trick you're even dumber than I thought.

kaitainen wrote:

say what? seriously, what are you saying? how can "religionists" use the same tool, i.e., government, to fight secularism without trying to force conversion?

and are really suggesting that anyone in the US has tried to use government to prevent religion "in life"?

please.

Yes I can say that Secularists have tried and been very successful at limiting the religious activities of americans. Nativity seens, Christmas carols, mentioning christianity in public. "We might offend those that are not believers." Public institutions like universities are often very hostile to religion.

It is about time that the government looks at the clause right after the establishment clause. You know the part that says "or prohibiting the free exercize thereof".

Why can't the government be used as a tool to combat those who would force there beliefs (secularism) on religionsists. Should the government be used to prohibit the free exercize of religion? No It should protect the ability of people to worship"how where and what they want"

I like diversity and Romney, a non-Christian is fine with me. But a Chickenhawk who is pumped up for war, yet who never served ? Romney has no credibility with me.

The constitution states that "congress shall make no law" so unless it is congress that has told you to put up that nativity scene it is not against the constitution.

So the secularist should either convince enough people in that location to pass a law forbidding it (democrasy people ever hear of it?) or shut up and let people do as they wish. (freedom of religion ever hear of it?)

formidable doer of the nasty wrote:

You have GOT to be kidding. What part of that verbal diarrhea impressed you?

He said absolutely nothing of consequence or anything unexpected for that matter. He basically said, "Yeah I'm different but I'm not so different when you think of all those nasty atheists that are running around and whom we have to fight. Oh yeah, and terrorists too. They hate us for our freedom."

His wetback landscapers could have written that piece of shit.

if you didn't like what he said he'll have another speech next week saying exactly the opposite of everything he said today.

Don't worry, Mitt has all sides of every issue covered. He stands for and against everything!

Although his speech may have been intended to show otherwise, he's a bit too theocratic for my tastes. He's supremely confident that there aren't too many Republican primary voters who are going to worry if "secularism" gets bashed, so he felt quite comfortable doing so. It's calculated expediency, nothing "statesmanlike." I'm sure Bill O'Reilly loved the speech.

The whole "the Secularists are controlling the government and use it to defeat us" is obviously the new version of the "mean Jews control everything" paranoia.

And it should be John McCain vs Bill Richardson in the general election, they have their flaws but atleast they know whats going on in the world.

Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion.

This has been interpreted and understood to apply to all branches of the US government, as well as localities and states.

It is crystal clear to any honest person that placing a taxpayer-funded creche, menorah, or representation of the ten commandments is in fact, and is intended solely as, "an establishment of religion."

What drives me nuts is when people try to explain these away as being something other than religious symbols.

And i wonder what christian parents would say if Muslims,Hindus,Scientologists,Jehovas Witness etc would start doing practising/promoting their religious stuff in the school of their kids...read the constituion, if you allow one religion to do it, you have to give every freaking religion the right to do so.

I'm whupping Romney because he believes in this "evolution" doohickey!

Either you're ignoring the point, or you're so goddamn stupid that you're just missing it even though it's very obvious.

No secularist is trying to deprive you of your faith or your right to exercise it. They're trying to make it so that people who DON'T share that faith are not FORCED to exercise it and certainly not forced to abide by it.

If it's not obvious to you that posting the ten commandments in a courtroom amounts to religious tyranny, then you should not put off that brain scan any longer. And if you can't understand why it's unfair to a non-christian student that a fellow student publicly offers a christian prayer *on their behalf* then you demonstrate total and utter ignorance of the meaning of personal freedom.

blibble blibble blibble wrote:

Either you're ignoring the point, or you're so goddamn stupid that you're just missing it even though it's very obvious.

No secularist is trying to deprive you of your faith or your right to exercise it. They're trying to make it so that people who DON'T share that faith are not FORCED to exercise it and certainly not forced to abide by it.

If it's not obvious to you that posting the ten commandments in a courtroom amounts to religious tyranny, then you should not put off that brain scan any longer. And if you can't understand why it's unfair to a non-christian student that a fellow student publicly offers a christian prayer *on their behalf* then you demonstrate total and utter ignorance of the meaning of personal freedom.

Iran's gov. is religious tyranny Not 10 commandments in a court room. Placing the ten commandment sin a court room is religious tyranny?!?!? And you think that someone should not fight against such an absurd and ludicris statement.

By the way if you want to offer a prayer to Allah, God, vishnu, yahveh, satan, Jehovah or the great spagetti monster is should make no difference to me. You do what you want. I should not use the courts to force you to stop.

Placing the ten commandments in a courtroom is religious tyranny? Give me a break!

Make that "boob" instead of Bob. you are clueless. The point is neutrality, the gov can't promote religion, it does nothing to prohibit you or anyone else from practicing their religion. and before you start throwing the "A" or "S" word around, I'm a christian.

.. wrote:

Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion.

This has been interpreted and understood to apply to all branches of the US government, as well as localities and states.

It is crystal clear to any honest person that placing a taxpayer-funded creche, menorah, or representation of the ten commandments is in fact, and is intended solely as, "an establishment of religion."

What drives me nuts is when people try to explain these away as being something other than religious symbols.

When the constitution was written most of the individual states had their own official state religion. Many of those remained the state religion for many years. The constituition did not stop the practice.

The constitution made sure that their was no national state religion.

You are right the interpretation of the constitution has come to mean all governments and anything even remotely religious must be expunged. This was done throught that courts not through the people's wishes. i.e. democracy

And on your last point....most of the laws of western christendom can trace its laws back to the ten commandments so I see no problem with it any way. I also would have no problem with hammurabi or the magna carta being represented in courts.

duece wrote:

Make that "boob" instead of Bob. you are clueless. The point is neutrality, the gov can't promote religion, it does nothing to prohibit you or anyone else from practicing their religion. and before you start throwing the "A" or "S" word around, I'm a christian.

One of us is clueless. Just because I do not agree with the current "interpretation" of the constitution does not mean that I do not understand it.

The constituiton does not say "Neutrality". Really you can check if you want. In fact you might want to read it yourself. The way things are are not the way they have been through most of the history of this nation.