Mitt Romney on religion and politics

[chucksatterlee]

I'm not a Republican. I never will vote Republican. However, I saw Romney speak today and I have to say that he'd be my guy if I went to the other side. The speech was right on. I respect him tremendously after his stand on religion and politics today.

[Shwicaz]

I'm not a Republican. I never will vote Republican. However, I saw Romney speak today and I have to say that he'd be my guy if I went to the other side. The speech was right on. I respect him tremendously after his stand on religion and politics today.


Romney is the devil.

[Ben]

I don't believe a word that guy says.

[En Sabah Poo]

Romney terrifies me. More so because I think he attracts a lot of the religious right.

[gibbEy]

I'm not a Republican. I never will vote Republican. However, I saw Romney speak today and I have to say that he'd be my guy if I went to the other side. The speech was right on. I respect him tremendously after his stand on religion and politics today.

So it all depends on the R or the D next to someone's name?

[Ben]

I THINK I would be okay with Huckabee based on what I've seen so far.

[Amos Moses]

I THINK I would be okay with Huckabee based on what I've seen so far.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home

[Ben]

So it all depends on the R or the D next to someone's name?No, I think he's saying that, if he was a Republican, he's the guy he'd vote for. Or, in other words, as a Democrat, he's the Republican he thinks he could tolerate the most.

[Bill Nolan]

It's totally OK to hate him for his politics, but he was right on today. Maybe someday there will be a Mormon candidate worthy of consideration who can benefit from Romney's words today.

[chucksatterlee]

So it all depends on the R or the D next to someone's name?

I said I do not vote Republican. I didn't say I always vote Democrat.

[Thommy Melanson]

He's playing the ol' shell game.

For all the hell Kerry caught for being a "flip-flopper", Romney makes him look like a novice.

[Ben]

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.HomeI got REAL work to do. I'm not gonna go reading some website of a guy I'd never vote for!

[Amos Moses]

I got REAL work to do.

Porn?

[Ben]

Porn?No reading required.

[Shwicaz]

I don't normally read blogs on politics, but today, I found this one while trying to get a transcript of the Romney speech:


Finally, there was the ridiculous comparison to JFK's 1960 speech. I say the comparison is ridiculous because the situations were completely different. In September 1960, Kennedy was the nominee of the Democratic Party, and faced the task of reassuring Americans that his faith would not conflict with the duties of the office he sought, and upon which Americans would decide within weeks. Today, Romney is just one of several Republican contenders, so his task was actually to convince the evangelical core residing within the Republican Party that his faith is not incompatible with their deciding to let him carry the Republican banner into an election that's still almost a year away. Kennedy's target, by necessity, was the greater America. Romney's target, by necessity, was Republican evangelicals. (Hence the early plug: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Freedom requires religion? Really? That's really intriguing. How so? Oh nevermind, he's not taking questions.) So it should surprise no one that he revealed nothing about his actual religion (which was how the speech was sold), given that an actual appeal for tolerance based on an honest recounting of his theology would have been political suicide.

The question now is, has the media invested so much in insisting that this was indeed what the speech was going to be about that they won't be able to admit he ducked the issue entirely? Or is it just easier to say he did what he set out to do, because that story is already written?

I thought it was dead on (at least this part quoted above. He seemed to be courting the evangelicals more than the 'common man'.)

full blog entry (not mine) here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/6/105657/418/429/418593

[Xander Boune]

The "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" line is profoundly stupid.

[RebootedCorpse]

The "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" line is profoundly stupid.

QFT

[Nick Spencer]

This guy is disgusting, a completely shallow human being who only cares about getting elected. I'm praying for Huckabee to beat this guy-- not because I like Huckabee, but because I know it would probably end Romney's hopes of winning the nomination.

Seriously, this guy is scum, the only one on either side who could match George W. Bush's suckitude.

[Shwicaz]

what about the people who aren't religious...?

I don't go to church. I don't pray. I never even think about God, Jesus, Catholics, Mormons, etc.

All this talk about religion in politics doesn't mean shit to me.

[Ben]

The "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" line is profoundly stupid.Agreed.

[Ben]

what about the people who aren't religious...?

I don't go to church. I don't pray. I never even think about God, Jesus, Catholics, Mormons, etc.

All this talk about religion in politics doesn't mean shit to me.Because you're not free. See, what you need to do is give up all your free thought and get all your morality and ideas about the universe from the Bible. Then you'll be free and this kind of political nonsense will mean something to you.

[Thommy Melanson]

Kennedy was running for prez at a time when 25% of the country was Catholic.

Romney's running when 2% are Mormon, and in the party that thinks saying the Garden Of Eden was in Missouri is a stoneable offense.

He (just like any other politician) will say close to anything to get elected.

[Shwicaz]

I'm free.

Free to vote for someone else.

:lol:

[Dreaded Anomaly]

The "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" line is profoundly stupid.

As was comparing himself to Kennedy. He also used the phrase "religion of secularism," which is even worse.

[Thommy Melanson]

We've had quite enough of a theocracy.

How about a candidate that doesn't think the sky talks to him?

[Ben]

I'm free.

Free to vote for someone else.

:lol:According to Romney, you're not! See what he did there? Your forced, through the will of his misguided logic, to vote for him!

[Ben]

We've had quite enough of a theocracy.

How about a candidate that doesn't think the sky talks to him?So no weathermen?

[Ray G.]

Romney is the Jesse Jackson of Mormonism.

[RebootedCorpse]

We've had quite enough of a theocracy.

How about a candidate that doesn't think the sky talks to him?

The vast majority of Americans say they would not vote for an atheist.
Religious people are so tolerant.

[Ben]

Romney is the Jesse Jackson of Mormonism.And Romney is the Watchmen of Jesse Jacksons!

[Ben]

The vast majority of Americans say they would not vote for an atheist.
Religious people are so tolerant.If the president is an atheist, how is he going to get God to help us win wars?

[Glixy]

We've had quite enough of a theocracy.

How about a candidate that doesn't think the sky talks to him?

Hey, I'm all for bashing Bush, but most of the great Presidents this country has had, felt the same way.

[RebootedCorpse]

If the president is an atheist, how is he going to get God to help us win wars?

Good point. And without God, how will we decide who is ok tyo kill.
I just wasn't thinking...

[Ray G.]

And Romney is the Watchmen of Jesse Jacksons!

To paraphrase the brilliant Bloom County, there's nothing wrong with a Mormon President. Just not this Mormon.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

So no weathermen?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Bendix.PNG?

[Thommy Melanson]

The vast majority of Americans say they would not vote for an atheist.
Religious people are so tolerant.

Hence why Romney's speech was the equivalent of a child molesting new inmate begging lifer rapists not to rape him in prison.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Hence why Romney's speech was the equivalent of a child molesting new inmate begging lifer rapists not to rape him in prison.

That is an amazing metaphor. :lol:

...rather true, too.

[RebootedCorpse]

Hence why Romney's speech was the equivalent of a child molesting new inmate begging lifer rapists not to rape him in prison.

That's fucking brilliant!

[joespam]

what about the people who aren't religious...?

I don't go to church. I don't pray. I never even think about God, Jesus, Catholics, Mormons, etc.

All this talk about religion in politics doesn't mean shit to me.*takes out bible*
So did Atheism make you Gay, or did the homosexuality blind you to the glory of the Creator?












kidding, I swear.

[Shane W]

The "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" line is profoundly stupid.

Exactly, Romney can fuck himself.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

kidding, I swear.

So you're bearing false witness AND taking the lord's name in vain?!? :o

:twisted:

[Fake Pat]

The "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" line is profoundly stupid.

Wait a minute, he said this and it made somebody LIKE him?

That statement is so profoundly stupid I can barely wrap my brain around it.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Romney can get this country back on track. He's my candidate at the moment.

[gibbEy]

No, I think he's saying that, if he was a Republican, he's the guy he'd vote for. Or, in other words, as a Democrat, he's the Republican he thinks he could tolerate the most.

Gotcha...I just always wonder about that...

the R or the D doesn't matter to me.

[gibbEy]

I said I do not vote Republican. I didn't say I always vote Democrat.

But why not? What if there's a Republican candidate who you agree with? You'd honestly not choose him because of his party?

[gibbEy]

This guy is disgusting, a completely shallow human being who only cares about getting elected. I'm praying for Huckabee to beat this guy-- not because I like Huckabee, but because I know it would probably end Romney's hopes of winning the nomination.

Seriously, this guy is scum, the only one on either side who could match George W. Bush's suckitude.

The irony. :)

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Calling a man like Mitt Romney "scum"....it's the end of the world.

[JoeE]

I can't vote for the man if he doesn't want to represent me in any capacity. Even Dubya had the decency to give atheists lip service a couple times.

[JoeE]

Calling a man like Mitt Romney "scum"....it's the end of the world.

I think calling him scum is going way too far. I actually get the sense that he's probably a pretty decent guy in his personal life. But from what I've seen there's nothing he won't do or say to get elected.

[Fake Pat]

But why not? What if there's a Republican candidate who you agree with? You'd honestly not choose him because of his party?

I wouldn't dream of doing so until the real Republican party returns.

The current party is a front for religious interests.

[Jamie Howdeshell]

The "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom" line is profoundly stupid.


yeah, that is just standard retarded meaningless political pandering right there. What kind of idiots would fall for that crap?



Religion definitely requires freedom, but freedom can exist quite nicely without religion.

[Fake Pat]

I can't vote for the man if he doesn't want to represent me in any capacity. Even Dubya had the decency to give atheists lip service a couple times.

Was that before or after he said they shouldn't be considered citizens?

[Ethan Van Sciver]

I can't vote for the man if he doesn't want to represent me in any capacity. Even Dubya had the decency to give atheists lip service a couple times.

Every candidate on both sides of the aisle claim to believe in God. Mitt actually does. So either the rest are all liars, or none of them represent you.

[Fake Pat]

yeah, that is just standard retarded meaningless political pandering right there. What kind of idiots would fall for that crap?



Religion definitely requires freedom, but freedom can exist quite nicely without religion.

The religious.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

yeah, that is just standard retarded meaningless political pandering right there. What kind of idiots would fall for that crap?



Religion definitely requires freedom, but freedom can exist quite nicely without religion.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/f/fic-tglc.gif

[JoeE]

Was that before or after he said they shouldn't be considered citizens?

I think you're thinking about Bush the Elder.

Dubya has on at least one occasion stated that you can be a good person without religious faith.

[Ray G.]

Was that before or after he said they shouldn't be considered citizens?

That was his father.

[Fake Pat]

Every candidate on both sides of the aisle claim to believe in God. Mitt actually does. So either the rest are all liars, or none of them represent you.

When it comes to believing in god, I hope many of them are lying.

And I don't need someone to match up we me in every category to represent me in politics, because religion and politics should have nothing to do with one another. Clearly Romney can't grasp basic concepts like separation of church and state.

[JoeE]

Every candidate on both sides of the aisle claim to believe in God. Mitt actually does. So either the rest are all liars, or none of them represent you.

I don't need my candidate to be an atheist to represent me. But I do need my candidate to not make speeches implying that I don't believe in American values for lacking religious faith.

[Fake Pat]

I think you're thinking about Bush the Elder.

Dubya has on at least one occasion stated that you can be a good person without religious faith.


That was his father.

Fuck, every time I feel like I might be able to hold my own in a political thread I fucking blow it. :surrend:

[Ethan Van Sciver]

When it comes to believing in god, I hope many of them are lying.

And I don't need someone to match up we me in every category to represent me in politics, because religion and politics should have nothing to do with one another. Clearly Romney can't grasp basic concepts like separation of church and state.

Atheists are fucking obnoxious. Relax. Faith in God is often a good thing.

And as for separation of church and state, uh....what country have you lived in all your life?

[Ray G.]

I personally find militant atheists just as irritating as proselytizers of any faith. Someone pushing their beliefs on you is obnoxious, no matter what the subject. I generally steer away from any candidate who boasts about their faith, unless there's no better alternative.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

I personally find militant atheists just as irritating as proselytizers of any faith. Someone pushing their beliefs on you is obnoxious, no matter what the subject. I generally steer away from any candidate who boasts about their faith, unless there's no better alternative.

I concur.

[Fake Pat]

And as for separation of church and state, uh....what country have you lived in all your life?

America.

You know, the one with the Constitution and Supreme Court and all that stuff?

[Thudpucker]

The idea that someone like Mitt could be President scares the shit out of me.

I'm glad the 'Mormons arn't real Christians' issue is getting attention though. It still blows my mind that evangelicals don't think Mormons share thier Christian values. The typical Mormon family is a Normon Rockwell painting come to life.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

America.

You know, the one with the Constitution and Supreme Court and all that stuff?

The one with the money that says "In God We Trust". It isn't hurting you. Stop pretending it is.

[Fake Pat]

The one with the money that says "In God We Trust". It isn't hurting you. Stop pretending it is.

Me specifically? Not really.

I'm sure there's a lot of homosexuals, people who are terminally ill, those who might benefit from stem cell research, etc. who might say the influence of religion on our politics hurts them.

And they'd be right.

[William Joseph Dunn]

The one with the money that says "In God We Trust". It isn't hurting you. Stop pretending it is.

Which was added sometime in the 50s because we wanted to let everyone know we weren't godless commies.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Which was added sometime in the 50s because we wanted to let everyone know we weren't godless commies.

The Founding Fathers are just legends. American history only extends back to when we won World War II.

The Great Depression? Nope. Civil War? What's that? And if you mention slavery, the terrorists win.

[gibbEy]

I wouldn't dream of doing so until the real Republican party returns.

The current party is a front for religious interests.

I think both parties are full of shit.

[William Joseph Dunn]

I wonder if the separation of church and state was "no big deal", if anyone would be offended if we put on some of the currency "In Buddha We Trust". Its not hurting anyone, right?

[Dreaded Anomaly]

I think both parties are full of shit.

Any and every party is full of shit.

George Washington will always be our greatest President simply for realizing this one essential fact. Unfortunately, no one listened to him.

[William Joseph Dunn]

Any and every party is full of shit.

Especially those scat parties. A word of caution: always ask what kind of party you are being invited to before accepting said invitation......particularly if your wearing your "good clothes".

[Colin Solan]

As a resident of Massachusetts I've lived under Romney's regime and, yeah, he sucks. And he's a bigot. Certainly does not get my vote.

[Brian Defferding]

You may like his speech now, but what makes you think the Presidential candidate you may vote for now will be the same person in office?

"Multiple Choice Mitt" has a history for doing a complete 180 after courting enough votes to get elected. All one needs to do is take a look at Mitt's record and see Romney is a pandering, hypocritical fraud.

He doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

[Amos Moses]

If you think the Mormon church won't have his ear (or even more) you're shitting yourself. Come live in Utah for a while and see what you risk turning the whole country into.

Regardless of his faith, Romney is just a slimey douchebag. He and Hilary would get along great.

[gibbEy]

Any and every party is full of shit.

George Washington will always be our greatest President simply for realizing this one essential fact. Unfortunately, no one listened to him.

Didn't he also own slaves? :)

[gibbEy]

Especially those scat parties. A word of caution: always ask what kind of party you are being invited to before accepting said invitation......particularly if your wearing your "good clothes".

Quoted for truth.



........sadly. :(

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Didn't he also own slaves? :)

You just let the terrorists win.

Not cool, dude. :nonono2:

[artimoff]

I think both parties are full of shit.

Word.

[sonnylarue]

To me, Romney has been an oppourtunistic candidate who'll gladly change his opinion dependeing which way the wind blows.

like Rudy, he really has no honest conviction behind his political "beliefs".

if they don't jibe with the hardline evangelicals, he's a little too happy to oblige.

at least Huckabee has the balls to say he doesn't believe in evolution (even though that makes him a boob in my book)

[Amos Moses]

To me, Romney has been an oppourtunistic candidate who'll gladly change his opinion dependeing which way the wind blows.

like Rudy, he really has no honest conviction behind his political "beliefs".

if they don't jibe with the hardline evangelicals, he's a little too happy to oblige.

at least Huckabee has the balls to say he doesn't believe in evolution (even though that makes him a boob in my book)


That's absolutly true. Huckebee may be out there, but at least he has the stones to stand by his convictions, hell, at least he has convictions other than, "OMG I wanna be President so bad!"

[greg donovan]

To me, Romney has been an oppourtunistic candidate who'll gladly change his opinion dependeing which way the wind blows.

like Rudy, he really has no honest conviction behind his political "beliefs".

if they don't jibe with the hardline evangelicals, he's a little too happy to oblige.

at least Huckabee has the balls to say he doesn't believe in evolution (even though that makes him a boob in my book)

hey! dont insult boobs like that!

[gibbEy]

Word.

woo!

:)

[gibbEy]

To me, Romney has been an oppourtunistic candidate who'll gladly change his opinion dependeing which way the wind blows.


You just summed up 99% of the presidential candidates....regardless of political party. :)

[Foolish Mortal]

The idea that someone like Mitt could be President scares the shit out of me.

I'm glad the 'Mormons arn't real Christians' issue is getting attention though. It still blows my mind that evangelicals don't think Mormons share thier Christian values. The typical Mormon family is a Normon Rockwell painting come to life.
The Book of Mormon is not part of the bible. The other branches of Christianity do not recognize it. The Mormons are a "cult" as far as they're concerned.

[gibbEy]

By the way....why is it never an issue that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a mormon?

[Foolish Mortal]

By the way....why is it never an issue that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a mormon?
Reid ain't running for president.

[Shwicaz]

Romney can get this country back on track. He's my candidate at the moment.

not gonna shit on you, just tell you 'be careful what you wish for'. Believe it or not, I voted for Romney because of his rhetoric he was lying about to get elected Governor of Mass. Once he was governor, he spent more time out of state slamming Mass. than he did doing anything here.


Calling a man like Mitt Romney "scum"....it's the end of the world.

correction. Electing a man like Mitt Romney....its the end of the world.


Every candidate on both sides of the aisle claim to believe in God. Mitt actually does. So either the rest are all liars, or none of them represent you.

See that's the issue. I don't care if they believe in God. That is not a prerequisite to being President.


I don't need my candidate to be an atheist to represent me. But I do need my candidate to not make speeches implying that I don't believe in American values for lacking religious faith.

what he said.


By the way....why is it never an issue that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a mormon?

I believe 4 other members of the senate are Mormon as well.

As far as the speech goes, people have been mentioning the 'mormon speech' since early in his campaign. He always said he didn't see the need to do such a thing. Then, he starts falling in the polls, and all of a sudden, its an important speech to make.

Yet another flip flop. :lol:

[JoeE]

It's weird, but Fred Thompson is starting to look really good, at least from the perspective of someone who'd rather not see religion be a huge issue in this race:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/11/post_68.html


Chalk it up as another quirk of the 2008 GOP presidential field: The top-tier Repubican who entered the race as the supposed godsend for socially conservative voters in the Bible Belt who are dissatisfied with the other candidates is someone who does not attend church on a regular basis.

Asked about his religious beliefs during an appearance before about 500 Republicans in South Carolina yesterday, Fred Thompson said he attends church when he visits his mother in Tennessee but does not belong to a church or attend regularly at his home in McLean, Va., just outside Washington. The actor and former senator, who was baptized in the Church of Christ, said he gained his values from "sitting around the kitchen table" and said he did not plan to speak about his religious beliefs on the stump. "I know that I'm right with God and the people I love," he said, according to Bloomberg News Service. It's "just the way I am not to talk about some of these things."

[Nick Spencer]

Which was added sometime in the 50s because we wanted to let everyone know we weren't godless commies.

It's also got some weird pyramid eye that no one has ever really explained. I try not to think too much about the strange shit they print on my money, so long as it spends.

And yes, this and the pledge's "under God" were added in the 50s during the red scare, because apparently we thought the way to show we were the free ones was to demonstrate how we cram religion down people's throats.

[Thommy Melanson]

It's also got some weird pyramid eye that no one has ever really explained. I try not to think too much about the strange shit they print on my money, so long as it spends...

It's Masonic imagery.

Washington and a lot of the founding fathers were Masons.

Our country was founded by secretive organizations with strange rituals and rules, so I don't see what the hubbub about Romney's Mormonism is all about.

Might be the magic underwear thing.

[Mister Mets]

I read the text of the speech, and though that it was good and should appeal to the hardcore Christians.

I was under the impression that his flip-flopping was more of a problem than his Mormonism until I saw yesterday's Nightline report about the Evangelicals who go to Mormon gatherings, and try to convert them. And one woman saying she'd rather vote for Hillary over Mitt because of the advantage a Mormon in the white house gives to the missionaries "Would you like to hear about the President's faith?"

It does probably help Romney that no one's talking about his flip-flopping or limited experience in government.

[RebootedCorpse]

It's Masonic imagery.

Washington and a lot of the founding fathers were Masons.

Our country was founded by secretive organizations with strange rituals and rules, so I don't see what the hubbub about Romney's Mormonism is all about.

Might be the magic underwear thing.

lol...I believe he still refuses to answer the question about whether he wears them.

[Mister Mets]

Romney is the Jesse Jackson of Mormonism.
Without the bastard child.


what about the people who aren't religious...?

I don't go to church. I don't pray. I never even think about God, Jesus, Catholics, Mormons, etc.

All this talk about religion in politics doesn't mean shit to me.
But statistically speaking the irreligious are a small percentage of the population. So Republicans don't see the need to cater to you guys.

[Thommy Melanson]

Without the bastard child.


But statistically speaking the irreligious are a small percentage of the population. So Republicans don't see the need to cater to you guys.

The megawealthy are only 1% of the population, and they cater to them eagerly.

[Mister Mets]

The megawealthy are only 1% of the population, and they cater to them eagerly.
They contribute more in campaign funds.

If every atheist in the United States were to contribute $10,000 an year to politicians, they would become a powerful lobby.


You may like his speech now, but what makes you think the Presidential candidate you may vote for now will be the same person in office?

"Multiple Choice Mitt" has a history for doing a complete 180 after courting enough votes to get elected. All one needs to do is take a look at Mitt's record and see Romney is a pandering, hypocritical fraud.

He doesn't deserve anyone's vote.
This is the reason he's my least favorite of the six Republican candidates with any hope of winning the nomination (including Ron Paul.)

But there is an appeal to Romney's managerial skills and even an insincere candidate who wants to get elected in order to fix things (though there's also the problem that that type of candidate will likely spend their first four years trying to get reelected.)

[Thommy Melanson]

They contribute more in campaign funds.

If every atheist in the United States were to contribute $10,000 an year to politicians, they would become a powerful lobby.

I've been trying to get my fellow atheists to unite as a political force, but it's impossible to make them believe in anything.

[RebootedCorpse]

I've been trying to get my fellow atheists to unite as a political force, but it's impossible to make them believe in anything.

We should bring it up at our next church service.

[Thommy Melanson]

We should bring it up at our next church service.

Will that be at the mall or at a Denny's?

I hope our big imaginary friend can make it.

He never answers our calls.

[Nick Spencer]

It's Masonic imagery.

Washington and a lot of the founding fathers were Masons.

Our country was founded by secretive organizations with strange rituals and rules, so I don't see what the hubbub about Romney's Mormonism is all about.

Well, that's one theory, but Masons deny it, and the guy who put it on there wasn't a Mason. It's just always been interesting to me that we have this weird image, with no purpose or explanation, on our money. Much stranger than In God We Trust, which is pretty simple political pandering.

[Foolish Mortal]

It's Masonic imagery.

Washington and a lot of the founding fathers were Masons.

Our country was founded by secretive organizations with strange rituals and rules, so I don't see what the hubbub about Romney's Mormonism is all about.

Might be the magic underwear thing.
Because Christians want to perpetuate the lie that the United States was founded by Christians and is based solely on Christian values.


Without the bastard child.
As far as we know. :shifty:

[Mister Mets]

As far as we know. :shifty:
At the moment let's give him the benefit of the doubt, as there's nothing to indicate that he's been anything but a loving and loyal husband, father and grandfather.

Questions about his political views and work as Governor in Massachusetts are a separate matter.

[Foolish Mortal]

At the moment let's give him the benefit of the doubt, as there's nothing to indicate that he's been anything but a loving and loyal husband, father and grandfather.

Questions about his political views and work as Governor in Massachusetts are a separate matter.
I was being facetious, actually. :)

[edwardmblake]

Which was added sometime in the 50s because we wanted to let everyone know we weren't godless commies.

My two cents on the subject: In God We Trust first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

[edwardmblake]

It's also got some weird pyramid eye that no one has ever really explained. I try not to think too much about the strange shit they print on my money, so long as it spends.

The eye is the eye of god looking down on our country. and the Latin around it meaning: He approves the things which have been begun. I do like the mason illuminatti theory though.

[lonesomefool]

I wouldn't dream of doing so until the real Republican party returns.

The current party is a front for religious interests.

Agreed, and I would also add that more and more the Democratic party seems to be moving to the left more and more. It really makes me wish there was a viable, 3rd party canidate because if it comes down to Mitt or Rudy vs. Hillary I really dont know who I will vote for or if I will even be able to stomach voting for any of them.

[Nick Spencer]

Agreed, and I would also add that more and more the Democratic party seems to be moving to the left more and more. It really makes me wish there was a viable, 3rd party canidate because if it comes down to Mitt or Rudy vs. Hillary I really dont know who I will vote for or if I will even be able to stomach voting for any of them.

BLOOMBERG.

He's just waiting in hopes that neither Hillary or Rudy get their noms. Then he starts off as an independent with a huge state worth of electoral votes.

Run a big state strategy: New York, California, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, spend an absurd amount of money.

Get Chuck Hagel as Veep and a team of A-list, well known types for staff.

He could win if it's say, Obama vs. Huckabee, or something similar.

[SethInAz]

As soon as people realize that religion should be a voice in politics just like any other (economic, social, cultural) we'll all be better off. There's too much of this false either/or scenario going on, either religion must be forced underground and neutered or it must rule all policy. Religion has its place in politics as long as it is not the ONLY voice for doing something, as the Founding Fathers intended.

[Ray G.]

BLOOMBERG.

He's just waiting in hopes that neither Hillary or Rudy get their noms. Then he starts off as an independent with a huge state worth of electoral votes.

Run a big state strategy: New York, California, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, spend an absurd amount of money.

Get Chuck Hagel as Veep and a team of A-list, well known types for staff.

He could win if it's say, Obama vs. Huckabee, or something similar.

No way on Hagel. I imagine he picks either Angus King or David Petraeus. Possibly Joe Lieberman.

But yeah, I imagine Bloomberg runs if Obama gets the Dem nod or Huckabee/Romney get the GOP nod. At that point, I think a ton of people will be looking for an alternative.

[WillieLee]

As soon as people realize that religion should be a voice in politics just like any other (economic, social, cultural) we'll all be better off. There's too much of this false either/or scenario going on, either religion must be forced underground and neutered or it must rule all policy. Religion has its place in politics as long as it is not the ONLY voice for doing something, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Which of the Founding Fathers intended for religion to be involved with politics?

[Fake Pat]

No way on Hagel. I imagine he picks either Angus King or David Petraeus. Possibly Joe Lieberman.

But yeah, I imagine Bloomberg runs if Obama gets the Dem nod or Huckabee/Romney get the GOP nod. At that point, I think a ton of people will be looking for an alternative.

If Bloomberg runs with Angus King, and Obama's out, they've got my vote.

[Fake Pat]

As soon as people realize that religion should be a voice in politics just like any other (economic, social, cultural) we'll all be better off. There's too much of this false either/or scenario going on, either religion must be forced underground and neutered or it must rule all policy. Religion has its place in politics as long as it is not the ONLY voice for doing something, as the Founding Fathers intended.

No it doesn't, and no they didn't.

[Ray G.]

If Bloomberg runs with Angus King, and Obama's out, they've got my vote.

Bloomberg is only behind Giuliani and McCain for me, right now. Just ahead of Gore. I really dislike the Democratic field and two-thirds of the GOP field.

[lonesomefool]

BLOOMBERG.

He's just waiting in hopes that neither Hillary or Rudy get their noms. Then he starts off as an independent with a huge state worth of electoral votes.

Run a big state strategy: New York, California, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, spend an absurd amount of money.

Get Chuck Hagel as Veep and a team of A-list, well known types for staff.

He could win if it's say, Obama vs. Huckabee, or something similar.

I hope so, cause Rudy is too corrupt, Mitt is too much of a "professional" politician and Hillary, well, I tend to be a fiscal conservative and if my taxes were to be raised I would rather it go to pay off our national debt (assuming we pull out of Iraq) rather than building something as stupid and as worthless as a fucking Woodstock museum.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

If Bloomberg runs with Angus King, and Obama's out, they've got my vote.

I would have a torrid love affair with that ticket. (I'm a Mainer, so I know and respect Angus King as our best governor in decades.)

Unfortunately, if you think Romney has problems as a Mormon, remember that Bloomberg is Jewish. I would vote for him over almost any other candidate right now, but one of his opponents will bring that up sooner or later.


Which of the Founding Fathers intended for religion to be involved with politics?

Jesus, obviously.

[Fake Pat]

I would have a torrid love affair with that ticket. (I'm a Mainer, so I know and respect Angus King as our best governor in decades.)

Unfortunately, if you think Romney has problems as a Mormon, remember that Bloomberg is Jewish. I would vote for him over almost any other candidate right now, but one of his opponents will bring that up sooner or later.



Jesus, obviously.

Same here.

Where you from?

[blinkless]

I hate Romney just because he's a Mormon while having no idea what a mormon is, assuming it's a cult with beards and giant wives. But I like to cover up that hate with quips about his tenure as Mass governor and his reputation as a flip-flopper.

Ignorance really IS bliss!

[Fake Pat]

I hate Romney just because he's a Mormon while having no idea what a mormon is, assuming it's a cult with beards and giant wives. But I like to cover up that hate with quips about his tenure as Mass governor and his reputation as a flip-flopper.

Ignorance really IS bliss!

Wow, you're right.

I just realized anyone who doesn't like Romney is just a Mormon hater! Well done.

(this post is code for "grow up")

[Nick Spencer]

No way on Hagel. I imagine he picks either Angus King or David Petraeus. Possibly Joe Lieberman.

But yeah, I imagine Bloomberg runs if Obama gets the Dem nod or Huckabee/Romney get the GOP nod. At that point, I think a ton of people will be looking for an alternative.

A lot of people think it will be Hagel because they hinted and joked about it so much when they met. Hagel's a strong add, because he's socially conservative-- he can campaign in Ohio and Penn very effectively.

We're in exact agreement on who he needs to run against though. He can only run if he can bring New York to the table.

Bloomberg can also run very strong in Florida, with the NY retirees and the huge Jewish community. If its Obama-Romney/Huckabee, you're looking at two candidates without a lot of swing state appeal, so his money can have a huge impact.

He's the first of his kind-- he's got positive high profile political success, but also more money than God.

It would change the map completely. California would become the ballgame. If he could get Arnold's endorsement, that could be it.

[Nick Spencer]

I would have a torrid love affair with that ticket. (I'm a Mainer, so I know and respect Angus King as our best governor in decades.)

Unfortunately, if you think Romney has problems as a Mormon, remember that Bloomberg is Jewish. I would vote for him over almost any other candidate right now, but one of his opponents will bring that up sooner or later.



Jesus, obviously.

Heh... no one will do that because unlike Utah, Florida matters in elections.

It does make me realize Obama and Romney must be Bloomberg's dream come true- running against an African American and a Mormon.

[Ray G.]

I believe the last poll showed something like only 6% of Americans wouldn't vote for a Jew. I expect the number is bigger in reality, maybe double that, but it's still not a huge factor.

I do expect it to be a factor on both sides, though. Radicals on the right will make noise about this being a "Christian nation", and radicals on the left will make noise about "turning the country over to the Israel lobby", but very few will engage in open anti-Semitism. And Bloomberg's in a good position, as he really only needs to pull 40% in each state he wins. Take the whole middle from both sides, and he's got it won.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Same here.

Where you from?

I'm from Portland. Are you at UMO or an Orono native?


I believe the last poll showed something like only 6% of Americans wouldn't vote for a Jew. I expect the number is bigger in reality, maybe double that, but it's still not a huge factor.

I do expect it to be a factor on both sides, though. Radicals on the right will make noise about this being a "Christian nation", and radicals on the left will make noise about "turning the country over to the Israel lobby", but very few will engage in open anti-Semitism. And Bloomberg's in a good position, as he really only needs to pull 40% in each state he wins. Take the whole middle from both sides, and he's got it won.

Interesting. I haven't seen that poll, but if it's close to accurate that's very good news. The anti-Semitism angle is another good point - there would be a very hard push against any religious critics, based on that, and Bloomberg wouldn't even have to do much about it himself, as there are enough respected activists to do it for him.

[Fake Pat]

I'm from Portland. Are you at UMO or an Orono native?

Buxton native, going to Orono currently, family now lives in Portland.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Buxton native, going to Orono currently, family now lives in Portland.

Cool, I know a lot of people going to Orono currently (as does probably everyone from a Maine public school...).

[Shwicaz]

Ha ha ha!

Yesterday Mitt Romney said the funniest thing about his 'mormon speech':


Romney also told reporters that his speech Thursday on "Faith in America" was about just that and was not intended to build support for his campaign among conservative Christians.

"The speech was not about politics. I don't know how the politics work on it, to tell you the truth," he said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/08/questions_on_illegal_immigrants_irk_romney/

[Mister Mets]

No way on Hagel. I imagine he picks either Angus King or David Petraeus. Possibly Joe Lieberman.

But yeah, I imagine Bloomberg runs if Obama gets the Dem nod or Huckabee/Romney get the GOP nod. At that point, I think a ton of people will be looking for an alternative.
I don't see him picking Lieberman.
A ticket with two Northeastern Jews?

I was unfamiliar with Angus King, though he doesn't give any geographic advantage either.

Jeb Bush would at least put Texas into play, while Chuck Hagel remains a possibility.

Obama's smart to try to make peace with Bloomberg now.

[Ray G.]

I don't see him picking Lieberman.
A ticket with two Northeastern Jews?

I was unfamiliar with Angus King, though he doesn't give any geographic advantage either.

Jeb Bush would at least put Texas into play, while Chuck Hagel remains a possibility.

Obama's smart to try to make peace with Bloomberg now.

The thing about Hagel is, he's pretty much a complete mismatch with Bloomberg. Bloomberg is fairly liberal, except on the war on terror, while Hagel is for the most part an arch-conservative, except for opposing the Iraq war. I don't see them getting along.

King doesn't give any real geographic advantage, but he brings long-time governing experience and is one of only two Governors in recent times to be elected as an Independent/Reform candidate. He was an ex-Governor of Maine who would probably still be in office if it wasn't for term limits. Very much like Bloomberg, in his views on the economy at least.

[Foolish Mortal]

I don't see him picking Lieberman.
A ticket with two Northeastern Jews?

I was unfamiliar with Angus King, though he doesn't give any geographic advantage either.

Jeb Bush would at least put Texas into play, while Chuck Hagel remains a possibility.

Obama's smart to try to make peace with Bloomberg now.
How would Jeb Bush put Texas into play?

[Fake Pat]

King doesn't give any real geographic advantage, but he brings long-time governing experience and is one of only two Governors in recent times to be elected as an Independent/Reform candidate. He was an ex-Governor of Maine who would probably still be in office if it wasn't for term limits. Very much like Bloomberg, in his views on the economy at least.

Yeah, trust me, he would definitely still be governor.

[Nick Spencer]

The thing about Hagel is, he's pretty much a complete mismatch with Bloomberg. Bloomberg is fairly liberal, except on the war on terror, while Hagel is for the most part an arch-conservative, except for opposing the Iraq war. I don't see them getting along.

King doesn't give any real geographic advantage, but he brings long-time governing experience and is one of only two Governors in recent times to be elected as an Independent/Reform candidate. He was an ex-Governor of Maine who would probably still be in office if it wasn't for term limits. Very much like Bloomberg, in his views on the economy at least.

Hagel supported campaign finance reform, too.

They get along really well, actually:
http://www.wnbc.com/news/14722163/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=news

They've practically come right out and said it.

Hagel puts several states in play. King is great, but governing a small New England state isn't very high profile.

[SethInAz]

Which of the Founding Fathers intended for religion to be involved with politics?

Based on their correspondence, biographies, and public addresses, an overwhelming majority of the 55 Founding Fathers. Twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutheran, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodist, two Roman Catholic, and an argument could be made for even the three deists: Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin. Oh, and one was unaccounted for.

[Nick Spencer]

Based on their correspondence, biographies, and public addresses, an overwhelming majority of the 55 Founding Fathers. Twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutheran, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodist, two Roman Catholic, and an argument could be made for even the three deists: Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin. Oh, and one was unaccounted for.

Oh, come on. In those days, Church affiliation CERTAINLY didn't indicate that you were practicing, by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact is that the founding PHILOSOPHY of this nation, the Locke-Hobbes doctrine, is profoundly secular and atheistic.

[SethInAz]

Oh, come on. In those days, Church affiliation CERTAINLY didn't indicate that you were practicing, by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact is that the founding PHILOSOPHY of this nation, the Locke-Hobbes doctrine, is profoundly secular and atheistic.

Publicly sworn confessions were a HUGE deal back then, much more so than by today's standards that you seem to be implying. To be a member of a church wasn't just a matter of sitting in a pew on Sunday, it entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith, adherence, and acknowledgment of the doctrines of that particular church.

45 of the 55 were Calvinists, some of the most doctrinally strict Christians around. While they took great care not to write theological doctrine into the Constitution, it is clear that even those small few who were not Christian presumed a common set of values that were informed by Biblical truth. This country was founded on Biblical principles by Christian men who had a deep commitment to the Scriptures by and large. This doesn't make us necessarily a "Christian nation" in terms of government mandated religion, but merely reinforces the fact that the Founding Fathers encouraged the education and expression of religion in all facets of life.

[Nick Spencer]

Publicly sworn confessions were a HUGE deal back then, much more so than by today's standards that you seem to be implying. To be a member of a church wasn't just a matter of sitting in a pew on Sunday, it entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith, adherence, and acknowledgment of the doctrines of that particular church.

45 of the 55 were Calvinists, some of the most doctrinally strict Christians around. While they took great care not to write theological doctrine into the Constitution, it is clear that even those small few who were not Christian presumed a common set of values that were informed by Biblical truth. This country was founded on Biblical principles by Christian men who had a deep commitment to the Scriptures by and large. This doesn't make us necessarily a "Christian nation" in terms of government mandated religion, but merely reinforces the fact that the Founding Fathers encouraged the education and expression of religion in all facets of life.

Wow... it still astonishes me that some people believe this. It flies in the face of so much history, and the idea that the Lockean priniciple of self-governance and the response to the state of nature is somehow related to Christian principles is absurd to me.

[Thommy Melanson]

This thread needs a good fart joke.

[Nick Spencer]

Publicly sworn confessions were a HUGE deal back then, much more so than by today's standards that you seem to be implying. To be a member of a church wasn't just a matter of sitting in a pew on Sunday, it entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith, adherence, and acknowledgment of the doctrines of that particular church.

Yeah, they were definitely adhering to their faith. Hardcore.

Come on dude. Must I bring up the mistresses, shady land deals, profane writings, etc?

And especially when you get down to the core minds of the revolution, you are certainly dealing with people whose concept of God was wildly different than that of the modern day American Christian.

[Nick Spencer]

While they took great care not to write theological doctrine into the Constitution, it is clear that even those small few who were not Christian presumed a common set of values that were informed by Biblical truth.

Sorry, but... Biblical Truth?

You know, the principles of not killing, stealing, lying, or cheating are NOT Biblical truths, they're universal truths. Nearly every major society since the beginning of time has adhered to these, at least to the same degree as societies run by Christians, and its certainly never had anything to do with the Bible. I hate when Christians try to act like they invented those mores, or brought them to prominence. They didn't.

Our system is set up on an understanding of property rights, beginning with your person, and the notion that government/society is put in place to protect that property. That's Locke/Hobbes, not the Bible. In fact, huge parts of the Bible run counter to these notions.

New Testament Christianity actually advocated a very different set of truths than what we operate under. "Orthodox" Christianity clearly advocates a system that DOESN'T recognize personal property, but rather communal living where everything is shared. It advocates extremist charity, pacifism, and classless society.

We most certainly DO NOT operate within a system inspired by Christianity. In fact, we're almost the opposite. What moral guides we have are informed by principles of property and civil equality.

[SethInAz]

Sorry, but... Biblical Truth?

You know, the principles of not killing, stealing, lying, or cheating are NOT Biblical truths, they're universal truths. Nearly every major society since the beginning of time has adhered to these, at least to the same degree as societies run by Christians, and its certainly never had anything to do with the Bible. I hate when Christians try to act like they invented those mores, or brought them to prominence. They didn't.

Our system is set up on an understanding of property rights, beginning with your person, and the notion that government/society is put in place to protect that property. That's Locke/Hobbes, not the Bible. In fact, huge parts of the Bible run counter to these notions.

New Testament Christianity actually advocated a very different set of truths than what we operate under. "Orthodox" Christianity clearly advocates a system that DOESN'T recognize personal property, but rather communal living where everything is shared. It advocates extremist charity, pacifism, and classless society.

We most certainly DO NOT operate within a system inspired by Christianity. In fact, we're almost the opposite. What moral guides we have are informed by principles of property and civil equality.

You're beating around the bush and dodging my point. The Founding Fathers overwhelmingly either shared a Biblical view of the world or had a deep respect for it, namely the existence of God who is active in human history, the authority of the Scripture, the inherent sinfulness of man, the existence of absolute objective morality, and God-given transcendent rights. These are a huge part of the philosophical foundation of the Constitution. Never said Christians invented it and it's a moot point anyways.

It astonishes me equally that people have ignored the above facts, and selectively picked writings hostile towards Christianity by a few early figures to try and make it seem like the entire Revolution and subsequent Founding were all hostile towards it as well. It's how we've ended up wit a Separation doctrine that was completely foreign to the Founding Fathers and in practice for 150 years after the fact. It's absolutely clear that the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from all facets of public life.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

King doesn't give any real geographic advantage, but he brings long-time governing experience and is one of only two Governors in recent times to be elected as an Independent/Reform candidate. He was an ex-Governor of Maine who would probably still be in office if it wasn't for term limits. Very much like Bloomberg, in his views on the economy at least.

I'll second Pat on that one. I was very, very close to writing in his name on the last gubernatorial ballot anyway.

I also really, really hope that Bloomberg doesn't go anywhere near Lieberman...

[WillieLee]

Based on their correspondence, biographies, and public addresses, an overwhelming majority of the 55 Founding Fathers. Twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutheran, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodist, two Roman Catholic, and an argument could be made for even the three deists: Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin. Oh, and one was unaccounted for.

You know, if you would have scrolled a little further down in wikipedia you would have noticed this section.



Regardless, the division of church and state was always emphasized by the founding fathers. "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli). This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.

[NickT]

Is Mitt an abbreviation?

[WillieLee]

Is Mitt an abbreviation?

It's his middle name. His real name is Willard.

[WillieLee]

You're beating around the bush and dodging my point. The Founding Fathers overwhelmingly either shared a Biblical view of the world or had a deep respect for it, namely the existence of God who is active in human history, the authority of the Scripture, the inherent sinfulness of man, the existence of absolute objective morality, and God-given transcendent rights. These are a huge part of the philosophical foundation of the Constitution. Never said Christians invented it and it's a moot point anyways.

Your only point so far is that the Founding Fathers were religious. You've provided no links on their opinions on Religion and Politics.



It astonishes me equally that people have ignored the above facts, and selectively picked writings hostile towards Christianity by a few early figures to try and make it seem like the entire Revolution and subsequent Founding were all hostile towards it as well. It's how we've ended up wit a Separation doctrine that was completely foreign to the Founding Fathers and in practice for 150 years after the fact. It's absolutely clear that the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from all facets of public life.

How is the Seperation doctrine different today than when Jefferson coined the phrase?

[PimpSlapStick!]

I'm not feeling Romney, something is off about him.

[WillieLee]

I'm not feeling Romney, something is off about him.

I'm feeling Giuliani, but looking Mike Huckabee?

[PimpSlapStick!]

I'm feeling Giuliani, but looking Mike Huckabee?


Huckabee and McCain are the guys I like on the Reps side, but I'm Obama all the way.

Giuliani got to much baggage.

[Foolish Mortal]

The Founders were not "hostile" to religion, they simply believed in secularism. They believed religious doctrine should never be the deciding factor in how the government is run.

[WillieLee]

Huckabee and McCain are the guys I like on the Reps side, but I'm Obama all the way.

Giuliani got to much baggage.

I don't that's a Soundgarden song.

[PimpSlapStick!]

I don't that's a Soundgarden song.

What's a soundgarden

[Amos Moses]

What's a soundgarden

A garden with a lot a noise.



Dumbass.














http://s.yottamusic.com/i/ac0G.6Y35

[WillieLee]

What's a soundgarden

Who's High Pitch?

[PimpSlapStick!]

A garden with a lot a noise.



Dumbass.














http://s.yottamusic.com/i/ac0G.6Y35

LOL

Of course

[Nick Spencer]

You know, if you would have scrolled a little further down in wikipedia you would have noticed this section.

This is a burn.

The Bible doesn't come close to ascribing transcendent human rights in any way that applies to the material world. It just says it fixes that stuff up once everyone's dead. This is why the Bible was used so successfully to defend monarchies, empires, crusades, and slavery. It absolutely does NOT take a stand against those things.

The European philosophers that provided the intellectual basis for the American and French Revolutions were all atheists. The intellectuals here in the States that wrote the Federalist Papers and other key documents were at best Deists, but more than that, it's painfully obvious that whatever they faith they may have had, they checked it at the door, something people in modern society seem to have lost the ability to do.

A Christian system would be a communal, non-violent agrarian state. Which is to say, if Christianity were our foundation, that's what we'd have-- communism with a state religion and a pacifist constitution. What the hell is Christian about the American system? The fact that it's illegal to kill or steal? Cause that's true in a lot of societies, nothing unique to Christianity about it. Hell, you couldn't do those things in Ancient Rome.

We're NOT based on The Ten Commandments (adultery isn't illegal, you can treat your parents like shit, we have religious freedom). We're NOT based on the gospel-- we prize personal property and wealth, we don't penalize thought crimes, and we have a military.

Again, where does Christianity makes itself evident in our system of government? It doesn't, and it certainly didn't at the time of the founding.

And one last thing, where in our founding do you see evidence that they ascribed to this surreal and creepy notion of the "Inherent sinfulness of man?"

[Thommy Melanson]

Yep.

This thread definitely needs a fart joke.

[WillieLee]

Yep.

This thread definitely needs a fart joke.

Fart jokes are so lowbrow. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI0hvm10AHo)