The New and Improved Mitt Romney

[Nanker]

First, let's not confuse the Constitutional right. Everyone has the right to be batshit crazy as long as the beliefs don't infringe other rights, eg, a right to execute adulters.

 

Second, it matters to me when people like Bush put their decision-making in god's hands and say that they make their decisions after talking to god. And it matters to me that Obama went happily to a Church with a seemingly bona fide lunatic at its head for a decade.

 

So it does matter to me. If you have some little box where you go to talk to god, I can get over it as long as you are basing your day-to-day actions on some rational and reasoned belief system. Lincoln seemed to work in that framework. Today's politicians, however, can't get elected without proving that they go to church diligently and believe in god (preferably the Christian one). This Jesus litmus test for politicians is abhorrent and the lack of tolerance for non-believers is still a widespread fact of life--while the secularists disdain for religion remains a quaint little point of interest.

Okay, I understand your position a bit better. I'd agree that wearing religion on one's shirtsleeves is not a becoming style and in recent times, that does seem to be an increasing trend. It's a posture I don't agree with. I'll go back to my original statement. The lack of religious tolerance in America is astounding to me. And, I meant intolerance of different religions by the self-proclaimed religious. The secularists can certainly be added to that milieu, but I just don't get a sense of persecution of secularists by people of faith to the extent that you do.

[DC Tom]

First, let's not confuse the Constitutional right. Everyone has the right to be batshit crazy as long as the beliefs don't infringe other rights, eg, a right to execute adulters.

 

Second, it matters to me when people like Bush put their decision-making in god's hands and say that they make their decisions after talking to god. And it matters to me that Obama went happily to a Church with a seemingly bona fide lunatic at its head for a decade.

 

So it does matter to me. If you have some little box where you go to talk to god, I can get over it as long as you are basing your day-to-day actions on some rational and reasoned belief system. Lincoln seemed to work in that framework. Today's politicians, however, can't get elected without proving that they go to church diligently and believe in god (preferably the Christian one). This Jesus litmus test for politicians is abhorrent and the lack of tolerance for non-believers is still a widespread fact of life--while the secularists disdain for religion remains a quaint little point of interest.

 

First time I've ever heard Lincoln's belief system called "rational" and "reasoned".

[John Adams]

Okay, I understand your position a bit better. I'd agree that wearing religion on one's shirtsleeves is not a becoming style and in recent times, that does seem to be an increasing trend. It's a posture I don't agree with. I'll go back to my original statement. The lack of religious tolerance in America is astounding to me. And, I meant intolerance of different religions by the self-proclaimed religious. The secularists can certainly be added to that milieu, but I just don't get a sense of persecution of secularists by people of faith to the extent that you do.

 

So we have a national political system where elected officials absolutely must show off their Judeo-Christian beliefs or they don't get elected...and you don't see that as a system that excludes non-believers? I sure do.

[John Adams]

First time I've ever heard Lincoln's belief system called "rational" and "reasoned".

 

Do you think he was throwing darts in his decision-making? Seems to me like he was pretty GD thought-out. (Not that he didn't make mistakes.)

[DC Tom]

Do you think he was throwing darts in his decision-making? Seems to me like he was pretty GD thought-out. (Not that he didn't make mistakes.)

 

Don't forget you're talking to a military historian.

 

With that context established: yes, most definitely.

[Nanker]

So we have a national political system where elected officials absolutely must show off their Judeo-Christian beliefs or they don't get elected...and you don't see that as a system that excludes non-believers? I sure do.

Well, it's not a requirement.

Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The shilling, shucking and posturing for votes is another matter entirely.

[Joe Miner]

So we have a national political system where elected officials absolutely must show off their Judeo-Christian beliefs or they don't get elected...and you don't see that as a system that excludes non-believers? I sure do.

 

(not necessarily directed at JA, just the conversation in general)

 

Both sides of the Christian/religion stance in politics are despicable.

 

On one side you have politicians pimping their supposed religious values and beliefs for the sheer purpose of selling themselves to the public, because they think that's what the public wants (and some of the public does want it). Religion is a commodity much like a campaign wardrobe.

 

On the other hand, it seems a person with genuine religious beliefs can't keep them to themselves, because they are constantly being attacked for having them. Then when they defend or acknowledge their beliefs in any way, they are moved into the zealot or fanatic category, even though that wasn't a main campaign or selling topic for them.

 

But hey, whatever it takes so that we (as a country) can keep from discussing which candidate actually has ideas that might be worthwhile. Let's continue the popularity contest that's obviously working out for us so well up to this point.

[UConn James]

On the other hand, it seems a person with genuine religious beliefs can't keep them to themselves, because they are constantly being attacked for having them. Then when they defend or acknowledge their beliefs in any way, they are moved into the zealot or fanatic category, even though that wasn't a main campaign or selling topic for them.

 

And at this point, in a better world, someone would give the Arnold Vinick answer: "From now until the end of this campaign, I'll answer any question you've got about government. But if you've got a question about religion, please, go to church."

 

And again, it also seems to play into the very early strategy of "skipping the South." If the zealots there won't vote for the single issue of his religion, then largely, just bypass it and hope that a Southern state or two still swings your way.

 

To my knowledge, while governing, Mitt Romney did not put Books of Mormon in every athlete's room during the Olympics, nor did he force Mormon conversions, faith did not direct his governing choices, or make any kind of a deal about it in Massachusetts.

 

Mitt seemingly has (and has had) higher hurdles to jump than JFK. That said, I think '12 may be the right time for him... when religion doesn't mean nearly as much as "Who can pull us out of this $ slump?"

[DC Tom]

And at this point, in a better world, someone would give the Arnold Vinick answer: "From now until the end of this campaign, I'll answer any question you've got about government. But if you've got a question about religion, please, go to church."

 

And again, it also seems to play into the very early strategy of "skipping the South." If the zealots there won't vote for the single issue of his religion, then largely, just bypass it and hope that a Southern state or two still swings your way.

 

To my knowledge, while governing, Mitt Romney did not put Books of Mormon in every athlete's room during the Olympics, nor did he force Mormon conversions, faith did not direct his governing choices, or make any kind of a deal about it in Massachusetts.

 

Mitt seemingly has (and has had) higher hurdles to jump than JFK. That said, I think '12 may be the right time for him... when religion doesn't mean nearly as much as "Who can pull us out of this $ slump?"

 

But he's still got to overcome the fact that he's named after a piece of baseball equipment and a sheep.

[pBills]

But he's still got to overcome the fact that he's named after a piece of baseball equipment and a sheep.

[Nanker]

But he's still got to overcome the fact that he's named after a piece of baseball equipment and a sheep.

That could be the stopper right there.

[UConn James]

AP | Unruly passenger took a swing at Romney

[Magox]

AP | Unruly passenger took a swing at Romney

Jesus