AP report on Romney's "Faith in America" speech uncritically reported Romney's decrying "religious test" for office
A December 6 Associated Press article by reporter Glen Johnson uncritically reported Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's complaint that a "religious test" to become president was "prohibited in the Constitution," without noting that Romney himself has repeatedly stated that Americans want a person of faith to lead them.
The AP report -- which previewed Romney's then-upcoming December 6 "Faith in America" speech, in which Romney discussed how, in his words, his "own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected" -- stated that "Romney, confronting voters' skepticism about his Mormon faith, declared Thursday that as president he would 'serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause,' and said calls for him to explain and justify his religious beliefs go against the profound wishes of the nation's founders." The article went on to quote Romney saying: "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. ... To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
But Romney has repeatedly said that he believes Americans "want a person of faith to lead them." For instance:
- Responding to Fox host Chris Wallace's assertion that "evangelicals ... say Mormonism is a cult," Romney asserted: "Well, I think people in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their governor, as their senator, as their president. I don't think most people care what brand of faith they have. ... Those things, I think, get swept away as people get to know the individual, understand their character, their vision, their values, and I think that's true regardless of a person's faith if they are a faithful person." [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, February 26, 2006]
- In response to Fox News host Sean Hannity's statement that "it seems like" the media "are creating for you a religious litmus test" by asking Romney about his Mormonism, Romney stated: "[F]rankly, the people I talk to, not necessarily the reporters, but the people I talk to in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina tell me time and again they want a person of faith to lead the country, but they don't particularly care what brand of faith it is so long as the person has American values. And if you look at my marriage, and you look at our family and our kids, and the values that we've tried to instill in each one of our kids, you'll see that the values that I have are as American as any in this great country." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, March 12]
- In a recent interview with the Austin American-Statesman's W. Gardner Selby, Romney reportedly stated: "I don't think people know a lot about my faith. But what I learn as I go about the country is that people want a person of faith to lead the country, but they don't particularly care what brand of faith that is, so long as the values that person has are American values. ... Now, if people want to know more about my particular faith, they can contact my church." [Austin American-Statesman, November 22]
By contrast, after Romney gave his speech, during the 10 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live, journalist Sally Quinn said of the speech: "I'm really stunned because I think it was an obliteration of the idea of the separation of church and state. He eliminated anybody who was a doubter, an atheist, an agnostic, a seeker. It's like, if you believe in God or Christ, you're on my side. If not, you're not."
From Johnson's December 6 AP report:
Republican Mitt Romney, confronting voters' skepticism about his Mormon faith, declared Thursday that as president he would "serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause," and said calls for him to explain and justify his religious beliefs go against the profound wishes of the nation's founders.
At the same time, he decried those who would remove from public life "any acknowledgment of God," and he said that "during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."
In a speech prepared for delivery less than a month before the first nomination primaries, Romney said he shares "moral convictions" with Americans of all faiths, though surveys suggest up to half of likely voters have qualms about electing the first Mormon president.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines," Romney said. "To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
Excerpts from Romney's speech, which he was delivering at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum at 10:30 a.m. EST, were released in advance by his campaign.
From the 10 a.m. hour of the December 6 edition of MSNBC Live:
CHRIS MATTHEWS (MSNBC host): For the first time in this campaign, and it's been a long campaign already, I've heard greatness this morning. What I liked was his major statement here, not about his religious profession, but about his profession as to what America stands for. And he said the conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. That was at the heart of who we are. Sally, I've got to give you a chance.
QUINN: I have to say that I'm really stunned because I think it was an obliteration of the idea of the separation of church and state. He eliminated anybody who was a doubter, an atheist, an agnostic, a seeker. It's like, if you believe in God or Christ, you're on my side. If not, you're not.
MATTHEWS: Joe?
JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC host): I will say what I said at the top of this hour. I thought this was a great idea. He got to stand next to the president of the United States. He got to talk about his faith, and he hit this thing out of the park. [Republican presidential candidate] Mike Huckabee was concerned about this coming up. Like I said earlier, Huckabee said, "I wish I would have an hour." He hit this out of the park. It was a great morning for him, and, you know, throw any candidate into this briar patch. Mitt Romney did well. And good luck from this point forward trying to paint this man as some survivor of Jonestown. He is an accomplished governor. He was an accomplished businessman, an extraordinary businessman. And this, as we say in the South with evangelicals all around us, that dog just won't hunt anymore, and it won't.
Good catch MMFA, Romney is indeed a faith flip-flopper.
You and I are in agreement on this one.
Yet another example of why he cannot and should not get the Republican nomination. A major-league waffler he is.
Mmmm...reminds me of Hillary.
Would you also agree she shouldn't get her party's nomination?
Yeah that's what I thought ;-)
Provide details, vague allusions don't work.
For cryin out loud atheist, don't you follow the news?
Shall we start with licenses for ILLEGAL aliens?
Go do your homework, I'm not here to be your eyes & ears.
Geez...
Stop being a lazy wingnut ! (I know, redundant.)
You expect me to do your homework, & I'm the lazy one?
Ah Moonbat logic, gotta love it ;-)
Now I know why you believe in supernatural beings.
Huh?
That didn't even make sense.
Maybe you better go consult that bag of trash you worship?
::eye roll::
I'm happy to be able to post my reply in the proper spot now, for continuity reasons ...
"Maybe you better go consult that bag of trash you worship? "
I rely on science. If you want to refer to science as a "bag of trash", by all means go ahead. But make note of how many times during each day you rely on that "bag of trash" to accomplish tasks or even exist, starting with the computer you're using to publish your wingnut babble.
How this began:
You wrote: And why do I need to believe in supernatural beings to have them ?
I wrote: You can believe in a bag of trash if you'd like. But most folks still want their leaders to declare their faith in God & Jesus. Doesn't matter to me personally, so you'll have to take it up with those still hung up on it I guess....
Another words I don't personally give a hoot what you believe in. You can believe in a teddy bear, a babbling brook, your IPod. And you can pray/worship those things if you like.
But NO WHERE did I write or imply that A BAG OF TRASH = SCIENCE.
Your Moonbat assumptions amaze me....
You might not have intended to imply that science is a "bag of trash", but you ended up doing so because you assumed I worship something. I worship nothing, but like you I rely on science.
Don't blame me because your posts are consistently vague. Damn it Jeter, I'm an atheist, not a mind reader ! Why don't you just explain what your "bag of trash" term was referring to then and clear this all up ?
Bag Of Trash was simply the first object that came to me...I could have said Tree Stump, Hockey Puck, Coors Light.
Another words I was saying you don't have to believe in God. You don't have to believe in anything, but if you believe in a Bag Of Trash...well that's cool ;-)
This moonbat agrees with you Jeter.
Aw King you ain't no Moonbat. But I'm happy we agree on Hillary.
Seriously, I wish the Dems would get behind Biden or Dodd!
Though I'd be ok with Obama too :-)
I agree with atheist...
What does illegal aliens have to do with a religious litmus test, and Romney's pitiful flip-flopping?
Jeter is implying that Hillary first said it was okay to give licenses to illegal immigrants, then backtracked. Of course, she did no such thing. She just made the mistake of actually expressing understanding for another person's ideas.
Absolutely Jeter, Romney is no worse than most......notably Hillary.
Explain. Provide details.
Illegal immigration.
Iraq War.
$5000 for every child, well maybe?
We have been through these pseudo-issues a billion times. You only believe them to be valid issues because you are a wingnut therefore you are against Hillary. This thread isn't about her. Please stay focused.
You asked Tommy a question. Didn't like that he had answers. So now you tell him to stay on topic?
More Moonbat logic.
Pardon me if I thought his complaint had anything to do with this particular MMFA topic (Romney's hypocritical remarks regarding religion) rather than presume his post was more generic anti-Hillary babble.
As Jeter pointed out, you asked for details, for an explanation - and then when given examples of Hillary's flip-flops you accused me of not "focusing". If it was so off topic, then leave it alone.
You just listed three items without explanation of why they make HRC no worse (or worse or whatever) than Romney.
Illegal immigration.
Iraq War.
$5000 for every child, well maybe?
Details would be useful.
Tommy & Jetet sitting in a tree r-i-g-h-t-w-i-n-g
Geez, you're on a roll...heading down.
You asked for details from Tommy.
He gives them, & now you're whining...
Typical Moonbat, doesn't like the answers, tries to change the subject.
You could be their poster child.
"Illegal Immigration. Iraq War."
I would agree on the Iraq War, but I have yet to see any flip-flopping on the Illegal Immigration issue.
Additionally, please don't call these "details" - they are not, by ANY stretch of the imagination, DETAILS about Hillary's alleged flip-flopping. They're not even complete sentences. What Tommy did was throw out some partial concepts, hoping that someone else would fill in the blanks for him.
Try the debate, she flip flopped on drivers license for illegals, an illegal immigration issue, in a matter of about three minutes.
she flip flopped on drivers license for illegals,
That's not how I recall it. She just didn't react in a knee jerk fashion to say NO! as some would like. Instead, she tried to see some of the positives in an idea proposed by someone else.
More Moonbat logic.
Is that really necessary? You're not doing yourself a service with that kind of attack.
Not so fast. I am not a Hillary supporter.
Try again.
Tommy,
I tip my hat to you at this moment, in respect.
He isn't called Mitt (Multiple Choice) Romney for nothing.
The Pope could be president for all I'd care..... and I'm an agnostic or deist (like 70% of our founding fathers were)!
As long as he doesn't use his religiousness as a battering ram on us I don't care.....
Not that this, what seems like a defense of Romney, would get me to vote for him or any Republican (with the possible exeption of Ron Paul)
Lets get one thing straight here.....
Having religion (whatever it is) is not the same as; Church.......
When the Founding Fathers talked about 'religion' or 'Church' they were not specifically talking about one's belief in God but the Church (and its influence) having anything to do with the State!
In other words..... they expected that whoever was president can be as religious as they wanted but couldn't or shouldn't use the Church's ways to create laws, especially any that forced one belief over another or undermined any one belief in favor of a law.
I believe there was a book about this that I read a while back but I can't remember the name of it..... anyone know?
Tommy. It's moments like this that give me hope that people can put real love of the constitution above partisanship. Your simple acknowledgement of this type of BS gives many of us here great hope. Thanks!
How can he be a 'faith' flip-flopper when he's always believed in GOD?
I don't get it - if you need this website to do its thinking for you - You're in really bad shape.
This website is not bout fairness - its about getting Hillary Clinton in the WH
If you don't like GW-Bush...you're really not gonna like Hillary either..
Does anybody really think Hillary will make her Presidency about the American people and not about power?
Being drunk on power is worse than being drunk on alcohol - with the latter you can at least know you're going down. The former - You never know till you're flat on your face and have ruined more people thatn just your family and friends..
Think bout it..Bush-Clinton-Bush....They help each other to clean each others laundry..Think about it and realize they need each other...
You're a fool if you dont think W doesnt want Hillary to win the whole thing..he's openly rooting for her..
Mitt is a pandering buffoon.
It's interesting. Romney talked about faith, but he didn't talk about his faith. He mentioned his Mormon faith, what? Once? Twice?
I don't care that he was afraid to say he is a Mormon, I'd just as soon see a Buddhist or a Pagan elected. But Romney is definitely being a coward here and we all know cowards will say and do anything to avoid taking a stand on principles. He was making an appeal to the evangelicals and in the process he managed to sellout his own principles.
Keep up the good work Mitt.
but they don't particularly care what brand of faith it is so long as the person has American values
Grrrrrr. What exactly are "American values" ? And why do I need to believe in supernatural beings to have them ?
You can believe in a bag of trash if you'd like.
But most folks still want their leaders to declare their faith in God & Jesus.
Doesn't matter to me personally, so you'll have to take it up with those still hung up on it I guess....
There is only one religion worth believing in. Arrrgh!
That game is so hard!
Yes, most people belong to the cults and expect everyone else to as well. We already know this.
What I'm asking is: What are "American values" ?
If you have to ask...then you don't have them.
If you can't list them, apparently you don't know what they are either.
"If you can't list them, apparently you don't know what they are either."
Amen!
Romney thinks "American Values" are
code words. He thinks by uttering them he can convince the religious folks that he's the man, and the other guys who don't utter the "code words" are "Jesus haters," and secularists who hate Christmas.
Romney is a fake, and a Con of the first order. He's conservative fungus.
What happens is that they change depending on who is running the show. Currently, 'American Values' are demonstrated by supporting a war without end, giving up your liberties, not thinking for yourself, attending scam concerts in the name of 'supporting the troops', and using Rightwing talk radio as an educational tool.
What happens is that they change depending on who is running the show.
You have unknowingly asserted why the majority of people want a leader grounded in religous faith. The Judeo-Christian faith is based on an unchanging God and unchanging values that don't ebb and flow with the pop-culture.
By the waay - Media Matters got this wrong (what a shock). They are posing Romney's assertions as contradictions of themselves - they are not.
An unchanging God? Ever read the Bible? or read up on history of religion in this country in the past 200 years?
If Judeo-Christian values are so set in stone, why are there so many versions of Christianity?
Also, I would really like to know what these Judeo-Christian values are, exactly.
I'm not sure, but I think abusing a family's son while living in their home as a guest might be one of them.
If I recall correctly, Christianity (or at least one significant sect of it) has been a long time flip-flopping group. Heck, didn't it used to think our planet was the center of the universe?
So how do you explain the phenomenon of George 'Born Again' W. 'Talks to God' Bush?
Methinks God isn't all too pleased with Bush's inconsistencies with His teachings.
People can and do have consistant moral values without religion. To pretend that they dont is silly. I do agree that Romney did not contradict himself. Talking about the constitutional provision for there being no religious test for office does not contradict the fact that most Americans want a person of faith to lead them. Though I am a religious person I dont care whether someone who wants to be president is religious or not. Is he MORAL, ETHICAL, HONEST. Those things are not dependent on being religious.
I don't totally disagree with you - but how you you define honest, moral, ethical etc. will be a reflection of your beliefs and where they are grounded. If not in a faith - then where?
From a sense of fairness. That's where I get my "morals". I am no more or less important than any other human on the planet. It's amazing what good behavior can follow from just that one statement.
If not in a faith - then where?
Actually, the impetus is on you to prove that it DOES come from faith and faith alone.
No Marv - I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm simply asking if you are not going to base your values from faith - then from where? As you chose to step up to the plate here - where do you get your values from? Human nature has proven to be fickle and yeilding to the emotions of the day.
What religion is based on pop culture?
Is it the WC4ME religion?
Go back and re-read - you obviously missed something
Unchanging? You talking about the wrathful God that flooded the Earth, and at the end of the destruction said, "Oops, my bad," and promised to never do it again? That one? The one that is now portrayed as a bringer of Peace?
You obviously dropped out of Sunday school after the third grade.
Please tell me what was wrong my assessment that the unchanging, all-knowing God admitted to making a mistake with the flood, O Thou of the Pick-And-Choose-My-Passages version of Xtianity.
God made no apology for the flood. He made a covenant with Noah and his family. He promised never to send another flood to kill all living creatures and destroy the earth.
While the many facets of God are revealed throughout the bible, He is unchanging.
Straight from Christian talking points. I read your reply nearly word-for-word on a Bible web site.
Next time try reading Genisis 9:1-14. Then you won't need talking poinss to do your thinking for you.
"attending scam concerts in the name of 'supporting the troops"-rabbitluvr
Was that a stab at Shannity? People have gone to concerts to support greater lunacy.
So we just need to ignore Hannity making profits off the good will of people in a purely emotionally appealing scam.
"If you can't list them, apparently you don't know what they are either."
DING! You win the Internetz today, my friend.
I've determined that we're not dealing with neo-conservatives, any longer. We're infiltrated in this country with neo-Americans. It's no longer limited to conservativism vs. liberalism, it's a totalitarian us versus them mentality that makes anyone an enemy who doesn't fall into lock-step. It's not anti-American, it's neo-American, and it's the kind of Americanism that the rest of the world has been despising for decades, now. It spits in the face of the values of our forefathers (what we traditionally call "American Values" - valuing self-sufficiency, charity, honesty, courage, civic responsibility, liberalism), and replaces these values with greed, come-uppance, hatred, emotional perversion and a mentality that encourages Every Man for Himself.
I don't think that's true. American Values can mean different things to different people. But I think we all have a basic understand...life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness...all men are created equal (although as country we don't always do too well on this last point).
Respecting other's beliefs and not using words like "cults" and "christofascists" when speaking of those who don't share yours.
Respecting other's beliefs... hmmm... well, that knocks several Righties right out of the 'American Values' box now, doesn't it?
Start with Beck and his veiled 'shot' at Ellison and then move on to Savage and his BS...
Exactly. That was the subtle point I was shooting for in the other thread. Tommy said we wouldn't like responding to names but seems to forget that we've been called every dirty name in the book and contrary to his opinion we fight back and prove them wrong by discussing it.
Yep, amazing how they cower and cry foul when the tables are turned on them, isn't it?
Goes stright to my point in another thread about how the Right LOVES to portray itself as The Poor Little Victim. Yeah, we've seen this movie many times before... only the cast has changed over the years but the plot remains the same.
"we've been called every dirty name in the book"....Snoopy.
"the RIGHT loves to portray itself as The Poor Little Victim".....Rabbitlvr.
How incredibly rich!! HAHAHA.
So you disagree. Now that's rich! And expected...
Oh come on! Limbaugh would still be a two-bit DJ at a crummy Pittsburgh AMer cruising the streets at night for guys if he didn't play The Rightwing Victim game.
Victim Hood is a Liberal trait.
Not anymore. The rightwing copywrited it six years ago.
Nah, Jeter is right - it's still in the liberal playbook, chapter 1
Believe what you want, this site has more than enough proof of the right ever playing the victim. You must not have been paying attention!
Because if it's not here, it doesn't exist. Got it.
Yeah, all I need to do is turn on my AM radio each night. The loonies behind the mikes will do the work. Then MM and yours truly will follow through. Rinse. Repeat.
So easy...
Victim Hood is a Liberal trait.
Jeter, sorry but you sure couldn't tell by listening to Republicans after their YouTube debate.
In your dreams. The right snivels like little girls and have made a cottage industry out of it. WWWAAHHHHH is the motto of the rightwing
Thank you Rabbitluvr.
You bet. Always a pleasure. :)
Well, if you aspire to be no better than "Beck and his fellow Righties", then far be it from me to expect anything more.
Not to toot my horn or anything but I'd say with all confidence that I have Beck, Savage, et al whipped in the values arena. I'd also say that 75% - 80% of the country is in my camp too.
It's those damn pesky 20%ers we have to watch out for...
Yeah Rabbit,
Romney today talks of tolerance...
Tomorrow, he'll be sucking up to the religious right and bashing gays.
He was bashing gays in the very speech he spoke of tolerance. When he says he believes in the sanctity of marriage he means he opposes gay rights.
What do you have against cults, Tommy? Are they not as good as "real religions"?
Hahaha !!!
Cults are just unsuccessful religions, they are often fabricated unbased on any sort of historical practices or traditions.
It matters to me because they use this infective lack of reason to:
1) Supress evolution and teach creation in science classes. (And I.D. is no better.)
2) Takes rights away (or keep equal rights) from Americans. (That would be: Gays, women, religious minorite sand atherists)
3) Thinks it OK to push their religious crap on my familiy and childeren, not realizing that the same things that should stop them from diing that is what stops (another faith) from prostelytising to their family/kids.
4) Stack the supreme court with all manner of facist activist judges, who are more constitutional destructionists that constructionalists ass in the name of push (1) and (2) and protectinbg their narrow-minded understanding of (3).
Religion in politics it not some small annoyance, or amusing quirk. IT IS DANGEROUS. And history is FILLED with examples, christian and non-christian alike. AND THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OR APPRECIATION OF THAT. Religious nuts of ANY stipe have no place making public policy.
They put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution and within minutes of taking office start a four to six year run of acting as if it were the other way around.
Personal belief is fine, but it has NO PLACE in government, and neither do those people who don't get this point.
Republican - God, guns, and guts (at least when we're on Fox). Expansion of federal government power in general.
Democrat - Some undefined form of social support system financed by the evil rich and corporations in principle but by all of us in actuality; non-descript declarations of faith in a political context but no desire to impose or follow any specific creed thereof; using government to right every perceived injustice; protecting the environment by adoption of policies that may or may not; ensuring a seat at the table for everyone no matter how fringe, how marginal (except evangelicals); fair trade provided living wage, optimal work conditions committed too (but not met); and generally mushy political correctness. Expansion of federal government power in general.
Any questions?
So - theocratic fascism on one hand...
and government protected freedom and oppourtunity for all, equally on the other?
I know who I'm voting for...
Actually, it is more like the America today, or the America of tomorrow after the socialist radicals and the like have their great experiment, and leave a crumbling ruin. you might want to reconsider who you are voting for.
What gives, Willard?
This morning, you said "Freedom requires religion..."
Hmmm...
I was drafted, purportedly to help "defend freedom", but, since "Atheist" wasn't one of the choices allowed on my dog tags, I had to go with "No Preference."
Willard's position indicates that atheists aren't allowed in his "Let's Spread Freedom Club".
Damn! I wish he'd been a member of my Draft Board.
Willard also said "No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith" but mentioned "Jesus Christ" and "God" over and over and over.
What gives, Willard?
Thank you for proving once again that there ARE atheists in foxholes.
What Foxhole Would Jebus Dive Into?
Why are you putting quotes around "American values"? They do exist and they are typically liberty, equality, rule of law, and individualism. I agree that faith has little to do with them, but I don't know what you mean by saying that most people belong to cults.
Somehow, I think there's more to it than just those. I see Jeter2 couldn't list them which I find interesting...
Well, I do not believe that those values you listed are uniquely 'American' values. I think most Western democracies have them as well.
I use the term "cult members" because religions are cults.
No, you use the term "cults" because when a liberal preaches tolerance it's only a meaningless buzzword for some and is out the window when your intent is to demonize those you disagree with.
Simple, decent respect for other's beliefs would render that term unnecessary for you.
I agree. I am a serious lefty and a religious person. I dont take it as a personal insult that others believe differently but that kind of slur of my religion is uncalled for. I do understand when it is pointed directly at the Falwells and Dobsons who are trying to use their religion to take away our rights or to push their political agenda but when used in such blanket terms I find it offensive.
Solon, I'm still confused. What's the difference between a religion and a cult?
Cults are newer and smaller. Christianity was considered a cult until it had enough members and clout to become mainstream. If the Church of the Subgenius were not a joke and got enough members it would cross the same line. Long live Bob Dobbs and the eternal search for slack.
That's only one definition of a cult, and not even a common one. Most definitions of cults fit perfectly with mainstream religions.
A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
a system of religious beliefs and ritual
Most religions can fit any of several definitions of a cult. I've always liked the definition of a religion as a cult that caught on.
Hi Bill- I was trying to come up with that quote and who said it- a cult that caught on, or "made it".Here's another that's pretty accurate;
A cult is a religion with no political power. - Tom Wolfe
My point in asking about the difference was just that. It's pretty funny to see the complaints about the use of the word cult.Here's how I read them;
"How dare you denigrate my deeply- held beliefs by comparing them to somebody else's beliefs. Those other guys' beliefs are stoopid !"
Just as a brief exercise plug "a cult is a religion that" along with the quotation marks. It's funny how many different conclusions you get to that sentence. There are a lot of the Wolfe version you cited. Here are some others:
A cult is a religion that I don't like and which has no political power so I am free to attack it
A cult is a religion that the person speaking of it does not endorse.
a cult is a religion that doesn't have its own newspaper and television channel
a cult is a religion that has no room for potential independent, individual development
a cult is a religion that is not well known or maybe even unsafe.
Obviously the word "cult" is so wide open to interpretation that it's hard to misuse. It may be derogatory in its connotation, but it's hard to say it's inaccurate when it's applied to mainstream religion.
Oops. In the first sentence I meant plug that phrase into Google.
By definition, a religion such as Christianity is indeed a cult, yet this word has profound negative connotations, such as the words "Zionist" or "white supremacist".
Homeboy, what are you trying to say? Are you minimizing the negative impact of the word cult and by extension, working to minimize the ignorance of white supremacy?
Sorry, Tommy, but Christianity's origins are in cults, and it doesn't take much Theological and Historical education to make that obvious.
Tommy wrote: No, you use the term "cults" because when a liberal preaches tolerance it's only a meaningless buzzword for some and is out the window when your intent is to demonize those you disagree with.
I use the word "cult" because it's accurate, and because I feel no need to take on the vocabulary that the cult CEOs have provided me.
Tommy wrote: Simple, decent respect for other's beliefs would render that term unnecessary for you.
Why should I respect beliefs that I believe are absurd and, too frequently, dangerous ?
No, you use the term "cults" because when a liberal preaches tolerance it's only a meaningless buzzword for some and is out the window when your intent is to demonize those you disagree with.
One person does something, and all Liberals are at fault.
You've proven yourself no better than what you're complaining about.
Individualism is an American value? Nice try Carn.
Everybody knows this country is founded on community values.
Individualism is the opposite of equality.
Just because you claim to have faith, believe that Jesus died for our sins, etc doesn't mean you'll make a good president. Hell just because you say you have faith, doesn't mean you actually believe or follow the tenets of that faith. Mitt is full of hot air, he can't have it both ways.
I'd bet dollars to donuts (whatever that means) that most Americans could tell you the difference between an atheist and agnostic, Protestantism and Catholicism, secularism and theocrisy or Buddhism and boboism. We're not very historically or socially literate today. These are the dark ages. It's sad really.
"Secularism" is the new term being demonized by the right all while we try to establish "secular" governments elsewhere -- most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rabbitfluvr, the list of American values\America's creed tends to fluctuate depending on which scholar you talk to (one had laissez faire), but most consistently have those four as the core.
Atheist,
Your banging your head against the wall when you question what "American Values" are. The repugs try to define them and then go out and do everything that violates them. Dems go along with the religious crap so they sound "right", when religion should not be in the public square.
That might explain why my head hurts so much. >:-)
That might explain why my head hurts so much....by atheist /
Or it might be the lobotomy you had without anesthesia?
So today you're just about taking very bizarre shots at people instead of engaging ideas? What's your deal, Jeter?
Rabbitfluvr, politicians have to pretend that those values are exclusively owned by America otherwise they'll be considered unpatriotic, or worse, French. :D
But while I agree with you, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. American values do exist and are not just BS made up by conservatives.
But Romney implies that "American values" are only held by people who believe in supernatural beings. Do you see a problem with that ?
I believe that we are all supernatural beings. This explains why we yearn for those principles as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--because they are both material and spiritual pursuits.
However, I share your viewpoint that religious fundamentalists use religion to club others over the head. That is precisely why we need separation of church and state.
Religion\faith have LITTLE to do with American values and what this country was founded on. I said that in my first post.
As for your assertion that religions are cults...????
I would have more respect for Romney if he unequivocally stated that he would accept a president who does not believe in the existence of God.
Of course, that would be impossible for a Republican candidate to say, so it's not going to happen. I also happen to believe it would be a lie if they said it.
What a sorry a$$ third world nation they want to turn us into.
Groups that have been--and are still to an extent-- mistreated, abused, and discriminated against by the collective majority tend to flock to the Democratic Party and follow the liberal ideology. That makes perfect sense to me.
In response to Fox News host Sean Hannity's statement that "it seems like" the media "are creating for you a religious litmus test" by asking Romney about his Mormonism, Romney stated: "[F]rankly, the people I talk to, not necessarily the reporters, but the people I talk to in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina tell me time and again they want a person of faith to lead the country, but they don't particularly care what brand of faith it is so long as the person has American values. And if you look at my marriage, and you look at our family and our kids, and the values that we've tried to instill in each one of our kids, you'll see that the values that I have are as American as any in this great country." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, March 12]
--------------------------------------
“American values” are not what I think they are, or what you think they are. They are what the Americans all together think they are---the Zeitgeist so to speak. The Republicans would be changing “American values” by nominating/electing a non-Christian. The presidency is one of the ways we determine, largely subconsciously, who a real American is. The significance of electing a non-Christian would not be so much the raising in status of that small non-Christian group as it would the unprecedented devaluation of the status of the Christian groups which have so dominated the office ---the Protestants.
Catholics would actually go up slightly in status, relative to the Protestants, as their 1 for 44 (after Romney wins the Presidency) record would look a little less stark when the Protestants are 42 for 44 instead of 43 for 44. The bigger winners though will be will be all the non-Christian groups including the Mormons, but also Jews, Muslims, etcetera who will go from 0 for 43 to 1 for 44 (with a cracked glass ceiling). It will all be mostly at the expense of the current real Americans.
There is a definite and limited amount of status. It is a closed system. By definition you cannot gain status without somebody somewhere losing status within a given group, in other words.
No litmus test? Ha. Romney and Hannity and their script writers are full of crap. Run a Muslim for President or a Buddhist or an atheist, agnostic or a skeptic. If Hannity and his gang didn't blow their top whining that Americans want a President with 'core values' to run the country then I might consider their claims.
Frauds. They want to hand our democracy to corporations.
Roundhouse, you realize that not all of your problems are caused by a major corporation, for example your cognitive issues where not first planned out in some board meeting. corporations are success, and by vilifying them you are demonstrating your innate feelings of envy and insignificance. Your life would be much more uncomfortable were it not for corporate America, although your cognitive ability would remain the same.
I believe in capitalism my friend. You believe in corporatism.
We disagree. So be it.
The unstated assumption of all that is that mormons aren't christian. They would disagree with that.
Me, I couldn't care less whether they're considered christian or not. I get a mild sense of amusement from the bickering on the issue.
OKAY - so don't not vote for him because he is a Mormon.....don't vote for him because he will say anything he needs to in order to secure the Republican nomination. In Massachusetts he was pro-choice and supported gay rights - what he needed to say to be elected in that liberal state. NOW his 180 degrees turn he has taken on both issues in order to secure the Republican nomination is just sickening. He’s a sleazy snake oil salesman whose great grandfather fled the country when polygamy was outlawed and whose religion makes Scientology look sane!
Yes, children, faith doesn't matter in American politics. It doesn't matter what your faith is - all worshippers of Jesus are welcome as President!
Well, it seems that the S.S. Christian Hypocrite struck a stupid-berg off the coast of FlipFlop Land.
Recently, in a Q & A session, Romney was asked if there was a place in his make-believe Cabinet for Mulsims and he responded that he didn't think it would be "appropriate" to have a Mulsim in his closet, er, sorry, Cabinet.
My apologies to any right-wing, conservative Christian homosexuals for the "closet" reference.
Roundhouse,
I got those values directly from my American Federal Government textbook. If it makes you feel any better, they had this to say as well:
"Despite the near universal support for the fundamental principles of the American political culture [American Creed], there are disagreements about what they mean...Equality has been variously argued to mean in the eyes of God, before the law, of opportunity, and of outcomes. Moreover, liberty can conflict with equality, individualism can conflict with populism, and unrestrained laissez-faire competition can conflict with the rule of law."
Maybe it makes me feel a little better, but not much ; )
But for real, man. I get it. Values are contested. They have different meanings for different people depending on one's worldview.
It's a political tug of war between which view will hold sway in government.
The reason people don't like equating religion with cults is because of the largely negative connotation of the latter. Religion can be seen in both a negative and postive light--or both--but cults are not.
If you're ant-ireligious, it makes sense that you see them as one in the same because they're all meaningless garbage to you.
How does the msm and Chrfis matthews Gush over this religious tolerance as pect of the speech when Mitt recently stated that Muslims would be excluded from his cabinet post because they dont represent a sizable enough percentage of the population in America? Isnt that a religious litmus test to job appointment? Is that religioius tolerance? How does no one, not even Media Matters call out Matthews and others in msm for missing this obvious hypocrisy? Fallin asleep at the swicth guys!!!!!!
An idiocy of fallback self annointing for a bygone political junta.
Separation of Church and State, more fundamental than either 'republicans' or Romeny's relevance to America, compounded by failing the mature intelligence test for leadership qualities:
Mr. Romney cannot jet his brain unstuck from park, having no concept of polytheism's inherent tollerance for multiple interpretations of god whereas taking his hide-bound backwater monotheism literally to the point of making a national political ass of himself.
Even the Mormon Church sent relief to the victims of the nuclear tsunami, an option no power on earth has. Except the genocidal racist hypocrits, the godless corporatists.
The experimental architypal republican role model is the designer contradictdion to the backpeddaling, he is raising the unconstitutionally off limits, then pretending to step away from the only fabrication his geurilla regime cohorts can test as an olive branch before the electorate.
Dump the republican menace, whatever comes out of whichever side of their moutpieces. Install legitimate leadership and then continue prosecuting the counter war to purge them and their raft of civil warfare offenses from American scene.
They keep and maintain a sick animal prone to viciousness in this land as their silent intimidation partner. That partnership is null and void. The cells are waiting.
=== with edits to correct draft above in absence of the function, not a courtesy of mediamatters===
An idiocy of fallback self annointing for a bygone political junta.
Separation of Church and State, more fundamental than either 'republicans' or Romeny's relevance to America, compounded by failing the mature intelligence test for leadership qualities:
Mr. Romney cannot get his brain unstuck from park, having no concept of unitarian or polytheisms' inherent tollerance for multiple interpretations of god whereas taking his hide-bound backwater monotheism literally to the point of making a national political ass of himself.
Even the Mormon Church sent relief to victims of the nuclear tsunami, an option no power on earth has. Except the genocidal racist hypocrits, the godless corporatists, who since the ozone catastrophe couldn't impress them set to work on making on last hole in this world.
The experimental architypal republican role model is the designer contradictdion to the backpeddaling, he is raising the unconstitutionally off limits, then pretending to step away from the only fabrication his geurilla regime cohorts can test as an olive branch before the electorate.
Dump the republican menace, whatever comes out of whichever side of their moutpieces. Install legitimate leadership and then continue prosecuting the counter war to purge them and their raft of civil warfare offenses from the American scene.
They keep and maintain a sick animal prone to viciousness in this land as their silent intimidation partner. That partnership is null and void. The cells are waiting.
- writingindependence / Friday December 7, 2007 05:37:05 PM EST
Mitt Romney/ Warren Jeffs 2008.....I kill me.
I DON"T want a person of faith to lead the country. I want a person of reason.
The best examples of "family values" in the GOP are Rep. Mark Foley of internet chat room fame and Newt Gingrich with his cancer-bed divorce demand.
The voice of conservative "family values" in the cloak of religion is best exemplified by Rev. Ted Haggart with his crack-pipe paid prostitute boyfriend.
That's why I don't want these religious idiots running the country.
And by the way, what happened to that "complete investigation" we were promised by the House Ethics Committee after the congressional page scandal? Just another big cover-up since it was republicans who were involved.
I Love it I Love it I Love it I Love it!...Did I say I Love It? I think I did, but thats besides the point and now on to the point.
The fact is, here we have a candidate for President uttering the three letter word, 'G-O-D' - that spooks out the atheists and agnostics. Well, yeah, if you're an atheist or an agnostic - this speech didnt include you. It doesn't mean youre not an American, it doesn't mean you're not a human being and it doesn't mean you would be treated any differently under our laws.
What it does say is that the majority of (2007 heading into 2008) Americans believe in God as did the Founding Fathers. If you're in the minority - cover your ears, turn the channel or whatever you have to do - because Religion, Theology and talk of God is here to stay.
I say that because none of the DemocRATS are gonna win the Presidency..Read my Lips..NONE...Hillary has been wounded by 1 question on 1 debate on 1 day...Rudy, Mitt and Huck will just need 1 minute to tear her down...
Obama looks like Oprah's butler, Edwards - a snake oil salesman...and Kucinich - looks like the love child of Yoda and Spock...
Don't worry, 2012 is only 5 years away - till then - you may even believe in a higher being - God Forbid..Ummm Yeah thats what I meant
As I wrote earlier, Mitt is a pandering buffoon.
Romney talked about faith, but he didn't talk about his Mormon faith.
I don't care that he was afraid to say he is a Mormon, but Romney is definitely being a coward here and we all know cowards will say and do anything to avoid taking a stand on principles. He was making an appeal to the evangelicals and in the process he managed to sellout his own principles.
And Rudy? Are you serious? How damned phony would Republicans on the whole have to be to nominate Rudy? He's pro-choice and supports gay rights. Not that those two issues alone are necessary and sufficient to make one a Christian, but opposing those positions happens to be the conserative Christian brand of Republicanism. So a vote for Rudy is a sellout of consrvative values.
Face it. Republicans have no patform except taxes taxes taxes. After ruining everything they have touched for the last six years from Iraq to the housing market, taxes are the last issue that manages to elicit any response at all from the wingnut burnouts.
Somebody needs to wake Thompson from his slumber before I even mention his name again.
And Huck, well he's proof positive of the potency of Progressive populism. Take away his leftist views of trade and he fizzles too. I do like his sense of humor, though. In as much as that he at least has a sense of humor.
excellent post Jacob, hilarious, I like the obama as Oprah's butler I could definitely see that, although you have yet to describe Hillary. but then again, words tend to underrate her. I think that a scream best describes her, or better yet a witch's cackle.
Why is everyone ignoring the report that Romney said he would not have a Muslim in his cabinet?
Does Romney's need to express that his religion will play no part in his judgement sound a lot like JFK's need to do the same on the same subject? JFK turned out to be a decent President (except for escalating the Viet Nam war).
Personally, I'm not that big on mormonism, but I think it would certainly be better than having an atheist as President. As long as he doesn't come out and say; "my god told me to...." then I would have no problem with anyone being President who is religious. Hilary is religious, too, isn't she? In fact I think all the candidates are religious.