Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Wait, Mitt Romney's a Mormon?
That was extremely, if not surprisingly, bland. Bill Bennett walked onto CNN afterwards to give his critique: "I can see this speech being given by any of the Republican candidates and most of the Democrats." Romney duped people into thinking he'd address the worries anti-Mormon religious conservatives have about his faith, and he didn't do that.
Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
That was the worry about JFK, but it's not the worry about Mormonism: Some conservative protestant Christians consider the religion a cult and a perversion of Christianity. They, and the 40-odd percent of the country who don't consider Mormonism "Christian," could give a damn whether Romney talks to Gordon Hinckley.
Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.
Is anyone convinced by this? Raise your hand. (One problem with the Romney-as-victim-of-persecution story is that if he gets the nominee he'll either be running against a woman or a black man, with all the prejudices thereof, which makes declarations like these ring extra hollow, and even patronizing.)
What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history.
Weak, weak, weak. That basically validates the conspiracy theories I hear when I visit Baptist bible studies.
In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
Again, Romney's just not very good at political jujitsu. He's a yellow belt. He's trying to change the topic from the particulars of his faith to a bland "we're all in this together against the ACLU and Rosie O'Donnell" message, and it's woefully obvious. Ramesh Ponnuru points this out in a Corner devoted, for the moment, to slavering over Romney's "presidential" bearing and patriotism. Romney is asking voters to retain their prejudices about faith, especially the personal faith of politicians: To demand that the people they elect have a relationship with God that they approve of.
Is Romney's slow-motion three card monte going to convince religious voters that they can trust him over Huckabee? I don't think so. I know some of those people. They're not stupid.
UPDATE: I foolishly didn't link this before: Ron Paul's response.
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.
Our nation was founded to be a place where religion is freely practiced and differences are tolerated and respected. I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. At the same time, I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans.
The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends.”
|12.6.07 @ 11:22AM|#
I initially read the headline as "Wait, Mitt Romney's a
Moron?
I liked it better that way.
|12.6.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Is Romney's slow-motion three card monte going to convince
religious voters that they can trust him over Huckabee? I don't
think so. I know some of those people. They're not
stupid.
Yes they are.
|12.6.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Does K-Lo ever turn off her vibrator when posting about Romney?
You can practically hear the BZZZZZZZZ every time you go over to
NRO.
I never Catholic chicks were so hot for Mormon dick. I guess that
is what makes them feel "naughty" nowadays.
ronald|12.6.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Giuliani's response is a lot more interesting than the actual
Romney speech. Here's a link. Reminiscent of the Florida debate
video. Anyone know what media firm Rudy uses?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C6ZmZizWTy4
|12.6.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in
public life.
Uh, Mitt. It's not that I object to religion in public life. That
is reality. Always has been, always will be. I, and others,
strenuosly object to relion having a place in governmental affairs.
See the difference?
Elemenope|12.6.07 @ 11:36AM|#
KN -
Some are, some aren't. IMH experience, evangelical Christians are
stupid or smart at about the same rate as every other religious
group I've met, including my own very diverse "people"
(Atheists).
Ron Paul over at Newsweek had a short little video where he
bemoaned the thought that political logic would dictate that a
religious-minority candidate would have to address the issue of
their own faith. I wish he had gone further and said that
Evangelical Christians are "people", and as such, care about their
prosperity and civil liberties and America's standing in the world
et al. and not just the one or two red-meat social issues with
which they have been cruelly--albeit sometimes
deservedly--identified; missed opportunity, that.
I've met enough Evangelicals who are plain sick of politicians who
think that if they just say "pro-life" they'll automatically score
their vote that I'd be willing to bet a candidate with a different
message might have an opening for a wedge to push...if Ron Paul
dialed up the whole "individuals are not defined by their group"
message, he might be able to pull from the folks of all stripes who
feel vaguely guilty about being one-issue voters.
|12.6.07 @ 11:39AM|#
BTW Mitt, your religion has absolutely nothing to do with why I despise you. Your policies and convictions seem to be awfully mallable. IOW, I don't believe anything that comes out of your mouth. Does poll driven political whore mean anything to you?
|12.6.07 @ 11:41AM|#
"""They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment
of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place
in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new
religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are
wrong."""
Religion is between one's God and one's self first. It is a private
matter, albeit not totally a private one. I believe Christians have
as much right as Muslim about praying in public spaces. Many
Christians disagree. What's wrong with creating a new religion
anyway, we are a nation enshrined with religious freedoms allowing
for the creations of any new religion, even if it's created by a
science fiction writer.
Romney wants what other Christians wants, Religious dominance. That
is against our founding principles. The separation of church and
state is to preserve religious freedoms, and not to allow one
dominant religion or a single state religion. That's why they hate
it. They want Christianity to be the official religion of the
United States. Our founding fathers wanted to prevent that. They
understood that the state would screw up religion and use it for
its own ends.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Romney missed a chance to undercut Ron Paul by vowing to track down the atheists who removed all those references to God in the Constitution.
|12.6.07 @ 11:48AM|#
J sub D,
A religious politician will never see the difference.
"""Does poll driven political whore mean anything to you?"""
It's what he denies when he looks into a mirror. It's shows he's a
politician first, child of God second. Something no real religious
person would vote for but it suits the Falwell types just
fine.
Someone should ask him if he plans to uphold the "Thou shall not
kill" commandment and abolish the federal death penalty.
|12.6.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Local news this morning was all over this, showing some
religious gathering in Missouri, where "normal" Christians were
trying to convert Mormons. They showed some of the interaction.
Essentially, "You're book of fairy tales is wrong! It's wrong!!!
Our Jeebus is the REAL Jeebus."
They asked one guy why he was there. "I love Mormons [he was not a
catholic female]. I want them to be saved like me."
|12.6.07 @ 12:00PM|#
In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a
land where reason and religion are friends
Clearly, Mitt has not spent much (or any) time on this website.
;)
Did Kennedy also get slammed like this after his speech for not
being forthcoming enough about the more peculiar aspects of his
religious beliefs?
BFair|12.6.07 @ 12:00PM|#
I don't necessarily think that the speech failed to deliver on
Romney's promises. He said he would not talk about Mormonism, but
about religious liberty. It was political commentators who dubbed
this address "The Speech" and compared it to JFK's famous Houston
address who oversold this. Now, Romney was, of course, counting on
this overselling in order to get people to watch, but slick pol.
that he is, he never told us that this would be about his
particular faith.
Another thought, fewer people would rule out voting for a candidate
that is black or female than would rule out voting for a Mormon. So
while the "problem with the Romney-as-victim-of-persecution story"
may "ring extra hollow, and even patronizing" it holds more water
than for any other candidate.
|12.6.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Edward -- this is the slamming Romney thread, not the slamming Paul thread (not that we ever have any of those). Try to keep up, mmm-kay?
|12.6.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Let this be a lesson, kids. Take that last dump BEFORE you go
onstage. Prevent gas grin and standing butt clench.
Otherwise, the speech was a bait-and-switch job. And why Mitt
thought it should be given at the Bush Mausoleum before robots, I
don't know.
I admire the one Romney son who continually balks at showing up for
DadMitt events. The blonde one. The adopted Earth boy.
|12.6.07 @ 12:05PM|#
How long until Edward's every-single-thread posting about Ron Paul and the "repleteness" of references to God in the Constitution constitutes spamming? I, for one, am thoroughly sick of it.
|12.6.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Weigel --
How can you say people were duped if you found the content
unsurprising? I don't think anyone paying any attention got the
impression that this speech would deal with the specifics of the
Mormon faith.
J sub D / TrickyVic --
There is a difference between "public life" and "governmental
affairs." You can allow a nativity scene in a public square -- or a
picture of Mary drawn with feces, or a big advertisement for "The
God Delusion," or whatever -- without involving religion in
"governmental affairs."
I'm an Obama supporter (least bad of the lot). I am violently
opposed to many of Mitt's positions. But, as someone who dislikes
empty political rhetoric, I do get bugged when people act like he
gets things like this wrong. His attitude towards religion in the
U.S. is utterly uncontroversial; only fringe consitutional scholars
would disagree with anything he said.
Please, *please* look at people's *positions*. Mitt wants to
continue reallocating our tax dollars to wealthy executives and
shareholders of the military-industrial complex through the
so-called War on Terrorism. He has a schoolground-style foreign
policy. He is against stem cell research (which, I note, is out of
line with mainstream Mormon thought). *These* are some of the
reasons not to vote for him, *not* his (very solid) understanding
of the role of religion under the U.S. Constitution.
|12.6.07 @ 12:13PM|#
The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle,
that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our
United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything
America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his
record and his character, not on the church he attends."
If Paul had said "harshly" instead of "fairly" that would have been
perfect. Even so Paul is sounding more Presidential every day.
|12.6.07 @ 12:15PM|#
I, for one, am thoroughly sick of it.
I stopped responding to the menally challenged fucktard a while
ago. It appears to be good for one's digstion.
|12.6.07 @ 12:30PM|#
"Someone should ask him if he plans to uphold the "Thou shall
not kill" commandment and abolish the federal death penalty"
yawn. this is the most misused and misunderstood claim (usually by
leftists at DU etc.) i have seen on the internet.
the actual (original) text of the bible (ask any scholar) is best
translated as "thou shalt not murder" iow the term roughly
translated as "kill" is better translated as "murder" which means
to unlawfully kill.
|12.6.07 @ 12:37PM|#
the actual (original) text of the bible (ask any scholar) is
best translated as "thou shalt not murder" iow the term roughly
translated as "kill" is better translated as "murder" which means
to unlawfully kill.
Those Jews weren't stupid. They knew that a pacifist tribe would
last about one generation in the Middle East, even then. Sadly,
three thousand years later, that's still the case.
BugsBunny|12.6.07 @ 12:41PM|#
"I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him
as my personal savior." - Ron Paul
I'm voting for Paul early and often, but I hear a deafening silence
in place of the usual religous vitriol around here. And don't try
to tell me it's usually reserved for the Pat Robertsons of the
world. Anyone who believes in a magic savior is an idiot in all
things, right? ...Right?
|12.6.07 @ 12:43PM|#
"""There is a difference between "public life" and "governmental
affairs." You can allow a nativity scene in a public square -- or a
picture of Mary drawn with feces, or a big advertisement for "The
God Delusion," or whatever -- without involving religion in
"governmental affairs."""
Absolutly.
And, a public square is different that the state capitol grounds,
but I'm not against religion displays on capitol grounds as long as
they allow all religions equal access. That's something Christians
don't really want.
"""the actual (original) text of the bible (ask any scholar) is
best translated as "thou shalt not murder" iow the term roughly
translated as "kill" is better translated as "murder" which means
to unlawfully kill.""""
I have a hard time believe that, being man not God hold the domain
of governments. Your analysis would say God says it's alright to
kill if man has previously approved it. Would the holocaust be okay
by God if the Nazi German government approved it by passing
legislation? So what does lawful mean in Gods eyes?
VM|12.6.07 @ 12:43PM|#
maybe because Hr. Bunny misunderstands what he perceives as
"usual religious vitriol"?
confirmation bias much?
|12.6.07 @ 12:46PM|#
"I have a hard time believe that,"
then maybe you should do some RESEARCH.
your post, translated into english means : "i don't want to believe
it"
i'm not saying this is or isn't what God wants, if he even
exists.
i am saying that the more precise tranlsation is "thou shalt not
murder"
so stop opining, and look into it.
"with all thy getting, get understanding" or something...
being man not God hold the domain of governments. Your analysis
would say God says it's alright to kill if man has previously
approved it. Would the holocaust be okay by God if the Nazi German
government approved it by passing legislation? So what does lawful
mean in Gods eyes?
Russ 2000|12.6.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in
public life.
Jesus H. Christ said so himself. Apparently Mitt feels it's OK to
ignore important tenets of the words of his savior, so I'm sure
Mitt will have no problem ignoring important tenets of the
Constitution.
|12.6.07 @ 12:57PM|#
no, mitt feels roughly the same as kennedy, MLK, etc. which is that his religion informs his public stance on public issues (yes, i am aware MLK was not an elected official).
BugsBunny|12.6.07 @ 12:57PM|#
"maybe because Hr. Bunny misunderstands what he perceives as
'usual religious vitriol'?"
Since perception is just that, I'll only say "yuh-huh!" That, and a
concession that I have no evidence of VM participating in said
vitriol.
Also, what is the feminine variant of "Hr. Bunny"?
|12.6.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Anyone who believes in a magic savior is an idiot in all
things, right? ...Right?
As an atheist who lived 18+ years in the same house with a devoted
Roman Catholic (my sister), no. She was smarter than me in most
ways, so I gave her a pass on the superstition thing. We had long,
passionate discussions on the topic absent vitriol. Unbelievable,
huh?
|12.6.07 @ 1:03PM|#
I stopped responding to the menally challenged fucktard a
while ago. It appears to be good for one's digstion.
A nicely done reinterpretation of the first of Prolefeed's Ten
Commandments For Posting on Reason TM:
1. Thou shalt not feed the trolls.
2. Thou shalt not malign Saint Paul.
3. If thou slightly garblist a post, but thy true intent is readily
understandable, thou shalt not waste everyone's time with a
correcting post.
4. Thou shalt not Godwinize a thread -- thou shalt leave that to
the Reason staffers.
5. Thou shalt not persistently and vulgarly insult Reason staffers,
lest thee be consigned to the outer darkness of being banned from
posting.
6. If thou shouldst criticize another for a garbled post, thou
shalt in thy criticizing post commit a far more grievious garbling
(hat tip to joest for this one).
7. Thou shalt not post blind links, without any cautionary preface,
to material so utterly disgusting that even the jaded and cynical
souls on Reason art grieviously smitten. Any material involved
chicks and a cup shouldst be considered suspect.
8. Thou shalt not criticize pandering politicians for the few
things they actually get right, when a plethora of evils to be
condemned mayest be availed of.
9. Thou shalt not spam. This applyest especially to thou,
Donderooooooooest.
10. Thou ShaltNot post RightWing BullShit using ReallyWeird
CapitalizationAndPunctuation.
VM|12.6.07 @ 1:06PM|#
'scuse, Fr. Bunny! APOLOGIES!!!
and I must confess to being one of the accused, and I actually do
see what you're heading to, and it is a good question!
/kicks pebble.
Reinmoose|12.6.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his
character, not on the church he attends.
Damn Straight! Then he'd REALLY be screwed!
|12.6.07 @ 1:12PM|#
"""your post, translated into english means : "i don't want to
believe it""""
Wrong, I have no desire to believe it either way. But under the
conclusion you present, abortion would not be murder since it's
allowable under law. That's something which most religious people
would disagree. Are they wrong and abortion is ok in God's eyes?
It's can't be both ways.
|12.6.07 @ 1:18PM|#
"Wrong, I have no desire to believe it either way. But under the
conclusion you present, abortion would not be murder since it's
allowable under law. That's something which most religious people
would disagree. Are they wrong and abortion is ok in God's eyes?
It's can't be both ways."
no, it doesn't mean the law is always right. lawful here means
"justified" and i should have been more specific.
the point is that it does not mean ANY killing. translations are
not PERFECT because languages are not math. there is SOME
fuzzyness. however, the word for "kill" is much better understood
as referring to unjustified/unlawful killing than merely ANY
killing, and NO scholar i am aware of disputes that
my point is that this is not a matter of personal belief, it's a
matter of translation.
|12.6.07 @ 1:24PM|#
All I can say is Romney has a lot to overcome with the hard line
Christians. I was watching one of the national news broadcasts and
the reporter asked a Baptist minister from Fort Worth, Texas about
what he thought of Mormonism.
His response?
"Mormonism is a cult."
/Sorry no link. But I'm sure some of you saw it too.
|12.6.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Romney and others can claim that Mormonism is a religion as much
as they want but that will never change the fact that Mormonism is
a cult. And if the President of the Mormon Church decides that God
told him to influence US policy...you better believe that he would
be on the phone with Romney telling him exactly what to do. I am
someone with a Bachelor's degree in both Bible & Religion and
fully understand that Mormonism is a cult and why. A cult is any
group (regardless of size) that interprets the doctrines of a
religion in an unorthodox fashion. Unlike Religions which create
their doctrines based on interpretation of book(s) scriptures
within their context, cults create their doctrines first and then
take the scriptures from the books of other religions and force
them outside of their context to fit the twisted ideologies of the
cult. Cults have come out of all religions and Christianity is no
exception. The 2 largest cults that have come from out of
Christianity have been the Jehovah's Witness cult and the Mormon
Cult. Next time someone tries to tell you that Mormonism is
Christian, keep in mind that Mormon doctrine teaches that their god
was once a physical human being who attained god status (the Adam
God doctrine of Mormonism), there is no trinity, Jesus Christ and
Satan are half brothers (Satan was not an angel created by God),
Blacks were once considered a cursed race by God (until civil
rights movements made that inconvenient), Women are second class
citizens and will be eternally pregnant with their Mormon husband
in the after life ruling over their own planet, you can baptize the
dead by proxy using the living and lastly, Mormonism fails every
test of archaeology as nothing claimed by Joseph Smith has never
been found.
In retrospect, those who have done their homework regarding the
Book of Mormon are pretty clear that there was never any Book of
Mormon and that Joseph Smith stole a draft of a fiction story
titled "A View of the Hebrews" and published it under the heading
of "Book of Mormon. Ultimately, Mormonism fits every parameter of a
cult and like all cults...they can change their doctrines at the
drop of a hat which is something true religions never need to do.
They may claim to believe in God and Jesus Christ but they are
referring to a totally different God and a totally different Jesus
Christ compared to Christianity.
Reinmoose|12.6.07 @ 1:25PM|#
no, it doesn't mean the law is always right. lawful here
means "justified" and i should have been more specific.
Just like we're justified in killing 1000s of Iraqis for various
reasons. This is especially true for if they reach down and pick up
a piece of wire or something.
|12.6.07 @ 1:26PM|#
"""no, it doesn't mean the law is always right. lawful here
means "justified" and i should have been more specific."""
So abortion is justified under God's eyes?
FrBunny|12.6.07 @ 1:26PM|#
The fact that I was comlpetely unaware of Paul's plans for
spending eternity perfecting his harp-playing says plenty, but I
still think it's a noteworthy strike against him. Just wondering
how the H&R crowd would decide to
integrate/ignore/forgive/excuse it.
Thanks, VM. FrBunny from here on out.
Insufferable Pedant|12.6.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Those Jews weren't stupid. They knew that a pacifist tribe
would last about one generation in the Middle East, even then.
Sadly, three thousand years later, that's still the
case.
To nitpick, a more accurate argument would probably be that a whole
bunch of different tribes had various levels of pacifism and
militarism. The ones that found the best tradeoff survived and are
still with us, while the others were either destroyed or
self-destructed. Otherwise, you would seem to be saying that the
Jews were Intelligently Designed
.|12.6.07 @ 1:33PM|#
"Mormonism is a cult."
Where does this come form? Even if they still supported polygamy,
that doesn't disqualify it from being a religion. By most
dictionary definitions, "cult" and "religion" are essentially
synonyms.
Using the idea that a cult controls its members, how is that any
different from any other religions, especially the ones that say
"if you break this rule, you go to hell"
Using the idea that a cult is a religion that is not common:
1) How does this mean something bad, uncommon != bad
2) Wouldn't that make (in the US at least) every religion that is
not a standard Christian sect a cult?
Kolohe|12.6.07 @ 1:37PM|#
A cult is any group (regardless of size) that interprets the
doctrines of a religion in an unorthodox fashion
wow, beg the question much?
.|12.6.07 @ 1:38PM|#
"A cult is any group (regardless of size) that interprets the
doctrines of a religion in an unorthodox fashion."
John - Christianity took the Jewish holy book, and chose to
interpret it in an unorthodox manner, and even added their own
stuff like Mormons did! Then Protestants came along, and did the
same thing!
|12.6.07 @ 1:44PM|#
"""Romney and others can claim that Mormonism is a religion as
much as they want but that will never change the fact that
Mormonism is a cult."""
All religions are cults by definition.
Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus
care, adoration, from colere to cultivate - more at wheel
Date: 1617
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of
adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body
of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its
promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work
(as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a
literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a
usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Kolohe|12.6.07 @ 1:47PM|#
prolefeed-
glad the wind didn't blow you away
on commandment 7, i definitely learned the hard way about the
corruption of edenic innocence that knowlege brings. i have an
inveterate need to google terms and pop culture allusions that i
didn't previously know. so, when the first time i came across what
you mentioned, i googled it, thinking it was some joke about bra
size.
well, contra gi joe, somtimes knowing is *not* half the battle
|12.6.07 @ 1:54PM|#
All religions are cults by definition.
Founded by heretics, by definition.
Main Entry: her·e·tic
Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-ˌtik, ˈhe-rə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a
baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a
revealed truth
2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine :
nonconformist* [my emphasis]
*Merriam-Webster Online
|12.6.07 @ 1:55PM|#
John Longo,
You would have had me if you had said the biggest cults to come out
of Christianity were Catholicism and Protestantism. ;)
|12.6.07 @ 1:59PM|#
And if the President of the Mormon Church decides that God
told him to influence US policy...you better believe that he would
be on the phone with Romney telling him exactly what to
do.
Ummm ... no. The Church scrupulously avoids any political
entanglements whatsoever. Before each election, every ward gets
read a statement from the First Presidency reaffirming the Church's
complete political neutrality, and explicitly forbidding using any
Church resources or membership rolls for political
campaigning.
This is an artifact of early Church history, where much of the
persecution stemmed from the Church overtly siding with one
political party (the Democrats) causing the other parties to go
after them. Burned by this, the Church leadership decided to be
absolutely neutral politically, thus preventing either political
party from having a motivation to gang up on them ever again. And,
since the Church president is always very old due to the selection
process (the current President is 97), the institutional memory
goes way back.
|12.6.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Kolohe -- glad to see you got through the storm, too. Lost my internet connection for a day.
Ryan|12.6.07 @ 2:03PM|#
FrBunny -
While it certainly may seem otherwise at times, what with all the
Ron Paul cheering in these parts, I (and I think most here would
agree) find Ron Paul to be the prominent politician most in line
with my personal politics in, well, a long time. I do not, however,
worship him or agree with everything he says or does. I find him
inspirational and in a class completely by himself among the
presidential contenders, but he is not some libertarian messiah. So
the fact that he is religious and I am not is just one of those
things where we part ways. And that's OK. Until I run for
president, I'm never gonna agree with anybody 100%. Paul just gets
a hell of a lot closer than any of the others.
Ryan|12.6.07 @ 2:12PM|#
I should add that I am not one who believes religious types are less intelligent or poor critical thinkers. A libertarian of that strain I think does face more of a quandary in Dr. Paul. I do start calling critical thinking into question when a particular interpretation of a particular text is held true in the face of overwhelming counterevidence (e.g., creationists), but Paul has kept statements of his faith to a simple "I am a Christian" as far as I know.
|12.6.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Insufferable, this:
a whole bunch of different tribes had various levels of
pacifism and militarism. The ones that found the best tradeoff
survived and are still with us, while the others were either
destroyed or self-destructed.
is perfectly consistent with this:
They knew that a pacifist tribe would last about one generation
in the Middle East, even then.
Which by no means implies this:
Jews were Intelligently Designed
Even pedants should know logic.
|12.6.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Some of you may be interested in this interview of Larry Iannaccone at Econtalk. He and Russ Roberts discuss the economics of religion, including the economic dynamics of cults. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/10/the_economics_o_7.html
|12.6.07 @ 2:25PM|#
A cult is usually defined as any religion of which you are not a member. It is a bit like drivers, you are the only sane safe person on the road, the rest are idiots and maniacs.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Ten Coomadments for Ron Paul Libertarian Supporters
1. Thou shalt not read what Ron Paul has written about the war
against religion.
2. Thou shalt not read what Ron Paul has written about
immigration.
3. Except for the results of straw polls, thou shalt not do the
math.
4. Thou shalt attack any critic of Ron Paul by lengthing the end of
his/her name.
5. Thou shalt keep claiming that you're giving Ron Paul money even
if you're not (Who will know?)
6. Thou shalt loathe, hate, and despise all opponents of Ron Paul
be they libertarian or non-libertarian.
7. Thou shalt refrain from criticizing Nazis for the duration of
the campaign.
8. Thou shalt point out that Hitler believed in breathing.
9. Thou shalt believe with a perfect faith that 7-9% is a sign of
growing support.
10. Thou shalt know that some conspiracy is probably affoot to
defeat Ron Paul and plan to lengthen the ends of the names of the
conspirators.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 2:51PM|#
"Coomandment," by the way, is not a typo. Anti-authoriatarian libertarians don't believe in commandments.
VM|12.6.07 @ 2:57PM|#
"Thou shalt attack any critic of Ron Paul by lengthing the end
of his/her name."
but... but... but... EEEEEEDDDDWEIRD, I'm not a RP fan.... (you
actually may have given some of the reasons why). grin.
(disclaimer: actually, that one is pretty good! The chicken soup
for trolling matches that, of course)
I'd actually like to add to the list:
We need something that includes his goldbuggery, and how if you
disagree, you somehow don't know anything about econ (or something
along those lines)
Untermensch|12.6.07 @ 3:12PM|#
I am someone with a Bachelor's degree in both Bible & Religion and fully understand that Mormonism is a cult and why.
You must have gone to Podunk Bible College then, or did you respond
to an e-mail to get your degree based on "life experience"? Because
that statement would have gotten you bounced right out of an
introductory religious studies course at any real university...
Edward|12.6.07 @ 3:13PM|#
11. Thou shalt repsond any criticism of the gold standard by pointing out that Hitler believed in breathing.
Fluffy|12.6.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Edward wants people to do the math, but does not apparently
believe that 9 is higher than 2.
One other flaw in your list is #6. There are no anti-Ron Paul
libertarians. Anyone who is anti-Ron Paul and thinks they are a
libertarian is mistaken about one or the other.
BA HA HA HA! It's an orthodoxy now bitches!
Edward|12.6.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Anyone who is anti-Ron Paul and thinks they are a libertarian is mistaken about one or the other.--Fluffy, the Grand Inquisitor
Edward|12.6.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Fluffy
Do you need glasses?
3. Except for the results of straw polls, thou shalt NOT do the
math.
7-9% = 7 to 9% That this is a sign of growing support is a matter
of faith, not math, for Paulistas.
Reinmoose|12.6.07 @ 3:30PM|#
I'm personally less crazy about Ron Paul than I am about the
movement propelling him. It's not like he's done much of anything
to get himself the funds he has or his polling numbers, and he
readily admits that.
What the Ron Paul phenomenon says to me is that there are more
people out there who embrace certain libertarian values than I
thought there were, and that they have resources.
Really it gives me more hope that the organizational structure
(meet-up groups, etc.) built to support Ron Paul can be maintained
and used to further general libertarian values in state and local
governments.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 3:35PM|#
Look into my eyes, what do you see?
Cult of personality
I'm the candidate of your dreams
Ive been everything you want me to be
I'm smallgovernmentconstitutionality
I'm Ron Paul
I'm the cult of personality
I'm the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality
Edward|12.6.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Reinmoose
I don't want to rain on your parade, but do you really think it's
Ron Paul's libertarian principles that has attracted most of his
support. You don't have to be a libertarian to oppose the war. What
about the 9/11 Truthers, nazis, white supremicists, and assorted
wingnuts who have rallied to Ron Paul? Personally, I'm less
sanguine about the movement that's propelling him than I am about
him, which is hardly at all.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Paul has kept statements of his faith to a simple "I am a
Christian" as far as I know.--Ryan
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no
basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our
Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views
were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the
drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,
both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal
government's hostility to religion.-Ron Paul "The War on
religion"
|12.6.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Edward -- Going from 1% in the polls to 2% to 3% to 5% to 7-9%
is a sign of growing support. Maybe not enough to win anything, but
he's got way more people supporting him now than a few months
ago.
I think Paul's on the same growth in support curve as Huckabee, but
several months behind -- Huckabee's numbers started to take off
after winning that straw poll, Ron Paul's numbers took off after
that money bomb. Those events got them on the short list of
candidates people considered worth investigating, and out of the
"he can't win, so let's not examine his views" ghetto. Whether that
growth plateaus, or fails to get high enough before most of the
primaries are over, is another question.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Prlefeed,
Like most religious texts, the Ten Coomandments are open to
interpretation. I believe a correct reading of the ninth
Coomandmant is that getting anywhere between 7% and 9% is a sign of
growing support. This is, of course, a matter of faith. No one
would dispute that going from 7 to 9% represents growth, but that's
a secular matter of little import to the Ron Paul faithful.
VM|12.6.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Edward,
RP pays lip service to other libertarian-like positions. His
goldbuggery is absolute liquid crack to self-identifying austrian
economist types, and he couches everything in the 'get the federal
gov't out' lingo, so there's an appeal to the states' rights crowd,
I'd assume.
He also is able to sponsor bills and then vote no on them, showing
political deftness, and he then can stake a claim to some sort of
ideological purity (e.g., NAFTA isn't free trade, so get rid of
it), and he can allow the Good and the Perfect to be enemies.
But other things, such as the WoD, PATRIOT, anti Iraq (which you've
already mentioned) resonate with some libertarian-leaning
people.
He has that anti status quo appeal, still will deliver on some
socially-conservative points, and he is a skilled politician who
touches on what Reinmoose notes as some principles that coincide
with libertarians.
Friends of RP probably can come up with legislative behavior that
shows a limited government streak in him. That, his skilled framing
of his beliefs, his anti war stance, and the fact that he's not the
mainstream all probably contribute greatly to the appeal he garners
with many hier on this board.
Kip Esquire has some excellent critique of RP over at his site,
BTW.
Reinmoose|12.6.07 @ 4:17PM|#
I see what you're saying Edward, and I readily admit that there
are groups of Paul supporters that I would not want to be
associated with. However, I think that small outcroppings of
libertarians have more resources to find each other now than they
had before. Libertarian-centered Meet-up groups, of which there are
many, can weed out the NeoNazis (or not admit them) as they go on
with promoting libertarian ideas. This is not something that the
Neos would want to do anyway.
I'm not saying that the whole Ron Paul movement is comprised of
libertarians, but that perhaps it has been a good vehicle for
getting us out of our houses and out of our parents basements to
actually do something to promote our ideas.
Ok, it does sound a little silly, but still.
VM|12.6.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Viiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiking (a la
"KAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHNNNN" works. Or just elongate the OOOOOOOs in
Moose :)
BTW your 4:17 was well spake.
raised catholic|12.6.07 @ 4:27PM|#
I believe a correct reading of the ninth Coomandmant is that
getting anywhere between 7% and 9% is a sign of growing
support.
What does the fact that my neighbor is a MILF have to do with Ron
Paul's polling numbers?
|12.6.07 @ 5:07PM|#
Yes, Edward, some libertarians have anointed him Saint Paul. But
you sound like someone who really doesn't understand math at all,
saying that someone who, in a few months, went from 1% or less in
polls to 7-9% doesn't have "growing support".
I'd suggest rephrasing to something reflecting reality if you want
people to quit elongating the ending of your name. For example,
"Ron Paul's support isn't growing enough to win the nomination."
Debateable, and liable to be proven wrong by events (who'd have
thought even 3 months ago that Huckabee would be leading in a major
poll?), but at least not a demonstrably untrue statement that
immediately labels you as some nutjob with an agenda.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Prolefeed
You actually believe that it's "debateable, and liable to be proven
wrong by events" that Ron Paul doesn't have enough support to win
the nomination?? You need to have you brain pan checked. I think
it's leaking.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 5:18PM|#
raised catholic
I'm talking about the ninth coomandment, not the nine
commandment.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Reinmoose
The way these things work, probably as many people know Ron Paul
has taken nazi money as know that he styles himself a libertarian.
All he will have achieved is to make libertarianism even more
marginal by associating it with kooks.
VM|12.6.07 @ 5:22PM|#
"to make libertarianism even more marginal"
Actually, when you think about it, that would be a notable
accomplishment! :)
Thurday Afternoon Blogging (fo|12.6.07 @ 5:31PM|#
[* R C Dean throws red flag *]
[ Hochuli: ]
Upon further review, the logic was faulty; 15 yd penalty on Pedant,
automatic first down, Dean.
[ Madden: ]
You see his problem here [*yellow lines scribble on screen *] is
that he tried to hard at snark, and got burned. He should have
pulled a reverse with a different name, and argued somehow that
since "Those Jew's weren't stupid," then they must have been
Intelligently Designed.
[ Michaels: ]
Or he should of just STFU and GBTW. Time out on the field, back to
the studio in New York
[ Costas: ]
Thank you Al and John. On tonights half time report, does this post
violate the spirit of commandment 3?
|12.6.07 @ 6:32PM|#
Edward -- Huckabee is now LEADING in a national poll. Bill
Clinton was polling for a while lower than Ron Paul is now prior to
becoming president. It is *possible* (albeit fairly unlikely) for
Ron Paul to be nominated in a close 6-way scramble where less than
20% of the vote can win. If Ron Paul doubles his current support,
to the 14-18% realm, he's a top-tier candidate.
Unlikely stuff happens all the time. In fact, it would be highly
improbable for highly improbable stuff to never happen. It is
extraordinarily improbable that the sperm and egg that created you
would meet and combine to form what most people here would
grudgingly admit is a "person", and yet here you are.
Take a probability and statistics class sometimes.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 6:45PM|#
"If Ron Paul doubles his current support, to the 14-18% realm,
he's a top-tier candidate."--Reinmoose
There aren't enough already uncommitted loons to make it happen.
Maybe if hundreds of asylums let all their inmates out, but how
proabable is that?
I can't wait to see the posts here when it's all over. Conspiracy
Theory City!
|12.6.07 @ 8:24PM|#
How did this thread evolve from a Romney is a Mormon to a Ron Paul argument? Interesting that Ron Paul is such a hot button, Edward. Me thinks thou doest protesteth too much. Focus please.
|12.6.07 @ 8:35PM|#
David:
Mormonism isn't persecuted? Tell that to the Mormon Church. The
only religion more persecuted would be the Jews. To this day
Mormonism is associated with polygamists despite having banned the
practice for over 100 years. I STILL see accusations of a church
with millions of practitioners as a cult. Cults never get that
big!
GILMORE|12.6.07 @ 9:34PM|#
1. Thou shalt not feed the trolls.
2. Thou shalt not malign Saint Paul.
3. If thou slightly garblist a post, but thy true intent is readily
understandable, thou shalt not waste everyone's time with a
correcting post.
4. Thou shalt not Godwinize a thread -- thou shalt leave that to
the Reason staffers.
5. Thou shalt not persistently and vulgarly insult Reason staffers,
lest thee be consigned to the outer darkness of being banned from
posting.
6. If thou shouldst criticize another for a garbled post, thou
shalt in thy criticizing post commit a far more grievious garbling
(hat tip to joest for this one).
7. Thou shalt not post blind links, without any cautionary preface,
to material so utterly disgusting that even the jaded and cynical
souls on Reason art grieviously smitten. Any material involved
chicks and a cup shouldst be considered suspect.
8. Thou shalt not criticize pandering politicians for the few
things they actually get right, when a plethora of evils to be
condemned mayest be availed of.
9. Thou shalt not spam. This applyest especially to thou,
Donderooooooooest.
10. Thou ShaltNot post RightWing BullShit using ReallyWeird
CapitalizationAndPunctuation.
Nice. I'd switch 10 to 1, amend 1 to say "excepting those trolls
that serve our evil plans e.g. anyone associated with URKOBOLD
& CO. or other contrived characters for amusement purposes",
and toss 8 altogether. too hypocritical frankly. Call a spade a
spade or fuck off.
|12.6.07 @ 9:38PM|#
"Mormonism isn't persecuted? Tell that to the Mormon Church.
The only religion more persecuted would be the Jews. To this day
Mormonism is associated with polygamists despite having banned the
practice for over 100 years. I STILL see accusations of a church
with millions of practitioners as a cult. Cults never get that
big!"
Get down off the cross. No religion has a monopoly over victim
status or a top ten list. Examples of religions suffering
persecutions:
Native Americans vs. USA Protestants
Native Americans vs. The Spanish
Minority Shiites vs. Suniis
Protestants vs. Catholics
Christians vs. USSR
Christians vs. Chinese
Christians vs. Romans
....
All of those religions survived and thrived through an open
discussion of the beliefs of the respective religions.
Mr. Romney has been very selective and elusive in his alleged frank
and open discussion of the reasons we should have no problem with
his involvement in a church few of us understand. If he was so
solid in his convictions, he would defend his faith and show why it
would make him a good POTUS.
Instead he dodges with talk about how religion isn't a test for the
POTUS, at the same time he says he believes that JC is the Lord and
Savior and that is supposed to win over the Religious Right. Sorry,
Fail, Can't have it both ways.
GILMORE|12.6.07 @ 9:39PM|#
Unlikely stuff happens all the time. In fact, it would be
highly improbable for highly improbable stuff to never happen. It
is extraordinarily improbable that the sperm and egg that created
you would meet and combine to form what most people here would
grudgingly admit is a "person", and yet here you are.
Hmm.
I tooks the shitistics classes. i give the guy a 1 in 6 chance!
Whoo hoo. That dont mean dick about dollars to donuts. I expect we
will suffer under the reign of Hugo Suitpants in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibility_theory
|12.6.07 @ 9:47PM|#
thanks for the quote Edward, but I didn't say "If Ron Paul doubles his current support, to the 14-18% realm, he's a top-tier candidate." prolefeed did
GILMORE|12.6.07 @ 10:24PM|#
On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly
informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with
references to God,
Ed, this is utter bullshit.
http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa070202a.htm
example
""Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other
for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of
government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with
sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and
State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the
nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with
sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to
restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural
right in opposition to his social duties."
James Madison, principal author of the constitution
please, now you muster all the random quotes you want in defence of
this discredited argument
|12.6.07 @ 11:21PM|#
Re: Mitt Romney
Hey, Jesus,
You're so fine!
You're so fine you blow my mind!
Hey, Jesus!
Hey, Jesus!
Romney's bullshit is so fucked up it blows my mind. Can you spell
suck-up?
Hey Edwards!
Hey Edwards!
Eat me, Mitt ... unless you choose a Muslim for VP.
|12.6.07 @ 11:29PM|#
And, I refer you to the JFK speech he is accused of building on
... Google it, yourself (see: NPR.)
(Hint: Church and State shall not be intertwined. Period. Religious
preferences are private and not applicable to running for office,
nor influencing it's execution.)
|12.6.07 @ 11:37PM|#
Okay ... I'll give it to you (U.S. Constitution):
"Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State
to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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."
i.e. We don't give a shit what your religious preferences are ...
althoug we might give a shit about your sexual preferences ... as
long as you don't bring your stinkin' religion into the office,
we're cool.
|12.7.07 @ 12:29AM|#
Voters taking into account a candidate's religious views ≠ Requiring a religious test
|12.7.07 @ 1:04AM|#
That was one of the most powerful speeches I've ever heard and
I'm a political junkie. Pat Buchanan even said it was more bold
than J.F.K.s which is saying something.
http://www.Decemeber7thforMitt.com
|12.7.07 @ 10:55AM|#
That speech was the biggest evasion of what Mitt Romney truly
believes I have ever heard.
He states that there is no religious test for president.
Then, in a bone to the religious right, he says Jesus is my Lord
and Saviour.
That tells me he is tring to have it both ways and he can't. The
man can't stand up for his own beliefs, how can he stand up for us
and our country? He is a big steaming bowl of FAIL.
|12.7.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Mitt Romney also employs child abusers to staff his campaign. Mel Sembler anyone? That guy is a creep and his creepiness is all over Mitt Romney.
|12.7.07 @ 3:45PM|#
""""This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land;"""
I always laugh when I see that.
Ron Paul is a nutjob|12.7.07 @ 4:15PM|#
How fucking hilarious. A site that acts like Ron Paul is the fucking Messiah actually has the balls to bash another site for "slavering" over a candidate. Hahaha, give me a fucking break you hypocrites.
|12.9.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Mormonism has been infamous for its flip-flops on blacks,
polygamy, and Coca-Cola. Over the years, the sacred 'infallible'
texts of Mormonism have been quietly revised to correct typos and
contradictions. Mormons have become adept at insisting that their
theology is identical to Southern Baptists, while in fact it would
fit in more comfortably at a UFO convention.
The Mormon Church isn't particularly evil (at least not compared to
Baptist Televangelists!), but in order to be accepted by the
American mainstream, it has had to deny what it is. Mitt Romney
strikes me as totally in character with the system that raised him.
He'll say anything for approval, then deny that he said it. If we
met a person like that in real life, we'd realize he's in serious
need of counseling or psychotherapy.
As for the Big Hucker's rise in the Iowa polls in synch with
Romney's collapse, it probably has as much to do with this
flip-flop psychosis as the Religious Question. To modify a
corallary of Murphy's Law: "If you try to please everyone, you'll
end up getting everyone pissed at you."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245