So Romney's speech writers are getting a clue. Maybe. You can't
claim that Romney had anything to do with the quality of the speech, other than
the delivery.I am so sick to death of religion in politics. I
don't give a rip about Romney's religion, Obama's religion, Ron
Paul's religion, Santorum's, Bauchmann's, or anyone else's
religion. What I do see is their bigotry though. That speeks loud and clear,
and what it is saying to me is that these people talk a good talk about their
religion but they fail miserably when it comes to walking the walk.What would Jesus do? I don't know, but I'm sure he wouldn't be
out campaigning against the rights of his fellow citizens.
Religion has its place in politics.The large part of the U.S. population does
share a general belief in God and/or Christianity. Secular humanism and its set
of values should not be the only politically correct belief system that is
allowed.to be expressed.What is happening now is the McCarthyism of our day, a
politically correct "thought police" that is intolerant, biased and that
attacks, censors and demonizes those that dare offend.
As long we watched the intolerant haggling of "My Jesus is better than Your
Jesus" shown by the GOP for the last 6 months -- and then
realize that America stands for the Freedom of Religon -- i.e., ALL
religions, including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddahists, Shammans, ect....I can only conclude that Politics and Religion can not and should not
ever mix.And that the GOP can never fully appreciate or represent the
ideals of America.
Will someone please explain to me exactly what "cultural conservatism"
is? Is it like GW's "compassionate conservatism?" Is it something
pushed by the Eagle Forum? Will it benefit and lift ALL Americans, or just a
chosen few?Nebulous phrases have no meaning. They are smoke in the
wind. But for some gullible people, they seem to hold some kind of ephemeral
spiritual meaning. Yet, I'll bet that even they could not define them.Somehow, that seems just a bit dangerous.
@ WestGranger Things would be so much better w/ a religious group
calling the shots. But, then nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! re: LDSLib"As long we watched the intolerant haggling of
"My Jesus is better than Your Jesus" shown by the GOP for the last 6
months -- "Amen. Can't wait for Mitt to get elected and
then we can take the my God is better than your God rhetoric w/ Iran to a whole
To "LDS Liberal" but we have a mix of religion and politics all the
time, and is sanctioned by the government.The President takes the
oath of office whith his hand placed on a Bible.Congress pays for a
chaplain to administer to their spiritual needs.Congress is opened
every year with a prayer.Politicians on both sides are concerned
about religion, just look at the Democrat attacks on Romney's religion
while ignoring Obama's former pastor Jerimiah Wright.The way a
Politician approaches their religion are very indicative of how they will act
once in office.You can no more separate religion and politics than
you can separate democrats from liberals.One question for you and
others of your ilk is this: If you are so tired of it hearing about a
canidate's religion, why do you and your ilk keep bringing it up?
@RedShirt1701Why does the name of Jeremiah Wright keep popping up?
Why is it significant to Republicans to invoke his name frequently? Is he
running for office somewhere? Isn't he a religious leader who having the
same freedom of religion as everyone else, can say whatever he wants? I've
had some church leaders both at the local and worldwide levels say some pretty
incendiary things about other churches, yet it doesn't mean I share those
same views, even though I went to church in their congregations every week. I
remember an apostle saying some pretty mean things about the largest Christian
denomination in the world - even publishing it in a book that sits on my
bookcase. Does that mean I must espouse those same views? I
believe it is Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin shouting "Jeremian Wright,
Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright" constantly. Do we need it parroted daily
in the DN as well?
We need to marginalise religion right out of the political process.
To "CHS 85" the only time I hear conservatives discusing Jerimiah Wright
is when they are asking why liberals attack Romney's religion while
ignoring Obama.Why is it that your ilk is so concerned with
Romney's religion, yet have no problem with Obama listening to a preacher
for 20 years who taught about marxism and teaches hatred? Shouldn't that
worry you more?
When the name of a pastor is off-limits because that name is an embarrassment to
Mr. Obama, then that name should be mentioned at every opportunity, not to
embarrass Mr. Obama, but to remind us of Mr. Obama's hypocrisy. When we claim membership in a church, we should also claim the responsibility
to acknowledge the teachings of that church. Mr. Obama's church taught
hatred for America. Mr. Obama claims that he never heard those sermons, but he
kept attending that church.His speeches have included that rhetoric.
He preaches class warfare, just like Pastor Wright. He preaches class envy,
just like Pastor Wright. He preaches redistribution of wealth, just like Pastor
Wright.Every man is free to choose his church, but he is not free
from the consequences of making a poor choice. Mr. Obama spent twenty-years in
that church. Had he found the teaching repulsive, he would not have maintained
membership.Mr. Obama uses God to promote un-godlike principles and
conduct. When people are honest, they will admit that Mr. Obama's speeches
and policies are not worthy of being associated with Christ.
Redshirt, I don't recall seeing any Democrat attacks on Romney's
religion. But there have been a lot coming from conservative Christians.
So how are compassion, respect, and hard work not liberal values also? I'll
put my liberal values up against Mitt's "conservative" values any
day--but his conservative values also include squandering vast sums on
warmaking,giving tax breaks to his ultra rich buddies while the rest of us
shoulder the burden, defending polluters, etc. At bottom, so to speak, the
values conservatives hold dear are all found in their wallets.
I gather that for conservatives, holding your nose and speaking at Liberty U is
one of those obligatory but unpleasant requirements. And Romney's speech
seems to have done a nice job of negotiating that particularly treacherous
terrain. Personally, I would prefer that a candidate speak at a university in
which actual science is taught.
So, Romney is sophisticated because he relies on Jewish and Christian teachings
without providing any references, and Obama is unsophisticated because he relies
on Jewish and Christian teachings and provides references to support his
positions.Gotcha - if you back up what you say, you are
unsophisticated; if you cannot (or will not) back it up you are
sophisticated....Using those definitions, I think I would rather
have someone who is unsophisticated.
To "one old man" do you watch the news???! Did you miss the whole Larry
O'Donnel attack on the LDS church? The DN's article "Anti-Mormon
bigotry repeated by MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, watchdogs say"
covered that one.From the Daily Mail we read "'My
dad's dad was not a polygamist' Romney lashes back at Montana Democrat
over personal attacks" where "Mitt Romney responded to personal attacks
that questioned his family's history with polygamy yesterday that stemmed
from aggressive comments by Montana Democratic Governor Brian
Schweitzer."Listen to the CBS Boston broadcast titled
"NightSide Weekend Commentary – Democrats Attack Mitt Romney’s
Religion" where they state that Democrats are seeking to discredit Romney
using his religion.Go to YouTube and watch MSNBC's Martin
Bashir Attacks Romney's Religion.Do you need more examples?
I am a cultural conservative. The music of J.S. Bach is better than the music of
Brittany Spears. Anyone who disagrees with that is stupid. The novels of Saul
Bellow are better than the novels of Danielle Steele. Anyone who disagrees with
that is stupid. The plays of William Shakespeare are better than anything on
television. Anyone who--well, you get the point.It does not follow
that defending our culture leads one to a position of opposition to gay rights.
Roland,Is music more important than lifestyle? Surely you know that
the Nazis had soothing music played as the Jews were taken to the
"showers".Literature and music are important, but choosing
which God to worship is more important than either literature or music.
Choosing to obey God at all times and in all things is more important than
giving lip service at a political rally. Obeying Christ, because Christ is
always right, is more important than sitting behind the desk in the Oval
Office.Mr. Obama has chosen to invoke Christ in his political
campaign. He has twisted and turned Christ's words to fit his political
agenda. That is a great insult to those who worship Christ.
Interesting recent interview of Jeremiah Wright played on the radio today. I
now know Obama did not know what he Wright was saying. Wright said the Clinton
campaign paid to have him discredited early on in the run up to 2008 nomination.
He also said the Obamas attended church because of political expediency, they
were not religious prior to needing a political base. He also said the Obama
campaign tried to pay him off to be silent prior to the 2008 election. It all
speaks to character.
Romney continues to be behind the curve when it comes to change in America.
Like the remaining troglodytes, Romney hands on with his fingernails. In twenty
years, his ideas will be completely irrelevant to voters since those who support
him will be long gone. It will be the middle of the 21st Century and attitudes
associated with progressive thinking will be all but mainstream. Even the
conservative voices will have adapted to the new social order. It will be like
compairing the way things were in the late 19th Century to the mid-20th Century.
Redshirt, I said -- as you did - Democrat attacks.Those people were
radio/TV commentators. The other side of the coin from Rush and friends. None
of them on either side are worth the time of day.
@RanchHand:"You can no more separate religion and politics than
you can separate democrats from liberals."I think that happened
back in the 1980's when the Democratic congress would tax the working poor
to pay for subsidized health insurance for retired millionaires (Medicare) or
when they spent the social security surplus to make the deficit look smaller
(raided a pension fund) or in 1991 they spent less on helping the homeless in
1991 than the Bush administration proposed.One can't separate
the Democrats from PC.
Speaking at Liberty and talking about how marriage is tool for fighting poverty
was in fact invoking a liberal argument. Supporting marriage is a liberal value
because it fights poverty because it reduces out of wedlock births.It might increase their imagination so that they being to think what else can
be done to fight poverty.(I wonder if that is why some people are
criticizing or belittling this: they are uncomfortable with a Republican
invoking what should have been a Democratic argument).
Oops! I have to correct my missive posted at 8:17 pm. It should have started
with:"@Redshirt" rather than with"@Ranchhand".I apologize to both Redshirt and RanchHand.I can't see
how anyone can claim that Obama is Moslem. What is the evidence? Why would the
Moslem Brotherhood support him? If he did have a connection with the Moslem
Brotherhood why isn't he putting more pressure on Israel rather than giving
them a pass?
Which is more conservative, freedom to live your life as you determine and
choose, or having conservative institutions (including churches and government)
dictate and compel you in how you must live your life? What a conundrum, right?
@Mike Richards"Every man is free to choose his church, but he is not
free from the consequences of making a poor choice"So you think
Romney deserves whatever anti-mormonism gets thrown his way because people have
a right to hold politicians accountable for what they consider to be "poor
choices" in religion? Or let me guess... you think this is something okay to
fire at Obama but not at Romney?
@alt134;The only "right choice", according to every Mormon,
is the one they made. Everybody else gets to "suffer the
consequences".They just don't see their own hubris.
To "Esquire" but your ilk does not advocate for freedom to live life as
you choose. The liberals are intruding into our lives at an unprecidented rate.
Your ilk would force those who are successful to pay for those who are
irresponsible.The conservative does maintain freedom, while your
liberal ilk "dictate and compel you in how you must live your life".
Just look at the number of regulations that they have enacted since 2009.You claim you want freedom, yet you and your ilk vote for people and
policies that put government in charge of your life. Just look at Obama's
"Julia" slide show. Where is the freedom there, somebody has to pay for
it, and why society take care of people from cradle to grave?
Ilk four times in one comment. Did you just learn a new word?
@ Redshirt1701, so what is my "ilk"? Someone who does not agree with
you? I stand on my premise and strongly assert that conservatives are as
hypocritical on the issue of freedom as anyone on the face of the planet.
To "Esquire" your ilk are the hard core leftist liberals.You
may stand on your premise, but it is a premise that is based solely on opinion
and lacks any facts to support it.Simply put, freedom is inversely
proportional to regulation. Liberals regulate, and seek ways to regulate more.
The more regulations there are, the less freedom we enjoy.
@ RedShirt 8:26 a.m. May 18, 2012"Simply put, freedom is
inversely proportional to regulation. Liberals regulate, and seek ways to
regulate more. The more regulations there are, the less freedom we
enjoy."Its probably semantics but.. Does this mean the more
Commandments and directives there are the less Free Agency there is?Ball is in your court, Redshirt...
"Your ilk would force those who are successful to pay for those who are
irresponsible."..like those darn old people, those ingrate disableds, the
poor children,who are daily being taught to mooch (if they just went to bed
hungry they'd soon learn true values). PS. business
regulations under Obama are fewer than under Bush...fact.
To "Hank Pym" no, Free Agency is not something that government can take
away. Governments can take away freedom, which is not necessarily equal to
agency.To "pragmatistferlife" why should you pay for the
retirement of somebody who refused to save for their own retirement? Isn't
that irresponsible?What about people who are claim disabilities who
are not really disabled, yet claim the benefits?What about the
parents who are poor because they thought that dropping out of Highschool and
getting pregnant at age 16 because their boyfriend said that he would take care
of them?What about the poor children who have breakfast at home,
then go so school and get the federally funded breakfast and lunch, then go home
and have steaks because their parents WIC account had too much money in it?Again you are wrong about Obama and his business reglations (obama has
only approved fewer new regulations, the regulations are still adding up):See "Obama's regulatory flood is drowning economic growth"
in the Washington Examiner."Obama Wrote 5% Fewer Rules Than Bush
While Costing Business" at Bloomberg"Obama Administration
Added $9.5 Billion in Red Tape in July" US News.
@ RedShirt 11:14 a.m. May 18, 2012That was not the point of my
analogy. Gov'ts are akin to regulation not agency. Nice attempt @
obfuscation, though. There is; As people/corporations are going to
do what they feel are in their best interest whether is physical survival or the
fiscal bottom line.I guess this means Darwin > Adam Smith
To "Hank Pym" then what was the point of your analogy. Your analogy was
quite clear that you assumed that that Commandments limited Agency. Now, it
appears that you are backtracking and trying to coverup you mistake, rather than
admitting that you are wrong.People/corporations will always do what
they feel is in their best interest with respect to physical survival, the
fiscal bottom line, or to maintain their power or position.Adam
Smith and Darwin are at best parallels. But, that is better than the
alternative, which is socialism and its eugenics parallel.