Friday, December 28, 2007
Site of Tract of Land at Manakin Town, Virginia For French Refugees Who Fled Religous Persecution in France in 17th Century The Evangelical Rebellion
Dec 23, 2007
By Chris Hedges
The rise of Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate represents a seismic shift in the tactics, ideology and direction of the radical Christian right. Huckabee may stumble and falter in later primaries, but his right-wing Christian populism is here to stay. Huckabee represents a new and potent force in American politics, and the neocons and corporate elite, who once viewed the yahoos of the Christian right as the useful idiots, are now confronted with the fact that they themselves are the ones who have been taken for a ride. Members of the Christian right, recruited into the Republican Party and manipulated to vote against their own interests around the issues of abortion and family values, are in rebellion. They are taking the party into new, uncharted territory. And they presage, especially with looming economic turmoil, the rise of a mass movement that could demolish what is left of American democracy and set the stage for a Christian fascism.
The corporate establishment, whose plundering of the country created fertile ground for a radical, right-wing backlash, is sounding the alarm bells. It is scrambling to bolster Mitt Romney, who, like Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton, will continue to slash and burn on behalf of corporate profits. Columnist George Will called Huckabee’s populism “a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs.” He wrote that Huckabee’s candidacy “broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America’s corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.” National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote that “like [Howard] Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party.”
Huckabee spoke of this revolt on the “Today” show. “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican Party,” he said. “They wanted us to be a part of it. And then one day one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh, now they’re serious.’ They [evangelicals] don’t want to just show up and vote, they actually would want to be a part of the discussion.”
George Bush is a happy stooge of his corporate handlers. He blithely enriches the oligarchy, defends a war that is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history and callously denies medical benefits to children. Huckabee is different. He has tapped into the rage and fury of the working class, dispossessed and abandoned by the mainstream Democrats and Republicans. And he refuses to make the ideology of the Christian right, with its dark contempt for democratic traditions and intolerance of nonbelievers, a handmaiden of the corporate establishment. This makes him a much more lethal and radical political force.
The Christian right is the most potent and dangerous mass movement in American history. It has been controlled and led, until now, by those who submit to the demands of the corporate state. But the grass roots are tired of being taken for rubes. They are tired of candidates, like Bush or Bill Clinton, who roll out the same clichés about working men and women every four years and then spend their terms enriching their corporate backers. The majority of American citizens have spent the last two decades watching their government services and benefits vanish. They have seen their jobs go overseas and are watching as their communities crumble and their houses are foreclosed. It is their kids who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The old guard in the Christian right, the Pat Robertsons, who used their pulpits to deliver the votes of naive followers to the corporatists, is a spent force. Huckabee’s Christian populism represents the maturation of the movement. It signals the rise of a truly radical, even revolutionary force in American politics, of which Huckabee may be one of the tamer and less frightening examples.
Hints of Huckabee’s bizarre worldview seep out now and then. Bob Vander Plaats, Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager, for example, when asked about his candidate’s lack of foreign policy experience, told MSNBC: “Well, I think Gov. Huckabee has a lot of resources that he goes to on national security matters. Here’s a guy, a former pastor, who understands a theological nature of this war as we’re fighting a radical religion in Islam.”
Robert Novak noted that Huckabee held a fundraiser last week at the Houston home of Dr. Steven Hotze. As Novak wrote, Hotze is “a leader in the highly conservative Christian Reconstruction movement.”
Huckabee has close ties with the Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionist branch of the Christian right. The Dominionist movement, which seeks to cloak itself in the mantle of the Christian faith and American patriotism, is small in numbers but influential. It departs from traditional evangelicalism. It seeks to redefine traditional democratic and Christian terms and concepts to fit an ideology that calls on the radical church to take political power. It shares many prominent features with classical fascist movements, at least as such movements are defined by the scholar Robert O. Paxton, who sees fascism as “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cultures of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Dominionism, born out of Christian Reconstructionism, seeks to politicize faith. It has, like all fascist movements, a belief in magic along with leadership adoration and a strident call for moral and physical supremacy of a master race, in this case American Christians. It also has, like fascist movements, an ill-defined and shifting set of beliefs, some of which contradict each other. Paxton argues that the best way to understand authentic fascist movements, which he says exist in all societies, including democracies, is to focus not on what they say but on how they act, for, as he writes, some of the ideas that underlie fascist movements “remain unstated and implicit in fascist public language” and “many of them belong more to the realm of visceral feelings than to the realm of reasoned propositions.”
Dominionism teaches that American Christians have been mandated by God to make America a Christian state. A decades-long refusal by most American fundamentalists to engage in politics at all following the Scopes trial has been replaced by a call for Christian “dominion” over the nation and, eventually, over the Earth itself. Dominionism preaches that Jesus has called on Christians to actively build the kingdom of God on Earth. America becomes, in this militant Biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan. Under Christian dominion, America will no longer be a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the Ten Commandments form the basis of our legal system, in which creationism and “Christian values” form the basis of our educational system, and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all. Labor unions, civil rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the work force to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship.
Baptist minister Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America and a self-described “Christocrat,” who attended the Texas fundraiser, has endorsed Huckabee. Scarborough, along with holding other bizarre stances, opposes the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine on grounds that it interferes with God’s punishment of sexual license. And Huckabee, who once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public and opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure, comes out of this frightening mold. He justified his call to quarantine those with AIDS because they could “pose a dangerous public health risk.”
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,” Huckabee wrote. “It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.”
Huckabee has publicly backed off from this extreme position, but he remains deeply hostile to gays. He has used wit and humor to deflect reporters from his radical views about marriage, abortion, damnation, biblical law, creationism and the holy war he believes we are fighting with Islam. But his stances represent a huge step, should they ever become policy, toward a theocratic state and the death of our open society. In the end, however, I do not blame Huckabee or the tens of millions of hapless Christians—40 percent of the Republican electorate—who hear his words and rejoice. I blame the corporate state, those who thought they could disempower and abuse the working class, rape the country, build a rapacious oligarchy and never pay a political price.
Chris Hedges, who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.”
Dec 23, 2007
By Chris Hedges
The rise of Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate represents a seismic shift in the tactics, ideology and direction of the radical Christian right. Huckabee may stumble and falter in later primaries, but his right-wing Christian populism is here to stay. Huckabee represents a new and potent force in American politics, and the neocons and corporate elite, who once viewed the yahoos of the Christian right as the useful idiots, are now confronted with the fact that they themselves are the ones who have been taken for a ride. Members of the Christian right, recruited into the Republican Party and manipulated to vote against their own interests around the issues of abortion and family values, are in rebellion. They are taking the party into new, uncharted territory. And they presage, especially with looming economic turmoil, the rise of a mass movement that could demolish what is left of American democracy and set the stage for a Christian fascism.
The corporate establishment, whose plundering of the country created fertile ground for a radical, right-wing backlash, is sounding the alarm bells. It is scrambling to bolster Mitt Romney, who, like Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton, will continue to slash and burn on behalf of corporate profits. Columnist George Will called Huckabee’s populism “a comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs.” He wrote that Huckabee’s candidacy “broadly repudiates core Republican policies such as free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America’s corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity.” National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote that “like [Howard] Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party.”
Huckabee spoke of this revolt on the “Today” show. “There’s a sense in which all these years the evangelicals have been treated very kindly by the Republican Party,” he said. “They wanted us to be a part of it. And then one day one of us actually runs and they say, ‘Oh, my gosh, now they’re serious.’ They [evangelicals] don’t want to just show up and vote, they actually would want to be a part of the discussion.”
George Bush is a happy stooge of his corporate handlers. He blithely enriches the oligarchy, defends a war that is the worst foreign policy blunder in American history and callously denies medical benefits to children. Huckabee is different. He has tapped into the rage and fury of the working class, dispossessed and abandoned by the mainstream Democrats and Republicans. And he refuses to make the ideology of the Christian right, with its dark contempt for democratic traditions and intolerance of nonbelievers, a handmaiden of the corporate establishment. This makes him a much more lethal and radical political force.
The Christian right is the most potent and dangerous mass movement in American history. It has been controlled and led, until now, by those who submit to the demands of the corporate state. But the grass roots are tired of being taken for rubes. They are tired of candidates, like Bush or Bill Clinton, who roll out the same clichés about working men and women every four years and then spend their terms enriching their corporate backers. The majority of American citizens have spent the last two decades watching their government services and benefits vanish. They have seen their jobs go overseas and are watching as their communities crumble and their houses are foreclosed. It is their kids who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The old guard in the Christian right, the Pat Robertsons, who used their pulpits to deliver the votes of naive followers to the corporatists, is a spent force. Huckabee’s Christian populism represents the maturation of the movement. It signals the rise of a truly radical, even revolutionary force in American politics, of which Huckabee may be one of the tamer and less frightening examples.
Hints of Huckabee’s bizarre worldview seep out now and then. Bob Vander Plaats, Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager, for example, when asked about his candidate’s lack of foreign policy experience, told MSNBC: “Well, I think Gov. Huckabee has a lot of resources that he goes to on national security matters. Here’s a guy, a former pastor, who understands a theological nature of this war as we’re fighting a radical religion in Islam.”
Robert Novak noted that Huckabee held a fundraiser last week at the Houston home of Dr. Steven Hotze. As Novak wrote, Hotze is “a leader in the highly conservative Christian Reconstruction movement.”
Huckabee has close ties with the Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionist branch of the Christian right. The Dominionist movement, which seeks to cloak itself in the mantle of the Christian faith and American patriotism, is small in numbers but influential. It departs from traditional evangelicalism. It seeks to redefine traditional democratic and Christian terms and concepts to fit an ideology that calls on the radical church to take political power. It shares many prominent features with classical fascist movements, at least as such movements are defined by the scholar Robert O. Paxton, who sees fascism as “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cultures of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Dominionism, born out of Christian Reconstructionism, seeks to politicize faith. It has, like all fascist movements, a belief in magic along with leadership adoration and a strident call for moral and physical supremacy of a master race, in this case American Christians. It also has, like fascist movements, an ill-defined and shifting set of beliefs, some of which contradict each other. Paxton argues that the best way to understand authentic fascist movements, which he says exist in all societies, including democracies, is to focus not on what they say but on how they act, for, as he writes, some of the ideas that underlie fascist movements “remain unstated and implicit in fascist public language” and “many of them belong more to the realm of visceral feelings than to the realm of reasoned propositions.”
Dominionism teaches that American Christians have been mandated by God to make America a Christian state. A decades-long refusal by most American fundamentalists to engage in politics at all following the Scopes trial has been replaced by a call for Christian “dominion” over the nation and, eventually, over the Earth itself. Dominionism preaches that Jesus has called on Christians to actively build the kingdom of God on Earth. America becomes, in this militant Biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan. Under Christian dominion, America will no longer be a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the Ten Commandments form the basis of our legal system, in which creationism and “Christian values” form the basis of our educational system, and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all. Labor unions, civil rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the work force to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship.
Baptist minister Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America and a self-described “Christocrat,” who attended the Texas fundraiser, has endorsed Huckabee. Scarborough, along with holding other bizarre stances, opposes the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine on grounds that it interferes with God’s punishment of sexual license. And Huckabee, who once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public and opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure, comes out of this frightening mold. He justified his call to quarantine those with AIDS because they could “pose a dangerous public health risk.”
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague,” Huckabee wrote. “It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.”
Huckabee has publicly backed off from this extreme position, but he remains deeply hostile to gays. He has used wit and humor to deflect reporters from his radical views about marriage, abortion, damnation, biblical law, creationism and the holy war he believes we are fighting with Islam. But his stances represent a huge step, should they ever become policy, toward a theocratic state and the death of our open society. In the end, however, I do not blame Huckabee or the tens of millions of hapless Christians—40 percent of the Republican electorate—who hear his words and rejoice. I blame the corporate state, those who thought they could disempower and abuse the working class, rape the country, build a rapacious oligarchy and never pay a political price.
Chris Hedges, who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.”
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists .... Jefferson and Adams
By David IgnatiusThursday, December 27, 2007; A17
A bracing text for this Christmas week is the famous correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Their letters are a reminder that the Founders were men of the Enlightenment -- supreme rationalists who would have found the religiosity of much of our modern political life quite abhorrent.
It's not that these men didn't have religious beliefs: They were, to their deaths, passionate seekers of truth, metaphysical as well as physical. It's that their beliefs didn't fit into pious cubbyholes. Indeed, the deist Jefferson took a pair of scissors to the New Testament to create his "Jefferson Bible," or, formally, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," which cut out the parts he regarded as supernatural or misinterpreted by the Gospel writers. It's useful to examine the musings of these American rationalists in this political season when religion has been a prominent topic.
Politicians and commentators have suggested that for the Founders, the very idea of freedom was God-given -- or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, that human beings are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Yet this famous passage begins with a distillation of the Enlightenment's celebration of human reason: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
My Christmastime reading of the Adams-Jefferson letters was prompted by this year's most interesting political speech -- Mitt Romney's Dec. 6 speech on "Faith in America." It was a fine evocation of our twin heritage of religion and religious freedom, until he got to this ritual denunciation of the bogeymen known as secularists.
"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."
Anyone who reads Adams and Jefferson -- or for that matter, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or other voices of the American Enlightenment -- can make their own judgment about what the Founders would say about secularism. My guess is that their response would be something like: "That is bunkum...."
Many of the Founders liked to speak of the "God of Nature," notes Garrett Epps, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Oregon. Adams used this term in a June 20, 1815, letter to Jefferson: "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by His own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" Adams mistrusted priests and kings, but he was also skeptical of the revolutionary philosophers who had overthrown them in France. He spent his life looking for a middle ground.
Jefferson spoke in a May 5, 1817, letter of "true religion" as based on "moral precepts, innate in man," and the "sublime doctrine of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth." He contrasted this true faith with "sectarian dogmas." If the sectarian version prevailed, warned Jefferson, then he might agree with Adams's speculation that "this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."
Before leaving these men and their ruminations on man and God in what one editor of the letters called "an epistolary duet," let us recall this caustic Nov. 4, 1816, missive from Adams: "We have now, it seems, a national Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible through all nations. Would it not be better to apply these pious subscriptions to purify Christendom from the corruptions of Christianity than to propagate those corruptions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America?"
The Founders certainly believed in God, but for most of them, their faith was a deeply private matter, as Jefferson put it in a Jan. 11, 1817, letter, a subject "known to my God and myself alone." Indeed, they found loud, public displays of religiosity a profanation of this inner and spiritual practice of religion. Adams, the more conventionally "religious" of the two, insisted in a Sept. 14, 1813, letter that there is "but one being who can understand the universe, and that it is not only vain but wicked for insects to pretend to comprehend it."
One theme in this year's political campaign has been whether the United States will move from the faith-based policies the Bush administration has celebrated to a more rationalist and secular approach.
In this debate, religious conservatives like to stress their connection to the Founders and to the republic's birth as "one nation under God."
But a rereading of the Adams-Jefferson letters is a reminder that in this debate, the Founders -- as men of the Enlightenment -- would surely have sided with the party of Reason.
By David IgnatiusThursday, December 27, 2007; A17
A bracing text for this Christmas week is the famous correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Their letters are a reminder that the Founders were men of the Enlightenment -- supreme rationalists who would have found the religiosity of much of our modern political life quite abhorrent.
It's not that these men didn't have religious beliefs: They were, to their deaths, passionate seekers of truth, metaphysical as well as physical. It's that their beliefs didn't fit into pious cubbyholes. Indeed, the deist Jefferson took a pair of scissors to the New Testament to create his "Jefferson Bible," or, formally, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," which cut out the parts he regarded as supernatural or misinterpreted by the Gospel writers. It's useful to examine the musings of these American rationalists in this political season when religion has been a prominent topic.
Politicians and commentators have suggested that for the Founders, the very idea of freedom was God-given -- or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, that human beings are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Yet this famous passage begins with a distillation of the Enlightenment's celebration of human reason: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."
My Christmastime reading of the Adams-Jefferson letters was prompted by this year's most interesting political speech -- Mitt Romney's Dec. 6 speech on "Faith in America." It was a fine evocation of our twin heritage of religion and religious freedom, until he got to this ritual denunciation of the bogeymen known as secularists.
"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."
Anyone who reads Adams and Jefferson -- or for that matter, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or other voices of the American Enlightenment -- can make their own judgment about what the Founders would say about secularism. My guess is that their response would be something like: "That is bunkum...."
Many of the Founders liked to speak of the "God of Nature," notes Garrett Epps, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Oregon. Adams used this term in a June 20, 1815, letter to Jefferson: "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by His own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" Adams mistrusted priests and kings, but he was also skeptical of the revolutionary philosophers who had overthrown them in France. He spent his life looking for a middle ground.
Jefferson spoke in a May 5, 1817, letter of "true religion" as based on "moral precepts, innate in man," and the "sublime doctrine of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth." He contrasted this true faith with "sectarian dogmas." If the sectarian version prevailed, warned Jefferson, then he might agree with Adams's speculation that "this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."
Before leaving these men and their ruminations on man and God in what one editor of the letters called "an epistolary duet," let us recall this caustic Nov. 4, 1816, missive from Adams: "We have now, it seems, a national Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible through all nations. Would it not be better to apply these pious subscriptions to purify Christendom from the corruptions of Christianity than to propagate those corruptions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America?"
The Founders certainly believed in God, but for most of them, their faith was a deeply private matter, as Jefferson put it in a Jan. 11, 1817, letter, a subject "known to my God and myself alone." Indeed, they found loud, public displays of religiosity a profanation of this inner and spiritual practice of religion. Adams, the more conventionally "religious" of the two, insisted in a Sept. 14, 1813, letter that there is "but one being who can understand the universe, and that it is not only vain but wicked for insects to pretend to comprehend it."
One theme in this year's political campaign has been whether the United States will move from the faith-based policies the Bush administration has celebrated to a more rationalist and secular approach.
In this debate, religious conservatives like to stress their connection to the Founders and to the republic's birth as "one nation under God."
But a rereading of the Adams-Jefferson letters is a reminder that in this debate, the Founders -- as men of the Enlightenment -- would surely have sided with the party of Reason.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Romney and The Bill of Rights
Brigham Young, the second President and Prophet of the LDS Church, taught the belief that it is the right of "...every class of worshipers [to be] most strictly protected in their municipal rights and in the privileges of worshiping who, what, and when they please, not infringing upon the rights of others."
Last week in the second part of Romney's religion speech, he displayed a vastly limited knowledge of history, most of all, surprisingly, a limited knowledge of the history of the faith to which he adheres, and not unsurprisingly, the mission that many of the Fundamentalist Evangelicals have for the people of the United States: the dismantling of the Wall of Separation of Church and State, a central tenant of their mission; but to give Romney benefit of the doubt, it is probable that he may not know that; but if he does, indeed, have some idea of that part of their mission, then he demonstrates a lack of perception of long term probabilities of cause and effect.
While he tells us in the first part of last week's speech that he believes in the Separation of Church and State, in the second part his words show that he would undermind the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution's First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Romney made it clear that he has a limited understanding of the first amendment of the United States Constitution that not only protects one's right to believe and practice a religion - which he tells us he believes - but that he has a very limited understanding of the whole Bill of Rights, having previously told us, in the presidential candidates debate in May 2007, that habeas corpus was not a right of prisoners held without charges at the United States' military base at Guantanamo when he said:
".....I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them at Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers that they'd get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people say that we should close Guantanamo, my view is: We outta double Guantanamo." He then finished: "Enhanced interrogation techniques need to be used." .
in which he further demonstrated his lack of knowledge of Brigham Young's municipal rights, the other part of the First Amendment, as well, as the teachings in the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church's Articles of Faith.
The LDS Church's 12th Article of Faith instructs its members to obey, honor and sustain the law. Advocating the denial of basic legal rights is in direct contradiction to this article and the 13th Article teaches LDS members to be benevolent, virtuous and good to all men. How "enhanced interrogation techniques" fits into being benevolent, virtuous, or good, which Article of Faith implies justice, he does not explain. Both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon, Christ taught:
"And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy, but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you. That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven."
In the LDS book of Doctrine and Covenants, Christ says:
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me."
One would think that "all mankind" means there are no exceptions.
In the Book of Mormon, in Alma, Chapter 14, when Alma and Amulek were in Zarahemla, they were smittened and imprisioned and their accusers "sought to put them away privily", intending to prevent them a hearing before the court and judges of the law, ie: deny them of their municipal rights of habeas corpus. That, is as all Mormons should know, is exactly what happened to Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum. And to put anyone "away privily" could mean any number of things including to disappear them in whatsoever manner their accusers pleased.
Then, finally, in the Book of Alma, Chapter 30, verses 7-10, there was
"no law against a man's belief, for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law.... for thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye shall serve. Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather if he believed in God, it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him."
The only laws on the books in the nation of Zarahemla were laws against crimes of person and property, which is defined in verse 11 of Alma Chapter 30,
"For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man's belief; therefore a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds."
Romney, then, seems to only not understand the laws of the United States and righteous laws throughout the world, he seems to not understand, or know that much of the history of Joseph Smith, after the restoration of the gospel, was in violation the Bill of RIghts, not only the right of him and the members of the LDS church to worship as they saw fit, but a continued violation of their municipal rights as we see in the above quotes from scripture and doctrine of the LDS Church.
At no time does Mormon belief support anything that would take away the freedom of the individual to decide for himself how to think and proceed on any matter, except for violations of the rights of persons and property of another, which are crimes. The issues that currently divide the present population including the right to life, gay marriage, the current war for hegemony over the world's natural resources for power and gain, and all other issues of any kind that have polarized the people of this country, including the right to freely worship who, what, and where they please or not do so, if they so please, Romney, in trying to make common cause with the various sects of Fundamentalist Evangelicals, forsakes that which he professes that which is not negotiable -- the teachings of his faith.
His speech, directed at a small population, told them, as well as the population at large, that he shares their position to dismantle the First Amendment and the whole of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, by appointing judges inclined to adhere to idealogical positions, rather than rule of law. He saw secularism as "a new religion in America" -- in violation of the teachings of the Book of Mormon that man also has the right to be protected in not believing in God -- and his statement on secularism implies a desire for the state to address this concern; but how to address it, he did not say. Appointing judges who would do away with anything that bespeaks of no belief in God in violation of the teachings in the Book of Mormon and LDS Church doctrine?
The Constitution does not mention God any place in it. It is a completely secular document, and it only mentions religion in the negative sense. Romney says that he is sympathetic to those who would place some religious symbols and religious texts in taxpayer funded facilities, which would of course include the Ten Commandments. Which version of four versions of the Ten Commandments would he advocate? The Old Testament? The Catholic Vulgate? The Book of Mormon? The Torah? Which of the religious symbols would he exclude? Islam has none, so there would be no decision there to make there, since Moslems believe that all religious symbols are forms of idolatry, and, indeed, a former President of the LDS Church, George Albert Smith, said - paraphrasing - that God brought forth Mohammed to rid the world of idolatry, so no need to square that one. Such a discussion presents a serious delemma for any nation when the rule law runs into the wall of a religious culture.
Romney praised America's "symphony of faith" while failing to utter a single word about the millions of American citizens who do not kneel "in prayer to the Almighty." What of the Buddhists, the Hindi, Sikkhs, the Hottentots, the tribal religions and other lesser known religions and practices whose adherents have migrated to the US? This was no oversight, as some commentators have speculated; it was an expression of ideology. Mitt Romney's America is a country defined by its Christian majority and will tolerate non-believers, only at a price: the price of exclusion from the nation's presumed theological identity.
In his eagerness to champion the Fundamentalist Evangelical tendentious views of American history and culture in his campaign to be president, Romney has opened a can of worms and those worms will have their say. If he continues, he will have boxed himself in and have no way out and he will have then opened up the cherished beliefs and practices of millions of people to ridicule and disparagment by whomever can obtain an audience.
Religion is a seriously private concern and the First Amendment protects everyone, as Brigham Young said, in their privileges. The common ground for all people in the United States is not the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, Confuscian, or Buddhists' or Hindi, or any other religious tenet or belief; it is the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. We put in peril all beliefs and practices that do not violate the person or property of another when we do not support the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.
At no time does Mormon belief support anything that would take away the freedom of the individual to decide for himself how to think and proceed on any matter, except for violations of the rights of persons and property of another, which are crimes. The issues that currently divide the present population including the right to life, gay marriage, the current war for hegemony over the world's natural resources for power and gain, and all other issues of any kind that have polarized the people of this country, including the right to freely worship who, what, and where they please or not do so, if they so please, Romney, in trying to make common cause with the various sects of Fundamentalist Evangelicals, forsakes that which he professes that which is not negotiable -- the teachings of his faith.
His speech, directed at a small population, told them, as well as the population at large, that he shares their position to dismantle the First Amendment and the whole of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, by appointing judges inclined to adhere to idealogical positions, rather than rule of law. He saw secularism as "a new religion in America" -- in violation of the teachings of the Book of Mormon that man also has the right to be protected in not believing in God -- and his statement on secularism implies a desire for the state to address this concern; but how to address it, he did not say. Appointing judges who would do away with anything that bespeaks of no belief in God in violation of the teachings in the Book of Mormon and LDS Church doctrine?
The Constitution does not mention God any place in it. It is a completely secular document, and it only mentions religion in the negative sense. Romney says that he is sympathetic to those who would place some religious symbols and religious texts in taxpayer funded facilities, which would of course include the Ten Commandments. Which version of four versions of the Ten Commandments would he advocate? The Old Testament? The Catholic Vulgate? The Book of Mormon? The Torah? Which of the religious symbols would he exclude? Islam has none, so there would be no decision there to make there, since Moslems believe that all religious symbols are forms of idolatry, and, indeed, a former President of the LDS Church, George Albert Smith, said - paraphrasing - that God brought forth Mohammed to rid the world of idolatry, so no need to square that one. Such a discussion presents a serious delemma for any nation when the rule law runs into the wall of a religious culture.
Romney praised America's "symphony of faith" while failing to utter a single word about the millions of American citizens who do not kneel "in prayer to the Almighty." What of the Buddhists, the Hindi, Sikkhs, the Hottentots, the tribal religions and other lesser known religions and practices whose adherents have migrated to the US? This was no oversight, as some commentators have speculated; it was an expression of ideology. Mitt Romney's America is a country defined by its Christian majority and will tolerate non-believers, only at a price: the price of exclusion from the nation's presumed theological identity.
In his eagerness to champion the Fundamentalist Evangelical tendentious views of American history and culture in his campaign to be president, Romney has opened a can of worms and those worms will have their say. If he continues, he will have boxed himself in and have no way out and he will have then opened up the cherished beliefs and practices of millions of people to ridicule and disparagment by whomever can obtain an audience.
Religion is a seriously private concern and the First Amendment protects everyone, as Brigham Young said, in their privileges. The common ground for all people in the United States is not the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, Confuscian, or Buddhists' or Hindi, or any other religious tenet or belief; it is the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. We put in peril all beliefs and practices that do not violate the person or property of another when we do not support the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A Coherent View of the Founding of the United States
Political professor of political science University of Chicago writes:
“….reflections on the role of religion in American politics implicitly called to mind a disturbingly distorted version of history that has become part of the conventional wisdom of American politics in recent years.
That version of history suggests that the Founders intended to create a "Christian Nation," and that we have unfortunately drifted away from that vision of the United States. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Those who promote this fiction confuse the Puritans, who intended to create a theocratic state, with the Founders, who lived 150 years later. The Founders were not Puritans, but men of the Enlightenment. They lived not in an Age of Faith, but in an Age of Reason. They viewed issues of religion through a prism of rational thought.
To be sure, there were traditional Christians among the Founders, including such men as John Jay, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Most of the Founders, however, were not traditional Christians, but deists who were quite skeptical of traditional Christianity. They believed that a benevolent Supreme Being had created the universe and the laws of nature and had given man the power of reason with which to discover the meaning of those laws.
They viewed religious passion as irrational and dangerously divisive, and they challenged, both publicly and privately, the dogmas of traditional Christianity. Benjamin Franklin, for example, dismissed most of Christian doctrine as "unintelligible." He believed in a deity who "delights" in man's "pursuit of happiness." He regarded Jesus as a wise moral philosopher, but not necessarily as a divine or divinely inspired figure. He viewed all religions as more or less interchangeable in their most fundamental tenets, which he believed required men to treat each other with kindness and respect.
Thomas Jefferson was a thoroughgoing skeptic who valued reason above faith. He subjected every religious tradition, including his own, to careful scrutiny. He had no patience for talk of miracles, revelation, and resurrection. Like Franklin, Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral philosopher, but insisted that Jesus' teachings had been distorted beyond all recognition by a succession of "corruptors," such as Paul, Augustine, and Calvin. He regarded such doctrines as predestination, trinitarianism, and original sin as "nonsense," "abracadabra" and "a deliria of crazy imaginations." He referred to Christianity as "our peculiar superstition" and maintained that "ridicule" was the only rational response to the "unintelligible propositions" of traditional Christianity.
John Adams, who identified most closely with the early Unitarians, also believed that the original teachings of Jesus had been sound, but that Christianity had subsequently gone awry. He wrote to Jefferson that the essence of his religious beliefs was captured in the phrase, "Be just and good." As President, Adams signed a treaty, unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, stating unambiguously that "the Government of the United States . . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
George Washington was respectful of traditional Christianity, but he did not have much use for it. His personal papers offer no evidence that he believed in biblical revelation, eternal life, or Jesus' divinity. Clergymen who knew Washington well bemoaned his skeptical approach to Christianity. Bishop William White, for example, admitted that no "degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in Christian revelation."
Tom Paine, the author of Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The Age of Reason, insisted that "the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian religion," because it "is free from those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason." Paine explained that deism's creed "is pure and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests. It honours Reason as the choicest gift of God to man" and "it avoids all presumptuous beliefs and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation." Paine dismissed Christianity as "a fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients." In Paine's view, traditional Christianity had "served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
These words no doubt sound shockingly blunt and "politically incorrect" to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders. The fable that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation is just that -- a fable.
It is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence does not invoke Jesus, or Christ, or Our Father, or the Almighty, but the "Laws of Nature," "Nature's God," the "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence," all phrases that belong to the tradition of deism. The Declaration of Independence is not a Puritan or Calvinist or Methodist or Baptist or Protestant or Catholic or Christian document, but a document of the Enlightenment. It is a statement that deeply and intentionally invokes the language of American deism. It is a document of its own time, and it speaks eloquently about what Americans of that time believed.
The Constitution goes even further. It does not invoke the deity at all. Unlike the Puritan documents of the early seventeenth century, it makes no reference whatever to God. It cites as its ultimate source of authority not "the command of God," but "We the People," the stated purpose of the Constitution is not to create a government "according to the will of God" but to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Significantly, the only reference to religion in the 1789 Constitution expressly prohibits the use of any religious test for public office.
The Founders were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But they also understood that religion was fundamentally a private and personal matter that had no place in the political life of a nation dedicated to the separation of church and state. They would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government sponsoring "faith-based" initiatives. They would have been quite happy to tolerate Mitt Romney's Mormonism - as long as he keeps it out of our government.
Political professor of political science University of Chicago writes:
“….reflections on the role of religion in American politics implicitly called to mind a disturbingly distorted version of history that has become part of the conventional wisdom of American politics in recent years.
That version of history suggests that the Founders intended to create a "Christian Nation," and that we have unfortunately drifted away from that vision of the United States. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Those who promote this fiction confuse the Puritans, who intended to create a theocratic state, with the Founders, who lived 150 years later. The Founders were not Puritans, but men of the Enlightenment. They lived not in an Age of Faith, but in an Age of Reason. They viewed issues of religion through a prism of rational thought.
To be sure, there were traditional Christians among the Founders, including such men as John Jay, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Most of the Founders, however, were not traditional Christians, but deists who were quite skeptical of traditional Christianity. They believed that a benevolent Supreme Being had created the universe and the laws of nature and had given man the power of reason with which to discover the meaning of those laws.
They viewed religious passion as irrational and dangerously divisive, and they challenged, both publicly and privately, the dogmas of traditional Christianity. Benjamin Franklin, for example, dismissed most of Christian doctrine as "unintelligible." He believed in a deity who "delights" in man's "pursuit of happiness." He regarded Jesus as a wise moral philosopher, but not necessarily as a divine or divinely inspired figure. He viewed all religions as more or less interchangeable in their most fundamental tenets, which he believed required men to treat each other with kindness and respect.
Thomas Jefferson was a thoroughgoing skeptic who valued reason above faith. He subjected every religious tradition, including his own, to careful scrutiny. He had no patience for talk of miracles, revelation, and resurrection. Like Franklin, Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral philosopher, but insisted that Jesus' teachings had been distorted beyond all recognition by a succession of "corruptors," such as Paul, Augustine, and Calvin. He regarded such doctrines as predestination, trinitarianism, and original sin as "nonsense," "abracadabra" and "a deliria of crazy imaginations." He referred to Christianity as "our peculiar superstition" and maintained that "ridicule" was the only rational response to the "unintelligible propositions" of traditional Christianity.
John Adams, who identified most closely with the early Unitarians, also believed that the original teachings of Jesus had been sound, but that Christianity had subsequently gone awry. He wrote to Jefferson that the essence of his religious beliefs was captured in the phrase, "Be just and good." As President, Adams signed a treaty, unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, stating unambiguously that "the Government of the United States . . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
George Washington was respectful of traditional Christianity, but he did not have much use for it. His personal papers offer no evidence that he believed in biblical revelation, eternal life, or Jesus' divinity. Clergymen who knew Washington well bemoaned his skeptical approach to Christianity. Bishop William White, for example, admitted that no "degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in Christian revelation."
Tom Paine, the author of Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The Age of Reason, insisted that "the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian religion," because it "is free from those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason." Paine explained that deism's creed "is pure and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests. It honours Reason as the choicest gift of God to man" and "it avoids all presumptuous beliefs and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation." Paine dismissed Christianity as "a fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients." In Paine's view, traditional Christianity had "served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
These words no doubt sound shockingly blunt and "politically incorrect" to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders. The fable that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation is just that -- a fable.
It is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence does not invoke Jesus, or Christ, or Our Father, or the Almighty, but the "Laws of Nature," "Nature's God," the "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence," all phrases that belong to the tradition of deism. The Declaration of Independence is not a Puritan or Calvinist or Methodist or Baptist or Protestant or Catholic or Christian document, but a document of the Enlightenment. It is a statement that deeply and intentionally invokes the language of American deism. It is a document of its own time, and it speaks eloquently about what Americans of that time believed.
The Constitution goes even further. It does not invoke the deity at all. Unlike the Puritan documents of the early seventeenth century, it makes no reference whatever to God. It cites as its ultimate source of authority not "the command of God," but "We the People," the stated purpose of the Constitution is not to create a government "according to the will of God" but to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Significantly, the only reference to religion in the 1789 Constitution expressly prohibits the use of any religious test for public office.
The Founders were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But they also understood that religion was fundamentally a private and personal matter that had no place in the political life of a nation dedicated to the separation of church and state. They would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government sponsoring "faith-based" initiatives. They would have been quite happy to tolerate Mitt Romney's Mormonism - as long as he keeps it out of our government.
.... Professor at University of Chicago
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Chipping Away At The Separation of Church and State"Freedom is not lost by a sudden thrust in the dark of the night, but, by single imperceptable digits, one at a time..."
.... Dr. Roy O. McClain
Today Mitt Romney said:
"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God."
I say, the oath of office of the president of the United States is a promise to "We The People of the United States" to uphold the Constitution; it is not a promise to God on the Constitution to uphold the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or the Koran, or any single religious text or belief, though that does not preclude the making of a promise to one's God to uphold the Constitution, if so inclined. One's relationship to one's religion is and should be of no issue or concern to the larger public.
Implicit in the oath of office of the president of the United States is, also, what Brigham Young said, is Mormon belief that "...every class of worshipers [are to be] most strictly protected in their municipal rights and in the privileges of worshiping who, what, and when they please, not infringing upon the rights of others".
In the first part of today's speech, Romney told us that he believes, with Brigham Young, in the protection of "...the privileges of worship who, what, and when they please, not infringing upon the rights of others"; however, in the second part of his speech he tells us his views on municipal rights with words that propose to undermine the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution's First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Scarecrow has more on how his words propose to undermine the Constitution and he and says it better:
"You see, the framers understood that to keep a diverse nation from tearing itself apart in religious strife they had to preserve and protect two equally important principles: the one respecting the free exercise of religion, which Romney now invokes, and the other, which Romney seeks to undermine, prohibiting the state from establishing religion.
It's on this latter principle where Romney sends a [message] to the fundamentalists who most distrust his religious views. When he says he shares their views, he means he shares the view that government should be free to undermine the establishment clause when promoting those religious tenets that he and the fundamentalists share. We hear that message throughout the speech, but to set the stage, Romney first performs an intellectual sleight of hand.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam's words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'"
[Where does that leave the views noted in the Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams on June 10, 1797 that contains the clause: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"? [Seems to me that John Adams was saying that morality and religion are not confined to just the Christian religion. editor's note.]
Note that when Romney is quoting the founders, the survival of freedom is explicitly linked to religious freedom. But then Romney does a bait and switch in the next paragraph:
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
So the original principle was that freedom and religious freedom are indivisible; that is, one is part of the other."
When Romney translates it, freedom and religion require each other, and that's the wedge he then uses to undermine the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. He then starts chipping away:
"No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. [note that in the following the establishment prohibition is now missing] But 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. The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
Most Americans would say, "well that's probably okay," but he's not done. Having said it's okay to limit the scope of the Establishment Clause, he goes on to assure the fundamentalists, who want to strangle that clause, that he's sympathetic:
'We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
"Ceremony and word"? Does that mean laws? Or faith-based initiatives run out of the White House? And what does he mean by "teaching of our history?" Isn't that a message to teaching religion -- read: our common Christian religion -- in public schools? And how should we interpret Romney's new litmus test for federal judges, if not as a requirement that they be willing to endorse government efforts to chip away at the Establishment Clause?
Romney continues:
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. [That seems to be Muslims, I think.] And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."
Then, where does that leave those who have not knelt in prayer?" (End of Scarecrow quote.)
Ted Sorensen on CNN then demonstrates that the ideas on the separation of church and state of John F. Kennedy are entirely different from the ones in Mitt Romney's speech:
"...JFK wanted to particularly stress that he believed in the separation between church and state. He believed that no one needed to worry about a Catholic bishop or a cardinal dictating to him as a president, and that freedom of religion included freedom for those to go to any church or not to go to any church at all. So, Romney emphasized the role of religion in public life more strongly than JFK did or would have....Kennedy said, his views of religion were totally his business and not the business of the American people."
Peter Montgomery shows why the Romney's emphasis is different from the JFK emphasis:
"...Romney in a dramatically different situation (from the JFK speech in 1960) is in a heated primary race, losing conservative evangelical Christian voters to Mike Huckabee, and walking a tightrope. He can’t make JFK’s appeal to church-state separation, because he’s trying to get support from people who think church-state separation is, in Pat Robertson’s phrase, a “lie of the left.” Ditto for an appeal to religious tolerance, not a high priority for the “Christian nation” crowd.Romney’s appeal is to try to convince Fundamentalist voters that they should care less about the theology of Mormonism and more about his pledge to support their religious policy priorities down the line, especially the dismantling of the wall separating church and state—and judges who agree. That’s been enough to win the support of some high-profile Fundamentalist leaders, including Paul Weyrich, Lou Sheldon and Jay Sekulow.
Thus, Romney finds himself in a bit of a box, partly of his own making. Given the power of the Fundamentalist voters in the GOP primary, and the de facto religious test many of them apply to the presidency, Romney has stressed the importance of electing a person of faith. But when he has tried to assure the Fundamentalist voters that he is a follower of Christ, he has drawn stern warnings from people like the Southern Baptists’ Richard Land, because many evangelicals view Mormonism as a cult.
According to http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=267
Pew polls, more than a third of white evangelicals, and more than 4 in 10 of evangelicals who attend church weekly, say they’re less likely to vote for a candidate who is Mormon. Says Land, “When he goes around and says Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior, he ticks off at least half the evangelicals.”
Mike Huckabee, in many ways the dream candidate for Fundamentalist voters, isn’t trying to make things any easier for Romney. While deflecting opportunities to comment directly on whether or not Mormons are Christians, Huckabee has encouraged others to ask Romney. “If we’re going to ask me about my faith, let’s ask all the candidates about theirs,” he suggests. “Now as you noticed, I’m not hesitant or reluctant to talk about mine.”
In October, a prominent Dallas minister, Robert Jeffress, speaking of Romney, said, “It’s a little hypocritical for the last eight years to be talking about how important it is for us to elect a Christian president and then turn around and endorse a non-Christian,” he said. “Christian conservatives are going to have to decide whether having a Christian president is really important or not.”
The Fundamentalist's long public war on church-state separation and religious pluralism has been cheered on by Republican officials as long as it has been a weapon against Democratic candidates. But it’s not as much fun for them when the target is one of the GOP’s top contenders." (End of Peter Montgomery quote.)
Now from Peterr:
"From start to finish, Romney's speech this morning entitled "Faith in America" was a political -- not a religious -- speech. Romney wanted to say "I believe in the separation of church and state," yet he tried to reach out to evaneglicals who are moving toward Mike Huckabee and bring them back by saying in essence "Americans are people of faith, their leader must be a person of faith, and I'm the best faithful leader out there."
It's kind of hard to reconcile those two, but Mitt gave it a good try. The best way to do it, of course, is to go after the straw people. For instance, early in the speech Romney said, "But 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."
That's not quite it, exactly.
What "some" people want removed from the public domain is the government taking official notice of and granting preference to (a) religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs, and (b) favoring certain religious believers over others with different beliefs (religous or otherwise).
The Constitution says not one word about God, and refers to religion only twice -- and both times in the negative, to constrain the government's interaction with religion. People are free to impose a religious test (or any other kind of test, for that matter) on the candidates for office as they consider for whom they will vote; [but] the government cannot put such a test as a requirement for holding office. People are free to be religious or not; the government must be blind to religion.
There were many things in the speech that indicated to me the lack of knowledge...on Romney's part as to who believers are, what they think, and how they live.
But the bigger problem I saw in Romney's speech jumped out when he said this:
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."
For all Romney says about history in this speech, this paragraph is proof that his knowledge is very limited, indeed. Abolition of slavery, for instance, divided families, congregations, and entire denominations. The Presbyterians split in 1861, and didn't reunite until 1983, for crying out loud.
Despite his claim of a "common course" based on "great moral principles," there continues to be great division among religious people over all kinds of issues.
Committed Roman Catholics, for instance, interpret "right to life" to mean opposition to the death penalty; evangelical fundamentalists see the death penalty as a completely separate issue. Some religious groups embrace GLBTs, while others do not. Yet Romney, trying to reach the evangelicals who are moving toward Huckabee, blithely says in essence, "all religious folks have the same moral beliefs." However, the above instances note that that is not true.
"We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny," says Romney -- but he makes it clear he is talking only about "radical Islam."
Romney's language about America's churches having a common moral creed and his assumption that every American is religious points to a different kind of tyranny when he says, "And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."
Where once again does that leave those who have not knelt in prayer to the Almighty?
The bottom line for Romney is that he has to reach out to the fundamentalist evangelical voters. He mouths the words about separation of church and state to mollify moderates, but his strongest language is aimed directly at the evangelicals who are leaning toward Huckabee and others on the right, telling them that he's a good, religious guy -- and Americans need a good religious leader in the White House.
Lots of the pre-speech hype and post-speech spin has compared this speech with John F. Kennedy's address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. In comparing the actual speeches, though, the endings make clear that Romney and Kennedy are two very different kinds of politicians, trying to reach two very different kinds of people.
Kennedy said this to close his speech:
"But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God."
Compare that with Romney's conclusion:
"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics. Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation. In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.' God bless the United States of America."
Kennedy's last word is from the constitution and Romney's is a story about prayer. Kennedy wants to speak to all Americans; Romney wants to reach the evangelical fundamentalists." (End of Peterr quote.)
So, now, what do we have here? Courtesy of the International Herald Tribune:
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, called Romney’s speech “a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy.” He added, “Whether it will answer all the questions and concerns of evangelical Christian voters is yet to be determined, but the governor is to be commended for articulating the importance of our religious heritage as it relates to today.”
Sounds like Dobson is opening the door to further conversations with Romney. It’s a lot more of a welcome than Rudy’s ever going to get.
And this from E. J. Dionne, columnist from the Washington Post:
"... “Freedom,” he said, “requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
And to those who see religion as “merely a private affair with no place in public life,” he had this to say: “It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America—the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”
Well. Religion can certainly be conducive to freedom. But does freedom require religion? Is religion always conducive to freedom? Does freedom not also thrive in far more secular societies than our own? Isn’t the better course for our nation to seek solidarity among lovers of liberty, secular as well as religious? After all, it was a coalition of believers and secularists, as the Princeton scholar Jeffrey Stout has noted, that sent a communist dictatorship tumbling down in Pope John Paul II’s native Poland.
And Romney’s knock on the “religion of secularism” was pure pandering to the religious right. I hope Romney’s eloquence about “our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty” persuades voters who need convincing that it would be terribly divisive if his Mormonism were a factor in how he fares in the primaries. I wish he had felt less need to water down his boldness with politically convenient assertions that would also divide us, just in different ways. "
Now, Kevin Drum:
"....Romney is doing nothing more than engaging in what's become routine disparagement of those who aren't religious. Not only does Romney not have the courage to speak in even a single passing phrase about the nonreligious, as JFK did, he went out of his way to insist that "freedom requires religion," that no movement of conscience is possible without religion, and that judges had better respect our "foundation of faith" lest our country's entire greatness disappear."
And Joan Walsh:
"Romney blasted "the new religion of secularism," referring to those who continue to argue for strict separation of church and state, which apparently, like certain of the Geneva Conventions under the Bush administration, is becoming "quaint." I sometimes find the anti-God stridency of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens grating. Listening to Romney's speech I realized what a necessary corrective it is to corrosive political pandering. Calling secularism "religion" is a cheap shot not worthy of a major presidential candidate."
Even Sally Quinn theVillage Sunday School teacher and society hostess said this:
"...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, if not, you're not."
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law," wroteThomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.
David Kuo pointed out that this whole discussion stokes division among all Americans and that it was wrong for him not to include non-believers among the American family.
Here are some very interesting takes on Mitt's speech at BeliefNet.
Steve Waldman:
"About three percent of the population are atheists or agnostics, according to a study by the Pew Religious Forum. Another 7.5% are secularists who have no religious affiliation and few or no religious beliefs or practices.That means there are four or five times as many non-believers as there are Mormons. A candidate declaring his distaste for a particular demographic group in this way has said that 22 million possible votes are of no matter to him. Non believers and secularists may not be a big voting bloc in the Republican primaries, but 10.5% is roughly 22 million people."
All Protestant faiths are offshoots of the Catholic faith, in whose eyes Protestants are often viewed as heretics and "false" Christians. A knowledge of the history of Christianity shows this. The argument rehashes the same old tired question of whether Mormons are Christian... evangelicals must get over therir obsession with this question. Theology's main value is that it illuminates the ways in which we are all trying to find our own unique meaning in life. In terms of Christianity, there are several interpretations: Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Mormon Christianity, and many other strains of Christianity.
Most evangelicals are not afraid that a President Romney will impose his esoteric Mormon morality on the rest of us and not really worried he’ll try to ban caffeine (though Huckabee might), or hand out tax breaks for special religious articles.....and as one evangelical says:
"Evangelicals are afraid that nominating a Mormon will legitimize a cult. Can Romney say something can assuage that fear. He didn't say it today.
And for evangelicals this makes his faith a legitimate concern for GOP primary voters. Why? Because Mitt will depress turnout. Many voters who might otherwise pull the GOP lever will stay home debating whether it’s worse to mainstream Mormonism forever, therefore, faith aside, he’s the wrong choice because he’s less likely to win.
It doesn’t matter how convincingly Romney claims he’ll compartmentalize his faith. Nor does it matter if, say, Romney makes the Huckster his veep. In fact, Romney taints the ticket whether he’s the presidential OR the vice presidential nominee. This is what a lot of evangelicals really think but are afraid to say publicly.
Even if Romney was Mormon only by name I still believe that nominating him would help to legitimize the Mormon faith. Which is only a problem because I believe that the Mormon faith is false and damaging to our culture. However, that being said, there are more damaging things being legitimized everyday, and it is my choice to help or not to help legitimize them, as it it is my government given right to vote for a president of my choice for my own reasons, religious included.
The next question I need to ask my self is what is most important? There are things more important than not helping to legitimize a cult, certainly, but do other candidates offer a better alternative then compromising on this issue? Probably. But, if Romney can present himself as the best candidate above all others, it'll make it very hard not to vote for him.
All that being said I've heard it said that the best way to deal with a cult is to let them speak up about what they believe. To allow the light to shine in the the poorly lit areas and reveal. It might be a good idea to allow Mormonism to be more mainstream, it may open people's eyes to its twisted version of "christianity" and draw more critics. It is a very new religion, quick growth and powerful people do not legitimize it. Maybe the result will be like that of Tom Cruise and Scientology.
Posted by: James December 7, 2007 3:07 PM "
Founders' Views:
I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." ....Benjamin Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect." ....James Madison
"Had you [Thomas Jefferson] and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it." ...John Adams
"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words." ....-- Thomas Jefferson
"The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind." ....Thomas Paine
"Do Mormans, like evangelical Christians believe in the concept of Heaven and Hell? Do good in this life and be rewarded with everlasting peace in Paradise. So Mitt, based on the teachings of your Morman faith, will Cheney and bush, 2 guys that lied this country into war, a war that has led to 10's of thousands of needless deaths, be rewarded with eternal salvation? Have they lived and acted in accordance with your deep Morman values? As Commander in Chief would you willfully lie to the American people and manipulate critical information to justify a war? Your answers will help us decide if you're suited to be President of the USA.
He dropped in evangelical code phrases and themes like the de-Christianization of Europe, the dangers of a secular America and America's godly heritage.... He said he was going to stand up for his faith and that he wasn't going to get into the business of theology. Then he did just that.
In the middle of the speech was this: There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. 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. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
In that single paragraph he blew his chance to shut the door on the pastor-in-chief idea because he was, consciously or not, making the theological argument that Mormonism was basically a part of historic Christianity. And it is, in the judgment of most liberal and conservative Christian theologians, not a part of historic Christianity. The fact that we will now be debating this is evidence of the one paragraph gaffe.
Kennedy's 1960 speech succeeded in no small part because it was devoid of any religious sentiment. Nowhere in that speech did Kennedy say anything about what he believed. In fact, he said religion was a fundamentally private matter.
"...perhaps because he wanted evangelicals to know that Mike Huckabee wasn't the only one who could talk about Jesus, he did the theology thing. And now, instead of moving past this matter - as we should be doing because debating theology is decidedly not what presidential elections are supposed to be about..."
"All of this points to our very, very big problem. Our debate and discussion about faith and politics is, increasingly, just a discussion about faith. That is toxic for our politics and for our faith. We need to be having theological discussions. They are important and valuable. We certainly need to be talking about politics. Pick your reason why.
But we're not getting either one. Instead we are getting politically-inspired theology discussions and theologically-inspired political discussions. Someone needs to hit a reset button because this is one of the ways religious intolerance takes root.
Perhaps what our country could use right now is a pledge by all of the candidates for president to:
1) Declare they respect and admire the faith of every other candidate;
2) Admit that no particular religion qualifies or disqualifies anyone for the presidency;
3) Promise not to manipulate religion to advance their political agendas.
Yes it is a small thing, yes it is a symbolic thing, but it might begin to restore some sanity to our increasingly goofy faith and politics discussion.
They just might have written, religion is the lightning bug, and faith, the lightning bolt, while perhaps knowing that America would spend at least the next three hundred years trying to reverse those tenets in the pursuit of power, greed, personal aggrandizement, political domination and world-threatening behaviors like "nation-building".
"Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the atheist? ... Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God." ...Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to Thomas Law, 1814.
Freedom does not require religion. In fact, freedom from the tyranny of religion was the start of democratic governments in the western world. Putting an end to the divine right of kings as well as the divine connection of priests was and remains essential for freedom of thought and action. Romney's statement that this nation is not for those of us who believe rational thought can lead one to a proper life is mistaken. Most of the nation's Founding Father's would have been dismayed by this turn of events.
Hitchens and Dawkins and others have every right to their smug, smarmy, shallow contempt for religion, and to broadcast it as they see fit. That's a core principle of both my own religous ethics and what I understand of Constitutional law. But I really can't see them as "corrective" to theocratic pandering like Romney's. Rather, they just blindly hand him ammunition. They handily confirm the Christian right's boogeyman of combative, anti-faith non-believers, even as they stand alongside it and help uphold its lazy bigotry that there can be no tolerant, peaceful, liberal, or intellectually honest faith. Or any that joyfully respects a free, secular state with equal protection for all its citizens without regard to belief.
Romney's statement should be very disturbing to religious believers. Not only what he says to the rights of our non-religous fellow citizens...but what if Romney gets it into his head to define just what religion freedom requires? I doubt mine would make the cut.... " (comment by an atheist)
Religion, Inc.
America is where Christianity has come to die. It's not going to be a pretty death, either, at the rate the fundamentalists are going with it -- if ever a faith was more roundly gutted and compromised than American-style Christianity, it hasn't been invented, yet. The desired welding of Church(tm) and State(tm) is a recipe for dogmatic oblivion and crosscultural apocalypse. The revolution will be televangelized.
Rebuild that Jeffersonian Wall!
"It's Mr. Romney who deserves the opprobrium, not atheists or religious folks per se. The realization that he must kowtow to fundamentalist Protestants who hold the power in his party must be galling to him, yet he does it. He does it regardless of what he may or may not believe himself.
As a lifelong Catholic.... I hope for the reestablishment in our country of a strong wall of separation between ANY church and our state. Please, keep the creches and menorahs and satanic altars off the city hall steps; (by the way, who's going to answer the question as to which 10 commandments we're going to worship in the park? So far, they've never been the ones I know.)
Let kids who aren't part of the controlling religious culture get through their day without any pressures to pray from their teachers; get some historical sense ingrained into our citizens so they stop falling for the "Christian, godly founders" line. Let scientists teach science, not fairy tales. Let people love and partner with whomever they choose. End capital punishment and find compassionate and sensible ways to deal with undocumented immingrants. Find better ways to help the milions of voiceless poor in our rich nation. Vote for the candidates we think will do the best job, regardless of their religion, and regardless of which ones our religious leaders approve of. Donohue or Robertson, they sing from the same hymnal. Worry more about our own failings and a lot less about our neighbors'.
What a nice country that might be. I can go to church and my best friend can stay home, and our wives can meet at temple. We're all about as likely to end up in heaven as not, regardless. Well, if there is one....
Second, religious beliefs provide unique insight into the man or woman being examined. If a candidate says, for example, that he takes the Bible literally, as "the inspired word of God," then he is saying that he believes in the right to commit genocide in order to steal land, in slavery, in selling one's own daughter into slavery, in murdering one's own children for disobedience, that there was no death on Planet Earth prior to 4004 BC, that the sun can stop moving across the sky, etc.
While we cannot by law require a candidate to be of or not be of a particular religious persuasion, we have every right, indeed we have a duty to our nation to question every candidate tirelessly as to these kinds of questions so that we can judge the character of the man or woman. A candidate that believes the earth and every life form on it is only 6,000 years old rejects 99.9% of everything we have learned about science, about physics, and about the universe. I have a right (and desire) to know if the person I'm voting for rejects the full body of our scientific learning.
If, on the other hand, a candidate says that he believes the Bible but concedes that many of the stories therein should be read as metaphors rather than taken literally, we have different problem.
Which stories are true and which are just stories? How does one know? Dare I suggest that the picking and choosing is done to the advantage of the individual's own personal aims and needs? Is that not exactly what happened in the lead up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Third, the Mormon issue is of specific concern because of how it plays along with these first two points. The vast majority of Americans – remember that Mormons make up less than two percent of our population – are deeply ignorant of what Mormons really believe and would immediately disqualify a Mormon candidate for president if said candidate ever spoke openly of those beliefs. (Mormons believe all non-Mormon Christians since the days of the Apostles are and were heretics, for one thing.)
Knowing what Mitt Romney or any other candidate believes is – or should be for any thinking person – an absolute requirement in the choice for president. The idea that we cannot ask about a candidate's faith or religious beliefs is preposterous. The fact that the press won’t ask about a candidate's faith or religious beliefs is criminal.
If you think religion does not play a role regardless of majority public opinions in almost everything our government does...you need only look to two hot button issues for the Fundamentalist Christians. More than 70% of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose and more than 75% of current active duty military personnel believe gays and lesbian should be able to serve openly, as they do in most all leading nations. But would Mitt Romney have a chance if he voiced support for either of these religion-based controversies?
Unless a candidate can stand before America's church leaders and declare, "My religious beliefs, my faith, will never influence any decision I make as president and will never influence any policy set forth by my administration, then we absolutely must know what those beliefs are. Furthermore, we (the people) did not introduce this discussion of faith in the first place. If the Fundamentalist Christians can make religion an issue in any way, then it must be examined and discussed as an issue. An issue because it is important to them.
Imagine a Jewish candidate. Will you not admit the absolute number one point of rejection by Republicans would be: He (or she) rejects Jesus Christ as the son of God? Tolerance for another's religious beliefs does not mean that you accept those beliefs as viable; rather, it means that you accept that a person has the right to hold those beliefs. A person's religious beliefs – fundamentalist, moderate, anti-theist – inform and guide in the most elementary ways. To anyone who suggests that a candidate's religious beliefs are not an issue, I need only direct you, once again, to our Current Occupant. Imagine if God had told him NOT to invade Iraq. Or, imagine if God told him to issue an executive order overturning Roe VS Wade. If he, with God's blessing, can destroy the Constitution without so much as whimper from the cowering general public, what's to stop him – or any other religion proponent – from throwing out one pesky little verdict?
If you do not know or bother to ask what a person believes, you have no cause to ever – not ever – complain when his or her belief system comes in opposition to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". ...David, a Catholic. (End of quote)
Governor Romney :
"You roundly disregard the great diversity of religious beliefs and mislead your audience regarding historical facts demonstrating a need for an education in the areas of religion and history. To begin there are several of the more egregious errors I found in your speech:
Error 1) you appreciate “the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages.”
Not so, Judaism has changed considerably through the ages. In the United States alone there are three main branches of Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. There are traditional variations within and amongst each of them, and none of them practices Judaism the way it was practiced when the Temple of Solomon was around. Even in the time of Solomon, there were different sects of Jews, with differing traditions.
Error 2) you claim that all religions have “principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself . . .”
Not so: All religions do not hold these values in common. In more modern times, your religion campaigned against a Constitutional Amendment that would have given equal rights to women. Other religions or their adherents were in favor of equal rights for women. Finally, what exactly do you mean by “the right to life itself?” If you mean that the government should have the ability to control women’s bodies, then no, not all religions favor that.
Error 3) you said, “during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.”
You wrongly suppose that Judaism and Christianity are the country’s only two religions, or systems of belief.
Error 4) you said that we all, “believe that every single human being is a child of God.”
I know that members of your religion believe that, but lots of religions don’t. Most religions believe that we are God’s creations, but not that we are his children, other than in an adoptive sense.
Some Jews believe that G-d created Adam out of the Earth, and Eve from Adam, and that we are their descendants. Other Jews believe in evolution. Many Jews don’t even believe in God. Don’t be shocked. Many religions can function just fine without being God centered.
Error 5) you said, “No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty.”
Our sacrifice has been miniscule compared with others. Look at plight of the Native Americans who we slaughtered and displaced to get this great country of ours. They sacrificed a lot more, and got a lot less.
Error 6) of World Wars I and II you said, “America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars.”
We got everything from those two wars. We became the world’s number one superpower.
Error 7) you said of Americans, “They came here from England to seek freedom of religion.”
Not so. Americans have come from all over the world. Some of them came from England. Some of them came from China. Some of them came because they had been sold into slavery. Our heritage as Americans is not merely and English one.
I hope you found this instructive. If you would like to continue your education, or you would just like to know more about how an atheistic Jew sees America, please don’t hesitate to give me a call."
To many Christians, not being able to persuade others to adopt their views is a loss of freedom... in putting up the Ten Commandments up in public buildings: which particular ten commandments would be used for that, the Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon set?
The sooner that we stop using the rules of specific versions of Christianity to drive our political decision making and start sticking to principles (which are pretty common across religions), the better off we'll be.
Romney is telling conservative Christian voters that they should not be view him as the enemy because of his mormon faith. He tells them they should view him as an ally against the secular state.
The Founders of the Constitution of the United States believed:
"...specific religious practices were not to be the business of governments and secularism and atheism are to be tolerated. There is to be no religious test for election to office. Putting "in god we trust" on coins, opening Congress with a prayer, displaying creches,the ten commandments, and menorahs in the public square, are ok for me. Using government money for faith based programs that signifcantly promote a religion, or teaching religious practice in public schools clearly are not acceptable.
The Fundamentalists do not accept this. They believe that America was founded as a Christian nation and should function as one. The separation wall between church and state stipulated in the first amendment is to be demolished. They see the federal courts as the roadblock to this goal and have as their primary political objective to place enough like minded justices on the Supreme Court to nullify the first ammendment. This requires the religious right to gain the presidency and effective control of the Senate to effect this objective...left to their own devices, they would change the constitution to make christianity the national religion, restrict other religions, allow religious classes in public schools, and permit the spending of federal tax dollars on religious activities. These people believe they speak for God and they are not afraid to force the rest of us to live by their rules.
Thank goodness he spoke up! Now, we can truly understand Gov Romney's political idealogy and how they exclude all those who are not religious (in the way he defines religion). How can those who do not believe in a creator God have freedom? What country can they find and thrive in? Romney's stance here is cloaked with smiles, seeming reason and a false patriotism. Our government was designed to allow freedom of belief, and be inclusive; and from Romney's speech, he is proposing an inclusive/exclusive model, in what is widely viewed as a speech of pivotal importance, gives the thinking, open-minded voter ample grounds to disqualify the governor from this race."
"It would be nice if somebody in the media would be willing to ask Romney, plain and simple, how his contention that "secularism is dooming society and a good dose of religion is the answer" is any different than the contentions of Wahhabists and Taliban members who claim the exact same thing but with a different faith as the solution.
"...when Romney flipped on the abortion issue, he lost me. Not because we don't agree, but because he formed his initial pro-choice position as an adult, campaigning for it publicly. It was, presumably, the conclusion of an adult man as close to God then as he is now.
And yet, now, he feels completely different! While I think it is a sign of maturity to rethink a position, Romney didn't really display much when he flopped a 180 on the abortion issue. He saw that it wasn't possible to win the Republican nomination unless he compromised his principles, and so he did.
No wonder he's so anxious to get us to agree that 'freedom requires religion' - - since his stance on everything else is so malleable, taking this sort of global, nonsensensical stance gives him carte blanche to change this beliefs at will, so long as they are 'religious'.
For the record Dawkins and Hitchens are anti-organized religion, not anti-God. Not believing in something is quite different from being anti - something. Which religions? The summary left me wondering -- does Romney equate "religion" with just Judiasm, Christianity and Islam? Or is there room at his table for Buddhists, Hindus, and billions of other people as well? This isn't a rhetorical question since an increasing number of Americans follow those religions, both as native followers and converts. In my community the most popular "churches" in the local alternate newspaper's yearly ratings are a Unity church (#1) and a Shambhala Buddhist center (#2). Both would be alien places to most people.
If secularism is a religion... ...then, according to Romney, freedom requires it. "Freedom requires humility, love, and open-mindedness." In some contexts, that is the same as saying, "Freedom requires religion."
Romney's quotes on torture are much disturbing. As an atheist, why is it that to so many religions, "atheist" is synonymous with "immoral"? That somehow because I don't subscribe to any religion, I'll end breaking laws, killing people, crashing cars, breaking into houses, and whatnot? That I cannot possibly have a moral compass without religion?
There are far more laws and rules that govern my life, as an atheist than those found in religious texts. I happen to be a nice person. I mow the lawn, pick up my neighbor's mail, volunteer, and generally live a sane, lawful life.
If I hailed from India and explained to my Christian neighbors that I was Hindu, and celebrating Diwali, the Christian neighbors would think it was interesting, and welcome the diversity in their neighborhood. If I announced to my Christian neighbors publicly that I'm an atheist, I'm greeted with either sorrow or silence. Why? Why is it so frightening to religious people to have someone in their midst who just doesn't buy it? Why is it socially acceptable to say "I'm a Presbyterian" or "we're Jewish" or "my family is Mormon" but not "I'm an atheist"? Why does being an atheist feel like a dirty secret in America?
Freedom does NOT require religion. Freedom requires that people are allowed to practice their religions as they see fit, and also that people are allowed to NOT practice any religion and still be accepted members of society.
Romney uses exclusionary, repressive, totalitarian language against other Americans? Okay, I can understand - though never approve - that kind of talk about other countries; but Romney is advocating an antagonistic stance against law-abiding citizens of the country he wants to run. Not terrorists, not illegal immigrants, not criminals. Just plain ol' Americans, who work and eat and pay taxes, who haven't done anybody any harm and whose only offense is exercising the very same rights that Romney himself trumpets in his speech. Those rights belong to EVERYBODY - didn't this guy show up for high school Civics class?? " End of quote.
A little perspective on Mormon Doctrine. Mormons teach that mankind come to earth for a purpose. That purpose is to be tested. Two plans in the pre-mortal existence were presented to Mormon God. One was by Satan who would force everyone to obey God's commandments. The other one was presented by God's first first-born, Jesus, who wanted man to decide and choose for himself whether to follow God and progress (evolve) throughout the eternities, or reject God's laws and be subject to the eternal status quo. God chose to give mankind the freedom to choose for themselves.
From Mitt's perspective, the freedoms that exist in the United States come from God, freedoms that were instituted to allow the restored true gospel of Jesus Christ to be restored in a country that values freedom of religion and tolerance for divergent beliefs. Mitt truly believes this. While what Romney believes is true, his understanding is very limited and compromised.
But, God also gave man the freedom not to believe that. The common historic version of Christianity is not the one Mormons believe and to teach in public education the Christian religion as generally practiced by Americans would be to teach false doctrine from the Mormon perspective.
In what context does religion equate to "humility, love, and open-mindedness"? Freedom requires religion?" Maybe in Saudi Arabia or Talibanistan, where nonbelievers are publicly executed. "Secularism is a religion?" Anyone who would say that doesn't know the difference between philosophy and religion, and is incapable of successfully practicing either.
When an obviously intelligent presidential candidate has to abase himself to win the support of religionists in order to secure the nomination of a major American political party, at least one segment of this country is in need of correcting its course, and it's up to the rest of us to put forth the means or correction. Romney's speech was an example of the tail wagging the elephant."
It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. --John Adams
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams
Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. -- Fisher Ames, the man who actually drafted the First Amendment, not Thomas Jefferson, who wasn't even in the country when the Constitution was written.
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. --Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. --Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. --Joseph Storey, Supreme Court justice
There's way more of the same for anyone who's actually interested in the facts. What Romney said today would be considered mealy-mouthed to our Founders.
Treaty of Tripoli?
Article 11 reads: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." John Adams approved and signed it.
"The central reason why religion cannot be open minded - it teaches that there is one universal truth and it has the answers. Science, on the other hand, teaches that we don't have the answers, most of the stuff we think we know is wrong, and that until we can prove something we should be very careful of actually accepting it as fact.
Atheism is not a denial of the gods, it is a denial of our belief in the gods. Should the evidence mount up going against our basic assumption of there being no gods, our beliefs will mostly shift accordingly (Though whether we follow those gods is another question entirely.)
Now atheists are generally fearful because there are various christianists out there who seem to think atheism equals immorality when the only movement I can think of seriously dedicated to bringing about the end of the world I can think of - the Rapturist movement - is, in fact, religious.
The Bible does not tell us to not engage in slavery, it does not tell us to not engage in torture, it does not tell us to treat other races as equals.
Nor are people who aren't Christians less moral (Just look up some jail statistics for example.) This is not to say that Christians are less moral than atheists, but rather simply that we are not moral people because someone up there decided to tell us to be moral. We are moral because we have advanced towards empathy, towards caring about each other and have started to look beyond established beliefs to find our moral mores.
In the face of Romney's statments, let's make it tougher:
Let's say something like "We live in a pluralistic society where a wall has been built between church and state in order to protect all of us from the imposition of religion. We do not need to follow a particular creed or to even be religious or even believe in God to be full citizens."
Candidates should proclaim loud and clear about the values that inform our democracy -- among them the freedom to worship as we will but also freedom from the rule of religion in our lives. Our seminal documents speak to this. This is who we are as a nation. Anyone who says that the wall does not exist or that the wall should be brought down, who conflates freedom and religious belief, does not get it.
On the other hand, maybe we should all be asking (again and once more) why the candidates are even talking about personal religious beliefs in the first place as a measure of their suitability for office. This is serious stuff with serious long-term consequences to our collective freedoms.
There are still a number of other religions that are NOT covered by this "acceptance" in the public sphere in this country. And my point is, if you can't expressly ACCEPT and WELCOME all of them, then you shouldn't be expressly accepting and welcoming only SOME of them.
"Freedom is not lost by a sudden thrust in the dark of the night, but by single imperceptable digits, one at a time...." Roy O. McClain, Pastor First Baptist Church, Atlanta, in a seminar in 1958.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)