quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.
I agree. You summed up my opinion of the speech very succinctly.
Like Mucus says, whether or not it's politically expedient is a separate issue. But Romney loses there anyway: he's shown through a litany of flip-flops that he's willing to say whatever he can to get elected. For example, his positions as a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts on gay rights, gun control and abortion were all diametrically opposed to his current ones.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like Mucus says, whether or not it's politically expedient is a separate issue. But Romney loses there anyway: he's shown through a litany of flip-flops that he's willing to say whatever he can to get elected. For example, his positions as a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts on gay rights, gun control and abortion were all diametrically opposed to his current ones.
This is not true. The only major change in opinion of Romney that I am aware of his is views on abortion. His views on gay rights, gun control, etc have remained largely unchanged.
I agree that political expediency does not make the situation right, but Mucus and I seem to be using "test" in a different manner.
Romney used the word test in regards to those who say his religion makes him unelectable as president. Some of you are calling Romney's attempt to placate people's fears concerning his religion an attempt to, "pass a test."
Many if not most political commentators have said that Romney's traditional refusal to go in depth about his religion is what is going to lose him the race as it appeared he was ashamed of his religion, or at the least viewed it as a liability. Would you folks have preferred he continued staying the course even though his strategy was running a serious risk of failure?
What is inherently wrong in a candidate addressing his religious views and clarifying how those views will effect the administration he runs? How is it any different then say a gay candidate talking about how he/she will approach gay rights? Or an atheist attempting to express to the religious why he will still protect their rights so far as the constitution states?
If Romney wins, I imagine the next Mormon candidate will have the luxury of being able to avoid all the hullabaloo that people are making about Romney's faith. Just as Giuliani's Catholicism is a non issue today.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Judge Jones was actually the one from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, not Kansas.
darrrrgh
Dang, what judge are we talking about then? I guess I just totally don't remember the Kansas judge?
I think it was Ron that was confused in the first place. The ruling that ID was not science occurred in the Dover case.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Thanks, Lem. But I did not slander a good judge. It is those of you who keep repeating that inaccurate statement who are engaging in slander. I stated the truth, that he allowed himself to be swayed by the mainstream majority, who are past masters at browbeating laymen. If this were not true, he would have recognized that the scientific basis for Intelligent Design is far better than for evolution, because that is the factual reality that anyone who honestly evaluates the evidence for himself will agree.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Evangelicals did not have to question whether Catholics believe in Christ, or in a concept of the trinity, . . .
It is still a commonly held belief that Catholics are not Christian. I have been told this back when I self-identified as Catholic, I have been outraged for children of my friends who were told this by people who should have known better, and I have actually seen it argued on this very forum that Catholics are not Christians.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Evangelicals did not have to question whether Catholics believe in Christ, or in a concept of the trinity, . . .
It is still a commonly held belief that Catholics are not Christian. I have been told this back when I self-identified as Catholic, I have been outraged for children of my friends who were told this by people who should have known better, and I have actually seen it argued on this very forum that Catholics are not Christians.
Well, the Pope did come out not too long ago and say that only the Catholic Church was the true one.
Goes to show that even if there were no atheists, the believers would have no shortage of people to go after.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Goes to show that even if there were no atheists, the believers would have no shortage of people to go after.
This just in! This just in! Human beings like to band together in groups and go after the outsiders! Extra, extra, read all about it! Breaking news!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh yeah. So we can't hurt anything by coming up with plenty of reasons to keep that pattern going.
Don't be like that, Javert. You made an obvious observation and left it alone, as though that was all there was to be said. If all religion as a force in human societies did was enable grouping and hostility towards outsiders, then it would obviously be something that should be discarded immediately if not sooner.
But that's not reality, so why make such an incomplete observation?
Well, that was rhetorical, it's pretty clear why you made the observation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, so the pope came out and expressed his opinion that he and the folks who agree with him are right? Huh. Guess what? I am also of the opinion that the opinions I hold are correct. I could be wrong, but I would guess most atheists would agree, when pressed, that atheism is correct. And the Mormons would agree that the Mormons have it right.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, the Pope did recently make a statement defining some theological differences. That is a far cry from "going after" anybody.
BB, Again, I am not so much faulting Romney as the fact that his religion should be an issue. I do believe that Kennedy's respone was braver, but I think that Romney's was certainly in line with the political climate. It is the climate that is the problem.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Um, so the pope came out and expressed his opinion that he and the folks who agree with him are right? Huh. Guess what? I am also of the opinion that the opinions I hold are correct. I could be wrong, but I would guess most atheists would agree, when pressed, that atheism is correct. And the Mormons would agree that the Mormons have it right.
I was merely responding to your comment. Yes, it is a widely held belief that Catholics aren't Christians. It is also a widely held belief that only Catholics are Christians.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I do believe that Kennedy's respone was braver, but I think that Romney's was certainly in line with the political climate."
How in the world can you say Kennedy's response was braver than Romney's? If anything, Romney's was much braver because HE ACTUALLY EXPRESSES BELIEF in something that part of his audience thinks is an abomination. All Kennedy said was "my religion is meaningless to me, so there is nothing to fear."
By the way, anyone who thinks Romney's speech was inauthentic or less than Mormon really doesn't understand Mormon religious culture. I think this was the most Mormon speech he has ever given. Was it political pandering? Only so far as all political speech is pandering. Otherwise, there isn't anything he said that any given Mormon would not have said. He could have given this in a Mormon meeting near the Fourth of July without any changes. Take that for what you will, but my point is that pandering it may be, but not outside of solid ground for his own faith.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: How in the world can you say Kennedy's response was braver than Romney's? If anything, Romney's was much braver because HE ACTUALLY EXPRESSES BELIEF in something that part of his audience thinks is an abomination.
Please. His intended audience already knew that he was Mormon. He was just trying to point out a common ground so that he could get more votes. No bravery in that.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: All Kennedy said was "my religion is meaningless to me, so there is nothing to fear."
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Some of you are calling Romney's attempt to placate people's fears concerning his religion an attempt to, "pass a test."
Indeed.
quote:What is inherently wrong in a candidate addressing his religious views and clarifying how those views will effect the administration he runs?
Nothing. The question is whether the emphasis is placed on the former in order to win friends, or the emphasis is placed on the later in order to soothe fears.
Or analogously, convincing a skeptical father that you can indeed take his daughter out to the dance because, hey, you both drive real American Ford vehicles, not those damn Japanese imports and thus you *must* have something in common rather than convincing him because you're a trustworthy and responsible guy.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Goes to show that even if there were no atheists, the believers would have no shortage of people to go after.
To be fair, I didn't really read that statement as "hey, let's go after those guys when we have a chance!"
Instead, I read it more as, "Well, we're making friends with those guys. Thats cool, thats cool. But hey, just so we're clear in case you're thinking about switching or for you new guys, let's make it clear who's the real cool frood...yo. *points at himself*"
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: By the way, anyone who thinks Romney's speech was inauthentic or less than Mormon ...
I must admit, you've piqued my curiosity here. Who was this particular jab aimed at?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Um, so the pope came out and expressed his opinion that he and the folks who agree with him are right? Huh. Guess what? I am also of the opinion that the opinions I hold are correct. I could be wrong, but I would guess most atheists would agree, when pressed, that atheism is correct. And the Mormons would agree that the Mormons have it right.
I was merely responding to your comment. Yes, it is a widely held belief that Catholics aren't Christians. It is also a widely held belief that only Catholics are Christians.
This is explicitly incorrect. The statement acknowledges Protestants as Christians, while asserting that they are incorrect on several particulars.
Also, the purpose of my post was not to praise Catholics, but to disagree with the assertion that Catholics in the 1960s were, unlike Mormons of today, widely accepted as Christians by Protestants/Evangelicals/what-have-you.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I must admit, you've piqued my curiosity here. Who was this particular jab aimed at?"
The underlying implication of Mitt Romney pandering to Evangelicals that he is just like them is that he is not representing Mormonism. Now, not everyone means to imply this, but there have been some (here and other places on the net) who have to a smaller or larger degree.
On a side note: I know why so many anti-Mormons (and I mean more than mere critics) use the Lords of Kobol as practically the first thing that comes out of their heads. One reading I ran into is that if Mormons believe God lives on some kind of planet then they can tie it into science fiction, aliens, and U.F.O.s with the implication of "Heavens Gate" kind of religion. The person actually casually tied the two together. Needless to say, I came away frightened for my religious freedom.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, we should really blame Glen Larson for the frequent mention of the Lords of Kolob, with his Lords of Kobol in BatGal to remind us. (I keep wanting to spell that with a "C"--one of the computer languages I learned when earning my degree was COBOL.) I am sure that Mormons do not appreciate his glorification of the Greek pantheon, either.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some conspiracy theorists think that when JFK said he would not follow the Pope as his supreme authority if he were president, that is what led the Catholic Church to assassinate him. Of course, I do not believe that. But then I have sometimes wondered if George Bush Sr. were one of the gunmen on the grassy knoll. Conspiracy theories are such fun.
Maybe you have heard the joke: How do we know that the CIA was NOT involved in the JFK assassination? Answer: He's dead, isn't he?
The joke was probably started by the FBI, which has taken a PR beating lately.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't, although it had nothing to do with the presentation of the gods. That part was fine.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom/Mucus: My object in pointing out this "test" stuff, was I said it in a certain way and then somebody disagreed with me using a different concept of "test."
Romney's test: "It makes no difference what religion I am, it would be just the religious test the founders guarded against if my religion was the issue here."
kmbboots, Mucus, Tom test: "My core beliefs are not so different from many of yours, they are within limits that you should feel comfortable voting for me. Did I pass your litmus test?"
I already agree there shouldn't be that sort of test, but I disagree that Mormonism is accepted to the point that Romney could have just continued being mostly silent about his faith and still found a way to placate fears regarding his religion, he was being too coy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, can you find anywhere in Romney's speech where he says "It makes no difference what religion I am?" That wasn't the vibe I got at all. The vibe I got was "I believe in Jesus, too, so don't worry about me."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I already agree there shouldn't be that sort of test, but I disagree that Mormonism is accepted to the point that Romney could have just continued being mostly silent about his faith and still found a way to placate fears regarding his religion, he was being too coy.
BlackBlade, I'm going to try this again. My point is that a candidate for President should not have to placate fears regarding his religion.Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only major change in opinion of Romney that I am aware of his is views on abortion. His views on gay rights, gun control, etc have remained largely unchanged.
How so? From where I'm standing, he changed dramatically on both of the issues you mentioned. Also, he completely turned his back on the government health care plan that he was trumpeting when he was governor.
Plus there's the whole going from "Massachusetts is the greatest state in the country." while governor to "You know what state sucks? Massachusetts." when talking to the anti-MA Republican base.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: From where I'm standing, he changed dramatically on both of the issues you mentioned. Also, he completely turned his back on the government health care plan that he was trumpeting when he was governor.
I disagree. When he first ran for governor he got the Log Cabin endorsement, I think mainly because he projected a lassiez-faire attitude toward LBGT issues. That changed dramatically with the SJC's decision. So I would say he less changed his position than responded to a changing field.
As for gun rights, I'm not aware of any statements he made when running for Governor, and I watched the election pretty closely. He had a short foray into NRA territory a few months ago, but when he got a negative response, it seems to me he largely let the the issue drop.
And he touted his health care plan throughout his tenure as MA governor, has talked about it favorably while campaigning for the nomination, and I think it will play a big part of his campaign for President (if he gets the nom).
quote:Plus there's the whole going from "Massachusetts is the greatest state in the country." while governor to "You know what state sucks? Massachusetts." when talking to the anti-MA Republican base.
I agree; it might have made political sense, but it was a smarmy thing to do. I don't know why he did it; I know that he feels great affection for the state. Perhaps he was feeling a little disillusioned after a very contentious term as governor.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Many of the central, non-republican base friendly aspects of the MA health insurance plan are completely absent from his national health care proposals and he has taken to saying that the MA plan has a good chance of failing.
His speeches about gay marriage/civil unions were very different from when he was running for governor than when he was governor and talking to out-of-state Republicans and now that he is running for President.
---
quote:Perhaps he was feeling a little disillusioned after a very contentious term as governor.
Yes, or it is possible that he is trying to get votes by playing to the Republican base. That would be a common thread that would tie together these instances of his drastic shift from things that would get him elected in MA towards things that would help him in the Republican primaries.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith...As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution -- and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law."
---- kmbboots: You said,
quote:The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.
So are you saying it concerns you that the state of affairs in the US is such that it appears we DO have a religious test for candidates? Or are you saying it concerns you that Romney is trying to pass some perceived religious test in order to be president?
I've answered the second questions several times, but it seems like you are saying you only meant the first question.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:# In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate gay rights, Romney said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military. He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell policy."
This appears to be a significant change in policy. I have not researched his rationale for this change.
quote:# While campaigning for the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he said he would not "chip away" at the state's tough gun laws. He signed up for "lifelong membership" of the National Rifle Association in 2006, while contemplating a run for the Republican nomination.
I'm not sure how this one stacks up - it's clear from the links that he advocated policies disfavored by the NRA, but the links don't say whether he still supports those policies. The information is probably out there; I haven't researched it yet.
quote:# In 2005, appeared to favor immigration reform, along the lines proposed by Sen. John McCain. He now denounces it as an "amnesty plan."
I'm not sure saying that Kerry's plan is a reasonable proposal (see the associated link) means he supports it. There are lots of reasonable proposals I don't support. But I don't have the whole context of either Kerry's plan or Romney's comments.
At first glance, it appears he's shifted his positions on these issues, but it requires more research on my part - specifically, seeing the quotes in full context. The gays-in-the-military change does seem significant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The prevailing opinion of leaders of the LDS Church is that Evolution is an evil philosophy (that doesn't have anything to do with good or bad science).
Can you back this up?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Heck, I'd be satisfied if he could explain what it even means without resorting to absolute nonesense. Evolution isn't a philosophy, evil or otherwise.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite by chance, I am currently reading American Gods, by Neil Gaiman.
The "test" that any candidate for US president must pass is not whether he is religious per se, but whether he is NOT ANTI-religious. Romney and Obama have passed this test. Sen. Hillary Clinton has not, because in criticizing Romney and Obama for bringing religion into the campaign, she is seen as positioning herself on the opposite side from religion--at least in appearances. This is a disastrous mistake for her.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps he meant that using "survival of the fittest" as a guide for social policy is an evil philosophy.
If that's what you meant Occ, the name for that is generally "Social Darwinism", not evolution.
Evolution is a description what happens. It does not make judgements or advocate any sort of action.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Now, not everyone means to imply this, but there have been some (here and other places on the net) who have to a smaller or larger degree.
I'm curious about the "... some (here ..." part. Not saying that you're wrong necessarily, but as I said, I'm curious.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:# In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate gay rights, Romney said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military. He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell policy."
This appears to be a significant change in policy. I have not researched his rationale for this change.
I had not seen this; I agree it appears to be a fairly significant shift.
I don't wholly disagree with Squick's assertion. I think Romney often represents the parts of his platform/viewpoint that are most politically advantageous, while glossing over others. He isn't a straight-talker in the mold of a John McCain. I don't, however, believe he changes stance to match the political climate.
On the other hand, if he knowingly represents his stances in a way that obfuscates significant portions of his platform, I don't know if it matters; it will be viewed (not entirely dishonestly) as politically advantageous flip-flopping. All that said, I still like him as a candidate and a person and I still plan to vote for him (in the primary and, hopefully, the general).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been in the past fairly pointed comments by previous leaders of the LDS church about their belief that humans could not have evoloved from an ape-like ancestor. I imagine this is what Occ is refering to.
The LDS church does not have an official stance on evolution. Evolution has been a contentious issue within the church (and among leaders of the church) for almost a hundred years. Some leaders, such as (I believe, but don't have statements in front of me) James Talmage and John Taylor endorsed evolution, while others (see former caveat) like Bruce McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith expressed skepticism and aversion.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: If you read the contents of the letter, Romney says that Clinton's don't ask don't tell policy was a step in the right direction. He also states that he shares the goal of one day allowing gays and lesbians being able to openly serve in the military. During the youtube debates he was asked about his statement, "gays/lesbians openly serving...etc" and he said that he does not think now is the time for modifying the don't ask don't tell policy. He did not make an affirmative statement as to whether that goal would be a component of his platform. Romney did say that he had originally believed "don't ask don't tell" didn't "make any sense" but that it seemed to have succeeded. I don't think he has significantly changed his opinion on gays in the military. Or else he believes that since we are in the middle of a major military action now would be a bad time to implement this particular change in the military.
The vibe I get from him is that he won't actively push for a shift in that policy regarding the military, but he is open to approving greater civil rights for gays. Whether he would support a bill creating a civil union system for homosexuals is something I am not certain what Romney would do about.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There have been in the past fairly pointed comments by previous leaders of the LDS church about their belief that humans could not have evoloved from an ape-like ancestor. I imagine this is what Occ is refering to.
It could be, but I wouldn't call pointed comments from select leaders over the course of a century a prevailing opinion.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There have been in the past fairly pointed comments by previous leaders of the LDS church about their belief that humans could not have evoloved from an ape-like ancestor. I imagine this is what Occ is refering to.
It could be, but I wouldn't call pointed comments from select leaders over the course of a century a prevailing opinion.
Nor would I, but I find it not unlikely that Occasional has heard only those statements and so extrapolates a consensus where none exists. I fault CES. [edit: that CES barb was (mostly) a joke]
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I would like to know of one LDS leader who got up in General Conference and said something positive about Evolution. That isn't to say there hasn't been off the record positive statments, but I don't hold those as equally important. Therefore, I see no reason why "prevailing opinion" would be innacurate considering the context of the question here asked.
As for my idea of "evil philosophy" I don't know how else to put it. It is attacked as a scientific theory that denies the divine creation of humanity as Children of God. The science itself, such as ID proponents, is never attacked. In fact, as has been said, BYU teaches Evolution as any other science department of a University.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I appreciate the you are willing to admit your ignorance. As I said, evolution is a descriptive theory. Calling it a philosophy is innacurrate and makes you sound like you don't know what you are talking about.
Utlimately, evolution seems to be a pretty good descriptor of how things work. If LDS members think that this is evil (and, you know, it doesn't actually deny the divine creation of humanity as Children of God - some people use it as part of a philosophy that does this though), I think that might something to take up with God, as he's the one who set things up that way.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, I would like to know of one LDS leader who got up in General Conference and said something positive about Evolution.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
