I'll take rumpled-clothed, American loving, brilliant Ryan over stupid, "open foot insert mouth", "ya'll be back in chains", "what century are we living in" Joe anyday!
Okay, so get this: a 19th-century man (a known con-man to his contemporaries) runs across a set of golden tablets which he translates, with the help of a magic stone which he found in a hat, into 17th-century English. Then, he loses the tablets (how do you lose a book made out of GOLD?). According to the book, the garden of eden was in Missouri, Jesus visited North America, Native Americans are really Jews, and oh, god is really a man who used to live on another planet, a planet named Kolob. Yeah.
How can a man capable of holding all of those silly beliefs in his head, believing them to be true(!), how can this man possibly be a serious candidate for President of the most scientifically advanced nation on earth? Republicans? Conservatives??? I mean, this is your guy, right?
You guys hate Obama; got it. But, in your haste to nominate an alternative you picked the richest one you could find without bothering to check to see whether or not he was crazy. Good job.
Ok Jay, even though your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the blog, I’ll play.
How can you support a candidate that did a lot of coke while in college?
How can you support a candidate who lied and made up stories in the books he wrote?
How can you support a candidate that started his political career in the living room of an anarchist and known terrorist? Talk about having serious doubts about the motives of this candidate.
How can you support a candidate that has shown no ability or inclination to work with congress? He tells them what he wants and sits back. That’s leadership?
How can you support a candidate who refuses to run on his own record but instead brings up silly things like your argument? (Chains anyone?)
How can you support a candidate who is responsible for 40+ months of 8% or greater unemployment?
How can you support a candidate whose has run up more debt than ALL the previous presidents combined? Even after he stated that he would halve the deficit?
How can you support a candidate who is not capable of writing a budget that can garner one vote? Not 1.
How can you support a candidate that takes over a private corporation (GM) using taxpayer/borrowed money?
How can you support a candidate whose only excuse is either that it’s Bush’s fault or Congress? Yes, sorry, Bush may have screwed up, but that's why they call this the hardest job in the world. You inherited this mess, deal with it, stop complaining. Also, if I recall President Clinton had a republican led congress and I don’t remember all this whining. He may have been forced to hold his nose once or twice while signing legislation but things got done. Its called compromise, something Obama knows nothing about.
Face it, president Obama’s record stinks. He may be a nice guy, but he is in way over his head. He is incompetent for the position he is in but you think I should vote for him because of the basis of his opponent’s religion?
You want me to vote for Obama, show me why he’s the better candidate. Make silly arguments like this and it does nothing but convince me that he has no ideas, no strategy, and more important, no ability to lead this country.
I didn't say vote for Obama (although, I think you should). I said that Mitt Romney holds some really silly things in his head, things which he thinks are really, really true. And, he wants to be President. Now, I get that you don't want to address that, but that, sir, is the argument on the floor.
If you are willing to concede, though, that Romney's silly religious views (palpably ridiculous) should disqualify him from serious candidacy for the office of President of the most technologically advanced nation on earth, then I will happily answer your diatribe about President Obama's alleged past, and extol the 4-year record of a President who more than deserves a second term. But, I'm not the one ducking and weaving here. Either Mitt Romney's silly beliefs, cited above (oh, and in the coming kingdom of god, according mormons, jesus will rule half the time in jerusalem and half the time in missouri; magic underwear protects the wearer from spiritual aggression) make him a crazy candidate, or they do not. I believe they do.
Using your logic Kennedy should never have been elected president because, god forbid, he was catholic and didn’t think like ‘us’. (You know that mortal sin, burning in hell stuff.) Likewise, Obama should never have been elected because some think he’s Muslim and he’s about to go jihad on ‘us’. These, like your tirade, are ludicrous.
Unless the man attempts to force his beliefs on others or the American public they should be respected as his. I may not agree with them, but I will respect that they are his. Why do you have a problem with that?
I believe in judging a person by their actions. I have listed the actions that I believe make Obama a poor choice. There are actions in the Romney camp that also raise both my eyebrows but they pale in comparison. All I’m hearing from you however is hate, not reasoning. Unfortunately that hatred is very tangible and it is obvious that you are a bigot. Nothing is more disappointing than a closed mind.
Ugh. I had composed a wonderfully written, well-cited post that mysteriously disappeared, unceremoniously. I shall endeavor to compose future posts in a word processor first. Let me then briefly say that you have again avoided my question. This time, you were a bit more clever in that you have tried to derive my "logic," which I take to mean a larger framework in which I understand the world. According to that framework, you assert, I am a hater of the religious and therefore could not have supported the JFK presidency.
You are in both conclusions quite wrong because you have failed to grasp my "logic," as it were. In fact, I do not hate religious people; they will always be around, and I wish to take nothing away from their private lives. As Christopher Hitchens rather famously said, though, you play with your toys, and don't try to make me play with them. My toys are different from yours; leave mine alone. Do you grasp the analogy? By all means, be religious in your private life, but leave it there. The superstitious myths of a desert religion have no place in the policy decisions of the most modern nation on earth.
John F. Kennedy explicitly defined his beliefs about the separation of church and state such that his Catholicism was of no consequence to his Presidency. As an example, I don’t hold it against Isaac Newton for being a theist; his belief in god was not a barrier to his discoveries in mathematics and physics. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, was a bishop in the Mormon church, taught Sunday school (to include, no doubt, a completely false version of American history), and experienced a political career which complemented the church’s teachings. I would refer you to http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/us/politics/how-the-mormon-church-shaped-mitt-romney.html?smid=pl-share for some insights. We have to rely on the press because Romney has said very little himself about his faith. This is remarkably suspicious, especially given that Mormonism is a generally distrusted denomination among American Christians. Romney had the chance to explain the connection between his faith and his politics, like JFK – but never has.
Back to my original point, though, the one you keep dodging. God comes from a planet called Kolob. The garden of Eden is located in Missouri. Native Americans are really a lost Jewish tribe. Magic underwear. Golden tablets, conveniently lost, translated with the help of magic stones, also conveniently lost. One silly, palpably false belief after another. I wouldn’t vote for a president who believes in unicorns, and that wouldn’t make me either bigoted or close-minded. Nor am I those things for thinking that Mitt Romney is absurd (fabulously wealthy, but absurd) for thinking these things to be true. I think that maybe you’re kidding yourself into believing that they don’t matter. I think they do.
The question is vote for the Muslim in the White House or the Mormon. . . My goodness the Muslim can't even take care of his brother! At least the Mormon tithes 10%!
What has BHO done? He has provided tax money to his crony capitalists flushed down the "green toilet!" So much for the earth worshipping muslim or follower of the wrong Rev. Wright's church of "social justice."
Unaimous, you are like a drive by shooter. Quick on the trigger, and a poor aim. Maybe the reason you don't want to address this issue is because Mitt Romney's crazy beliefs give you the creeps. On that, we would agree. The "Muslim in the White House." After 4 years and no evidence, you continue to parrot this empty claim. Romney's Mormonism, however, is not at all in doubt.
I can remember how incensed conservatives were when news organizations dared to call former president Bush "Mr. Bush" instead of "President Bush." The conservative argument was that, despite the "liberal media's" disagreement with his policies, the president should always be afforded this title of respect. But, it seems commonplace for your side to refer to President Obama by initials (PBO, BHO, etc.). My, how the definitions of respect change so dramatically when the shoe is on the other foot. Anyway, which is the President, in your view: a Muslim or a "follower" of the good Rev. Wright, who claims to be a Christian? You don't have your conspiracy theories straight. Just a bunch of re-warmed talking points.
The argument on the floor, which everyone seems to be unable to answer one way or the other, is that Mitt Romney holds so many silly beliefs in his head to be true that he is a ridiculous candidate for president. Either the beliefs are silly or not, and if they're not, then I would expect you to defend them, as I have spent a good amount of time trashing them as false. If they are silly, then the burden of proof seems to be on you who are all voting for this guy. All you want to talk about is President Obama. You're ignoring the unicorn in the room.
Your absolutely right Jay, I do not grasp your logic. But then again, either you didn't understand my position on a persons belief system or you refused to accept it. I will repeat myself, just for you. I don't have a problem with his religious beliefs and I respect that they are his. Is that clear enough? As I stated in my post, so long as he doesn't force his beliefs on others or the American public, I don't have a problem with it. I judge a man by his words and actions. If he has a flawed belief system, it will become obvious in these. This is called tolerance Jay, something that Liberals are supposed to be in favor of. I stated my objections to Obama's actions. You have conveniently walked around them.
I have read the article that you referenced and for the life of me I don't understand your problem with his religion. You don't like Mormonism, fine. But you take the parts of Mormonism that you dislike the most, present them in the worst possible light. You then assign all these negative attributes to the man and then draw the conclusion that he is unfit for the job. By the way, all the conclusions drawn from this are yours, after all, like you said, he doesn't talk much about his religion.
Well, if I use your reasoning as a basis, then you have to be really upset with President Obama. After all, he spent 20+ years in a church where the pastor is a racist. The pastor married the Obama's and baptized their kids. Yet this pastor preached hatred, intolerance, and violence. (You can find his sermons on YouTube, its not hard). I would argue that, because he constantly and consistently preached these concepts that they have become part of the doctrine. Therefore, using your power of deduction, Obama must be a hate filled intolerant racist bent on violence. Anyone with these characteristics is obviously unfit for the position of president. Have fun waltzing around that one.
President Obama is not pushing for initiatives which happen to be wholly consistent with the doctrines of a particular church. There is no evidence of religious bias in his political priorities or strategies. The same cannot be said for Mitt Romney's record. You say you think we should wait to see if that becomes a problem with Romney. I say that's naive. I think that conservatives are just ignoring the many problems they have with Romney crazy beliefs in order to vote for him, because right now they'd vote for anyone who wasn't Obama.
Now, I believe that people are free to believe crazy things. I have no interest in banning religion in any way, except from the public square. That makes me a secularist, not intolerant. And, do I believe that a dyed-in-the-wool Mormon can separate his Mormonism from his policy decisions in today's climate? Not for one second. And, Romney's own record bears that out. Also, do you know anything about state and local governments in Utah? One blue law after another. By Mormon standards, it's the most moral state in the union. That, frankly, should give most Americans a good bit of pause.
Do you see why I don't have to accept your characterization of my position? The issue is not that elected officials have religious beliefs. It's that some people's religious beliefs are the motivation for everything they do. Sometimes Christians like to point out that about 10% of the Fellows of the National Academy of Science are religious (a small number, but about 10% nonetheless). It's important to understand that those scientists don't inject religion into their science; in fact, they are such good scientists because they do not do so. Mitt Romney is not such a man. He will draw on his faith to make policy decisions. And, because he has spent so little time talking about his faith, that should concern conservatives, most of whom think Mormonism is a cult ("Is the Mormon My Brother?" James White, Bethany Publishers, 1997 for a biblical treatment of that question).
"Therefore, using your power of deduction, Obama must be a hate filled [sic] intolerant racist bent on violence. Anyone with these characteristics is obviously unfit for the position of president." First, you cannot use my powers (plural) of deduction; they are mine, and if you think you can derive them from just a few of my writings, then you think rather too highly of yourself, sir. Second, as I have said, the proof is in the man, not in the beliefs themselves (nor even to what he has been exposed). I do not know if President Obama really believes that Jesus, for example, was born of a virgin, turned water into wine and walked on water (I would rather hopefully think that he does not believe those things, but I don't know). I know it is perfectly possible (and quite likely) that a person can sit in many churches today and not believe those things. However, it is not reasonable to think that Mitt Romney, who was a bishop in the Mormon Church, who donated significant amounts of money to the Mormon Church (the full extent of which we may never know), who was prominent in that church, it is not reasonable to think that he is a backslider when it comes to the essential doctrines (snicker - "doctrines" is such a dignified word for believing in magic stones and underwear) of the church. Nor again is it difficult to see the link between Romney's political career and what some might call the pleasure of the church. So, what you say President Obama "must be" according to me is not what he must be at all, and we've had 4 years to see what he is not - a religious nut. So, he has that going for him, in this discussion. Mitt Romney doesn't, not exactly. Maybe he could appear at a Habitat for Humanity build wearing a non-magic T-shirt. Something to ease our minds a bit, you know? Because those silly claims of Mormonism are recent, preposterous, and to quote Richard Dawkins on the subject, "barking mad."
Yet again, he forgets to address Obama's actions. Not suprising, I guess when you can't talk about your candidates qualifications your forced to persue red herrings like this.
Basically, in your mind, Mitt Romney must prove a negative. That he will not actively try and turn the US into the Morman's back yard. (Which, I might add, is impossible.) You accuse Romney of Religous preference without proof, just inuendo and assumptions, but you give a pass to Obama.
Have you observed politics in Chicago? Violence, hatred, crooked politicians. Works well with the above scenario. But you will not see the irony.
From Webster's Dictionary. Bigot - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Sounds like you Jay. Have a good life, i'm done with you. I was wrong, its not fun to talk to someone with a closed mind.
Sounds like you're bigoted with respect to me! "have a good life; I'm done with you!" aheheheheh....
It's funny. All I say is that it's unfathomable to me that a man can hold such silly beliefs in his head to be true AND aspire to the presidency of a secular, technologically advanced nation. Now, I'm not asking Romney to prove a negative (although it wouldn't be impossible for him to make a speech not unlike JFK's speech to the Houston Ministerial Association in 1960). I'm not asking Romney to do a thing. I'm just asking one of you - any of you - to reconcile these two things, namely, these silly beliefs and the capacity to be president.
No one has done it. Immediately, you all shifted to talking about President Obama, and then blamed me for dodging the issue. So, I responded to the Obama accusations as they relate to my view (which in a formal debate I wouldn't have had to have done), and then returned to the original question, that one simple point. And, here we go again. Now, I'm a bigot. Well no, I'm not. I just happen to think that a man who really believes that his underwear has special powers should point his life in a direction other than the presidency of a secular nation. If you want to argue the "secular nation" bit, then can we at least agree that there is a separation of church and state, such as Madison understood it, far different than exists in the governments of Great Britain or, say, Iran?
Now, you want to talk about Chicago. Well, we don't have to, because the President has been President of *America* for the last 4 years. So, why would we talk about Chicago? I'm game to talk about Massachusetts, maybe. But (again, laboriously) the point here is that some of us are so off put by the silly beliefs of Mormonism than we cannot reconcile them with the enormity of the office being sought. We wonder whether those of you who are "Romney people" and are not Mormons can see the unbelievable gap between superstition and reality there, as well.
Maybe there's no solution here. Maybe you guys just haven't thought about it and aren't going to think about it, and people like me who are trying to demand that you think about it are just problem-causers. Or, maybe, you looked before you leapt with this candidate. Either way, the charge of bigotry doesn't stick, and neither does the charge of question-dodger. :)
I've asked you that over and over. You've failed to do such. I could give my reasons. But then that left wing, Sheila hates everybody would come slinging out of your brain.
Hmmm Bring up Romney's Mormon religion Jay and we'll just have to take you to task on how someone who sat under a certain God hating America Rev and says he didn't "pay attention".
Oh, good grief, Sheila. Scroll up. I had the first word. You people refuse to respond. I'm done tonight. Tomorrow I shall post why I am voting for President Obama, why I am working for his campaign, why I believe that the only hope for America is not only his victory but for Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. But, for the record, the question is closed. Mitt Romney holds to be true a collection of silly beliefs. None of you argued that. I argued that his silly beliefs are incompatible with his aim to be president of the most technologically advanced nation on earth, and "Anonymous," you took a stab at this and then gave up. So this point went unchallenged, as well. So, Sheila, I will prove my candidate in about 24 hours, k? But, for the record, this question about “silly beliefs” is settled in my favor. None of you defended Romney. You all must agree with me. His silly beliefs cannot be reconciled with his bid for the presidency.
It would so much fun to debate you guys for real, on a stage. With real debate rules, in front of a crowd.
And, Sheila, your last point... What?? "Bring up Romney's Mormon religion Jay."... what do you think I've been doing for the last few days, Sheila?? It's all I've been talking about!! "And we'll just have to take you to task on how someone who sat under a certain God hating America [sic] Rev and says he didn't 'pay attention'" - Did you even read the thread? Someone brought that up. I guess we can talk about it, but look, there you go again. My whole thing in this thread from the very beginning has been, "These are Romney's silly views. He thinks they are true. How does he get to be president believing those things?" And, you guys will not talk about it. You dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge. I don't care if you talk about the crazy, God-hating-America pastor, Sheila. I think "Reverend" is a title one should have to live down, not up to. Obama's been President for 4 years, and no one can accuse him of being a religious nut. The point here is that you guys WILL NOT talk about Romney vis a vis Mormonism. And, I think that's hilarious. I think the candidate you really wanted (Gingrich, or maybe Santorum) didn’t get elected, and now you have this guy. This guy who really thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
Great. We can't wait for comic relief. And while you're at it, I'll be brewing a pot of coffee to sip while reading.
Jay I don't think you want to go here..."The point here is that you guys WILL NOT talk about Romney vis a vis Mormonism." I don't have a problem with Romney's religion. You do. But if you go there you will force us to remind you of PBO's past too..and showing the hypocrisy that is so obvious on the left. Keep it up and we'll ring those words in your face by the lovely and talented, America hating Rev..Jeremiah Wright.
19 comments:
I concede. Your intellect and powers of persuasion have overwhelmed me!
Don't know who you are...but thanks. I needed a good laugh.
When will we see the famous "bloopers" of Barak and his clown? Oh someone has them! Can't wait to see that one!
Where is the like button for the Lame Stream Media comment, that one has me laughing too.
Okay, so get this: a 19th-century man (a known con-man to his contemporaries) runs across a set of golden tablets which he translates, with the help of a magic stone which he found in a hat, into 17th-century English. Then, he loses the tablets (how do you lose a book made out of GOLD?). According to the book, the garden of eden was in Missouri, Jesus visited North America, Native Americans are really Jews, and oh, god is really a man who used to live on another planet, a planet named Kolob. Yeah.
How can a man capable of holding all of those silly beliefs in his head, believing them to be true(!), how can this man possibly be a serious candidate for President of the most scientifically advanced nation on earth? Republicans? Conservatives??? I mean, this is your guy, right?
You guys hate Obama; got it. But, in your haste to nominate an alternative you picked the richest one you could find without bothering to check to see whether or not he was crazy. Good job.
Ok Jay, even though your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the blog, I’ll play.
How can you support a candidate that did a lot of coke while in college?
How can you support a candidate who lied and made up stories in the books he wrote?
How can you support a candidate that started his political career in the living room of an anarchist and known terrorist? Talk about having serious doubts about the motives of this candidate.
How can you support a candidate that has shown no ability or inclination to work with congress? He tells them what he wants and sits back. That’s leadership?
How can you support a candidate who refuses to run on his own record but instead brings up silly things like your argument? (Chains anyone?)
How can you support a candidate who is responsible for 40+ months of 8% or greater unemployment?
How can you support a candidate whose has run up more debt than ALL the previous presidents combined? Even after he stated that he would halve the deficit?
How can you support a candidate who is not capable of writing a budget that can garner one vote? Not 1.
How can you support a candidate that takes over a private corporation (GM) using taxpayer/borrowed money?
How can you support a candidate whose only excuse is either that it’s Bush’s fault or Congress? Yes, sorry, Bush may have screwed up, but that's why they call this the hardest job in the world. You inherited this mess, deal with it, stop complaining. Also, if I recall President Clinton had a republican led congress and I don’t remember all this whining. He may have been forced to hold his nose once or twice while signing legislation but things got done. Its called compromise, something Obama knows nothing about.
Face it, president Obama’s record stinks. He may be a nice guy, but he is in way over his head. He is incompetent for the position he is in but you think I should vote for him because of the basis of his opponent’s religion?
You want me to vote for Obama, show me why he’s the better candidate. Make silly arguments like this and it does nothing but convince me that he has no ideas, no strategy, and more important, no ability to lead this country.
I didn't say vote for Obama (although, I think you should). I said that Mitt Romney holds some really silly things in his head, things which he thinks are really, really true. And, he wants to be President. Now, I get that you don't want to address that, but that, sir, is the argument on the floor.
If you are willing to concede, though, that Romney's silly religious views (palpably ridiculous) should disqualify him from serious candidacy for the office of President of the most technologically advanced nation on earth, then I will happily answer your diatribe about President Obama's alleged past, and extol the 4-year record of a President who more than deserves a second term. But, I'm not the one ducking and weaving here. Either Mitt Romney's silly beliefs, cited above (oh, and in the coming kingdom of god, according mormons, jesus will rule half the time in jerusalem and half the time in missouri; magic underwear protects the wearer from spiritual aggression) make him a crazy candidate, or they do not. I believe they do.
Do you concede that point?
Using your logic Kennedy should never have been elected president because, god forbid, he was catholic and didn’t think like ‘us’. (You know that mortal sin, burning in hell stuff.) Likewise, Obama should never have been elected because some think he’s Muslim and he’s about to go jihad on ‘us’. These, like your tirade, are ludicrous.
Unless the man attempts to force his beliefs on others or the American public they should be respected as his. I may not agree with them, but I will respect that they are his. Why do you have a problem with that?
I believe in judging a person by their actions. I have listed the actions that I believe make Obama a poor choice. There are actions in the Romney camp that also raise both my eyebrows but they pale in comparison. All I’m hearing from you however is hate, not reasoning. Unfortunately that hatred is very tangible and it is obvious that you are a bigot. Nothing is more disappointing than a closed mind.
Good luck with that.
Ugh. I had composed a wonderfully written, well-cited post that mysteriously disappeared, unceremoniously. I shall endeavor to compose future posts in a word processor first.
Let me then briefly say that you have again avoided my question. This time, you were a bit more clever in that you have tried to derive my "logic," which I take to mean a larger framework in which I understand the world. According to that framework, you assert, I am a hater of the religious and therefore could not have supported the JFK presidency.
You are in both conclusions quite wrong because you have failed to grasp my "logic," as it were. In fact, I do not hate religious people; they will always be around, and I wish to take nothing away from their private lives. As Christopher Hitchens rather famously said, though, you play with your toys, and don't try to make me play with them. My toys are different from yours; leave mine alone. Do you grasp the analogy? By all means, be religious in your private life, but leave it there. The superstitious myths of a desert religion have no place in the policy decisions of the most modern nation on earth.
John F. Kennedy explicitly defined his beliefs about the separation of church and state such that his Catholicism was of no consequence to his Presidency. As an example, I don’t hold it against Isaac Newton for being a theist; his belief in god was not a barrier to his discoveries in mathematics and physics. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, was a bishop in the Mormon church, taught Sunday school (to include, no doubt, a completely false version of American history), and experienced a political career which complemented the church’s teachings. I would refer you to http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/us/politics/how-the-mormon-church-shaped-mitt-romney.html?smid=pl-share for some insights. We have to rely on the press because Romney has said very little himself about his faith. This is remarkably suspicious, especially given that Mormonism is a generally distrusted denomination among American Christians. Romney had the chance to explain the connection between his faith and his politics, like JFK – but never has.
Back to my original point, though, the one you keep dodging. God comes from a planet called Kolob. The garden of Eden is located in Missouri. Native Americans are really a lost Jewish tribe. Magic underwear. Golden tablets, conveniently lost, translated with the help of magic stones, also conveniently lost. One silly, palpably false belief after another. I wouldn’t vote for a president who believes in unicorns, and that wouldn’t make me either bigoted or close-minded. Nor am I those things for thinking that Mitt Romney is absurd (fabulously wealthy, but absurd) for thinking these things to be true. I think that maybe you’re kidding yourself into believing that they don’t matter. I think they do.
The question is vote for the Muslim in the White House or the Mormon. . . My goodness the Muslim can't even take care of his brother! At least the Mormon tithes 10%!
What has BHO done? He has provided tax money to his crony capitalists flushed down the "green toilet!" So much for the earth worshipping muslim or follower of the wrong Rev. Wright's church of "social justice."
Unaimous, you are like a drive by shooter. Quick on the trigger, and a poor aim. Maybe the reason you don't want to address this issue is because Mitt Romney's crazy beliefs give you the creeps. On that, we would agree. The "Muslim in the White House." After 4 years and no evidence, you continue to parrot this empty claim. Romney's Mormonism, however, is not at all in doubt.
I can remember how incensed conservatives were when news organizations dared to call former president Bush "Mr. Bush" instead of "President Bush." The conservative argument was that, despite the "liberal media's" disagreement with his policies, the president should always be afforded this title of respect. But, it seems commonplace for your side to refer to President Obama by initials (PBO, BHO, etc.). My, how the definitions of respect change so dramatically when the shoe is on the other foot. Anyway, which is the President, in your view: a Muslim or a "follower" of the good Rev. Wright, who claims to be a Christian? You don't have your conspiracy theories straight. Just a bunch of re-warmed talking points.
The argument on the floor, which everyone seems to be unable to answer one way or the other, is that Mitt Romney holds so many silly beliefs in his head to be true that he is a ridiculous candidate for president. Either the beliefs are silly or not, and if they're not, then I would expect you to defend them, as I have spent a good amount of time trashing them as false. If they are silly, then the burden of proof seems to be on you who are all voting for this guy. All you want to talk about is President Obama. You're ignoring the unicorn in the room.
Your absolutely right Jay, I do not grasp your logic. But then again, either you didn't understand my position on a persons belief system or you refused to accept it. I will repeat myself, just for you. I don't have a problem with his religious beliefs and I respect that they are his. Is that clear enough? As I stated in my post, so long as he doesn't force his beliefs on others or the American public, I don't have a problem with it. I judge a man by his words and actions. If he has a flawed belief system, it will become obvious in these. This is called tolerance Jay, something that Liberals are supposed to be in favor of. I stated my objections to Obama's actions. You have conveniently walked around them.
I have read the article that you referenced and for the life of me I don't understand your problem with his religion. You don't like Mormonism, fine. But you take the parts of Mormonism that you dislike the most, present them in the worst possible light. You then assign all these negative attributes to the man and then draw the conclusion that he is unfit for the job. By the way, all the conclusions drawn from this are yours, after all, like you said, he doesn't talk much about his religion.
Well, if I use your reasoning as a basis, then you have to be really upset with President Obama. After all, he spent 20+ years in a church where the pastor is a racist. The pastor married the Obama's and baptized their kids. Yet this pastor preached hatred, intolerance, and violence. (You can find his sermons on YouTube, its not hard). I would argue that, because he constantly and consistently preached these concepts that they have become part of the doctrine. Therefore, using your power of deduction, Obama must be a hate filled intolerant racist bent on violence. Anyone with these characteristics is obviously unfit for the position of president. Have fun waltzing around that one.
President Obama is not pushing for initiatives which happen to be wholly consistent with the doctrines of a particular church. There is no evidence of religious bias in his political priorities or strategies. The same cannot be said for Mitt Romney's record. You say you think we should wait to see if that becomes a problem with Romney. I say that's naive. I think that conservatives are just ignoring the many problems they have with Romney crazy beliefs in order to vote for him, because right now they'd vote for anyone who wasn't Obama.
Now, I believe that people are free to believe crazy things. I have no interest in banning religion in any way, except from the public square. That makes me a secularist, not intolerant. And, do I believe that a dyed-in-the-wool Mormon can separate his Mormonism from his policy decisions in today's climate? Not for one second. And, Romney's own record bears that out. Also, do you know anything about state and local governments in Utah? One blue law after another. By Mormon standards, it's the most moral state in the union. That, frankly, should give most Americans a good bit of pause.
Do you see why I don't have to accept your characterization of my position? The issue is not that elected officials have religious beliefs. It's that some people's religious beliefs are the motivation for everything they do. Sometimes Christians like to point out that about 10% of the Fellows of the National Academy of Science are religious (a small number, but about 10% nonetheless). It's important to understand that those scientists don't inject religion into their science; in fact, they are such good scientists because they do not do so. Mitt Romney is not such a man. He will draw on his faith to make policy decisions. And, because he has spent so little time talking about his faith, that should concern conservatives, most of whom think Mormonism is a cult ("Is the Mormon My Brother?" James White, Bethany Publishers, 1997 for a biblical treatment of that question).
"Therefore, using your power of deduction, Obama must be a hate filled [sic] intolerant racist bent on violence. Anyone with these characteristics is obviously unfit for the position of president." First, you cannot use my powers (plural) of deduction; they are mine, and if you think you can derive them from just a few of my writings, then you think rather too highly of yourself, sir. Second, as I have said, the proof is in the man, not in the beliefs themselves (nor even to what he has been exposed). I do not know if President Obama really believes that Jesus, for example, was born of a virgin, turned water into wine and walked on water (I would rather hopefully think that he does not believe those things, but I don't know). I know it is perfectly possible (and quite likely) that a person can sit in many churches today and not believe those things. However, it is not reasonable to think that Mitt Romney, who was a bishop in the Mormon Church, who donated significant amounts of money to the Mormon Church (the full extent of which we may never know), who was prominent in that church, it is not reasonable to think that he is a backslider when it comes to the essential doctrines (snicker - "doctrines" is such a dignified word for believing in magic stones and underwear) of the church. Nor again is it difficult to see the link between Romney's political career and what some might call the pleasure of the church. So, what you say President Obama "must be" according to me is not what he must be at all, and we've had 4 years to see what he is not - a religious nut. So, he has that going for him, in this discussion. Mitt Romney doesn't, not exactly. Maybe he could appear at a Habitat for Humanity build wearing a non-magic T-shirt. Something to ease our minds a bit, you know? Because those silly claims of Mormonism are recent, preposterous, and to quote Richard Dawkins on the subject, "barking mad."
Yet again, he forgets to address Obama's actions. Not suprising, I guess when you can't talk about your candidates qualifications your forced to persue red herrings like this.
Basically, in your mind, Mitt Romney must prove a negative. That he will not actively try and turn the US into the Morman's back yard. (Which, I might add, is impossible.) You accuse Romney of Religous preference without proof, just inuendo and assumptions, but you give a pass to Obama.
Have you observed politics in Chicago? Violence, hatred, crooked politicians. Works well with the above scenario. But you will not see the irony.
From Webster's Dictionary.
Bigot - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Sounds like you Jay. Have a good life, i'm done with you. I was wrong, its not fun to talk to someone with a closed mind.
Sounds like you're bigoted with respect to me! "have a good life; I'm done with you!" aheheheheh....
It's funny. All I say is that it's unfathomable to me that a man can hold such silly beliefs in his head to be true AND aspire to the presidency of a secular, technologically advanced nation. Now, I'm not asking Romney to prove a negative (although it wouldn't be impossible for him to make a speech not unlike JFK's speech to the Houston Ministerial Association in 1960). I'm not asking Romney to do a thing. I'm just asking one of you - any of you - to reconcile these two things, namely, these silly beliefs and the capacity to be president.
No one has done it. Immediately, you all shifted to talking about President Obama, and then blamed me for dodging the issue. So, I responded to the Obama accusations as they relate to my view (which in a formal debate I wouldn't have had to have done), and then returned to the original question, that one simple point. And, here we go again. Now, I'm a bigot. Well no, I'm not. I just happen to think that a man who really believes that his underwear has special powers should point his life in a direction other than the presidency of a secular nation. If you want to argue the "secular nation" bit, then can we at least agree that there is a separation of church and state, such as Madison understood it, far different than exists in the governments of Great Britain or, say, Iran?
Now, you want to talk about Chicago. Well, we don't have to, because the President has been President of *America* for the last 4 years. So, why would we talk about Chicago? I'm game to talk about Massachusetts, maybe. But (again, laboriously) the point here is that some of us are so off put by the silly beliefs of Mormonism than we cannot reconcile them with the enormity of the office being sought. We wonder whether those of you who are "Romney people" and are not Mormons can see the unbelievable gap between superstition and reality there, as well.
Maybe there's no solution here. Maybe you guys just haven't thought about it and aren't going to think about it, and people like me who are trying to demand that you think about it are just problem-causers. Or, maybe, you looked before you leapt with this candidate. Either way, the charge of bigotry doesn't stick, and neither does the charge of question-dodger. :)
Jay put your money where your mouth is:
Prove your candidate.
I've asked you that over and over. You've failed to do such. I could give my reasons. But then that left wing, Sheila hates everybody would come slinging out of your brain.
That's so Obama.
Hmmm Bring up Romney's Mormon religion Jay and we'll just have to take you to task on how someone who sat under a certain God hating America Rev and says he didn't "pay attention".
Yeah right.
Oh, good grief, Sheila. Scroll up. I had the first word. You people refuse to respond. I'm done tonight. Tomorrow I shall post why I am voting for President Obama, why I am working for his campaign, why I believe that the only hope for America is not only his victory but for Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. But, for the record, the question is closed. Mitt Romney holds to be true a collection of silly beliefs. None of you argued that. I argued that his silly beliefs are incompatible with his aim to be president of the most technologically advanced nation on earth, and "Anonymous," you took a stab at this and then gave up. So this point went unchallenged, as well. So, Sheila, I will prove my candidate in about 24 hours, k? But, for the record, this question about “silly beliefs” is settled in my favor. None of you defended Romney. You all must agree with me. His silly beliefs cannot be reconciled with his bid for the presidency.
It would so much fun to debate you guys for real, on a stage. With real debate rules, in front of a crowd.
And, Sheila, your last point... What?? "Bring up Romney's Mormon religion Jay."... what do you think I've been doing for the last few days, Sheila?? It's all I've been talking about!! "And we'll just have to take you to task on how someone who sat under a certain God hating America [sic] Rev and says he didn't 'pay attention'" - Did you even read the thread? Someone brought that up. I guess we can talk about it, but look, there you go again. My whole thing in this thread from the very beginning has been, "These are Romney's silly views. He thinks they are true. How does he get to be president believing those things?" And, you guys will not talk about it. You dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge. I don't care if you talk about the crazy, God-hating-America pastor, Sheila. I think "Reverend" is a title one should have to live down, not up to. Obama's been President for 4 years, and no one can accuse him of being a religious nut. The point here is that you guys WILL NOT talk about Romney vis a vis Mormonism. And, I think that's hilarious. I think the candidate you really wanted (Gingrich, or maybe Santorum) didn’t get elected, and now you have this guy. This guy who really thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
Great. We can't wait for comic relief. And while you're at it, I'll be brewing a pot of coffee to sip while reading.
Jay I don't think you want to go here..."The point here is that you guys WILL NOT talk about Romney vis a vis Mormonism." I don't have a problem with Romney's religion. You do. But if you go there you will force us to remind you of PBO's past too..and showing the hypocrisy that is so obvious on the left. Keep it up and we'll ring those words in your face by the lovely and talented, America hating Rev..Jeremiah Wright.
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome as long as they are civil and on the topic.