Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Mitt Romney :: Townhall.com Columnist
Religion and Freedom
by Mitt Romney
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Is President Obama's Afghanistan plan a step in the right direction?


Note: The following are remarks made by Gov. Mitt Romney at the Metropolitan Club in New York City where he accepted the Becket Fund’s Canterbury Medal for his defense of religious liberty.

Thank you

It is an honor for Ann and me to be with you this evening. We have a lot of friends who work with the Becket Fund. As you can imagine, that makes your recognition even more meaningful.

Your mission--and my topic this evening—involve the intertwining of religion and government. It’s not a new topic. It was in the 12th century that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett famously refused to allow Henry II to control the Church of England. As you are well aware, his conviction came with a high price: he was killed by the king’s soldiers in his own cathedral.

Our religious liberty in America was bought in large measure by the sacrifice of men and women like Thomas Beckett.

The battle for religious freedom is not over, nor is it likely to ever be. I appreciate the work you do to protect a fundamental human liberty and to defend those who are modern victims of religious intolerance and persecution.

As you know, I gave a speech about religious liberty during the height of my campaign. This was not a speech I was forced to give, it was a speech I wanted to give. I felt that I had a unique opportunity to address in a very public way the role of faith in America.

In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest—unheard and unheeded. It also gave me an opportunity to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.

Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off—after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers—why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief--to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience--it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.

Perhaps the phrase which elicited the most comment—and controversy—was this: “[the Founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

Looking back, do I still believe that religion requires freedom?

History abounds with examples where religion has been imposed by the state upon a people—from the Greek city-state to the dictatorship of the Taliban. But that is not the faith of which I speak. True religious faith is a matter of conviction and can only be discovered through personal communion with God, sought in the heart and in the heavens. And that path of personal discovery is of necessity free of constraint and censor. Yes, I believe religion requires freedom.

The more controversial claim nowadays is that freedom requires religion.

One critic dismissed this idea by pointing out that there are indeed countries in Europe which have become godless but nevertheless remain democratic. But that underscores my point. I was not speaking about Europe’s recent experiments in state secularism, I was speaking about America and the larger family of free nations; and I was not speaking about a moment of time, but rather about a span of history. Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive--over centuries--if we were to abandon our faith in God?

I don’t believe so.

This is hardly a novel view. Nor is it divisive.

It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were the gift of God, not of kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,” Jefferson once asked, “when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”

John Adams offers a further perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man’s nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion” he said “…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

This great experiment in liberty will endure and flourish only so long as we maintain the humility, faith and character to govern ourselves.

Nor can we overlook that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.

“We and God have business with each other,” even the father of pragmatism William James once observed. “In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled.” When a people’s “deepest destiny” can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!

We have recently been visited by Pope Benedict XVI. It was interesting to me that both he and Pope John Paul II, testified of the connection between freedom and truth. Pope Benedict quoted his predecessor: “In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.” Calling those words “prophetic,” he said they echo in some sense the conviction of George Washington’s Farewell Address, that “religion and morality represent ‘indispensable supports’ of political prosperity.” And then he added his own conviction: “Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.”

I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: “Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”

I don’t mean to suggest that truth can only be found in religion or that morality exists only among believers. But I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that “national morality” as Hamilton put it, “require[s] the aid of…divinely authoritative religion.” I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against moral relativism—which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable that it can label “evil good, and good evil;” as it says in Isaiah and “put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”

I also believe that religion and the general precepts of morality defended by religion make us better men and women. And on the whole, I believe we are a stronger people and a stronger nation because of faith. Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy. That last teaching alone may help us escape the demographic nightmare that is haunting Europe.

There is one more reason why I am convinced that our freedom requires religion.

One day as a boy when a sermon at church was unusually boring, my attention turned to the dollar bill I had for the collection. On the back, there is a curious picture of a single eye surrounded by rays suspended over a pyramid—the great seal of the United States. What’s that, I asked? My father explained that it was the eye of God, and that the Founders believed that He watched over the affairs of this nation. And I later learned that the words on the seal were from Virgil - Annuit Coeptis – “God has favored our undertakings.”

This may not be at all compelling to the non-believer, but it has been compelling to every president who has led this nation at a time of peril. It is that God has blessed America. It is that God will bless America if we continue to deserve His blessing. Washington saw the hand of Providence in the nation’s founding: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.”

As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: “we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.” And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.

God bless America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless our great nation!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mitt Romney served as the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007 and is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. His campaign website for campaign news and volunteer activities is http://www.mittromney.com/

Be the first to read Mitt Romney’s column.

Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Sign up today
Fantastic column Governor Romney
You are right that religion is one of the most important aspects of our daily lives, and that God was instrumental in the founding of our great nation.

The founders embraced religion, and intended for us to be free to exercise or belief(or non belief in some cases) in God freely and without restrictions.

God continues to watch over and guide us to the right paths in life.
The fact that even as diverse as the people of this country are religiously, we all manage to get along so well and are always willing to help the downtrodden without being made to is all the proof one needs to see this.

Good speech
However at the LDS Church (Of which i am a member), we do not do an offering where you get out a couple bucks and put it in a plate. Instead we pay a tithing and this is done by filling out a little form and then handing it personally to a Church leader sometime after the Church meetings.

Aside from that little deviation which makes me question that whole part of the story, the speech was good.

I think the main question his detractors might have is how do you have religion and no religion? How do you allow the Govt to promote one over another? And no matter what the govt does, its promoting one over another because if they promote nothing then they are in fact promoting the Athiest view.

Inspiring read
One I enjoyed reading every single word of, and happy to see there are still a few men who hold or have held positions of power in Government concede there is a Higher Power than themselves.
And
Recognize by speaking of the Founders, with HONOR.
And not the disrespect I have seen so often in this day and time as if men are wiser today.

Foundational Truths are timeless truths, and like any Classic, is never out of date.

Collection plate?
As a boy, Romney remembs a "collection plate" in a Mormon church service???

Collection phrasing
He never said collection plate, he said the dollar he had for collection. I assume he was using phrasing that would be more familiar with his audience as many in that group would not be familiar with the Mormon process of the tithing envelope. The point of the story was that the imagery on the bill lead to a question, which helped him better understand God's role in our nation.

Collection
He could have said offering. Instead he said collection which it is not a collection. I am a Mitt supporter but when he pulls out stories like this and the MLK story, it really makes cringe.

Thank You
Mr. Romney,
I pray for your family's continued health, happiness and prosperity. I'm proud to share this nation with you.

freedom
“Freedom requires virtue. Virtue requires faith. Faith requires freedom” Os Guinness

Corrections
Atheists can no more prove the non-existence of God than we can prove God's existence. So both groups rely on faith for their worldviews. You could make an argument that agnostics are the only truly faithless people, but few remain agnostic for long.


"Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God..."

Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, and possibly a few more obscure religions, teach that all people are created equal. Others, like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, paganism, and Darwinism, teach the opposite.


Otherwise, an outstanding speech.

cornpone harry
I'm an evangelical who also dislikes the attempts to blur the lines between the 2,000 year old meaning of the word Christian and the 180 year old LDS church. I didn't see Romney do that - like Glenn Beck's comments that "we're both Christians," or "I'm a Christian, too," when he's interviewing orthodox Christians. If Romney had done that here, I would have criticized him for it.

Election
I like Mitt Romney, but I am really not religious. It's your values that count.
I just saw Senator McCain with Bill O'Reilly, he asked McCain about drilling in Anwar, and he said it was the same as drilling in the Grand Canyon!! That is the most monumentally stupid statement I have ever heard out of a grown up. We have no leaders anymore, they have all sold us out.
Please Mr. Romney, run again, and win, we need you.
Mike Lyman

I'm born again, but...
...I appreciate the former governor's words. He's the one I wanted to see win the nomination, because I was not voting for a pastor, but a politician.

Just one thing,Mitt...
...Please do not accept a vice-presidential slot with John McCain.You were my first choice for the Republican nomination,but you(and I) lost,so look towards 2012.The Vice-presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm spit."I am not voting for McCain,or by extension you, if you are his running mate.I don't have a dog in this fight this year,and will be skipping the presidential line,because neither I, nor anyone else, votes for a Vice President.

See you in 2012,Mitt!


Cornpone
YOU are getting repetitious with your double posting of a stupid comment.

This is the transcript of a speech given after being presented with an award for his "defense of religious liberty". You are capable of reading, right?

Did you expect him to give a speech about the Olympics?

Religion, ethics and public life
Republican primary voters have done us all a favour by removing this confused man from the race for the most powerful job on earth. He makes a clear case for secularism then claims that freedom requires faith. Along with Adams, who seems to have been pretty equivocal in his own supernatural beliefs, he can't get past the wrong idea that you need to have a god for people to behave ethically.

Although it would be hard to find evidence for it, I'd lay money that many of those who are bright enough to run for the top job say privately to themselves that the poor proliteriat fools are deluded if they think there is literally a supreme being in the sky that has made everything and can help them win lotteries, but if that view is admitted out loud well you can kiss goodbye to any chance of being voted into public life in the US. Shame no one can talk about the elephant in the room, the one wearing the emperor's new clothes! Is there still only one member of either house who is openly a non-believer? The people vote for someone who is willing reinforce their prejudice about belief and ethics, as is their right, but it does not make any of it true.

Stuart

I completely agree and thank you
for this important message, we most immediately need to hear.

Recently, I found myself on a TH Athiest thread, and although I did not know the same Truth they were conversing and debating about, I attempted to learn something and came away with a new appreciation for Athiest's truth.

They cannot prove the absence of God as we cannot prove the existence of God.

That Truth is within our individual understanding and experience and cannot be dictated in any way, by those who would know differently.

God (or not God) we must respect the liberty to hold our own Truth.

I cannot exclude God from my day. He inspires my every choice; my every move. I call on him with an open heart to learn and to grow often. I know that this nation has gone astray and wondered off His path lately. However you know [Him], our relationship must coexist, inorder to prosper.

Everything in this universe operates as a relationship. Think about that. It goes deep.

This was a very compelling article, Mr. Romney.
Thank you, again.

Nellie
>Everything in this universe operates as a relationship. Think about that. It goes deep.

Generally,

F=GMm/r^2

F=Qq/4piEor^2

F=ma

E=mc^2

Are there any other relationships that are important for the 'operation of the universe'? Maybe the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Stuart

Faith & Politics

Religiousity and it perpetuation is essential to the health of this Nation. I think the Founding Fathers had enough sanguine understanding of their own weakness to want and need to be reminded that God is omniscient.

I appreciate your reference to Becket and hope that the religious of this Nation understand the underpinnings of their faith and how that supports the view of subsidiarism and school choice. Or rather limited government hence lower taxation and hence more personal income to be able to afford educational choice.

Limited government and the economic means for educational choice are essential for the propogation of faith. Without it - over time - we will descend into the Rule of Man.

Nice catch Harry
"Mitt, you are getting repetitious now with your second "mormons are mainstream" speech. And that IS the underlying motive of this religious feel good pander."

Watching the bizarre polygamous cult in Texas & Arizona makes me wonder why Romney is so determined to defend the faith of his fathers. There is no difference between them except time: statutory rape, trading wives, magic underwear, etc.

It's also fun to hear the mormons here catch his fib about the collection plate. I really appreciate the honesty-- too often people would just circle the wagons and defend their guy.

Freedom

The Pope, in his UN speech, made reference to Freedom, rules and responsabilities. In this framework which comes from his understanding of his faith he supports the social and fiscal conservative view of government and the best imperfect experiment in self government, America.

I think the Mormon, Catholics, Protestants, Episcapalians, Jews, Baptists and all of the rest of the Faiths that support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness need remember that in many significant ways - we have a common cause and understand that true liberty allows for religious freedom.

Atheist need to realize that we aren't forcing them to go to church and the door is always open if they change their mind.

Religion is best when it is separate from government. However I am concerned that secular humanism is its own religion and has a monopoly.


Prodigy

The reason why it is important to assign responsiblity to the true heretics - the polygomists - rather than mainstream Mormonism is because it is just.

Mainstream Mormonism has outlawed polygamy. I don't think that can be made any clearer.

It is just like a bad person in any church, in a free society all the faithful can say is, this doesn't represent the tenants of my faith and the church can denounce or separate themselves from an individual or group that no longer respresents the tenents etc..

This is also why I think central leadership on dogmatic issues is a plus. I think Islam would certainly be more consistent if they centralized authority over their dogma. That will be difficult with the underlying tribal social structure.

jcdean
"I think the main question his detractors might have is how do you have religion and no religion? How do you allow the Govt to promote one over another? And no matter what the govt does, its promoting one over another because if they promote nothing then they are in fact promoting the Athiest view."

This is where I think most theists are wrong. If they are neutral and promote nothing that is not a pro atheist stance. They are not going out and saying in "no" god we trust, or one nation under "no" god. They are leaving it up to the individual to decide.

I would be just as adamant against a pro atheist government as well as pro theism.


More-mon hating, nitpicking fools
Once again the Mormon haters come out of the woodwork and expose themselves for the petty fools they are.

Why talk about the substance of Romney's speech, which btw. never contained the word's "Mormon" or "Mormonism" or "LDS Church." Way to go, small-minded one-note bigots.

As far as the collection or lack thereof, I don't think it preposterous that as a boy Romney would be looking at a dollar during a boring sermon. Even with the tithing envelope, he may have had some friends who talked about thier religious experiences and wanted to help his temple out. Either way the lead-in is not as important as the substance.

Romney's entire speech read like a research paper. There was nothing there to criticize, but that never stops the basest TH elements from opening their mouths and removing all doubt of their foolishness.

Promotion vs coersion

I think one needs to look at the fact that their is a difference between promotion through recognition and coersion.

Award a Sham Bought and Paid For
like everything else romney achieves this phony award was bought and paid for by the rich boy limosine liberal who illegally installed same sex marriage which has led to the violation of religious liberty for thousands of Massachusetts citizens who are daeling with the mess Romney left.

Romney owns Mass Family Institute run by the phony Kris Mineau who is on the take and Romney bought his "pro life" leadership award which members of the board of Mass Citizens for Life objected to (the award romney purchased for $15,000 and was nof from MCFL but from a local chapter for "political leadership."

Why don't you ask the thousands of babies who will die in the womb from Romney's $50 co pay abortions how they like their "religious liberty."


Good grief people!
Collection, offering…who cares!! Talk about straining at a gnat!

Your comments are totally ridiculous.

An elevating discussion
by Romney and commenters. Thank you all. I usually avoid discussing religion. I tithe to the church which best coincides with God of my understanding. I was non-religious from early teens to 50 something, and i can certainly identify with those like Stu if i think back. But now, i am more akin to Nellie. Her choice of political solutions is near opposite my own, but i see a genuine desire to be a force for good there. This is not always apparent in every poster, even some who are more likely to vote much like i do.

Romney's Lies Continue
Mitt, the truth about how this "award" was procured is coming out as is your phony "pro life" award from MFI and the extent with which you have attempted to buy many organizations and leaders in the conservative movement and GOP. Lies, unlike truth Mr. Romney, have a limited shelf life. And the date on yours is just about up.

Enough alraedy with the phony awards you buy with your Bain Capital money Mitt. The American people rejected you. And McCain hates you. Now go away little doggie and take Hewitt, Sekulow, Bopp, French, Minnery, Coulter, and Hannity and the rest of the Pseudo-Cons with you...

Separation brings Unity
Mitt writes:
Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive--over centuries--if we were to abandon our faith in God?

I don’t believe so.

This is hardly a novel view. Nor is it divisive.
---
ts:
I see some got side tracked with their comments, and instead of reading what Mitt says here, and comment on the topic he is speaking of, they went to their favorite rants and wallows, like a pig preferring its sty.

My statement on first glance appears to be contradictory Separation brings Unity.

And some shallow thinkers will argue it is, without trying to think past the end of their own nose.

But Mitt understands this concept, very well, and is what he speaks of in this article.

With some men, there exists arguments they will not turn loose of,(their own biased positions, which can never allow an agreement, any peace) so they never find an answer that does allow unity.

Mitt spoke to the Heart and Soul of America and how it obtained Unity of mind for all men, believer or non believer, sinner or saint, Christian or Jew, Mormon or Baptist.

The Founders found it in the 15 years from 1776 to 1791, and wrote it all down in the Document that United a people for a New Nation with new ideas for Government and Religion.

Unifying ideas, that recognized the Rights of the Individual, as God Given Rights, even to the Unthankful, the Unholy, the Unbeliever.

Its the unbelievers of today, who do not want to recognize this Foundational Truth, and prefer to impose their own beliefs and will on all others.

The ungrateful and hateful minded secularists who despise another man rights to his chosen Faith.
And come to mock him and his chosen religion

The Separation of Powers applies in manifold areas of our lives, laws, religions.
But one thing brings unity.
Respect for every persons right to believe or not believe, suffering their right to be wrong in your own eyes.

This is what Mitt is speaking of and some missed



STU "the wrong idea"
"the wrong idea that you need to have a god for people to behave ethically."

You're right Stu, you don't need a god to behave ethically but who decides what is ethical? If you consider a consensus by "society" to be the arbiter of what is right, or a group of elected officials to decide, does that not constitute a "religion" of sorts, even if it is godless? And what if I want to be the maverick and march to a different drummer? Who has the right to say that I am wrong?

You might take note of the fact that Romney didn't say that freedom requires God. He said that "freedom requires religion".

It was an outstanding speech! There is much truth there to think about if you would just consider it logically rather than emotionally and defensively.

Action, Gee, I'll bet you're a fun guy !
Even if I were to stipulate to all of the negative and hateful things you said about Romney, how would this not be anything but a great speech? What is there in this speech that you disagree with?

Are you quite sure that you're not just being petty and well.....SMALL?

Accusers and Abusers "R" us.
Every person who seeks public office is inviting critics, and support, no one is immune from examination into the most minute details of his personal life.

Its important to know who these people are, down to their basic emotional being.
It is stupid to ignore who the person is on his most basic outlook on life to be able to support him for Public Office.

I have 3 sons, one passed away, and two living, one of them I could feel comfortable with as holding Public Office, the other I would vote for his opponent.

For anyone to say Mitt was "slimed" over his religion is a dumb lie.
His views on all things are open for discussion when he seeks the Highest Office in the Land.
And this goes for all of them as well.

Having Liberty means the freedom to make choices.
That includes the right to make stupid choices.
There is no Candidate in the History of America that was given a pass for his personal life or views, not a single one.
And that is the way it should be, as its very important to KNOW who the person is who runs for office.

Mitt received no more criticism for his religion or politics than Huckabee did.
Mitt backers slimed Huchabee
Huchabee backers slimed Mitt
Mitt backers also told the truth about Huckabee.
AND
Huckabee backers told the truth about Mitt.

Nothing said can capture all truth or all lies, and each man was subjected to the same process.

Personally I like Mitt, but not as my President.
Same for Huckabee, McCain.
Personally I despise Hilliary and Obama, for everything they say and do, as I hate lies and liars all the same.
But, I do respect their right to their own views, maintaining my own right to reject them as liars, and enemies of what I believe in.


What makes America different?
Romney: "It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were the gift of God, not of kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,” Jefferson once asked, “when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”

Me: This doesn't explain the fact that most societies in history were not free and almost all of those unfree societies were religious.

I've made this point in several other threads on religion and America: The existence of the United States of America cannot be explained by the existence of religious people in it--at least not wholly explained.

Because those same types of religious people existed in all those unfree societies.

The only way to explain America is to explain what's DIFFERENT about it than all those unfree societies.

I contend that the existence of a largely unsettled frontier explains a great deal more about this difference than religion ever could.

Nevertheless, I thank Romney for his kind words about nonbelievers.

King Liberal
Good post. I actually agree with you. There are many people in this country that follow the narrow Huckabee view. They cut off their nose to spite their face. I see we have a commenter here named Action that might be Mike Huckabee or at least one of his followers. They believe it is their divine duty to smear the LDS church.

I also fail to see the value in sniping about the collection. He was obviously using a term more likely to be understood by his audience that in no way detracted from the story.

I thought it was an excellent speech. I happen to share his view of our country.

TheLeftisEvil
"This doesn't explain the fact that most societies in history were not free and almost all of those unfree societies were religious."

True! But, in those unfree societies that were religious, it was the political/religious leaders who chose and enforced the religion and pronounced the laws.

This country was founded upon the idea of liberty, including freedom of religion. Freedom of religion was what brought the Puritans to this continent.

How many countries have there been with similar ideas of liberty where there was not respect for religion? I submit, there were none.

One definition of religion is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" (Free Online Dictionary)also "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Under those definitions, there can be no government nor freedom (other than anarchy) without religion. What is it that determines what justice is without guiding moral principles? and where do you get those without a belief in an ultimate authority, God?

If there is no ultimate authority, there is no right or wrong. The thief, the rapist, the murderer all have the "right" to do whatever they can get away with!

Religion is as important in protecting the rights of the atheist as it is in protecting the rights of the "religious".


Who gives rights? God or men?
TheLeftIsEvil writes: 10:54 AM
What makes America different?
Romney:...” Jefferson once asked, “when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”


TheLeftIsEvil writes:
Me: This doesn't explain the fact that most societies in history were not free and almost all of those unfree societies were religious.
--------
ts:
Doesn't try to, so I will.
In Europe the Catholics imposed Papist Rule.
The Church of England imposed the Rule of the King, a Protestant and made the CoE the Official giver of Rights, just as the Catholics said Rights were Pope given.
Founders rejected both, and settled for a Government under God, but without imposing a religion or certain Doctrine of some Religion.
Recogizing the Giver of Rights is given in Nature itself and the God of Nature, not religions doctrines, or governments of men.

Without that, then we all must decide what man or men are the giver of rights.
What power we see as the Giver of Rights.
In Europe, the system recognized that to be the King or the Church, and NEITHER is accepted in America.



In America neither are the Ruler, but the God they both believe in, does.

It really is this simple.

Without this Fundamental Truth, we are left with the struggle for the POWER to be the Granter of Rights.

As seen in all Government of the world in former times.
Only in America was it Established that Rights come from GOD and not men.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary .....
to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,




Who gives rights? God or men?
TheLeftIsEvil writes: 10:54 AM
What makes America different?
Romney:...” Jefferson once asked, “when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”


TheLeftIsEvil writes:
Me: This doesn't explain the fact that most societies in history were not free and almost all of those unfree societies were religious.
--------
ts:
Doesn't try to, so I will.
In Europe the Catholics imposed Papist Rule.
The Church of England imposed the Rule of the King, a Protestant and made the CoE the Official giver of Rights, just as the Catholics said Rights were Pope given.
Founders rejected both, and settled for a Government under God, but without imposing a religion or certain Doctrine of some Religion.
Recogizing the Giver of Rights is given in Nature itself and the God of Nature, not religions doctrines, or governments of men.

Without that, then we all must decide what man or men are the giver of rights.
What power we see as the Giver of Rights.
In Europe, the system recognized that to be the King or the Church, and NEITHER is accepted in America.



In America neither are the Ruler, but the God they both believe in, does.

It really is this simple.

Without this Fundamental Truth, we are left with the struggle for the POWER to be the Granter of Rights.

As seen in all Government of the world in former times.
Only in America was it Established that Rights come from GOD and not men.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary .....
to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,




Separate but Equal?
I do not dislike Mormons, but I do dislike the fact that they use the term “Christians” when referring to themselves. Mormons belong to a cult…they deny the fact that God was, (had no beginning) is, and always will be…they deny the fact that salvation is by grace alone, not dependent on works. They deny the trinity, one of the basic foundational beliefs of Christians, and they ascribe the same authority and dignity to the Book of Mormon as they do to the Bible. Their tenets state that Jesus and Satan are actually brothers…if you ask they will deny it? Why are they ashamed of what they believe? They also believe that God was once a man, and the mantra is, that “God was once a man, therefore as man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” How can a man be elevated to the status of God Almighty of the Universe when He created it… could He be elevated to the status of God “after” He created it?

Everyone in a free country is under no compulsion to believe any one set of religious tenets, and all Americans have the right to believe whatever they wish, the truth notwithstanding, but do not try to “mainstream” and “normalize” Mormonism by attempting to make it sound like, or to be equal or comparable with Christianity…it is not by its own admissions. Romney is a good, smart man, but a bit of a Sophist.

I posted as you did wally
And you beat me to it, and said it well.
Under every other former or present Government of mankind, none of them recognize God as the Giver of Rights.

From the Ceasars to the King of England
From Stalin to Hitler
From Castro to Mao
All those forms of government decide all rights.
NOT in America.

Rights are GOD Given
Not State OR Religion Given.


Before the days of Law School
AND
Madison Avenue Packaging, WORDS were used to communicate an idea, not as they are used today.

Just use words as if they can be applied to mean whatever the user of the words decide they mean.

America has LOST the Ability to COMMUNICATE IDEAS, simply because words no longer are used by a dictionary understanding, but for salesmanship or persuasion to sell and convince some simple mind to buy their bs.

We see it all over the place today, word twisting idiots who think they are so wise.

Cause it actually works on the unthinking masses.

Take Obama for instance.
He has gained WORSHIP for just his use of the word "change" "hope" and such words that MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT A CONTEXT.

Take the Word GRACE.
It still has some impact to mean what its intended to mean, but the SPIRIT OF GRACE HAS BEEN LOST TODAY in respect to each others rights to make choices for ourselves without government interference.

I do not want the Government to do anything but PROTECT MY RIGHTS.
Other than that, they are good for nothing but Law Enforcement.
They steal from me "legally" by calling their theft "law"
All theft is immoral, regardless if the theft comes under the color of law.

Socialism is State Theft, and without Grace, but guilty of a CRIME against Nature and Natures God.
This is why Socialism hates God.

They see it that God has infringed their right to decide who gets rights, and who does not.
This is America's real problem today, a government of thieves, liars , crooks and God hating bigots.




Talent Scout,
You are quite right! Except, they would say that they are only enforcing "Gods laws". It is just that they arrogate to themselves the determination of what "Gods law" is.

Possibly the single most important decision our founders made was that we would not have an official "State Religion" as most countries have even today.

Lexx777
It is significant to me that Romney's excellent speech was entirely non-sectarian whereas his detractors on this thread are entirely sectarian.

If you would take your blinders off and read what he said, rather than try to impute to him motives that he didn't even obliquely imply, you might see more clearly.

Lovers of liberty…

‘John Adams offers a further perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man’s nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion” he said “…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” ’– Mitt Romney


Governor Romney, thanks for quoting from John Adams. His is the Biblical view of man that is lost to our culture. The liberty of which our Founders desired was only possible among a self governing people. The more a man can govern himself the greater liberty he will enjoy because there is less of a need for other government.

You rightly imply that if we do not maintain humility, faith and character to govern ourselves, then we should not expect the blessing of God.

Now this is the question: How do we maintain these things without the blessing of God?

In colonial America the blessings of truth and grace were poured out in the Great Awakening. Truth is the foundation of freedom, and it begins with the individual based on the revealed wisdom of God [John 8]. That is why the autonomous wisdom of men always leads to tyranny because it is void of truth.

Today our great need is a spiritual awakening where truth is once again proclaimed from the pulpits of America. We are dependent on this blessing of God and the transforming power of the Spirit to be self governing and lovers of liberty.


Rights, and Civil Rights
If I want the Right to say what I believe in, I MUST recognize the RIGHT of the other in the very same LIBERTY I WANT FOR MYSELF.

This is what the socialists and God haters lack, and can NEVER Give.
Simply because it Takes GRACE to be able to give another human being the exact same right you want for yourself.

Grace does not EXIST under the rule of mankind, except for WHO they decide should be granted Grace.
In their own eyes, and not the eyes of God who see us all as EQUALS, all having the same Civil Rights.

Men are not the giver of Rights or Grace.
ONLY GOD can Give this, and if men will not recognize this LAW of Nature, they will commit CRIMES AGAINST IT.
As this present day United States Government does DAILY.

In many ways, yet gets by with it cause the America People as a whole HAVE LOST THE LIBERTY THAT IS ONLY FOUND IN GOD.
Simply because the America of today, rejects God as the Giver of Rights as this Nation was Established in.

Stu
Stu= A typical over-educated, elitist, arrogant, condescending Atheist Liberal.

Men or God, who gives Rights
This simple question is the base for understanding every governmental system in the world.

Its a Universal Truth that Rights are God Given.

Told over and over again in many ways, as its as versatile for its application as fashion or culture.

The first revealing of this basic principle of truth, that I have found is found in the Book of Judges, the Holy Bible, the Book respected and loved by every generation of Americans until this back slidden from all truth generation.

Jud 9:14 -
Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.

This is exactly what Americans today are saying.
Wanting Government to Rule over all men and not God.

Trading their own liberty for oppression.
Trading their own freedom of choice, for the choice of some other man.

Dumbed down to the level of the Bramble Bush itself they prefer to Rule over them and not God, who really does Rule anyway.


Lexx777
Although your post misses the topic of this article, I wanted to comment on it anyway. You appear to be under the delusion that "Christians" have one common set of beliefs and "Mormons" have a different set of beliefs. Which church in your view is the real Christian church? Is it Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Jehovahs Witnesses? Are you trying to claim all of these different sects have the same beliefs? Many Christian sects can't even decide among themselves what their beliefs are.

Let me give you an example. My nephew came to stay with us for a period of time and asked us if there was a local Baptist church he could attend. I replied that I knew of three in the local area. He then asked what kind of Baptist Church they were and what they taught. He then explained to me numerous differences in the beliefs of Baptist churches and was looking for one that agreed to his beliefs. Mormons have one set of beliefs and use the same set of scriptures throughout the world. The same cannot be said for some other Christian sects.

I don't know exactly which churches you claim have Christian beliefs. I define Christians as someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Using that standard, many mormons I know are Christian as well as people from various other faiths.

Talent Scout
"This is exactly what Americans today are saying.
Wanting Government to Rule over all men and not God."

Right again! Is this not the real difference between conservatives and so called "liberals"?

The "liberals" have great faith in government, they want government to have more power. They want government to take care of them. They look to government to solve all problems. They view the common man as being too stupid to make his own decisions.

Remember what a fuss "liberals" made when it was suggested that we be ALLOWED to choose to put even a small part of our Social Security fund into investments of our own choosing?

The reason for the award and speech 2
"This year the Becket Fund is honored to bestow Governor and Mrs. Mitt Romney with its highest honor, the Canterbury Medal, for their role in expanding the free expression of religious faith in the public square. Each year the Becket Fund awards the Canterbury Medal to someone who has "resolutely refused to render unto Caesar that which is God's."

"The governor's extraordinary speech on the role of religion in political life was an important contribution to religious liberty and the national political discourse during this election season. Both Governor and Mrs. Romney have demonstrated exemplary poise and dignity in the face of all manner of provocations aimed at their faith. For these reasons and more, The Becket Fund is delighted to present the Romneys with the Canterbury Medal at this year's dinner."



I think it's terribly ironic that the award which instigated this second speech about religion, was given to the Romney's for withstanding the very kind of attacks found here at TH by the likes of Action and Lexx. They just don't seem to get it, though, do they?


No Deists among the Founders
“Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence.” —Thomas Jefferson

One of the biggest lies told in todays America, by God hating bigots, and fools.
Or possibly just repeated by unlearned citizens, because the ignorance today is unlimited, and can only be compared to the "Dark Ages".


The only Deist of Note, one can find, is Thomas Paine, and whose Name is not FOUND on a Single Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.

Deism is belief in God alright, but in a Creator that Abandoned the Universe

These words By Jefferson declare the exact opposite of the teaching of deism.

Declaring God Rules, and is Involved in the Government of men.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to .... assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,


Ben Franklin speaks how futile mens reason can be in God's Universe.(1787)

quote:
...
In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. --

Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.

All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor.

.... And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men.

Exactamente, know thy enemy
wally writes: 1:54 PM
Talent Scout
"This is exactly what Americans today are saying.
Wanting Government to Rule over all men and not God."

Right again! Is this not the real difference between conservatives and so called "liberals"?

The "liberals" have great faith in government, they want government to have more power. They want government to take care of them. They look to government to solve all problems. They view the common man as being too stupid to make his own decisions.

Remember what a fuss "liberals" made when it was suggested that we be ALLOWED to choose to put even a small part of our Social Security fund into investments of our own choosing?
--------
ts:
Government is an enemy that must be controlled, to make it tame to domestic taming.
Trained or bred to live with
Not given enough rope to walk all over the earth and ground men into servants to it.

Men were Created In God's Image
Not the "stinkin" smelly oderous republican or democrat party image.


Love vs Hate
Reading Romney's words give a message of hope and love toward all, and then the anti-Mormons jump in spewing their hate-filled, ignorant, bigoted rants. I don't know why they like to throw mud around in a clean room. *sigh*

I feel sorry for those of you who insist on displaying your inner-ugliness for all to see.

How ardent is Mitt?
It is still a mark against him that Taxachussets is one of the first states to recognise (euphemistically termed) "civil unions" between homosexuals--specifically passed on his watch.

Asked, as most of the Mormons I've presonally met are (or have been) rather conservative.

Government nature is to Oppress
When man follows his nature, he invariably becomes more corrupt, vile, immoral, etc. It is his nature to be narcissistic, totally absorbed in himself and uncaring for others. Man must continually fight this base nature to be a decent human being.
Government’s nature is to be oppressive. When government is left unchecked, it takes away the freedoms of the populace and replaces freedom with complete control over its citizens in both thought and actions.
It takes decent human beings in government to control the direction of the government. The more narcissistic the government official, the more control he or she seeks to impose on the citizens. Hence the freedoms we have lost in this country over the past 100 years.
If it wasn’t for a few good decent human officials continually fighting the narcissistic officials looking for power, our country would be no different than any other country with a dictator. The populace of Venezuela is losing their freedoms under Chavez. The Venezuelans government is getting more oppressive each day. They are gaining power in the guise of pitting the citizens against each other, giving freebees, etc. to gain support knowing that in the end, the man in charge will have complete control over the populace and can do pretty much what he/she wants to do with being accountable to anyone.
It takes decent human beings as government officials to be the inner conscience of government and stem or reverse government’s nature to oppress. These decent human beings come from religions people and some non-religions people willing to do the right things for everyone, not just for themselves.

Talent Scout
I don't always agree with your posts I have seen on various threads. At times, I have ignored your posts as useless rants. However, I appreciate your posts in this thread. You and others have made some excellent points. Thanks.

Very Powerful
As I read this, I felt an overwhelming sense of peace. This message speaks truth. This message will reach the honest in heart.

God will bless America, as its people strive to stand for what's true and what's right.

TheLeftIsEvil
You're confusing necessary condition and sufficient condition. Romney and Jefferson argued that religion is a necessary condition for freedom. Your post argued against the notion that religion is a sufficient condition for freedom - a notion that neither Romney nor Jefferson suggested.


Your final comment suggests you are an atheist (a faithful believer that there is no God). How can you claim that the Left is evil? The logical conclusion of an atheist worldview is that evil is a man-made social concept and not an accurate description of behavior. To the honest atheist, there is only personal preference, not good or evil. Laws would then reflect the consensus preferences of society. You are intellectually powerless to declare the Left to be evil. The worst you can say is that their preferences are antithetical to yours.

Talent Scout

Your postings today have been spot on. Bravo.

Ind Observer
You wrote earlier "Mormons have one set of beliefs and use the same set of scriptures throughout the world. The same cannot be said for some other Christian sects."
----------

Are you saying that all Morman groups are the same everywhere? This is tough to swallow especially knowing that Morman's have thrown out and altered their own doctrine throughout their history as politics and laws pressured them to do so. Mormans have been no more or less immune to "spin-off's" from their sect than Catholics, Protestants or the rest. To claim otherwise is absurd.

Wally--part 1
"True! But, in those unfree societies that were religious, it was the political/religious leaders who chose and enforced the religion and pronounced the laws.

This country was founded upon the idea of liberty, including freedom of religion. Freedom of religion was what brought the Puritans to this continent.

How many countries have there been with similar ideas of liberty where there was not respect for religion? I submit, there were none."

I'm not wholly disagreeing with your point, but, I believe the Founders were (on the whole) responding to some very hard, practical problems in a very practical, non-ideological way. Later, freedom of religion did become a major component of Americans' one true ideology: Americanism. This sort of thing happens often in history: Make a virtue out of dire necessity. Some argue that's why the Constitution turned out so well; the Framers were really under the gun as society was shredding under the too anarchic Articles.

Wally--part 2
Before the American Revolution, several American colonies had state religions in which tax money went to pay for churches and pastors. When the Puritans moved to America, they were driven by the need for religious freedom for themselves, but were little interested in granting it to any other sect.

Some (really unusual) colonies had no such restrictions (Pennsylvania, Rhode Island).

When the American framers of the brand new Constitution addressed the problem of religion for their brand new country, they had to face the fact that no one of the colonies' state churches could be picked over the others, or what was already a highly tenuous Union would become fractured without any hope of healing.

Also, Americans already followed so many different creeds, that the framers couldn't see any way to make them conform outside of the use of draconian measures, measures very highly opinionated Americans would never bow to. Remember, they had just won a war against those they believed were trying to destroy their liberties.

So, long before the American Revolution, the American people had ceased being religiously unified and were uninterested in forcing the issue.

Ind Observer
I knew one of you Mormons would repeat the tiresome lie that "You appear to be under the delusion that "Christians" have one common set of beliefs..." You will read the following link with no other purpose than to disagree, no matter what you have to ignore or how illogical you have to be. You cannot be persuaded. (Don't delude yourself into thinking I will debate this with you here - I've been down that road on other threads and your LDS buddies prove over and over that you're impervious to reason in this matter.) I post this link for open-minded readers who I do not want to see fall for your oft-repeated lie.

http://sntjohnny.com/front/dispelling-the-myth-that-christi ans-are-hopelessly-divided-on-core-beliefs/185.html

Disagreements among authentic, historically orthodox Christian denominations are minor differences that do not affect our views of the fundamental nature of God or His plan for our salvation. Mormons have fundamentally different views about God, not the least of which are that He used to be a man, that He is only one of many gods, and that we can become gods when we die. Joseph Smith himself claimed that all Christians were in complete apostasy. Inherent in that claim is that we are irreconcilably different. You think you're right and we think we're right. But it is clear that we have very different core beliefs.

talent scout
"Doesn't try to, so I will.
In Europe the Catholics imposed Papist Rule.
The Church of England imposed the Rule of the King, a Protestant and made the CoE the Official giver of Rights, just as the Catholics said Rights were Pope given.
Founders rejected both, and settled for a Government under God, but without imposing a religion or certain Doctrine of some Religion.
Recogizing the Giver of Rights is given in Nature itself and the God of Nature, not religions doctrines, or governments of men."

See my comments to Wally above.

"Without that, then we all must decide what man or men are the giver of rights."

Most often in history, it was the Man with the Sword, the Man on Horseback who got to decide. The People never stood a chance. Good American historians must grapple with the interesting historical fact that it was the Americans who managed to avoid the normal fate of Kingdom and Empire. Their answers include a great deal of American practicality, American idealism, and that famous American luck: "God protects drunks, sailors, and the United States of America." "Amerika, du hast es besser."

"What power we see as the Giver of Rights.
In Europe, the system recognized that to be the King or the Church, and NEITHER is accepted in America."

Some of the reasons for this I explained to Wally. Others include the vast spaces of the frontier, which I mentioned in my first post and resulting rock-ribbed American individualism: "I'll stand my ground and I won't back down."

Take a deep breath
BTW, I supported Mitt Romney in the primaries when he was the most conservative candidate left (him, Huckabee, and McCain). So don't even try to call me an anti-Mormon bigot. I have no problem with electing some non-Christians (not Muslims) to gov't positions because his role would not have been Pastor in Chief. I do have a problem with people trying to redefine terms to suit their own purposes. That goes for "Christian," "marriage," and "truth."

Lestat

Really quite brilliant Lestat.

Talent Scout
"And you beat me to it, and said it well.
Under every other former or present Government of mankind, none of them recognize God as the Giver of Rights."

Political rights are a comparatively recent idea. Most of the unfree societies I queried about existed before anyone had ever heard of such a thing. The others, America's contemporaries over the centuries, vehemently denied them, except perhaps to the aristocracy. Those people believed humans were fundamentally UNequal in every sense of the word.

Now, I do believe human beings are individually unequal in virtually every respect, EXCEPT in their rights as free citizens and before the law.

BTW, after the flagrantly anti-religious French Revolution, a number of religious Europeans, seeing that Americans rejected firmly any such thing as a state church, feared America was Jacobin. They simply had no notion of what genuine religious (and non-religious) freedom would be like...at least not until Tocqueville described our system in great detail in his wonderful Democracy in America.

In regards to the subject of Romney's
speech.

Monopolized religion does threaten our freedom in the same way a monopolized government or monopolized corporations will threaten our freedom.

For example, there are only a handful of cement manufacturing companies worldwide (few if any are owned anymore by the USA). Not too many people realize this when buying a bag of ready to go concrete at Home Depot. As an individual, I have no choice but to support one of these companies if I want to pour a sidewalk or build a house or pour cement around the posts of my kids swing set. Less choice means less freedom.

Home truth
It's extremely difficult to deal with an idea you've never heard of.

America was an idea that didn't exist until Americans began planting the seed and tending to the tender plant.

Late response to Stu--
I'm also a scientist and not a religious person. Most of the world's greatest religious leaders have taught tolerance above much else, although followers often lose sight of that over-arching principle -- under whose penumbra even the likes of you and me should get a little peaceful shade, eh? Live and let live. Believe and let believe -- or don't. As long as you're not detonating yourself to kill others, I think there's plenty of room for all of us.

Lestat

I think your getting tied up in the weeds. I think Anna said it the best:

Freedom needs virtue, Virtue needs faith and faith needs freedom.

I think as long as the religion supports life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we are good.

Romney and Business

Just thinking how expensive risk would be if we did not have a morally ambitious population.

I bet the cost of regulation would get to the cost point of breaking down.

Contracts rely on trust. Yes there are the courts but that is a very expensive way to do business and erodes the trust of investors, among business associates and regulators.

western bondbeam
western bondbeam writes: Friday, May, 09, 2008 3:58 PM
I
Are you saying that all Morman groups are the same everywhere? This is tough to swallow especially knowing that Morman's have thrown out and altered their own doctrine throughout their history as politics and laws pressured them to do so. Mormans have been no more or less immune to "spin-off's" from their sect than Catholics, Protestants or the rest. To claim otherwise is absurd.

Yes, the church is the same all over the world. I just moved from the U.K. this past year and went to visit family in Utah before moving to Colorado. We have set manuals the teachers teach from and in each place, the lesson followed on from the previous week. One congregation was a week slower, so I heard the same lesson twice. It was about the atonement of The Savior, so I figure I needed to hear it twice. LOL
I have attended church in 7 different countries. Many different languages, same message from the same manual. Cool, huh??!!

Anything different is not The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Welcome
Ind Observer writes: 3:42 PM
Talent Scout
I don't always agree with your posts I have seen on various threads. At times, I have ignored your posts as useless rants. However, I appreciate your posts in this thread. You and others have made some excellent points. Thanks.
---------
ts:
I have indeed made a few posts filled with rants, its all I had to fight with, on some idea or action I seen as preposterous.
And the thought of an intellectual debate over them, made me disgusted and not worth the time to waste with sound reason, just gut it on the run.



I am armed for warfare in defense of the things I believe in, and prepared for war with more than intellectual drivel.

Knowing what one really believes in leaves him on ground he will not get pushed off of, by man or beast, or until dead.

This ideas of this thread are such, I would die defending.

Forgive me my rants, I actually can show cause, even for them.

Usually born out the contempt I feel for the lack of understanding our Freedoms, our Constitution, Laws, and National Identity, and everything about real money policy.
Which no one seems to grasp today but a handful, the real Americans.






Citizens need reminding sometimes
about the beginnings of this nation and why we are so different from other nations. We live in the greatest nation on earth. We need to be reminded to show gratitude for our liberty and to understand from whence it flows. Thanks, Gov. Romney. We needed that.

hillplus
"Anything different is not The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
------------
Anything different would then be a ....spin off of the LDS. To claim there are no spinoff's of LDS is absurd and that is what Ind Observor was claiming.

As far as the LDS, what happens when they change their doctrine to fit current standards? Do you wait until every LDS Church in existance gets a new copy of the update or do you keep teaching the old until the new arrives? Please do not claim there are never any updates either as we all know polygamy used to be accepted in the LDS hurch and now it is not. This would seem to be a major change. Certainly there were lots of families confused after changing that doctrine, agreed?

Excellent speech by Mitt Romney!
His speech was perfect on the subject of religion and freedom. Some have veered off of the subject of his speech here. And so I will veer off and mention this: lexx 777 seems to know very little about the Mormon religion, only what has been told to him or her by others or something he has read about in an anti-Mormon book. His statement of beliefs bare little resemblance to the religions that Mormons practice. Also, Ind Observer, you did a great job in helping lexx 777 to at least have some understanding of the subject matter.

Worth a Chained Ankle
The Plains Indians had a custom when faced with certain death, and die fighting.

They chained their ankle to the ground to face their enemies, and would not run but stand and fight until their own death.

The issues of this thread is Ground worth thying an ankle to and standing our ground to face all enemies, dying, if the circumstance dictates that outcome.


A needed qualification
When I left my post with this ending, I should have added my entire thought.

quote myself:
Forgive me my rants, I actually can show cause, even for them.

Usually born out the contempt I feel for the lack of understanding our Freedoms, our Constitution, Laws, and National Identity, and everything about real money policy.
Which no one seems to grasp today but a handful, the real Americans.
-----------

but a handful, the real Americans in Government and the Media

Mitt not John
In spite of whatever misgivings I had about Romney's Mormon faith I supported him because I believed he was the only true conservative Republican in the race. I had many disagreements with relatives who said they could not support him because of his religion. I asked them if they would rather Hillary or Obama win by default. Some supported Huckabee who could not close the deal and some supported Thompson who did not seem to take his campaign seriously enough to work hard for it. I would even have taken Guiliani although I had disagreements with him. So ultimately we have McCain. I will probably hold my nose and vote for him because staying home or voting for a third party candidate would be the same as voting Democrat. God help us all. What a political year this has been!

TheLeftisEvil
RE: your posts of 3:59 and 4:00

"So, long before the American Revolution, the American people had ceased being religiously unified and were uninterested in forcing the issue."

I completely agree with both posts! I also think that Romney's speech was absolutely spot on.

My argument is very simple: If there is no God, nothing really matters because that would mean that there is no such thing as right or wrong.

western bondbeam
western bondbeam

There are spinoffs of every religion, that is why there thousands of them.

Doctrine sometimes changes to suit the needs of the people, God gives line upon line. The big stuff like faith in the Lord or repentance, baptism, etc... won't change, of course. When there is a change, information usually comes during General Conference. This is a meeting that happens every six months in SLC and is broadcast throughout the world.

If you go to http://www.lds.org, you can watch the one that just happened in April.

I am sure that polygamy was a fierce trial for those who lived it, i wouldn't like to try it. I am the product of it, though. My one 5th great grandfather has thousands of progeny. Most still faithful LDS. I would share my understanding of the big picture of Polygamy, if you would like. It would only be gospel according to hillplus, though

Wilson54
It is a shame that more people do not have your attitude.

I think that Romney has show great ability to function in a non-sectarian way with empathy for people of all viewpoints. His history as a CEO shows much the same thing. His employees represent a broad range of beliefs and creeds.

It's too bad that so many felt threatened by his personal religious beliefs. He could have been a great president but it may have been a bumpy road. I believe that one of the reasons G. W. Bush is so hated by so many people is that he is a man of faith.

Religion should be publicly questioned
I'm all in favor of a merger of religion and government. But what I ask is total transparancy. I would like to see the Congress of the United States debate whether or not Jews are going to hell because they do not take Jesus as their savior. This is transparancy. We need to know which of our representatives believe that Jews are going to hell and which do not believe so. We need a roll call voice vote on this.

hillplus
We are in agreement then regarding many sects from many sources and LDS is not immune any more than Baptists.

Interesting comments regarding the LDS meeting every six months to determine doctrine status. It would seem this foundation would be too sandy for many to rely upon.

Regarding Polygamy, clearly at one time it was thought that this was accepted. Was this originally from God, or man? If from God, why the change of mind, if from man, how can anything outside of the Bible be trusted? Then, now or in the future?

Don't mean to drive by post but I might not get time to check back today but will try if I get a chance.

I meant what I said...
and I said what I meant. The doctrines taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are the same throughout the world. Whether the church is in the US, South America, Europe, Asia, etc., the doctrines are the same regardless of how many languages they are translated into.

western bondbeam writes: Friday, May, 09, 2008 3:58 PM
Ind Observer
You wrote earlier "Mormons have one set of beliefs and use the same set of scriptures throughout the world. The same cannot be said for some other Christian sects."
----------

"Are you saying that all Morman groups are the same everywhere? This is tough to swallow especially knowing that Morman's have thrown out and altered their own doctrine throughout their history as politics and laws pressured them to do so. Mormans have been no more or less immune to "spin-off's" from their sect than Catholics, Protestants or the rest. To claim otherwise is absurd. "

Question for you wb, what do "spin-offs" have to do with the original church they spun off from? Most Christian sects today are "spin-offs" of the Catholic Church. Does that mean we hold the Catholic Church responsible for the beliefs of all of its spinoffs?

Tell me again why
Mormonism is considered a cult, but the same people who think Mormonism is a cult think that secularism is a religion. Go figure.

Lexx777
...exhibits ignorance as well as bigotry, and both in one rambling post, no less.

Perhaps you should consider becoming informed prior to attacking the religion of others. It is never wise to expose one's weakness in public.

To my brother(s)
Talent Scout, We probably share some religious beliefs and disagree on others, but it appears we both share an appreciation and respect for the religious freedom we enjoy in this country. We both recognize God as the giver of rights and are grateful for His hand in inspiring the Founding Fathers of this great nation.

western bondbeam
western bondbeam
Your comments:
Interesting comments regarding the LDS meeting every six months to determine doctrine status. It would seem this foundation would be too sandy for many to rely upon.

I don't know if you are baiting me or are truly interested. I will take the bait.
I repeat, core doctrine, such as Faith in the Lord, repentance, baptism etc... does not change.
Some example titles of talks given during conference,

Restoring faith in the family
Service, a divine quality
The Gospel of Jesus Christ
Faith of our Father
Born again

So, no we are not reinventing ourselves every six months. If anything, we are being fed spiritually. We have been counseled to stay out of debt, work on our food storage, serve our families get an education and more great stuff. We have NEVER been counseled how to vote, not even for American Idol .LOL

It is a great and firm foundation!



Western Bondbeam
You have misunderstood the point of Conference every 6 months. And the LDS faith can't possible be taught in a thread on a message board. Everything has to be taken in context and in light of ALL teaching regarding that subject matter. A great place to go to learn is http://www.lds.org where you can read basic beliefs, the magazines online, teachings of the Prophets, etc.

People are to accept Jesus in the Christ by faith, and that faith comes via the Holy Spirit. That is the same way a testimony of the Church is gotten. It's the firmest foundation you can have.

Well, I read the speech...
Romney, as always, has an eloquently crafted speech at his side. And should he keep up speeches like these and Conservatism for another 4 years, I may change my mind about him and how genuine he is come 2012.

It's evident that he presents himself like a class-act... and in so doing, remains several notches above so many of his vitriolic supporters (aka Talk Radio).

yeah?
"This great experiment in liberty will endure and flourish only so long as we maintain the humility, faith and character to govern ourselves."

Humility?

The one downside to the evangelical movement is that in the need to proclaim and preach the word, all sense of humility has been lost.

Great Job Mitt
Mitt hit a home run with this speech. It's too bad there are ignorant people who want to attack his faith. Maybe they should get to know some LDS people first... Good luck helping the GOP Mitt and if McAmnesty doesn't win this election I'll look for you in 2012!

wizzyg
Sorry, don't get your comment. Is Romney an evangelical?
Besides, preaching the gospel of Christ is humbling yourself to His command to FEED HIS SHEEP. It is the LORD who says 'follow me, I am the way' not His humble servants.

Gov Romney is
Very insightful.

Anyone making an honest assessment of this man has to come away impressed with his wisdom and knowledge.

Truly a much needed leader in our time.

How we let the good ones get away.

No changes in Mormon Doctrine
As far as I know the only changes in nearly 200 years were the abandonment of polygamy and the restriction being lifted on blacks and the Priesthood. Both were changes that reflected the times, but that does not mean they were not inpsired.

As far as actual doctrine, nothing has changed since the founding of the church.

PC
Of course you are correct. I did not make myself very clear. I can't think of any other instances where doctrine has changed. In fact, even in those two instances, a reading of the Old Testament would suggest that it is not the doctrines that have changed, but the practices.God has always been in charge of how the priesthood is handled as well as marriage.

hillplus
Wasn't trying to bait you. As I said I find it interesting. You and others make the claim that core doctrine does not change and has not changed. Was Polygamy a core doctine? If it was (as PC claims), and it changed, how can any thing else beyond that be trusted? IOW if they were wrong about that, what else might they be wrong about?

Is the Morman church exclusive (not baiting here either) or do Baptists and Evangelicals gain eternal life through Christ as well?

Talent and others....PC

Talent you are something else!(compliment)
You said a mouth full when you said some people just came to this event just rave and rant their political whatevers!! You said it in a better manner...but your ideas amounted to that in my opinion!
Slimed Romney during the campaign..some did and some didn't!
PC....where ya been?Out reading that BOOK OF MORMON....history of the Aztecs great grand fathers!!??? ha ha ha
The speech was very good and general about faith,religion, freedom, democracy, and God!
All these wormy nasty people ....... poor little babies( I got this from talent scout many months ago)! ha ha ha
The plate? schmate?klate! gimme a break folks!
LOKI said it pretty well!Read it! You folks ever hear of analogy...? Christ did it all the time!
Plate represented....giving to the church..
if he had said "going into the envelope" many people would have said..."HUH?!"
As for the LDS church being the same all over
the world...IT IS, period! If you don't believe it start visiting all over the world and you will see for your self !
Best wishes to all of you...you're a great bunch...a few exceptions(heh heh heh)!
elvis

Ind Observor
"Question for you wb, what do "spin-offs" have to do with the original church they spun off from? Most Christian sects today are "spin-offs" of the Catholic Church. Does that mean we hold the Catholic Church responsible for the beliefs of all of its spinoffs"
----------
I wasn't claiming one should be responsible of a spin off, but merely that spin off's occur in all religious groups. LDS included.

joyyy
"People are to accept Jesus in the Christ by faith, and that faith comes via the Holy Spirit. That is the same way a testimony of the Church is gotten. It's the firmest foundation you can have."
------------
So why would I need to be a member of the Morman Church to accept or believe this? (or Catholic, Baptist or Lutheran or any other for that matter?)


western bondbeam
your comments
Is the Mormon church exclusive (not baiting here either) or do Baptists and Evangelicals gain eternal life through Christ as well?

I am glad you asked that question because it is one of the really special things about the church. We do believe that salvation comes through Christ and there is no other way. We also believe that God in His infinite wisdom and LOVE has provided a way for all of His children to come back to him, if they will so choose.Even those who have not had the good fortune to hear about Him. This is done through missionary work here in the earth as well as beyond the grave. That is one of the reasons for our beautiful temples. We do believe that a man must be born of the water and spirit to enter our Father's kingdom and that baptism is an earthly ordinance, so we provide proxy work in the temple for those who do not have the chance while they lived on the earth. They then have the opportunity to choose to accept or reject the ordinance.

Bottom line, we are the most inclusive religion there is.


Brettski
What does "get[ing] to know some LDS people first" have to do with the discussions here? I haven't read a single comment that remotely suggests that Mormons are bad people. Some folks get so paranoid and defensive that they can't distinguish between Christians arguing that Mormon beliefs put them in a different religious category (call each whatever you want, but they're not the same), and Christians accusing Mormons of being immoral or bad people.

But maybe it isn't paranoia. Maybe it's just the recitation of talking points from LDS leaders who see their best chance to convert Christians in convincing less knowledgeable Christians that Mormonism is basically the same as Christianity. That breaks down the immediate objections that arise when you tell a Christian that s/he should abandon his/her core beliefs about God. As many TH Mormons tell us, you have to study LDS for years to understand it. By the time converts figure out the fundamental differences, they're already integrated into LDS socially and spiritually, so the intellectual conversion is easy. They WANT to believe the new doctrines they're learning.

And for the record, one of my former best friends is Mormon. We lost touch shortly after she moved to Utah. I have also known several other Mormons. All good people.

hillplus
So Mormans do believe a Baptist can gain salvation without having to join the Morman Church?

hillplus
It is getting late tonight. Will check back tommorrow when I get opportunity. Dial up is getting really slow here too so our posts may cross here.

whoa.......
Shucks Iam still basking from Mitts talk!
All these durn pesky fleas ....
Look folks...the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER
-DAY-SAINTS is run on one doctrine....REVELATION
DIRECTLY FROM GOD! Not each individual seeing it their way,somebody else another way! God is not the God of confusion!You live in moses day , go ask him, He was getting it directly from the source !!Noah was given the revelation about the flood...not some guy down the street!Amos 3:7!
Does GOD ever change a position? Yep!In the beginning..there was no divorce..then he granted it because of the weakness of the people!!God sent a prophet to tell a king--you're a goner!
Then the king prayed and prayed for more time
and GOD CHANGED HIS POSITION and gave him more time! And the king did a lot of good in that extended time!Revelation is the key!Not personal interpretation!But GOD has never changed the need for living the commandments!
Durn it! Iam going back to Mitts talk!
elvis

western bondbeam
We believe that the keys of the kingdom that were given by Jesus Christ to Peter resides in the LDS church. This is the authority to act in God's name. The essential ordinance of baptism must be performed by this authority. That said, ALL of God's children must have the opportunity to be educated, either here or beyond the grave. So, yes, we do believe a Baptist can gain salvation. Any more information is best given face to face. If you are interested, I can set you up with someone who can explain it!
HEEHEE

Baptists Saved
Mormons believe that almost everyone will be Saved by the Grace of Christ. Only a few very evil people will go to Hell. Mormons also believe that a persons goodness on earth will elevate his level in heaven.

Freedom without Religion ?

North Korea has neither Freedom or Religion. They do have "Thought Control".

America has Freedom and Religion. And does not have "Thought Control".

Secular European countries have Freedom, but little Religion. How long before Freedom is also displaced with "Thought Control"? And has religion already succumbed to such?

"Thought Control" allows the minority to Brainwash the majority into "Believing" they possess Freedom, when Freedom is actually absent.

Thought Control is a process, starting with a "purpose".

Can anyone name today's "purpose" ?


Lestat
I don't think any LDS person would argue that we are the same as mainstream Christianity. We don't want to be the same. All we say is that YES we are Christians! There are more similarities between us than differences but the differences are very important. We do not believe in Nicaea. That is a big one.
I don't know that you have to study the gospel for years to get it. The most important things are simple, faith in the Lord, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost. The rest comes with time and prayer.

Mr or Ms. Lestat
You are both 100% correct and 100% wrong. Mormons and Orthodox Christians have some fundamental theological disagreements, and do view God and Christ 'somewhat' differently. We are not creedal, do not agree with the concept of the "Trinity," and see both man and God as beings of the same Race, if you will, not beings by nature irreconcilable.

That said, both the orthodoxy and LDS have developed and refined their viewpoints over time. We (as Mormons) are loathe (now) to criticize other beliefs (whereas we did in the past). We have come of age in a multi-dimensional religious environment.

However, I would submit that even you, as a non-bigoted observer, see the LDS faith and doctrines as fixed and immutable, and stuck in the 19th Century. I submit that they are not, and your understanding of the LDS faith is rooted in the 19th Century. I say this not as a criticism, but as an observation. If you care to, I would suggest you take a look at two links: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06mormonism-t.h tml?scp=47&sq=mormon&st=nyt
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=148

Both are quite readable and most importantly, accurate.

It is the definition of "Christian" that is the real hang up for both sides. We (as Mormons) do tend have a more liberal, democratized view in defining a Christian as a follower of Christ, whether or not they agree with us in everything.

You and others like you seem to define "Christians" as being only those who follow the orthodox, creedal traditions, a far more conservative and in many ways exclusionary view. While I cannot agree with such a definition, I am not about to argue about who is right or wrong. I would much rather just hope we understand each other, and quit fighting over definitions. Actually, quit fighting each other at all. No good will come of it.

western bondbeam
While I am certainly no expert in the religion, I am somewhat knowledgeable and will take a stab at it in case the others had to leave.

Polygamy was never a doctrine of any kind but, simply an allowed practice. Back then, or really anytime before modern welfare and social security, a widowed or otherwise single woman unable to find a single man qualified, quite often by religion if one considers such things important, I do, for marriage could become a second or third wife to someone if she desired. It also kind of follows God's plan which involves a lot of pruning, grafting, etc in bringing people to the word. He would want true believers to have as many children as possible to spread the faith. When Congress passed a law prohibiting it, it was revealed that the church should follow the law and forbid the practice. Theoretically, if the law was ever repealed, the practice could be allowed once again. I kind of doubt it at this point, though.

As to your second question, yes, they believe there are different levels of heaven. That people who might have accepted Christ but never received the opportunity on Earth, are not penalized automatically to hell or anything. True justice is served for everyone but, many are cast into outer darkness as incorrigible. Faith in Christ, which involves taking the name of Christ upon you is the gate, your ultimate destination depends on how you live your life. Btw, no Mormon would ever in a million years deny they are a Christian. To do such would be the ultimate blasphemy and rejection of faith. Of course, they get a little testy when the kooks come on with their your not Christian rants. No offense Lestat, loved your earlier post but, please expand your mind, relax, you are not the final arbiter of who can call themselves Christian.

Some of you guys still don't get it...
The Canterbury Medal is awarded for religious liberty, and encouraging religious tolerance. The Romneys well deserved recognition.

The criticism of the chattering class of those who oppose religion in general and Mormonism in particular only underscores the importance of this award. Sadly, the Becket Fund has much work to do here.

Leave his religion alone.
Leave its doctrine alone.
Embrace his freedom to believe and worship as he pleases.
Embrace your own.

We are SO LUCKY TO LIVE IN AMERICA! And even after all we have, some cannot escape religious oppression from some of you, my fellow Americans. Enough already ye townhall oppressors! This nation deserves better from its citizens.

Class
The Romney organization has real class. I just got back from the Romney "Appreciation Party" at the Hilton, Beach Boys live and a good time for all of the Romney supporters to connect and network.

The party was free and really helped the Romney folks to develop into a stronger network. Mitt Romney understands relationship marketing. The organization may be stronger now than during the campaign.


lori....amen!
The award is about just what lori said!
And I will add amen to her suggestion of quit
ping ponging back and fourth!Wait a minute..who usually starts it...the other guys(non-lds)...just turn the other cheek LDS'ers!
But it's very important to realize that America
is going to be challenged by anti-christ in high
places in our own gvmnt! And mormons,baptists,
lutherans,presbyterians,catholics,etc. are going to need each other to battle the anti christs..
legally,etc! We better unite in our common causes
to salvage some of the points that Mitt talked about.....unite!
elvis

Agree With Elvis
Even though Mormons do not agree with Catholics, Baptists and etc. on all theology, Mormons do accept the Bible as scripture and believe that Jesus is our Saviour.

Way bigger threats to Christians are those who are trying to erode traditional family and church values. They have an organized plan to do away with everything Christian.

So, different denominations should quit fighting over fine points of theology and unite against those fighting against the Church.


Religion is not needed for all that
Romney says: "Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy."

Religion is not necessary for any of these insights. As an atheist, I am well aware that there is something greater than ourselves (e.g., nature) and that we are equal (and certainly so in the "eyes" of nature) and that we are to care for those in need and that justice is a fundamental principle of moral society and that marriage, children, and family are sources of great joy.

Because Romney evidently came to such understandings in conjunction with his religious upbringing, he seems to assume that that is the only way to reach those understandings. But it just ain't so. Religion is hardly the only path to truth, morality, or wisdom.

Hi alisa-w
>Late response to Stu-- I'm also a scientist and not a religious person. Most of the world's greatest religious leaders have taught tolerance above much else, although followers often lose sight of that over-arching principle -- under whose penumbra even the likes of you and me should get a little peaceful shade, eh? Live and let live. Believe and let believe -- or don't. As long as you're not detonating yourself to kill others, I think there's plenty of room for all of us.

That is a very pleasant view, and completely ignores the medieval vitriol that the Pope, most Imams, most evangelical leaders in the US and even the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are capable of pouring when secularists start to question the fantastic privileges enjoyed by churches in general. Does the current president confide in a professor of physics in times of uncertainty? You can bet not, we know he gets on the phone to preachers. Does he employ people who are academic experts in bioethics? There are such people in his committees, but to listen to him you would never guess it. I say stuff them. Why should a politician be grilled mercilessly by a journalist on a policy that he may be able to defend with rational arguments, when a religious leader will be left alone as soon as he says “I believe it is true just because I believe it”? Don’t you want the highest probity for any information that plays a part in public decision-making? What right do the religious have to make special self-interested pleadings? In this article the confused Mitt does not give any reason for anything, it is all empty rhetoric. Everything is true because he believes it. There is no actual evidence in there. Such a voice deserves to be lost in the background, for it is not contributing anything of substance. By all means people should exercise their rights to believe whatever fantasies they want, but I demand that they not impose them on me, which actually they do all the time.

Stuart

Bob
>Stu= A typical over-educated, elitist, arrogant, condescending Atheist Liberal.

Thank you for your frank in-depth analysis of me, even though we have never met. Are you a christian, and do you recommend to other christians this mode of addressing strangers? What of your biblical obligation to evangelise to me? You have not chosen the most convincing tone, may I say!

Do you actually have an idea to discuss, or do you just play the man not the ball?

Anyway, love you too.

Stuart

Hi Carlos
>Freedom without Religion ? North Korea has neither Freedom or Religion. They do have "Thought Control".
America has Freedom and Religion. And does not have "Thought Control". Secular European countries have Freedom, but little Religion. How long before Freedom is also displaced with "Thought Control"? And has religion already succumbed to such? "Thought Control" allows the minority to Brainwash the majority into "Believing" they possess Freedom, when Freedom is actually absent. Thought Control is a process, starting with a "purpose".
Can anyone name today's "purpose" ?

For the purpose of spreading a religious meme that has already infected the minds of either 1/3 or 2/3 of the world population, depending on whether it is the same strain of meme that also causes islam. How am I doing so far? Like a virus, it has no actual purpose as such except reproduction. The meme has been adapted by the thoughts of people in order to be more successful in spreading. Of course you would expect higher rates of infection in the US due to their hereditary susceptibility to belief, a product of the concentration of founding religious zealots who were seeking refuge from reality.

Have I offended an entire nation there?

Stuart

Hi wally
Stu: "the wrong idea that you need to have a god for people to behave ethically."

>You're right Stu, you don't need a god to behave ethically but who decides what is ethical? If you consider a consensus by "society" to be the arbiter of what is right, or a group of elected officials to decide, does that not constitute a "religion" of sorts, even if it is godless?

My Concise Oxford Dictionary only has one sense of ‘religion’ that does not specifically require a god, faith or worship, and that is ‘a thing that one is devoted to (football is their religion)’. I think it is reasonable to say that you cannot call the actions of a group of elected officials a kind of religion, unless they are watching baseball or stamp collecting in a particularly partisan way.

Isn’t the point of democracy that the people decide what perceived crimes they want statutory punishments for? Non-theocratic democracies do not generally preach morals. It is left to the individual to decide what constitutes moral behaviour, in the context of a legal system that protects people from harm or exploitation.


>And what if I want to be the maverick and march to a different drummer? Who has the right to say that I am wrong?

Quite! Do you intend to do something that may harm yourself or others? Otherwise, why should it be considered either illegal or immoral?

Stuart

Stu
You missed stuff:

"I had not enumerated the contributions of believers—why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief--to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience--it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation."

A tenant of Romney's faith demands he let others worship as they want or not worship at all. No imposing here.



Media Nailed Romney to the Wall
The media went on and on and on about Mitt being a Mormon and made such a big deal. Obama gets a total "okey dokey." No problem there. Instead of talking about his valuable financial and managerial expertise, they want to talk about his religion; to this day, they still do. Mormons aren't running around inspiring hate of other people and aren't anti-America. Wright was a MUCH BIGGER DEAL then Mormonism.

Mitt's Advice to Hillary:
If Mitt were to give Hillary advice, it would probably be: Don't drop out!

Hi hillplus
> Stu You missed stuff: A tenant of Romney's faith demands he let others worship as they want or not worship at all. No imposing here.

That’s big of him. So what is this all about then?:

“I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: “Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.””

I am without religion, am I ‘not fit to be mentioned in polite company’ too? Do you think this quotation, by someone who would be president, of someone who was president, is not evidence of ‘imposing’ on non-believers? He makes this absurd and offensive assertion (I can take it!) without a scrap of evidence. That is why it does not deserve the time of day. Further, the evidence actually says that some of the most atrocious (not fit to be discussed in polite company) actions of history were done by religious people in the name of their religion. I can’t think of one atrocity committed by an atheist in the name of atheism.

If he was serious about belief not imposing, he would oppose the hatred evident in the general population against for example homosexuality and atheism, which has no more than religious belief behind it. Of course he asserts belief without reason for his statements so we should not expect anything concrete from him.

Mr. Romney thinks the nation would not be “fit for mentioning” without religion, yet he insists that people be allowed to believe the way they want. So he is prepared to allow the country to slide into hell (by his definition) because people should be allowed to abandon religion if they want to. The man is confused.

Stuart

Excellent Speech
Romney never ceases to impress me! He should have been our party's candidate. His words are eloquent and inspiring. He is a true patriot in word, and, the reason for this award, in deed. I have so much energy waiting to be invested into his next presidential run. (And by that time, I'll be out of law school, and ready to donate the full allowable amount to his campaign). Great job, Mitt, I support you in everything you do!

THE TIES THAT BIND
Religion binds itself to morals, which are subjective in precept and individual.

Attempting to bound another human being to your personal subjective view of life is ANTI-AMERICAN in all aspects as it infringes on the civil liberties of others to pursue their version of happiness through liberty.

Mitt is on to something when he speaks of religious freedom. However, to continue to "believe" that ALL AMERICANS share his personal subjective philosophy to such an end that our government should be anything less than secular, is to impose a form of "sharia law" upon other Americans, thereby disenfranchising them from participating in our government.

The religious of our nation will earn more respect once they stop trying to force religion into our government and entities managed by government. A government, btw, that represents ALL AMERICANS.

Religion belongs nowhere within our government; not in elections; not anywhere in society where pluralistic tax dollars are derived.

If you were truly an AMERICAN you would call for the end of public discussion of religion; you would demand that lawmakers reduce argument of laws to the most objective perspective possible; you would settle for nothing less than all Americans being represented in laws which encourage civil liberties, freedom, choice and personal pursuit of happiness.

To do otherwise shows contempt for others and denigrates our Constitution.

To do otherwise reveals that you are not an AMERICAN who holds these truths to be self evident.

COULDN'T AGREE MORE
"Romney never ceases to impress me! He should have been our party's candidate."

He is more PRESIDENTIAL than any other candidate thus far.

Republicans have themselves to hold accountable for the likes of McCain, thus the loss of this election to liberals.

That's the reality.

Conservatives must now face that their own subjective philosophy of their version of religion and morals, withheld a man from the office of the presidency who showed fiscal responsibility so needed in our government.

The chance to advance as a nation must now be placed in a holding pattern and hopefully little damage done by the liberals, including McCain.

Conservatives are held accountable for derailing this man's opportunity to create a stronger America.

Now you must face this reality and live with its consequences.

Will you be able to be response-able to this choice you've made?




Hi, Stu
"In this article the confused Mitt does not give any reason for anything, it is all empty rhetoric. Everything is true because he believes it. There is no actual evidence in there. Such a voice deserves to be lost in the background, for it is not contributing anything of substance."


Stu, you just seem kind of angry. Most of the vitriol I saw in your post was actually yours and had little to do with any pope or imam.


Your point?
"Everything is true because he believes it"

Yes, and the more power to him for having his beliefs and having the liberty to express them, so what?

Why should he be placed in the background due to your subjective disagreement?

Freedom of speech is rendered to those who oppose your free speech, as well.

Legislation and law is more the concern based on his beliefs that would have concerned me and ought concern every AMERICAN regardless of "beliefs".

Only the most objective of laws ought be part of our nation and government.

Certainly you have elevated yourself to a position of self-aggrandizement by which you wish to silence other AMERICANS.

One can only hypothesize such decision on your part.

Perhaps you think yourself "right" and everyone who disagrees with you "wrong".

You couldn't be more ANTI-AMERICAN.

Or perhaps you could. Write another post and we'll see.

stu
More than 85% of the world believes in some kind of Deity and the percentage is higher in the U.S. We have no idea what this world would be like if no one believed.
Mitt Romney believes, as do I, that the world is better off when people have faith in a higher being. His point is that you as a non believer should see that freedom OF religion helps those who want freedom FROM religion.
I am sorry that you don't see that. Why should the VAST majority conform to your way, no one is asking you to conform to ours?

Faith

It is evident from some of these posters that this topic should be raised all over the web.

I learned more about LDS from LDS members and I appreciate that.

More to the point, there has been repeated links between the freedom of religion and every other freedom.

It looks like some folks need to talk about this before they get their epiphany and some of those may never reach an epiphany.



hillplus
Thanks for the offer, however I respectfully decline. I actually know a few LDS members that I could contact if I felt the need (I don't).
My sons' Webelo pack went camping last summer and we were placed with one other pack from local LDS church so we got to know them over the week. They were actually going against what the LDS was allowing as apparently LDS does not permit boys at that age to go overnight camping (not sure what doctrine they were referring to) however the group of parents got together and decided to go anyway. They were a little inexperienced and our pack helped them out quite a bit in guiding them in the campout. Overall I don't recall much discussion regarding their faith except some of the minor details regarding scouts and LDS.
In regards to your answer (if I am understanding correctly) a baptist can gain salvation but only if he puts his trust in Christ through LDS doctrine beyond the Bible as they are the official key holders. It would seem that if a person is placing trust in anything beyond Christ and the Word, that trust has the potential to be manipulated to whatever leaders decide.

hillplus
I agree with your post to stu, but I disagree to a certain extent that the religious do want others to believe as they do or at least behave as they do.

This is due in part to their attempts to get legislation and laws passed which endorse their personal subjective philosophy - this is ANTI-AMERICAN.

Laws, legislation, faith based initiatives, et.al. that are not objective in idea and implementation, thus do implicitly or explicitly infringe on the civil liberties of other AMERICANS who do not hold such religious beliefs.

I did enjoy your post, however, and you made a great point regarding Mitt's speech.

Cheers!

western bondbeam
western bondbeam
your comments:
"In regards to your answer (if I am understanding correctly) a baptist can gain salvation but only if he puts his trust in Christ through LDS doctrine beyond the Bible as they are the official key holders. It would seem that if a person is placing trust in anything beyond Christ and the Word, that trust has the potential to be manipulated to whatever leaders decide."

You are baiting me, you naughty.
Lets just say that,YES, a baptist can be saved, as can a Jew, Muslim, Baha'i etc... Even a non believer. God will force no one to Heaven, but He, being a loving Father, provides a way for ALL of His children, if they so choose.
I would expect no less.

scooternyc
I understand your position and really do believe that there should be a separation of church and state. That said, I really bristle when things like Bible studies and crosses and Bibles are not allowed in schools. I don't use the cross in my personal worship but it in no way offends me to see others use it. I love to see and hear about all life affirming traditions. Why must the majority bow to the will of the minority. How does one person's cross or menorah offend others.( Although it must be said that Christians are picked on the most in this)

Be respectful, live and let live. Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion is what the constitution says. There will be NO LAW prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

scooternyc
I read my post. In no way was anger or unkindness intended.

In answer to Stu
Stu said "I am without religion, am I ‘not fit to be mentioned in polite company’ too? Do you think this quotation, by someone who would be president, of someone who was president, is not evidence of ‘imposing’ on non-believers?

Stu, you poor thing. You have entirely missed the point of this article and the points made by numerous posters. A president expressing his opinion or a man running for president quoting that former president does not "impose" anything on any particular belief system or non-believer. If John Adams had been in favor of beheading all non-believers or sending all non-believers to education camps to be indoctrinated, THAT would qualify as imposing on a non-believer. The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney supports your right to be an atheist and the right of every American to choose what they want to believe. The fact that not everyone agrees with you does not impose anything on you or me.

hillplus
-"You are baiting me, you naughty.
Lets just say that,YES, a baptist can be saved, as can a Jew, Muslim, Baha'i etc... Even a non believer. God will force no one to Heaven, but He, being a loving Father, provides a way for ALL of His children, if they so choose.
I would expect no less."
------------------
Wasn't trying to bait you, just not understanding completely I suppose (limits of thread and all)how an LDS views salvation. I am not sure whether to push further or let it drop at this point. The above comment is common among all Christian groups and is not unique to LDS. As my intention was not to trap you, I will let it drop for now. Feel the FREEDOM to ignore. :-)

Indeed I admit that I have little knowledge of LDS aside from this thread, my experience at a BSA camp last summer and the tidbits I catch in the news every once in a while.

Maybe on a lighter note here, what do you know about LDS and the Boy Scouts? I understand that the LDS is a large contributor to BSA national (along with Catholics). Do you have any experience regarding this? As my experience was limited, our pack thought it was odd that BSA would allow LDS to set their own policies regarding Boy Scouts and camping but never really researched in much further than that.

western bondbeam
Wow, you must be talking to different Christians than I have. I have been told that I am not saved and am going to hell more than once. My minister neighbor told me that Mother Teresa was going to hell, so I guess I will be in good company. I can't and shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush, but my understanding is that main stream Christianity damns to hell everyone who doesn't believe in Christ the way THEY say He should be believed. Whatever..

As for the BSA, I don't have much experience in that YET. We lived in Europe for many years and my older boys went to troops not affiliated with the church. One of my younger boys will be entering cubs this year. I do know the church doesn't start with tigers, but boys go in the second grade.

hillplus
Fair enough regarding mainstream Christianity, as I do see your point quite well and no doubt you have good reason to feel that way.

As for BSA, I think I remember the other pack mentioning that they don't start out as Tigers but as Wolves.