Romney's Un-American Double Standard

sally quinn's appearance on MORNING JOE, 3,13,08
was pompous and prissy.

her comparing mrs spitzer to a burka clad woman was unconscionable and an artocious thing for a woman to say about another woman.

sally, a woman who lived with a married man before marrying him should walk a mile in mrs spitzer's shoes

sally quinn's appearance on MORNING JOE, 3,13,08
was pompous and prissy.

her comparing mrs spitzer to a burka clad woman was unconscionable and an artocious thing for a woman to say about another woman.

sally, a woman who lived with a married man before marrying him should walk a mile in mrs spitzer's shoes

sally quinn's appearance on MORNING JOE, 3,13,08
was pompous and prissy.

her comparing mrs spitzer to a burka clad woman was unconscionable and an artocious thing for a woman to say about another woman.

sally, a woman who lived with a married man before marrying him should walk a mile in mrs spitzer's shoes

Unfortunately I did not hear Mr. Romney's speech, but since when did he lose the right to express his beliefs without being called Un-American? For one to have the audacity to mention the name of Osama Bin Laden here is within their freedom of expression, but as such lacks understanding of conflicting beliefs; further derogatory comments tend to irritate some readers and believers. I think it's only Un-American NOT TO STAND and affirm what you believe in vice standing just to disavow other beliefs. Who said: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free?" Look at our Declaration of Independence: The 56 signers were all believers in God; secularists accepted it's non-denominational nature and traditional religionists accepted it's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated within the document. Since by your comments it's seemingly not understood that WE are all children of God, there may also be difficulty in your understanding: "WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator..." Mr. Romney correctly identifies with a growing concern for losing a heritage of moral and religious values, ideals, and beliefs as separatists have gone too far in removal of reference to God in textbooks, prayer in public schools, and ten commandments in courtrooms, etc. I am not a Mormon but am a sincere Protestant Christian and believes:"..that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of GOD..." The question of "which God" floors me - there is only one GOD; does ignorance of the Ten Commandments arise here? #1: "YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"; no wonder why our nation is in such moral decay.

In Romney's text, you find the entire quote from John Adams: "In John Adams' words: We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution [he said] was made for a moral and religious people. Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Did you notice the words that came from John Adams' own lips: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

Sally was coming down heavy handed when she thought these were Mitt Romney's words. Is she also down on the words of our founding fathers as well?

Is it better to offend God or to offend a few million of your fellow countrymen and women. If'n I was Romney, I'd, as a professing Christian, prefer to offend my fellow countrymen that to offend God.

Good for you, Sally. The erosion of Separation is one of the real dangers facing us in this country. More generally, the basic problem we see is that "religion as we know it" is "mythic religion," i.e. religion based on myth, or story. It belongs to a distinct level of consciousness, the "blue" level in the Spiral Dynamics map of consciousness levels. Belief structures at this level tend to be absolutistic and do not recognize the evolutionary nature of our quest for spiritual understanding. What is needed is to rise above that level to an integral apprehension of all of reality, and evolve to a deeper understanding and participation in all of reality. One therefore goes beyond belief, beyond doctrine and dogma, but it requires a different framing and a different cognitive landscape than the various ones we all have been drenched in. (Here, the most common one is, of course the various versions of Christianity.) The best theoretician/mapmaker in this field is the philosopher Ken Wilber. His work can be a useful tool in moving beyond the appalling state we are in here, one which makes the Europeans, especially, look at us with consternation.

I do hope my post won't be too long for the 'window' that faces me - the window that 'allows' me to post a comment. Why do I ask/say that?

On 12/12/07 (a date that is important in my personal history) I remembered it was the day my father returned from WWII. It was the day of my dearest grand-father's birthday (he'd be 103 years of age were he alive). It was the day I'd assessed the growth of the B of A since Gianinni (spelling?) had put the $2,000,000 into a cart; salvaged this money to lend to victims of the San Francisco earth-quake, and dividing the total growth of this particular bank by the number of years it had operated, the growth on the computer showed me: 21, 121,212 times = I saw the numbers of 12, and 2 and 1 dominated that calculation!

What did this mean to me? My essay to 'self' years ago as I tried to figure out the meaning of: "Be still and know that I am God". I'd been a 'believer' - devoted. I saw too much blood-shed; hate, and turmoil, so I 'turned to another thought and concept". I saw a 'mirror-image of 'self'. At that point, I concluded: "Mirror-image = divide by 2"; from two sides to every story to anything that faces me in the way of 'choice'. Two-party system; the fork in the road, etc.

Most recent revelation? Hearing Sally Quinn for the FIRST TIME (yes, I don't watch t.v. often); on 12/12/07. Could it have been a more wonderful day for me? I'd reacted to the Republican debates; Ed Morrisey seemed to 'reflfect' my sentiments virtually 100%, so I felt 'okay'. Go forward in time; see Tavis Smiley = Sally Quinn ended my day on the highest note; 12/12/07!

Why was it my highest note? I felt so 'alone' in my 'individual self' - born at a time when most dad's were at war. Going to church - believing with my WHOLE HEART in the Christian concept. After singing in church; playing the organ in church - teaching Sunday School, and being known for my good Christian 'ways', I had to depart around the age of 37 years old. I departed because I could NOT 'be still' and know that 'I am NOT god". I realized (within my own thoughts and through my own reaching out for prayers and answers), that:

Be still and know that I am God is a total of eight words. With the mirror-image that I believe could be described as 'physical self' and 'spiritual self', I divided (years ago), this statement (English translation of course) by the number two. When you divide this by two, you get the statement: "Be still and know". If you read that as a full sentence, the POWER is even GREATER (to me) in that virtual 'command'. Okay, I said (as I did the same when I calculated today the financial growth of the B of A), DIVIDE AND CONQUER = Divide and you get: Be still! Here again, we have a powerful sentence (in the English language).

Once I did this numerical exercise (back in 1989), I ended up writing 'prose' that was titled: "Even One Shall be Called a Gathering". How did I arrive at that number 'One'? I divided the statement: "Be Still" by (2) and got: BE!!! This prompted me to realizing the power of the word: BE! Lest it seems that the word 'still' bears no power, I did not ignore this word, but to create my own prose, I disregarded it for the moment.

Granted: One can play with words - in any language; numbers seem to be more accurate. Nevertheless I was having quite a good time 'playing' with the power of the ENGLISH language way back nearly 20 years ago; again, feeling like the lonely individual who simply could NOT agree with ANY religion 100%.

So, when I couldn't agree with any religion 100%, I concluded that ALL religions must have a reward - their existance represented a concensus; a following, and in that, should be the honor and respect one should give when the multitude try their level-best, to describe what is within their souls and hearts. Once I got past that effort on my part, then ALL religions were 'equal' (in my mind); yet, all religions were merely nothing more than attempts to define something that can't be proven by 'man', nor ultimately 'defined' by anyone who tries to use words to describe what 'is' as it pertains to 'life' on a small planet; 'life' as we know it, and what might seem to be 'life' to us, could very well be nothing more than a 'disease' if viewed by others who could exist in a different form than we can know or imagine.

For me it was a 'numerical' experience; a 24-hour revelation, and a complete JOY to hear Sally Quinn speak; articulate, and be so 'calm' as she offered some of her thoughts to Tavis Smiley. Sally referred to the experiences and time-lines in her life, that caused her to make the statement: "I just might be Christian" (as I recall her words). I laughed. I remembered the book I'd read about 35 years ago titled: FUNNY, YOU DON'T LOOK CHRISTIAN. What a wonderful book - slim; small in the hand, but filled with cameo-like stories of individuals who'd been kind, charitable, and seemingly always walking through life in a type of 'light' that made them exceptional in their love and awareness of the human-condition and needs of their neighbors; friends, and those strangers who might cross their paths throughout their lives.

I never see a stranger; only a friend. I never see another in the form of 'color' - only a person who has the same physical make-up as I do. I've never seen anything that tells me one individual is more unique or special than another. What I have seen is THE SPIRIT that propells a certain individual - DRIVES AND INSPIRES that individual to do things others might not attempt!

Yes, I also wrote some years ago another piece of prose called: IN THE SPIRIT OF SELF, and again, it was for myself - for friends, and family who know 'me'. I think this formulae of 'knowing' translates simply into the fact that we all 'know' friends; family, and have a small circle that can over-lap into another's 'circle'. We become 'linked' in these circles; we 'blend' - we act as a community; a state, a nation, and hopefully (one day) as an entire planet! I'm almost grateful for the 'Climate Control' and 'warming' problem that has brought nations to meet and discuss what must be done to PROTECT THIS PLANET!

If climate (good old mother nature as I'd call it) is going to be 'out of control', and if this can create a platform for NATIONS TO COME TOGETHER WITH A COMMON CAUSE, then I'm 'all for it'....bring it on, because we might have the beginning of 'peace'. Once we talk about saving the planet; once we discuss the well-being of the WORLD, it seems to me a possibility we can take this discussion 'further', and sort out the rest of the problems; threats, and realize we must think about each and every human being as vital part of this world, and eliminate 'killing' in the name of some 'God'; in the name of some type of 'government', an economic approach that might be labeled 'capitalism' or 'communism'.

I'm ending this with: Notice the letter "C" as it appears in so many words that currently are high-lighted in our minds an lives? Give the numeric value to the letter "C" = 3. Climate Control Conference = 333. Problem areas such as cancer, credit, capitalism, communism = all "C". For fun: Place Climate Control Cancer over the words Credit Capitalism, Communism and add only the C's = 666 (hello book of Revelation in the Christian version/King James version of the BIBLE)! Whoops - Christian starts with a "C", but to me, Jesus's guidelines were so close to what we (now) label as 'communism', I'll simply incorporate Christianity into communism and be done with that.

I do think most Christians would be appalled to have someone refer to their religion as 'communism' in the truest form; however, when one talks of 'common good' - 'community effort', and wants 'equal rights and opportunity', when you look at the definition of these words and concepts, you'll see it borders upon the very ideals of the economics of communism.

Communism is NOT a 'type of government or threat', it is an economic concept; an outline that has guidelines for success just as capitalism has it's own identify as to 'how to succeed in business without really trying'. Yes, I do think that book's title said MORE than the book itself if one gives deeper thought.

I guess I must have used up the space for 7 other individuals who might need to 'post' now; sorry for being such a blabber-mouth, but when one lives over 65 years with their own thoughts, and not until 24 hours ago (or less), did I hear the words of Sally Quinn and realize I was not 'alone' in my reactions to religion; seeing all of these people on the message board who also had their thoughts, I figured: "If there is a God, praise him for the inter-net!"

I do hope my post won't be too long for the 'window' that faces me - the window that 'allows' me to post a comment. Why do I ask/say that?

On 12/12/07 (a date that is important in my personal history) I remembered it was the day my father returned from WWII. It was the day of my dearest grand-father's birthday (he'd be 103 years of age were he alive). It was the day I'd assessed the growth of the B of A since Gianinni (spelling?) had put the $2,000,000 into a cart; salvaged this money to lend to victims of the San Francisco earth-quake, and dividing the total growth of this particular bank by the number of years it had operated, the growth on the computer showed me: 21, 121,212 times = I saw the numbers of 12, and 2 and 1 dominated that calculation!

What did this mean to me? My essay to 'self' years ago as I tried to figure out the meaning of: "Be still and know that I am God". I'd been a 'believer' - devoted. I saw too much blood-shed; hate, and turmoil, so I 'turned to another thought and concept". I saw a 'mirror-image of 'self'. At that point, I concluded: "Mirror-image = divide by 2"; from two sides to every story to anything that faces me in the way of 'choice'. Two-party system; the fork in the road, etc.

Most recent revelation? Hearing Sally Quinn for the FIRST TIME (yes, I don't watch t.v. often); on 12/12/07. Could it have been a more wonderful day for me? I'd reacted to the Republican debates; Ed Morrisey seemed to 'reflfect' my sentiments virtually 100%, so I felt 'okay'. Go forward in time; see Tavis Smiley = Sally Quinn ended my day on the highest note; 12/12/07!

Why was it my highest note? I felt so 'alone' in my 'individual self' - born at a time when most dad's were at war. Going to church - believing with my WHOLE HEART in the Christian concept. After singing in church; playing the organ in church - teaching Sunday School, and being known for my good Christian 'ways', I had to depart around the age of 37 years old. I departed because I could NOT 'be still' and know that 'I am NOT god". I realized (within my own thoughts and through my own reaching out for prayers and answers), that:

Be still and know that I am God is a total of eight words. With the mirror-image that I believe could be described as 'physical self' and 'spiritual self', I divided (years ago), this statement (English translation of course) by the number two. When you divide this by two, you get the statement: "Be still and know". If you read that as a full sentence, the POWER is even GREATER (to me) in that virtual 'command'. Okay, I said (as I did the same when I calculated today the financial growth of the B of A), DIVIDE AND CONQUER = Divide and you get: Be still! Here again, we have a powerful sentence (in the English language).

Once I did this numerical exercise (back in 1989), I ended up writing 'prose' that was titled: "Even One Shall be Called a Gathering". How did I arrive at that number 'One'? I divided the statement: "Be Still" by (2) and got: BE!!! This prompted me to realizing the power of the word: BE! Lest it seems that the word 'still' bears no power, I did not ignore this word, but to create my own prose, I disregarded it for the moment.

Granted: One can play with words - in any language; numbers seem to be more accurate. Nevertheless I was having quite a good time 'playing' with the power of the ENGLISH language way back nearly 20 years ago; again, feeling like the lonely individual who simply could NOT agree with ANY religion 100%.

So, when I couldn't agree with any religion 100%, I concluded that ALL religions must have a reward - their existance represented a concensus; a following, and in that, should be the honor and respect one should give when the multitude try their level-best, to describe what is within their souls and hearts. Once I got past that effort on my part, then ALL religions were 'equal' (in my mind); yet, all religions were merely nothing more than attempts to define something that can't be proven by 'man', nor ultimately 'defined' by anyone who tries to use words to describe what 'is' as it pertains to 'life' on a small planet; 'life' as we know it, and what might seem to be 'life' to us, could very well be nothing more than a 'disease' if viewed by others who could exist in a different form than we can know or imagine.

For me it was a 'numerical' experience; a 24-hour revelation, and a complete JOY to hear Sally Quinn speak; articulate, and be so 'calm' as she offered some of her thoughts to Tavis Smiley. Sally referred to the experiences and time-lines in her life, that caused her to make the statement: "I just might be Christian" (as I recall her words). I laughed. I remembered the book I'd read about 35 years ago titled: FUNNY, YOU DON'T LOOK CHRISTIAN. What a wonderful book - slim; small in the hand, but filled with cameo-like stories of individuals who'd been kind, charitable, and seemingly always walking through life in a type of 'light' that made them exceptional in their love and awareness of the human-condition and needs of their neighbors; friends, and those strangers who might cross their paths throughout their lives.

I never see a stranger; only a friend. I never see another in the form of 'color' - only a person who has the same physical make-up as I do. I've never seen anything that tells me one individual is more unique or special than another. What I have seen is THE SPIRIT that propells a certain individual - DRIVES AND INSPIRES that individual to do things others might not attempt!

Yes, I also wrote some years ago another piece of prose called: IN THE SPIRIT OF SELF, and again, it was for myself - for friends, and family who know 'me'. I think this formulae of 'knowing' translates simply into the fact that we all 'know' friends; family, and have a small circle that can over-lap into another's 'circle'. We become 'linked' in these circles; we 'blend' - we act as a community; a state, a nation, and hopefully (one day) as an entire planet! I'm almost grateful for the 'Climate Control' and 'warming' problem that has brought nations to meet and discuss what must be done to PROTECT THIS PLANET!

If climate (good old mother nature as I'd call it) is going to be 'out of control', and if this can create a platform for NATIONS TO COME TOGETHER WITH A COMMON CAUSE, then I'm 'all for it'....bring it on, because we might have the beginning of 'peace'. Once we talk about saving the planet; once we discuss the well-being of the WORLD, it seems to me a possibility we can take this discussion 'further', and sort out the rest of the problems; threats, and realize we must think about each and every human being as vital part of this world, and eliminate 'killing' in the name of some 'God'; in the name of some type of 'government', an economic approach that might be labeled 'capitalism' or 'communism'.

I'm ending this with: Notice the letter "C" as it appears in so many words that currently are high-lighted in our minds an lives? Give the numeric value to the letter "C" = 3. Climate Control Conference = 333. Problem areas such as cancer, credit, capitalism, communism = all "C". For fun: Place Climate Control Cancer over the words Credit Capitalism, Communism and add only the C's = 666 (hello book of Revelation in the Christian version/King James version of the BIBLE)! Whoops - Christian starts with a "C", but to me, Jesus's guidelines were so close to what we (now) label as 'communism', I'll simply incorporate Christianity into communism and be done with that.

I do think most Christians would be appalled to have someone refer to their religion as 'communism' in the truest form; however, when one talks of 'common good' - 'community effort', and wants 'equal rights and opportunity', when you look at the definition of these words and concepts, you'll see it borders upon the very ideals of the economics of communism.

Communism is NOT a 'type of government or threat', it is an economic concept; an outline that has guidelines for success just as capitalism has it's own identify as to 'how to succeed in business without really trying'. Yes, I do think that book's title said MORE than the book itself if one gives deeper thought.

I guess I must have used up the space for 7 other individuals who might need to 'post' now; sorry for being such a blabber-mouth, but when one lives over 65 years with their own thoughts, and not until 24 hours ago (or less), did I hear the words of Sally Quinn and realize I was not 'alone' in my reactions to religion; seeing all of these people on the message board who also had their thoughts, I figured: "If there is a God, praise him for the inter-net!"

I do hope my post won't be too long for the 'window' that faces me - the window that 'allows' me to post a comment. Why do I ask/say that?

On 12/12/07 (a date that is important in my personal history) I remembered it was the day my father returned from WWII. It was the day of my dearest grand-father's birthday (he'd be 103 years of age were he alive). It was the day I'd assessed the growth of the B of A since Gianinni (spelling?) had put the $2,000,000 into a cart; salvaged this money to lend to victims of the San Francisco earth-quake, and dividing the total growth of this particular bank by the number of years it had operated, the growth on the computer showed me: 21, 121,212 times = I saw the numbers of 12, and 2 and 1 dominated that calculation!

What did this mean to me? My essay to 'self' years ago as I tried to figure out the meaning of: "Be still and know that I am God". I'd been a 'believer' - devoted. I saw too much blood-shed; hate, and turmoil, so I 'turned to another thought and concept". I saw a 'mirror-image of 'self'. At that point, I concluded: "Mirror-image = divide by 2"; from two sides to every story to anything that faces me in the way of 'choice'. Two-party system; the fork in the road, etc.

Most recent revelation? Hearing Sally Quinn for the FIRST TIME (yes, I don't watch t.v. often); on 12/12/07. Could it have been a more wonderful day for me? I'd reacted to the Republican debates; Ed Morrisey seemed to 'reflfect' my sentiments virtually 100%, so I felt 'okay'. Go forward in time; see Tavis Smiley = Sally Quinn ended my day on the highest note; 12/12/07!

Why was it my highest note? I felt so 'alone' in my 'individual self' - born at a time when most dad's were at war. Going to church - believing with my WHOLE HEART in the Christian concept. After singing in church; playing the organ in church - teaching Sunday School, and being known for my good Christian 'ways', I had to depart around the age of 37 years old. I departed because I could NOT 'be still' and know that 'I am NOT god". I realized (within my own thoughts and through my own reaching out for prayers and answers), that:

Be still and know that I am God is a total of eight words. With the mirror-image that I believe could be described as 'physical self' and 'spiritual self', I divided (years ago), this statement (English translation of course) by the number two. When you divide this by two, you get the statement: "Be still and know". If you read that as a full sentence, the POWER is even GREATER (to me) in that virtual 'command'. Okay, I said (as I did the same when I calculated today the financial growth of the B of A), DIVIDE AND CONQUER = Divide and you get: Be still! Here again, we have a powerful sentence (in the English language).

Once I did this numerical exercise (back in 1989), I ended up writing 'prose' that was titled: "Even One Shall be Called a Gathering". How did I arrive at that number 'One'? I divided the statement: "Be Still" by (2) and got: BE!!! This prompted me to realizing the power of the word: BE! Lest it seems that the word 'still' bears no power, I did not ignore this word, but to create my own prose, I disregarded it for the moment.

Granted: One can play with words - in any language; numbers seem to be more accurate. Nevertheless I was having quite a good time 'playing' with the power of the ENGLISH language way back nearly 20 years ago; again, feeling like the lonely individual who simply could NOT agree with ANY religion 100%.

So, when I couldn't agree with any religion 100%, I concluded that ALL religions must have a reward - their existance represented a concensus; a following, and in that, should be the honor and respect one should give when the multitude try their level-best, to describe what is within their souls and hearts. Once I got past that effort on my part, then ALL religions were 'equal' (in my mind); yet, all religions were merely nothing more than attempts to define something that can't be proven by 'man', nor ultimately 'defined' by anyone who tries to use words to describe what 'is' as it pertains to 'life' on a small planet; 'life' as we know it, and what might seem to be 'life' to us, could very well be nothing more than a 'disease' if viewed by others who could exist in a different form than we can know or imagine.

For me it was a 'numerical' experience; a 24-hour revelation, and a complete JOY to hear Sally Quinn speak; articulate, and be so 'calm' as she offered some of her thoughts to Tavis Smiley. Sally referred to the experiences and time-lines in her life, that caused her to make the statement: "I just might be Christian" (as I recall her words). I laughed. I remembered the book I'd read about 35 years ago titled: FUNNY, YOU DON'T LOOK CHRISTIAN. What a wonderful book - slim; small in the hand, but filled with cameo-like stories of individuals who'd been kind, charitable, and seemingly always walking through life in a type of 'light' that made them exceptional in their love and awareness of the human-condition and needs of their neighbors; friends, and those strangers who might cross their paths throughout their lives.

I never see a stranger; only a friend. I never see another in the form of 'color' - only a person who has the same physical make-up as I do. I've never seen anything that tells me one individual is more unique or special than another. What I have seen is THE SPIRIT that propells a certain individual - DRIVES AND INSPIRES that individual to do things others might not attempt!

Yes, I also wrote some years ago another piece of prose called: IN THE SPIRIT OF SELF, and again, it was for myself - for friends, and family who know 'me'. I think this formulae of 'knowing' translates simply into the fact that we all 'know' friends; family, and have a small circle that can over-lap into another's 'circle'. We become 'linked' in these circles; we 'blend' - we act as a community; a state, a nation, and hopefully (one day) as an entire planet! I'm almost grateful for the 'Climate Control' and 'warming' problem that has brought nations to meet and discuss what must be done to PROTECT THIS PLANET!

If climate (good old mother nature as I'd call it) is going to be 'out of control', and if this can create a platform for NATIONS TO COME TOGETHER WITH A COMMON CAUSE, then I'm 'all for it'....bring it on, because we might have the beginning of 'peace'. Once we talk about saving the planet; once we discuss the well-being of the WORLD, it seems to me a possibility we can take this discussion 'further', and sort out the rest of the problems; threats, and realize we must think about each and every human being as vital part of this world, and eliminate 'killing' in the name of some 'God'; in the name of some type of 'government', an economic approach that might be labeled 'capitalism' or 'communism'.

I'm ending this with: Notice the letter "C" as it appears in so many words that currently are high-lighted in our minds an lives? Give the numeric value to the letter "C" = 3. Climate Control Conference = 333. Problem areas such as cancer, credit, capitalism, communism = all "C". For fun: Place Climate Control Cancer over the words Credit Capitalism, Communism and add only the C's = 666 (hello book of Revelation in the Christian version/King James version of the BIBLE)! Whoops - Christian starts with a "C", but to me, Jesus's guidelines were so close to what we (now) label as 'communism', I'll simply incorporate Christianity into communism and be done with that.

I do think most Christians would be appalled to have someone refer to their religion as 'communism' in the truest form; however, when one talks of 'common good' - 'community effort', and wants 'equal rights and opportunity', when you look at the definition of these words and concepts, you'll see it borders upon the very ideals of the economics of communism.

Communism is NOT a 'type of government or threat', it is an economic concept; an outline that has guidelines for success just as capitalism has it's own identify as to 'how to succeed in business without really trying'. Yes, I do think that book's title said MORE than the book itself if one gives deeper thought.

I guess I must have used up the space for 7 other individuals who might need to 'post' now; sorry for being such a blabber-mouth, but when one lives over 65 years with their own thoughts, and not until 24 hours ago (or less), did I hear the words of Sally Quinn and realize I was not 'alone' in my reactions to religion; seeing all of these people on the message board who also had their thoughts, I figured: "If there is a God, praise him for the inter-net!"

I do hope my post won't be too long for the 'window' that faces me - the window that 'allows' me to post a comment. Why do I ask/say that?

On 12/12/07 (a date that is important in my personal history) I remembered it was the day my father returned from WWII. It was the day of my dearest grand-father's birthday (he'd be 103 years of age were he alive). It was the day I'd assessed the growth of the B of A since Gianinni (spelling?) had put the $2,000,000 into a cart; salvaged this money to lend to victims of the San Francisco earth-quake, and dividing the total growth of this particular bank by the number of years it had operated, the growth on the computer showed me: 21, 121,212 times = I saw the numbers of 12, and 2 and 1 dominated that calculation!

What did this mean to me? My essay to 'self' years ago as I tried to figure out the meaning of: "Be still and know that I am God". I'd been a 'believer' - devoted. I saw too much blood-shed; hate, and turmoil, so I 'turned to another thought and concept". I saw a 'mirror-image of 'self'. At that point, I concluded: "Mirror-image = divide by 2"; from two sides to every story to anything that faces me in the way of 'choice'. Two-party system; the fork in the road, etc.

Most recent revelation? Hearing Sally Quinn for the FIRST TIME (yes, I don't watch t.v. often); on 12/12/07. Could it have been a more wonderful day for me? I'd reacted to the Republican debates; Ed Morrisey seemed to 'reflfect' my sentiments virtually 100%, so I felt 'okay'. Go forward in time; see Tavis Smiley = Sally Quinn ended my day on the highest note; 12/12/07!

Why was it my highest note? I felt so 'alone' in my 'individual self' - born at a time when most dad's were at war. Going to church - believing with my WHOLE HEART in the Christian concept. After singing in church; playing the organ in church - teaching Sunday School, and being known for my good Christian 'ways', I had to depart around the age of 37 years old. I departed because I could NOT 'be still' and know that 'I am NOT god". I realized (within my own thoughts and through my own reaching out for prayers and answers), that:

Be still and know that I am God is a total of eight words. With the mirror-image that I believe could be described as 'physical self' and 'spiritual self', I divided (years ago), this statement (English translation of course) by the number two. When you divide this by two, you get the statement: "Be still and know". If you read that as a full sentence, the POWER is even GREATER (to me) in that virtual 'command'. Okay, I said (as I did the same when I calculated today the financial growth of the B of A), DIVIDE AND CONQUER = Divide and you get: Be still! Here again, we have a powerful sentence (in the English language).

Once I did this numerical exercise (back in 1989), I ended up writing 'prose' that was titled: "Even One Shall be Called a Gathering". How did I arrive at that number 'One'? I divided the statement: "Be Still" by (2) and got: BE!!! This prompted me to realizing the power of the word: BE! Lest it seems that the word 'still' bears no power, I did not ignore this word, but to create my own prose, I disregarded it for the moment.

Granted: One can play with words - in any language; numbers seem to be more accurate. Nevertheless I was having quite a good time 'playing' with the power of the ENGLISH language way back nearly 20 years ago; again, feeling like the lonely individual who simply could NOT agree with ANY religion 100%.

So, when I couldn't agree with any religion 100%, I concluded that ALL religions must have a reward - their existance represented a concensus; a following, and in that, should be the honor and respect one should give when the multitude try their level-best, to describe what is within their souls and hearts. Once I got past that effort on my part, then ALL religions were 'equal' (in my mind); yet, all religions were merely nothing more than attempts to define something that can't be proven by 'man', nor ultimately 'defined' by anyone who tries to use words to describe what 'is' as it pertains to 'life' on a small planet; 'life' as we know it, and what might seem to be 'life' to us, could very well be nothing more than a 'disease' if viewed by others who could exist in a different form than we can know or imagine.

For me it was a 'numerical' experience; a 24-hour revelation, and a complete JOY to hear Sally Quinn speak; articulate, and be so 'calm' as she offered some of her thoughts to Tavis Smiley. Sally referred to the experiences and time-lines in her life, that caused her to make the statement: "I just might be Christian" (as I recall her words). I laughed. I remembered the book I'd read about 35 years ago titled: FUNNY, YOU DON'T LOOK CHRISTIAN. What a wonderful book - slim; small in the hand, but filled with cameo-like stories of individuals who'd been kind, charitable, and seemingly always walking through life in a type of 'light' that made them exceptional in their love and awareness of the human-condition and needs of their neighbors; friends, and those strangers who might cross their paths throughout their lives.

I never see a stranger; only a friend. I never see another in the form of 'color' - only a person who has the same physical make-up as I do. I've never seen anything that tells me one individual is more unique or special than another. What I have seen is THE SPIRIT that propells a certain individual - DRIVES AND INSPIRES that individual to do things others might not attempt!

Yes, I also wrote some years ago another piece of prose called: IN THE SPIRIT OF SELF, and again, it was for myself - for friends, and family who know 'me'. I think this formulae of 'knowing' translates simply into the fact that we all 'know' friends; family, and have a small circle that can over-lap into another's 'circle'. We become 'linked' in these circles; we 'blend' - we act as a community; a state, a nation, and hopefully (one day) as an entire planet! I'm almost grateful for the 'Climate Control' and 'warming' problem that has brought nations to meet and discuss what must be done to PROTECT THIS PLANET!

If climate (good old mother nature as I'd call it) is going to be 'out of control', and if this can create a platform for NATIONS TO COME TOGETHER WITH A COMMON CAUSE, then I'm 'all for it'....bring it on, because we might have the beginning of 'peace'. Once we talk about saving the planet; once we discuss the well-being of the WORLD, it seems to me a possibility we can take this discussion 'further', and sort out the rest of the problems; threats, and realize we must think about each and every human being as vital part of this world, and eliminate 'killing' in the name of some 'God'; in the name of some type of 'government', an economic approach that might be labeled 'capitalism' or 'communism'.

I'm ending this with: Notice the letter "C" as it appears in so many words that currently are high-lighted in our minds an lives? Give the numeric value to the letter "C" = 3. Climate Control Conference = 333. Problem areas such as cancer, credit, capitalism, communism = all "C". For fun: Place Climate Control Cancer over the words Credit Capitalism, Communism and add only the C's = 666 (hello book of Revelation in the Christian version/King James version of the BIBLE)! Whoops - Christian starts with a "C", but to me, Jesus's guidelines were so close to what we (now) label as 'communism', I'll simply incorporate Christianity into communism and be done with that.

I do think most Christians would be appalled to have someone refer to their religion as 'communism' in the truest form; however, when one talks of 'common good' - 'community effort', and wants 'equal rights and opportunity', when you look at the definition of these words and concepts, you'll see it borders upon the very ideals of the economics of communism.

Communism is NOT a 'type of government or threat', it is an economic concept; an outline that has guidelines for success just as capitalism has it's own identify as to 'how to succeed in business without really trying'. Yes, I do think that book's title said MORE than the book itself if one gives deeper thought.

I guess I must have used up the space for 7 other individuals who might need to 'post' now; sorry for being such a blabber-mouth, but when one lives over 65 years with their own thoughts, and not until 24 hours ago (or less), did I hear the words of Sally Quinn and realize I was not 'alone' in my reactions to religion; seeing all of these people on the message board who also had their thoughts, I figured: "If there is a God, praise him for the inter-net!"

The Prayer of St. Francis was apparently not written by St. Francis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_of_Saint_Francis

But it fits his demeanor assuming his biographers did not do the normal "saintly" embellishment for the normal added monetary gain of trinket and indulgence sales.

"Maybe that is what angers so many...knowing that it was those who worship many Gods that they are standing on...without Alchemy there would be no Geonme Project...without the original named 7 planets we would not have gotten to the Moon...or be able to fly between Maine and San Fran. Maybe it is that we endanger their beliefs and so they fear us? All I know is that we are a moral people, who have been discriminated against up to the Oval office...and I, for one, am tired of waiting for the public to grow up. I am protected by the Bill of Rights as far as being able to fight governmental discrimination...but when will the idiots on main street wise up?"

All good points. Just had a discussion with a guy that thought Newton's alchemy called into question his work in theology, and physics. Your point about the genome project resting on alchemy is flat right.

I really can't blame you for being angry, given the abuse you have faced. Sad to say that I have no magic cure. Keep communicating with people, and some will learn. Slow, that is, I know, but in the end you will win.

Peace,

Mod

Dear Terra,

So much to what you said in the last post, all around that I can't pick a single quote to respond to.

None the less I am outraged that people have killed your pets and attacked you over your peaceful exercise of your religion. When one of us is harmed in this way, all of us are harmed.

I am sure there are some who swim in the shallow end of Wicca, just as there are in the shallow end of Christianity.

I am not sure I get the Rede in any full way. The earlier comparison to the Golden Rule in all its variations doesn't quite seem to be full enough. Am I wrong on that? Any good books to read on it?

I do believe that the work being done by people like Starhawk will help over time. Teaching people about the piousness and deep connection to the sacred in you faith must help people understand, eventually.

The Prayer of St. Francis says:

where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

I feel sure that he would not mind if we were add:

where there is fear, knowledge;

All the best,

Mod

The Jihadist should get some "fire in her belly" and start the cleanup of her "death to the infidel" religion.

E Favorite,

I have this notion and vision of Ms. Sally Quinn as a somewhat sensitive, soulful eyed society matron and Washington insider from looking at her photo here and reading her previous essays in On Faith. And voila! Her punchy and spot on essay re Mitt Romney's speech. There's fire in the belly of that lady. Who would have thought it! I'm impressed.

Regards

"J"

Sorry for all the repeats

Jihadist -- I'm surprised you're surprised at Sally's point of view on Rommney -- and there are many other points of view presented here on "On Faith"

Dean Waldt - everyone is welcome here and all come here voluntarily. They can also leave whenever they want, or stay on.

Lisa - could you give some example of atheists who are angry and strident? and describe what about their behavior was angry and strident?

I wonder if you're talking about "celebrity" atheists, who are seen on talk shows, or do you mean atheists you know personally? I've always been an optimistic person with a good sense of humor. None of that has changes since I became an atheist.

You say, "the so-called free-thinkers would do a better job of promoting the message of a God-free existence if they could learn to be less angry, less offended and less convinced of their own virtuousness?"

Could you give some specific guidance on how to do this? I can't guarantee that I will follow it, but truthfully, I don't know where to start without more specific guidelines.

Also, I'm not so sure I agree with the suggestion to be "less convinced of their own virtuousness."

How is it a bad thing to think that your actions are virtuous? Don't you try to be virtuous? Do you think religious believers would be better off if they were less convinced of their virtuousness?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Lisa,
You only hear those "angry atheists", because
of the nature of atheism.

IT'S NOT A RELIGION and there are (hardly) any organized atheists out there.

They only seem angry because you don't hear from any of them until they are provoked.

I like the quote:

Atheism is a religion like
not collecting stamps is a hobby.

So, if they would just get their damn stamps out of my face, please.....

Lisa,
You only hear those "angry atheists", because
of the nature of atheism.

IT'S NOT A RELIGION and there are (hardly) any organized atheists out there.

They only seem angry because you don't hear from any of them until they are provoked.

I like the quote:

Atheism is a religion like
not collecting stamps is a hobby.

So, if they would just get their damn stamps out of my face, please.....

Moderate,
There is nothing for you to be sorry about really. It was not you or all Christians that do these things..but it are those who read the bible and read it literally, without careing what the Bill of Rights say.

For some, how they translate their particular sacred text is how they translate the Constitution.

Listen there are those who call themselves Wiccan that can be as flaky as any other person in any other religion. They get a surface understanding of the laws and teachings and think they have it all. They read the Rede and think all they need to do is not hurt anyone and they can do what they want...that is not how it works. There are Christians that have never read the bible..or have read it enough to be able to have back up for their particular bias.

There is much to learn from the antiquity of Pagan religions and philosophy. All we in the modern world have or think was built on them; from mathmatics and healing to knowing how the universe works, it all began with the Pagan Scholar.

Maybe that is what angers so many...knowing that it was those who worship many Gods that they are standing on...without Alchemy there would be no Geome Project...without the original named 7 planets we would not have gotten to the Moon...or beable to fly between Maine and San Fran. Maybe it is that we endanger their beliefs and so they fear us? All I know is that we are a moral people, who have been discriminated aginst up to the Oval office...and I, for one, am tired of waiting for the public to grow up. I am protected by the Bill of Rights as far as being able to fight governmental discrimination...but when will the idiots on mainstreet wise up?

Yes, Mod...the Pagan ancients gave the world many ideas to build on. Morality did not start with Jesus...but then the parables Jesus taught with has lost much in the translation over the years.

terra

Amen. Thanks Sally Quinn

Joet,

I really don't think Romney was trying to tell evangelicals that he is just like them hoping that he is not "exposed." Romney says that Jesus Christ is the Son of god and that there are differing doctrines among various Christian faiths then asserting himself explicitly as being a MORMON of conviction.

As I and other Mormons are well aware, the accusations towards Mormons from this corner of the religuous world which reject someone of my faith outright for president are as follows:

that we are "not saved" ,
that God does not hear our prayers and
that our prophet is some sort of dictator in our lives.

The latter Romney aptly and rightly addressed, the two former are so absurd to bring into a political debate, I'm glad Romney continues to have the good sense not to go there.

And Romney defines the particular type of secularism he has his beef with. He uses the qualifying word "some" to go on to describe a certain brand of secularists who would completely ban faith from the public sphere which it appears we along with Romney agree no one can and should do but as you say "to filter it properly".

Romney repeatedly asserted his intentions to do just that.

I think it only fair for journalists such as Sally to just ask Romney what his stance or thoughts are towards non-believers instead of assuming them...

DZ and Lisa:

So there may be some 30 to 45 million people who are not religious/non-believers. Add Muslims, Jews (they don't think of Jesus as Son of God) and Buddhists (who don't have a deity) and Pagans/Wiccans who are not accepted as a mainstream religion, you would have at a very conservatively estimated 60 million people who are excluded by Mitt Romney. I take it that those polled on their beliefs or non-beliefs are adults and hence voters. Can Mitt Romney/Republicans afford that?

I've never seen Ms. Sally Quinn this irked in any of her On Faith essays. Here I was happily lapping up her essays on her spirituality, her son, why she came out with On Faith, her promotion of the Children's National Hospital for charity and bam! her ire on what Mitt Romney excluded in his speech - atheists and the unconstitutional thrush of it viz seperation of church and state.

We now know the view of one inside the Beltway. What about those living in, say, the Bible Belt? What do they think of Mitt Romney's speech? Do they matter? Will what they think and do make a difference?

Thanks and regards
"J"

Lisa - could you give some example of atheists who are angry and strident? and describe what about their behavior was angry and strident?

I wonder if you're talking about "celebrity" atheists, who are seen on talk shows, or do you mean atheists you know personally? I've always been an optimistic person with a good sense of humor. None of that has changes since I became an atheist.

You say, "the so-called free-thinkers would do a better job of promoting the message of a God-free existence if they could learn to be less angry, less offended and less convinced of their own virtuousness?"

Could you give some specific guidance on how to do this? I can't guarantee that I will follow it, but truthfully, I don't know where to start without more specific guidelines.

Also, I'm not so sure I agree with the suggestion to be "less convinced of their own virtuousness."

How is it a bad thing to think that your actions are virtuous? Don't you try to be virtuous? Do you think religious believers would be better off if they were less convinced of their virtuousness?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Lisa - could you give some example of atheists who are angry and strident? and describe what about their behavior was angry and strident?

I wonder if you're talking about "celebrity" atheists, who are seen on talk shows, or do you mean atheists you know personally? I've always been an optimistic person with a good sense of humor. None of that has changes since I became an atheist.

You say, "the so-called free-thinkers would do a better job of promoting the message of a God-free existence if they could learn to be less angry, less offended and less convinced of their own virtuousness?"

Could you give some specific guidance on how to do this? I can't guarantee that I will follow it, but truthfully, I don't know where to start without more specific guidelines.

Also, I'm not so sure I agree with the suggestion to be "less convinced of their own virtuousness."

How is it a bad thing to think that your actions are virtuous? Don't you try to be virtuous? Do you think religious believers would be better off if they were less convinced of their virtuousness?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Lisa - could you give some example of atheists who are angry and strident? and describe what about their behavior was angry and strident?

I wonder if you're talking about "celebrity" atheists, who are seen on talk shows, or do you mean atheists you know personally? I've always been an optimistic person with a good sense of humor. None of that has changes since I became an atheist.

You say, "the so-called free-thinkers would do a better job of promoting the message of a God-free existence if they could learn to be less angry, less offended and less convinced of their own virtuousness?"

Could you give some specific guidance on how to do this? I can't guarantee that I will follow it, but truthfully, I don't know where to start without more specific guidelines.

Also, I'm not so sure I agree with the suggestion to be "less convinced of their own virtuousness."

How is it a bad thing to think that your actions are virtuous? Don't you try to be virtuous? Do you think religious believers would be better off if they were less convinced of their virtuousness?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

(sorry, if there are multiple postings - I keep getting "error" notices.)

Lisa - could you give some example of atheists who are angry and strident? and describe what about their behavior was angry and strident?

I wonder if you're talking about "celebrity" atheists, who are seen on talk shows, or do you mean atheists you know personally? I've always been an optimistic person with a good sense of humor. None of that has changes since I became an atheist.

You say, "the so-called free-thinkers would do a better job of promoting the message of a God-free existence if they could learn to be less angry, less offended and less convinced of their own virtuousness?"

Could you give some specific guidance on how to do this? I can't guarantee that I will follow it, but truthfully, I don't know where to start without more specific guidelines.

Also, I'm not so sure I agree with the suggestion to be "less convinced of their own virtuousness."

How is it a bad thing to think that your actions are virtuous? Don't you try to be virtuous? Do you think religious believers would be better off if they were less convinced of their virtuousness?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Lisa - could you give some example of atheists who are angry and strident? and describe what about their behavior was angry and strident?

I wonder if you're talking about "celebrity" atheists, who are seen on talk shows, or do you mean atheists you know personally? I've always been an optimistic person with a good sense of humor. None of that has changes since I became an atheist.

You say, "the so-called free-thinkers would do a better job of promoting the message of a God-free existence if they could learn to be less angry, less offended and less convinced of their own virtuousness?"

Could you give some specific guidance on how to do this? I can't guarantee that I will follow it, but truthfully, I don't know where to start without more specific guidelines.

Also, I'm not so sure I agree with the suggestion to be "less convinced of their own virtuousness."

How is it a bad thing to think that your actions are virtuous? Don't you try to be virtuous? Do you think religious believers would be better off if they were less convinced of their virtuousness?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Perhaps the best argument that there is not a God is that a person so utterly ignorant of both theology and American history could have a website discussing religion in American life sponsored by a major weekly news magazine. If God exists, he must be extremely patient to tolerate Sally Quinn's nonsense

After she is done comparing John Adams to Osama Bin Laden, Ms. Quinn should visit the Jefferson Memorial on her lunch hour. After reading the inscriptions carved into its walls, she can return to her office and write a new article telling us about Thomas Jefferson repudiating the constitution.

" Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" You can see this one to your left as you face Mr. Jefferson, cut about 2 inches thick into the marble.

I have a question for Newsweek and The Washington Post. Do you want people who actually know something about American history and logical thought to read your publications or are you looking to capture the anti-religious zealot market?

I suggest to you that your marketing folks may suggest that you pay more attention to the first group of readers. Accordingly, you might want to give Ms. Quinn her pink slip so she has time to read up on a few basics (like US History 101) before she takes out her pen to inform us that the US Constitution establishes a God-free zone.

Cesplin said: "A country without faith in God is not truly free. Think about it."

I have thought about it, and it is patently false. Freedom is completely independent from faith in god. A country can have faith in god and be free, just as it can have faith in god and not be free. Similarly, a country can not have faith in god and be free, or it can not have faith in god and not be free. You're trying to tie two unrelated things together, and it just doesn't work.

And those generally spouting such lines usually want to restrict freedoms (such as worship of other gods/non-gods/etc. or gay marriage, to give examples).

Lisa: Interesting point. I wonder how, exactly, an atheist in the current election cycle would run his or her campaign. It would be a challenge to react to the evangelical right point of view with some principle and righteous anger without sounding strident in the process. Not sure I can think of anyone up to the task (first we need someone who even admits non-belief).

On the other hand, maybe the emperor has no clothes, and the first person who says enough of this nonsense, I don't believe and I am running as the competent Turk that Martin Luther (not King) said he would prefer over an incompetent christian any day of the week, would actually find out that the currently accepted PC wisdom is a myth. one wonders.

Bob: I will agree that Sally's use of the Unitarian reference is a stretch, but that's all it is. Kennedy did mention the right not to attend church at all, and we can assume he wasn't just referring to lapsed Catholics. Again my problem with Romney is the stuff in his speech that explicitly rejects atheists as having no place in a christian America. Kennedy made no such veiled references as only christians are fit to serve as judges. And no, Jack, the above points, made by Sally, do not suffer from the logic flaw you allege.

I have read some comments to the effect that Obama has the same problem. I haven't read everything he says, but what I have read is not subject to the same criticism, because what Obama says is that a persons faith will affect what they do in office. It has to. The issue is how it affects their service, and whether the politician respects the fact that they must translate their faith through a filter of secular obligations before it can become public action. That's the issue. No one can leave their faith outside the door of the oval office, and no one should. The challenge is to filter it properly.

Back to Romney. His problem is that the whole point of his speech was to tell evangelicals that he is a christian just like them (which is a lie from the evangelical point of view that he hopes isn't exposed), and that he hates secularism and separation of church and state just like they do, all the while sounding to non-evanjelicals like he believes just the opposite. so great is the divide between evangelicals and the rest of us that it's actually almost possible to write a speech with enough code in it that the two audiences might hear opposite messages. he almost got away with it.

DZ:

According to Pew Research about 12% of people under 30 and 6% of people over 30 are non-religious. That doesn't necessarily mean "atheist" since proclaiming oneself to be spiritual but not religious is "in". So ok, to call atheists a "tiny minority" may have been too strong but I will stand behind "small minority".

That should not distract us from the fact when atheists sally forth into the public arena to make their case, they routinely come off as bitter, angry, self-righteous and perpetually aggrieved. It's no good pointing to the other side and yelling "SO DO THEY!!!!!"

However many Americans may profess belief in God, the fact is that in the functional sense we live in a God-ignoring culture. The worth and character of God is not brought to bear on any decision made in the lives of most Americans. When people do trouble themselves to wonder what God may be like, the only thing they know for sure is that He is way too nice to judge them.

So all that remains for atheists is to continually point out the inconsistency and wait for the renunciations to roll in. Personally, I think the major obstacle to that is atheists themselves who come across as unpleasant and strident. If I were in that God-ignoring category, I'd be wondering if becoming an atheist meant that I'd have to be mad 24/7 for the rest of my life.

Lisa:

There are 15 million atheists in the U.S. That's more than all Jews and Muslims in the U.S. combined. Plus, there are also 15 million agnostics and another 15 million that the Harvard Divinity Schools calls :I don't knows and I don't cares". That's 45 million people who are not religious.

Sally is completely overreacting here. The inconvenient reality is that the overwhelming majority of Americans profess some sort of belief in God and only a tiny minority claim to be atheists. Even atheists by their strident disavowal of belief in God end up living their skeptical lives with reference to God. But I digress.

I can't help but feel that seeing as how the majority of americans are functional atheists despite their claims to the contrary, the so-called free-thinkers would do a better job of promoting the message of a God-free existence if they could learn to be less angry, less offended and less convinced of their own virtuousness.

Sally is 100% right. Romney doesn't believe in the separation of Church and state. He lies to convince others that his faith is under attack by saying that those who believe in the separation of church and state seek to drive all references to religion from public life. That is nonsense! He reminds me of those trying to assert that Christmas and Christianity are under attack- also nonsense. What is unacceptable is a lack of respect for others' beliefs.

Those saying "Happy Holidays" are not attacking Christian holidays, they are acknlowledging Chanukah. There is nothing evil about respecting the holiday of Jews at the same time one acknowledges Christmas. But it appears that many Christian conservatives have no respect for the Jewish holiday-- which is precisely why we still need a separation of Church and state. Romney is wrong.

If I were to rank the best qualified canidates for President, I would have to put Romney near the top and someone worthy to be considered. His
success as a business person and administrator are impressive.

But Romney's speech made me feel excluded. I want a canidate, who when asked about religious matters, will invite all our citizens to the table to humanity. In that speech, I don't want them to make it a point to exclude me.
My wife gives so much of her time to our community and our children are at the top of the class in school. When Mormons have come to our
door, it has always been a pleasant visit and I don't hold it against them that someone who may represent all Americans, did this.

Given that people are are trying to exclude him for what he believes, please be considerate of people like me. We are in the same boat.

In the tradition of the great prophet Jesus, we forgive him and offer our other cheek.

Right on.

Cesplin,

Hmmm, what we know about the LDS et al:

1. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions)???

2. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

3. Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties???????

4. "Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."???????

5. Moroni was a "pretty talking fictional thingie" or would a better description be "one of the many hallucinations seen by founders of the major religions" or " a clone of the fictional Gabriel" or "Moroni the golden hornblower", or "son of Mormon, the propheteer/profiteer", or "actually Nephi", or "good buds with John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, and Elias all who ministered to Joseph Smith as angels" or as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

6. "Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd.[2] Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure—the golden plates. Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah.[3]???

7. "Old time" Mormonism as well as "old time" Catholicism, Islam and Judaism relied and rely on prophets and prophecies (for profit?).

Taking the modern view that includes reality and common sense, the correct term would be Mormonism as well as Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism relied and rely on fortune ($$$$$?) telling (for profit?).

Theologically speaking, these religious fortune tellers require that God knows the future i.e. if God does not know the future (is not omniscient) then no human knew or knows the future.

As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, God is not omniscient. Please read, pause and contemplate the following by Schillebeeckx:

Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

8. LDS is a cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir???

This review of Mr. Romney's speech takes no pains to hide its bias. Unfortunately, that is not its primary flaw. In attempting to expose a logical flaw in Mr. Romney's positions on religion and faith, the review falls victim to the very flaw it claims to uncover.

It is not logical to conclude (or even suggest) that inclusion of one subset requires exclusion of another. Fortunately, Ms. Quinn makes it easy on us and lays her mistakes plainly for all to see:
>>"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty has a friend and ally in me.”

What about any American, including those nonbelieving service men and women who are fighting and dying abroad ? Will they not find a friend in Mitt Romney?

A five-year old could explain what Ms. Quinn seems unable to grasp. I can like chocolate ice cream at the same time I like vanilla ice cream. It's not a difficult concept. Try it in a logical order:
1)Mitt Romney likes religious people
2)Alice is not religious
3)Mitt Romey does not like Alice
3 cannot follow 2 without more. It is an illogical progression.

Ms. Quinn shows that she is biased regardless of Mr. Romney's views. Notice that both President Kennedy and Mr. Romney use the traditional masculine indefinite pronoun (he). Somehow, it only occurs to Ms. Quinn to question whether Mr. Romney intends to exclude women. This is a tired attempt to look progressive that should be avoided by any person who desires his peers' respect.

In the end, Mr. Romney said that he believes that religion has a proper place in the public sphere. Unless you don't grasp the distinction between religion and church (it's quite clear from a consitutional perspective, as Ms. Quinn surely knows), you can't be bothered by Mr. Romney's speech in the slightest. And we would all do well to refresh our knowledge of American history and culture, as they are rooted firmly in Christian ethics and values. Even the most atheistic among us is a pretty good Christian if he lives in and embraces this culture.

Ms. Quinn looks a little childish with this review.

It is too bad you do not know more about the LDS church. Speaking from ignorance is a type of bigotry.
A country without faith in God is not truly free. Think about it.

Ms. Quinn asks the question but answers it incorrectly. It is neither Osama Bin Laden nor Mitt Romney but John Adams one of the founding fathers of this great nation. Romney was simply quoting him for the purpose of illustrating the point that without the hand of divine providence to govern the free peoples of this nation it's unchecked freedom would rapidly erode.

Ms. Quinn asks the question but answers it incorrectly. It is neither Osama Bin Laden nor Mitt Romney but John Adams one of the founding fathers of this great nation. Romney was simply quoting him for the purpose of illustrating the point that without the hand of divine providence to govern the free peoples of this nation it's unchecked freedom would rapidly erode.

Dear Terra,

"Moderate- I have been an initiated Witch since 1977...I have been out for 20+ years..I have had an old retired missionary chase me into my car because he happened to see my little pentacle peak out of my shirt...I have had a man follow me screaming calling me names as I minded my own business walking in a flea market. I have had my home broken into and faced a night of violence...I have had my beautiful black cat Magick poisoned...as well as my 6 month old chihuahua Taffy."

I am sorry.

If they called themselves Christians" I beg to differ. Jesus was NOT about hate.

As you know, I consider the writings of many of the Pagans of antiquity to be pious and deeply sacred. I believe that all religions are beautiful. Care for the world is part of the Goddess of whom you speak, and we would all do well to listen before she has to start over from a ruined world.

I don't know when the others will care about truth. I hope soon. It will take process of education. Every time society has had to learn to stop one of its evils, such as slavery, racism, or sexism it has taken time, education, and bravery. And we are not done, even with those.

I think true religious freedom will be no exception. I am sorry to say.

I think it might be useful to call people's attention to the pious pagans whose writings fill many classics. This may be a small beginning but hopefully a useful one. People simply do not know. They act on fear, suspicion, and loathing. I guess that is why they call it "the human condition".

Peace,

Mod

Romney stated: "WE believe that every single human being is a child of God?”

If he believes that how can he justify his policies toward those incarcerated at G - Bay and those here without papers?

ATTACK ON AMERICA

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955/S 1959 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

The biggest joke of all is that this proposed legislation also says that any measure to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism should not violate the constitutional rights of citizens. However, the definition of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as they are defined in section 899A are themselves unconstitutional. The Constitution does not allow the government to arrest people for thought crimes, so any promises not to violate the constitutional rights of citizens is already broken by their own definitions.

This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and MUST BE OPPOSED!

CONTACT YOUR SENATORS - EVERY RIGHT & FREEDOM GUARANTEED IN OUR CONSTITUTION IS AT STAKE!

Joet: My issue isn't with the substance of Ms. Quinn's argument, but with the intentionally dishonest way that she used the words of JFK to support it. If JFK had included atheists in his list of persecuted minorities it would have helped her argument, but he didn't.

In order to support her distortion Quinn makes the claim that JFK couldn't mention nonbelievers, and leaves it at that. She is essentially arguing that when Kennedy said Unitarians he really meant atheists. That is a pretty bold statement to make without providing any reasoning or evidence.

Things that annoy me - when someone quotes a Revolutionary-era statesman and says "hey, this must be true! A Founder said it! Argument over!"

Adams passed the awful Alien and Sedition Acts. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. These men were great, but far from perfect. Just because some Founder said that a free state requires religion doesn't make it so.

It does, however, point out that while Romney may be bigoted against atheists, his policies might not necessarily reflect that.

Good column.

Romney's stupidity was on full display the other day. Here's what he said:

1. Our Constitution protects all religions
2. There's a new religion emerging called secularism
3. Secularism is bad and needs to be destroyed if the "real" religions are going to survive

Imagine if Romney had said:

1. Our Constitution protects all religions
2. There's a new religion emerging called Christianity
3. Christianity is bad and needs to be destroyed if the "real" religions are going to survive

And - in a gesture that wasn't lost on this atheist, Romney elected reinforce his bigotry against non-believers by having himself introduced by GHW Bush who quite famously stated that atheists weren't real Americans and not real patriots.

OK, Mitt - this atheist got your message loud and clear.

I have nothing against Mormons. Harry Reid (Senate Leader-Democrat) is a Mormon from Navada. He helped a Wiccan widow to get her Wiccan husband a Pentacle on the memorial that was placed to honor him and other that died in Afghanistan.

The VA would not allow that particular emblem, though the Atheists have theirs and those groups with less then 100 members have theirs. Sen. Reid aided that Widow...would Romney? It is a difference in men not religion.

Moderate- I have been an initiated Witch since 1977...I have been out for 20+ years..I have had an old retired missionary chase me into my car because he ha[ppened to see my little pentacle peak out of my shirt...I have had a man follow me screaming calliung me names as I minded my own business walking in a flea market. I have had my home broken into and faced a night of violence...I have had my beautiful black cat Magick poisoned...as well as my 6 month old chihuahua Taffy.

I have known Pagan folk that have been chased out of town, had their children taken from them, a 12 year old girl harrassed so badly for so long she committed suicide.
Moderate...when exactly will those others care about truth? I bear it..I teach it. I have four students, two of them just happen to be x mormons...I do not teach anyone under the age of 18...too many Wiccan teachers get accused of leading their students to hell.

I will admit times are better then they were...we have books on book shelves...though they are in the New Age or Astrology section. Heaven forbid they be with other religious books. We have gained some...after 10 years we do now have the right to have our religious emblem on our fallen military dead...though even if there are more Pagan military then Muslim...they have 44 chaplains, we have none. One of my members is an Air Force Seargent...she was an acting Priestess for the group where she was stationed in Iraq. They lost a few soldiers from that group...some others wounded severly..she dealt. But is that fair?

When people think of discrimination of religion they think of not being able to put their commandments on the court house walls...we think of the basics. Like being able to have a tent to get out of the sun for worship...or not to be called names ot having things thrown at you, as you send a brother on to the gods.

Sorry but I am a little past waiting for other to wise up.
terra

Conrad, are you suggesting that people should actually seek to be informed? A novel concept, but sadly most will never make the effort. Ignorance is bliss...why make life more complicated? This election has highlighted the sorry state of enlightenment, diversity and tolerance in this country. Mr Holmes and others are our exemplars...they denigrate in mean spirited ways what they don't understand in the deeply held beliefs of others. All Americans are not exactly like Mr Holmes, and therefore we deserve his criticism.

Conrad, are you suggesting that people should actually seek to be informed? A novel concept, but sadly most will never make the effort. Ignorance is bliss...why make life more complicated? This election has highlighted the sorry state of enlightenment, diversity and tolerance in this country. Mr Holmes and others are our exemplars...they denigrate in mean spirited ways what they don't understand in the deeply held beliefs of others. All Americans are not exactly like Mr Holmes, and therefore we deserve his criticism.

Since the days of John Kennedy, our country's religious freedom has declined. Kennedy claimed that their should not be a religious test for public office, which squares with the Constitution. But the extremists who are pandered to by the current President insist that the US is a Christian nation and the president must be a Christian.

How sad for all of us that religion has been allowed to intrude so significantly into our government. It's sad as well that in his declaration of religious freedom, Romney acquiesced to these bigots. Perhaps he, too, plans to pander to them.

Since the days of John Kennedy, our country's religious freedom has declined. Kennedy claimed that their should not be a religious test for public office, which squares with the Constitution. But the extremists who are pandered to by the current President insist that the US is a Christian nation and the president must be a Christian.

How sad for all of us that religion has been allowed to intrude so significantly into our government. It's sad as well that in his declaration of religious freedom, Romney acquiesced to these bigots. Perhaps he, too, plans to pander to them.

Hey for all of you out there that are willing to keep an open mind when it comes to Mormonism, without simply accepting the many "facts" that are strewn throughout this discussion, here is a link to a video from one of the top leaders of the LDS church. His name is James E. Foust, and he was an apostle until a few months ago when he passed away. This talk is from his last general conference. See if it contradicts what Christians believe. See if it sounds like the words of a satanic cult. See if this man seems like he is crazy, delusional, unintelligent, or any of the other adjectives that have been used to describe mormons in this forum. At the very least it will give you an idea for the ideals that mormons, including mitt romney espouse.

broadcast.lds.org/genconf/2007/04/40/GC_2007_04_41_FaustJE__01907_eng_1M.wmv

Correct information is infinitely better than biased opinions, or third-party explanations.

This is the official website of the church, where you will find such information.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp

JFK didn't need to refer to atheists as such (it wasn't the issue), and he did refer to the right not to attend church at all.

Bob: The problem with Romney's speech in comparison is not what Kennedy didn't say about atheist's, (and frankly it's hard to read Kennedy's speech as an atheist and be the least bit troubled by it - he implicitly accepts it), it's what Romney did say. He expressly rejected atheists by saying that only a judge of faith is worthy to serve (and contradicted his "no religious test" argument/dodge, which he then ignored because he had to proclaim Jesus his lord and saviour), and in several other passages noted by Ms. Quinn, who is dead on here.

Moderate: please don't suggest that our founding fathers had any view of religion remotely resembling the current religious right. Not one of them could be elected dogcatcher with their views of god. and Adams would turn over in his grave to be quoted thus.

Joseph writes
"I’m sorry Sally, but even atheist and agnostics like Napoleon Bonaparte, Machiavelli, and Post-Jew areligious liberals-mugged-by-reality like Leo Strauss recognized the need for religion as a force to channel the people’s passions toward good, compassion, and the common interest."

Joseph:
You mean that eminent SocialScientist Napolean?"

Unfortunately for your point of view, the evidence does not bear out your nostrum.

God-less countries like Holland, Japan, Sweden, Germany (where less than 15% believe in God) has a significantly higher level of social health based on MANY measures (homicide, rape, , STDs, abortion, infant mortality) than does the 90% believing US of A).

Carol: I've missed you too.

Fr. Reese concludes:

"Demonizing opponents as Christian fascists or religion haters does not help American society. We need to listen to each other, walk in each others’ shoes and look for common ground. Rather than zeroing in on extreme positions, we need to search for a middle ground that respects all Americans."

Now that about gets it for me. There is so much paranoia on both sides that it gets in the way of the important discourse that we need to engage in.

I don't think that Mitt is a religious tyrant waiting to stage a coup, but I doubt he is open enough to all Americans either.

Any of you read Fr. Thomas Reese' essay on the Romney speech. Right workman like analysis of the good and the bad in the speech. He works through it point by point and offers cogent analysis.

“A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”

Was one thing Romeny he said. Pretty good, if he really means it. Personally, I do wonder if that would extend to Terra and PaganPlace, as it should. Their free exercise rights are not respect by many.

Then Mitt said:

“I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.” To which Fr. Reese responds: "I believe this too, but it does not belong in a campaign speech."

Good Read.

The headline should read, "Romney declares war on infidels." Look at all the countries in the world where religion is a part of government, where religion is obligatory...no freedom there. Beware America, evil lies close at hand.

John,

Are you saying that JFK should get a pass for not including atheists in his speech because of scary Soviet Atheism...? If so, why? Just because the voting public would have equated all atheists to communists...?

Look, JFKs speech was for a protestant audience.
Romney's speech was for a "Christian" audience, but in the end was far more inclusive than JFK.

If secularists feel ignored, maybe they can ask Romney for their own speech. But I think he'd be wasting his time on that demographic, don't you?

Good article. I think America has finally had enough of the religious radicals and their little puppets in power. More harm to our rights and freedoms and lost lives of millions around the world are a testement to that (see front page). Little wonder that americans would be suspicious of a religion to the right of Pat Robertson, especially the secret parts about magic underwear. Are these garments made in the USA by union workers or imported from 3rd world poverty factories? Do they come in multi-colored 3-paks? I certainly hope he has more than 1 pair!

Henry James:

Sadly, I am disappointed in your comment here today. I expected yout to hold Sally to your usual nano-surgical hair-splitting philosophical standard, but you gave her a pass.

Go back and read her piece again!

Dear E Fav,

"Moderate: “Who was this mad man?”"

It was the theocratic scheming would be tyrant who, when asked to become King of America, instead retired to Mount Vernon.

I think Sally has written just as sincere a response as Mitt's speech was, but it might help an interested reader to think about the context of John Adams' quotes, which included the parallelism that has been maligned. Read the Federalist Papers. Read about how several of the Founding Fathers did not think a consitutionalist government under an elected representative system would work unless there were motivations and underpinnings within the populace that expressed deep moral convictions. I would "translate" Adams' use of the term "religion" in his time with what we have seen atheists refer to as "moral convictions" or "morality" and have included themselves in that expression (which many, many have, absolutely).

What we find in our current national government is a tendency not to trust that the American people have those underpinnings, hence the need to establish a complex welfare system (which wouldn't be needed if "religions" and the people represented by them followed the tenets of their faith, boosting the poor and needy through active efforts).

Think of the simpler set of laws and the low level of taxation that existed early on in our nation. That was possible because the moral convictions of the people could be trusted to carry out the daily bump and grind of life while taking care of each other and being honest and ethical as a matter of deeply felt principle.

We aren't going to see a return to those days and such simplicity of governance. But we can at least understand where John Adams was coming from. We can also understand that the branch of secularism that seeks to undermine the credibility of people of deep religious convictions has moved so far away from merely "separation of church and state" that they should not be aggrieved when their bluff is called. They ought to read more from Charles Darwin, who also thought a religious foundation was important. Have a good day, all.

JFK probably did not mention atheists in his speech since at the time atheism equated to Soviet Communism. Not a wise idea at the time. Romney's speech was foolish, Faith exists in any situation, free or not.

Moderate: “Who was this mad man?”

And how long ago did he say those things? And why should we accept them as wise and true? And who said he was mad?

Non-believer: regarding Sally Quinn being a religious person – don’t think so - not in the usual sense, at any rate. Read her previous essays here. She describes being an atheist, a deist and (most recently, I think), a “seeker.”

Sally – Terrific essay – one thing though, Kennedy’s speech was almost 50 years ago, not 40 years ago, as stated in your essay. Any chance you could go in and correct that error?

I’m sorry Sally, but even atheist and agnostics like Napoleon Bonaparte, Machiavelli, and Post-Jew areligious liberals-mugged-by-reality like Leo Strauss recognized the need for religion as a force to channel the people’s passions toward good, compassion, and the common interest. Even the Soviet Union understood that some form of religion is necessary for a happy people, as they unsuccessfully sought to build up a state religion with it’s own art deco icons and temples. From your writings, I think your bias and bigotry against Romney and/or his religion is seeping through between the lines.

There is, furthermore, nothing in the history of the world to suggest that freedom can survive in the absence of religious devotion, however, there is ample evidence that when a people isn’t given to religion they become nasty, and brutish. Religious practice is a public exercise of hope and devotion, and without it people become absorbed into their own self-interested materialistic conquests.

As for Romney’s failure to mention atheism, well, I don’t think it’s fair to criticize him for that since Romney would have been virtually the ONLY politician to acknowledge atheism as a contributing factor in the grand history of our great Nation. Perhaps you should run for office and make inclusion of atheists part of your platform. I doubt you would get very far. Thankfully, as T.R. put it; it’s not the critic who really counts. Your petty attacks will be forgotten like the eroding sands of the present of the sea of the internet, while Romney’s words will prove immortal—and especially more so if that man-in-the-arena actually succeeds to leave his fingerprints on American history.

That standard would certainly disqualify him being ‘un-American.’

What would you have told him (Romney) to say?

"As with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and variations thereof, Mormonism has significant flaws in its founder and foundations. The basic message of "love your neighbor as yourself", however, remains.

That will be the theme of my administration!!!!

And my decisions will not be tainted by any Mormon rules that are in opposition to that theme.

And there will no one in my administration who does not believe in my basic message. "

Can someone unwind the Jacob Jozevz post? I didn't understand any of it even though most of the words looked like English.

I was not surprised that Mitney was willing to repel and disenfranchise a smaller group of atheists to attract a larger group of Evangelicals. Isn't that simply a different verse of The Southern Strategy. No, what surprised and creeped me out was how Gerson hailed Romney's speech as being worthy to be read beside Kennedy's.

Is this message, at least partially parsed by Quinn above, to be the new party line?

Nice post Sally. As a non-believer, hearing Romney pandering to the evanglists gives me the creeps.

I don't know why Seektobeinformed thinks Sally Quinn needs to know all the nuances of Mormonism. The point of her column was that Romney excluded non-believers and quite clearly pandered to fundamentalist Christians to get their vote - not stand up for any principle. I am personally heartened to see Sally Q., a religious person and founder of this forum, speak as she did. (Thank you, Ms. Quinn.)

Ms. Quinn,
Wouldn't one who moderates a national forum on 'Faith' be more interesting and informative if such a person had more than superficial knowledge of major religions and/or faith systems in America? Without such knowledge, your analysis is often shallow and misguided.
I speak Chinese as a second language, and have lived in Asia nearly 7 years over my lifetime. My work assocaites who travel to China with me form opinions and feelings and views about the Chinese people based primarily on what they see. That's fine...they have limited inputs. But if they also had the ability to understand what people say, and they could understand the richness and nuance of the language, thier views would certainly be more informed. A broader and deeper set of inputs usually leads to a greater ability to understand.

I feel the same way about almost everything I hear and read from you about the LDS church. I've heard or read your views about the Romney speech in more than one forum now, and your lack of understanding about the LDS faith is more than evident. I believe your views would be more compelling and interesting if you would simply spend a little bit of time trying to understand the 'language' of that which you discuss relative to the LDS church.
You aren't bringing anything to the table when you misrepresent the basic tenents of a faith, and then offer an 'anlaysis' of the effect of those tenents on an adherent. That kind of phony anlaysis comes across to knowledgable adherents as either being insincere and artificially motivated, or the product of someone who just hasn't done any homework.

I know we're all busy, but I would encourage you to please spend a little time trying to broaden and deepen your inputs. Thank you.

Romney has been repeatedly criticized for not mentioning atheists in his speech, while Kennedy's speech has been held up as the shining example of what Romney should have said.

If you read Kennedy's speech he never mentioned atheists either. Sally Quinn must have realized this because she equates unitarians with atheists:

"or a unitarian (that was about as close as you could come in the old days of saying a nonbeliever)"

How on earth is that as close as you can get to saying nonbeliever? There was nothing at all that prevented Kennedy from saying nonbeliever. We can't be sure why Kennedy chose not to mention atheists, but certainly know he could have if wanted to.

Sally

THANK you for a perceptive and justice-serving deconstruction of Romney's un American hypocrasy and double-speak.

He has fooled many Americans. Glad he didn't fool you, and many of your fellow columnists here.

Sally,

Thank you for your essay. You are right and I appreciate it.

But, FYI, there is no "Buddhist God". Buddhists are atheists.

I'm sure Mr. Romney supports the American Boy Scouts, who, though chartered by the Congress, deny membership in their organization to Buddhist boys, because they do not believe in "God".

My wife and children are upset with Governor Romney because he clearly stated that no one in our family can be considered a good American citizen, since we, like the Buddhists, do not believe in a "God".

I've served in our state's legislature, been Chairman of our House Judiciary Committee, headed state government agencies, and served as the legal counsel to one of our Governors.

My wife has been Chief of Staff for two of our state's Governors and served as Secretary of Administration, the second-in-command of the state government after the Governor.

Despite this public service, and our quiet and modest lives, Governor Romney declares that we're not good American citizens.

He'd probably say the same of the thirteen generations of my Hoyt ancestors, who also lived quiet lives of public service in this country since the first of them arrived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1628.

I graduated from a private school located on the street where Governor Romney lives in Belmont, Massachusetts. His reputation there is not good, except among the affluent right-wingers who also live there, in considerable numbers.

As far as I know, Romney's one accomplishment in Belmont was to help destroy the previously pleasant and harmonious landscape of the town.

He did this by joining with others to use an unconstitutional federal law which allows religious organizations to ignore local zoning laws.

The result was the construction of a grotesquely oversized Mormon Temple, the architectural style of which would be appropriate for a medieval European tyrant.

This monstrosity overshadows the two-story suburban houses of Belmont and also mars the gateway view of Boston from the top of Belmont Hill on Route 2.

Good work, Mitt. You have your unconstitutionally gained religious rights, and you would deny my family their constitutional ones.

I have some apprehension that if Governor Romney does become President, it won't be too long before he takes a leaf from FDR's playbook for the Japanese-Americans and starts building stockades (concentration camps) for us non-believers.

After all, I'm sure he thinks that no decent American would find fault with his moving these bad non-believing citizens out of public view.

No doubt the rooms in the non-believers' stockades (like those in Marriott hotels) will be fully equipped with the Book of Mormon.

I only hope that Mitt will have Moroni visit us in the stockade and leave us some golden plates.It might make us feel better.

Of course that will only last until Romney, emulating Hitler's hidden adenda for the Jews (and using his unitary executive theory of Presidental power), manages to construct updated Treblinka-Sobibor-Auschwitz/Birkenaus for us non-believers in the Abrahamic "God".

Remember that Hitler thought Jews were inferior beings and Romney thinks that we non-believing bad citizens are too.

Think I'm exaggerating or being paranoid? That's what most Germans thought of Hitler's critics when he became Chancellor.

Be warned!

Amen.
Romney's speech was nothing more than an attempt to convince evangelicals he is one of them. For someone who said in this speech that he should not be accepted or rejected by voters because of his faith he sure went out of his way to convince evangelicals to vote for him because of his faith which is "a shared belief in Jesus Christ as savior".
Romney has a reputation as a flip flopper and someone who will say and become whatever is needed to get elected. This speech did nothing to dispel that reputation. All he did for me was reinforce my belief that although he is his father's son he does not have his father's character.

Dear Terra,

"As a Wiccan I know that in the wider community I and my co-religionists are thought not deserving of the same respect or tolerance that Christians feel they are due."

There are exceptions. There will be more as time progresses.

The Pagan Epictetus said in the Golden Sayings:

"If you seek Truth, you will not seek to gain a victory by every possible means; and when you have found Truth, you need not fear being defeated."

If your opponents do not bear this in mind, while you do, you will win in the end.

Another wacko said this:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it?"

and

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."

And:

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Who was this mad man?

As a Wiccan I know that in the wider community I and my co-religionists are thought not deserving of the same respect or tolerance that Christians feel they are due.

We have our worship circles invaded and our members harrassed...and now we are thought to be not deserving of the name American. Another panelist in this forum Dr. Elliot, has stated that we are UnAmerican, not just not American, but UnAmerican. With our men and women also dying in Iraq and Afghanistan I am sure that just gives them the warm fuzzies.

All we need is another religious segregationist. WE have had 7 years of someone that is a spoiled child...a child that thinks his rights are above all others. A child that holds his breath and threatens to pass out (or sign vetos) if he doesn't get his way....

Romney would be another just like that presidentual cretin. Except there would be no coffee or tea served at WH dinners...certainly no Wines. It might become fashionable to baptise babies on Ox Bones. Oh I don't care about how anyone else conducts their religion...BUT do not say that any American tax payor is not fully equal with any other American...no matter who they pray to, how they pray or if they pray.

Romney is a bigot, and on top of the bigot we already have, can this nation stand?

terra

I will not vote for anyone for any office who excludes another human being from the fabric of our society because of a label. Any label.

I find myself astonished that we have had so many candidates (and elected officials) that do not understand what the moral underpinnings of America really is. It is not that everyone IS equal, it is that everyone is TREATED equal. It is not that we have freedom to worship any God or observe any religious ritual we desire, it is that we all have the freedom to worship OR NOT to worship as we desire.

Regarding: “Freedom and religion endure together or perish alone,”......Romney was quoting John Adams. Read the speech, Sally. Your credibility has just dropped a notch.

Sally,

WOuld you please get back on your high horse and castigate Obama too?

Barak Obama says in his Call to Renewal Keynote address June 28 06

"But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

What Quinn castigates Romney for:

“Romney, on the other hand, talks about how, “in recent years, the notion of separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. “They seek to remove, “ he says, “ from the public domain, any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair, with no place in public life. It’s as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America, the religion of secularism.” They’re wrong.”

Quinn having a tantrum about what Romney says:

Isn’t that what this country is about? Separation of church and state. Isn’t one’s freedom to believe or not believe the most sacred idea of the founders of this country?. Isn’t it un-American to disavow those, not only who dismiss a faith other than their own but who dismiss those of no faith?”

Oh brother…