or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Does freedom require religion?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does freedom require religion? - Page 2

post #41 of 218
To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: "Governor, you're no Jack Kennedy."
post #42 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Source

I must say, that's pretty impressive. I admire the guy even if i disagree with several of his positions.
post #43 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

I must say, that's pretty impressive. I admire the guy even if i disagree with several of his positions.

Quote:
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.

Our nation was founded to be a place where religion is freely practiced and differences are tolerated and respected. I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. At the same time, I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans.

The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends.

Ron Paul

Not a big fan of Paul either, but he is such a breath of fresh air compared to the other stinking gas-bags running.
post #44 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Actually, I'm pretty sure you know nothing of the founding fathers. What he was saying was that our nation was founded on an appeal to The Almighty and on a belief that freedom was not granted from the power of men, but from Him. It was a God-given right.

That is part of the orthodox LDS position on America. The other part is that America is a nation "graced" by God and that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document.

As for the FFs, I think we need to be very careful about terms. "Freedom" is not the same thing as "Rights" in the 18th century. "Freedom" = the state of nature. "Rights" = the rights you have after you agree to give up your absolute freedom to do whatever you want in exchange for certain "rights."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #45 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Bullshit. The founding fathers believed that the power of the government is derived from the governed people, not from a higher power, "God". The treaty of Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" and that treaty was written when Washington was President and signed when Adams was president. They weren't atheists and they believed in God, but they had serious misgivings about the Bible being the inspired word of God, and Christianity itself. Remember the "Jefferson Bible"? Washington went to his masonic meetings more often than he went to his episcopalian church services.

Or you can check this paper out.

Bullshit.

The drafters believed that the power of government is derived from purple space aliens. I know this. I play polo with Jimmy Madison and Tommy J. on the weekends. They tell me these things. (Sally Hemmings was a good time apparently). All kidding aside, the idea that it's possible to discern the drafters' intentions is a little ludicrous. We can't read minds, especially minds that have been dead for 200 years. We might have some evidence about what some of the drafters thought, but to give effect to legislative intent is deceptively difficult for another reason: whose intent do we give effect to? Are we to assume there was one monolithic intent among all the signers? Anyone who plays the legislative intent game is getting into a slippery subject.*

*The modern problem with legislative intent is magnified in that smart lawyers-turned-politicians understand how slippery a subject legislative intent is. You typically see members of Congress from both sides of the aisle standing up and saying the exact opposite of each other in terms of their intention for passing a particular bill.
post #46 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

That's not all he said.


The guy is obviously delusional, or his magic underpants are too tight, if he can't separate religion and freedom. That and he knows nothing of the founding fathers.

He's also the guy that would exclude someone from his cabinet depending of their religion, specifically Muslims, but I wouldn't be surprised if he harbored the same attitude towards jews.

He knows that a real appeal for tolerance was based on his theology (Mormonism) it would not have gone over well with the group he was trying to appease, the evangelicals.

Mitt obviously has no real base pulling for him, the interest was solely to see if he could buy the presidency. He's finished.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #47 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Ron Paul

Not a big fan of Paul either, but he is such a breath of fresh air compared to the other stinking gas-bags running.

Almost gives me hope. Shall I send you a form to re-register as a Republican for the upcoming primaries?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #48 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Almost gives me hope. Shall I send you a form to re-register as a Republican for the upcoming primaries?

I'm on the fence right now...it's either Kucinich or Paul for me. Pennsylvania Primaries are in April. \
post #49 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Bullshit.

The drafters believed that the power of government is derived from purple space aliens. I know this. I play polo with Jimmy Madison and Tommy J. on the weekends. They tell me these things. (Sally Hemmings was a good time apparently). All kidding aside, the idea that it's possible to discern the drafters' intentions is a little ludicrous. We can't read minds, especially minds that have been dead for 200 years. We might have some evidence about what some of the drafters thought, but to give effect to legislative intent is deceptively difficult for another reason: whose intent do we give effect to? Are we to assume there was one monolithic intent among all the signers? Anyone who plays the legislative intent game is getting into a slippery subject.*

*The modern problem with legislative intent is magnified in that smart lawyers-turned-politicians understand how slippery a subject legislative intent is. You typically see members of Congress from both sides of the aisle standing up and saying the exact opposite of each other in terms of their intention for passing a particular bill.

You're right, if you consider all the drama between the founding fathers WRT intent, that's evident. I think people assume the founding fathers were all on the same page when in reality there were splits and huge disagreements between them. I think that makes it even more difficult to prove the ff were united in forming a Christian nation. But I think it's safe to assume that the freedom they envisioned was to be extended to people of all religious stripes including the non-religious.
post #50 of 218
Maybe Mitt is right? Freedom requires religion. Just as Good requires evil, Jehovah requires Satan, and death requires life. Total opposites, but to have one requires the existence of the other.
post #51 of 218
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. — Benjamin (deist) Franklin
post #52 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Maybe Mitt is right? Freedom requires religion. Just as Good requires evil, Jehovah requires Satan, and death requires life. Total opposites, but to have one requires the existence of the other.

post #53 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I know the speech was a big deal on today's news, but I haven't actually had time to stop and listen to it.

While atheists and secularists run from the word, atheism is a religion.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that.

As an agnostic I can only say your individual choice is just a bet based on how strong a tip you think you've been handed on the final outcome.
post #54 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

While atheists and secularists run from the word, atheism is a religion.

Atheism is a stance related to the subject of religion, but that doesn't make it a religion. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities.

Atheism isn't even necessarily (although many people mistakenly take it to be so) a positive assertion that deities do not exist. There's a subtle but important difference between "I do not believe X" and "I believe NOT X" -- and you don't have to invoke the term "agnostic" to recognize that distinction.

Where do you get a whole religion in its own right out of atheism? "I do not believe in deities" hardly constitutes a significant body of dogma or doctrine. What are the atheist rituals? When are the atheist holy days? Where are the atheist holy books? Who are the atheist clergy?

Quote:
And freedom at its most basic level does require that individuals be able to freely choose the beliefs that largely guide their thoughts, desires and actions.

So it's not ludicrous at all.

All you're doing is stating that freedom has to include religious freedom. That's very different than saying that freedom requires religion. Freedom, in general, is the horse, and religious freedom is the cart. Trying to make religion into the horse that pulls the cart of freedom -- that is ludicrous.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #55 of 218
(accidental double post)
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #56 of 218
Shetline: By the same token, following this logic, any strongly held political position is a religion.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #57 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I'm on the fence right now...it's either Kucinich or Paul for me. Pennsylvania Primaries are in April. \

Hooray!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #58 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Shetline: By the same token, following this logic, any strongly held political position is a religion.

Therein lies the heart of the matter. The argument is not logical.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #59 of 218
Well worn bumper sticker slogan:

"If going to church makes you a Christian, does going to the garage make you a car?"
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #60 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I'm on the fence right now...it's either Kucinich or Paul for me. Pennsylvania Primaries are in April. \

You know, it's just amazing.

Kucinich is the polar opposite of Paul. Do you know what these guys really stand for, or only that they are "anti-etablishment?"

Kucinich is the leftest of the left, leaning toward socialism. I like him, as I'm a social democrat.

Paul is the rightest of the right, leaning toward social totalitarianism and fiscal anarchy.
post #61 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Shetline: By the same token, following this logic, any strongly held political position is a religion.

If that 'strongly held political position' actually shapes your worldview and directly influences what you believe and how you react in most situations, then yes, it's your religion.

For example, not everyone who believes in global warming or even taking care of the environment elevates the matter to such a status, but there are clearly people for whom Environmentalism is a religion.

In North America, while many deny it, the lifelong pursuit of wealth and power is a prevalent religion. Jesus spent more time preaching against those people than any of the irrelevant false gods the Romans believed in.

Confining 'religion' to those who walk into a building with a cross on top each week is too narrow for the concept. Everybody has core beliefs that influence how they perceive the world whether they believe in a God or not. In a free society, all those beliefs are subject to scrutiny.

Atheists don't get a free pass simply because they claim not to believe in something. It is reasonable to ask the same questions to them as everyone else with respect to the origins, purpose and responsibilities of humanity.

Those who look to Atheism to answer those questions and define their existence, can rightfully be judged as having adopted Atheism as their religion.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #62 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

If that 'strongly held political position' actually shapes your worldview and directly influences what you believe and how you react in most situations, then yes, it's your religion.

For example, not everyone who believes in global warming or even taking care of the environment elevates the matter to such a status, but there are clearly people for whom Environmentalism is a religion.

In North America, while many deny it, the lifelong pursuit of wealth and power is a prevalent religion. Jesus spent more time preaching against those people than any of the irrelevant false gods the Romans believed in.

Confining 'religion' to those who walk into a building with a cross on top each week is too narrow for the concept. Everybody has core beliefs that influence how they perceive the world whether they believe in a God or not. In a free society, all those beliefs are subject to scrutiny.

Atheists don't get a free pass simply because they claim not to believe in something. It is reasonable to ask the same questions to them as everyone else with respect to the origins, purpose and responsibilities of humanity.

Those who look to Atheism to answer those questions and define their existence, can rightfully be judged as having adopted Atheism as their religion.

And what arguments do you have that Romney, not Frank777, was referring to this exceptionally broad definition of religion in his speech? You can't try to make his points more palatable to the public by generalizing his words without evidence that he intended them to be taken that generally.
post #63 of 218
Wait. Are Huckabee and Willard the same person??
post #64 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

And what arguments do you have that Mike Huckabee, not Frank777, was referring to this exceptionally broad definition of religion in his speech? You can't try to make his points more palatable to the public by generalizing his words without evidence that he intended them to be taken that generally.

While I didn't see the speech myself. I'm pretty sure it was Mitt Romney who gave it.

I'm not trying to make Romney's speech any more 'palatable' to anyone. I'm simply commenting on how the thread topic (and title) does, in fact, make sense.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #65 of 218
Who's Willard?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #66 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I didn't see the speech myself

I'm not trying to make Romney's speech any more 'palatable' to anyone. I'm simply commenting on how the thread topic (and title) does, in fact, make sense.

Well, then, yes, freedom does require religion if defined as broadly as you define it.

However, that's not the question really. The question is whether freedom requires religion as in its common definition of some sort of belief in the supernatural. That was the context Romney was referring to, not your broad construing of it.
post #67 of 218
Sweet. I hereby declare myself a priest of the Church of Big Government.

Where do I file for my tax-exempt status?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #68 of 218
If you don't want to vote for him, Feel FREE to vote for someone else...
post #69 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

If that 'strongly held political position' actually shapes your worldview and directly influences what you believe and how you react in most situations, then yes, it's your religion.

For example, not everyone who believes in global warming or even taking care of the environment elevates the matter to such a status, but there are clearly people for whom Environmentalism is a religion.

In North America, while many deny it, the lifelong pursuit of wealth and power is a prevalent religion. Jesus spent more time preaching against those people than any of the irrelevant false gods the Romans believed in.

First it's trumptman calling global warming and "it takes a village to raise a child" instances of jingoism, now this. Is it a common right wing trait to bend and twist words until you can squeeze a "Yeah! Well so are you!" out of them?

Quote:
Confining 'religion' to those who walk into a building with a cross on top each week is too narrow for the concept. Everybody has core beliefs that influence how they perceive the world whether they believe in a God or not. In a free society, all those beliefs are subject to scrutiny.

No matter how much you want it to mean this, the word "religion" does not mean "strongly held political belief" or "set of core beliefs that influence how (one perceives) the world". You might not need each and every one of the common trappings of organized religion to have a "religion", but you can't dismiss all of them, especially not faith-based supernatural claims, and still have a religion.

Quote:
Atheists don't get a free pass simply because they claim not to believe in something. It is reasonable to ask the same questions to them as everyone else with respect to the origins, purpose and responsibilities of humanity.

You can ask whatever questions you like. What's common among most atheists -- since most (but not all) atheists are skeptics in general -- is that "I don't know" is considered a perfectly acceptable answer.

Quote:
Those who look to Atheism to answer those questions and define their existence, can rightfully be judged as having adopted Atheism as their religion.

The above shows how much you're completely missing the point. The majority of atheists don't "look to Atheism to answer" anything. It's not a source, nor does atheism purport to be a source, of answers.

I can't speak for all atheists precisely because atheism is not an organized body of belief -- it is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities. Period. It's up to each atheist to find his or her own answers, ethics, goals in life, etc. There is no "religion of atheism" which is assigned the job of supplying such things.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #70 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Kucinich is the polar opposite of Paul. Do you know what these guys really stand for, or only that they are "anti-etablishment?"

I'm as baffled as you are that anyone could find both men appealing choices at the same time. I do give both men credit for being more candid and more forthright than the average politician, and for seeming to stick to principled positions.

But as admirable as those traits might be, it's not enough, nor should it be enough, to win my vote.

Kucinich is much closer to my views than Paul. But he's got some new-age nuttiness that I find disconcerting, and I think he's too idealistic and impractical to be effective.

Ron Paul would be absolutely horrendous. "Dr. No" as he's come to be known in Congress would become "Dr. Veto". He wouldn't even have to be very effective in dealing with Congress to cause a lot of damage -- he could almost single-handedly produce his vision of a stripped-down, laissez-faire, poorly regulated Robber Baron capitalism simply by vetoing practically any bill that came is way.

I'd much rather have a scoundrel who will nevertheless manage to move along a compromised version of some of the changes I'd like to see than an honest man who fails to get much accomplished, and I'd prefer both of those over a paragon of virtue who sticks to his promises to do a whole bunch of things I don't want to see happen.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #71 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Who's Willard?

Mitt's first name.
post #72 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

While atheists and secularists run from the word, atheism is a religion.

Balls.

Where are atheism's feast days?

Where do atheists gather every week / ever in fellowship or communion or remembrance or prayer or whatever?

Where are their temples, churches, sacred shrines or places of pilgrimage?

Where are atheism's sacred texts containing divinely-revealed truths?

Atheism doesn't have these, because these are the things that constitute a religion rather than a belief, and atheism is not a religion, so it doesn't have these.
post #73 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You know, it's just amazing.

Kucinich is the polar opposite of Paul. Do you know what these guys really stand for, or only that they are "anti-etablishment?"

Kucinich is the leftest of the left, leaning toward socialism. I like him, as I'm a social democrat.

Paul is the rightest of the right, leaning toward social totalitarianism and fiscal anarchy.

Well, this whole thread revolves around some nobody (oops edit: I thought this was the thread about someone else, but honestly Romney is a nobody to me too). What's the point?

The current administration is neither left or right, it's straight down into hell. We will need anything or anyone to save this country. It's certainly not any of the self-serving and bat-shit crazy leading candidates.

It's why I really don't comment on politics or world events anymore. It's been done to death and it's become redundant. This country needs serious change.
post #74 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

This country needs serious change.

Change to what though? Just "change"? Generic change? Change for the sake of change?

The changes Kucinich and Paul would bring are utterly different forms of change. To have those two as your top two choices, and to consider the choice between them really close, is an incoherent political position. It's nothing more than a show of frustration.

Do you imagine that there's a unified "them" out there, as in "we're going to show them that we don't have to take it anymore!"? That, if by some electoral miracle a Kucinich or a Paul (or a Nader, to go back a couple of elections) were elected that "they" would respond to your show of frustration and provide better candidates to choose from the next time? Or even in the case of a loss of your favored candidates, other candidates will look longingly at those few percentage points they missed, and change completely in order to grab those votes the next time?

If you don't have a good answer, and all you can say is "Well, things are so fucked up that we've just gotta change something!", I fundamentally disagree.

It's not that I don't think there's a lot that should be fixed. There is. But considering how truly fucked up a country can get (think, oh, China's Cultural Revolution, Europe under the Inquisition, the internal decay within the Soviet Union prior to its collapse and the rampant organized crime in the constituent countries after) we're not even close to desperation, to the point where randomly trying "big change" simply for the sake of change itself is a smart move.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #75 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Change to what though? Just "change"? Generic change? Change for the sake of change?

The changes Kucinich and Paul would bring are utterly different forms of change. To have those two as your top two choices, and to consider the choice between them really close, is an incoherent political position. It's nothing more than a show of frustration.

Do you imagine that there's a unified "them" out there, as in "we're going to show them that we don't have to take it anymore!"? That, if by some electoral miracle a Kucinich or a Paul (or a Nader, to go back a couple of elections) were elected that "they" would respond to your show of frustration and provide better candidates to choose from the next time? Or even in the case of a loss of your favored candidates, other candidates will look longingly at those few percentage points they missed, and change completely in order to grab those votes the next time?

If you don't have a good answer, and all you can say is "Well, things are so fucked up that we've just gotta change something!", I fundamentally disagree.

It's not that I don't think there's a lot that should be fixed. There is. But considering how truly fucked up a country can get (think, oh, China's Cultural Revolution, Europe under the Inquisition, the internal decay within the Soviet Union prior to its collapse and the rampant organized crime in the constituent countries after) we're not even close to desperation, to the point where randomly trying "big change" simply for the sake of change itself is a smart move.

No we are at a point of desperation. Too many reasons or events to count now.

I think this country, as a whole is like a dysfunctional, unresponsive, unintelligent mass of lemmings that need to be educated and (yes...yes) disciplined as much as the leaders should be. This administration should have been carried out of Washington DC back in 2003 for the crimes they have committed. I'm pretty much pressed for time these days, this is all I can say about this for now. Some of this sounds funny coming from me, but this country is in serious trouble and there has to be a major change in the whole outlook of things; societal, economical and as the world sees us.
post #76 of 218
Thread Starter 
Freedom requires education.
post #77 of 218
The Perfect Storm of Campaign 2008

Quote:
Will the presidential election of 2008 mark a turning point in American political history? Will it terminate with extreme prejudice the conservative ascendancy that has dominated the country for the last generation? No matter the haplessness of the Democratic opposition, the answer is yes.

Good read.
post #78 of 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Bullshit. The founding fathers believed that the power of the government is derived from the governed people, not from a higher power, "God". The treaty of Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" and that treaty was written when Washington was President and signed when Adams was president. They weren't atheists and they believed in God, but they had serious misgivings about the Bible being the inspired word of God, and Christianity itself. Remember the "Jefferson Bible"? Washington went to his masonic meetings more often than he went to his episcopalian church services.

Or you can check this paper out.

OK, Mr. Giant-Ass-Strawman: I never said a thing about us being a Christian nation. I said this:

Quote:
What he was saying was that our nation was founded on an appeal to The Almighty and on a belief that freedom was not granted from the power of men, but from Him. It was a God-given right.

I can't believe you would actually dispute that. Here:

Quote:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

and

Quote:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies......

...... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

"He knows that a real appeal for tolerance based on his theology (Mormonism) would not have gone over well with the group he was trying to appease, the evangelicals."

There fixed it for you. In other words, if he tried explaining his batshit crazy religion to people, even the evangelicals would balk.

"Even" the evangelicals? Those the people that he's worried about, I'm sure. And as for explaining his religion, well perhaps you're right. Perhaps people would think it's "batshit." My question is...do people still go to see Tom Cruise movies? No really, do they? Further, who gets to judge his religion any less valid than say, Catholicism? I mean, do you know those crazy Catholics pray to---gasp---STATUES!!!?!?!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #79 of 218
post #80 of 218
I think he misspoke and what he really mean was that freedom requires morality (where in his own view morality and religion are the same thing).

Here are a couple of quotes that suggest that same idea:

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith." (Alexis de Tocqueville)

"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation." (C.S. Lewis)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Does freedom require religion?