Does freedom require religion? - Page 2

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Source

Originally Posted by Outsider

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

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by Outsider

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.

Originally Posted by Outsider

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.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

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.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

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

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

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.

Originally Posted by Outsider

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.

Originally Posted by Frank777

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.

Originally Posted by Frank777

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

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.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

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

Originally Posted by midwinter

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

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

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

Originally Posted by midwinter

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

Originally Posted by Frank777

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.

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

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.

Originally Posted by Frank777

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.

Originally Posted by Frank777

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by Frank777

Who's Willard?

Originally Posted by Frank777

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

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

This country needs serious change.

Originally Posted by shetline

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Outsider

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.

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.

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,

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.

Originally Posted by Outsider

"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.