Naturally, no thread yet on Romney's speech Thursday

Just to enliven our discussion, what about turning the issue around? Rather than worrying about the electorate's intolerance for a candidate's beliefs, should we instead be talking about how those beliefs might make the candidate intolerant of the electorate?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/07/religion_presidency/


ADD:

Peggy Noonan points out the error in Mr. Romney's speech.

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

http://online.wSportsJournalists.com/article/SB119706422040017530.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

And again, we are compelled to dredge up the eternally-pertinent:

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

-- Sinclair Lewis

 

Noonan is half right in saying that if Romney acknowledged the secular tradition in the U.S. he would lose some base votes, but her assertion that "[w]e were founded by believing Christians" is demonstrably false. Most of our founders were Deists who did not believe in any holy text. The notion to which Noonan describes attempts to re-write history through the lenses of those who have controlled this country for the past 15 years.

 

One day, Yawn will have to tell us how long this thread would be if we hadn't ignored Mitt's very important spech.

 

Probably not. But my issue with religion in politics isn't that the candidates positions are different than mine, and by the way he's a Mormon, it's that his positions are different than mine because he's a Mormon. I don't have an issue when someone has a position opposite mine, if they have given it some thought and after a careful analysis they come to that conclusion. My reason for not liking religious candidates is that they don't give some things ANY thought, they reflexively spout whatever position their religion tells them to. I don't want anyone in office that doesn't think for themselves. Simply referring to a 2000 year old book of folklore isn't good enough.

 

Wow...

So, what you're saying is you have the unique ability to peer into the minds of religious candidates? And on top of that, you can actually discern what "things" they think about, and what "things" they don't give any thought to?

You must think very highly of yourself to make such a claim.

To say that all religious people "don't think for themselves" is utterly ridiculous, absurd and insulting.

I'm afraid that your "disagreement" vs. "bigotry" argument just went out the window.

 

That's NOT what Thomson said.

He said they don't give SOME things ANY thought.

I wouldn't be too high on anyone who swallowed whole regarding specific sectors of knowledge . . . religious, or otherwise.

Try again.

 

Happy now, yawn? About every other thread involves Mitt Romney.

 

That is what he said - read his entire post.

I quoted Thomson word for word.

"My reason for not liking religious candidates is that they don't give some things ANY thought, they reflexively spout whatever position their religion tells them to."

Thomson has no idea what "things" other people give thought to and what things they don't. Thomson isn't a mind reader.

"I don't want anyone in office that doesn't think for themselves."

Thomson is claiming that religious candidates (and religious people as a whole) don't think for themselves, which is crazy.

Read the entire post next time...

 

And one of the things Mr. Romney thinks - or at least said - is that "secularists" needn't think of themselves as being part of the big American crazy quilt any longer. He's happy to include those of other faiths in the big tent, but unbelievers need not apply.

Even if it was only a rhetorical sop to the hard right, it's sort of antithetical to the American ideal of inclusion.

 

... or the religious mantra of inclusion, for that matter ...