Part 2 here.

JFK's speech on the seperation of Church and State.

I upvoted because i found his speech so pandering and ridiculous that I felt others should hear it. He must be smoking some good shit to say delusion thoughts like this "religion requires freedom and freedom requires religion."

Here are some interesting articles on Romney's speech.

Romney and Huckabee's religious intolerance
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/07/religion_presidency/print.html

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

This statement is so patently false that it scarcely deserves refutation. If Romney has studied the bloody history of his own church, then he knows that the religious fervor of its adversaries drove them to deprive the Mormons not only of their freedom but their lives, and that the Mormons reacted in kind. If he has studied the bloody history of the world's older religions, then he knows that the most devout Christians of all sects have not hesitated to suppress, torture and murder "heretics" throughout history. Only the strictest separation of church and state has permitted the establishment of societies where freedom of conscience prevails -- and those freedoms are firmly rooted in societies where organized religion has long been in decline.

Surely Romney knows that Mormonism, in particular, was historically hostile to liberty for blacks as well as women. The founders of his church believed that God had cursed the world's dark-skinned people. They rejected abolitionism and later the civil rights movement. And their acceptance of full membership for African-Americans in the LDS church dates back only 30 years.

If Romney is going to attack humanists and secularists as "wrong," then let him explain why they were so far ahead of his church on the greatest moral issues of the past half-century.

Romney's Pandering Speech
http://ffrf.org/news/2007/romneyspeech.php

While pretending to affirm the separation of church and state, Romney used his speech to attack it: "in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God" and to establish a "new religion in America--the religion of secularism." Secularism is not a religion--secularism is what safeguards religious freedom for all, including us dissenters, and including the nation's tiny minority of Mormon adherents.

Romney Speech Reflects Inaccurate Understanding Of Church-State Relations, Says Americans United
http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr012=ik6kj8oi81.app5b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9533&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

“I was disappointed in Romney’s statement,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “The founders of our Constitution meant for religion and government to be completely separate. Romney is wrong when he says we are in danger of taking separation too far or at risk of establishing a religion of secularism.

Romney's incomplete speech on religion in America.
http://www.slate.com/id/2179386/

Mitt the Mormon. Why Romney needs to talk about his faith.
http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/

Romney Spokesman Won't Say If Atheists Have Place In America
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romney_spokesman_wont_say_whether_athiests_have_a_proper_place_in_america.php

Mormon Underwear
http://www.mormon-underwear.com/
http://www.slate.com/id/2161933/

In no reasonable way can I upvote this.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm upvoting for the discussion.

This speech hit home with a lot of people in the United States of America. Don't think that the "videosift cross section" that we see here is characteristic of the majority opinion of Americans.

The vast majority of Americans are Christians (80% according to the U.S. Cencus Bureau).

Atheists and Agnostics only account for 15% of Americans.

Hit home with Americans? Ha! Show me proof. Americans feel more connected to Mike Huckabee then fake man Romney.

Am sorry but the American public is generally more informed then to fall to the strategic pandering of someone who changed his position on every issue possible to garner as many Republican votes as he can. Romney's position is backed only by the best political consultants money can buy.

He spends millions just to hit recognition levels among the populace, while Mike Huckabee is able to do that without spending a dime.

Ken Silverstein's Making Mitt Romney: How to fabricate a conservative is required reading...

Furthermore, at a time of 2 prolonged wars, looming economic recession, failing foreign economic policy, destruction of civil liberties, why is religion even a central issue?

Has Bush's religious background meant he was more compassionate (not even talking wise, I'll let that slide) to the people who suffered in Katrina? Rising child health care costs? Those who are facing a crisis with their mortgage payments? This is not even mentioning the millions affected by war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the soldiers sent to fight a war without a clear objective and those who fell to torture programs...

EDIT: Qruel is right, this BS needs to be seen.

Romney's Pandering Speech
http://ffrf.org/news/2007/romneyspeech.php

Romney needs a fact-checker. He misleadingly stated that the nation's founders "sought the blessings of the Creator." There was indeed prayer at the First Continental Congress, which adopted the failed Articles of Confederation. Romney piously concluded his talk with a prayer attributed to Sam Adams from that event. But he failed to mention that there was no prayer at the constitutional convention that crafted our living and godless constitution.

After promising not to "confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution," Romney immediately vowed: "When I place my hand on the bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God." Art. II, Sec. 1 of the US Constitution, providing the presidential oath of office, contains no reference to a god or the bible. But, of course, Romney was signaling to fundamentalists that he would use their book, not the Book of Mormon.

As the difference between JFK's and Romney's speeches reveal, in recent years the notion of the separation between church and state has been debased, disrespected and routinely dissed. The deterioration since 1960 in respect for this pinnacle constitutional precept is mind-boggling.

Instead of affirming the constitution's prohibition of a religious test for public office, Romney's speech pandered to the notion that candidates must be publicly pious, and fed the myth that good citizenship requires religious faith.

Deedub, Every Christian I've spoken with thinks any morman is off their rocker. I think the South Park video on Mormanism sums up how the mormans got their "faith". It's not that much different from how all the other religions got theirs also.. the others just took a lot more time to be formulated and compiled. I'm personally sick of religion but I don't hold it against others that are religious because I've been there before myself and I know that many are bombarded with religious beliefs since they were young. It's just that a President of the United States should believe in strict separation between church and state.

As for mormonism, take a read of Howard Hughes biography at the end chapters... You get to learn something about the mormons that they didn't show you on "The Aviator" movie.. although they did show that he had a few guys in white shirts and ties holding bibles behind him in the movie (but that's all they showed on that part of his life).

In a world filled with an abundance of hypocrisy and lies, the sign of truth and honor will be with those who do not fear those who try to oppress others.

^You must hang with the bigots. [edit] (not "noose" hang. I meant you must "kick it" or "hang out with".)

^deedub. wouldn't you say that Romney was being a bigot by not acknowleding the %14 of americans who have NO faith ? which would make his statement "religion requires freedom and freedom requires religion." inaccurate.

how about the other "inaccuracies" I've posted about. does it bother you that he twisted history for his own convienent use ?

.

No deedub, I don't hang out with you... or do you mean "I should be hung" (as in by the neck)? It's difficult to interpret when your one liners can be taken multiple ways.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson was Agnostic as well. Just one of the many reasons he was one of my biggest heroes of American History.

Also, I found it completely disgusting to see Romney voters voting multiple times in the straw polls because they were illegitemately allowed to. Don't you see anything wrong with that? Hell-llooO?!?!

Also, before you say that Romney himself had nothing to do with that.. might I remind you that the Romney campaign had paid for those expensive tickets. The Ron Paul candidates paid for theirs out of their own pockets and vowed 1-person, 1-vote. That shows who are the people with true honor and integrity that take pride in what this country really stands for.

America was formed on the basis of escaping religious prosecution in England, to avoid committing the same the constitution was written to separate church and state.

For a presidential candidate to pander to the religious vote by saying "Freedom needs religion and religion needs freedom" shows a marked misunderstanding of foundations of the constitution of the United States of America.

EDIT: It makes sense though, how else does he convince the majority of Christians to overlook his Mormon roots? Push for Theodemocracy in the US, it rallies the religious vote around him. Will most Christians buy it?

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"In no instance have... the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

Dudes, dudes, dudes. I know that church and state should be completely separate. I live in Colorado Springs, where there are a lot of religious "nuts" that have skewed ideas about church and state. Romney doesn't intend to change anything drastically. I think he was trying to make the point that he would advocate things like keeping "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on our currency. I have no idea what he was talking about when he said "religion requires freedom and freedom requires religion." I hope someone asks him that 'cause I'd like to hear his response.

Most of what he said during the second half of his speech was awesome.

I'm sorry if you take my one-liners the wrong way. It's my attempt at lightening the situation.
I guess I'm not as funny as I think I am.

^Constitutional Patriot:
The statements you made in your first comment prove that it was necessary for Romney to make the speech (and it doesn't seem to me like you watched the whole thing).

^Farhad2000:
Don't you think that Christians SHOULD overlook his Mormon roots?

^ Thanks for responding deedub. glad to know you were just kidding with some of your comments (hopefully to my profile also).

in your first paragraph you mention that Romney wants to keep "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on our money. These phrases were only added several decades ago and violate that same separation of church and state that Romney says he wants to protect.

please read up on the history of those two subjects (references to god in the pledge and on our money)

We are not one nation under god.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/christian_nation_brochure.pdf

Saying that "god should remain in our pledge" does not follow separation fo church and state
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/One_Nation_Under_God.pdf
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/In_God_We_Trust_In_Public_Schools.pdf
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/public_schools_brochure.pdf

Saying that "god should remain on our money" does not follow separation of church and state.
http://www.atheists.org/public.square/coins.html

The founding fathers had enough sense to keep any mention of "god" out of the constitution, off the money and out of our pledge.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/Founding_Fathers_and_the_Separation_of_Church_and_State.doc

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/TenMyths.pdf

These articles were taken from AMERICANS UNITED http://www.au.org

2007 marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of Americans United as one of the foremost defenders of the separation of church and state, the cornerstone of religious liberty in America. We are proud to celebrate 60 years of freedom and look forward to continuing our work for many years to come.

As a non-sectarian, non-partisan organization, AU's membership includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, people with no religious affiliation and others. Democrats, Republicans and independents have joined our ranks.

Americans United is an independent organization with no ties to any larger group or political movement. We are a true grassroots organization. Thanks to your support, Americans United is able to defend separation of church and state in the courts, educate legislators, work with the media to inform Americans about religious freedom issues and organize local chapters all over the country.

I don't think Christians have any reasons to accept the mormon faith.

I think it can be summed up like this (from a christian viewpoint)

how would you feel if one day someone all of a sudden added religious books onto biblical scripture, that changed much of the core philosophy (doctrine) of the christian faith and even went as far as to say that the bible has been corrupted and that the new books were now the "true" word of god.

I imagine that has a lot of fundies/christians pretty pissed off (when they find out that and more nonsense)

I found a really great outline of some of the other arguements that christians bring up. I found this really interesting as I had not heard some of the specifics beforehand.

visit this thread for the rundown on the mormon faith (from a christians perspective)
http://religion.videosift.com/talk/Romney-We-are-a-nation-Under-God-and-in-God-we-do-trust

or go to the original site here...
http://www.mormonchallenge.com/mormonism.htm

one other thing to keep in mind about the widely varying beliefs of mormons (like any religion)

Today, there are many schism organizations who regard themselves as a part of the Latter Day Saint movement, though in most cases they do not acknowledge the other branches as valid and regard their own tradition as the only correct and authorized version of Smith's church. Most of these organizations are small. The vast majority of Latter Day Saints belong to the largest denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which reports 13 million members worldwide. The second-largest denomination is the more ecumenical Community of Christ, which reports over 250,000 members. The third largest is The Church of Jesus Christ, with fewer than 20,000 adherents.(that was from wiki)

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. Mormons are Christians. They don't tell other people what they are or what they aren't. Mormons didn't do anything to the doctrines of other churches. ...by the way: It's called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

"I don't think Christians have any reasons to accept the mormon faith.
...I imagine that has a lot of fundies/christians pretty pissed off (when they find out that and more nonsense)"

...and you think they're justified?

[edit for specificity] Calling Mormon doctrine "nonsense" is blatant Religion bashing intolerance.

Take it somewhere else, Qruel. Seriously.

deedub, there's that wonderful sense of humor of yours. I like how you feign disgust at my comment while you have yet to address any of my question to you about the bigotry and inaccuracies that your presidential candidate made, in regards to

1. Making inaccurate statements about the history of this country.

2. Making contradictory statements about upholding separation of church and state and then in the same speech stating that he would uphold violations of church and state.

3. Making unsubstantiated, ridiculous statements that have no basis in reality.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."


if you have any doubts about my claims please reference my comments above where I quoted Romneys speech and then gave links and references to the truth.
____________________________________

so once again deedub I ask, what are your thoughts on these aspects of his speech. until now you're arguement has been that atheist only make up 15% of the population, which i guess would infere that since we are the minority it is okay to disenfranchise us ? You never did elaborate, so I'm left to guess.

I'd be more than happy to address your accusation of "some of the most blatant religion bashing intolerance", but how about answering the questions I've been asking you.

Personally, I think Romney (and you) need a history lesson. Please read those articles (links) to get a broader more accurate understanding of our nations history. (and the timeline and issues behind god in the pledge and on our money).

I gotta tell you. I felt saddened that you labeled my comment "some of the most blatant religion bashing intolerance" in light of your candidate not acknowledging 15% of the population with whom he disagree's with. So much for "We are all americans first" eh ? not only that but he has stooped so low with his speech to pander to the people whom most dislike and distrust him the most, evangelical christians. His strategy seems to be, hey join with me against those darn secularist.

I look forward to your reply

Deedub81, I believe you are misinformed.

Mormons are not Christians, there is a marked difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity. Here's BeliefNet with a helpful charts of differences. This one is from Religion Facts.

Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and that Christianity fell into apostasy after the passing of Jesus Christ. The Bible to them is far below the The Pearl of Great Price, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Book of Mormon.

"Whether Mormons should be considered "Christians" is a controversial and rather complicated issue. Many Catholics and Protestants do not consider Mormons to be Christians because they believe the differences in doctrines are more dramatic and more fundamental than those between Christian denominations."

deedub. please keep in mind that the reason christians get to say mormons aren't christians boils down to this. RELIGION IS SUBJECTIVE. yes, some christians will say mormons are christians, but other christians, those who view the bible more literally will refuse to acknowledge mormons as christians. perhaps these details will help you understand their point of view. This is exactly why I encourage you to use reason when examining these issues and not faith. I would ask that you read through and at least try to understand where they are comign from.

Mormon explanations of them being Christian

1. Mormons believe they are Christians because they believe in Jesus.

2. Mormons believe they are Christians because the name of their Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

3. Mormons believe they are Christians because they believe Jesus is their Savior.

4. Mormons believe they are Christians because they believe in God.

WHY MORMONS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS

Claiming to believe in Jesus does not make anyone a Christian. Jesus said:

"21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." (Matthew 7:21-27 KJV)

The context of Matthew 7:13-27 is that there are many who will go down the wrong road in life and the end result is destruction. However, those who go the narrow road will find life. Jesus warns about false prophets who appear to be Christians but in fact are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Jesus warned about bad fruit which is not built upon the foundation of the tree. (Jesus) Jesus warned about many people claiming to be of the Lord and doing many things in His name, but Jesus rejected them because He did not know them. This truth shows that just because a person believes in Jesus does not mean they are truly Christian.

Having a certain name for a Church does not make anyone a Christian. There are many religious sects which have Biblical names but they are not Christians. The Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, and Oneness Pentecostals have Biblical names but they have a different Jesus and a different Gospel. They are, by Biblical definition, non-Christians. What makes a Church or fellowship Christian is not what name they go by, but what they believe concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and the gospel message.

Many religious sects claim to believe in Jesus as their Savior, but many truly do not believe in the atoning work of the cross and Jesus' shed blood. Mormons do not know Jesus as the true Savior because they have been taught that the blood of Jesus Christ does not atone for all sins. Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie states:

"But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment."... "President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his Own life to atone -- so far as in his power lies -- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. . . . Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf"' [Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 133-138]" (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, pages 92-93)

This quote is from an apostle of the Mormon Church stating that the blood of Jesus does not atone for all sins, even if they repent. Bruce McConkie also stated that this was taught by Joseph Smith and President Joseph Fielding Smith which gives this special validation to what the Mormon Church teaches. The Bible teaches:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin....If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us (our) sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:7&9 KJV)

The Bible teaches that all sins are covered and atoned for through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that if we confess our sins and seek forgiveness we will be cleansed from all unrighteousness.

Many people say they believe in God but that does not make them Christians. The Bible warns about those who claim to know God but have been deceived. The Mormon Church teaches that God was once a man who became a God, but this is unbiblical and heretical. Joseph Smith said:

"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man. God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible. Say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form, like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)

According to Joseph Smith God has not always been God, but was a man first who became a God. The Scriptures clearly state that God has always been God. (Deut. 4:39, Psalms 93:2, Isaiah 40:28, Romans 16:26) To teach that God was at one time not God is clearly a false doctrine.

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalms 90:2 KJV)

This information Biblically shows that Mormons are not Christians. Mormons have been deceived with a different Jesus, different Gospel, and a different God. Joseph Smith was not a true prophet of God because what he taught was not in line with what the Word of God clearly teaches. We have this information not to bash anyone but to challenge people to examine their beliefs. Please contact us if you have any comments or questions concerning this information.

"4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]...13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds." (2 Corinthians 11:4 & 13-15 KJV)

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:5 KJV)

http://www.afcministry.com/Are_Mormons_Christians.htm

Mormons believe the Holy Bible to be the word of God. They don't believe that they can take heed to some of God's words and not others. They believe that the Ten commandments are just as relevent today, as when they were given to the Israelites in ancient times.

Matthew Chapter 7 - "...21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. .....26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man,..."


Some "Christians" believe that they don't have to do anything but accept Jesus as their Savior in order to be saved. Satan has fooled them into thinking that they don't need to do anything beyond that. Mormons believe that it is our works that we will be held accountable for.





And your references about God always being God don't back up the point you are trying to make:

Duet. 4:39 - Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Mormons believe this to the letter!. There is but one Father of Heaven and Earth and we worship none other, but Him.

Psalms 93:2 - Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Mormons believe that God is Eternal.


Isaiah 40:28 - Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Mormons believe that God does not change. He is perfect and will be for eternity.


Romans 16:26 - But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the bobedience of faith:

Again, Mormons believe in and worship the Almighty and Everlasting God.





Here are Mormon scriptures that relate to the Atonement:

From the Book of Mormon
Alma 34: 8-9, 11-12
8 And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.
9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.
• • •
11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

And from the Old Testament:

Lev. 5:16
16 And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing..."

Mormon doctrine doesn't tell us specifically what will happen in the afterlife to those who murder in this life. Only that it is required of us to provide restitution of sins commited in order to be forgiven in this life. If one murders, he cannot give back the life he took. Thier punishment is up to Jesus Christ. He is the judge.




The Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus Christ is Jehovah. Mormons do.

The Way International, and Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus Christ and God the Father are seperate beings. Mormons share this belief.

If Jesus Christ and God are the same "person" who is Jesus praying to in these scriptures?

Luke 23: 34
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do...

Matt. 26: 39, 42
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
• • •
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.


...and why would Jesus confuse us by speaking about the Father in the third person in these scriptures if they were the same "being"?:

John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

John 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.


John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I ago unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 14:31
31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.


And here is a scripture which references The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost being present but seperate. The Father speaks from heaven to Jesus at His baptism:

Luke 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.




Also, Mormons believe that God created us in His image. We are his offspring and have eternal potential.

Gen. 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mormons believe that...

-"...those who are worthy to return to the presence of our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ become “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17) of all that the Father has. They will return to live with Heavenly Father and with their families in His eternal glory." ( Mormon.org)

Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

I'm only upvoting for the discussion. Romney needs to read some of the founding father's writings on the Constitution, religion and government. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in opposition to a bill to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religions.

"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another."

Madison wrote a letter to William Bradford in April of 1774 in which he says; "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."



John Adam's book A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, he writes:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

And I've got to say *wtf for him saying "freedom requires religion." Religion is just another form of control. Oh, and *long too.

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by jimnms.

Adding video to channels (Wtf) - requested by jimnms.

My Boss happens to be a Mormon. And having worked closely with the man I can say that I honestly think Mormons are more Christian then most Christians. I think the greatest amount of hatred for their church comes from their beliefs being closer to Judaism then popular Christianity.

Next to the Jews the Mormons are the only other religious sect that has had to endure being driven from their homes and persecuted, even to the point of death. If anything I would think people would be more sympathetic to a religion that has endured so much and is still growing faster then most Christian sects in the world today.

And qruel, you do not understand what separation of church and state means. It doesn't mean that no one in a political office should mention religion. What it means is that the church should not be involved, or allowed to influence the running of a government, as well as the government should not be allowed to dictate the administration of a religion.

And if your going to bring up credible points, try doing it with a credible source. You keep citing things that are used by people who have the express intent, and purpose of dismantling the LDS church.

That's like citing all anti-semitic references for making a point about Jews. It's not accurate and it's garbage as far as any rational thinker should be concerned.

I have to agree with Raifim on this one. Qruel do you just post everything you Google about Mormons that supports your vendetta/prejudice? I think Deedub, Raifim, and myself know a little more about Mormons then your bias references do.

^Raifim
people are not categorized as christians for how they act. they are categorized as christians for a specific theological doctrine that they believe in (that defines a religion). If we were to judge the "christianess" of people based on how they act I could say that the atheist I know are more christians than most christians. luckily that is such a nonsensical way to view things that we don't use it that way to judge what categories of faith people fall into.

I'll repeat it once again with some additional commentary

RELIGION IS SUBJECTIVE. yes, some christians will say mormons are christians, but other christians, those who view the bible more literally (and know the meaning of the word NUANCE) will refuse to acknowledge mormons as christians AND THAT IS THEIR VALID VIEWPOINT. While i could care less one way or another (because i think the scripture that both cults use for the basis of their faith is man made ridiculous nonsense) seeing mormons long to be considered christians in light of the evidence is highly amusing.

btw: nice strawman. you stated "And qruel, you do not understand what separation of church and state means. It doesn't mean that no one in a political office should mention religion."

I've never stated that no one in poltical office should not mention religion. If you honestly think that was my position you need to go reread what i wrote and then reread it again.

You ignored my other points I see.

"If your going to bring up credible points, try doing it with a credible source. You keep citing things that are used by people who have the express intent, and purpose of dismantling the LDS church.

That's like citing all anti-semitic references for making a point about Jews. It's not accurate and it's garbage as far as any rational thinker should be concerned."

What I'm trying to get at is why do you take such an interest in something that you refer to as "man made ridiculous nonsense". Why concern yourself with it?

Your supporting "facts" are bias and poorly researched. You attack a faith you do not understand, and seek to lean about it by people who have a clear disdain for religion.

But perhaps I miss your point. Perhaps your not looking at understanding the Mormon faith, just trying to undermine it. As opposed to being fair and informative.

hey gorgo. yea, imagine a religion (christians) who gets upset for a new religion (mormonism) to come in and add to the christians religion doctrine that christians do not believe and think it is so far away from what their religion teaches them that they refuse to acknowledge mormons as christians. that seems to me to be their right. While I certainly don't agree with the christian religion I can see their point of view. If all of a sudden you said my God was once a man and then became god I'd probably be upset too. The whole thing is ridiculous. It seems to me that Mormons just want to be recognized as a "normal", "mainstream" religion and the easiest way for them to accomplish that is to latch onto the "christian" label.

I like how you attack the messenger and not the specific message. I think those specific points they brought up about why mormons aren't christians were very valid. It's their religion, why shouldn't it be valid? RELIGION IS SUBJECTIVE. I'm sure with time mroe mainstream christians will come to accept mormons as they have a great marketing campaign touting why they should be considered christians.

one is not a christian just because they say they are. in the eyes of fundamentalist christians, mormons started as a cult and will remain a cult. Unfortunately that's whose Romenys speech seemed to be pandering to.

deedub. Isn't all of this a moot point for you to argue ?

You've already stated to me personaly that you "don't base your faith on logic"
whatever that means. (to me it says you believe what you are told to believe) If someone from your religion tells you "you are christian" then you'll believe them and all the other nonsense they fill your head with.

I'd love to see those special golden plates to verify your statements.
oh that's right. they didn't exist !
how's the song go ? dum, dum, dum, dum....
http://www.videosift.com/video/History-of-Mormonism-by-South-Park

Believing based on logic would mean that you'd look more into the veracity of the claims than these stupid arguements over the implications of the claims.

There is no wrong or right on the issue of "are mormons christians" the people who are fired up enough to have an opinion probably have very valid reasons for thinking so and that doesn't make them wrong. why ? because RELGIOIN IS SUBJECTIVE.

Those idiotic scriptures for either religion are so full of contradictory statements that one could make them say anything they want to support or go against any issue.

http://GODHATESSHRIMP.com/

This guy is so full of crap! Do people really buy this??

^ very funny Raifim. Using the scripture (the bible) to explain why mormons are not christians is not a credible source ???? and then you label them with an "anti semetic" tag because they disagree with you? I guess since mormons view the bible as (EDIT)FALLABLE (what your doctrine states) I can see your point. Bible = corrputed scripture. Book of mormon = Infallible word of god.

Again you are attacking the person (people) who have the opinion not the validity of the opinion itself (based on the christian biblical scripture). I like how because they disagree with mormons over who gets to use the "christian" label that you then label their opinons as not accurate (without ever specifying as to what was inaccurate)...that is a great tactic, keep it up. I'm sure it is useful on most people.

I did address your points. But you were vague and used generalities, try specifics.

As far as mormonism is concerned, What is their to undermine ? The history of the religion speaks for itself. Usually I'd be taking christians to task for their wild assertations (saying they are true). now i find myself seeing a mormon trying to brush the nuances of the label they want so bad under the carpet so that people will accept them because they are "christians"

Your still dodging the question qruel. And he was using the anti Semite as an example of your narrow minded stance on Mormons. Read it again, carefully.

let's take a look gorgo. which questions would I be dodging ?

here's his post.

"My Boss happens to be a Mormon. And having worked closely with the man I can say that I honestly think Mormons are more Christian then most Christians. I think the greatest amount of hatred for their church comes from their beliefs being closer to Judaism then popular Christianity."

his personal opinion to which i already replied to with my own personal opinion

Next to the Jews the Mormons are the only other religious sect that has had to endure being driven from their homes and persecuted, even to the point of death. If anything I would think people would be more sympathetic to a religion that has endured so much and is still growing faster then most Christian sects in the world today.

This is an inaccurate statement(opinion). jews and mormons are not the only religious sects to be driven from their lands. Apparently you disregard the vast amount of other religious people IN THE BIBLE who were driven from their lands or killed by christians (whether it's true depends on if you believe the bible to be historically accurate. People of religious afficliations get persecuted all the time by other religions.

"And qruel, you do not understand what separation of church and state means. It doesn't mean that no one in a political office should mention religion. What it means is that the church should not be involved, or allowed to influence the running of a government, as well as the government should not be allowed to dictate the administration of a religion."

I already replied to this inaccurate statement and pointed out that you misrepresented my stance

And if your going to bring up credible points, try doing it with a credible source. You keep citing things that are used by people who have the express intent, and purpose of dismantling the LDS church.

That's like citing all anti-semitic references for making a point about Jews. It's not accurate and it's garbage as far as any rational thinker should be concerned.

I've already replied to this also.

like i said. specifics. what haven't I reponded to ?

I really like how the "mormons" in this thread have DERAILED the thread. It was about ROmneys INACCURATE, PANDERING speech. Apparently the mormons cannot respond to the specific problems some of us ahve had with Romneys speech so they feel they must turn this into a debate about whether or not they are christians.

the mormons in the thread won't acknowledge that christians have a right to not think mormons are christians based on what they believe.

If christians don't believe anything Joseph Smith said or did, then they won't believe anything your doctrines states (which is what your arguement is based upon). Someone has to believe in the Joseph Smith story to believe that your theology is true

to quote deedub

He also stated indirectly that Mormon doctrine was "nonsense."

I don't mind when people say that Mormons have different beliefs than most other Christian faiths. It's true. They do. I find it offensive when people make anyone's personal convictions and beliefs out to be "rediculous" or "nonsense". If one believes that ALL religion is nonsense, that's a different story.

Yes deedub. I'm all inclusive and think that all religious beliefs are nonsense and ridiculous, so it must be a different story.

you don't need to convince me of your wacky outlandish religious beliefs. You need to convince christians they have to accept the story and assertions of joseph smith as true.

^What? I don't need to convince anyone of anything, nor was I trying to. I was simply rebutting the sources that you are copying and pasting and about which you obviously know very little.

To quote Qruel:
"...you'll believe them and all the other nonsense they fill your head with."

"...your wacky outlandish religious beliefs..."

"...how's the song go ? dum, dum, dum, dum....
http://www.videosift.com/video/History-of-Mormonism-by-South-Park"


Qruel's motives are obvious. It's pointless to try to have a meaningful discussion with him on this subject.

my motive was to talk about Romenys speech. I'd be more than happy to stay on point about that but it seems you still haven't answered my questions to you.

you have yet to address any of my question to you about the bigotry and inaccuracies that your presidential candidate made, in regards to

1. Making inaccurate statements about the history of this country.

2. Making contradictory statements about upholding separation of church and state and then in the same speech stating that he would uphold violations of church and state.

3. Making unsubstantiated, ridiculous statements that have no basis in reality.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

so once again deedub I ask, what are your thoughts on these aspects of his speech. until now you're arguement has been that atheist only make up 15% of the population, which i guess would infere that since we are the minority it is okay to disenfranchise us ? You never did elaborate, so I'm left to guess.

how about answering the questions I've been asking you.

Personally, I think Romney (and you) need a history lesson. Please read those articles (links) to get a broader more accurate understanding of our nations history. (and the timeline and issues behind god in the pledge and on our money).

______

you even repeated Romneys contradictory statements about separation fo church and state.

Romney doesn't intend to change anything drastically. I think he was trying to make the point that he would advocate things like keeping "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on our currency. I have no idea what he was talking about when he said "religion requires freedom and freedom requires religion." I hope someone asks him that 'cause I'd like to hear his response.

what do you think he means and what do you tink of him making inaccuarte statements and taking things out of context. He sounds decietful and deceptive to me (using those tactics)

also, you are the one who asked

Don't you think that Christians SHOULD overlook his Mormon roots?

so you get to ask a question and then complain when you hear opinions that you disagree with.

^Your motives are to talk about Romney's speech?


How does the comment that starts with: "I don't think Christians have any reasons to accept the mormon faith." have to do with Romeny's speech? Hmm? The same comment in which you reference Anti-Mormon websites.

I believe that's how it all started. You obviously have a short memory. It's a good thing it's all documented with a time stamp and everything.

Simply stating that "Christians SHOULD overlook his Mormon roots" isn't asking for a discussion about any one religion. I was making reference to the same subject that JFK addressed in his historic speech about religion. You must have been so eager to bash a church (any church) that you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm talking about "religious tolerence." Not holding one's religion against him and using it as a basis for voting. It doesn't matter whether or not we label Mormons as "Christians."


Back to the topic at hand.

In regards to the statement: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
I don't think that statement makes much sense philosophically; I thought I made that clear. I don't understand why you keep asking me about it. This is the third time so I guess I'll humor you.

Maybe Romney is referencing the fact that our country's values were established by religious men. OR That the soul reason our forefathers came here was for religious freedom. I really don't know.

In what way do you think Romney was trying to decieve you?

Upvote for the discussion.

This is so obviously a pandering to the money-laden pockets of the religious right it makes me nauseous.

*wanker

thank you deedub for going back to the speech.

"In what way do you think Romney was trying to decieve you?"
seriously ? several of us have already pointed out the inaccuracies in his speech in regards to our nations history and the issues of church and state (that's the part where he was decietful). I believe he made those inaccurate statements to pander to the evangelicals he thinks he so desperately needs to help win the vote. It is deceitful to rewrite history to fool people into believing your point of view.

"our country was established by religious men"
there is the line that you blur. you say religious, in an all encompassing sense without acknowleding the nuances and details. As already has been pointed out to you by Farhad, jimnms or myself.

"they came here for religious freedom"
yup. from people of their own religion (other christians) again the true context of this staement has already been pointed out to you by Farhad, jimnms or myself.

In addition you've made no serious mention to your thoughts about Romney excluding any kinds of nontheist and trying to pit nontheist as "secular is the new religion" I guess I wonder if it bothers you that he did that and what your thoughts about it were. Leave your humor at home.

Woah, okay. I don't like "pandering." All the candidates do it, but I don't like it. They all want to do whatever they can to make themselves look good. Whatever they think will help them get elected. Romney's no exception.

It does bother me that Romney doesn't even mention Atheists, that he lifts up Christians above any other Religion, and that some of his statements don't employ sound logic.

I can pick out 5 specific things that I don't like/agree with that any candidate has said in his/her last speech without having to think very hard.

But, there were a lot of things I really appreciated about Romney's speech, as well.

"I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

"As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."




"...Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."




These statements are important to me. I'm glad he said them, because I agree that this is how all the candidates should feel.

On a side note. In all the speeches I've heard from the candidates, I've never heard Ron Paul pander to a particular crowd. Ron Paul seems to be the most consistent candaidate I've ever heard, seeing that he draws all of his decisions from what the constitution advocates. And while he is also very religious he is the only candidate I think would legislate based on constitutional principals, not his religion.

thanks for acknowledging some of the things that bothered you about his speech. I can see how you would like the comments you outlined in regards to your faith.

I'd like to point out that his comments below would not have come across as pandering (contradictory) if he hadn't excluded those of NO faith.

""I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

"...Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

It also seems like he does not realize the irony of his comment below. If one looks at how his policy views and his rhetoric have changed over the years and depending on who he is talking to. I would gather that other than dogmatic believers, those who scrutinize his stance on policy issues would infact view him as a "believer of convienience"(in regards to the issues - not talking about faith).

Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."

I know you're all making a valiant effort to bring the subject back to the speech and I hate to undermine that, but I couldn't let this go. Qruel, you said: "Surely Romney knows that Mormonism, in particular, was historically hostile to liberty for blacks as well as women. The founders of his church believed that God had cursed the world's dark-skinned people. They rejected abolitionism and later the civil rights movement."

Will you please tell me where you got this information? Particularly about the rejection of abolitionism and civil rights by Mormons. Many Mormons were part of the abolitionist movement, including some of my Mormon ancestors. My parents and grandparents were alive during the Civil Rights movement and I assure you that they and all of their Mormon friends supported the movement. Furthermore, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not take a stance on political topics, politicians, or policy. Right down to the topic of abortion, the church does not take an official stance. I don't see how you can say, therefore, that the church opposed the civil rights movement or the abolitionist movement.

I would also like to know why you think that Mormons were historically hostile to women's rights. I admit that I am not a theologist or an LDS historian and am honestly curious as to where you got that information. I grew up in California among a hotbed of feminists. I consider myself a feminist. By saying this I mean that I do not believe that men and women are the same, but that the separate roles of men and women are equal in value, difficulty, and worth; that neither sex is inferior to the other, and that men and women should be equal partners in everything. Having said this, I would like to point out that LDS women do not need your sympathy. We are among the most active, influential, educated, and liberated women in society. The leaders of the church go out of their way to encourage LDS women to seek higher learning among other things. I love being a woman in my church. It rocks. You should try it.

I have an inquiring mind. I have done a great deal of research (not among anti-Mormon literature, but among credible sources) and I am insulted by anyone who calls me a sheep. I assure you that after a lifetime of learning about religious doctrine and studying both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, I have not taken these things for granted. I used to believe that inquiring was dangerous and that I would find something that contradicted the truths I believed so completely that I would not be able to hold on to them. I see no reason to call the doctrines of my church "ridiculous", "nonsense", "far-fetched", or its members "off their rockers". We aren't idiots. Seriously. We're not. I go to school, I take philosophy classes, I talk, I walk, I have conversations, I think, I live on the Earth, I don't walk around with a blindfold over my eyes. I have questioned the existence of God in a logical way and in a spiritual way. I have written philosophical, LOGICALLY structured arguments and essays on the topics of God's existence and my own faith. I have listened to differing opinions. I am not saying that any of these things prove that my religion is true. I am saying that my religion may seem like it doesn't have a leg to stand on to someone who knows little about it, but I know that there is at least some kind of rational thought put into the whole deal and that maybe, just maybe, you aren't as freaking wise as you think you are. I'm probably not, either, but I'm NOT a simpleton believing in some half-cocked cult theory. Many people wiser and more educated in the history of this church than you have found that that our faith is good and that it is founded in more than the mindless, brainwashed faith of its members. Our history may not be unspotted or untainted (is any religion's history?), but we have as much merit as any church out there and DO NOT deserve to be called ridiculous by anyone as ignorant about our beliefs as you people.

"You've already stated to me personaly that you "don't base your faith on logic" whatever that means. (to me it says you believe what you are told to believe) If someone from your religion tells you "you are christian" then you'll believe them and all the other nonsense they fill your head with."

Who cares if Mormons are Christian? Honestly! I don't care what the Christian community thinks of me! In fact, I don't want to be lumped in with the whole lot of them. They're great people, but, frankly, I think that their interpretation of the Bible is absolutely insane. So, there ya go. This stuff goes both ways. Just because our brand of Christianity isn't as popular or doesn't follow the mainstream doesn't mean that it is some kind of contrived nonsense! We are really, truly, honestly TRYING TO DO WHAT WE BELIEVE IS RIGHT, and we believe that the organization and doctrines of our religion are identical in every way that matters to the primitive church of Jesus Christ as he established it when he lived on the Earth. Maybe WE'RE the Christians and everyone else isn't. Ooh, that's gonna make somebody mad.

Christ and the Bible testify of revelation and of prophets. Our religion did not appear out of thin air from the mind of an uneducated, 14-year-old farmboy. We believe that Joseph Smith, a prophet, restored the church as it was before it was corrupted by people who used religion for personal gain, who appeal to their congregations by interpreting the Bible to mean that salvation is easier than pie and that God doesn't require anything of us, and so getting members to fill the church and their own pockets. Why is it so hard for Christians to believe that Christ's church may have been corrupted over two thousand years and that prophets are necessary to regulate and control the doctrine so that it isn't corrupted? Why do they think that ancient Christians so close to Christ's ministry needed to be continually taught the doctrine by prophets in epistles, but that now prophets aren't neccesary? Why would God abandon us? There are so many things about other churches that don't make sense to me. There are things about my religion that don't make sense to you, adn that's fine! All I ask is a little respect and a little tolerance. I ask that you find out what you're talking about before you start spewing accusations and insults.

Romney's speech was in no way perfect. I was annoyed by the comment about freedom and religion as many of your were. I was also bothered by the generalizations about what Americans believe. He said something about Americans believing that we are all children of God, and my immediate thought was, "Aren't atheists and agnostics American, too?"

The plain truth is that it is wrong for Americans to allow Romney's religion to sway their vote either for him or against him. His speech was a political move, no doubt about it. He was catering to the religious, particularly the Christian, community. But I don't believe that he was trying to say, "Hey, look, I'm Christian just like you!" I think he was trying to say that his religion would not and should not define his presidency. He wanted to create a feeling of solidarity with Christians, sure. I think that Christians need to stop hating Mormons so much, and Mormons need to stop asking to be accepted as Christians. But the world needs to know that Mormons are good people. You may think we're crazy or that we're a cult, but we deserve as much respect and good will as the members of any other religion. We are striving to be good human beings just like Christians, just like Atheists, and just like Jews. Lay off. Pretty please.

religious people are easier to control (marx: opium for the masses) and our political masters need every bit of control now that the ship is slowly going down (crisis of modern capitalism). debating religion skews and diverts focus from the real issues (just look at all the comments about this topic) so i won't even try cause i find it silly anyway - we should never let religion be institutionalised but should be up to each and every individual to deal with and figure out for him/herself. it's the most intimate matter there is imho and should never be taught to anyone
the real issues? well, we're all slaves for one. nobody is talking about it cause it's being packaged in this free trade capitalist envelope that says: you're payed work force, not slaves, everyone is free to seize the oportunities that the system provides, everybody is equal, etc.
sure, on the expense of others. and you're that "others". the system is designed to the needs of the few (in relative terms) people who are at the tip of the pyramid, exempt from "natural" laws, while the majority lives in a fantasy of free will and choice. there is no real choice unless you like living in a cardboard box or move to some far of hippie commune in india. nobody is even debating the option of some new, better system - like market capitalism is here to stay for ever. it's easier to imagine the end of the world than a significant change in the established system (parafrasing slavoj zizek here)
so what do we need to make something, anything, change? we need a catastrophy. shock therapy. clash of the civilisations, natural disaster, nuclear war, whatever... i still hope that this won't be the case but right now it's hard to imagine any other event that would stir things up (maybe a visit from our alien friends out there? alf, i miss you . we are at the breaking point or close to it, i think. meaning either we change our mentality and give up on some old, primitive notions (like religion e.g.) or we die as a race.

^Woah. That was deep.
[edit]

I don't work for anyone but myself. Don't be so negative. I'm glad I don't share your opinions/attitude because life would be miserable if I did.

I believe we really can do whatever we want in this life as long as were willing to work for it.

ok, maybe it is pesimistic but believe me - i wasn't born this way. having been witness in my teens to the slow death of socialism and eventual break-up of the county i lived, the stupid ugly wars that came with it... i just try to see things from all possible perspectives until i lay my judgment. i really believe we're stuck so deep in the mess we've made for ourselves that we don't dare to say: "hold on, there's something very wrong here". basicaly we're threading the still waters of modern civilisation with no direction. i wish things were different but i find it hard to believe in idealism while hipocracy pervades every institution of power and determines the course of our lives. our society is behaving like a schizophrenic - saying one thing and doing something completely different. we're running in circles and the inertia is just to great for any opposing view of the world to reach out from the mainstream and offer us some new perspective.
i mean, what has really, fundamentaly changed since the ancient greece and the early attempts of nationalist state system? not much. sure, we have the technology and so on, but the principles that govern our everyday life have not changed so very much, the story here runs on a completely different time scale than that of the evolution of technology and science. seems like we're just recycling history here, year after year. and isn't it amazing how quickly the history changes these days with virtually everything being archived, stored and catalogued on a daily basis. remember the story about the mission accomplished banner that got photoshopped out of that famous picture of president bush on an aircraft carrier, declaring the end of war in iraq? and that was, like - yesterday. examples of such manipulation of historical facts are everywhere, the media does such a good job at helping us forget and except new, fabricated reality to be taken for granted that we're bound to repeat the mistakes of generations before us. we're just not learning any more, we're much more comfortable getting the facts served on a platter, letting someone else to present us a picture of the reality we live in.
fuck, you got me going again
i'll role one up and puff away the blues

^while I appreciate the existential nature and historical perspective of the discussion above, please let's try and keep the thread focused on the merits and specifics of Romneys speech. We can also continue this kind of important dialog in Sift Talk

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
That's not really true. Freedom works quite well without religion and religion works quite well with freedom. It's just that the two can co-exist.

I believe, or rather I've come to the conclusion based on the evidence presented to me, that Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee for that matter, are not fit to run the most powerful country in the world - much like George W. Bush has proven that he is not.

The candidate's religion should most definately sway your vote, because his religion will sway his actions.

qruel, i apologise for getting out of context, it's just that i really don't want to waste my keyboard on a nutcase like romney.
besides, i'm an atheist. 'nough said

Ill upvote for the conversation though i dont like him or his words. I just cant seem to trust anything he says. A growing idea that a leader has to be christian really bothers me. Yes they say have "faith" but really they mean "are you christian" if not then you cant be president

Come on

His "Freedom requires Religion..." quote, was lacking in definition and meaning...his speech on one hand avocates religion and state ("In God We Trust") and I noticed before reading Qruels links, about the "absense" of mention of "non-believers" or Atheists...(or Agnostics for that matter)

He exercised non-religious intolerence

Thanks for the posts Qruel, very interesting, and I dont see how a man like Romney could ever be a good president, just my 2 cents...

I loved his defense of his sons not joining the army, by supporting "the war on terror, by helping me become president" LOL

Yeah, that...great.

Funny how the people who approve a war, seem to like the idea of NOT sending their children into the fray...