News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



Mitt's pious bullsh*t

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 07:00:00 AM EST


UPDATE: Don and Tim Wildmon's news organ says Mitt's speech wasn't good enough...

I'll give you two ways to review Mitt's speech on religion, "Faith in America." After the jump, the video, as well as the transcript.

But first, the whole 20 minutes of flaming crap boils down to this:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Now where in that statement does he place non-believers in the American tapestry of freedom? What about faiths that aren't monotheistic? What about pagan belief? Satanism? Are all religions equal in Mitt's book?

He appears not to leave any room for people without a belief in a higher power at all. In fact, he  makes the common mistake -- though for many bible-beaters it's purposeful -- that one needs to belong to a faith community in order to be a moral person.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
He spent some bit of time glossing over the "Mormon issue," and other than declaring that  "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind," the long-winded speech doesn't address any of the aspects of his religion that fundies have difficulties with. In fact, one supporter, Richard Land, honcho of the Southern Baptist Convention, even with Mitt's declaration, still isn't sure that the former governor of Massachusetts can be considered a Christian. But there's no religious test for public office, you know.

This did make me think of a Q of the day:

Which is more likely to be elected president of the U.S first (and why) - a Muslim or an atheist?

Mitt's speech and the reaction on the right to it, after the jump.

Pam Spaulding :: Mitt's pious bullsh*t
His speech. He was introduced by Poppy Bush at his presidential library.

"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.

"It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, 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.

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. 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.

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But 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. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

"We believe that every single human being is a child of God - we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'

"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'

"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'

"God bless the United States of America."

***

Responses from the peanut gallery:

Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, said, "I think he did what he thought he needed to do to address concerns about whether he might use his particular faith as the basis for his decisions as president."

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, called Romney's speech "a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy." He added, "Whether it will answer all the questions and concerns of evangelical Christian voters is yet to be determined, but the governor is to be commended for articulating the importance of our religious heritage as it relates to today."

The Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "While I may disagree with some of the points made in the speech, including his lack of acknowledgment of the values and contributions of the nonreligious among us, I appreciate the overall tone."

Among the critics was Costas Panagopoulos, a political science professor at Fordham University. "Make no mistake about it, this was a political speech," Panagopoulos said. "Romney sounded like he is running for pastor-in-chief rather than commander in chief."

...[I]n an AP-Yahoo poll last month, half said they had some problems supporting a Mormon presidential candidate, including one-fifth who said that would make them very uncomfortable.

Fifty-six percent of white evangelical Christians - a major portion of likely participants in the early GOP presidential contests in Iowa and South Carolina - expressed reservations about a Mormon candidate.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Atheist, hands down
People would rather see no religion than the wrong one.  I don't know what it is about people that causes that knee-jerk reaction, especially when personality types are just as similar.  People will go out of their way to hurt themselves if it means taking a rival down in the process.  But I'm going with my first instinct on this one and I think I'm right.
 

Morals vs Religion

A person of morals and no religion is much preferred over a person with religion but no morals.

This administration is "a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must NOT play in government and public policy."

I do not want anyone with their "finger on the button" who might have their god tell them whether or not to push it.



Should be the case, SA
But it doesn't seem to be so in our country at the present time.  Instead of morality, we have piety--a hollow substitute.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

[ Parent ]
A fine distinction, Sportin'.
Well read and well said.

[ Parent ]
How moral is trying
to politic for private insurance in response to this woman?

I don't need a god to know that's creepy behavior.

I acquired the better part of my desire to be a decent human being after abandoning my fundy upbringing.

Electricity's for light bulbs!


We already had an atheist president.

Bill Clinton.  He didn't believe any of the stuff he pretended to. He has always said what he needed to for political expediency.

As far as America voting for an admitted atheist or Muslim, I doubt either will ever happen.  I think Americans want to know a candidate has a deeply-rooted positive regard for others, and both atheism and Islam are, at their heart, self-centered entities.



You're an idiot...
...who doesn't know what the word atheist means.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

[ Parent ]
Sure I do.
Just look down a well, and you can figure pretty much figure out what atheists stand for.

[ Parent ]
I just did look down a well.

I saw water.

Water is the stuff of life.

Therefore, atheists stand for life.

Thanks, Josh, for clarifying!



[ Parent ]
Is it time for the trap door yet?
Any takers?

[ Parent ]
YES!

"Is it time for the trap door yet?"

Any takers? 

Yes, definitely. This guy is a class A troll, and should go immediately.  



"The right most treasured by civilized men is the right to be let alone."--Justice Louis Brandeis

[ Parent ]
I second that!
He either doesn't read or doesn't understand comments so he always goes off on the poster, not the substance of the post.  Usually his only replies when challenged are "LMAO" or "Yer STOOPIT!", never addressing what he was challenged on.  He still hasn't explained why calling women names like "bimbo", "bimbette", "sweetie", "doll", "chick", or "little lady" isn't misogyny, for example.  He's apparently proud of doing that, he keeps doing it over and over.  He also always steers every thread into something about Hillary Clinton, although he's gunning for Bill this time, and throwing in Carter as well.  He has all the answers, he has claimed in the past to be the only true conservative (loaded phrase nowadays, isn't it?) and apparently now and in his last incarnation he is the only true christian.  The only thing he isn't is the only true Scotsman, apparently.  
In our next outbreak he'll probably come back and claim that this applies to everyone else and pat himself on the back for being so clever but I really do think that this study describes his behavior and the probably cause of it pretty well.  If he was supporting his positions it would be one thing and I would support him not being bumped for that but he's not doing that.  He's calling people names and trying to make people feel bad about their feelings or intelligence.  That's not the vibe of this blog and fortunately everyone here is smart enough to see that he's the village idiot, not the rest of us, or it could be a lot more contentious around here.  He's a joke but he needs to go.  Badly.

My America includes LGBT families.

[ Parent ]
ditto
I agree. I haven't been able to contribute much around here lately (my ex silico life has taken over), but I have been reading when I can. From this incarnation I haven't read anything except aggressive name calling.

I almost responded to the first comment on atheism but oped not to feed what's likely a troll.  I would very much enjoy discussing my atheism and hearing others beliefs and how religion will play out in the GOP in 2008. I'm not sure that could happen with this person.

That's a great article Mena.  This is also likely the same wealthy person with an affluent, conservative gay brother.  Remember that laugh?

It's difficult for me to understand what the payoff here at the blend is for this person.  

Electricity's for light bulbs!


[ Parent ]
Comment Moderation
Dear Pam,

I really think that there ought to be some kind of comment moderation for new users. What I find is that we keep getting the same troll/s over and over again under new guises. I think we ought to let the regulars say whatever but keep new comments from showing up right away just because not every person who signs up actually intends to be a productive member of our community.

Also, it might help if we could track IP addresses/known public proxy servers to help weed out the perennial troll.

<3 Sam


[ Parent ]
or make comment
text size a function of a user's rating :)

Electricity's for light bulbs!

[ Parent ]
What a fun idea!

I'd need a microscope to read Josh's posts!



[ Parent ]
yeah, but I don't want to be micro'ed!
Don't shrink me, bro!

But wait, there's more!

[ Parent ]
comment rating is now turned on again

Self-policing of trolls by downgrading a rating of the comment can now occur. Troll comments will now disappear after 10 users rate the comment a zero.

If this proves to be abused, I'll turn it off again.

Clownley, btw, dropped through the trap door just now.



[ Parent ]
Too cool, Holly.

Looking down a well and seeing the water of life.  You flipped the script on him/it.

I thought I'd interject a little something from my college Judaism-studying days.  There are a couple very good articles on atheism in an anthology called Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought.  They distinguish between two definitions of atheism.  The common one everybody thinks of is not believing in any kind of supernatural supreme deity.  But there is another specialized academic definition, which is just not subscribing to a particular theism.  In other words, it's a negative definition reactive to certain theisms.  So if one rejects the Southern Baptist theism or the Latter-Day Saints theism, one can call oneself atheistic to Southern Baptism or Mormonism and not be incorrect.  Just so everybody knows.

AND, finally, neither of those is the same as nihilism.  There has been a desire to establish secular morality at least since Socrates.  One can wonder how best to act toward one's fellow people without considering the supernatural, and not believing in the supernatural certainly does not mean believing in nothing.



[ Parent ]
The thesis of Romney's speech was very straightforward.

He said he will not disavow or back down from his faith, but he won't take orders from Salt Lake City. Very Kennedyesque.

Regardless of your faith, I think you have to admit America has been better off when men of faith have led us.  Kennedy may have been the last Democrat of faith.  Carter claimed to be religious, but he dropped his church's anti-abortion stance like a hot potato, so he's a pretender like Clinton.  The result? Disastrous administrations for both Carter and Clinton.

I contrast that with men of great faith; GWBush who talked about it; Reagan who didn't.  Both had the quiet and unshakeable confidence to have core beliefs that are never swayed.  The results for both men are a record of accomplishments that can't be denied.  The thing I noticed about Bush and Reagan both was that each of them took unbelievable shots from the other side, yet neither responded back in kind; they always remained cheerful and upbeat.

By contrast, Carter and Clinton are both bitter angry men, trying trying trying to forge some kind of legacy. Carter is practically standing on his head to look like an elder statesman, trying to make everybody forget about the runaway inflation and incredibly foreign policy blunders.  Clinton wants everybody to forget that he was disgraced, impeached, and accomplished absolutely nothing in eight years.  He rails angrily at his accusers to this day; rewrites his positions even to this day.

So people of faith might be on to something. We've seen it first-hand in our recent presidents.



Apples and oranges.

1. You mentioned Carter's inflation, but failed to mention Bush's crappy recession.

2. Fred Phelps is a "man of faith".  Does it mean that you would vote for him if he runs for president?  One man's faith should have nothing to do with the way he does politics.  It's okay for a politician to practice a faith (or lack of), but shouldn't use it as the main influence in his political career. 



[ Parent ]
The Other Speech on Religion
 

I remember when Kennedy make his speech (Did I just date myself?) and the speech was about how his religion would not interfere with his presidency. Now some forty years later Romney is making a speech on how it will affect his presidency.

 

How did we get here from there?

 

The right wingers always take about how great the fifties were, well that lead to over a decade of Democrat rule and one of the most liberal periods of the country history, the Sixties. It leads to the feminist movement, the New Society, over turning of abortion laws, the Compton’s Cafeteria Riots, Stonewall and the anti-war movement.

 

Romney knows little about the Bible or he's lying. Likely both.

In the arc of his speech, this is the climax, both by position and phrasing:

"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance."

The Bible is quite clear that there's no greater glory than dying for one's faith. 

And Romney had his chance to contest "the boundless suffering" that the Commies would  have inflicted.  Romney, the coward, hid in France during Vietnam, converting, as if the spirit mattered more than the flesh.  Now that he's an old man, suddenly the flesh matters more than the spirit and it's more war.  Evermore war.  And his sons hide in his RVs.

Yet another yellow elephant who lies to poor folks and sends their children off to die.

He's trying to remind us of Kennedy, but Kennedy was a warrior and a war hero.  Nothing will ever change Romney's cowardice...or Bush's...or Cheney's.  I think those Republicans who don't bed children (and reports suggest they're rare) substitute war for sex.  They watch the Military Channel with popcorn in one hand and their other hand on their crotches. 



My Round-Up of Coverage is HERE

TMV: Romney Re-Launches

http://themoderatevoice.com/society/moral-decline/16385/romney-re-launches/ 



I like what Holly in C wrote at The Moderate Voice:

"There is little that transcends denominations or religions - that’s why we have different religions."

Romney uses a lot of fancy words and Dobson gushes, "...a magnificent reminder...."

Bobby and Jack also used fancy words, but those words were truly magnificent coming from their mouths because there was thunder in them, put there by their actions, such as caring for the poor and grace under fire. 



Thanks Holly Capote!
Thanks Holly Capote!

[ Parent ]
So much to dispute....so little time

There is MUCH in Romney's speech that I vehemently disagree with. But alas, I have very little time to devote right now to the project.

The one thing he said that disturbs me the most is the line "Freedom requires religion..."

I posted a brief diary on this topic. I could not disagree more with this statement. In fact, I consider this a very dangerous stance, and very telling of what future awaits us if Mr. Romney manages to find his way into office. He scares the hell out of me with talk like that. He's really just another theocrat at heart, and the LAST thing this country, already overrun in irrational thought, needs is yet another ignorant theocrat.  



"The right most treasured by civilized men is the right to be let alone."--Justice Louis Brandeis

"Freedom requires religion..."
It's really bizarre to me that Romney could make that assertion while simultaneously claiming that it's out of bounds to question the content of a candidate's (well, specifically his) religion.  If religion is the lifeblood of our political system, then how can it be something that we shouldn't use as a criterion when evaluating candidates?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

[ Parent ]
Sportin', I admire your mind.


[ Parent ]
*Sportin' Life curtsies*
And I yours, Holly--as well as your heart.

You're very much on the right track with your interpretations of the christian gospel stories, as far as I'm concerned.  They speak to the humanistic version of christianity I learned back in my post-Vatican II catholic childhood.  Back before the kulturkampf.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
I'm starting to crack the code for, "I'm a Christian."

It means:

  • Covet wealth.
  • Tolerate divorce.
  • Don't turn the other cheek.  Rather, shock and awe.
  • Hate dem homos.
  • Flaunt "faith."
  • Don't trust that God will provide.  Rather, build a big house, whenever possible, behind walls and a gate.
  • Ignore 99.9% of the Bible.  Believe that faith floats on, "I believe."  Especially ignore the parts of the Bible that asserts that faith without unconditional love and forgiveness is...shit.


[ Parent ]
Pffttt!

He scuppers himself in the sixth paragraph: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."  There's a case to be made for that, which he does half-heartedly.  But he provides nothing to back up his corollary.  He can't make a case for freedom requiring religion except to dish up some mealy-mouthed humbug about the Framer's intent, which is the easy out for politicos trying to justify themselves.  The whole point of the Constitution is its ability to grow and accomodate history and social change.  This is also its greatest shortcoming as it is easily shanghaied for political purposes.  Freedom requires civil order, it may even require moral codes, but none of the French or English political philosophers of the age (to my knowledge) said it required religion.

Then this hokum:

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God." 

No they didn’t countenance it, neither was religion in the public sphere ever mentioned.  He uses a negative to imply a positive thus bypassing having to prove an assertion.  That’s a blatant cheat and he thinks people are stupid enough not to notice (politicians always seem to have such contempt for their electorate).  Then he tries to neatly segue in the Under God nonsense.  That wasn’t added to the political discourse until the middle of the 20th century as sop against communism.  It had nothing to do with the foundation of the Republic.

The man's a cheat, trying to cash in on Kennedy and, with the help of a clever speech writer, selling a jug full of snake oil.  Being Mormon is the least of his problems.



Who vetted this speech?

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"

This Orwellian remark will dog Romney throughout the campaign, I hope. 



An interesting comparison of quotes:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

--Willard "Mitt" Romney 

----------------------------------------------------------

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

--Thomas Jefferson

----------------------------------------------------------

One, a quote from a would-be theocratic president/king.

The other, a quote from one of the most brilliant presidents the country ever had. 



"The right most treasured by civilized men is the right to be let alone."--Justice Louis Brandeis

Romney was quoting JOHN ADAMS.
Jesus. Do any of you read?

[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox