My response is simple and constant. The far left loons despise religion in this country. I did not say the LEFT…..I said the far left………they are the ones throwing temper tantrums and saying things like…..

They cannot pose a serious threat to the majority,

The topic is religion in the GOP today.
The vituperative comments by some are all about the evild Left (even the Ameican Taliban gets called on for a cameo appearnace).

While Doma has tried to strive for moderate middle ground of late she just cant seem to grasp that her side is as guilty of Religious bashing as the far right loons are guilty of Gay bashing.

I was reading Friedman’s column in Sunday’s NY Times (I hope I’m not breaking any rules by quoting it). But before I quote it a little background on its context: the countries Friedman is referring to are the Middle-East countries (and the context was the recent Annapolis peace conference. The person who Friedman took this from is Stephen Cohen, the author of a middle-east history, “Beyond America’s Grasp”.

“Each one, he added [Stephen Cohen], has a “Party of God” back home “that believes it doesn’t have to pay attention to what the government says because it doesn’t recognize that government’s legitimacy to make big decisions.”

That’s why these days big decisions get made by iron fists or they don’t get made. Power has become too fragmented. So unless there is more reconciliation within these countries, it is hard to see how there will be more reconciliation between them.”

To me this is the perfect example why religion has no place in politics. Religion is a very personal, deep-seated belief and the US was founded for (among other reasons) people to practice their religion. If we have a President that caters to (and supports) a particular religious group, particularly when laws are passed to support one religion’s beliefs then that can only cause division within the US. Let’s leave politics to the politicians and religion to the theologians. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again- I would expect a President to use his faith to guide him, but he must use his faith in a respectful manner that does not intrude upon the faith of other religions. We are not voting for a religious leader- we are voting for someone to administer the government and lead this country.

They cannot pose a serious threat to the majority, but are useful fodder for talk radio hosts who want to demagogue the right wingers, along with activist judges, secular progressives, the drive-by liberal biased MSM, the ACLU, the teacher’s unions, illegal immigrants and any other convenient target that gets conservative white males riled up.

What does that have to do with religion, the GOP, the current campaign or anything vaguely related to the post?

Is it the policy at TMV now for every one to just throw poison darts wherever there is space?

If TMV is to become a mud slinging arena, then there is no use pretending that it hosts discussions.

None of the sentiments ascribed to the “Left” have apeeared in the post or in the comments.
There is no pretense of staying on topic or addressing anything said by anyone on this thread. There is,also, a lot of mind reading going on. If I say ‘puppy’, I’m sure that will indicate that I’m planning to bomb the nearest GOP office.

I’m embarrassed for TMV to see this kind of nonsense pass muster.

At least you stayed on topic. Thank you for that.
At least you didn’t bring up the ‘hating all Christans’ meme, and thank you for that.
You are the exception.

Romney, over time, has sent mixed signals. His campaign and this speech, however, has centered on trying to please the Evangelical Right. That may have a superficial political tactic as a basis, but we can only know what he says niost currently.

As far as quoting Adams goes, then I’ll see you and raise you Jefferson’s ‘wall of separation’. Neither quote is in the Constituion, which is a document of consensus. The Founders were not of one mind individually on quesions of religion nor on many other issues.

The importance of consensus in the writing of the Constituion can not be overstated. It was what united the Founders and should unite the country. were allowed to, instead of being used as a political cudgel.

The consensus was, after heavy debates, to include the word God. God does not equal religion, however. It is sufficiently vague to allow almost everyone to put their own beliefs under the God umbrella. Although I am an atheist, I can take it to mean the creative force of nature and not be bothered by the word itself. Actually, I like the word’s loftiness, as that induces a sense of humility and reverence for man’s task of creating and maintainng a democratic nation.

When religion, and especially one particular relgion is so accented by a candidate or a political party, I’m alarmed because it leads people further away from that need for consensus instead of closer to it.

That’s the important difference between JFK’s religion speech and Romney’s. The former was centered on the Constitution and its unifying symbolism, while the latter was centered on personal faith of a particular kind (the Christian religion), and the competitiveness for power that evokes.

From there it’s only a step to the Christian Nation concept, quite popular akso in the GOP. No one can deny the role of Christians in our history. Honoring that heritage as part of our history is quite different than replicating history in psepetuity. The Constituion was a dcocument intended to guide the country as it progressed into the future, not merely a document for settling the challenges of the times.
Surely you can see that today’s nation of many beliefs and the concept of a Christian Nation is not an easy fit and would be alrming to all those left out.
Giving a backhanded, ‘Jews and Muslims can participate, too’ late in the speech is not the same as making them participants with equal standing at the outset.. Only folks like the Amish can try to stay in the past, and they are an exclusive society.

You are absolutely right Doma. There is no proper answer for the question I was asking. The reason. It is because the loon left is indeed actively trying to paint Christians in this way.

How soon we forget the screams of American Taliban, Fascist. Heir Bush. You on the left put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and jump up and down on one foot and hum loudly whenever anyone tries to point out your behavior is absolutely NO different then the behavior exhibited by those loon righties.

Yet I stand by this statement because it is EXACTLY what the left is trying to do and have been trying to do since 2003. Paint Christians as evil.

Being concerned about religious extremism does not mean you hate religion or the religious, so I would appreciate if you’d stop it with the evil-Christian strawman. Thanks a bunch

Sorry Lynx it is not a strawman. It is happening. Remember the cries of The American Taliban?? If you think that the far left loons in this country are not actively trying to paint Christians as evil then that just shows you no longer LIVE in this country.

thank you very much.

Like Republican Gays, Republican nonbelievers find that the tent is too small for them now, and are concerned about it. Imagine that?

You left out blacks, Hispanics, women, youth, all the rest of the demographic-related, anti-GOP-stereotype, Dem-interest-group menagerie.

Place his speech in context. Romney is being attacked because of his religion, and he has chosen to be proactive in defending himself against additional such attacks, which are unmerited if I want to keep things as soft and gentle as can be. His defense (the speech) could have been better, but at least he answered his crappy critics. (He’s hardly someone who wants to make the USA into a Mormon USA, or join the evil Christians to create a theocracy, a favorite word of the loserish left.)

I am underwhelmed by him for the right reasons, that he may have have been unduly influenced by being in Massachusetts (notoriosly left of the US public in general, including me) and because he has been liberal before, and his claims of conservatism now (to seek the GOP nomination and to oppose a liberal and Democrat next year in the general election) are unconvincing, both problems also affecting Giuliani. (Romney is cleaner than Giuliani, a plus.) I am a decent, normal, intelligent person, and consequently his Mormonism has nothing to do with how I view him and more importantly, with the things that matter and how they, not his Mormonism, qualify or disqualify him from office in my view, and win or lose my vote.

THIS Democrat cares about the Republican candidates because she might need to vote for one of them. Also, if a Republican is elected President then he’s our President too.

THIS liberal center-left Democrat detests Jimmy Carter.

I suspect it’s related to the subject about which so much venom has been hurled at Joseph Lieberman by libs and Dems — and why Hillary C has been the subject of similarly-related attacks recently.

Being concerned about religious extremism does not mean you hate religion or the religious, so I would appreciate if you’d stop it with the evil-Christian strawman.

There is no straw man. The media, statements by liberals, and the postings of liberals here on this liberal Web site has proven this time after time.

Religious-right extremism is almost totally absent (and is far less than extremism on the left). Federal “blue laws” are not extremist, merely excess (and would never be accepted by the American public at large). Rushdoony-style “dominionism” is extremist; this does not exist in Washington, nor in state governments, including in the Bible Belt.

The Religious Right is less repelled by the GOP and their forms of conservatism than by the Dems and the many, often hateful and pathological, forms of liberalism it represents, which include slander, hate, and attacks of various kinds on the Religious Right.

The Religious Right has in fact little clout in Washington, and constantly complains that it is taken for granted — the only time there is pandering (grossly exaggerated, though not as much as the false “extremism” charge) is, not surprisingly to the knowledgeable, before elections, so more Religious Rightists will vote GOP rather than Dem or (the more likely suspicion) will stay home in apathy or disenchantment.

You stand corrected, my dear.

Romney’s “freedom requires religion” statement makes no sense to me—-actually it doesn’t.

It’s not as bad as “freedom through planning” (the wrong lesson learned from encountering the rise of totalitarianism in the early-to-mid twentieth century) but is incorrect nevertheless.

Because a Republican might win, and continue to pander to Christians in office, or worse, put their faith ahead of the Constitution, as Doma fears.

If you read or heard Romneys speech you will find that he said that the constitution and the office held sway over his faith. If you look at how he governed he did not place his faith over the office. I just read the other day a commentor complaining that since he does not believe in abortion, why does “Romneycare” have a $50 copay to have one.

And, kritt, if you raelly think Romneys “freedom requires religion” line makes no sense. You should take that up with John Adams, since that is who Romney was quoting.

Both Jimmy Carter and George Bush were born-again, evangelical, church-going Christians.

Carter, liberal, D, PC, hypocritically but obviously politically acceptable. Bush and anyone else like him, oft-conservative, R., not PC, heretical and apostatic, politically condemned, to be subjected to bigotry and hatred and abuse (more if he were from East Texas or elsewhere in the South instead of West Texas).

Somebody, read this closely, and if you wish, you can answer based on the following premises:

1. Being concerned about religious extremism does not mean you hate religion or the religious, so I would appreciate if you’d stop it with the evil-Christian strawman. Thanks a bunch

2. “Praying to your non-god” sounds like the sort of thing I get out of creationists and reeks of anti-nonbeliever bigotry. I would highly appreciate if you did away with it. It makes no point and only serves to add belligerence to your comment.

3. Re: why should you care? Gee, maybe because non-believers and moderate believers love our country too and wish the best for it. Doma has very patiently explained how she ( she? That’s news to me, but hey, the more the merrier) has voted for Republicans in the past but knows that she can’t vote for politicians who clearly see no place in democracy for nonbelief. Like Republican Gays, Republican nonbelievers find that the tent is too small for them now, and are concerned about it. Imagine that?

When others tried to answer seriously, this was the response:
“All Christians have one overriding desire in Life……Trash the constitution in favor of a Fascist state in which George W. Bush is Emperor.”

I wish i had bet a large sum on this type of response being the result, no matter how the question was answered.
I could use a nice vacation trip.

Do you really believe that the only person who most likely will win the nomination for the GOP……Rudi RINO actually pander to the Religious Right?

Once AGain Krit you prove what I have been saying for quite some time now.

There is not a single Republican who does not follow mindlessly the Christian code of ethics which is now becoming quite clear. All Christians have one overriding desire in Life……Trash the constitution in favor of a Fascist state in which George W. Bush is Emperor.

The far lefts new talking point. It does not surprise me that you guys are talking like this. Not only do you accuse the right of ruling by fear but you yourselves do it as well and look aghast when anyone claims it is so.