Just for clarification, is this what Mitt believes, or is it what you believe?
Of course slavery also requires faith, because all morality is faith-based, therefore the belief that slavery is good is faith-based. ("…the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations…" – the State of Texas, 1861).
Except the morality that isn’t faith-based, of course. Do you seriously hold this position? 'Cause if you do, I’d like you to tell me directly that I have no morals.
Which would be true even if everyone were atheistic, including the president, right? If not, why not? I mean, if the rights are inalienable, then the lack of religion shouldn’t be able to alienate them.
He’s going for the vote of people who love hearing profound-sounding statements, without thinking about them.
Eh. I bet any of the other candidates would’ve said something similar. Ask them if we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. You know, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If we were endowed by our creator with liberty, then liberty has it’s roots in religion.
The thing that I thought was more controversial was his proclamation that we needed to have religion in the “public square”. I’m sure the Democratic candidates would take a much tougher stance on the establishment clause.
He did mention Islam in the speech. He likes how they pray a lot.
I disagree. If that’s so, you could certainly argue that liberty has it’s roots in that creator. But it says nothing about religion - no rituals are mentioned that must be performed to aquire this liberty. No beliefs must be held to hold it. An Mormon has it, a Jew has it, an atheist has it. If we were endowed by our creator with liberty, then all it shows is that that creator wishes liberty for all regardless of religion. Or lack of it. If anything, the constitution - taken alone, of course - suggests that freedom can and should exist independently of religious leanings. IOW, the opposite of what Romney suggests.
Sounds good to me. What happened in the past 47 years?
I dunno. I think most people use God and Religion interchangeably. Are you a very religious person? That doesn’t necessarily mean: Do you participate in lots of rituals?
After all, he didn’t say freedom required any specific religion, and not all religions are based on ritual.
This sounds like some serious over-analysis.
There are religious institutions of the LDS church run by females. There are the Relief Society and the Primary, to name two.
If Jefferson were running for president today, how would his rewritten Gospels go over with the evangelicals, in your opinion? The Federalists called him an atheist in the 1800 campaign.
To be fair, that was a speech given for the general election. Romney is giving his for the Republican primary. Romney’s speech may yet come back to haunt him in the general election, if he gets the nomination. Independents are the key to winning presidential elections in the US.
And in the 1960s, the establishment clause was interpreted more loosely than it is today, and people didn’t feel like religion was under assault.
Actually, I would take it to mean exactly that; religiousness is generally a matter of believing in a god/gods, but I would consider orthodox religious people or those who do tend to follow more rules, or have certain methods of worship to be “more” religious.
Besides, the constitution just says “creator”, and it certainly says nothing about needing to follow a religion to get freedom. It doesn’t even say you need to worship the creator in question. All it says is; we have it, this is why.
That’s true. But he did say it required religion, and religions do tend to have some element of ritual, or text, or some kind of standard rules by which life is lived. What else makes something a religion, if not a standard which all/most members follow?
I feel like i’m just reading what’s there. Saying “Actually, God might just be referring to religion, and vice-versa” seems like more analysis than saying “God means God, religion means religion”, whether you or I are right. Possibly it’s because I used severel sentences to say what I could have in fewer?
I thought it was rather simple and uncontroversial that deism is not theism.
How odd that a speech motivated by problems with the evangelicals has become a rallying cry against secularism. I don’t know of secularists who have a problem with his religions (versus anyone else’s.) I’d vote against him because of his positions, but I might have voted for his father if he had gotten that far and if I was old enough. I seem to recall George Romney being a reasonable guy.
How many Americans would even know what those terms mean? Maybe 1 in 10, if that.
Your average, everyday American probably thinks it really, really weird to not believe in God. Your average, everyday Republican primary voter probably thinks it’s nuts not to. Religion, God, Creator, whatever.
Fair enough. I didn’t understand that your argument was based on the beliefs of the average Republican primary voter when you said “*f we were endowed by our creator with liberty, then liberty has it’s roots in religion.” I have no doubt that the average Republican primary voter believes that and many more falsehoods.
But there’s a world of difference here, and you just pointed it out: these ideas may be faith based, but Romney didn’t say “Freedom requires faith,” he said it requires religion. Religion is a much narrower idea, and I don’t see how it’s required for any kind of freedom.
Well, my point is that you have to analyze his speech wrt to the audience it was made for. It was made to ensure that the GOP primary voters, especially in Iowa, don’t think he’s in some kind of cult.
I believe he also said something like: Freedom is a gift from God.
I pulled the part of “endowed by the Creator” from the Declaration of Independence. Ask any of the candidates if they think freedom is given to us by God, and I bet they’d say yes. It would be suicide to say otherwise in a US presidential race.
The Declaration of Independence says ‘their Creator’, which Jefferson later refers to as ‘their God’ and ‘nature’s God’ and several other things.
The word ‘god’ does not appear in the Constitution. Nor does the word ‘creator’.