What Romney Should Say

The candidate would do well to recall the work of the Founders in his speech on religion.

By Jon Meacham | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Dec 5, 2007 | Updated: 1:39 p.m. ET Dec 5, 2007

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: hark a lark @ 12/13/2007 1:03:12 PM

Comment: What does the mormon tabernacle choir have to do with Romney giving a speech in this article? funny how people choose to relate things that don't have any reference to the actual topic at hand.... ie, the current debate over Romney's religion while running for president. Oh boy. Can Americans stay on topic here? We might as well publish pictures of turkey's with an article on marshmellows, and elect presidents based on the color underwear they wear... instead of what really matters. Can you sense the sarcasm? Sad- I'm usually not a sarcastic person, but this whole debate is getting way out of control. I for one am sick of the inuendos and vague references applied towards Romney and his religion while the media fails to update and remind readers about the main issues our country faces, and how each candidate presents solutions to those issues.
Posted By: GiantRobot2 @ 12/12/2007 11:06:23 PM

Comment: Mike Huckabee facts:

1. He will Eliminate the IRS:
This means you will receive 100% of your paycheck.

2. He will drastically reduce Gas prices:
Switch to alternative fuels, changing supply/demand.

3. He will reduce global warming.
Switch to alternative fuels, no carbon dioxides.

4. He will reduce threat of terrorism.
New fuels cause middle east gov. crack down on them.

5. He will reduce rising Health care costs.
New programs that prevent diseases, not just fix them.

6. He will lead up not just hard right or hard left.
Excellent communicator, will bring parties together.

7. He will lead with principles rather than money.
He cares everybody not just those on Wall Street.

8. He will give Hope to America and enthusiasm.
He plays bass guitar in a band, dynamic personality.

9. He will carry out his goals, not talk about them.
Lost 110 pounds, kept it off, ran 4 Marathons-26.2m

10. He knows the American people is the real boss.
As Governor, his picture frame only shows citizens.

Vote for Mike Huckabee, otherwise you will not be able to enjoy these benefits

Since the other candidates don't have anything to say on what they can do for America, they take the easy road and resort to taking cheap shots at Mike. Don???t fall into their trap any longer with negative attacks, let's show the critics and the naysayers that Americans have pride and we are ready to elect an honest, humble, trustworthy man for US President.
Posted By: rchristely @ 12/11/2007 2:00:39 PM

Comment: Your opinion of the LDS faith has nothing to do with the election of a president. Mitt Romney was already a governor and DID NOT include his faith and doctrine into his political position in Massechusettes. What a shame that people would show their ignorance and intolerance for religion in a country founded on religious freedom. I am a Mormon my faith controls my life, just as a Jew control his life through his faith or aatLutheran,Ca to well,
Posted By: smarty @ 12/08/2007 4:05:11 PM

Comment: I would not vote for a Morman because I know all about the Mormon religeon and you cannot separate the religeon from the presidency. It is a cult that controls your life in all aspects. I was once one.
Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/08/2007 2:21:46 PM

Comment: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - conclusion

Do you de dislike religious people? (I don't know and it doesn't matter to me., You have a perfect right to do so and vote against them for no other reason than that alone. But, allow others the same right if they disagree with you. I think it is wise in both cases to take into account all of a candidates views and record. Strong religious views (for or against) do not necessarily make for a good administrator, but to say they don???t influence his character and ideals is ludicrous. The job of a free electorate is to decide if the candidate???s views align with their own and if the candidate will be good for the post (or not).
Was it wrong for William Wilberforce to let his religious views lead him to fight for 20 (yes , twenty) years to abolish the slave trade In England, or for that matter for letting his religious views influence him in starting The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? It is interesting that he was vilified, called a hypocrite, and condemned for mixing religion with politics. When that happens, I have generally observed that the response is a smoke screen to divert attention from the fact that the other person simply has views (religious or otherwise) that disagree with those of the objector. For example, today Dr. Martin Luther King is considered a hero. But in today???s climate, if people were consistent, they would have to tell him to shut up and go back to preaching, because his politics were based on his religious views. . You can???t have it both ways.
Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/08/2007 2:16:27 PM

Comment: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - part 3
My point is that both Jefferson and Madison stated correctly, I believe, that a person???s religious doctrines do not fall under the control of the state. They justly believed that when a church or churches are established by law, and supported by tax dollars, and its doctrines become the official state doctrines with penalties for disagreeing, the state has usurped its power, and the church or churches tend to become corrupted. I couldn???t agree more. Coercion destroys conversion. Note however, the religious tone of both Jefferson???s document and Madison???s. Note also that both say that ???..t that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion?????? I could fill this page with other quotes from Washington, Adams, Franklin, and even Jefferson which have more overt references to the place of religion in politics. Even Jefferson participated in House church services and granted permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, How anyone then can argue that a person has no right to publish, profess, or otherwise apply his religious views as they apply to any area of life is a mystery to me. In the name of all the Founding Fathers, what is the purpose of religious (or any freedom) if a person???s beliefs must be kept private? If a person chooses to keep that private, that is her right; but likewise, a person is free to exercise his right to publicly state and defend his or her beliefs, be they religious or anti-religious.
If people want to consider any candidate???s views on religion (whether he is Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, or whatever), they have a perfect right to do so. I defy anyone to show that the Founding father???s believed otherwise. On the other hand, once we try to pass laws that will penalize a person for their religious, political, or any other view or belief, then we have violated the intentions of the Founding Fathers. This notion that religion cannot and should not be allowed to influence a person???s views on statecraft (which includes justice and freedom) is a recent modern chimera.
Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/08/2007 2:03:21 PM

Comment: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom ??? Part 2.

:Madison???s Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments was written in support of the bill and is largely credited for helping get it passed. This is how it started:

???We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority. ???
Again the emphasis in bold is mine.
For a dispassionate view of the letter to the Danbury Baptists from Jefferson that contained the ???wall of separation ??? phrase, got to:
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
I
In addition to a balanced discussion, it contains both the edited and unedited text of the letter. I recommend reading both the letter and the discussion.
Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/08/2007 2:00:09 PM

Comment: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom ??? Part 1.

I am so glad the issue came up about e The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.. I recommend reading it and looking into the circumstances under which it came into being.
Patrick Henry sought to pass a bill that would have assessed all the citizens of Virginia to support a plural religious establishment. That is , people would be taxed to pay for the salaries of ministers of all denominations. This was considered fairer than only paying the priests of the Episcopalian state church. James Madison had years earlier written a letter to his friend William Bradford in 1774 decrying the imprisonment of some Baptist preachers in Culpeper, Virginia. As he stated ???There are at this time in the adjacent country not less than five or six well meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox???.

So the background for the bill was an official state church, supported by tax dollars, having civil, and criminal penalties for those having the wrong religious opinion.
The bill starts out with a philosophical argument for its enactment. Notice how it starts:

??? Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;??????
It finally gets down to the meat:
???Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.???
Note: I added the emphasis.
Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/07/2007 2:15:09 PM

Comment: I am amazed at the sanctimonious hubris of some of the comments here from the "anti-religious". Christianity has been "buried" by many prophets of its demise throughout its history. We will let history be the judge.
To say that religion is just a private matter is an absolute denial of reality and the fundamental right of any citizen to follow his conscience (even Jefferson did not disagree with that). A person's religious views (this includes atheists, agnostics, and any other "non-religious" people) affects (cannot help but affect) their outlook on life, and that includes politics. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to state that only the non-religious have the right to have their politics informed by their worldview. There are those that will not vote for a candidate because he is religious. It is their right and duty to follow their conscience as they see fit. It is also the right of anyone to consider a person's religious views in considering their vote. What is not permitted (and rightly so), is for the government and laws to make a government office dependent on a person's religious affiliation.
The Founding Father's prohibited the establishment of a state religion. They did not prohibit religion in the state. They wisely prohibited governments from adjudicating between religious views, while guaranteeing that citizens would be free to hold and promote those views in the court of public opinion.
I'd like to remind people that the bloodiest regimes in history were atheistic, The twentieth century experiments in atheistic ideology should cause us to pause.
Posted By: Shankardada2 @ 12/07/2007 1:25:26 PM

Comment: Americans are right to be suspiscious of Mormonism. But it amazes me that the same people go to their Church where they are told that they are eating the flesh and blood of a man that died 2000 years ago, or that the same man rose from the dead, or that another man parted a sea with the help of his vengeful God. Someday we will all look back on this foolish mass hysteria called Christianity and laugh, just as we laugh at the incredible stories of Roman dieties or the improbable feats of the Hindu Gods.
Posted By: acapulco424 @ 12/06/2007 2:38:02 PM

Comment: i strongly believe that any of you that have questions about the LDS religion and are confused about the beliefs they have, that you find out for yourself instead of just going off what the public makes up about Mormons and their history and religion. Read the Book of Mormon, find out and try to understand for yourself what REALLY happened, and what the Mormons believe in. We can't judge Mr. Romney because of his religion, and if you think that religion is questionable, or a "cult" as some say, look it up for yourself and study up on it. I think you would all be surprised at what you find.
Posted By: AH86 @ 12/06/2007 2:30:50 PM

Comment: I strongly believe that Mr. Romney,as well as every other candidate have the right to allow their upbringing to influance their actions and responses to the issues concerning the american public. What I believe to be truley unconstitional is for any governmental, private, or individual organization to judge the abilty of a candidate to lead and to act based on their personal beliefs and ideals. A persons past experiences and personal ideals are what shapes them, not the religious organization they belong to. In Mr. Romney's case, I think that the american public should do a little unbias research of their own concerning his faith if that's what they're worried about. If they're worried about how the candidate will keep to the seperation of church and state, then look to founding ideals of his religion; namely, "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influance with civil governement, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens denied". In my opinion what mr. Romney is trying to convey is that his beliefs or the beliefs of any other presidential candidate should not be used as a platform to persuade or dissuade any american citizen about the capabilities of the said candidate concerning their ability to lead this great nation.
Posted By: jonesgw2003 @ 12/06/2007 2:07:52 PM

Comment: As I read all these earnest stories about whether the great American electorate will vote for someone from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I find myself asking this question:

Just what is the big deal about Mitt Romney???s Mormonism?

The implication is that the LDS is some sort of weird sect filled with wackos. They???re not like us ??? they don???t drink, they have those funny white churches, they???re just a bit too friendly!

Seems like one of their kind can???t be trusted to lead the free world, unlike, say, someone from a mainstream Christian denomination, a Jew (remember Joe Lieberman?) or one of the cuddlier Islam folks (hey, they believe in only one god, just like us!).

Whatever happened to good old tolerance? After all, we???re very good at that when it comes to considering some of the, er, quirks among the so-called established religions and denominations.

Think the Mormons are strange? Consider these comparisons:

1: One of the basic beliefs of Mormonism is that founder Joseph Smith stumbled upon some gold tablets in an upstate New York field, which he, um, copied before they somewhat conveniently disappeared. Kinda wacky? Probably just about as madcap as claims made for Jesus Christ that his mother was a virgin and that he woke up from the dead before walking out of his tomb.

2: Another odd thing about Mormons is that they used to permit plural marriages. And some, in a splinter group, still practice polygamy. If Mitt???s in the White House it???ll be time to lock up your daughters! But would we be asking the same questions if a Muslim were running for president? After all, Islamic rules allow up to four wives. Is Islam a cult? Try taking that to Mecca (or to the politically correct). And, talking of strange marital traditions, how ???bout them unmarried Catholic priests? Hardly an advertisement for the benefits on non-marriage (plural, gay or otherwise).

3: And then there???s the fact that Mormons wear some kind of funny underwear (the men, at least) and don???t drink alcohol or coffee. They must be crazy! A cult! Meanwhile, no one bats an eyelid over those little beanies and that kosher-food thing favored by Jews.

All to say, of course, that one religion (and the various departments thereof) is just about as good as another. Which is to say a form of magic that should have disappeared along with cavemen (or at least when Darwin published his book).

Of course, the fuss that would arise if a self-declared atheist somehow made a legitimate run for the presidency would make the roaring about Romney seem like a whisper.
Posted By: bkeshlear @ 12/06/2007 12:07:28 PM

Comment: The caption above is wrong. The photo shows the choir AND the highest authorities of the LDS Church. They are in the Tabernacle, not the Temple.
Posted By: bkeshlear @ 12/06/2007 12:05:27 PM

Comment: The photo shows the choir and the church's highest leadership. The group is in the Tabernacle, which is adjacent to the Salt Lake LDS Temple. They are not in the Temple itself.
Posted By: uuforyou @ 12/06/2007 11:34:56 AM

Comment: Romney gave a good speach. I liked it. I think he will get a bounce in the polls.
I still want to hear more from him, but I'm willing to listen. He did seem Presidential.
Posted By: JohnS659 @ 12/06/2007 8:42:21 AM

Comment: Interesting as you read these posts that there are so many who seem to be like the Jews in the New Testament in their judgment of what God can and cannot do. A bit of perspective would probably be in order for those who would seek to judge so intolerably and do so on such assumed authority. As far as what Mitt will say that will change anyones mind about his position regarding how the Mormon Church will influence his performance as President - I think if he says much more than the "official" church position taken from their website at lds.org he will probably have said too much. I quote the website as follows: ""Political Neutrality - The Church's mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established. The Church does not: Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms. Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes. Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader. The Church does: Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections. Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters. Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church. Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church. In the United States, where nearly half of the world?s Latter-day Saints live, it is customary for the Church at each national election to issue a letter to be read to all congregations encouraging its members to vote, but emphasizing the Church's neutrality in partisan political matters. Relationships With Government Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."
Posted By: rd49 @ 12/06/2007 7:49:48 AM

Comment: I am a Mormon, and my entire life I have seen the benefits of living a moral life. Just because something cannot be "rationally explained" to a skeptic, does not indicate poor judgment.. In addition to the Book of Mormon, I also believe in the Old and New Testament. I cannot scientifically explain the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the miracles of biblical prophets, but I believe them. The double standard employed by those who call themselves "Christian" and yet deny me my right to think of myself as Christian is staggering. There are governors, Senators, Representatives, and other elected officials who are Mormon and have never used that as an excuse to impose their faith, why do people think that a president would be any different?
Posted By: standinginsomething @ 12/06/2007 1:46:51 AM

Comment: Mitt Romney is not a Mormon like George Bush is a Christian. Romney was a Stake President, he was responsible for thousands of Mormons. They would be required to confess their sins to Mitt Romney in order to enter the Mormon temple.

Romney would have attended the temple dozens of times while there making the below covenants:
...I covenant before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that I do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that I do consecrate myself, my time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed me, or with which he may bless me, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
Each of you bow your head and say yes."

Romney's priorities are the Mormon church's priorities he wouldn't need to be given direction from the prophet. He already knows what direction they want and he has covenanted to do so.
Posted By: carlor @ 12/05/2007 9:53:41 PM

Comment: Yes, this writer is sadly clueless. There is no issue here about Romney's faith, let alone about the role of religion in our society. The issue is about JUDGEMENT. And here Romney fails. Every voter is entitled to decide for themselves whether the candidate is capable of exercising good judgment, and someone who acutally believes that the word of God was delivered just a few decades ago to an upstate New York famer, and was readable only by magic spectacles, none of which was ever seen by anyone else -- well, if someone believes that, then a serious question about their JUDGMENT, not their faith is raised. And here Romney fails.
Posted By: carlor @ 12/05/2007 9:50:03 PM

Comment: This article misses the point entirely. No one disputes the proper role of religion in American life or has any problem with Romney's faith. It is is JUDGMENT that is in question, given that he actually believes the things that the Book of Mormon says. And there is no more fundamental question that a voter has to answer than the question of whether the candidate has sound judgment ... Romney, who believes that the word of God was given only to an upstate NY farmer, along with magic spectacles to read it by, fails that test.
Posted By: jayada123123 @ 12/05/2007 7:18:39 PM

Comment: The building that the choir is singing in is called the Tabernacle, it's not a temple - which can probaly tell you that other things this article states relating to the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints might not be 100% true.
Posted By: creative dude @ 12/05/2007 7:14:12 PM

Comment: Seperation of Church and State, while a good thing, is not nor has it ever been in the constitution. Judges were not supposed to be activist, either left or right. New rights have appeared from reasoning, other rights have been denied to us. Amendment #2, Admendment #10.
Posted By: jayada123123 @ 12/05/2007 7:13:23 PM

Comment: Comment: Um...the picture that leads this article is mis-labled. The buiding occupied by the choir is NOT a Mormon Temple--it is most likely the Conference Center, located in Salt Lake City, UT.

Nope! This building is called The Tabernacle - or should I say "'Mormon' Tabernacle".
Posted By: Downeast @ 12/05/2007 6:55:45 PM

Comment: Um...the picture that leads this article is mis-labled. The buiding occupied by the choir is NOT a Mormon Temple--it is most likely the Conference Center, located in Salt Lake City, UT.
Posted By: Downeast @ 12/05/2007 6:52:09 PM

Comment: um...the building occupied by the choir pictured at the beginning of the article is NOT a Mormon Temple.
Posted By: marcellomancini @ 12/05/2007 6:46:12 PM

Comment: It will be a sad day tomorrow as Mr. Romney addresses his faith not directed to the majority of the American public but to those who are so critical of his faith. That criticism is soley based on fear. Those so called conservative southern evangelicals seem to have forgeotten that this nation was based on religious freedom. The fear for the southern evangelicals is that if Romney were to win the Republican nomination, or heaven forbid, the presidency, they would be forced to accept not just Romney as the Republican Party Leader, but accept his faith. Based on their teachings about the Mormon religion, hell would freeze over on January 2009.
Posted By: soggy @ 12/05/2007 5:39:38 PM

Comment: This is a great article about Romney's dificult task. However I am always troubled when people write about the founding fathers and the seperation of church and state. The "state" the founding father's were talking about was limited exclusively to the federal government. The individual states were free to have a state sanctioned religeon and most did. The protection against a Federal religeon was necessary to get "buy in" from states who already had a state religeon and were fearful that the Feds would infringe on what was seen a states issue. It is true that the founders were not Christian radicals but it is a falacy to suggest that they were adverse to local and state govenments establishing religeon. In fact they believed it to be the right of states to do so.
- Posted By: txtruman @ 12/07/2007 5:13:37 PM
  
  Comment: The why did Thomas Jefferson consider the passing of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which he and James Madison wrote, one of the great accomplishments of his life? That law granted complete freedom of religion to every citizen of that state and it became the basis of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Jefferson clarified and defended the purpose of that amendment when he penned the phrase "wall of separation between church and state". The quote on his memorial in Washington is, "I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man". These are not the words or the actions of man who favors or condones state sanction of religion at any level of government.
Posted By: Second_Opinion @ 12/05/2007 5:37:31 PM

Comment: This article, rather than provide Romney fuel for thought before his speech, should have been published after his speech. Romney is no scholar and, truth be told, he is not presidential timber. He is representative of the broad field of candidates, both Republican and Democratic, and that is unfortunate - for us.

I read that Romney fired his landscaper for utlizing undocumented workers. What does this prove? Absolutely nothing in real terms other than the fact that Romney is more than willing to toss anyone or anything under the bus in order to make himself look good. He could have used that situation to intelligently point out and discuss many aspects of the immigration debate. Instead, he fires the landscaper. Pathetic.

His approach, like so many other candidates but personified by him, is one of "I am not..." rather than "I am...".
Posted By: arizonajohnson @ 12/05/2007 4:50:49 PM

Comment: i congratulate Jon Meacham on this excellent piece. I wish Romney success and hope his message is as clear and concise and Jon's article.
Posted By: arizonajohnson @ 12/05/2007 4:46:24 PM

Comment: Jon Meacham just wrote the best piece of the day regarding Romney and his Mormom problem. I hope Romney's message is this clear and concise. Amen.
Posted By: Patriot16 @ 12/05/2007 4:18:00 PM

Comment: A basic tenet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints found in their Articles of Faith is they "Claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." This is one of their basic beliefs that has been taught from the founding of the church in the 1800s.
Posted By: shooobie @ 12/05/2007 4:00:35 PM

Comment: Religion and religious beliefs should have nothing to do with politics. Religious fundamentalists, regardless of what religion scare the heck out of me. Every one of them is looking to armageddon as a good thing and they're packed and ready to go.

We need a good ol' athiest in office that'll try to keep the religious lunatics from wiping us all out.
Posted By: BeNicer @ 12/05/2007 3:44:01 PM

Comment: One of the things I love about America is the freedom we have to express our opinions and share our insights. As long as the individual running for office is moral, ethical and has integrity, relgious status does NOT matter. Personal beliefs are just that; personal. If a person is requesting to publicy share their personal belief, that is their right. However, before we attack another's personal belief we need to internally look at ourselves. We only see things from our perspective, look to expand before hastily judging or condemning. After all, you wouldn't want someone attacking you just because you lived in red house and liked the color, would you? It's always smart to remember the Golden Rule; be nicer.
Posted By: William.Demuth @ 12/05/2007 3:17:50 PM

Comment: This should be interesting watching one cult member try and justify his beliefs to other cult members that his cult is harmless and moral! The only thing that would do us any good is if he came forward and said that all the religions competing for dominance where as absurd as his is! Alas I suppose that is not to be, and we will have more non dialogue and pandering, but I would love to see him and George the Lesser debate the finer points of their collective myth structures!
- Posted By: Quirked @ 12/05/2007 7:52:48 PM
  
  Comment: @ William.Demuth
  
  How does it feel to be completely and utterly clueless? Must be a difficult life you live there in your little bubble. The view from the inside is surely quite blurred. Your attempt at looking smart while insulting something you clearly know nothing of just backfired good sir. Please come down from your High Horse, I'm scared you might fall and hurt yourself.

Top Story

Latest News

What Romney Should Say

Discuss

Posted By: hark a lark @ 12/13/2007 1:03:12 PM

Posted By: GiantRobot2 @ 12/12/2007 11:06:23 PM

Posted By: rchristely @ 12/11/2007 2:00:39 PM

Posted By: smarty @ 12/08/2007 4:05:11 PM

Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/08/2007 2:21:46 PM

Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/08/2007 2:16:27 PM

Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/08/2007 2:03:21 PM

Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/08/2007 2:00:09 PM

Posted By: lawlejam @ 12/07/2007 2:15:09 PM

Posted By: Shankardada2 @ 12/07/2007 1:25:26 PM

Posted By: acapulco424 @ 12/06/2007 2:38:02 PM

Posted By: AH86 @ 12/06/2007 2:30:50 PM

Posted By: jonesgw2003 @ 12/06/2007 2:07:52 PM

Posted By: bkeshlear @ 12/06/2007 12:07:28 PM

Posted By: bkeshlear @ 12/06/2007 12:05:27 PM

Posted By: uuforyou @ 12/06/2007 11:34:56 AM

Posted By: JohnS659 @ 12/06/2007 8:42:21 AM

Posted By: rd49 @ 12/06/2007 7:49:48 AM

Posted By: standinginsomething @ 12/06/2007 1:46:51 AM

Posted By: carlor @ 12/05/2007 9:53:41 PM

Posted By: carlor @ 12/05/2007 9:50:03 PM

Posted By: jayada123123 @ 12/05/2007 7:18:39 PM

Posted By: creative dude @ 12/05/2007 7:14:12 PM

Posted By: jayada123123 @ 12/05/2007 7:13:23 PM

Posted By: Downeast @ 12/05/2007 6:55:45 PM

Posted By: Downeast @ 12/05/2007 6:52:09 PM

Posted By: marcellomancini @ 12/05/2007 6:46:12 PM

Posted By: soggy @ 12/05/2007 5:39:38 PM

Posted By: txtruman @ 12/07/2007 5:13:37 PM

Posted By: Second_Opinion @ 12/05/2007 5:37:31 PM

Posted By: arizonajohnson @ 12/05/2007 4:50:49 PM

Posted By: arizonajohnson @ 12/05/2007 4:46:24 PM

Posted By: Patriot16 @ 12/05/2007 4:18:00 PM

Posted By: shooobie @ 12/05/2007 4:00:35 PM

Posted By: BeNicer @ 12/05/2007 3:44:01 PM

Posted By: William.Demuth @ 12/05/2007 3:17:50 PM

Posted By: Quirked @ 12/05/2007 7:52:48 PM

Reply

Report Abuse

STRATEGIES

The Paper Chasers

NATIONAL SECURITY

The General's Marching Orders

Subscribe Now

Partners