At least Romney can say he isn’t a Muslim or an atheist

November 21, 2006

We’ve been hearing for months about outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’ (R) religion “problem,” as it relates to his likely presidential campaign, but a new Rasmussen poll shows that the hurdle he’ll have to clear is awfully high.

Mitt Romney (R) begins the 2008 campaign season in fourth place among those seeking the GOP Presidential nomination, trailing Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Condoleezza Rice. While many Republican insiders believe the Massachusetts Governor could become an attractive candidate to the party’s social conservatives, a Rasmussen Reports survey finds that Romney’s faith may initially be more of a hindrance than a help.

Forty-three percent (43%) of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate. Only 38% say they would consider casting such a vote while 19% are not sure. Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

Rasmussen noted that just 19% of likely voters are able to identify Romney as the Mormon candidate from a list of six potential presidential candidates, but I suspect that Romney won’t find that terribly reassuring — as soon as people learn about his faith, they’re less likely to consider him as a candidate.

For Romney, there is a small silver lining: there are other traditions the public dislikes even more.

The response to a theoretical Mormon candidate is far less negative than the response to a Muslim candidate or an atheist. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Likely Voters say they would never consider voting for a Muslim Presidential candidate. Sixty percent (60%) say the same about an atheist.

I guess we’re still a ways off from candidates being judged solely on the merit of their ideas and the content of their character.

I guess we’re still a ways off from candidates being judged solely on the merit of their ideas and the content of their character.

For me a person’s religion is a pretty good indicator of both. 🙂

I wouldn’t vote for an atheist just because they were an atheist but I probably would vote against a Mormon just because they’re a Mormon. I mean there’s ridiculous and then there’s ridiculous. You can slide along as a regular old protestant but you have to choose to stay a Mormon. Being unable or unwilling to see fundamental impossibility is not a trait I would want in a Presdient.

  • Well…at least its arguably good news for Obama given that he is neither Mormon or an atheist. ;->

  • Shit, why should we even have elections when the polls tell us all we need to know? And why have blogs when we can get this kind of info on the MSM? Uh, does anyone know what Mitt’s policy is on health care?

  • A few things:

    1. Condelezza Rice?! Are you kidding me? I have no issues with a woman, and African American, or an African American woman being a president, but Condi? Hell, Oprah or Queen Latifah would be a much better choice.

    2. As someone whose paternal side is Mormon (and maternal is Irish Catholic … which probably explains a lot about me), I find this whole thing insulting. Granted, I consider myself a secular humanist with Buddhism tendencies, but still …

    I think it just goes to show that people have no issues with electing liars, philanderers, murderers, cheaters, hypocrites, and others with ginormous character flaws.

    But heaven forbid they elect someone who thinks religion is nothing more than mythology, who prays to the east several times a day, or believes that Pepsi is the work of the devil. Because, you know, that’s ssoooooo much worse.

  • The Deseret News in Salt Lake City ran a piece on Mitt Romney last Sunday. The story contained a poll conducted by the paper that showed Romney was far away the favorite potential GOP presidential candidate–among Utahns. No surprises there.

    I’m not surprised that a majority of evangelical christians said that they would never vote for a mormon candidate. When I heard that Mitt Romney was going to run for president, I thought that his religious convictions would get in his way.

    That said, I myself am a practicing mormon–and a registered Democrat. One of the earlier posts said that “you have to choose to remain mormon”. That’s right. It’s a choice. It’s the choice I made and continue to make.

    I’m a Democrat because I believe that it’s the party that welcomes everyone, regardless of personal beliefs, philosophy, or orientation. Some of the comments on this blog certainly do not show much tolerance.

  • I guess we’re still a ways off from candidates being judged solely on the merit of their ideas and the content of their character.

    In fairness, surely religious views qualify as “ideas,” the content of which the public has every right to evaluate for itself? As an atheist, I disagree strongly with the 60% of the public that would never vote me into office, but I can’t say that I feel that their animus constitutes unfair or improper discrimination (as opposed to fair and proper discrimination, which is practiced every time a voter chooses one candidate over another for any number of legitimate reasons). My religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are as much a matter of free choice as anyone else’s. The idea that a person’s religious views are forced upon them by accidents of birth– and are therefore an essential part of their character, like race, upon which it would be improper to discriminate– overlooks the fact that while many people do choose to blindly endorse the faith of their parents and community, decisions as to matters of conscience can and should be the product of an objective and sincere evaluation of the available evidence offered by competing religious (or irreligious) paradigms. Romney is free to abandon (superficially or not) his Mormonism in order to enhance his appeal to the public, just as I’m free to abandon my atheism for the same purpose should I wish to run for office. I would never do so, nor, I suspect, would he, but the fact that we both subscribe to politically unpopular religious beliefs strikes me as a perfectly valid reason for a Christian voter to express his disagreement with those beliefs by voting against us. Similarly, I would never vote for Rick Santorum or Sam Brownback, in large part because I disagree strongly with the religious views they have expressed. I certainly don’t feel that I’m improperly discriminating against them in exercising that choice.

  • Oh please let it be Obama v. Romney in ’08 just so that we can see the moral quandary of our southern evangelical brethren.

  • “I would never vote for Rick Santorum or Sam Brownback, in large part because I disagree strongly with the religious views they have expressed.” – James Dillon

    I think the difference that is Ricky “Man on Dog” Santorum is that he allows his religious indoctrination to be the basis for his expressed policies. Most voters (I hope) want some better rationale than “God Told Me To” especially when it comes to questions like killing tens of thousands of Iraqis or hundreds of abortion doctors or millions of women wishing to end their unwanted pregnancies.

    Q: Why did you cheat on the Florida election votes?

    BG2: Because God wanted me to be President!

    How Romney’s religion will effect his policies I don’t know. Mormonism may have a really stupid origin (I recommend the South Park episode about it) but that does not mean all its tenets are bad (I recommend the South Park episode about it). Christianity is supposed to be about feeding the hunger (the food insecure, excuse me), clothing the naked, and comforting the lonely. That fact it is based on the belief that a man was crucified to death in just a few hours (it’s supposed to take days guys), buried and resurected in three days seems as silly as reading scripture out of a hat. If you ignore the origin myths and study what the religions actually teach as conduct you get a much better sense which are good and which are bad as opposed to which just seem dumb.

  • What I dislike about Mormonism is more than just the impossibilities of its claimed origins. They have a really lousy record of tolerance, patricarchy and exploitation of women during their dominance in parts of Utah.

    Mormonism just has too much baggage. President is a uniquely powerful postion and you only get one vote. Bush has shown us what damage religious agendas and impulses can do.

  • You can slide along as a regular old protestant but you have to choose to stay a Mormon. Being unable or unwilling to see fundamental impossibility is not a trait I would want in a Presdient.

    You could pretty much rule out most Catholic and any mainline or evangelical Protestants under that standard.

    Virgin birth? Really? Rose from the dead on the third day? Right … When you cast a sceptical eye on the roots of Christian faith, Mormonism doesn’t seem that much more ridiculous.

    I’m not a huge fan of Mitt Romney, and I’m not a huge fan of what Mormon politicians have done to Utah. But unless he’s carrying on about the “mark of Cain” and polygamy, his faith (or any faith) shouldn’t disqualify him from serious consideration for a higher office. Items like this are a sad comment on state of politics.

  • Hey if you hit post and then get the “Oops” message and go back and find your message erased. By hitting refresh and repost you might find your messages isn’t lost after all and that it is on the board.

  • I have only met a few Mormons, but they’ve all been really nice people. Some of the best Christians, I would say.

    I’m an atheist but would rather vote for a Mormon than a more mainstream Christian, simply because if a Mormon got elected president, the Christian wingnuts would become less comfortable with their agenda to push religion into the secular areas of our society.

    Mormons provide a great foil whenever you discuss prayer in school or any other similar degradation of the wall between church and state. Ask the wingnut if they would like it if their kids had to listen to a Mormon prayer in school every day, or if they would like to pay for the book of Mormon to be put on the courthouse lawn and all of a sudden they rethink the ideas.

    The reason this argument cuts through their fog is that Mormons are a) viewed as a “cult” and b) the majority in one state of the US. They can imagine living there, and once they think it through the wall becomes a good idea.

  • Yes all religions share crazy origins. The difference with Mormonism is its recency and lack of reformations. Its “miracles” happend in America after the breakdown of the cameral mind. We live with the schizophrenia of religions, and it is true that many people chose their religions consciously. But the older religions have been watered down somewhat and are taken for granted and thus there is a chance, however slim that the a candidate isn’t affected by them although they list themselves as that religion.

    You play the odds when you pick a president. Yeah the nature of their “faith” is and should be a factor. It can disquality a person from my vote, not from running for President.

    Tell me the last time the PR machine revealed the true ideas and true character of a candidate. it usually takes a scandal to reveal his character and 8 years of shitty policy to find out his true ideas.

  • “…a Mormon got elected president, the Christian wingnuts would become less comfortable with their agenda to push religion into the secular areas of our society.” – RacerX

    Wo-ho! A really good reason to vote for a Mormon! Thanks RacerX. Though a Catholic would do just as well if you ask me.

  • Dale – I generally agree with your points here although I might say that the nature of someone’s “beliefs” should be a factor. Subtle distinction but I think important since it’s a bit broader. But I do disagree with your characterization of all religious origins as being crazy.

    You generally seem like a rational guy – so what’s your proof that all religions are crazy? What’s your proof that God doesn’t exist? Of course, there is none either way. You simply don’t believe with, at least in your mind, no proof one way or the other. Others may choose to believe, again, based on little or no evidence.

    I think that the old question “Why is there something instead of nothing?” has not yet been answered. The point is that I respect your “belief” that there is no God – I can’t tell you that you’re wrong. For consistency and rationality’s sake, would you agree that you should respect the belief in God of others since you can’t prove to them that they’re wrong?

    PS Tell me the last time the PR machine revealed the true ideas and true character of a candidate. it usually takes a scandal to reveal his character and 8 years of shitty policy to find out his true ideas. Great point.

  • Homer, disproving God is hardly the issue. Dig into why religious people believe they must do this or not do that and remove the underpinnings and they have nothing left to stand on. When they say God told me so, ask to see the documentary evidence. It’s all so easy to disprove.

    Dan Brown writes that Jesus was married. Why do I not believe it. Because Jesus was an apocalyptic ascetic just like Saint Paul (who we know was not married). But the thing about knowing Jesus was an apocalyptic ascetic is that we understand that the end times were in fact prodicted to happen in the first century before John the Apostle died.

    Did it?

    The question is never whether God does or does not exist. The question is why do you believe we should follow these insane policies (destroying the Earth to bring the Rapture?). God hates homosexuality so we must deny homosexuals marriage. Well were to you find proof of that? In Leviticus 19. Well in Leviticus 21 it says male homosexuals engaging in anal sex should be put to death, do you advocate that? Ah, no. And look, in the versus before that Leviticus 21 says that adulterers should be put to death, do you advocate that? Ah, no. So really the point is you just hate ‘sharing’ marriage with gay people? Oh and neither 19 or 21 says anything against Lesbians 😉

  • Homer,

    Do you believe that there is a china teapot currently in orbit around Alpha Centauri? And if not, can you prove that to be the case?

    The burden of proof, or that of persuasion, is borne by the person arguing in favor of some affirmative proposition, such as, “There is a God.” This is so for a number of reasons, not least of which being that “proving” the negation of an affirmative proposition is often impossible, even where the proposition is so outlandishly implausible that you’d have to be nuts to believe it. Even though no one can disprove the suggestion about the teapot orbiting a distant star, wouldn’t you suspect that anyone who actually, affirmatively believes such a thing to be true, and leads his or her life in accordance with what he or she perceives to be the Teapot’s wishes, must be a little nuts?

    For some reason, I suspect having to do with its degree of social entrenchment, religion is treated differently than any other kind of unfalsifiable proposition, such that the rejoinder “Well, you can’t prove it’s false!” is often considered a sufficient response to skeptics. For reasons I hope I’ve elucidated, I think that response fails.

  • Lance, I completely agree with you that if someone says “God told me to” or anything similar, that is BS and should not be any basis for a government or society to operate.

    But I was noting Dale’s comment that all religions share crazy origins and I think that’s an illegitimate basis for his point, which I said that I otherwise generally agree with.

    (On the side issue, maybe Jesus was married, maybe not. Maybe he didn’t exist at all, although I think most historians agree that someone at least like him probably did. They also call him “rabbi” in the Bible and, at that time, in order to be called rabbi you had to be married and have kids. (Please don’t ask me where I read this as it will ruin my Thanksgiving trying to find it – but I swear I did read it!) So who knows the truth.)

    You’re also right about Leviticus, etc. I think that the evangelical decision to follow certain Old Testament scripture when it’s convenient is disturbing. Jon Stewart just pointed out that in Leviticus you’re not supposed to eat shellfish (hence the sign “Down with Faggots and Scallops!” at a rally). It’s all BS – people pick and choose what they want to read and/or believe to fit their own bigotries and world views.

    But bringing it back to God, I don’t think you can blame the actions of some on simply believing in God. Deciding that you should be able to control society based on your personal beliefs is where I draw the line. I guess this is where my libertarian streak comes in. I don’t disagree with anyone’s right to believe or not believe. But don’t criticize the belief of others when there’s no basis for that criticism either.

    Live and let live. Your rights extend as far as my body and that includes beliefs as well.

  • James Dillon –

    No I can’t prove that there’s a teapot around Alpha Centauri, but that’s a limitation of our scientific abilities.

    That’s why beliefs are also different than opinions, which everyone likes to say “well, it’s just my opinion.” Yes, well (the response goes), you’re an uninformed moron and your opinion has no merit. But you can’t say that about a belief in God. It can’t be tested scientifically. But that also is further reason why it should not be the basis for governmental policies, which demand a fundamental rationality. Belief or non-belief in God is, I think fundamentally and necessarily irrational either way.

    I also don’t necessarily agree with your proposition that the burden of proof is on the believer as opposed to the non-believer. Why? Because “proving the negation of an affirmative proposition is often impossible”? That’s not a reason. It sure sounded good though!

  • James–
    But is that Teapot short and stout? Does it have a handle and a spout? What happens if it shouts — can we tip it over and pour it out?

    Okay … I’ll stop. Just trying to bring a bit of levity to a thread that’s making my brain hurt (I knew I picked the wrong week to quit taking bong hits).

    🙂

  • Steve Dillon and Lance expressed my opinion about “proving” very well.

    The stories of how the major religions came into being are annoyingly available from their adherents. What’s not crazy about them?

    There’s no need to prove that “God” doesn’t exist. That’s not even defined by anyone except with a priori logic. But it is easy to show as impossible the assertions in the origin stories of religions. Angels, flying horses, their god and all that stuff.

    Homer, I agree with you that people should be allowed to believe in any crazy thing they want as long as they don’t impose it on other people. That’s why it would matter to me in a president. A president is The Imposer as are other polticians. And our country is under threat from religion more now than for 50 years. Although slightly less than it was 3 months ago.

    PS The DVD The God Who Wasn’t There lays out all this stuff better than I ever could.

  • Unholy Moses – why stop this week?

    Btw, if my family knew that I was the defender of the right-to-believe in God here, a big laugh would be had by all!

  • Dammit– I just had yet another long post eaten by the Comment Monster, and I don’t have time to re-write.

  • Homer, ok, short version of what I said last time:

    With regard to your “right to believe” in God, this isn’t a matter of rights. You have the right to believe that 2+2=5 if you want to; however, I’m under no obligation not to consider you a deluded fool for doing so. The “right” to believe in God really isn’t at issue here because no one is suggesting that atheism be enforced at the point of a gun, notwithstanding anything Pat Robertson or Ann Coulter may suggest to the contrary. No one is denying that the good citizens of the United States have the legal and moral right to choose to believe, on the basis of no better authority than a collection of fairy tales written thousands of years ago by a group of semi-literate goat-herders, that the planet we inhabit is actually a flat square created 10,000 years ago by a big white-bearded man who lives in the sky. However, if you’re suggesting that I’m obliged to give that belief any degree of respect simply because of the sincerity with which it’s held, then again I suggest that you’re giving religion the benefit of a double standard that would not apply to another equally irrational belief that doesn’t enjoy the same level of cultural entrenchment that theism does.

    (The first version was better, but I unfortunately need to get back to work).

  • Sorry James. I called you Steve.
    No problem, I’m flattered to be confused with His Carpetbaggerness.

  • I’m sorry guys, I just disagree that a belief in God is an opinion to be treated the same as 2+2=5. The latter is quantifiably wrong; the former is not. If I say that 2+2=5, then you can demonstrably show my position to be false and prove me to be a moron. You can’t do that with a belief in God. Again, I go back to “why is there something instead of nothing?”. Science cannot answer that question. As (Norman?) Einstein said, “I do not question whether God invented the Universe, I question whether he had a choice.” Does that mean that the semi-literate goat herders got it right and that God is some dude with a long beard? Of course not.

    And I’m not suggesting by any means that such belief should be given more credit simply because someone fervently believes it. Rather, since it cannot be proven or disproven one way or the other, to disparage someone for the belief itself is, to me, intellectually inconsistent. In other words, you have no proof that God does not exist, yet you believe that he does not exist. Conversely, a believer has no proof that God does exist, yet he believes. One position is more sound than the other? I think not.

  • Homer,

    I think you’re missing the point of a couple of things I’ve said, so I’ll try to clarify. First, I didn’t mean to suggest that belief in God is an error equivalent to believing that 2+2=5. The point of my comparison was to illustrate that your “right to believe” argument was going down an irrelevant path, by pointing out that the right to believe does not entail the right to be free from criticism of one’s belief. People have the right to believe whatever they choose to believe, in the sense that no one else (neither the government nor any private party) may legally coerce them into believing, or professing to believe, anything contrary to the dictates of their conscience. However, that right does not provide immunity from criticism, because if it did, we could never criticize anyone’s beliefs about anything, be it religion, politics, or mathematics. The right to say, “I believe X,” whatever X may be, does not in any way preclude the right of others to say, “You’re a fool to believe X,” as you appeared to be suggesting.

    Rather, since it cannot be proven or disproven one way or the other, to disparage someone for the belief itself is, to me, intellectually inconsistent. In other words, you have no proof that God does not exist, yet you believe that he does not exist. Conversely, a believer has no proof that God does exist, yet he believes. One position is more sound than the other? I think not.
    That’s because you don’t understand the teapot example, or my discussion of the burden of proof. The point is that in the absence of reliable evidence, disbelief (or reservation of judgment, if you prefer, which amounts to the same thing) is the rational default position.

    A good explanation for what I’m talking about can be found if you google “Sagan’s Dragon” and look for a description of the thought experiment about the invisible dragon that Carl Sagan discussed in his excellent book The Demon-Haunted World. (I can’t provide a link because, unfortunately, my office web filter blocks most of the sites that appear to have good descriptions). Also see the Wikipedia entry for Russell’s teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) for a better explanation of the teapot example I discussed briefly above.

  • James Dillon –

    I will check out those references you cite and thanks. I’ve always enjoyed Carl Sagan (a truly gentle soul in the Universe).

    I do hear what you’re saying about the ‘right to believe’ and ‘the right to be free of criticism of one’s belief.’ But allow me to distinguish between the simple belief in God and, for an example of the latter, the belief in the historical accuracy of the Bible. For the belief in God, if the answer is simply that not believing is the “rational default position” as you call it, I don’t think that’s sufficient. We can simply change the terms and reverse the playing field, i.e., I see the existence of the world around me and think that the rational default position IS the existence of God.

    Using Russell’s teapot concept, I would respond that there is no evidence (unlike the existence of the Universe) that the teapot exists and so perhaps the rational default position there is that it does not exist. It’s a good debate tactic but ultimately doesn’t really get us anywhere.

    As for the historical accuracy of the Bible, there I would agree with you is an area where someone can be criticized for their “belief” as it can be disproved.

    But otherwise, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that criticism of the belief in God, that one simple concept, is valid other than that not believing is the rational default position, which as I’ve suggested, does not necessarily follow.

  • I’ve been out running on the trails and that’s a good place to think about godstuff.

    To say “I believe in God.” And then feel a warm fuzzy connection to the universe is great. But most people don’t stop there.

    It begs some questions. Which god? How do you define God. Are you talking about a metaphorical god like Einstein did? Or are you talking about a personal god like Falwell is? Is the God you believe in physical or just spiritual? What does your god do? Where does it exist? Once you start defining God then you’re in the realm of possible proof or not proof.

    If you’re an evangelical and you say you belive in god, you’re saying one thing. If you’re Muslim and say that, you’re saying something else. Your god is pretty much defined by the origin myths, the traditions and shared ideas of your religion. They don’t believe in the same god. Especially fundamentalists to whom god is the most personal and the most defined.

    So when Mitt Romney identifies himself as a Mormon and says, I believe in God then I know something about his ideas.

    I believe in god is not really a stand-alone statement of much meaning.

    Then there’s that old favorite, if God created the universe who created God?

  • Uh, does anyone know what Mitt’s policy is on health care? —
    lou, @3

    It’s a mixed record… On the one hand, he did get a state program voted in. On the other hand.. This from Think Progress (no permalink reference, so a quote instead of a link):

    “State psychiatric hospitals will begin turning away new patients on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, in response to emergency budget cuts issued earlier this month by Gov. Mitt Romney,” the AP reports. “The cuts will force the elimination of 170 Department of Mental Health staff positions, including staffers who provide care to hundreds of emotionally disturbed children and teens.”

    I guess he doesn’t figure that *mental* health is as important as *physical* health; afterall, as regards mental health, all one has to do is get a-hold of oneself; it’s all in the mind, see?

    Re Homer, @ 21:
    My thoughts too; I’ll leave you to your superstitions if you’ll let me have mine.

    Unfortunately, while people like me (atheists) have been known to try and impose our (dis)beliefs on others, we’ve never been *quite* as insistent on that point. Possibly because our repertoir of bogeymen to scare the disbelievers rigid is somewhat limited.

    Afterall, what’s a child more likely to remember and heed:
    a) “if you don’t believe, you’ll burn in hell for far longer than you’ve been alive and it’ll hurt like THIS (insert child’s hand into the flame on the stove. A nun once did that to me) every moment of that eternity”
    or:
    b) “if you believe, we’ll throw you out of the party”

  • Probably the default for human beings is to believe in a creator, because our experience of our artifacts is that they are created by someone–even babies. So it’s pretty natural to assume a creator for natural things. It’s actually a bit of leap to realize that things don’t have to have a creator in order to exist. And another leap to realize that if somethingone created nature then an even higher level of being would have had to create the creator ad infinitum.

    Naming the source of the creation God, though personifies it to some extent.

  • Well I’ll just try to sum up with this.

    The question is never does God or gods exist or not.

    The question is why should homosexuals and adulterers be put to death because you believe in a biblical God who is supposed to have “written” a Bible full of self-contradictions but which also happens to state in one chapter of ancient Jewish laws that adulterers and male homosexuals practicing Greek love all have to be put to death.

    Basing policy on Religion just gets you religious wars. It’s a practice to be avoided at all costs. Hence the non-establishment clause.

    And James, control-A, control-C before you write orange will save you every time.

  • And James, control-A, control-C before you write orange will save you every time. — Lance, @39

    What’s “control-A”? I do control-C (to copy) as an insurance and, if the orange goes oopsie, I do control-V (to paste back in and try again)

  • Some good points here on reasoning, but you know what Oscar Wilde said about that: “A man cannot be reasoned out of something he hasn’t reasoned himself into.”

    As for me, I’ll always give precedence to the least delusional candidate, and would love to have an atheist to vote for. Too bad that won’t happen. That atheists are outright rejected by 60% (and that, according to another Gallup poll, 68% of Americans believe in the devil!) I find to be appallingly pathetic and nationally embarrassing.

  • “What’s “control-A”? I do control-C (to copy) as an insurance and, if the orange goes oopsie, I do control-V (to paste back in and try again) ” – libra

    Control-A is ‘Select All’, saves you having to highlight the text before you do Control-C.

  • If you’re an evangelical and you say you belive in god, you’re saying one thing. If you’re Muslim and say that, you’re saying something else. Your god is pretty much defined by the origin myths, the traditions and shared ideas of your religion. They don’t believe in the same god.
    –Dale

    Actually, Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in the same god — it’s the prophet part that they disagree upon (Christ, Mohammed, and TBD). What’s amazing is how just that one difference has led to different books, different customs, etc. that makes each one incredibly unique, even though they’re based upon the same basic premise. And I think that’s what you were getting at.

    Of course, what’s sad is the amazing animosity between them just because of those differences.

    I guess for me, belief is one thing, while religion is something else altogether.

    Religion too often corrupts (see: priest scandal, inquisition, the GOP), while belief leads can lead to good (see: Mother Theresa, Ghandi, et al). Religion is all about social interaction, consolidation of power, and then utlimately control, while belief is left to the individual to figure out how he or she chooses.

    That’s why if someone wants to believe that there’s a magical teapot somewhere, fine by me.

    But if that same someone organizes, gains power, and tries to tell me that the teapot thinks we should all boil our first born alive because the All-Mighty Tealeaves say so, then we got a problem.

  • Mr. Romney needs to explain where he stands on NAU and CFR and also what he instends to do to stop the mexican trucks from coming unchecked into the US and what his stand is on Nafta Super Highway? Something we DONT need or want. We have enough trouble with drugs and illegals coming into this country without them coming in by the truck load.

    • Comments are closed.