That's good, since it is freedom "of" religion, and not freedom
"from" religion.And again no-where in the constitution
does it say seperation of church and state. Having said that don't
wear it on your sleave, and just be good examples. Anti-mo's and
haters red alert, attack formation =)
This article - while mentioning Joseph Smith's candidacy - should have also
noted that he ran as a Liberal at the time.Hi s"official"
platform wanted a stronger Federal Government, Extended Presidential
Powers, Freeing the Slaves - a Liberal "Northern" answer, and
even compensating the Slave-owners from the Federal Government, Forming a
National Bank, Expanding from Sea to Sea, - only with the Native Americans
consent.Freedom of Religion protected - [which would mean the Muslims
too].Not to mention - Tolerance to everyone,Inclusion of
everyone, Environmentalism and love of the earth, Socialism - United
Order, Womens Rights (prior to Womens Suffrage),Universal Welfare
Programs,Free Speech,Free Religion (who, where, what they may)Sustaining VoteLiberal concepts then -- Liberal concepts now.
Belief unites legitimate legislation, spurning hatred inviting togetherness.
I think it would be foolish for Romney to make any attempt to educate American
voters about Mormonism. Once he opens up that can of worms he is going to have
to answer ALL questions; not just the "easy" ones. Obviously
questions about some of the history within the church will be very difficult to
answer, and those will be the questions that those who disagree with the Mormon
practices will ask.
@NorthernToo often conservatives seem to have a flawed understanding
of what freedom FROM religion really entails and fail to realize that freedom
from religion is crucial to religious liberty in general. It is evident that a
person misunderstands the concept of freedom from religion when they say that
promotion of the idea is part of an effort to eliminate religion from the public
square, secularize, or to deny religious believers a voice in politics. None of
this follows from a belief that people have a right to be free from religion.
Freedom from religion is not a demand that one never encounter religion,
religious believers, or religious ideas at all. Freedom from religion isn't a
demand that religious beliefs never be expressed, but rather that they not be
endorsed by the government; it's not a demand that religious believers never
voice an opinion, but rather that they not have a privileged status in public
debates; it's not a demand that religious values never have any public impact,
but but rather that no laws be based on religious doctrines without the
existence of a secular purpose and basis. Disagreeing doesn't equal
attack and name calling does not promote reasonable dialogue!
@Northern"That's good, since it is freedom "of" religion,
and not freedom "from" religion."To quote a late 80s
sitcom's theme song, you can't have one without the other. A large part of you
or I being able to practice our religion is us not having other religions
imposed on us.
ldsliberal"This article while mentioning Joseph Smiths
candidacy should've also noted he ran as a liberal at the time"Please quit trying to using the gospel of love to try and convert us to your
anti-american communistic version of liberalism. If the founders had this
mindset, we would have never had the guts to break free from the oppresive
taxation or the british. I think people in those days would be more
libertarian than liberal but that's just my opinion, I'm not going to pretend I
know their minds and make up their political allegiance.
"Mix of politics, religion is here to stay"Nothing wrong
with that. It started, I think, with the election of Catholic and Democrat John
Kennedy. Many were afraid he would be directed by Rome's Pope. Didn't happen.
Likewise Romney will not be directed by his church leaders.
@ JoggleThe problem with the liberal secular left these days is that
they don't take the seemingly tolerant point of view you do. Examples. The
attacks on traditional religious displays (which never hurt anyone that I've
ever heard). The mocking of religion coming from popular culture on the public
airwaves. Government paying an artist thru the National Endowment of the Arts
to create anti-religious art, such as the famous crucifix in urine. The
liberals say that that is a proper use of tax money. However if anyone were to
attempt a pro-religion work of art at taxpayer expense, the left would scream
about seperation of church and state. Government should no more pay for
pro-religion than they should pay for anti-religion. This is why many on the
conservative/religious side see the public religious debate as one sided, and
are fighting back.
I find it fascinating that many people (esp. secularists) who don't want
religion to play a role in modern society are the ones who keep bringing up the
issue. It's kind of like they're saying "Let's not talk about religion in
the public square so long as we can keep bringing up that certain candidates
have a religious bent that must be discussed and explained." On the other hand, many religionists (esp. evangelicals) who want religion to
be involved in a candidate's make-up and mindset, only want that to be so if the
candidate espouses (or pretends to espouse) that group's (esp. evalgelicals)
particular mindset. Neither of these approaches seems very rational
to me. And ironically, LDS people of modern times have not, in the main, tried
to insist that candidates hold fast to a precise LDS mindset. They may hope that
the candidates have certain core moralistic attitudes. However, in my experience
they are not vitrolic about declaring those feelings in the course of assessing
and commenting on candidate qualifications during the electoral process.
Well over 10% of Americans are non-believers (atheist, agnostic, etc.), and
non-religiousness has been the fastest growing segment of the population for a
decade or more (Gallup; Pew).Just less than 2% of Americans are of
the Jewish religion, which is about the same as the percent of Mormons.There are 5 times more atheists/agnostics/nonbelievers in America than either
Jews or Mormons.Treated as a statistical group,
atheists/agnostics/nonbelievers in America would be the third largest group,
behind "Protestants" and "Catholics" (very general
categories).We non-religious are not proportionally represented in
State and Federal Government, and that is not for lack of desire, interest, or
qualification.It is for two reasons:1. because the
religious demonize us and will not support or vote for a nonbeliever for public
office;2. because non-belief is not a principle around which a group can
easily organize - i.e., there is not yet an atheist voting bloc.But
the rise of the so-called "New Atheism" is changing that. We are
organizing. We are tired of believers hijacking the political process and
distracting the discourse with "cultural wars" and narrow, religiously
defined morality issues.
The fact that 99 percent of Mormons proves the religion is not a cult?
@mg_scott Many believe a person's spiritual beliefs are private and
personal and those people don't raise the ire of the non-religious. However,
there's a huge amount of pro-religious propaganda that permeates everyday life.
From the seemingly innocuous "prayer calls", to pro-life bumper
stickers, daily affirmations, religious billboards, churches every few blocks,
"In God we trust" on every dollar bill, religious signs, the President
mentioning God every so often, faith-based initiatives and more. It's rare to
walk anywhere in public and not see some religious pronouncement. Imagine if the
cause of non-belief were promoted to even one hundredth this degree? Believers
would be outraged. Yet if an atheist (often liberal) decides to react to the
overwhelming pro-religion propaganda that's in his face on a daily basis, he's
labeled as a hater, anti, and so forth. If you promote your religious beliefs in
a public space, it's only fair that people will fight back. Churches don't pay a
fair share of taxes, if at all. This increases the overall tax burden for
everybody else. Churches are the last institutions that need financial support
from the government. I agree government shouldn't pay for_either
The 1st amendment to the Constitution is very simple on the matter that Congress
shall make no law establishing religion or restricting the free exercise
thereof. What should be important is to know what kind of values and
ideals a persons espouses as well as the persons integrity to do what is right.
That can often be hard to tell on a national stage.I dont so much
care about a persons religious beliefs as I do to know that their values a
similar to mine and primarily will they do all in their power to ensure freedom
and liberty. For me that generally means limited government. I consider
President Regan to have been one of the best Presidents in our history but I
could not tell you what religion he espoused and it did not/does not matter to
Its here to stay as long as there are papers such as the Deseret News who put
religion above everything else including the news. I believe that if you go to
the midwest and ask people what they think & their opinion would be that
religion didn't matter.
Religion and Politics here to stay. Is this breaking news? It's
always been the case when it suits an objective. It is typically disingenuous
and always irrelevant but that has never stopped the political machines from
using whatever works.I contend that religion should be a
non-issue...but so should looks, gender, race and hair color. But we live in the
real world. Instead we get bible thumpers like Gingrich who is about as amoral
as any candidate.I can't help but believe that the DN wants to
portray ol' Mitt as a victim. It might take the spotlight off his multiple
positions on the same topic. The problem with Mitt is not his religion, it's his
record and his integrity to the issues. He seems to many as if he is willing to
say whatever it takes to whatever audience he is in front of. In the
end, Mitt wants to be president more than anyone wants him to be president and
he's willing to say whatever it takes to get it done. For those who
don't think religion matters, consider if the candidate were a devout
non-believer. Does that make a difference to you?
The first openly atheist candidate to run for president has my vote.
Republican, Democrat, John Birch, whatever. I don't care. It's incredibly
difficult for me to respect anybody who insists in the existence of some magical
deity without any evidence of proof. I was happy when Obama was elected. But
give me an atheist president and then I will say we have progressed as a nation.
Northern: How exactly do you expect freedom of religion to work independent of
freedom from religion? Are you saying that a person is free to choose any
religion at all but not free to abstain? The attitude seems to be basically one
of: Just choose something. Christian. Jew. Muslim. Whatever. We can all get
along if you subscribe to some sort of version of magical thinking. We can have
a relationship of tolerance and mutual respect. But if you choose to reject
magical thinking altogether, that is intolearable. Really. I want to
know. Since so many people seem gung ho on pointing out how the constitution
(supposedly) grants freedom of religion but not from religion. What does that
mean to you? It seems that you think the founders have decided that we are
going to be a nation that forcedly purports religious ideals and those who
disagree can just be politely silently without "ruining" things for
everybody else. If you believe this, I suggest you read "The Statute Of
Virginia For Religious Freedom" authored by Thomas Jefferson. Freedom of
religion and freedom from religion go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the
Rocket Science, Reagan took his mother's religion, that being Protestantism.
Guess he knew he'd get further being a Protestant, and he did. I don't care
what religion a candidate belongs to, as long as they keep it out of our
politics. I've had it with the right-wingers of any religion. I don't want your
religious biases interfering in government. I don't believe in religion, but
that doesn't mean I can't respect those who do. As long as they stay the hell
away from religion, while in office.
'Please quit trying to using the gospel of love to try and convert us to your
anti-american communistic version of...' - Anti Bush-Obama | 12:37 p.m. Oct. 27,
2011 And this, is one result of religion as well. Along
with the good and helpful things religion promotes, there are many who use it as
a weapon. To claim that they're belief is superior to any others...
and that it makes them 'better', than some. On top of, the questions
of Mitt Romney's faith, let's use some other examples. *'Trump on
Obama's Birth Certificate: 'Maybe It Says He's a Muslim' - Fox Nation -
03/30/11 At least people crtiticizing Mitt Romney's faith, are
getting the title correct. *'Rick Perry backer decries Mitt Romney,
Mormons' - By Jamshid Ghazi Askar, Deseret News - 10/08/11
"(Robert) Jeffress described Romney's Mormon faith as a 'cult,' and said
evangelicals had only one real option in the 2012 primaries. ... Asked by
Politico if he believed Romney is a Christian, Jeffress answered:
'No.' " While I believe Mormonism is based on
Christian principles, and a christian faith, at least no one is calling Romney a
Muslim. And even then, it is a devisive claim....
'I consider President Regan to have been one of the best Presidents in our
history but I could not tell you what religion he espoused and it did not/does
not matter to me.' - Rocket Science | 4:18 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011
Honest question: Can you tell me why you think Regan was one of the
best president's in our history? From what I've reserched, he
tripled the national debt. And, raised the debt ceiling... x 18
Religion proves politicians lie, because it's the ultimate excuse for not having
to tell truth. Oh, sure, claim it's truth. Just like the doomsday guy. Let's
keep personal beliefs personal.
Did you know that Joseph Smith ran under the platform of having neutral foreign
policy, being friendly with all, yet entangling alliances with none?Do you know that there is only one candidate who runs under the same
philosophy? Ron Paul.We are sending billions of dollars to 150 of
the 192 countries overseas, and buying our friends through "foreign
aid". How is it that we are on the brink of bankruptcy and we send money
other countries, basically "buying" their good-will and support?Think: If we were to use that money to help us to "get our house in
order", we could be in a situation to help out those in need in the future,
though the constitution gives the Government NO authority to do so, it is up to
the people to help.We are bankrupt, and we are borrowing money from
China to give to everyone else. This is insanity.
Bottom line its freedom of religon not freedom from. Meaning you can't tell me
not to practice just like I can't tell you.Some people seem to think that
its freedom from religion and that they shouldn't have to be exposed to any
religion anytime. What is everyones opinion on a article that came in at
435am "Nationalists emboldened by EU crisis, debt pact.
You go, Kaiser. The "super committee" just needs to say, "Since
our checks are no good, we will discontinue any and ALL foreign aid." We'd
be in great shape in no time because the money we do have would be staying here.
Anybody beleive that is going to happen? Didn't think so.