DiscussMormonism.com

Our beloved presidential candidate has just uttered what is now in my signature line. Here's the full paragraph:

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

Aside from his obvious bigotry against non-religious people, WTH was he talking about? Can anyone name one concrete instance where reason and religion are allies?

Not to mention the fact that it came from a guy who wants to restrict women's liberty, make sure gay people never have the liberty to get married, sees nothing wrong with torture and capital punishment and wants to introduce new ways to make sure that poor people remain poor and without any healthcare (I suppose it would be a shame to take away their liberty to make their own casts and stitch their own wounds).

Zoidberg wrote:Our beloved presidential candidate has just uttered what is now in my signature line. Here's the full paragraph:

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

Aside from his obvious bigotry against non-religious people, WTH was he talking about? Can anyone name one concrete instance where reason and religion are allies?

Not to mention the fact that it came from a guy who wants to restrict women's liberty, make sure gay people never have the liberty to get married, sees nothing wrong with torture and capital punishment and wants to introduce new ways to make sure that poor people remain poor and without any healthcare (I suppose it would be a shame to take away their liberty to make their own casts and stitch their own wounds).

I think Romney may be referring to the religion of "secularism" he mentioned in his speech as combining reason with religion.

Romney doesn't strike me as well read or a deep thinker. He was glaringly inconsistent. Apparently he is antagonistic towards those with no religion. Does that make any political sense? Perhap's he had to appeal to people of faith by finding a common enemy, the godless.

Yong Xi wrote:I think Romney may be referring to the religion of "secularism" he mentioned in his speech as combining reason with religion.

Romney doesn't strike me as well read or a deep thinker. He was glaringly inconsistent. Apparently he is antagonistic towards those with no religion. Does that make any political sense? Perhap's he had to appeal to people of faith by finding a common enemy, the godless.

No, because he says he's thankful for living in some land where this imaginary alliance exists. Maybe he lives with Michael Jackson in Neverland? That would explain that "we" because, even though I thought he and I lived in the same country, I certainly do not live in a land where reason and religion are allies. But he also says that "the religion of secularism" is wrong. Of course, secularism is not a religion, but I suppose it's just too hard for him (as well as many other fundie folks) to grasp the concept of there being some people without any fanatical convictions. Which is why we keep hearing that science, evolution and atheism are religions.

But I agree with you about the appeal. It's always easier to make friends against someone.

Aside from his obvious bigotry against non-religious people, WTH was he talking about? Can anyone name one concrete instance where reason and religion are allies?

Well, surely you're not suggesting that religious humans act reasoanbly or are incapable of reason, are you?

I think you guys are missing the context here. Romney is a politician and he just made the most successful political speech in his campaign because he is playing to the hearts and minds of theists who represent more than 90% of the nation. I just watched hardball with Chris Matthews and I was surprised at how many people loved his speech. Matthews might vote for him. His speech was so great that of the dozen or so respondents, nobody had anything negative to say except one atheist who felt he was being intolerant of atheism.

From CNN to FOX news, the Romney speech is all the rage. It was so great that his opponents had to bow down and agree with him for fear that disagreement would leave a mark on them in the court of public opinion. This is how well accepted this speech was. Romney was trying to put a charge in his religious critics by focusing on the common ground (i.e. the country was founded by theists, prayer should be allowed in public schools, etc). He got applause from Pat Buchannan and even Huckabee who is a Baptist minister. Now when a Mormon can manage to get an applause from a Baptist minister, you know it was a well designed speech.

The only people who have something to moan about are the atheists, and then, it seems, only if they are really looking for something to moan about.

Not to mention the fact that it came from a guy who wants to restrict women's liberty, make sure gay people never have the liberty to get married, sees nothing wrong with torture and capital punishment and wants to introduce new ways to make sure that poor people remain poor and without any healthcare (I suppose it would be a shame to take away their liberty to make their own casts and stitch their own wounds).

Come on now Zoid. You don't really believe all this now do you?

dartagnan wrote:Well, surely you're not suggesting that religious humans act reasoanbly or are incapable of reason, are you?

I think you have just made two conflicting statements in one sentence, but I get it. I think.

I don't think religious humans are incapable of reason, but religion does not foster reasoning abilities, and they are definitely not allies, IMHO. Do you want me to dig up all the quotes from Christian philosophers on how reason is the enemy of faith?

The only people who have something to moan about are the atheists, and then, it seems, only if they are really looking for something to moan about.

I might be getting the wrong vibe, but you seem hostile to atheism for some reason. He basically made it clear that he is not going to treat people who do not believe in the supernatural the same way as those who do. He thinks secularism is wrong. And that doesn't bother you?

I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist, either, so I think you are wrong on this one.

Not to mention the fact that it came from a guy who wants to restrict women's liberty, make sure gay people never have the liberty to get married, sees nothing wrong with torture and capital punishment and wants to introduce new ways to make sure that poor people remain poor and without any healthcare (I suppose it would be a shame to take away their liberty to make their own casts and stitch their own wounds).

Come on now Zoid. You don't really believe all this now do you?

What exactly am I supposed to disbelieve about it?

Zoidberg wrote:Aside from his obvious bigotry against non-religious people, WTH was he talking about? Can anyone name one concrete instance where reason and religion are allies?

There are many points where religion agrees with seccularism. The Golden Rule / Categorical Imperitive is fairly universal for example and I believe it is quite logical from a game theory perspective.

dartagnan wrote:The only people who have something to moan about are the atheists, and then, it seems, only if they are really looking for something to moan about.

I have a minor point to moan about. In one paragraph he gives his thoughts about Jesus Christ. In the next paragraph he says that he won't explain his other beliefs because he doesn't want this country to have a religious test for public office. I think if he really wanted to be consistent he should not have shared his views of Jesus Christ and yet refuse to give the other views. Indeed, does he demand that Jewish presidential candidate should also share his thoughts on Jesus Christ? I think the tacit implications about the necessity of faith in Jesus for his core Republican right audience are unfortunate.

I don't think Romney has anything against Jews running for president. I just think it was a small oversight. I don't demand perfection, but I do think it is unfortunate.

I think you have just made two conflicting statements in one sentence, but I get it. I think.

Arrgh. You're right. Good thing you got what I was saying.

I don't think religious humans are incapable of reason, but religion does not foster reasoning abilities

I agree. No more than atheism fosters reasoning.

and they are definitely not allies, IMHO. Do you want me to dig up all the quotes from Christian philosophers on how reason is the enemy of faith?

No, I am familiar with your argument, and I have in fact made the same argument with regards to Mormonism. Plenty of Joseph Smith writings place the "reasoning of men" in a dark corner. But I think that they use the word "reasoning" negatively for lack of a better term. What they're really complaining about, I think, is when people deny the spiritual and defer to their own natural devices to try to reason an attack against it. In that sense reason is viewed as an enemy, but I doubt they would suggest reasoning is generally considered evil altogether. I think theists think reasoning can be bad, but only when the results from that reasoning are bad. The theists and atheists would just have different perspectives on what is really bad.

After all, criminals use reasoning all the time when they justify their deeds, i.e. I needed to feed my family, so I robbed the bank.

So I guess reasoning can be viewed as both good and bad, depending on the assumptions one brings to the table. But I think it is a bit unfair to suggest reasoning and religion is like comparing superman and kryptonite.

I might be getting the wrong vibe, but you seem hostile to atheism for some reason.

Come on Zoid, you know better than that.

I think I have made friends with almost everyone here, knowing perfectly well they are mostly atheists. I don't try to convert atheists to theism. I love you just the way you are, trust me. You guys are truly a breath of fresh air, coming from the LDS apologetic circle where thinking is generally a crime. I find your insights and the knowledge base fascinating. But often I feel like some of you try to push me further towards atheism. Apparently I have to leave theism altogether - denouncing Mormonism wasn't enough to earn complete respect from all of you. I get this feeling from people like Mercury, Porter and occassionally beastie and sethbag.

You don't see me starting anti-Atheist threads. But I will occassionally respond to threads when I think theism has been unfairly attacked.

He basically made it clear that he is not going to treat people who do not believe in the supernatural the same way as those who do.

I don't think he did this at all.

He thinks secularism is wrong. And that doesn't bother you?

I think what he thinks is wrong is the goal of the secular movement, which is trying to remove religion entirely from our society. We have a secular government and he has no intentions to change this. You make it sound like he is pushing for a theocracy.

What exactly am I supposed to disbelieve about it?

Anything you cannot substantiate with hard evidence. Until your examples go beyond assertion, there is little reason for me to dig for counter-evidence.
I get the feeling too many of you guys rely on flimsy evidence such as the website beastie provided, which claims George Bush said atheists weren't really citizens. I mean come on. No politician is THAT stupid.

dartagnan wrote:I get the feeling too many of you guys rely on flimsy evidence such as the website beastie provided, which claims George Bush said atheists weren't really citizens. I mean come on. No politician is THAT stupid.

When it comes to his son, some of us wonder.

(Actually, it is my understanding that dubya is pretty sharp but that the media highlights his goofs).

I really don't think Bush is all that religious. I simply view this as shameful pandering. Pumping the rubes up on buzz words they feel comfortable with.