News-Record.com

I heard a little of what he was going to say on the radio this morning. It reminded me a little of what JFK said when he was running against Protestant fears of Catholic control of government.

This is one area where I can agree with Romney in politics. If he reaches the same conclusions on moral questions that I do, I'm not really all that worried about HOW he reaches them. This seems to me to be the only way a truly pluralist society cab operate. I hope people will listen to that message, regardless of who they end up voting for.

"If he reaches the same conclusions on moral questions that I do, I'm not really all that worried about HOW he reaches them." Namtac

I kinda see what you're saying, Nam; but I reject the idea of watered-down, generalized religion - which ends up being no true religion at all. It looks like Gerald Osteenism - a fluffy, one-size-fits-all ethical/motivational system - certainly not the doctrinally complete faith of St. Paul, the Creeds and the Scriptures.

Like I said, I do see what your saying in regard to the fact that the main thing (or all we can hope for these days) is for someone of integrity and moral substance be in the high offices of the land. Even, then we will disagree as to what "moral" and "ethical" really mean.

I believe the intent of the founders of our American socio-political culture was for religious liberty, NOT mere religious toleration, defined and regulated by Big Brother Government. There was, I believe, despite Jefferson et al., an expectation among the populace that the President and other leaders would be Christians; but that there should be no test as to which denomination they would represent. This was true well into the 20th century.

We ALL know full well that ideas (and convictions) have consequences; that elected men or women will apply their spiritual and philosphical worldviews to the job - inevitably, unavoidably.

Most people are like you and me (for now), Namtac: if they seem to be sincere that they will not favor their religion, or unduly bring thier periphoral religious doctrines into the decision-making process, we can live with them - IF they also seem like moral and ethical sorts, and believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I realize that many today would not care about that part, or would even prefer they did not belive in the God of hte Bible.

But, IMO, we desperately need to have a godly man/woman in office who will uphold the original intent of the Consitituion and seek to guide America back to its Christian roots - but not to institute a particular denomination. No Muslims, atheists, cultists or Hindus need apply - IMO. I pray for, and earnestly desire, that American be a truly biblical and Christian nation - "one nation under God."

This is where the "how" people reach their moral conclusions DOES make a difference. Only the one true and living God of the OT and NT reveals true and consistent moral principles/salvation. Pulling them out of the air, or from godless ideologies, will only lead us into greater moral confusion and relativism than already exists in the culture.

The problem is that big socialist government wants to now be (is) the established "religion" of America, dictating that we MUST accept same sex "marriage," baby killing, exorbitant taxation and Marxist economics. This is the primary reason that Christians are so concerned about the issue of what faith system is guiding the chief executive, et al.

yikes! if Romney thinks "religion" and "freedom" are necessary bedfellows, he ought to take a good look at first (e.g.) the Middle East, and then (e.g.) contemporary Europe - contrast and compare.

without a doubt, religious extremism flourishes with the decline of freedom! and the last few hundred years of western history teach us that the opposite is also true.

as a Mormon (minority religion, encompassing some bizarre claims) Mitch is faced with an uphill struggle, trying to appeal to this country's vast majority of Christians (another religion - more popular but arguably equally bizarre). he has to say something to appeal to the numerous "people of faith" who would not vote for him otherwise.

but the comparison between this speech and JFK's is ludicrous. primarily, Kennedy emphasized the idea that religion is a private matter - and ought to be irrelevant when considering a presidential candidate. Romney is merely pandering to a right-wing religious majority who's votes he knows he has to court. he may be able to do so if he continues to play up religious faith - even though the majority's theology is (really, not that much) different from his own.

but along the way, he does a great disservice to non-religious Americans - by stating that freedom and religion "perish alone" he is implying that anyone who does not subscribe to the idea of God (in whatever form) is automatically opposed to freedom! that's a gross rejection of the establishment clause, if ever I saw one.