Romney's Attack on Non-Believers

Thank you Steve. Good observations.

I heard a Muslim in a program presenting Islam to a crowd probably mostly Christians. He as much as said "we may not be Christians but at least we aren't those ------ atheists". Atheists and agnostics seem to be the whipping boys of any out religion that wants to show it's like the others and I guess of any preacher who's afraid people will see the advantages of staying home on Sunday mornings.

I work with a few of the morman religion and they are great people. They also stress that they are sent letters and the church does not encourage them to vote for any particular politician. I am of the catholic faith and remember a good friend of my Mom telling her that there is no way a Catholic will become president. History proved her wrong. Again the media is trying the scare tactic with Mitt's religion but if you read about the Morman religion you won't believe the lies stated. At least he is not a hypocrite like Hillary Clinton who uses religion when convenient and is a vile person.

So Larry you are saying he's saying something now but he doesn't mean it because he's just talking to some people? You could well be right.

Kathaleen, on the vileness scale Hillary doesn't come close to GWB (responsible for the pointless deaths of thousands and thousands of people) or even several of the Republican candidates.

And you really don't call changing his mind on abortion and gay rights to try to fit his electorate hypocritical?

After years of hearing how simply not mentioning religion frequently enough, DLoudnsbury, was the same as being disrepectful, I find those comments a touch ironic.

But I do know that Romney has not stated that the non-believer WILL find a friend and ally in him.

And no, Larry, the primary voters are not very likely to contain a lot of non-believers. But if he wins, his constituency will. So, once this process is over, it might be useful to suss him out regarding whether THAT constituency (which actually numbers more than Mormons, Jews, Hindus and Muslims combined) will find him a 'friend and ally' as well.

And naw, it isn't the worst diss ever given our group.

That'd be far more direct (rather than by omission) by the former President Bush (as opposed to the current one.)

Where he declared that he wasn't sure atheists could be considered 'citizens or patriots', since this was 'one nation under God, after all'.

Not that I heard a lot of supportive outrage from anyone on that one either.

Karl Rove and his little mentee have been willing for a long time now to split the country for their political gain and it's worked all too well for them. Now Mitt Romney is headed down that ugly path.

I wonder sometimes if the mere perfunctory acknowledgement of a non-believer's rights has any real value. It usually has a tone, that if persued, would probably result in a 'just sit down and shut up' attitude. I hardly think most overtly religious people, if pressed, would actually belief in equal respect and equal rights of those who are not believers.

So, Donny, to get specific.. If atheists are 'not at all to be tolerated', what, exactly, does this lack of tolerance mean?

What do you propose be done to those atheists who, because they are atheists, apparently can't be relied upon to keep their promises and oaths?

That they can't, for instance, serve in public office? Or sign contracts, or conduct business? What, exactly, is it that atheists should be required, or forbidden from doing in your view?

Go ahead, don't hold back (not that you ever do). Tell us what you /really/ think.

"Abortionists, which Hillary is and Romney supposedly "was," are responsible for tens of millions of deaths."

Actually I doubt either of them ever performed an abortion. But both have been for abortion rights, Hillary being consistent still is, Romney being Romney has changed his tune.

But while we are talking about deaths, meat eaters are responsible for billions of deaths. And, like fetuses, cows hogs and pigs are not humans. Actually cows hogs and pigs suffer fear and pain when they die but fetuses early in the term probably can't suffer much if any pain and in a competently done abortion it's over quickly and they never have cause for fear before an abortion.

So while we'd all like to cut down the need for abortions, they are not nearly as serious as some would have us believe.

And instead of arguing about abortions and gay marriages we really need to be thinking about the serious problems like war and especially global warming. That could indeed kill us all.

Show me where he said he wouldn't be a friend or ally to the "non-believer".

And I do find, again, that thought humorous.

I mean, how many years was the Democratic Party tarred as being 'anti-religious', simply for not doing such things as referencing religion, God and faith in their speeches often enough, or paying enough visits to religious leaders and venues?

And now the same conclusions are being drawn by a speech in which the qualities are specifically mentioned to be a 'friend and ally' of the speaker, why would such a conclusion be right then, and wrong now?

i do not believe mormons discriminate against any other religious or non-religious groups of any kind they believe we are all sons and daughters of our heavenly father.

Atheists want a Religious advocate to include them in a statement on their religion??? How "Alice in Wonderland" that desire is. Of course Atheists have only rotten tomatoes to throw a those of religion. Mitt said nothing against Atheists but look at the comments such as "Atheism forever." What does that have to do with Mitt's monologue?