Does Mitt Romney believe atheists should enjoy freedom? "Good Morning America" co-host Diane Sawyer apparently isn't too sure. On Friday's edition of the ABC program, the co-host discussed the 2008 presidential candidate's speech on his Mormon faith and wondered about Romney's comment that "freedom requires religion." "Is there going to be a question whether humanists or even atheists, agnostics deserve freedom," she asked "This Week" host, and former Clinton operative, George Stephanopoulos. (This is the same Diane Sawyer who has repeatedly objected to '08 contender Mike Huckabee using the phrase "Christian leader" in a campaign spot. She derided that as "heavy handed" and possibly crossing a line.)
In response to the loaded question, Stephanopoulos simply replied, "I think that's a fight that Romney is willing to pick." In a segment setting up the interview, reporter Dan reiterated the same themes and fretted, "What about non-believers?" He then negatively spun the speech: "Did Romney go too far in blurring the line between church and state?"
Throwing cold water on Thursday's address, Harris asserted that the speech is "getting a mixed bag of reaction." This, despite the fact that conservative heavyweights such as Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Pat Buchanan have raved about the speech. They, however, weren't included in Mr.Harris's piece. And although the segment did feature the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land and former Bush operative Matthew Dowd, both of their comments were analytical. Other than a mildly positive comment from talk radio host Jamie Johnson, the only praise in the Harris segment came from University of Utah college students. (To be fair, though, Stephanopoulos did allow that Romney "got a lot of praise from Christian leaders yesterday.") Also, former JFK speechwriter Ted Sorensen appeared to deride the address. Rather than feature two clips of Mormon college kids, wouldn't it be more enlightening to at least note that the most popular conservative radio host in the country liked the speech?
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:13am on December 7, follows:
DIANE SAWYER: And it's crackling out there on the campaign trail, the race to '08. As we said, Oprah Winfrey with Barack Obama this weekend on the trail. And of course, there's all the reaction now to presidential candidate Mitt Romney's big speech yesterday where he tried to ease concerns, particularly among evangelicals, about his Mormon faith. Did he succeed? ABC's Dan Harris has been looking into that.
MITT ROMNEY: Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought the speech was fantastic.
HARRIS: Positive reviews from fellow Mormons at the University of Utah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He will not be running the country by his church and he's just bringing it out in the open and he's not trying to hide anything.
HARRIS: But political watchers believe Romney was really directing his talk at evangelicals, 42 percent of whom say they are uncomfortable with a Mormon president. So, was it smart for Romney to only mention Mormonism once and to refuse to defend some of the controversial doctrines of his faith?
ROMNEY: No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.
MATTHEW DOWD (ABC News political contributor): If the speech was designed to address the issue of Mormonism and the perception of Mormonism, it doesn't address any of those and so I still think there's still going to be questions about that in the aftermath.
RICHARD LAND (Southern Baptist Convention): If he had tried to defend Mormonism, he would have been picking a fight with evangelical that he doesn't need to pick. It's a fight that he couldn't win.
HARRIS: Evangelicals in the key state of Iowa, where the former Baptist minister Mike Huckabee has pulled in front of Romney, seem to appreciate Romney's emphasis on the role of religion in American public life.
ROMNEY: Freedom requires religion. Just as religion requires freedom.
HARRIS: But what about non-believers?
JAMIE JOHNSON (Iowa News Talk Radio/Faith & Freedom Network): If the evangelicals understand Mitt Romney not as a Mormon, so much as a moralist, I think they can feel more comfortable with voting for him.
HARRIS: Did Romney go too far in blurring the line between church and state?
TED SORENSEN (Fmr. Kennedy advisor & speechwriter): Romney fudged that a little bit because he was trying to impress those members of the religious right who don't favor complete separation of church and state and Romney wants more religion involved in statecraft.
HARRIS: The speech is getting a mixed bag of reaction. But the Romney camp seems to have faith that at least it has put this issue to rest. For "Good Morning America," Dan Harris, ABC News.
SAWYER: And for the bottom line, we turn to ABC's chief Washington correspondent, host of "This Week," George Stephanopoulos, in Washington. Good morning, George. So --
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning, Diane.
SAWYER: As we know, the polls show how close it is, Huckabee and Romney in Iowa. Did this speech change anything?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it's certainly important. No one speech can completely change the dynamic here. Mike Huckabee is rising because of his support among evangelical Christians. Of course, that's who Romney was targeting yesterday. I think he said three things that are very important to evangelical Christians. Number one, he wouldn't take orders from the leaders of the Mormon church. Number two, and probably most important, he had a declaration of Christian faith. He said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. That was critically important. And number three, he did say that he doesn't believes that the separation of church and state, as John Kennedy believed, is absolute. He believes that religion has a place in our public life. Mitt Romney got a lot of praise from Christian leaders yesterday. It's too early to say whether that's going to translate into real support on the ground.
SAWYER: What about the other statement we heard Dan mention? "Freedom requires religion." Is there going to be a question whether humanists or even atheists, agnostics deserve freedom?"
STEPHANOPOULOS: I think that's a fight that Romney is willing to pick. There's no question this could end up being the most controversial statement in a general election for Mitt Romney. But he believes-- This is what he believes. And I just spoke to the campaign a few minutes before going on the air and they say he absolutely stands by this statement, it is what Mitt Romney believes, and I think this is exactly what a lot of evangelical Christians want to hear. If it causes him trouble later on down the road in the general election, he'll deal with that later.
SAWYER: One more symbol we should point out, by the way, George Herbert Walker Bush, former President Bush, was the man who introduced him yesterday.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Very significant. And he had lots of praise for Mitt Romney's family. He introduced the family, for Mitt Romney's father who of course ran for president in 1968. Now, President Bush did go out of his way to say other candidates will come as well. But it was a subtle endorsement, I think, of Mitt Romney.
SAWYER: All right, let's switch for a minute to Oprah Winfrey. Barack Obama heading out on the campaign trail this weekend. What, two events in Iowa, one in South Carolina, one in New Hampshire. Tell us what she is going to do and what do you think is going to happen?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, she's going to electrify the campaign trail. There's no question about it. Look at what's happening in South Carolina. The Barack Obama campaign has had to move from an 18,000 seat arena to an 80,000 seat stadium. Now, they're a little worried now of raising expectations too high. They expect about 25,000 people to show up. But it is going to be a big event. I also spoke with the Clinton campaign. They are going to go on, do all of their business in Iowa. They're also considering sending Bill Clinton to South Carolina a day ahead of Oprah Winfrey to try and counter her effect.
SAWYER: Oh, my goodness. Got to stay tuned this weekend.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.



















Comments Policy
Atheists can go start their own country to prove him wrong
December 7, 2007 - 15:05 ET by Daniel BakerWill see how long that lasts. But that would be a theocracy anyways, so it proves his statement
Atheist's Rights
December 7, 2007 - 17:08 ET by PShannonAmericans "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
If atheists reject "a Creator," it follows that they also reject their "Rights."
So atheists, STFU, you got no rights.
Nice sentiments, bigot.
December 7, 2007 - 17:51 ET by KhyrisNice sentiments, bigot. La Raza's motto: "For people of the race, everything, for those not of the race, nothing!" ... And yet that's exactly the kind of garbage thinking you just espoused.
As an atheist, I had 0 problems with Romney's speech. Just because I don't believe in a creator doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate a president with a good sense of justice and ethical fairness. I don't really care that he has morals because of religion, just that he has them at all.
In fact, the part about how he divorces himself from the dogma of his church in order to serve the interest of the people is pretty much exactly what atheists want to hear out of ANY politician.
It seems to me that he defended the the need to respect any religious creed (or lack thereof) which upholds the standards of American values... I saw the entire thing and I never heard the words "except atheists."
Another classical example of "guilt by omission" from the MSM.
I think you misunderstand
December 7, 2007 - 18:24 ET by MidAmericaI think you misunderstand the principle of 'inalienable rights' as put forward by our founding fathers. They understood that man is a product of God who gives each and everyone an equal worth. As free men they attempted to create a limited government and to which they granted it rights and privileges. Without such a creator and the concept of inherant freedom and equality all rights must be derived from a government which 'grants' you, the individual, certain rights and liberties.
The symantecs of the origin
December 7, 2007 - 19:59 ET by KhyrisThe symantecs of the origin of "freedom" from either a deity, or from government, or from the inherent nature of the corporeal species is not even remotely relevent in the discussion of who is and is not entitled to share in those rights in the USA. All citizens are entitled to the same civil rights, whether they acknowledge the existence of a God or not, and to do otherwise is not only illegally discriminatory, but morally reprehensible.
Rights are only as unencroachable as the governments we create for ourselves allow. Just ask Robespierre how many of his victims had the guillitine magically stopped by divine intervention on behalf of their "inalienable right" to life. Yes Yes, I understand completely the concept of "inalienable" in that the incarcerated still maintain the right to liberty although they are deprived the realization of that right. In a just society, the right to life, liberty, etc. only has guarantee as far as that right is equitable among all citizens, as this is the very definition of justice. Speculating "that man is a product of God who gives (blah blah blah)" is pointless bloviation in this regard: It matters not one whit WHY the founders decided to NOT require belief in any given religion or God, only that they did so at all. The source of those rights is irrelevent to their protection and exercise.
The point remains the same: Romney calls for an equal respect for all creeds under the law, and makes the point that demanding this respect is a religiosly valid moral tenet that supercedes other dogma in all cases which would otherwise be contradictory. There is no higher "religious duty" than to protect the freedoms of the ALL citizens on the ground.
All citizens are entitled
December 7, 2007 - 20:31 ET by MidAmericaAll citizens are entitled to the same civil rights, whether they acknowledge the existence of a God or not, and to do otherwise is not only illegally discriminatory, but morally reprehensible.
I agree. For one thing atheists are a necessary part of a complex modern society. Without atheists to remind the religious when they are slipping too far into their dogma they can become a full blown cult. Atheists too, need the religious to remind them when they are getting too analyitical and are just 'thinking' the world.
Well said. As an atheist
December 7, 2007 - 20:37 ET by KhyrisWell said. As an atheist I do indeed categorically recognize the inherent values of religion in terms of real world effects; morality, psychological comfort, etc. Again, just because I don't agree with the precept doesn't mean I don't appreciate the results.
MidAmerica, Sorry to butt
December 7, 2007 - 20:41 ET by hydrodynDMMidAmerica,
Sorry to butt in, but I'd say that theism and atheism are two sided of the same coin - they are both predicated on a leap of faith regarding the existence or non-existence of God.
I think your argument applies to agnostics more than atheists with regard to the "too analytical" part.
Lack of faith is not a leap
December 7, 2007 - 21:08 ET by KhyrisLack of faith is not a leap of faith any more than lack of space-alien visitors implies that they exist, but merely haven't visited yet. Agnostic is a term which implies ambiguity. Generally speaking, and Agnostic says "there might be a god... I'm not sure... maybe?" where an Atheist would say "I see no reason to consider the existence of a God." The latter does not necessarily preclude an atheist from making that consideration when presented with evidence that we subjectively deem reasonable.
That said, I've never understood some atheists who go out of their way to "make a show of their (non) faith before men." I've always equated it to an Emperor's New Clothes type of syndrome.... I for one would never go and mock my friends that the hot sports car that I DIDN'T buy is cooler than their car. It's silly. It's one thing to take pride in one's self-perceived reasoning abilities and skepticism, which has no small basis in ego, but it is quite another to use that egotism to attack and tear down ALL other beliefs.
Khyris, I have to
December 7, 2007 - 21:14 ET by hydrodynDMKhyris,
I have to disagree. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God (or supernatural supreme being or whatever). As such, to assert the non-existence of something is a leap of faith since it can never be empirically verified.
An agnostic (and for the record, I am one) simply doesn't have an opinion either way. If you want to called that being "ambiguous", ok.
I agree that a lot of people are jerks when it comes to their own views about the world. But everything you said could be applied to anyone - theistic, atheistic or agnostic.
hydro
December 7, 2007 - 21:24 ET byI don't have enough faith to be an atheist
"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff
botg, Neither do I ;)
December 7, 2007 - 21:26 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Neither do I ;)
Of course I believe there
December 7, 2007 - 21:30 ET by KhyrisOf course I think there is no God, because I've seen no "empirical" evidence to the contrary which I deem rational.
But an active disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a "leap of faith" as it is supported, if not outright proven, by observations of the natural world. Different people may make different conclusions from different observations. Perhaps we just have different understandings of what constitutes a "leap." After all, a leap of logic implies that logic is still being used (if misused). You can't have a leap of logic by the insane, because they use no logic to begin with. Similarly, I can't have a leap of faith where there is no faith to begin with.
Khyris, I work from the
December 7, 2007 - 21:33 ET by hydrodynDMKhyris,
I work from the idea that to assert the non-existence of something is a leap of faith since it can't be empirically verified.
I like your "Tooth Fairy" analogy. If I stick to my view, I have to accept that I'm agnostic about the Tooth Fairy as well.
I have to think about this - but not tonight. It's online game playin', beer drinkin' time so I'll wish you a good night.
Likewise, and a Merry
December 7, 2007 - 21:42 ET by KhyrisLikewise, and a Merry Yuletide Season to you... which you may interpret as ironic feelings of well-intent =)
but I'd say that theism and
December 7, 2007 - 21:10 ET by MidAmericabut I'd say that theism and atheism are two sided of the same coin..
Yeah, I was thinking about using that phrase.
As far as agnostics being more analytical than atheists, I don't know. My understang of true agnostic belief is that they have thought about the existence of God and have come to a definate 'maybe yes-maybe no. My readings of literature from the 'evangelical' atheists are that they do lots of thinking and writing to justify why they believe what they do and why you should believe their way too.
MidAmerica, I don't know
December 7, 2007 - 21:18 ET by hydrodynDMMidAmerica,
I don't know how much deciding there is when it comes to one's view on such things. I'm not an agnostic because of some compelling reason - it's just the way I am. I try to justify it, of course, but if the details of my life had been different, I might have ended up a theist or an atheist.
I think most people end up being what they are due to their own history and try to justify it after the fact. But that's just my opinion.
hydrodynDM - I
December 7, 2007 - 23:38 ET by MidAmericahydrodynDM - I think most people end up being what they are due to their own history and try to justify it after the fact. But that's just my opinion.
And I think that's the way it is for everyone. One of the greatest things in life is to know oneself. As a young man and after I had looked through all the closets of my mind I realized I had always been a Christian. It's the viewpoint I look at the world with. I can be a bad Christian or I can be a good Christian. I just can't be a non-Christian because then I would just be in self-denial.
MidAm
December 8, 2007 - 11:03 ET bytoo many people have beliefs at variance to their parents for me to accept your proposition. Is there a greater chance that someone raised in a house (or society) with a Christian (or atheist) worldview will hold that belief in adulthood? Yes of course.
"It takes a village" -- notes from the belly of the beast
I'm not quite sure what
December 8, 2007 - 13:26 ET by MidAmericaI'm not quite sure what you mean. I was refering to my self that through introspection (I am a boomer so I've been involved in a lot of searching) I realized I was at my core a Christian and there was nothing I can do about that. But I am talking about down on the deepest level of consciousness. Let me make an analogy. When we 'format' a disk we have set parameters of how information will be stored. The information stored on the disk can vary widely but it will all be in accordance with the format. I was just meaning I was formatted Christian. How and what type of Christian is up to my choices. I can even become an 'atheist'. But my atheism will always have an influence of Christian values.
Hate to butt in. I question
December 9, 2007 - 09:19 ET by danboHate to butt in. I question if agnostics are more analytical than athiest. For years I took the label of agnostic. I can neither prove or disprove the existence of a god. But I don't believe there is one. I couldn't make the leap of faith.
As I don't believe in god, it seems the default setting is athiest. I realized years ago, I was using the agnostic name to avoid some of the BS.
For all the libs who want to paint us as the religious right. There are a number of us athiest around here.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
}}---> danbo
December 9, 2007 - 09:27 ET by Cool ArrowThank God you're on our side.
That may not be to your
December 9, 2007 - 09:41 ET by danboThat may not be to your advantage. LOL
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Danbo-I can neither
December 9, 2007 - 13:38 ET by MidAmericaDanbo-I can neither prove or disprove the existence of a god.
Of course you can't. Nobody can. God knowledge is a goal. But you can never fully achieve it.
We cannot 'think' about something unless there are words/concepts we can use to 'think' it. As humans we analyze parts of things. A God that is everything and eternal is a concept we cannot imagine so we cannot 'think' it.
And for you atheists and agnostics:
It's not necessary for a God to actually exist for there to be a good reason to seek God. Nobody knows what the ultimate human potential is. If 'seeking' God opens up undeveloped potentials for the human experience, well, that's reason enough to start on the path.
MidAmerica, Your argument
December 9, 2007 - 14:27 ET by hydrodynDMMidAmerica,
Your argument seems to be that you can't prove the existence of something unless you can fully understand it. I don't think that is correct. Humans were aware of the existence of galaxies long before people understood what they were.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that the existence of God is beyond empirical verification because God is supernatural, then I'm inclined to agree.
Your comment on why atheists and agnostics might want to believe in God despite the lack of proof seems predicated on the idea that individuals can consciously decide to accept certain ideas on faith. Personal experience tells me that this isn't generally true.
And either way, there have been plenty of folks who have argued that rejecting the idea of God (or religion in general) opens up possibilities, so you would have to try to defend your view against theirs, which doesn't seem like an easy thing to do since it seems to depend on the nebulous idea of human "potential".
" individuals can
December 9, 2007 - 14:56 ET by danbo" individuals can consciously decide to accept certain ideas on faith". There's an old story about Sir James George Frazer, who wrote "The Golden Bough".
He's rumored to have said. It was time for him to move forward and study religion. But before he did, he put his own religious beliefs in his desk drawer. After studying it. He returned to find the drawer empty.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
hydrodynDM-Your comment
December 9, 2007 - 18:07 ET by MidAmericahydrodynDM-Your comment on why atheists and agnostics might want to believe in God despite the lack of proof seems predicated on the idea that individuals can consciously decide to accept certain ideas on faith. Personal experience tells me that this isn't generally true.
What I was generally aiming at is that since most men have throughout history, believed in a God and it is the unifying underpinnings to civilization perhaps we are wired by biology to seek God. In other words, just like a baby has to be taught how to be a member of society so maybe mankind has to 'learn' how to achieve it's potential by seeking a consciousness that is higher than just the here and now. It's a process that could take countless generations.
So I'm not asking you to seek the God of someone else's religion but the God of whoever you really are. You have to ask yourself. Who am I? really.....
This may sound really
December 9, 2007 - 14:34 ET by danboThis may sound really wierd. The question of the existence of a god isn't a big issue to me.
But the search for truth and finding the best for as many as we can is. There's a whole lot of reason to move forward.
As far as I know when I die that's the end. I can either cry about it. Or live as well as I can and do my part to make it good for as many others as I can.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo, There is a
December 9, 2007 - 14:13 ET by hydrodynDMdanbo,
There is a difference between not believing in the existence of God and holding the belief that there is, for sure, no God.
As an analogy, I'm agnostic about whether there is life on other planets - I simply don't know either way. But that is different than holding the belief that there is no life on other planets. In the former case, I accept that it's possible, even though in practice, I might work with the assumption that there isn't. In the later I reject the possibility all together.
I don't know if the agnostic approach is more "analytical" (whatever that means), but it appears to be easier to defend. To assert the non-existence of something (as atheists do with God) is strictly impossible from an empirical standpoint.
All I can say. "My
December 9, 2007 - 15:04 ET by danboAll I can say. "My belief." If I said I was agnostic, I feel I would be lying. (I'm not anti god. I just don't believe.)
But without the use of divine wisdom. the ones I 've seen lately using absolute knowledge are the Global Warmers.
Most of us are sane enough to know the limits of our knowledge.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Danbo
December 9, 2007 - 15:22 ET byand based on study, the prevailing scientific explanation is the big bang. The big bang points to a beginning of space-time-matter approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Thus we know there must be something beyond space-time-matter.
"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff
Well, Here's an agnostic.
December 7, 2007 - 22:56 ET by IamTinmanAll cultures and all species develop a set of rules which allows the members of the culture to coexist. Every human culture in existance has based theirs on some form of religion. The one chosen by this countries founding fathers was judeo christian in origin. The result has been the most successful culture in the world. Works for me even if I lack the moral certitude of either the atheists or the religious.
For us agnostics there's a lot to be said for living according to christian precepts regardless of whether one is a believer or not. A just and honorable god will take into account how you lived your life not what church door you walked into on Sundays. If there is no god then you have done little harm. It won't matter anyway in the grand circle of life, you'll still be worm food.
Tinman
December 8, 2007 - 11:10 ET byA just and honorable god will take into account how you lived your life not what church door you walked into on Sundays
Why would you believe that? To me it is equivalent to 'a just and honorable judge will take into account how carefully you drove not what side of the road you drove on' The point is (assuming God is) God has set his rules who are we to assume our own?
"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff
Bigot?
December 8, 2007 - 05:27 ET by PShannonIf you don't believe in a Creator and the rights of Americans come from our Creator, where do you get your rights -- the government?
The atheists have rights
December 7, 2007 - 18:12 ET by Carl KolchakThe atheists have rights here, and that's what makes our society unique. We definatly don't want to have a society that infringes on the rights of others who don't think or act like us, or else it will lead to many problems. As people of faith we have a responsibility to act as good examples in my opinion. I am pretty sure though that Sawyer could probably care less about how religion was viewed in atheist States, or if she was interviewing a militant athiest running for President, she probably wouldn't be concerened about how religious right's would be treated by that leader.
"The Chancellor-the late chancellor-was only part correct. He was obsolete. But so was the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete. A case to be filed under 'M' for Mankind in the Twilight Zone" Rod Serling
Don't follow your logic
December 8, 2007 - 05:49 ET by Jack BauerDon't follow your logic here.
Just because athiests have turned against God, doesn't mean God has turned against them, does it?
And the DoI didn't say...
Let's not travel down the path of picking who has rights
December 8, 2007 - 10:23 ET by ChrisMillsI hope this comment was made in jest. Jefferson wrote the line that way to imply that rights are something that each person is born possessing, therefore rights are not granted by government or anyone else. They simply exist. It is someone's right to choose against religious worship or religious beliefs. It's a dangerous practice to grant that rights don't exist for people who have not violated the rights of others. This is just the sort of idea that dems have when they suggest that we don't have the right to property or the right to be protected from terrorists and murderers. All those who do not violate the rights of others possess rights and anyone who denies that claim also legitimizes democrat ideology or the ideology of religious fundamentialism (e.g., Islmamic terrorist organizations).
Freedom and Religion
December 7, 2007 - 15:16 ET by allanfI cannot think of any free states that eschewed religion. Some great totalitarian states of recent memory, Russia, China and North Korea restricted religion.
The did so because the state and the leader had to be the greatest power on earth. The acceptance of an other divinity meant their word was not absolute?
Do you suppose Ditzy Diane understand this point?
As Rush Limbaugh said: "If you don't believe in God you will believe in anything".
So if you don't practice a
December 7, 2007 - 15:15 ET by Airforce_5_OSo if you don't practice a religion that means you are not free? That is a far reach there to make up news.
Laws are based on moral and just practices. What is right and what is wrong. Atheist, humanist, sun worshipers, whatever your religion have freedom here in the US.
Good grief people just because he didn't name every little nuance is just trying to make something up.
According to Helen Thomas and Professor Truth I am the Most Dangerous and Psychotic Individual on the Net. Airforce_5_O
According to Helen Thomas
December 7, 2007 - 18:01 ET by sunandsteelAccording to Helen Thomas and Professor Truth I am the Most Dangerous and Psychotic Individual on the Net. Airforce_5_O
Congratulations.
Do you get some kind of award for that?
What doesn’t kill you, only makes you pissed off. -Children of Bodom
"Jane (Diane), you stupid slut"
December 7, 2007 - 15:23 ET by RJYour PC babbling just makes you look like a fool.
Romney wasn't "denying" anything to anyone. Just because he lauded the power and benefit of religion to America, only the immature could whine "but what about me? Boo hoo, he didn't mention me."
Grow up.
Get it right, RJ...it's
December 7, 2007 - 15:40 ET by motherbeltGet it right, RJ...it's "you ignorant slut!" LOL
I commented yesterday that this is beyond stupid. What, every time someone mentions religion, he/she has to mention aetheists, agnostics, questioners, so no one feels "left out"?
This is like the homosexual thing...used to be gays and lesbians. then theyadded bisexuals, then transgender...and later on "questioning". Don't want to leave anyone out, you know. So now it's GLBTQ.
He didn't mention Wiccans or Druids either...how long before we hear from some of them?
Grow up for crying out loud!
Yes'm
December 7, 2007 - 15:44 ET by RJ....but I got the concept right, didn't I? That reminds me, what does the "belt" part of motherbelt mean? :^)
yeah, you had the concept
December 7, 2007 - 16:43 ET by motherbeltyeah, you had the concept right. I wonder how many of us here remember the early days of SNL....
MB
December 7, 2007 - 18:04 ET by MrShyI do :) I remember watching the first one in 1975, live :) (I was a kid, but I remember... or it was the second episode, probably... it had Richard Pryer as guest, I thiiink... or Steve Martin (or both?))
"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."
-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)
I do, and if I remember
December 7, 2007 - 19:22 ET by ConservativeRexI do, and if I remember he (Dan Aykroyd) was speaking to a woman (Jane Curtain) representing a Jane Alexander I believe. And both of who they were portraying were connected to 60 minutes I think. My memory gets kind of fuzzy concerning the 70's.
However, Dianne Sawyer remains a fool. Apparently, in any decade. How would anybody in the United States, above a two digit IQ, think that anyone could get away with saying someone does not have the right to believe anything/nothing/everything? It's just a fishing expedition by Sawyer, trying to get a rise out of someone.
Diane Sawyer
December 7, 2007 - 15:57 ET by joe3Her comments are unbelievable!!!Being able to distinguish personal opinions and policies from the moral and philosophical principles from which they are derived is essential to any intelligent debate on specific issues...Oh, wait a minute, she's a member of the MSM.
To loosely quote Winston Churchill, "Better to be silent and thought stupid than to speak and remove all doubt."
Joe3
moral vacuum (head)
December 7, 2007 - 16:16 ET by wizardjrWhen your whole life is spent in a moral vacuum a statement like "freedom requires religion." just goes right over your very empty head.
Because they cannot imagine what and why religion really exists for, except to prevent them from committing or supporting perversions, they have no basis to understand the moral foundation the religion provides to the practice of good citizenship. Take welfare cheats and the like. When the government sanctioned pick-pockets outnumber the providers, the system collapses. Moral citizens do not use public services unless there is an actual need. QED.
Mitt's Speech Was A Great One
December 7, 2007 - 16:29 ET by deerjerkydaveIt saddens me that Mitt had to give such a speech, it doesn't speak well to certain segments of the Republican party. A lot of people were nervous about what Mitt would say, but people forget that Mitt is not an empty suit. He has the best credentials of all of the candidates for President IMHO and therefore it was not surprising that he gave an amazing speech. It seems people's complaints about this speech are the result of just looking for anything to be critical about it.
BTW, I'm voting for Mitt Romney in the primary.
Diane (cow eyes) Sawyer
December 7, 2007 - 16:48 ET by pocomocoJust when I thought Sawyer had reached the bottom of the barrel, I find that she's drilled out its bottom.
Is ABC against having actual
December 7, 2007 - 17:10 ET by mattmIs ABC against having actual journalists talk to actual political commentators, rather than having a TV personality talking to a political operative for one of the candidates?
You are ridiculous,
December 7, 2007 - 18:23 ET by Andrew H.You are ridiculous, Dianne--I truly think one has to be rank stupid to be a "reporter."
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Religion and a free Republic are inseparable
December 7, 2007 - 20:38 ET by c5thenAs the Declaration of Independance states and the Constitution affirms, the people are soverign and their rights come from GOD, their creator, and are inalienable. The people delegate some of these rights to government in order to better secure their liberty and freedom. When the government no longer is serving it's primary purpose of securing the freedom and liberty of citizens to pursue their happiness, it is the right and the duty of the people to replace it.
If the government recognizes no acknowledged GOD from where the rights come, then any rights that people have are at the pleasure of the government and can be increased or reduced at it's whim. This was the basis for the arguments against a Bill of Rights. The premis is that all rights are held by the people and only those that are specifically stated are delegated to the governments via the Constitutions (state and federal). Having a Bill of Rights was seen as dangerous for posterity in that it could be misconstrued that the people have ONLY the rights spelled out in the first 10 amendments. It seems that the fears have come true.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08. RenewAmerica.us
Separation of church and
December 7, 2007 - 23:42 ET by GregESeparation of church and state, right to privacy, etc etc etc....none of which is in the Constitution but it is always claimed to be there.
Right to bear arms SPELLED out in the Constitution but is up for debate currently and always questioned by the Left.
Liberalism, a mental disease.
There's a reason why she's
December 8, 2007 - 01:29 ET by wiwfThere's a reason why she's a blond!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
-
December 8, 2007 - 21:33 ET by dahliatraversDiane, straighten up, sweetie. Your caring tilt is so extreme, you're about to tip over.
I believe the tilt dahlia
December 8, 2007 - 21:37 ET by BlazerI believe the tilt dahlia is possibly osteoporosis starting to set in, which is caused by..............yep, you guessed it George W. Bush and global warming.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
-
December 8, 2007 - 22:06 ET by dahliatraversDamn! And to think we could have prevented it ...