Redstate

.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

while I don't think specific theological religious beliefs should be at issue, I do think shared values/worldview is something that is a legitimate consideration.

I don't care much about one's abstract theological positions. I still believe, however, that one's religious beliefs often inform and influence public decisions as well as saying something important about one's character.

needn't be judged and found wanting simply because Christians no longer accept Arian doctrine.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

That a much more important concern for me regarding Romney is what his internal concept of an "assault weapon" is than anything regarding his religious beliefs. And I'd also like to know more about his views on state-funded abortions and his general theory of how to reduce the size of government. Those things are about 1,000 times more important to me than his religious affiliation.

Anyone who read his book knows that George Stephanopoulos was an alterboy in his father's Greek Orthodox church. In fact, that early experience "behind the scenes" at the Mass was a major theme in his book: "All Too Human" -- with pictures and everything.

What if Stephanopoulos decided to run for President? Greek Orthodox is not exactly a mainstream religion in this country, except in certain wealthy circles in D.C.

Can be found here. George Steph. was Bill Clinton's stage manager and alterboy I think precisely because of his past experience in the Church.

And people are castigating Romney??????????????????????

with this comment? Are you trying to say there there is something "Clintonian" about the Greek Orthodox Church? Many Orthodox believers are nominal Democrats because of their ethnic roots (much as many people of Italian, Irish, Polish etc. descent are nominal Democrats). But I don't think there's any strong tendency toward liberalism among the Orthodox, and certainly not toward theological liberalism. This is church after all that still seriously debates questions (and, less fortunately, still holds some grudges) from the early days of the Byzantine Empire.
All in all, the Orthodox are no more "bizarre", and no more (politically) liberal, than the Roman Catholics. You will find us all over the map in our politics. Should an Orthodox believers run for president (I know, been there done that with Dukakis, but he was by all accounts a "Easter-and-Christmas only" Christian) I don't think the American people would find the faith all that strange of threatening. Theologically, as long as you don't get into the really high-level stuff, Orthodox teachings and practices are fairly standard.

In fact, just the opposite. I don't think Steph's religion should have anything to do with it, even though he was the one who made it an issue himself in his book, with the photographs of his father and his church. Admittedly, Stephanopoulous' book was part autobiography, partly a chronicle of his time with Clinton, and partly a critique of Clinton the man and the President, but I still fail to see why Romney's religion is becoming so much of an issue.

George Stephanopoulos deliberately put photographs of himself at his father's church in his book. He was also Bill Clinton's right-hand man and media spin doctor. And he made the implicit connection himself that his service as an altarboy, working behind the scenes, had at least a tenuous connection to his future service in the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton said that "Nobody could do" what Stephanopoulos did for him.

All I'm asking for is a little bit of fairness. Romney's religion is becoming an issue primarily because the Democrats at the New Republic have siezed upon it as an issue. And Steph. can grill him for 1/3rd of his interview on Mormonsim. But very few people remember Stephanopoulos' clear and unambiguous references to his "ecclesiastical background" in his book.

I have nothing against the Greek Orthodox church. My uncle helped to build and refurbish one of the more spectacular examples in Washington, DC, as a matter of fact. I've been to Greek Easters at his home since I was a little boy, and I love both of them -- and I was present at my cousin's wedding in that Greek Orthodox church.

If someone wants to make hay about the religious affiliation of an important public figure, why isn't anyone talking about Charlie Rangle and his connections to the Church of Scientology? He's a very powerful man.

Too bad --- this is America, and we get to vote for whoever we want to, regardless of their religion. We can vote for a Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Methodist, Mormon, Baptist or anyone. Because we're supposed to have freedom of religion.

Now, I didn't know about Rangle's connections to the Church of Scientology -- wasn't that "religion" supposed to have been started by illegal space aliens ... ?

Moni.., I mean, the Whale swallowed

Jonah

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

about a candidate's political or moral views on polygamy. It should be legal anyway. I don't approve of it, but that's true of a lot of consensual practices that ought to be legal.

If only we could freely express opinions and observations about racial and cultural differences as well.

Mitt and I have been discerning fact from fiction for years. I am a Christian that accepts the parts of the bible that are meant to be literal truths on faith, especially the part where mine and Mitt's saviour rose from the dead. A God that can create this world, become man via a virgin birth, and rise from the dead could do anything, including the events you describe in the Book of Mormon.

My problem is that democrats and john mccain belive man warms the earth so much that we can only solve the problem by divesting all our wealth to the UN.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

A God who could become man and rise from the dead surely could do anything in the Book of Mormon or anything else He wanted to do. Hopefully we will all find out what He has actually done someday.

Maybe we should agree that the radical environmentalists are the "belief group" deserving are target.

http://michigandersforromney.com/

For instance, they might believe in a constitutional right to abortion. Now I know for SURE that that doesn't exist, whereas I can't be completely sure - not completely sure - that the Angel Moroni didn't hand those gold plates to Joseph Smith.

I was not present at the ressurection and belive on faith. I was present at a Kreskin performance and do not belive. I am a Bible Beleiving Christian. I accept no additions or subtractions from the canon based on the Bible's own testimony about itself. Books are required to explain this.

But my faith is in Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Mitt has faith that certain miraculous events occurred about which I do not have faith. Mitt also has a record of public servicethat seems to suggest he is able to discern fact from fiction in his public duties.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Ok, gamecock, I take your last point, but do the preceding seven sentences indicate that you accept a category of factual claims where actual evidence is irrelevant?

So, how do you distinguish Mitt Romney's "faith" (assuming it exists) that the Angel Moroni gave gold plates to Joseph Smith from the type of beliefs that would lead you to conclude that the person believing them wasn't able to properly evaluate facts?

For example, when you come across a person who believes that John Edwards (the TV verson) literally talks to dead people, don't you tend to mark them down as gullible and simple-minded? How do you distinguish?

Would you take the same view towards a Scientologist who was running for President?

directed to the dead person. My parents are deceased. Do you believe me? If so, I would not let that fact prevent me from voting for you.

I have never had a problem identifying the gullible and simple-minded. The unkept hair and gapped teeth usually give them away.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I just didn't expect them to hear me!

(I think I understand where you're coming from and I sense I'm on the verge of exhausting your patience, so let me just thank you for answering my questions).

we are dealing here with the matter of faith. And I am one that is very protective of correct doctrine within my church, denomination, and Christianity generally. But having attended a multi-denominational church, I see the practicality of denominations as that way the minor issues are settled and you can then concentrate on Go Ye.

I would also say that much of the bible's miracles do have evidence to support them beyond faith, but it still comes down to faith.

Let me also confess this. When someone tells me they are an atheist, I do think less of the person's intellect, judgment and mental health.

Why? And I think this goes to the crux of your question.

Because all men hear the still small voice. All men see the world and contemplate time and the beginning.

All men have seen dog poop and understood that it was created by a dog.

We see a universe. It was obviously created.

So when I consider the universe of people that believe in God and those that don't, I credit the believers.

I have not studied the specific beliefs of Mormons for many years. But my position on same is not that they can't be true, but that they are not true.

I am a Baptist. I believe what Baptists believe. I am under the authority of Scripture.

Mitt is under the Authority of other texts, but his behavior shows that such authority does not conflict with reality discernment in the here and now.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I found this a very interesting and honest comment:

Let me also confess this. When someone tells me they are an atheist, I do think less of the person's intellect, judgment and mental health.

Because all men hear the still small voice. All men see the world and contemplate time and the beginning.

As you know, I'm an atheist, but I know the small voice you speak of. It's just that I understand it as the product of an evolutionary process that has favored individuals with inquiring minds and a strong fear of death.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

It is tempting to think that all people should think as I do. As it happens, I am an atheist, like you. Surely all intelligent people should be? Except that I try to judge by evidence. And the evidence is very clear. A great many intelligent people disagree with me on this. Just as many disagree with Gamecock, Mitt Romney, Thomas, and just about everyone else.

The fact is that the vast majority of intelligent, sane, people are wrong on matters of religion. They simply have to be, because intelligent sane people hold such a huge variety of views that all but a tiny minority must be wrong.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

I'm curious if there is a line that you'd draw. I wonder if Gov. Romney's religion would get a "not to be discussed" request if he was a Scientologist or Hindu or Muslim.

That, Socrates, is an approach I can't take at face value. The claims of the various religions would, if true, be the most important facts known to humanity. I think they ought to be taken seriously, and therefore subject to the a level of scrutiny commensurate with their potential significance. I'd also observe that the most deeply religious people of my acquaintance have no qualms about discussing their beliefs: to the contrary, they generally welcome and enjoy it. After all, they are things that they have thought about deeply themselves and consider central to their understanding of the world.

When I see edicts such as yours, I can't help but suspect that it reflects, consciously or unconsciously, a feeling that religious beliefs don't actually stand up to close scrutiny, but that they are important to preserve for reasons other than their literal truth. That is a whole other debate, and by no means an illegitimate view, but it's one that I would rather have directly rather than be told to yield to it by biting my tongue concerning the truth of religious claims.

important claims to all men. WAY more important than politics. They concern the reason you were created and how you may receive the gift of eternal life as a son of your creator. This gift is above politics. I would love nothing more than share the Good News with you and try to answer your questions. I will only do so under two conditions:

1-It be done outside any discussion of any political candidate; and

2-You read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis first.

Start with this first chapter of a thin book and get back to me here or e-mail me:

The Law of Human Nature
From Mere Christianity by C S Lewis

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' - 'That's my seat, I was there first' - 'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm' - 'Why should you shove in first?' - 'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine' - 'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the 'laws of nature' we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong 'the Law of Nature', they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law - with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised. If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to - whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties don't matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong - in other words, if there is no Law of Nature - what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other book, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money - the one you have almost forgotten - came when you were very hard-up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done - well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it - and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently. The truth is, we believe in decency so much - we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so - that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

GC, I will read that book as soon as I find the time (I found it online). Will let you know when I'm done.

I wouldn't hold out too much hope, though, at least based on the first chapter. Although they remain somewhat speculative, I'm much more convinced by evolutionary explanations for moral feeling than I am by the idea that they must be devinely inspired. I can't help feeling that that idea is only convincing if you already believe in the existence of a god. If you see no other evidence of a deity, I don't see how the existence of morality has any real explanatory power with respect to the central question.

In fact, CS Lewis argues that God's work thru thru the Holy Spirit is evolutionary, ie to chage us into Godly creatures

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

to Mitt's ticket might help with the GOTReligiousV but at a huge cost amongst those with have an oldfashioned view that religious beliefs are a private virtue.
And to the increasing number who are skeptical of faith-based policy making. Religious tolerance for most means religion kept at a healthy distance from the daily administration of government.