?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I disagree with Mitt Romney. In his speech this morning he said that we should not elect or reject anyone based on their faith. I reject this statement. This is not the same thing as having religious tolerance.

Faith is believing in something without having proof of it. Faith is knowing something even though rationality does not bring one to such knowing. Faith is not inherently rational. So having faith in something does not make it true or real. If a presidential candidate has faith in something that I do not agree with, then that is solid basis for me to reject that candidate.

Tolerance is the willingness to accept and allow someone's beliefs and practices. I am willing to accept and allow Mitt Romney to be whatever flavor of believer that he would like. I am not, however, willing to give my vote to him. I tolerate his religion and I oppose his election. The two are compatible.

Last but not least, let me point out that Romney used the word "should" in his argument. Should we do everything that someone tells us we should? Should is the language of authority, telling us what to do. Should does not explain its reasons, it just tells us what is right or wrong according to the speaker of the should. To me, the word should is a huge red flag, and whenever it is used, the statement it supports will be questioned.

Comments

(Anonymous)
Dec. 7th, 2007 05:03 am (UTC)
LDS is more powerful than most people realize
I like the idea of "smaller" religions getting more public with our rituals. The candidate who would deal best with that is my favorite: Ron Paul. We'd see some real freedom of religion were he elected.

My issues with Romney's religion go much deeper than just not agreeing that his "faith" is irrelevant to my vote. It is worth studying up on Mormonism because it is growing so fast, and because it has such a hold on a lot of the businesses of the west. He can claim to act independently of his church, but I don't believe it. They will plague him until the day he dies and there is no escaping the fact that his church would actively influence his choices if he were elected. The only good thing about the Latter Day Saints having a candidate up is that they have the power to possibly be organized enough to prove that the Neocons have the voting machines rigged. He's betting that he can get the "good Christians" to vote for him because he's willing to swear on a bible and all, but I wonder if they are that ignorant. Are they that ignorant? We shall see. I have been apalled in the past at what people will vote for.
kellamaste
Dec. 7th, 2007 05:13 am (UTC)
Re: LDS is more powerful than most people realize
I actually have studied up on the Mormons, and what I know frightens me, has frightened me for a long time. I've known several people who are Mormon. Usually they are very good about not evangelizing, which is nice, though they are usually willing to discuss it civilly, which is more than I can say for many Christian denominations. :)

My favorite was the look on an Elder's face when I told him I already knew about LDS and it wasn't for me. Such a cute little shocked face.
liveonearth
Dec. 7th, 2007 05:28 am (UTC)
not for you
I'm proud of you! And I would have loved to see that face.
I have some personal friends who are Mormons, and they would never let on the stuff that I have learned about them from other sources, but when I ask them direct questions they appear to answer honestly! They're very likeable. And Romney is handsome. Danger. Americans vote for the pretty candidates.

Profile

moon
liveonearth
liveonearth

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars