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.


Dec. 10th, 2007 09:56 pm (UTC)
Danger, Will Robinson, danger!
Living in Massachusetts, I'd like to say PLEASE don't let this man into the White House. He was Governor here because . . . ? He's a pretty boy? He ran the Olympics? Whatever. I thought people in MA were more intelligent than that.

Under the Romney regime in MA, our arts funding has dwindled to nearly nothing, our schools are LESS productive, college tuition has sky-rocketed, and many adult education programs were lost from his management. Yes, our state reps were able to ignore him and make gay marriage legal. But we lost many services, and his plan to force all MA residents to purchase health insurance was backwards. Rather than forcing the insurance companies to lower their rates so they're affordable, citizens now have to jump through hoops to find ways to get it, or risk being fined. Ultimately, he is a very rich man with very little compassion for the disenfranchised.

I didn't vote for him then, and I will not vote for him in the future. And it has nothing to do with his religion. Altho, I will admit, he makes me very nervous around that issue.


Dec. 10th, 2007 11:09 pm (UTC)
Re: Danger, Will Robinson, danger!
Thanks for the comment from MA! I am not surprised to hear it, tho. Isn't he on his 3rd marriage to a very rich woman? Pure hearsay. =-]
Dec. 11th, 2007 11:48 pm (UTC)
Re: Danger, Will Robinson, danger!
Oh my, do not think that I have any intention of voting for him! I just like interesting discussions. :)

It sounds like his legacy is not entirely unlike the legacy left to Texas by W when he left for the White House those many (too many) years ago.



Latest Month

August 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars