Mitt Romney: Church State Separation Taken Too Far By Some
In an interview with the, Cathedral Age Magazine, Romney said those who "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God" aren't acting in line with the Founders' intent.
"I am often asked about my faith and my beliefs about Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."
|by Anonymous||reply 24||05/22/2013|
They should be one. Like Utah.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||08/21/2012|
Why America does not embrace theocracy? It work so well!
|by Anonymous||reply 3||08/21/2012|
Looks like MR thinks he doesn't need to die to become GOD (of his own planet).
|by Anonymous||reply 4||08/21/2012|
Republicans fucking SCARE me.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||08/22/2012|
Fucking liar. He knows better and still he pushes this crap.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||08/22/2012|
I didn't that's what Mormons believed.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||08/22/2012|
Well, R7, it is called the Church of Jesus Christ &c.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||08/22/2012|
Despite his not being a Christian and belonging to a syncretic theocratic cult, he declared the Constitution to be poorly written?
Go ahead, America. Elect him. And the 1960s will look like first grade fireworks.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||08/22/2012|
Mormons are Christian. Their theology is all about Jesus appearing to Native Americans.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||08/22/2012|
By whom, Mitt? The Founding Fathers?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||08/23/2012|
Yeah, Mormons believe in Jesus, but if he told the moronic American fundies even a tiny bit more about what Mormons believe, they would stay home in droves on Election day!
|by Anonymous||reply 12||08/23/2012|
R10, they are not Christian. Just because one of their central figures is Jesus Christ, that doesn't make them Christians.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||08/23/2012|
R12, Know any late night comics, or sarcastic paps who need some really good material?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||08/23/2012|
Why the fuck does their god even need to be acknowledged in the public square? It is so insane that these assholes cant string two sentences together without having to mention god or jebus or whatever silly dogma they subscribe to.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||08/23/2012|
A wise man would say nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||08/23/2012|
Mmm, Joseph Smith believed Jesus was married to at least three women R13. Mormons have never directly said "no, this is false" about this.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||08/23/2012|
Eight years ago, in an opinion warning of the “violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government,” retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor offered a challenge to her fellow conservative justices eager to weaken the wall of separation between church and state: “[t]hose who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”
Today, there are five justices on the Supreme Court who would trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly. And they just announced that they will hear a case that gives them the opportunity to make this swap a reality.
O’Connor was the Court’s leading supporter of the view that government cannot endorse a particularly religious belief or take action that might convey such a “message of endorsement to the reasonable observer,” and this view put her at odds with the four other members of the Rehnquist Court’s conservative bloc. When she left the Court, she was replaced by staunchly conservative Justice Samuel Alito, and most Court observers expected decades of precedent protecting against government endorsements of religion to fall in very short order.
Instead, the Roberts Court’s majority has thus far been content to chip away at the wall between church and state a piece at a time. In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Court immunized many Executive Branch actions from suits claiming they violate the Constitution’s ban on “law[s] respecting an establishment of religion.” And in Arizona Christian School v. Winn, they empowered government to subsidize religion so long as those subsidies are structured as tax benefits and not as direct spending. But the core question of whether the government can “demonstrate . . . allegiance to a particular sect or creed” likely still must be answered in the negative.
The case the Court agreed to hear today, Town of Greece v. Galloway, is likely to change that. The ostensible issue before the Court is whether a municipal legislature violated the Constitution’s ban on separation of church and state when it began its meetings with overtly Christian prayers roughly two-thirds of the time. Yet the case also explicitly tees up the question of whether a government “endorsement” of religion of the kind rejected by O’Connor is permitted under the Constitution. If you’re placing bets, the odds are overwhelming that five conservative justices will say that such an endorsement is permitted.
With O’Connor gone, the much more conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy becomes the swing vote on questions of church/state separation. Kennedy has held that “government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise,” but it is not clear that he would forbid much else under the Constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion. By the end of the next Supreme Court term, however, it is very likely that his views will carry the day.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||05/22/2013|
Mormons are not Christian.
Christianity does not recognize any "sacred books" outside the Bible.
Christianity does not allow for men to become gods.
Christianity does not condone polygamy.
Christianity does not elevate the desire for successful business dealings to a religious tenet.
And fuhgeddabout that "Jesus in America" craziness.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||05/22/2013|
[quote]"I am often asked about my faith and my beliefs about Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."
He also believes that Jesus and Satan are brothers, the biological children of Mr. and Mrs. God.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||05/22/2013|
It's a factual lie about history. "Under God" was not added to the pledge until 1954. "In God We Trust" was added in 1864.
The Founding Fathers would have approved of none of it. They were mostly "Deists," which is to say they pretended to be Christian because they would not have been allowed to hold office in colonial times without a church affiliation; but they had atheistic sentiments, needed to appeal to voters, a huge majority of whom were unchurched and resented colonial tithes being given to churches. They were very much for a SECULAR America and a strict separation of church and political spheres.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||05/22/2013|
Does Mitt know it's a lie? YES. In Boston and Cambridge, people know this stuff.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||05/22/2013|
Who the fuck is this twit?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||05/22/2013|
Why can't this fucking asshole just go away like other failed candidates for president?
Mitt, you're such a fucking asshole even God didn't want you to be president.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||05/22/2013|