Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

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 Anonymousreply 2405/22/2013

They should be one. Like Utah.

by Anonymousreply 108/22/2012

Oh good lord.

by Anonymousreply 208/22/2012

Why America does not embrace theocracy? It work so well!

by Anonymousreply 308/22/2012

Looks like MR thinks he doesn't need to die to become GOD (of his own planet).

by Anonymousreply 408/22/2012

Republicans fucking SCARE me.

by Anonymousreply 508/22/2012

Fucking liar. He knows better and still he pushes this crap.

by Anonymousreply 608/22/2012

I didn't that's what Mormons believed.

by Anonymousreply 708/23/2012

Well, R7, it is called the Church of Jesus Christ &c.

by Anonymousreply 808/23/2012

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 Anonymousreply 908/23/2012

By whom, Mitt? The Founding Fathers?

by Anonymousreply 1108/23/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1208/23/2012

R10, they are not Christian. Just because one of their central figures is Jesus Christ, that doesn't make them Christians.

by Anonymousreply 1308/23/2012

R12, Know any late night comics, or sarcastic paps who need some really good material?

by Anonymousreply 1408/23/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1508/23/2012

A wise man would say nothing.

by Anonymousreply 1608/23/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1708/23/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1805/22/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1905/22/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 2005/22/2013

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 Anonymousreply 2105/22/2013

Does Mitt know it's a lie? YES. In Boston and Cambridge, people know this stuff.

by Anonymousreply 2205/22/2013

Who the fuck is this twit?

by Anonymousreply 2305/22/2013

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 Anonymousreply 2405/22/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!