Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

Joe Nation wrote:

How can you tell? What set of applicable diagnostic (as opposed to agnostic -that's a joke) characteristics did you use to become a Christian Fundamentalist? More importantly, with a degree in Biology, what makes you stay one? (And please capitalize your field of study.)

I am a Christian Fundamentalist because that is the way I identify myself. I doubt that every other self-identified Christian Fundamentalist would accept me as a Fundamentalist because of some of the views that I have, but I have more in common with Christian Fundamentalists than I do with Evangelicals/Pentecostals.

http://www.une.edu/ur/webguide/style.asp

Following the Associated Press Stylebook you do not capitalize the first letter of an academic discipline if you would not capitalize it for other reasons:

"Lowercase fields of study, unless the words are proper nouns that would normally be capitalized: biology, humanities, English, French."

Quote:

Enjoy.
Those poor mopes are in there trying to figure out how all those fossils could have happened during the same flood, they are trying to figure out if some of them might have been in deeper water, meanwhile real Science is reconstructing viruses from 100,000 years ago from junk portions of our DNA . Did you read about that during your college career? Get the New Yorker from three weeks ago. Fascinating but not in alignment with Genesis.

Let me summarize my beliefs on this subject:

Darwinism:
01. There is no way to scientifically test (by experimentation) any explanation for the origin of the universe, the earth or the life therein. Anything anyone believes is a matter of faith. Darwinism and Creationism (in any form) are equally faith systems, neither being true science.
02. Micro-evolution, i.e., speciation by Darwinian mechanisms, may be possible within the narrow genetic limits of the kinds that God created. As some Creationists speculate, the "kind" of Genesis chapter 1 may indicate a higher level of classification than the species, genus or even the family.
03. Macro-evolution, i.e., the origin of higher taxa or levels of classification higher than the species, is impossible as far as science is concerned. There is no irrefutable observational evidence and absolutely no experimental evidence for macro-evolution. Any and all molecules to man scenarios are little more than science fiction.
04. No one will become a Christian simply because they do not believe in Darwinism. Neither will someone accept Darwinism simply because they reject Christianity. It is imperative that Christians study and understand Darwinism, but only so they can better understand correct Christian doctrine. Christians should not hope to convert Darwinists by disputing with them. The best a Christian can hope for in such disputes is that he can waste Satan's time by aggravating his servants while also diverting his attention from other Christians who may not be as able to defend the Christian faith.

Age of the earth
01. The Bible does not expressly say when God created anything. Neither does the Bible say how long it took Him to complete His creative acts since the translation of the Hebrew equivalent of "day" in the context of Genesis chapter 1 and 2 is disputed.
02. Science is incapable of telling us the age of the universe, the age of the earth or when life originated. No one was around to observe these events so we do not know what conditions must be duplicated in order to conduct an experiment with a control group in order to test any proposed hypothesis. And without experimentation, there can be no scientific explanation for anything.
03. There is some archaeological and documentary evidence that the earth has not always had 24-hour solar days or 365.25 day years. Furthermore, the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake gave us an ample demonstration of how the earth's solar orbit, and thus its day length, can be disrupted. Extrapolating the 24 hour day or the 365.25 day year back to Genesis Chapter 1 is pointless.
04. Since neither science, nor the Bible tells us beyond a doubt the age of the universe or the age of the earth or when living things originated, such matters must have no place in Christian doctrine.
05. Spiritual death and physical death are part and parcel of the same thing. You cannot have one without eventually having the other.
06. Any form of old-earth creationism that maintains or implies that any living thing suffered physical or spiritual death before Adam and Eve sinned is not supported by the Bible and must be utterly rejected. A God that would create something just to let it die is not a God worthy of worship. Death did not enter the world until after sin had entered the world and sin did not enter the world until Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Noah's Flood
01. The Flood was a worldwide event.
02. The physical dimensions of the Flood, as given in Genesis, are, no doubt, dependent on the earth's physical conditions at the time of the Flood. The earth's landscape has most likely been greatly altered since the time of the Flood. Just because Genesis says that the Flood covered the highest mountain, there is no reason to assume that the Flood covered Mount Everest because there is no reason to assume that Mount Everest existed in Noah's day or that it was then the world's highest mountain if it did.
03. The Flood killed all humans other than Noah and his family.
04. The Flood killed all land-dwelling, air-breathing animals other than the ones that had refuge on Noah's Ark.
05. The Flood killed all birds other than the ones that had refuge on Noah's Ark.
06. The Flood likely killed most aquatic animals, but it certainly did not kill all aquatic animals because the Bible gives no indication that Noah had any way to re-populate aquatic environments after the Flood.
07. Most, if not all, bacteria, protests and fungi likely survived the Flood either by entering a dormant state or being taken onto the Ark as a matter of course or by using the surviving organisms, that were not on the ark, as hosts.
08. Some plants certainly survived the Flood by either being taken onto the Ark or through the normal survival mechanisms found in nature (seeds, roots et cetera).
09. The Flood is not likely the first, nor the only, worldwide natural catastrophe the earth has endured and it is not likely to be the only cause of the earth's geologic column or fossil record.

Quote:

First of all, no, it's not. In case you are wondering, and I know you are not because wondering might cause you to doubt and doubt leads to sin, the universe is 13.7 billions years old that's with a margin of error of about 1%. Source: NASA WMAP A margin of error of 1% is better than most dads achieve when asked the ages of their own children but I am sure it won't be dogmatic enough for you because you believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God. Science doesn't work on being inerrant, it works from best, testable evidence.

There is no legitimate scientific evidence to support any particular age for the earth/universe beyond the period of recorded history- and there is even some doubt about recorded history.

Radiometric dating is perhaps the most commonly used "scientific" dating method. But these techniques are all based on assumptions- and assumption is the death of science:

1. Radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout history.

2. Neither parent, nor daughter nuclei have migrated into or out of whatever system is being dated.

3. The natural ratio of the parent to daughter nuclei has been constant for all time.

These assumptions don't hold true for something as basic as radiocarbon.

The first researchers to work with radiocarbon realized that radiocarbon decay rates in nature are not constant; they vary according to things like temperature and atmospheric pressure. Radiocarbon dating tests are conducted under standardized laboratory conditions. A radiocarbon date from a testing lab isn't an accurate indicator of age in the natural world. If we don't know when and to what degree the decay rates have changed over time in nature, we cannot create an accurate set of standardized conditions for use in the lab. (I discussed this issue earlier this year on another board, but the weblink to the information no longer works.)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4D71F3EF932A05756C0A966958260

Scientists are coming to the conclusion that accepted carbon dates for various materials may be wrong by as much as 3,500 years. Scientists try to calibrate carbon dates using tree ring dating, but tree ring dating itself is not reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluburun_shipwreck

A shipwreck found off the coast of Turkey had a cargo of firewood that was tree ring dated to 1316-1305 BC while the wood used to make the ship itself dates to sometime before 1400 BC, meaning that the ship was in use for about 100 years- something I doubt considering the stormy nature of the Mediterranean and difficulty sailors usually had in traversing it.

The shipwreck also had a scarab (a beetle-shaped magic charm from Egypt) that had the name of Pharaoh Aknaton's wife, Nefertiti, engraved on it. The tree ring dates for the firewood roughly correspond to the commonly accepted dates for Nefertiti, but carbon dates for the dynasty that included Aknaton and Nefertiti are inconsistent. The entire 18th Dynasty is usually dated from 1550 BC to 1295 BC with King Tut being around 1332 to 1322 BC (give or take a few centuries depending on whose chronology you use). However, some artifacts from the tomb of Tut have radiocarbon dates from as much as 600 years later.

So what's right? The chronology based on historical documentation, the tree rings, the carbon dates that agree with the historical chronology or the carbon dates that are off by over a half-century? We cannot reliably date materials from 3,000 years ago, but Darwinists are certain that the earth is at least 13 billion years old?

Quote:

Personally speaking, it is the adherence to dogma in the face of evidence and the total resistance to change. Had Western civilization adhered to the pronouncements of the Roman Popes and Luther and Calvin and the other Christian Mullahs, we would have been in the same state as Afghanistan is today.[/quote[

But your evidence is wrong and insisting that it is true in an act of faith on your part meaning that you are just as dogmatic as you claim Christian Fundamentalists are.

0 Replies

chumly worte:

Quote:

It would be much more accurate however to say I am posting to you for education / amusement / interest than it would to say I find a given posting of yours troublesome.

FWIW it's rare I find a given posting troublesome; after all it's an open forum and a bit of a free-for-all and nothing I say is likely to change anything.

However, I've learned - or been motivated to learn - one heck of a lot more by chatting with the denizens of A2K than I have by watching Star Trek re-runs.

By 'troublesome' I did mean in terms of logic. As to the rest, I certainly hope the crystal entity doesn't show up in your garage or backyard.

Quote:

Here you be:blatham wrote:
As a liberal, I perceive and acknowledge that many of our liberal or progressive values are greatly informed by quite old and traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism which have come up over 2000 years from, in part, the early Christian communities (there are other sources too, of course).
Here I be:

Do you in any way claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism" which would now not be present in "our liberal or progressive values" had there not been these "early Christian communities"?

If you do not in any way make said claim, then I see no relevance to your claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism".

Why?

Because the "notions of charity and egalitarianism" would be there regardless.

From a logicality perspective blatham you have not shown the causality you claim! It's clear that in some way* you claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism" which are present in "our liberal or progressive values".

But......

From a logic point of view, you cannot argue with specificity that "notions of charity and egalitarianism" are a product of "early Christian communities" unless you can successfully argue with specificity that similar "notions of charity and egalitarianism" would not exist without said product of "early Christian communities".

This is something you say cannot be done because you say "We of course don't have a world to look at where western civ evolved without Christianity."

Thus you present yourself with the impossible!

* blatham wrote: "So it's a matter of studying history and trying to tease apart the real and relative influence of earlier events, ideas, persons, etc"

You've run off the rails. You have ended up in the position where, to be logically consistent, you now have to hold that all such historical 'claims' or suppositions (eg "anti-semitic propaganda in Germany through the twenties and thirties contributed to the mindset which facilitated Hitler's final solution") are guilty of being fallacious. That cannot be correct. So you need to figure out where you made your error here.

Go back to Joe's post because he's got it. The "claim" I made is tempered, as it must be. I certainly cannot claim that all modern manifestations of human charity and egalitarianism derive from (are 'caused' by) christian heritage.

First, we can observe non-christian (even non human) examples of charity and an egalitarian urge. But more relevant to our little problem here is another one.

There's no 'hard science' way to determine such clear, direct and sole causality. We have no control to use as a comparison, say, a parallel universe where western civ evolves without christianity. Historical/sociological or anthropological questions/suppositions are almost all beset by this problem. Yet we surely aren't in the position where we therefore must hold that we have no means of measuring the 'truth content' of any or all claims made by historians. I could assert that Canada adopted a charter as a consequence of a 1913 murder of a black-haired prostitute in the Dutch West Indies. Or I could assert that Canada adopted a charter through a mix of at least partially identifiable and contributory historical precursors...Brit history, American history, even Greek ideas, etc. The first assertion is silly, the second is not.

Different disciplines use different criteria to establish the 'logical' merits of assertions made or theories advanced regarding causality. This is a classic difference between the 'soft' and 'hard' sciences. Historians can validly argue about the degree to which 40's german ideas were informed by earlier anti-semitic literature, of course. One historian might say "greatly informed by" or another might say "somewhat informed by". Neither is guilty of the fallacy you suggest my statement was suffering from. All you might validly protest re my assertion is that "greatly" is unwarranted according to your historical understanding. Your sentence I've placed in red speaks not to a problem with my assertion or argumentation, but rather to the simple fact that it is 'impossible' to subject most historical assertions to hard science levels of proof or verifiability.

I suggest also that you (or anyone) should get nice and clear on the "is to ought" element in the fallacy you ascribed. It's terribly common in less thoughtful peoples' rhetoric and thinking. Conservatives fall to it with some regularity in casting about for some basis to resist change. The most classic case I know of was the congresswoman from texas in the 30's (I think it was) who argued, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

0 Replies

joe

flaja said

Quote:

Christians should not hope to convert Darwinists by disputing with them. The best a Christian can hope for in such disputes is that he can waste Satan's time by aggravating his servants while also diverting his attention from other Christians who may not be as able to defend the Christian faith.

The silly bugger isn't even sharp enough to disguise his motives. The temptation to proclaim his righteousnous proves too great by far.

And ya gotta wonder, if he/she considers himself/herself to be better equipped than "other christians", what sort of shape are those poor devils in?

0 Replies

Everybody is maikng a big deal about the fact that Romney is a Mormon.

I dont remember the same being done to Harry Reid.
After all, he is a Mormon also.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Everybody is maikng a big deal about the fact that Romney is a Mormon.

I dont remember the same being done to Harry Reid.
After all, he is a Mormon also.

He wasn't running for Prez. Colorado has a high population of Mormons, so there wasn't much of a problem getting elected there. Similarly, if Romney was running for a legislative office in Utah, you wouldn't hear people complaining about it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Everybody is maikng a big deal about the fact that Romney is a Mormon.

I dont remember the same being done to Harry Reid.
After all, he is a Mormon also.

He wasn't running for Prez. Colorado has a high population of Mormons, so there wasn't much of a problem getting elected there. Similarly, if Romney was running for a legislative office in Utah, you wouldn't hear people complaining about it.

Cycloptichorn

So its the elected office someone is running for that makes the difference?

Why is Romney's or Reids relgion important at all?
It seems to me that there are to many people on both sides of the aisle that fear anything they dont undserstand.
Romney, Reid, and any other politician that is of a "different faith" then the majority arent devils, nor are they going to let their religion dictate how they do their jobs.
They might let their religion be a guide in how they make some decisions, but their first allegiance is to the Constitution and the country, and they know it.

I say that we should ignore a persons religion when they campaign, and decide based on issues, not religion.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Everybody is maikng a big deal about the fact that Romney is a Mormon.

I dont remember the same being done to Harry Reid.
After all, he is a Mormon also.

He wasn't running for Prez. Colorado has a high population of Mormons, so there wasn't much of a problem getting elected there. Similarly, if Romney was running for a legislative office in Utah, you wouldn't hear people complaining about it.

Cycloptichorn

So its the elected office someone is running for that makes the difference?

Why is Romney's or Reids relgion important at all?
It seems to me that there are to many people on both sides of the aisle that fear anything they dont undserstand.
Romney, Reid, and any other politician that is of a "different faith" then the majority arent devils, nor are they going to let their religion dictate how they do their jobs.
They might let their religion be a guide in how they make some decisions, but their first allegiance is to the Constitution and the country, and they know it.

I say that we should ignore a persons religion when they campaign, and decide based on issues, not religion.

Romney is a former Bishop in the Mormon church, if I recall correctly. I have no desire to overlook this important fact.

I believe that if people believe in a crazy religion - and many aspects of Mormonism are crazy - they shouldn't expect anyone to ignore this fact.

Why is it that we are only allowed to come to positive conclusions about religiosity of candidates? Romney and Huck constantly pump up their religious credentials; they can't expect to have it both ways.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Why is it that we are only allowed to come to positive conclusions about religiosity of candidates? Romney and Huck constantly pump up their religious credentials; they can't expect to have it both ways.

I am not saying that you cant come to whatever conclusion you want to,actually I'm saying the opposite.

You are free to jump to any conclusion you want to.

I am saying that IMO religion shouldnt matter.

0 Replies

Cyclo wrote

Quote:

I believe that if people believe in a crazy religion -- and many aspects of Mormonism are crazy -- they shouldn't expect anyone to ignore this fact.

They are different but no more "crazy" than the beliefs of Christianity or any other religion.

As for why religion has become such a hot topic. That is one more abomination we can lay at the feet of Bush and the religious right.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Everybody is maikng a big deal about the fact that Romney is a Mormon.

I dont remember the same being done to Harry Reid.
After all, he is a Mormon also.

He wasn't running for Prez. Colorado has a high population of Mormons, so there wasn't much of a problem getting elected there. Similarly, if Romney was running for a legislative office in Utah, you wouldn't hear people complaining about it.

Cycloptichorn

So its the elected office someone is running for that makes the difference?

Why is Romney's or Reids relgion important at all?
It seems to me that there are to many people on both sides of the aisle that fear anything they dont undserstand.
Romney, Reid, and any other politician that is of a "different faith" then the majority arent devils, nor are they going to let their religion dictate how they do their jobs.
They might let their religion be a guide in how they make some decisions, but their first allegiance is to the Constitution and the country, and they know it.

I say that we should ignore a persons religion when they campaign, and decide based on issues, not religion.

I think you're being purposefully dense, although admittedly with you its hard to be sure. There are all KINDS of things the electorate is willing to overlook during campaigns for lesser offices. there are muslim and openly gay congressmen, for example. The campaign for POTUS naturally gets much more intense scrutiny. And you should know that.

0 Replies

As usual religion has shown itself the hotbed of both divisiveness and bigotry

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

chumly wrote:
Quote:
It would be much more accurate however to say I am posting to you for education / amusement / interest than it would to say I find a given posting of yours troublesome.

FWIW it's rare I find a given posting troublesome; after all it's an open forum and a bit of a free-for-all and nothing I say is likely to change anything.

However, I've learned - or been motivated to learn - one heck of a lot more by chatting with the denizens of A2K than I have by watching Star Trek re-runs.

By 'troublesome' I did mean in terms of logic. As to the rest, I certainly hope the crystal entity doesn't show up in your garage or backyard.

Quote:
Here you be:blatham wrote:
As a liberal, I perceive and acknowledge that many of our liberal or progressive values are greatly informed by quite old and traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism which have come up over 2000 years from, in part, the early Christian communities (there are other sources too, of course).
Here I be:

Do you in any way claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism" which would now not be present in "our liberal or progressive values" had there not been these "early Christian communities"?

If you do not in any way make said claim, then I see no relevance to your claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism".

Why?

Because the "notions of charity and egalitarianism" would be there regardless.

From a logicality perspective blatham you have not shown the causality you claim! It's clear that in some way* you claim that these "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism" which are present in "our liberal or progressive values".

But......

From a logic point of view, you cannot argue with specificity that "notions of charity and egalitarianism" are a product of "early Christian communities" unless you can successfully argue with specificity that similar "notions of charity and egalitarianism" would not exist without said product of "early Christian communities".

This is something you say cannot be done because you say "We of course don't have a world to look at where western civ evolved without Christianity."

Thus you present yourself with the impossible!

* blatham wrote: "So it's a matter of studying history and trying to tease apart the real and relative influence of earlier events, ideas, persons, etc"

You've run off the rails. You have ended up in the position where, to be logically consistent, you now have to hold that all such historical 'claims' or suppositions (eg "anti-semitic propaganda in Germany through the twenties and thirties contributed to the mindset which facilitated Hitler's final solution") are guilty of being fallacious. That cannot be correct. So you need to figure out where you made your error here.

Go back to Joe's post because he's got it. The "claim" I made is tempered, as it must be. I certainly cannot claim that all modern manifestations of human charity and egalitarianism derive from (are 'caused' by) Christian heritage.

First, we can observe non-Christian (even non human) examples of charity and an egalitarian urge. But more relevant to our little problem here is another one.

There's no 'hard science' way to determine such clear, direct and sole causality. We have no control to use as a comparison, say, a parallel universe where western civ evolves without Christianity. Historical/sociological or anthropological questions/suppositions are almost all beset by this problem. Yet we surely aren't in the position where we therefore must hold that we have no means of measuring the 'truth content' of any or all claims made by historians. I could assert that Canada adopted a charter as a consequence of a 1913 murder of a black-haired prostitute in the Dutch West Indies. Or I could assert that Canada adopted a charter through a mix of at least partially identifiable and contributory historical precursors...Brit history, American history, even Greek ideas, etc. The first assertion is silly, the second is not.

Different disciplines use different criteria to establish the 'logical' merits of assertions made or theories advanced regarding causality. This is a classic difference between the 'soft' and 'hard' sciences. Historians can validly argue about the degree to which 40's German ideas were informed by earlier anti-semitic literature, of course. One historian might say "greatly informed by" or another might say "somewhat informed by". Neither is guilty of the fallacy you suggest my statement was suffering from. All you might validly protest re my assertion is that "greatly" is unwarranted according to your historical understanding. Your sentence I've placed in red speaks not to a problem with my assertion or argumentation, but rather to the simple fact that it is 'impossible' to subject most historical assertions to hard science levels of proof or verifiability.

I suggest also that you (or anyone) should get nice and clear on the "is to ought" element in the fallacy you ascribed. It's terribly common in less thoughtful peoples' rhetoric and thinking. Conservatives fall to it with some regularity in casting about for some basis to resist change. The most classic case I know of was the congresswoman from Texas in the 30's (I think it was) who argued, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

Perhaps you miss the underlying point in my argument?

Do you not see the difference between your argument as per potential causality as it relates to "early Christian communities provided traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism" and your argument as per potential causality as it relates to (you have given a number of examples) the specificity of the British influence on Canadian politics?

You should, as you make this self-same argument here: "I don't accept the thesis that faith precedes the impulse towards humanitarian behavior or empathy because they are evident not only in all human societies but also clearly evident in observations of primate behavior."

Thus, as you argue for a level of causality in both examples, the burden of proof must be higher on the first example. You have not done this and I call out such considerations in reference to Argumentation Theory and Logical Fallacies.

You being a Zappa fan: this is the "crux of the biscuit".

You should now understand why I have not "run off the rails" and why I have not "ended up in the position where, to be logically consistent" I now "have to hold that all such historical 'claims' or suppositions as guilty of being fallacious."

As discussed, it is you who is not being logically consistent with your comparisons by using a similar level of burden of proof in both examples. Nice post BTW, I get to find out stuff while being a bit contrary, how can you beat that?

0 Replies

chumly

You are right in this sense...that the causal or historical links between the one example (canada/britain) are much more easily identifiable than in the other example (my initial assertion of modern institutions being informed by early christian ideas). It is certainly easier to contest the second than the first.

But it isn't primarily or even properly understood as a logical problem. It is a problem related to historical studies and theses. Perhaps you read or perceived that I made an assertion more strongly than I ought to have. OK, I'd disagree but can understand the critique.

After all, you probably wouldn't want to argue the converse...that our modern institutions (like government) are totally devoid of influence from christian heritage as regards ideas on charity and egalitarianism. Your hesitancy would be not merely a consequence of holding off on such an absolute claim (how could it be verified, after all) but also because you'd probably consider the claim to be historically false.

Are you familiar with logical positivism? It seems to me a salutary example of how a desire for the certainty of hard science formulae and protocols can turn a lot of very smart people into something like anal retentives or ideological puritans...to their own detriment.

0 Replies

ps...and its a pleasure for me too. You always challenge me to think clearly.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Everybody is maikng a big deal about the fact that Romney is a Mormon.

I dont remember the same being done to Harry Reid.
After all, he is a Mormon also.

He wasn't running for Prez. Colorado has a high population of Mormons, so there wasn't much of a problem getting elected there.

I imagine that it would have been far more difficult for Reid to be elected from Colorado because of the fact that he's from Nevada than because of the fact that he's a Mormon.

0 Replies

You boys from Chicago are always so picky about politics.

But not about voters.

Joe(living, dead, missing, ...they all can vote.... and vote often.)Nation

0 Replies

Roger Cohen: The Euro-American religious divide

By Roger Cohen Published: December 12, 2007

ST. ANDREWS, Scotland: The cathedral here, on which work began in the 12th century, was once the largest in Scotland, until a mob of reformers bent on eradicating such lavish manifestations of "Popery" ransacked the place in 1559, leaving gulls to swoop through the surviving façade.

Europe's cathedrals are indeed "so inspired, so grand, so empty," as Mitt Romney, a Mormon, put it last week in charting his vision of a faith-based presidency. Some do not survive at all. The Continent has paid a heavy price in blood for religious fervor and decided some time ago, as a French king once put it, that "Paris is well worth a Mass."

Romney, a Republican candidate for the presidency and former Massachusetts governor, was dismissive of European societies "too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer." In so doing, he pointed to what has become the principal trans-Atlantic cultural divide.

Europeans still take their Enlightenment seriously enough not to put it in quote marks. They have long found one of its most inspiring reflections in the first 16 words of the American Bill of Rights of 1791: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Thomas Jefferson famously saw those words as "building a wall of separation between church and state." So, much later, did John F. Kennedy, who in a speech predating Romney's by 47 years, declared: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

The absolute has proved porous. The U.S. culture wars of recent years have produced what David Campbell, a political scientist at Notre Dame University, called "the injection of religion into politics in a very overt way."

European sources of alarm at George W. Bush's presidency have been manifold, but unease at his allusions to divine guidance - "the hand of a just and faithful God" in shaping events or his trust in "the ways of Providence" - has been particularly acute.

Such beliefs seem to remove decision-making from the realm of the rational at the very moment when the West's enemy acts in the name of a fanatical theocracy. At worst, they produce references to a "crusade" against those jihadist enemies. God-given knowledge does not take kindly to oversight.

But Bush is no transient phenomenon; he is the expression of a new American religiosity rather than the creator of it. Romney's speech and the rapid emergence of the anti-Darwin Baptist minister Mike Huckabee as a rival Republican candidate suggest how distant the American zeitgeist is from the European.

At a time when growing numbers of Americans identify themselves as "born again" evangelicals, and creationism is no joke, Romney's speech essentially pitted the faithful against the faithless while attempting to merge Mormonism into mainstream Christianity. Where Kennedy said he believed in a "president whose religious views are his own private affair," Romney pledged not to "separate us from our religious heritage."

"Religiosity now seems at least as important for public office as leadership qualities," said Karl Kaiser, a German political scientist. "The entrance condition for the American presidential race is being religious. If you're not, you have no chance, which troubles Europeans."

Of course, the religious heritage of which Romney spoke is profound. The Puritans' vision of "a city upon a hill" in America serving as a beacon to humanity was based on a "covenant" with God. As the Bill of Rights was formulated, George Washington issued his Thanksgiving Proclamation alluding to "that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be."

But if religion informed America's formation, its distancing from the political sphere was decisive to the republic's resilience. Indeed, the devastating European experience of religious war and intolerance played an important role in the founders' thinking. Seen against this backdrop, Romney's speech and the society it reflects is far more troubling than Europe's empty cathedrals.

Romney allows no place in the United States for atheists, who do not merit a mention. He opines that "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," yet secular Sweden is free while religious Iran is not.

He shows a Wikipedia-level appreciation of other religions - admiring "the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims" and "the ancient traditions of the Jews" - that suggests his innermost conviction of what America's true religion is. In all, masked beneath professions of tolerance, a faith-first Christian vision emerges.

Romney rejected the "religion of secularism," of which Europe is on the whole proud. But he should consider that Washington is well worth a Mass. The fires of the Reformation that destroyed St. Andrews Cathedral are fires of faith that endure in different forms. Jefferson's "wall of separation" must be restored if those who would destroy the West's Enlightenment values are to be defeated.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Everybody is maikng a big deal about the fact that Romney is a Mormon.

I dont remember the same being done to Harry Reid.
After all, he is a Mormon also.

more proof that we stinking liberals are in the majority. Watch your ass buddy. Unless you're in a room with a bunch of conservative christian republicans. then best to super glue it shut.

0 Replies

thanks au. I'd read that piece this morning and it helped me clarify what I find so distasteful and destructive about Romney's pander. Any affinity I had (it wasn't much but there was some) for the guy has evaporated.

0 Replies

Religion is the most despicable detestable detrimental factor in the world.

I will never accept approve acclaim any religion.

0 Replies

Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know