I like to call him SHIT ROMNEY

The LA Times really liked his speech, or that's the surface impression they're giving:
[snip]
So on Thursday morning, Romney stepped to the podium at the George Bush Presidential Library here to deliver an impassioned defense of religious liberties.

The speech drew inevitable comparisons with John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech about his Catholic faith. At one point, Romney even echoed Kennedy's words. Flanked by American flags, he pledged that he would not let his church dictate his policies.

"I am an American running for president," he said. "I do not define my candidacy by my religion."
[snip]

Impassioned defense of religious liberties?
CR*P!
Anyone who can say that 'freedom needs religion' isn't defending liberty, he's defendign religion.

Something tells me independents are not going to be moved by this. People who like to view themselves as "thinking" and not aligned with a party likely won't go for pandering to the right and dumping on other free thinkers.

Kennedy:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Does Mitt Romney disagree that "religion is a matter that lies solely betweeen Man & his God"? He seems to do so by insisting that government has a role in the public promotion of religious sentiment.

Calling this a "JFK Speech" is completely incorrect. It was, in fact, the exact opposite of JFK's speech, an anti-JFK Speech, as it were. It's hard for us to believe now, but in 1960, it was an article of political faith among most Americans, including the very religious, that American government should be secular and that the separation of church and state was a good thing. Religious people, in those days, still adhered to the belief that separation of church and state was the only real protection against government persecution of their own belief system. JFK's speech was directed to proclaiming his strict adherance to this view.

Romney, on the other hand, proclaimed his adherence to the Dominionist agenda and openly pandered to the theocratic wing of the Republican party. I was totally creeped out by the extent to which Romney used so many Dominionist codewords right in front of the MSM without a single one of them picking up on it.

One example of many. Did you hear Romney talking about "liberty" so avidly? Codeword. Seriously. When these guys talk about "liberty," they are not talking about the liberty that was the slogan of the American and French Revolutions. Instead, "liberty" to them means this:

"As in the natural, so it is in the spiritual. To the unsaved, unregenerate man, there is no true liberty. When a man is estranged from God he may possess, by the grace of God, the capacity to govern himself and keep himself under control, but he still remains a slave to sin. His nature remains corrupted and under the control of sin. His will is in bondage."

http://www.realitycheckradio.com/trueLiberty.htm

Now do you see why Falwell's theocrat factory is called "Liberty University?"

The Dominionists have a rather extensive word substitution code in which they have redefined most of the words ordinarily used in American political discourse to mean something quite different and, to those of us who don't want to live in the Christian version of Iran, quite sinister. Using this code, they can give speeches to to their followers in which they openly discuss their agenda while our ignorant somnabulent press sits by and nods approvingly, thinking all the Right Things have been said.

Yes, I know it sounds like Trialateralist/Bildberger conspiracy-theory nutjobberry, but its true. Check out Chris Hedges "American Fascists" for the details.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284461/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197043705&sr=8-1

And honestly, I was far more alarmed, but far less suprised when I found about this than when Josh explained the bathroom sex foot tapping code to us during the Larry Craig imbroglio.

I watched Romney's speech, which amounted to the pandering in which he specializes. Not only is the guy greasy, he's ignorant of the intent of the Fist Amendment establishment clause.

Thomas Jefferson explains clearly in his autobiography that at its very foundation our nation was created under God - not under Christ. This is particularly evident in Jefferson’s report of debate in the Virginia General Assembly (the oldest legislature of the U.S.) during its work of reviewing and rewriting the colonial legal code, to a form more appropriate “to our republican form of government”, an undertaking mandated by legislation proposed by Jefferson and adopted by the General Assembly.

A Committee of the Assembly composed of “Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Wythe, George Mason, Thomas L. Lee and myself”, Jefferson wrote, had divided the colonial code into statutes deriving from different historical periods “from the Magna Carta to the present”, to review and recommend appropriate revisions. The Committee (minus Mr. Lee who had died shortly after appointment) reported and recommended 126 different bills to the General Assembly on June 18, 1779, one of which, drafted by Jefferson, addressed religious freedom.

“The bill for establishing religious freedom”, Jefferson wrote, “I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it’s protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that ‘coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion’, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word ‘Jesus Christ’, so that it should read ‘Jesus Christ the holy author of our religion.’ The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew, the gentile, the Christian, and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”

And so it was Jefferson, perhaps the leading political theorist of his time, who, some 10 years before the U. S. Constitutional Convention, produced a draft of the constitution for the new state of Virginia, which Madison later crafted into the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Jefferson’s Virginia “Bill for Religious Freedom”, eloquently transformed by Madison, became the 1st Amendment guarantees of religious freedom. Madison was the craftsman - Jefferson was the architect.

In the ensuing years the Supreme Court has many times supported its church/state decisions by quoting Jefferson. From Taylor v United States (1879), the Court’s first decision under the religion clause, to Everson v Board of Education (1947), in which the Court used Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor in declaring “The first amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable”.

The guarantees of religious freedom for each of us, including “infidel(s) of every denomination”, were the creation of two prominent Virginia planters who chafed under the collar of the state established Anglican church, profession to which, in many colonies, was required for a citizen to vote or hold office, and financial support of which was mandatory and often coerced. Jefferson and Madison worked with George Mason and Patrick Henry and with Baptists and Presbyterians to finally, in 1786, disestablish the state church through the adoption by the Virginia General Assembly of Jefferson’s “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom”. Disestablishment soon spread through the South, and ended in Massachusetts in 1833 with the separation of the authority of the Congregationalist church from that of the civil government.

The facts are clear; some simply won’t allow space within their ridged ideological constructs for even a glimpse, some dismiss them as corruptions of “liberal judges.”

How many people are aware of Romney's status within the Mormon church as a High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood, the highest level of priesthood a Mormon may hold?

Seems this might be a significant distinction maybe?

The Mormon's also believe that it may be acceptable to violate some laws if it is perceived by them to be for their greater good.

There is a good reason for the seperation of church and state.

Shorter Romney: "I believe in freedom of religion. And anyone who insults MY weird, cultish religion is a shameless bigot. But those God-cursed atheists? We oughta burn those mofos at the stake!"

Very Kennedyesque.

Once the boomer's are gone then all will return to normal. Hold on to your hats for Great Depression #2. We need it to recycle the brain dead, the religious and restore our economy and country.

USA

Save your money, love your family and stay away from people who need any religious faction to live their lives.

Willard Romney belongs to a cult. What do you expect?

And what is this crap about when all the boomers are gone (plural, nor possessive).
I've heard this before. What do you thing the boomers are doing that will be gone when they are gone? Which, by the way, will be not for a LONG time. The last ones were born in 1964.

Wow -- seems everybody here got a different message out of his speech than I did. He didn't mention atheists in his list of religions he admires, but neither did he mention Buddhists or Taoists or Scientologists. Is that a slight on them? I don't think so -- mentioning every religion of the world would've seemed artificial. Instead, they all still have the rights to freedom of religion, just like anyone else, according to what he said, regardless of whether he mentioned them by name.

Jimbo, I agree that we should have separation of church and state, but that's exactly what Romney said!

As for Mormons believing it's acceptable to break some laws, here are the actual beliefs as states at the official LDS website (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html)

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

He said, "The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square... we should acknowledge the Creator, as did the founders, in ceremony, in word..." This doesn't establish a church, though I can see it being disagreeable to Atheists. But then I have to wonder if Atheism is a religion or a philosophy, and whether it needs protection under the Constitution. No church will ever be established forcing them to believe in God. But to mandate that no religions can display their beliefs in a Government setting, or to remove the Bible from the Oath of Office, for example -- that's the road towards the Marxist view that "religion is the opiate of the masses", and that clearly DOES inflict upon our rights to freedom of religion.

Maybe the discussion should be whether the First Amendment is worded right: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF". Me, I like it just the way it is.

A-Theists just have one less god than Christians or Mormons. After all, do they believe in yesterday's gods any more? Zeus or Thor or Sun-Ra or all the rest. We just go one step further. We atheists are not schizophrenic. We are whole and without an imaginary friend.

Look, we all know the only reason Mitt Romney even gave this speech was to try and save his bacon with evangelical voters. We know he believes in his Mormon faith and he's tired of people dissing him for it. So he's pandering AND defensive at the same time.

He's not about to try and govern effectively for anybody except 50.1% of the electorate he needs to win.

Because Romney and all of these GOP candidates don't want to lead this country. They want to lead ANOTHER country: one with one faith, no legal abortions, no taxes, and lots of guns. That's not America. if they want that country, then they'll have to secede from the Union.

The "boomer" generation refers to those that were born after all the men returned from the war. The last of the boomers might be the mid fifties, certainly not 1964.

Randy Taylor,

Did you hear the part where Romney said Freedom REQUIRES religion? Doesn't that say that non religious people don't have freedom?

Didn't you hear the part where Romney said secularists are WRONG to want to not have religion in the public square?

Didn't you hear the part where Romney said that no religious leader would tell him what to do as president but that his religious beliefs would help him in making policy decisions?

"There is no Freedom without Religon and no Religon without Freedom".

WTF is right...what about the Salem Witch Hunts...what about Medieval times??? did slaves to the church feel free?
this guy is another douche bag like the majority of them...get rid of him.

Does Mitt's America have room for Pastafarians?

Mitt's buffet-table list of "What I Like About Other Faiths" was condescending claptrap, proving Josh's point:

"Romney seems so transparently phoney, so willing to say anything that I find him genuinely frightening. And this is something I don't feel about any of the other credible Republican presidential candidates, though I obviously have criticisms of each. Romney seems almost like a caricature of the political phoney."

He's a suck-up, but to the direct object of his sucking-up, it's embarrassingly shallow. It's just that he sucks up so broadly that there's a lot of sucking up that people don't take personally.

The Supreme Court held: "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."
++++++++++++++++++++++
Could this be used as the foundation for a challenge to all of the tax breaks that churches and other religious organizations are given? They certainly don't pay their share!

OHMYGOODNESS, what has happened to my country? I was raised in a strong liberal Christian home. I have chosen another path now but my basic values are still deeply entrenched from my childhood religious training in the old and new testament.

I demand that God or whatever one does or does not call their higher power be kept out of the public square. More violence and damnation has been brought to bear under the various names of a higher power than anything else in the history of human kind. That alone should warn everyone of the dangers of letting any religious views become entrenched in the political mainstream.

There is a glaring example now with religious conservatism on both ends of the spectrum wanting each other dead and/or conquered..Christian conservatives, Muslims and somewhere in there, the Jewish State, trying to survive while the Palestinians are doing the same. When will we learn? Not in these generations, I think. In the meantime, keep your beliefs out of my life, please.

1964 is recognized as the final year of the baby boom.

And the matter of the tax exemption for religious institutes has been well litigated.

A brilliant attempt by Romney to try to flip the issue. His speach was clearly meant to downplay the differences in his religion to the tenets of Christianity by demonizing all non-religious.

Here's the numbers, though-
percentage of Americans who are Mormon- 1.5%
percentage of Americans who are atheist/agnostic- 15%

So essentially Romney is trying to marginalize a group of Americans TEN TIMES the size of the group to which his identity belongs. I think this further illustrates was a cynical and pathetic move this was.

Unlike JFK, who said that no group of Americans should be judged by their religion (or lack thereof), Romney is attempting to shift the focus away from the stranger aspects of his own set of beliefs by castigating another (though WAY LARGER) minority group. Very sad.

Mitt Romney said today that “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.” With that statement he revealed to us that a Romney government would be a theocracy. It would be complete abandonment of the separation of church and state doctrine. But you must believe in God, don’t you see? “Freedom requires it.”
Are we already at the point where this kind of thinking can represent the Republican party at the Presidential level?? This is just another layer of control the government will impose upon in addition to the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps. If we don’t stand up to this kind of demagoguery, we will lose our democracy faster than you can say fascism.

I believe that Mitt will be the Republican nominee and that he will be a tough opponent to any Dem. He will say and do anything to win, first pander to the right to get the nomination. Then as the nominee, he will run as the squeeky clean, "Christian", establishment Republican, businessman. And he's got deep pockets. I believe he will unite the party, selecting a real "Christian" as VP and bring back a significant number of business-oriented folks who are now flirting with other Republican candidates and the top tier of Dems. Be concerned.

The LA Times should have said

...an impassioned defense of (the) religious (taking) liberties (with the rest of us).

> Jimbo2K7 wrote on December 7, 2007 11:53 AM:

> How many people are aware of Romney's status within the Mormon church as a High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood, the highest level of priesthood a Mormon may hold?

Actually I think all that just means he is an adult *male* member in good standing. Mormon boys can start on the path to becoming "priests" at age 12 when they can become deacons. At around 18 they can become full-fledged "priests" and are then entitled to be called "elder".

However, Romney was a Mormon bishop (the religious leader of a ward or congregation) and a stake president (the religious head of several wards). These are orders of magnitude more significant that his "priesthood".

I'm an agnostic, leaning towards atheist. Mitt and the Mormons are so far out there in lala land that it is mind boggling. I agree with the Jesus freaks on the far right. We're crazy to elect our president from such a whacked out cult.

Note George Bush senior expressed the same thing, so it's fitting that Romney's speech was made at the Bush library. http://etymos.com/?p=66

But, but, but if we secularists succeed in establishing a new religion of secularism in America,it will immediately be banished from the public square because we have taken the separation of church and state too far...

I am SOOO sick and tired of Romney.

Here's what some real Utahns think.

So, I guess there is a religion test for every other American but Romney himself.
We have someone like that in the White House now, I hope we can move away from unamerican stuff like that - esp. from our leaders, or so-called leaders.
I have always said that the Family Values of republicans & Conseratives are NOT the same family values I have, and ever since Ronnie Reagan-zap They just prove me right.
Be Right - Vote Left!

Mitt Romney either doesn't have a clue or is just trying to pander to the religious right. Religion is the opposite of freedom. Religion is all about submission to a higher power. Religion is putting aside logic and free thinking for a strict, unitarian doctrine which is wholly restrictive of individual freedom. The initial establishment of the United States was based on escaping a draconian state-run religion. Our founding fathers tried to make sure that people could freely believe and practice any religion they chose (to themselves) and still be seen equally in civil circumstances. This was the primary reason why the protection of secularism was introduced into our constitution. To protect the Republic from the illogical, imperfect, and non-standard amoeba that is religion in Man.

Mitt, you should have said, "Freedom is both the antithesis and the protector of religion in America. In order for our society to continue to function, Freedom must continue to simultaneously oppose and support religion."

I wonder what the Islamofascists think of Mitt?

Romney sounds Not One Bit like Kennedy in his scary scary speech on religion.
In fact, he sounds more reminiscent of Hitler - with his absolutes - his pandering agenda toward a new religious order - his blatant 'black & white' on what our country is (or should be).
Think about it... I don't choose the Hitler comparison lightly.
Romney is plain creepy in this speech.
As an agnostic, I was offended and repulsed by most of what he said.
It is clear Willard Mitt Romney has absolutely no idea what America truly stands for... and men like him should be kept far far away from the legislative process.

I am an athiest, an I am glad that Romney is reminding the country about the existence of the Mormon cult. Magic underwear, anyone? Is there a place for religious nutjobs in America? You bet! America will survive the attack on reason, a reason that the nation was built on.
"One nation, within reason..." I like the sound of that.

Mitt is a pitiful, hypocritical, pandering, blow-hard.
Anyone foolish (i.e. retarded) enough to buy into the Mormon base of Joseph Smith reading 'hidden text from golden plates' seen inside a hat... and all that ridiculous hocus pocus is UNFIT to hold office in America.
Mormonism is a hair away from being Scientology.
Mitt is clearly incapable of rational thought.

Why is this even an issue? Why have we as a nation allowed the radical right, who have no tolerance or respect for anyone who believes differently than they, to lower the political debate to whose religion is best or acceptable. It's childish! It's, yes, unAmerican! It has to stop. If I remember correctly, it's these very people who basically demand a religious test that got us into the mess we're in now. If not for them, Bush wouldn't be in the white house. Now we're going to allow them to screw the country again?!

freedom from religion is the greatest freedom of all

I thought Jesus advocated loving all people. Why doesn't Mitt? What would Jesus think of this?

As a member of the UCTAA, I fear I will have no freedom in a Romney administration. I am wondering why any Republicans support this guy.

UCTAA? United Church of Tits and Ass?

Interesting comments, but you all miss one very important point. Many years ago, before the Mormons burned all the relevant books, I read the personal diary of a Missouri woman on the westward trail. She stated from personal experience that the Mormons were expelled from Missouri because their esteemed holy leader was caught with his pants down and in the act with a local minor. The Missourians were mad as hell and, wanting to hunt down and kill the Mormons, chased them out---to the off-the-beaten path Salt Lake City valley just before gold was discovered in California and the trail looped south right through Salt Lake. Oops! Fortunately, this information has been destroyed. Mormons represent Godliness! Huh?

I would not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstance because of his political beliefs -not his religious ones. Yes, religion plays an inappropriate role in politics. It is rule by the idiocracy. However, being Mormon does not make Mitt crazier than people like Bush. And, in all fairness, there is no mention that the #1 Democrat in the nation, Senator Harry Reid, is also Mormon.

I've got a hot news flash for you Mitt Romney. My father was an American atheist in addition to being a Republican who loved his country. He was also a decorated pilot in World War II. His plane was shot down several times but he just kept on going, for years. He flew a C-117 gooneybird very low over American ground troops in Europe, dropping supplies, ammunition and food to them. He was awarded a purple heart, the distinguished flying cross and a congressional medal of honor for his service. He was a prime example of Tom Brokaw's "greatest generation". Because he was not a religious man, according to Mitt Romney he is not a true American? And conversely, because Mitt Romney's a mormon (and not one of his five sons has the cojones to join with our troops in the middle east but instead are "serving their country" by working on Romney's campaign), he IS a true American? Stop me before I gag. Mitt Romney, I wouldn't have voted for you anyway, but now I have utter contempt for you and your moronic utterances. I hope your campaign crashes and burns. I know it will.

It seems the Republicans just can't get away from the "divide and conquer/find a scapegoat" mentality. It's a little disturbing -- but revealing. There's no truth that they can get behind in order to make their case. It's always deflection and manipulation, and usually at some bystander's expense.

If you can't make your case by building on the truth, then it's a good bet you have no case to make.

We are listening in on a conversaton between religious fundamentalist. There coded messages may leave outsiders confused, but there is no doubt of the meaning of Mitt's words to the "true believers". If you are not afraid now, you better be should Romney be elected!!!

I'm a Mormon (Thanks for all the cult and magic jammies comments, guys. I love you too!) and I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in the rights of all to choose their path in life - religious or otherwise. I've been completely dismayed by Romney's shift from moderate positions to cow towing to the evangelicals. How in the world did this little faction gain so much control??? I think it is all about our broken primary system where states like South Carolina and Iowa basically choose our presidential candidates. We've just got to take control by caucusing in our own states to keep secularism alive in our government.

I'm also an ecologist who believes in evolution...and Huckabee's creationist delusions make me as uncomfortable as Romney's pandering.

After reading every entry on this page, I can honestly say this is the most ridiculous argument ever. First, your facts are all not so factual, your assumptions are erroneous, and your quotes are all taken way way way out of context.


All I hear from my liberal friends is emotionally-charged attacks on one or two sentences of Romney's speech. Never is the whole thing taken into consideration. Never is it mentioned on this site the part where he acknowledges that not all people believe in Jesus as he does (which I assume means agnostics, budhists, etc.) and refers to the symphony of beliefs as a necessary part of our nation.


Take the speech for what it is: a declaration that yes, the majority of people in America have faith in some kind of "god" figure, (85% according to figures of 15% atheist mentioned above, which is well above the 50.1% he needs to win any election) and that attempts to take "god" out of our city square is not American, as the founders were sure to include God (yes, I know the whole Jesus thing was previously and laboriously presented here), and that people questioning his candidacy because of his religion is unethical and inappropriate. Talk about a run on sentence.


Mormonism helps its followers live moral lives, healthy lives, community- and service-oriented lives, but if that is called a cult (as was every major religion at some point in history), then so be it. It's hasn't seemed to stop it.


Furthermore, for all you people who think you are being persecuted for being atheist or agnostic or whatever, Mitt is really your only viable candidate. As with Reid D-Nevada, mormons are the only group of people who know what it is like to be persecuted in this country for religious beliefs. It was still legal to murder Mormons in Missouri until 1976! The next time someone passes state law that says atheists can be legally exterminated, come back and talk.


Until then, get your facts straight, don't leave out details or reason, and consider the other side before passing judgment. You may find a Mormon candidate holds more reason than someone using the golden rule (Matthew 7:12 quoting Jesus) as a basis for their moral standard while calling himself an atheist.

A quote from John Adams:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.... (John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]; from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free
Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 258.)

The word "atheist" is not quite the proper word to use. "Atheist" is a Xtian/religious term that THEY use to describe non-beleivers. But it's not quite CORRECT. It involves a mental presupposition. There is NOTHING not to believe in the first place. They say you're an "atheist", which presupposes that the Holy Three-Some actually exist to begin with. And that we just CHOOSE not to "believe" or "doubt" the religious "reality" that they are so craftily clever at spinning. But, as the human race gets more educated, and as the old ignorant bluehairs die off, good riddance, humanity will slowly be freed from myth. No matter "atheist" or "agnostic" is actually stands for LOWLIFE, amongst the nutsack believer crowd.

AC, like a true mormon, is spreading mormon lies on here. I doubt that she/he is actually the liar, just ignorant of mormon history and repeating lies she/he was taught in church. It was NOT legal to kill mormons in Missouri until 1976. But they teach that in mormon sunday schools and seminaries. Do we really want a president who thinks stupid things like AC does? That it was legal to kill mormons in Missouri until 1976? That Jesus is going to return and kill off billions of people and overthrow the US government and replace it with a fascist theocracy?

And an aside to AC: You should really take the time to read a few history books about the your own religion. It is a fascinating story, and much more interesting that the mythological psuedo-history you were taught.

All this criticism and hype makes me convinced that this guy actually might have something. Nothing worthless or without credibility could ever cause such a stir of hate and anger. I think I'll stick around to see what this guy has that's making you all so nervous. At least he has people thinking. Cheers to Romney on that front.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

What a choice. Romney or Hucklebey

I LOVE ATHEISTS! Also Mormons, Catholics, Evangelists, non-christians such as Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and on and on.
There is some thing wrong here when you focus on religious beliefs and not on what that person has done in the past and done for the people. Also remember those with wealth tend to be ambitious to the extreme to the detriment of others. how many of us have maids and limousines to deliver them to the next political campaign rally? I dont think there will be a republican in the whitehouse again for a long time, unless there is another 3rd party bid and they manage to pull enough votes from the democrats to help the republican nominee. It's just like JFK said to the big business/corporations (quote)-"you have been ripping the American people off long enough"(unqote) how much longer before people wake up and realize what is really going on in these political parties?