![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-06 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-06 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-06 07:44 pm (UTC)Oooo, Buddhist monks praying in front of the White House!!
LDS is more powerful than most people realize
Date: 2007-12-07 05:03 am (UTC)My issues with Romney's religion go much deeper than just not agreeing that his "faith" is irrelevant to my vote. It is worth studying up on Mormonism because it is growing so fast, and because it has such a hold on a lot of the businesses of the west. He can claim to act independently of his church, but I don't believe it. They will plague him until the day he dies and there is no escaping the fact that his church would actively influence his choices if he were elected. The only good thing about the Latter Day Saints having a candidate up is that they have the power to possibly be organized enough to prove that the Neocons have the voting machines rigged. He's betting that he can get the "good Christians" to vote for him because he's willing to swear on a bible and all, but I wonder if they are that ignorant. Are they that ignorant? We shall see. I have been apalled in the past at what people will vote for.
Re: LDS is more powerful than most people realize
Date: 2007-12-07 05:13 am (UTC)My favorite was the look on an Elder's face when I told him I already knew about LDS and it wasn't for me. Such a cute little shocked face.
not for you
Date: 2007-12-07 05:28 am (UTC)I have some personal friends who are Mormons, and they would never let on the stuff that I have learned about them from other sources, but when I ask them direct questions they appear to answer honestly! They're very likeable. And Romney is handsome. Danger. Americans vote for the pretty candidates.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-06 07:40 pm (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/user/GovMittRomney
no subject
Date: 2007-12-07 04:55 am (UTC)Danger, Will Robinson, danger!
Date: 2007-12-10 09:56 pm (UTC)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.
Namaste
Re: Danger, Will Robinson, danger!
Date: 2007-12-10 11:09 pm (UTC)Re: Danger, Will Robinson, danger!
Date: 2007-12-11 11:48 pm (UTC)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.