The 6th of December Mit Romney held a speech about religion. It was supposed to answer questions of his beliefs but instead, apparently, defended a balance of religion and politics. Now I didn't get to see the speech probably because it didn't really appeal to me at the time BUT drinking and watching morning Joe on MSNBC I realize that I should have.
He spoke of how no religious leader will or should have any influence on the president and their decisions, and good for that. He also spoke of how his faith and conviction will still guide him through tough decisions in the white house. Here's question number one; Which shows more strength, standing by your convictions and beliefs to make these choices that affect the nation OR putting those beliefs aside to accurately, and without bias, guide and benefit the nation?
Next question; Why does John Q. Public not respond well to such ideas? Are they that bold and new? Or are we that afraid that if we stray away from our beliefs we become without any belief at all? <-- oops more than one question.
To get back to the point... Its brought up time and time again that our founding fathers believed that faith and politics were intertwined. Since when did faith equal religion? Why when these arguments are brought up is it in defense of the religious right and not as a view of faith IN politics, faith IN democracy, not faith in GOD? Is it some how wrong of me to say that although I have no faith in god or religion, I do have faith in my fellow man and our sustained future, that I have faith in the social contract and our ability to live next to one and other?
And with out sounding to JFKish why is it 'how can the president best benefit me' and not 'how can the president best benefit the country?'
I know most of the answers to my questions and they are upsetting but does that mean they shouldn't be asked? I think not.
~Love
Your friendly Hobo
He spoke of how no religious leader will or should have any influence on the president and their decisions, and good for that. He also spoke of how his faith and conviction will still guide him through tough decisions in the white house. Here's question number one; Which shows more strength, standing by your convictions and beliefs to make these choices that affect the nation OR putting those beliefs aside to accurately, and without bias, guide and benefit the nation?
Next question; Why does John Q. Public not respond well to such ideas? Are they that bold and new? Or are we that afraid that if we stray away from our beliefs we become without any belief at all? <-- oops more than one question.
To get back to the point... Its brought up time and time again that our founding fathers believed that faith and politics were intertwined. Since when did faith equal religion? Why when these arguments are brought up is it in defense of the religious right and not as a view of faith IN politics, faith IN democracy, not faith in GOD? Is it some how wrong of me to say that although I have no faith in god or religion, I do have faith in my fellow man and our sustained future, that I have faith in the social contract and our ability to live next to one and other?
And with out sounding to JFKish why is it 'how can the president best benefit me' and not 'how can the president best benefit the country?'
I know most of the answers to my questions and they are upsetting but does that mean they shouldn't be asked? I think not.
~Love
Your friendly Hobo