AmericanPapist Comments
Whatever.
Fact is, Romney is a proven acomplished businessman and leader, and not a career politician. Plus he is right on the social issues.
I'm for him.
Go Romney!
Monaghan sows discord wherever he goes. http://fumare.us/. He is destroying a once vibrant law school.
I listen to Hugh and of course he is totally in the bag for Mitt and so any Romney news is a great positive for him. Though Hugh practices what he preaches in saying media types should be totally upfront about who they support.
Actually I think the most interesting Romney endorser was Judge Bork.
But your right about Monihan and I don't think this endorsement means much of anything for conservative Catholics.
I had reservations about voting for Romney; Mormon theology is so goofy that I wondered about his judgment. This seals it; Monaghan is so goofy that I no longer wonder.
Hewitt's a shill for Romney and has been since the git-go.
Monaghan shoulda stuck w/pizza.
I don't think much of that reasoning. Non-Catholics think the same way about Catholic theology, atheists the same way about all theology, etc.
"I don't think much of that reasoning. Non-Catholics think the same way about Catholic theology, atheists the same way about all theology, etc."
Yes. But in the case of Mormon theology it is true.
What Hewitt doesn't know about Michigan politics would choke a horse, but I really posted to say that, sure, Mongahan rubs some MICH folks the wrong way because they are feminist liberal abortionists, etc. The HUGE problem for Monaghan, and for anyone he endorses, is that he also rubs many decent MICH folks, esp. Catholics, the wrong way for having treated them with such arrogance and contempt over the years.
In any case, the idea that T$M has some kind of "popular" sway around here is laughable. Truly.
letterman- plenty of people believe all kinds of crazy things in their private religious lives, and everyone thinks everyone else is crazy for believing what they do. It doesn't matter if it's true or not- here in America, we don't hold a religious litmus test up to decide if someone will make a good leader in governing. Well, maye you do, but most people don't these days.
Mr. Tucker,
Most people could give a tinker's damn about the Truth anymore. And that's the problem.
WAC
As I've said before, given the treatment of Catholics in this nation's past, who really wants to do likewise to Mormons? We proved ourselves to be worthy public officials, but a Mormon--or a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist--can't?
Permit me to quote from Article VI of the United States Constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Exactly the point, Nathan.
Well said.
"plenty of people believe all kinds of crazy things in their private religious lives, and everyone thinks everyone else is crazy for believing what they do."
The first statement is patently true; the second is patently false, on two counts. First, I never said that anyONE else was crazy, only that Mormon BELIEFS were crazy. That doesn't mean individual Mormons are necessarily crazy.
Second, it is not true that everyone regards all belief systems other than their own as crazy. Many belief systems I disagree with are far more intellectually respectable than Mormonism; among these I would number Buddhism, Islam, agnosticism, Orthodoxy, Judaism, and even atheism. In fact, I can think of few prominent religious persuasions nuttier than Mormonism, other than Scientology.
"It doesn't matter if it's true or not- here in America, we don't hold a religious litmus test up to decide if someone will make a good leader in governing."
Would you say that if the person's religion was Satanism, or Moloch-worship? Maybe you would, but most people wouldn't. Besides, I wasn't saying anything about Romney's fitness for office, only the nuttiness of Mormon beliefs.
"Permit me to quote from Article VI of the United States Constitution: 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'"
And therefore individual Americans ought not to have personal religious standards for whom they will or won't vote? By that logic, since the Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by the state, it follows that individual Americans ought not to adhere to any religion.
Monaghan embarrasses himself once again. What a shame.
The point is not "what does the law require", but "who would you think it reasonable to vote for". Its right that the law should not , and does not proscribe against candidates based on a religious 'litmus' test. However, an individual has the right to use discretion in choosing who to vote for, including the right to discriminate against people who follow religious beliefs they find 'incredible'. It doesn't make you un-American, or un-Christian or anything other than discriminating - in the true sense of the word.
ps. I find the attitude towards Monaghan interesting. Expected from the academics, I suppose. (shall I colour them all with the same brush?), since they tend to think their plan is always better, whether its their place , or not. I suppose there is some loyalty to Michigan going on? I don't really get it.The guy is single minded in trying to accomplish his vision, a particular vision of perpetuating Catholic culture through Catholic education. He has his own standards of authenticity. He has his own business 'style'. He apparantly does't care too much what the 'naysayers' have to 'nay'. He worked a lifetime to acquire the resources . I could care less if he panders to the 'sensibilities' of people who have put NOTHING in.
I'm not saying he's a saint, but his 'attitude' puts me in mind of a few. Kudos.
So senators, who are "individual Americans" like you and I, would have had every right to vote against John Roberts and Sam Alito for confirmation to the Supreme Court solely because they're Catholic and some of our "incredible" beliefs don't necessarily endear us to the rest of the population, not to mention that a foreign head of state has influence on their beliefs that would/should carry immense weight on the judicial decisions? I don't think that such discrimination "in the true sense of the word" on the part of senators would be right, and a lot of others don't think so, either, because when each justice's Catholicism was brought up at confirmation hearings, it caused quite a controversy. As a student of American history, I find anti-Catholicism to be repulsive, and by extension, I find all religious bigotry repulsive.
The Senators DO in fact vote against people who's beliefs they are not comfortable with.
Its probably not a good idea to compare elected officials, working in an official capacity, with individuals voting in an open election. However, it does press the need to be discriminating when you elect someone.
Bigotry and discrimination are not the same thing. Political correctness and bigotry are closer. Would you agree that a persons beliefs should be reflected in their daily actions - at work, at home, and at play? (That's a Catholic perspective.) Its not 'politically correct' to say "I question how he will vote as a Senator, since I know that his personal beliefs include support for stem cell research." If someone is elected, expect them to rely on their 'true' beliefs. Sometimes that's hard to discern, but the time to be discriminating, is BEFORE someone becomes Senator or President. Bigotry would be if you said certain people shouldn't RUN for President. Its discriminating (thoughtfully sorting out the differences) to vote for the person most likely to represent your beliefs and vision. That's the idea of democracy. The right to vote freely, based on what is important to you. If you find someone's beliefs 'incredible' enough to question their 'sincerity' or their ability to think rationally, or their transparency, don't vote for them. On the other hand, if you don't have a problem with their beliefs, and you don't think that will interfere with their representation of you, go ahead! No bigotry.
Of course, its a two-edged sword. One solution to Catholics beeing 'discriminated' against by Senators, would be to elect Senators who support the culture of life. Its not that they (necessarily) 'hate' Catholics, but more that they know that a Catholic will (hopefully ) vote in support of life. Don't elect pro-death Senators!
Romney says he is pro-life. However, he did not experience his 'conversion' until he decided to run for president. Mitt Romney gave us gay marriage in Massachusetts. There may be Republicans in Massachusetts who back him but there are no conservatives who do...
Mitt Romney gave us gay marriage in Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts gave the state gay marriage. I have heard some people claim that Romney could have simply ignored the Court, but that sort of dictatorial power play is frowned upon in this country generally.
Commenting by HaloScan
