Comments on: In praise of cacophony: rejecting Romney’s “symphony of faith”

By: The Gonzman

The Gonzman — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:00:00 +0000

most of whom I think would claim that God affirmed rather than invented murder’s wrongness.

I would say they would be in error.

By: Consumatopia

Consumatopia — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:03:27 +0000

If I say “murder is wrong” it must be true always, or it is a false statement.

On the other hand, if I say “murder is wrong”, it must always be true in all possible worlds, or it is a false statement. Your statement only applies to the contingent world in which God made murder wrong. (And I’m not generalizing to all theists here–most of whom I think would claim that God affirmed rather than invented murder’s wrongness.)

I think if Romney had said “Religion requires Freedom and Freedom requires Transcendence”, it would have been more defensible.

By: mythago

mythago — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:02:41 +0000

NBarnes, I can only assume you don’t know anyone affected by schizophrenia if you think it’s funny to sling the term around just because you disagree with Gonz.

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:52:23 +0000

Now is the point where I announce that we’re having thread drift, and returning to the topic at hand — Romney’s speech — is necessary. The relative merits of theism and atheism are not the subject here; the role each plays in the public square is.

By: The Gonzman

The Gonzman — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:46:35 +0000

Once you start talking about someone making truth (which not all theists believe), it seems like your truth becomes a lot more conditional, contingent and arbitrary than that of most atheists.

If I say “murder is wrong” it must be true always, or it is a false statement.

By: The Gonzman

The Gonzman — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:30:08 +0000

Gonz is a good example of the sort of person I worry about having a schizophrenic break someday and killing someone. They’ll do anything God tells them to do.

But no, we leftists don’t make up vicious lies about someone for an attack since we haven’t got anything else.

By: Noumena

Noumena — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:12:12 +0000

Rob -
I believe it’s silly, but it does exist. The suggestion a few years back by some professional victims that churches remove all exterior crosses and any mention of the words “God,” “Jesus,” “Holy Spirit,” etc. as offensive and threatening and racist and sexist comes to mind.

At least so far, that claptrap doesn’t get too far in an organized way. But there have been school boards that have prohibited students from reading Bibles on their own time, talking about God with friends, etc.

Care to give some citations to public-record examples?

By: angryyoungwoman

angryyoungwoman — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:04:25 +0000

Here’s the Feminist Mormon Housewive’s discussion on Romney’s speech. http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=1500
Personally, I find it a lot more interesting than the Times and Seasons discussion, if only because it’s shorter and contains more dissent. You gotta love us rebellious Mormon women!

By: Ed

Ed — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:51:58 +0000

Regarding the Indonesian Gamelan portion of this cacophony, would that be Central Javanese (and if so, Solo or Yogya style), Sundanese, Cerbon, Madurese, Banjar (Kalimantan), or Balinese (my personal favorite)? ;) They’re all different.

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:05:47 +0000

“And for the record, the notion of a “religion of secularism” is silly. But suppose someone did want to start such a religion, committed to the notion that the Divine Being is Absent, Never Was, and Never Will Be? The America I want is an America where that “religion” would be able to take its place in the public square too.”

A “religion of secularism” would be a religion, not of atheism, but one demanding that no expression of any faith would be permitted where it might be seen by someone else who might possibly be offended.

I believe it’s silly, but it does exist. The suggestion a few years back by some professional victims that churches remove all exterior crosses and any mention of the words “God,” “Jesus,” “Holy Spirit,” etc. as offensive and threatening and racist and sexist comes to mind.

Maybe you live in a magical place where free expression of religion is permitted, but I’ve seen the nonsense firsthand at a local zoning meeting where the government decided that a proposed mission was not appropriate for our church to undertake and that we should do things they approved of instead. Our minister got all Christian on us and didn’t fight, which was a real disappointment. I was so looking forward to calling the ACLU to see if they’d take the case. Either way the ACLU decided, it would have been quite entertaining for me.