You have got to watch this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

I did not know someone could comb their hair for that long!

The Boston Globe tries to start a fight between Evangelicals and Mormons

This from a recent Boston Globe Article:

"Recent polls have found that around 40 percent of Americans say they would not vote for a Mormon for president -- though nearly as many said they would have reservations voting for a Catholic in 1960, the year John F. Kennedy won the White House."

So can we once and for all put the issue behind us? The same number of people who said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon now, say they wouldn't have voted for a Catholic then, but they did once they got to know him.

The Boston Globe will not let us put the issue behind us, because they keep talking about Romney's religion. I believe The Boston Globe would like nothing more than to see Evangelicals and Mormons have a big fight over the next two years. That is why they are fascinated with contrasting Mormonism to Evangelical beliefs.

This article:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/12/31/imperfect_fit/

doesn't go into the religious differences so much as it tries to analyze the political difference.

It asserts: "In short, neither the Mitt Romney who ran for Senate in 1994 vowing to keep abortion safe and legal, nor the more recent "firmly pro-life" Romney, would be in the wrong according to the teachings of his church."

Neither Romney? They are the same Romney. Lord Byron said; "Opinions are made to be changed - or how is truth to be got at?" Are you going to ask, which Lord Byron said that? The fake pandering Lord Byron, or the real Lord Byron? You say good morning to people on the internet, and they say, "You said good EVENING last night! Which is it going to be! You are a flip-floper." Romney was represented to represent Massachusetts. They are pro-choice. He declared a truce on this issue, and advanced other republican causes. Now Romney is trying to represent a group of people who are split over the issue. He is explaining what his policy will be now that he is representing a different set of people. At least that is my belief. His position changed over the stem cell debate.

read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Abortion

and here

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/abortion

This might be upsetting to Evangelicals. They might think that the Mormon Church has no position on Abortion. This is not true. I think you can be ex-communicated from the Mormon Church for having an abortion, or encouraging someone to have an abortion. So evangelicals and Mormons aren't so far apart on the issue. It's just that "the Mormon church doesn't tell you what your political position should be". And this is where I get mad. Not all Evangelicals believe that Government should be involved politically either. The article tries to paint Mormons as free thinking and all evangelicals as Dobson-order taking robots. This is not true, and it is the best way to get evangelicals mad at Mormons and Mitt. Evangelicals think for themselves. They don't need Dobson to think for them. This is one of the strengths of the Evangelical movement. They don't have a centralized individual whose job it is to interpret the will of God.

The article said, "Smith was an abolitionist, for one thing; and he argued for the communal ownership of property." Is the former a surprise? Most religious leaders of course were abolitionist! On the later, Smith did not argue for the communal ownership of property. He, like all Christians, understood that the disciples of Christ "had all things common" but that those were special circumstances. Mormons concluded, like other churches, that the world is not ready for it. This is a subtle way to tell evangelicals that we are communist, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

The article points out that Mormons are "almost as monolithically Republican as African-Americans are Democratic. They tend on most major issues to be culturally and economically conservative, and in the past few presidential elections 80 to 90 percent of Mormons have voted for the Republican candidate."

"It is this alignment that Romney has tried to exploit in courting his party's vital conservative Christian bloc. He has emphasized his opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, and sought to distance himself from earlier statements that suggested moderate views on same-sex marriage and abortion. According to Gregory Rodriguez, a political analyst at the New America Foundation, Romney has even called himself an "evangelical Mormon."'

Now here is some red meat for democrats, as for why they shouldn't like Mormons. I like the use of the word "exploit". When democrats court people that tend to agree with them, does the Boston Globe use the world "exploit". And has anyone heard Romney call himself an "evangelical Mormon"? Were did he get this?

"Indeed, when Romney and others talk about his Mormonism in the context of the coming campaign, the assumption is that, despite the theological differences between LDS and evangelicals, politically the two groups are on the same page."

"But while few dispute the social conservativism of the LDS church and its members, it is also true that on some key issues they don't fall neatly into line with the religious right's priorities."

Great. Tell evangelicals that we are all moderates. This is divisive because it is an over simplification and it is not true. We are moderates in the same sense that evangelicals are moderates. Some of us are and some of us are not.

I think a lot of Mormons and evangelicals miss-interpret the lesson learned from the following scripture:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/3/16#16

I think that this scripture has to do with standing up for what is right, with specific issues. I don't think that means that one party is always right, or that extremism is good. One party does not own God and his causes, and Jesus taught against bad extremism. The apostles gave their lives for the truth. They were good extreme. But they didn't take the lives of others for the truth. They didn't kill. They didn't lie, to move the cause forward. They didn't oversimplify issues. The need to be hot or cold does not mean the ends justify the means. I think Romney is respectful. I don't think you have to be full of hatred to democrats, just to prove that you are a good republican. This is one of Romney's strengths but it is turned into a weakness when people use labels, like moderate. You can stand for truth without oversimplifying or demonizing your enemies or their position. You can still have strong convictions and be what some people call a moderate.

This is a must read from George Washing for those who advocate party (or faction) extremism

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

George Washington says,

"…They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests."

"It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property."

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy."

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

But I digress.

The article asserts that Mormons are more moderate than evangelicals, which is an oversimplification and not true. Evangelicals are no more exactly like each other than Mormons.

This is where I think I need to put in some of my criticisms for the news. Instead of telling people that they need to attend an evangelical church or Mormon church in order to explain what is going on, they make it sound like they have all the answers. All you need to know about Mormons and Evangelicals can be found in the Boston Globe. It's not their fault, it is the nature of journalism to suck. They don't tell you to go to an encyclopedia or talk to an evangelical. They just want you reading their adds.

Here are some of my favorite anti-journalism quotes.

"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news."
- AJ Liebling

"All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else."
- HL Mencken

"If you believe everything you read, better not read. "
- Japanese Proverb

And the grand daddy of them all that sums up my point is this:

"To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter."
- Aleister Crowley

That is my point. Reading the Boston Globe is worse than reading "canned chatter" it is reading partisan, party, (faction), canned chatter. It purports to tell you about the differences between Mormonism and Evangelicals, but you would be much better served going to an encyclopedia unless you want to be deceived. You would much better be served going to one of their churches. You would much better be served talking to or forming a friendship with members of these communities. Or go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicals

or here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

The canned chatter that I speak of is this guy from the Boston Globe who tries to tell us about Mormons and Evangelicals but has probably never stepped foot inside of a Mormon or Evangelical church, let alone read the Bible. Maybe he has been to these churches and read the Bible, but that is not my point. The point is he is saying you can understand these communities by reading his article, without going to the church or reading anything else. I guess its not his fault. It's not his job to educate people. But maybe it is. When he is trying to tell the difference between Mormons and Evangelicals shouldn't he link to additional information? Shouldn't he acknowledge that he is making drastic over simplifications and mischaracterizations? People who read this article will have a misconception of what it is to be Mormon and Evangelical.

Back to the article.

He says,

"But while few dispute the social conservativism of the LDS church and its members, it is also true that on some key issues they don't fall neatly into line with the religious right's priorities."

Well no du! Mormons don't all agree with each other. Evangelicals don't all agree with each other. Only journalist think they can explain the world so that it all "falls neatly into line" with each other.
Continuing,

"To be sure, Mormons and conservative Christians, both Catholic and evangelical, are on the same side of two of the bitterest culture-war battles being fought today, over gay marriage and abortion. On others, though -- stem-cell research, the teaching of evolution in schools, public funding for religion, and end-of-life care -- the LDS church is harder to pin down. In part this is due to the church's unique theology, but it may also derive from Mormonism's early history as a marginal sect suspicious of (and suspected by) the US government. Mormons today are among the nation's most patriotic groups, but many retain a sharp sense of their minority status.

"Romney himself has been quick to point out that he is not running as a representative of his religion. And like John F. Kennedy, he has demonstrated over the years a certain independence from his church. And yet, lost in the discussion of Romney and Mormonism is that, unlike Kennedy, Romney's stances on key issues dear to the religious right may actually make him more conservative than his own church."

How can he say Romney is more conservative than his own church? The Mormon church is silent on 99% of political issues, and so Romney is both more conservative and more liberal than a church that does not take political stances. This is the problem with media. They have the usefulness of cheerleaders. They get a degree in Journalism, and think they are qualified to discuss everything.

I do not want to hear another journalist talk about religion, who does not have a degree in religion.

I do not want to hear another journalist talk about anything who dis not get a degree in history.

Please read this:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-05-30-1.html

and this:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-05-23-1.html

and this:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-04-18-1.html

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-06-1.html

McCarthyism is going on whenever people lie or omit or twist or distort the truth in order to smear their rivals and opponents and gain advantage for their pet cause -- whether the cause is liberal or conservative.

It's bad enough when politicians lie for their own advantage, like a certain President who committed perjury in order to win in a lawsuit brought by a victim of his sexual harassment.

But we expect our news media to regard truth as their highest value. That's the business they're in -- telling us the truth. That's the solemn promise they make. And if they embrace McCarthyism -- if they knowingly or carelessly repeat lies, or omit truths that would transform the meaning of their story, in order to advance even the most righteous cause -- then where can we turn for the truth?

Edward R. Murrow had our trust because he earned it. Lots of later journalistshave copied his stern demeanor, his just-the-facts style, and thought that meant they were in his league. But to my distress, and to the great damage of our country, it seems that fewer and fewer of them have his stern commitment to telling only the truth -- and all of the truth -- and letting the public reach their own conclusions.

He took on a monster and helped set the stage for the monster's fall.

Shame on those who claim to be his successors, but in fact are really the successors of the monster.

I hope their numbers are few. But they do keep cropping up in the loftiest places, breaking down our trust in even our most reliable institutions. Who in America is surprised when anti-semites in Palestine and France conspire to tell lies about Jews? But when an American reporter omits a dead soldier's fervent testament about the war and spins the quote he does use to serve exactly the opposite ideological purpose, and does it in the news pages of the New York Times, then maybe McCarthyism isn't so very dead after all.

and this one:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-11-14-1.html

If I were running a newspaper, I would hire only history majors to be reporters, and completely shun the graduates of the almost-universally-Leftist journalism departments -- not on political grounds, but on the grounds of competence. History students are still taught to work from facts, and to keep in mind a broad understanding of where the facts fit into a larger story.

(The only exception is that for science reporting, I'd hire only reporters who can actually read and understand 75 percent of the articles in the average issue of Scientific American. An even smaller group than history majors.)

Why would it take an entire major's worth of study to learn what talented cub reporters used to pick up in three months on the job? (Don't bother writing in; the question is rhetorical.) Every credit hour of indoctrination in journalism is time that could have been spent on getting an education.

This one actually applies directly to the point I am trying to make:

Why should reporters' speculation on unknowable motives be given even one second of my reading time, when the reporters prove themselves in every paragraph to be historically ignorant and unaware of their own inadequacy?

Why should we listen to reporters speculate as to what motivates Mitt Romney "unknowable motives"?

Recently they got all bent out of shape, and pronounced that more people died in Iraq than on September 11th, as though this was supposed to be significant. These people did not mention any of the statistics from this site:

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

Neither do they mention the fact that 2,335 servicemen died at Pearl Harbor but 291,557 service members died in the total war.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

So according to these journalist we could have 100 times as many deaths as we do now in Iraq and still have it be as justified as World War II. Of course this is not how you justify a war, and in the same way, Romney is not more conservative than his church. The comparison between deaths at Pearl Harbor and the resulting military deaths do not compare to the number of deaths on September 11th and the total military deaths in Iraq, unless you are a moron, or a journalist. The issues are more complicated than Journalist let on.

In the same way, you can't compare how conservative Romney is to how conservative his church is, when his church doesn't take political stances. These things just don't compare, unless you are very, very, stupid.

"It was in the 1970s that the LDS church as an institution moved definitively into the political arena. As with white evangelicals, the galvanizing issues were the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe v. Wade, both of which the church saw as a threat to the nuclear family. Today, similar concerns animate the church's vocal opposition to same-sex marriage."

"The church remains pro-life. But the official Mormon position on abortion differs in one key respect from that of the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations: to the LDS church, abortion is not murder. The reason for this is that (again, unlike many Christian denominations) Mormon theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul -- when, in effect, earthly life begins."

Oh my goodness. I'm not going to cuss. I'm not going to cuss. He just finished saying, "Mormon theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul" but then he says, "to the LDS church, abortion is not murder." So what is the Mormon position on abortion? That Abortion is not murder, according to the Boston Globe. But the Mormon church does not assert that abortion is not murder. We don't' assert anything. There is a BIG difference between these two positions, and there is not a big difference between Mormons and Evangelicals. He said, "Mormon theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul". Well we could say the same thing about evangelical theology. I say, "Evangelical theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul." That is because there is no one-clear definitive spokesperson who enterprises evangelical doctrine on the subject, just like Mormons. Many Mormons and Evangelicals think abortion is murder. Neither of our churches have an official policy. There are many different evangelical churches, and beliefs just like there are many different beliefs within the Mormon church, about how to interpret the scriptures in a political way. But it doesn't really matter, because the bible teaches that we should not murder, or "do anything like unto it".

He continues;

"Since they don't define when the soul enters the body, they can't call abortion murder, they simply say it's 'like unto it,'" says Richard Sherlock, a professor of philosophy and expert on Mormon ethics at Utah State University. As a result, the LDS church takes a more flexible approach to abortion than many other churches, opposing what it calls "elective abortion for personal or social convenience," but allowing abortions in the case of rape, incest, fatal fetal deformities, or when the health of the mother is at risk. Just as significantly, it does not throw its weight behind legislative efforts to limit or outlaw abortion. In short, neither the Mitt Romney who ran for Senate in 1994 vowing to keep abortion safe and legal, nor the more recent "firmly pro-life" Romney, would be in the wrong according to the teachings of his church."

So what do we learn? Not all Mormons think the same way. OMG (Oh my goodness)! What else do we learn? Not all Evangelicals think the same thing! OMG!

"On abortion, such theological distinctions may not make much difference to many Mormons, the overwhelming majority of whom identify themselves as pro-life. But on the question of stem-cell research, which has become a major issue for the conservative Republican base, the official ambiguity on when life begins has had far more tangible political effects."

"The LDS church has no official position on stem-cell research, but according to Dan Jones, a leading Utah pollster, more than 60 percent of the Mormons in the state, who tend to be among the country's most conservative, support it. Orrin Hatch is one of Congress's leading proponents of federal stem-cell funding, and his four Mormon colleagues in the Senate (Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, and Senators Michael Crapo, Gordon Smith, and Robert Bennett, all Republicans) have taken similar positions."

That is why I would never vote for Orin Hatch.

If you go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Stem_cell_research

You see that Romney vetoed a Massachusetts bill to fund stem-cell research because the legislation allowed the cloning of human embryos. "I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning," said Romney, calling the practice "a matter of profound moral and ethical consequence". Romney also opposed the legislation because of its assertion that life does not begin until an embryo is implanted in a uterus. "It is very conceivable that scientific advances will allow an embryo to be grown for a substantial period of time outside the uterus," Romney said in an interview with the Boston Globe. "To say that it is not life at one month or two months or four months or full term, just because it had never been in a uterus, would be absurd." The state legislature overrode Romney's veto, with many legislators feeling that stem-cell research will be important in the future to the state's biotech industry.

Way to go! You wouldn't want the state to loose a penney!

I like Romney. How dare we use Government money, taken from individuals to do what they consider to be murder? If embryonic stem sells are so great, let the market fund them. I mean, we already do. We are republicans aren't we? We aren't socialist? We aren't democrats. Why does the government need to fund the embryonic stem sell industry making children into parts? Should the government get into the car-making industry too, while we are at it? Come on Orin. The liberals are never going to like you. Why would the government fund embryonic stem cells? Mitt and George Bush are right, and the rest of the Mormon politicians are stupid.

"In public appearances, Romney has credited his thinking about the moral consequences of stem-cell research with having led him toward a more conservative position on other reproductive issues, like abortion and emergency contraception. And while this shift may have made him a more viable national Republican candidate, on the stem-cell issue at least, it has placed him outside the mainstream of his own faith."

"If this divergence between conservative Christians and Mormons springs from theology, another originates in the church's early history at the margins of American society. For Mormons, says Armand Mauss, a sociologist at the Claremont Graduate University School of Religion specializing in Mormon political and social attitudes, "there is an acute awareness of their own history as a persecuted people," a tendency "to lean on the side of freedom of expression for all different kinds of groups."

Yeah, Christians have never been persecuting! Has the Boston Globe over heard of Nero? Has the Boston Globe ever watched Saved? Have they any idea what it is like to live as a Christian today? Teachers have a higher per-capita rate of abusing kids, but all you ever hear about is priest. Christians are constantly mocked. We both are persecuted.

"This history has translated into a respect for the constitutional separation of church and state not always popular on the religious right. John Green, a senior fellow in religion and American politics at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, describes Mormons as having "a special sensitivity to relations with the government." While evangelical leaders like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have publicly supported the Bush administration's funding for faith-based programs, for example, the LDS church has refused to participate in the initiative out of a fear that with government money comes government control (several conservative Christian organizations, including the Southern Baptist Convention, have taken similar positions)."

And so because Pat Robertson and James Dobson support the faith-based initiatives, every evangelical must be for them? The Mormon Church didn't participate in them, and so every Mormon must be against them. I am a Mormon, and I love the faith based programs.

I don't like how the welfare system took away the need for people to cultivate charity. I don't like how it made individuals non-reliant on their neighbors, and trying to fit into the larger community. Christians need opportunities to practice christ's love, or his teachings mean less. What better way for a church to practice Christ's teachings than for a church to help pick up garbage, clean a park, help the homeless, help people with addiction problems, or whatever the community needs. In fact I would like a religious war, but we show our religious superiority by how much good we do in our community. I don't know why my church is not involved in faith based initiatives. Maybe because our church members are largely consentrated in one geographic area, it is more important for our church to avoid these programs because of accusations in these regions of separate of church and state issues. And this would even make it worse. But if we were more geographically distributed, our church might participate. But who cares? Why does the Boston Globe care what Romney's church does? Does it mater? Why not ask Romney what his views are? Well you don't need to, he has a press release:

06-28-2005, ROMNEY VOICES SUPPORT FOR FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS

Romney has said, "The organizations and congregations represented here today have the power to lift up those around us who may have fallen on hard times. Millions in need across our nation have been touched by the positive influence of faith-based organizations. It gives me great pleasure that Ann has agreed to serve as our state's ambassador in this compassionate effort."

But no. Lets not read his press releases to figure out what Romney believes, lets investigate what his church has done!

In his book, TurnAround, Mitt Romney has sharp criticism for local government leaders around the 2002 winter Olympics who saw the Olympics as a pork-barrel project. Mitt Romney chose to live in Massachusetts. I don't think he would necessarily say that people in Utah are perfect about keeping separation between church and state. I choose to live in Illinois. I think the writer of this article is giving Mormons a lot more credit than they deserve, and I think it is because he is trying to tick off evangelicals.

"For the most part -- and despite evidence, recently reported by the Globe, that Romney aides had talked to LDS church leaders about creating a network of Mormon supporters for the upcoming campaign -- the church is conscientious about keeping partisan politics separate from religious matters. Aside from what it sees as issues relating to "how children are raised," says Jan Shipps, widely considered the leading non-Mormon historian of the religion, the church's leaders tend to shy away from taking political action (doing so would, of course, also endanger the church's nonprofit status). Polling done by BYU's Quin Monson and Notre Dame political scientist David Campbell found that, between Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Mormons, as the two write, "Mormons are by far the least likely to receive political cues at church."'

Oh great, another poll. Do you think we could see the data for that poll? What is a "political cues"? Who conducted the poll? Sure this is good news for the more secular of the Evangelicals, but these are the last people Romney wants to be friends with at this point, and the Globe knows it.

"Because of this insistence on separate religious and political spheres, Mormons appear less likely to wade into other culture-war debates, such as the teaching of evolution. Duane Jeffery, a BYU professor of biology and a leading opponent of teaching intelligent design in science classes, says the issue hasn't had the same resonance for Mormons as it has for many evangelical communities -- not because the LDS church is full of diehard Darwinists (the church has no official policy on the subject) but because Mormon parents, by and large, are satisfied that their children are getting their religious instruction through the often daily seminary classes the church runs for them. "In general," he says, "most of them feel that there's not much reason to get politically involved" over the issue."

In general? You can't speak in general. Here is a great defense of Intelligent Design by a great Mormon:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html

He says, "Now the controversy is between advocates of the theory of Intelligent Design vs. strict Darwinists. And some people want you to think it's the same argument. It isn't."

"My first exposure to Intelligent Design theory was Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. While disavowing any Creationist agenda per se, Behe pointed out serious problems in the strict Darwinian model of evolution…"

...The Darwinists Reply

The Darwinist answer was immediate. Unfortunately, it was also illogical, personal, and unscientific. The main points are:

1. Intelligent Design is just Creation Science in a new suit (name-calling).

2. Don't listen to these guys, they're not real scientists (credentialism).

3. If you actually understood science as we do, you'd realize that these guys are wrong and we're right; but you don't, so you have to trust us (expertism).

4. They got some details of those complex systems wrong, so they must be wrong about everything (sniping).

5. The first amendment requires the separation of church and state (politics).

6. We can't possibly find a fossil record of every step along the way in evolution, but evolution has already been so well-demonstrated it is absurd to challenge it in the details (prestidigitation).

7. Even if there are problems with the Darwinian model, there's no justification for postulating an "intelligent designer" (true).

Let's take these points in turn:

1. You have to be ignorant of either Creation Science or Intelligent Design -- or both -- to think that they're the same thing. Creation Science is embarrassing and laughable -- its authors either don't understand science or are deliberately deceiving readers who don't understand it. Frankly, Creation Science is, in my opinion, a pack of pious lies.

But the problems that the Designists raise with the Darwinian model are, in fact, problems. They do understand the real science, and the Darwinian model is, in fact, inadequate to explain how complex systems, which fail without all elements in place, could arise through random mutation and natural selection.

If Darwinists persist in trying to tar the Designists with the Creation-Science brush, then it is bound to appear, to anyone who has actually examined both, that the Darwinists are trying to deceive us. (They're apparently counting on most people to not care enough to discover the difference.)

Click here, to read the rest.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html

I imagine most Mormons would defend intelligent design, and probably more of them would defend it if they read the above article. In fact I don't see how anyone would have a problem with intelligent design. Also, mormons do not have a daily seminary class, just the high school students, and attendance rates are not that great.

"On the issue of school prayer, which conservative evangelicals overwhelmingly favor, Mormons are divided. In Utah, according to the pollster Dan Jones, most Mormons support it. Polling numbers outside of Utah are harder to come by, but some political scientists and sociologists of the church argue that Mormons living elsewhere see school prayer as a threat."

Let me assure you that we do not view hearing other people pray as a threat. I feel uncomfortable because of what Christ said about the matter. He said

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/6/5-6#5

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the ahypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets (and in the football stadium), that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy acloset, and when thou hast bshut thy door, cpray to thy Father which is in dsecret; and thy Father which eseeth in secret shall freward thee openly.

The scriptures also say the following:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/5/16#16

16 Let your alight so shine before men, that they may see your good bworks, and cglorify your Father which is in heaven.

So when people pray in public, especially outside of church, I don't know if they are hypocrites who pray to be seen of men, and want the glory for themsleves, or if they are trying to let their light shine to bring glory to God. When people pray in at a football stadium I usually assume they are hypocrites, and I feel uncomfortable because I think they are making an ass out of themselves, but let me assure you. We are not "threatened" when we hear others pray. We just feel bad for them.

"Two-thirds of American Mormons live outside the Mormon strongholds of the Western mountain states, and as BYU political scientist Richard Davis puts it, "There's a little more uneasiness about it because of the realization that they're a minority." The 2000 Supreme Court case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which outlawed student-led prayers before football games, was brought by a Mormon family in Texas."

Great, that is going to make evangelicals really happy. Thanks Globe! The fact is every Mormon did not make that call to the ACLU. Most Mormons hate the ACLU just as much as evangelicals. So don't let the Globe paint us as some ACLU loving hippies. Just google ACLU and Mormon. Find the truth for yourself.

"That is not to say that the church refrains from telling its members what sort of life to lead (devout Mormons cannot drink alcohol, smoke, or have caffeine), but it often allows them the freedom to make decisions that other conservative churches would balk at.

The caffeine thing is a persistent rumor, but it is not true. I was a Mormon missionary for two years in Tennessee, and 95% of my co-workers all drank coke. But 95% of them were also guilty of thanksgiving-esque gluttony any time free food was offer them too, so what does that tell you?" Maybe nothing, but the church has no official policy on caffeine. Just believe me ok. OK, that's one rumor taken care of.

"During the heated debate over the fate of Terri Schiavo, for example, the Mormon church reiterated its position that, "Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable."'

How exactly did the church reiterate this? Shouldn't they have to put footnes or something? I have never heard this policy, and I go almost every week. Does the Globe just make this stuff up?

"There are fewer fixed dos and don'ts" for Mormons, says Sherlock. On end-of-life issues, he says, "the Mormon Church says, 'Think about it, pray about it, and get the best answer you can."'

Not accordinig to anti-Mormons. They think we think we have to work our way into heaven. They don't think we believe in Christ's Grace. They will always tell you that they are saved, and rub it in your face that they can just kick back knowing that they are saved. The first thing a born-again evangelical will ask you is if you are saved. They will tell you the date of when they are saved. It is obvious that the writer of this article for the Globe has never met an evangelical. When I served a mission for my church in Tennessee, I met about 100 a day, and I heard about 200 experiences a day outlining down to the very minuite the details of when each person was saved. At the end of their story, they ask if you are saved, and when you don't say yes right a way, they rub it in all the things you have to do. They tell you all the lists of commandments that Mormons have to keep. Don't do this, don't do that, they say. I'm already saved, I can do whatever I want! Just joking, but it is obvious that the writer has never met an evangelical.

"It's this idea that Romney himself seemed to refer to in a 1994 interview with the Boston-based gay and lesbian newspaper Bay Windows, in which he rooted what was then his strong support for gay rights in his religion. Drawing on the Mormon concept of "free agency" -- the idea that, despite God's foreknowledge of what we will do, we are still free to choose our actions -- he made a political argument about the value of tolerance. "Our society should allow people to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs," he argued."

"Since those comments resurfaced a few weeks ago, Romney has been pressed to reconcile them with his now strident opposition to same-sex marriage. On that issue, Romney's newly assertive conservatism places him in step with his church. On others, though, he seems more a conservative evangelical than a Mormon."

Once again I say it. How can Romney be in step politically with a church that does not have political positions? Once again all evangelicals are not involved in the faith-based initiatives, or think that life starts at exactly the same time. Romney's opposition to same sex marriage is not new.

If you just read this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage

…you will read this; "When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions.[69] "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples."

"To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter".
Aleister Crowley

This is especially true of the Boston Globe. It is even worse than the internet.

~ Mike

Romney in Tennessee

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made a stop in Tennessee Sunday at a gathering of Republicans at the Brentwood home of newly elected state Sen. Jack Johnson.

I was lucky enough to score an invitation. Among the crowd: state Rep. Brian Kelsey, state Rep. Debra Young Maggart, state Rep. Donna Rowland, state Rep. Glen Casada, statewide conservative radio talker Steve Gill , former U.S. Rep. Van Hilleary, Nashville conservative political blogger Nathan Moore, U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, and many others whose names I either can't recall or don't know. There were about 40 people there, maybe more.

For the rest of the article go here:

http://billhobbs.com/2006/12/romney_in_tennessee.html

Stop in and say hi

~ Mike

Moore Thoughts

Nathan Moore is a highly respected conservative blogger from Tennessee. He posted this a couple of weeks ago, but I am only reading it now for the first time. Sorry I'm a little late. If you have emotional trauma you might want to get the trial-lawyer, John Edwards, to sue me.

Here is the link.

http://moorethoughts.com/2006/12/18/massachusetts-governor-in-tennessee/

~Mike

Governor Mitt Romney and President Ronald Reagan

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney about President Ronald Reagan

2004

• "It is appropriate and fitting to set aside a day to honor the memory of Ronald Reagan, who inspired the nation with his optimism and belief in the greatness of the American people. He led the nation with vision, courage and humor and defended freedom and democracy around the world."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 06-08-2004 Press Release

• "And if you think that during the great national policy debate of the 1980's, Ronald Reagan was wrong and Ted Kennedy was right, then by all means send in John Kerry."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 09-01-2004 2002 Republican Convention

2005

• "I believe people who are in a position of visibility and leadership affect the character of young people and individuals who look to them as leaders. And in some respects just as important as their policies and positions is there character and their substance. What for me makes people like Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and John Adams and George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan such extraordinary leaders is that they had integrity through and through. What they were on the inside and what they said on the outside was harmonious. There a lot of people like that. I think that if people try to live a very different personal life not consistent with the role they've assumed as a governor or senator or president, we lose something as a nation."
• Governor Mitt Romney, The Atlantic (September 2005)

• Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes," Romney said as he praised Reagan's strategy for winning the Cold War: We win; they lose."
• Governor Mitt Romney, Source

• "Ronald Reagan is also my hero and a friend of all of ours…I believe that our party's ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan's brand of visionary and courageous leadership."
• Governor Mitt Romney, Speech in South Carolina (February 2005)

• "And for all those people, for all those people like myself who yearn for world peace, don't forget that a strong America is peace's best ally. As Ronald Reagan said, he said, I saw four wars start in my lifetime and not one of them was started because America was too strong. We have a president who is committed to defending this land and to spreading liberty throughout the world and we are firmly behind him. We just had a--we recently just had a visit from Shimon Peres of Israel. He said America is unique in the world and plays a unique role. In the history of the world, he said, when wars are fought, they're fought over land and the victor takes land. But when America has been drawn into war and when millions of its sons and daughters' lives have been taken, it asks for nothing in return. No land did we take from Germany, no land did we take from Japan. In fact we invested in their countries to preserve their liberty, because we recognize their liberty and their freedom provides freedom for us and the entire world. This is a nation which is unusual in the history of the world, it is unique, and this is a nation which helps preserve the peace of the entire planet. And I'm proud and privileged to know that we have such great militrary and such great leadership carrying out and fulfilling that promise."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 06-03-2005, NH Federation of Republican Women's Lilac Dinner

2006

• "Well, I think people in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their governor, as their senator, as their president. I don't think most people care what brand of faith they have. And I don't believe that that's been an issue for me in my race for governor. It wasn't an issue, I believe, serious, for John Kennedy when he ran for president. People said oh, gosh, Ronald Reagan, he's been an actor who's been divorced, you can't elect him. Those things, I think, get swept away as people get to know the individual, understand their character, their vision, their values, and I think that's true regardless of a person's faith if they are a faithful person."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 02-27-2006 Interview with CHRIS WALLACE on FNS

• "When I was running for office for the first time in 1994, I was trying to define who I was, not who I wasn't. I was trying to define that I was an individual who had his own views and perspectives and I wasn't a carbon copy of someone else. I've said since, and continue to reiterate, that one of my heroes is Ronald Reagan. I've been asked time and again in interviews, who are your heroes? And I mention Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower among others as some of my favorite heroes, and I feel that deeply. But I am a different person than any other person and my interest is, of course, looking forward to defining who I am. Of course, now there's no need for me to try to define myself in reference to others. I've got a record. And people can look at my record and see, for instance, that when people were clamoring to raise taxes in Massachusetts, I said "no" and we held the line on taxes, and held the line and borrowing, and we balanced our budget. They can see that I vetoed literally hundreds of line items in budgets because I thought there was too much spending. They can see that I fought for better schools. They can see that I fought for a better environment. And they can recognize that a lot what Ronald Reagan was doing I'm also doing. So I'm pretty proud to follow in his legacy, if you will, recognizing, of course, that there's some differences. He's just a lot better than anyone else I know."
• Governor Mitt Romney, Human Events, Robert B. Bluey, 12-28-2006, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18683

• Now of course there's some big differences between Massachusetts and New Hampshire as well. There is this affection that some people in Massachusetts have for toll booths. I don't understand it. This Memorial Day weekend my wife and I waited in the toll booth line at the Hampton tolls for just about half an hour. And I have a message for your Democratic governor. Tear down that wall.
• Governor Mitt Romney

• "I believe people will see that as governor, when I had to examine and grapple with this difficult issue, I came down on the side of life. I know in the four years I have served as governor I have learned and grown from the exposure to the thousands of good-hearted people who are working to change the culture in our country. I'm committed to promoting the culture of life. Like Ronald Reagan, and Henry Hyde, and others who became pro-life, I had this issue wrong in the past."
• Governor Mitt Romney, NRO Interview 12-14-2006

• "Not really. Not at this stage. You know its possible that there will come some point were there is a question that galvanizes interest and there is an occasion to say something that cuts through the confusion that may develop but at this stage it is kind of hard to predict what will happen. I mean I remember in the race with Ronald Reagan, it was in his debate that he said, "I'm not going to let your youth and inexperience become an issue in this campaign". That sort of put aside his age issue. And there may well be something of that nature. I just don't think Americans will do something the constitution forbids. The constitution says that no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office in these United States, and I don't think my party or the American people would ever do that."
• Governor Mitt Romney, discussing his religion on the Charlie Rose Show. Was asked, "John Kennedy, we remember, looked for and found a venue where he could talk about his catholic faith. The Houston ministry is a very famous speech that he gave. Would you look for and are you looking for a place were you can make a statement like this and are you looking for the right place and time?"

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney about President Ronald Reagan

06-08-2004, ROMNEY DECLARES JUNE 11th DAY OF HONOR FOR PRESIDENT REAGAN

Comparisons Between Governor Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan

"Romney had a genuine conversion on the abortion issue," French acknowledged. "In that he is no different than Ronald Reagan." He might have added George H.W. Bush, who was embraced by pro-lifers in 1988 despite a pro-choice past. Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10274

Mitt does not appear to have any skeletons in his closet. He is likely to remind many people of Ronald Reagan with his easy-going attitude. Sourece: http://thetemplarpundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/2008-profile-mitt-romney.html

Mr. Romney could be an attractive presidential candidate. His sunny disposition puts one in mind of Ronald Reagan--he laughs easily and smiles almost continuously. He is a governor, as four of the past five presidents were; but he can claim more international experience than most state executives. In addition to his work on the Olympics, he has served on the federal Homeland Security Advisory Council, chairing its working group on intelligence and information sharing. Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007755

See Also:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Ronald-Reagan

I received the following feedback on one of my posts:

"Romney is a liar and an idiot. How dare he try to amend the Massachusetts Constitution! How do voters feel? It's obvious! Did Romney's Right-wing wish-list Republica win in the 2006 election for governor? OR was it PRO-Gay Marriage and PRO-Equality candidate Deval Patrick? The answer is clear."

"Just a few more days and Romney will be looking for another job. This guy is a loser and nothing but. Spends all his time on gay marriage, can't even run the state...that's why the Democrats now have it! Good Riddance Romney!!"

This is my response:

Why is Romney a "liar" and an "idiot"? If Romney is a "liar" what lie did he tell? If he is an idiot what idiotic thing has he done? Your post tells more about you than it does Romney.

He is not trying to amend the Massachusetts constitution, it is the voters... Do you know anything about this issue? Or do you only read the Boston Globe?

You might want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

before you say anything else stupid.

re: "Did Romney's Right-wing wish-list Republica win in the 2006 election for governor? OR was it PRO-Gay Marriage and PRO-Equality candidate Deval Patrick? The answer is clear."

Yes that was one of the issues in the race for Governor. I guess you think the voters have already spoken, but you know there are these things called ballet initiatives that voters can vote on. They get to choose the outcome of one issue at a time. Look into it, it is kind of cool. There were many issues that went into a vote for Governor. Why don't you want to let the people vote? Are you afraid you might loose? I thought you believed in Democracy? Why shouldn't the people be able to vote? When the courts decide and when should the people decide? When ever you don't like the outcome, the process must have been wrong?

Re: "This guy is a loser and nothing but."

Did you see Little Miss Sunshine? You are the loser, man. People who use the word loser are the only losers. We all win and we all loose some times. Those that loose more often than win need our help, not ridicule. Romney is not one of these people.

Alright, you only have two more accusation, and you offer zero reasons to agree with these accusations. I find this typical of Romney detractors. A lot of accusation, and name calling, but no reason, or logic. No reasons to agree with their conclusions that they repeat over and over again. That is why I want to create a forum where people brain storm " Reasons to agree" or disagree with conclusions, and try to put the best reasons to agree with a conclusion at the top of the list. This will force us to have some sort of rational discussion. But I digress. Here are the last two accusations:

1. Romney spends all his time on gay marriage,
2. Romney can't even run the state...

I assume that he means that Romney spends too much time on gay marriage, instead of "all his time". I do not know how much time Romney has spent on Gay Marriage. One way to figure out the relative amount of time he spends on something would be to count the press releases. I count 4 press releases having to do with gay marriage. I see 28 press releases on education, 19 press releases that deal with housing, 15 press releases that have to do with homelessness, 8 press releases that have to do with terrorism, in fact I can't find one issue that has fewer press releases than gay marriage. I'm sure there are. I've been clicking on them from my site, but I'm tired of looking, that is all I can find for now.

Another way to figure this out would be to count the number of words coming out of the office, or his speeches, and figure out the percentage of time devoted to the issue. But I assume you are not interested in really finding the truth.

The last accusation is this. "Romney can't even run the state". Oh, my, gosh. What does someone say to something like this. How are we supposed to have any sort of rational debate when this is the kind of stuff you have on the internet? This is what 90% of the people on the internet are like. No joking. Their nuts! I am going to pretend that this world is sane, and I am going to try to deal with the stupidity that I am surrounded with. OK. How do we measure weather someone can or can not "run the state"? Does a Governor or do the people "run the state"? One part of "running the state" might have something to do with the budget, and taxes. Why don't you look into how well Romney has done on those issues, before we continue this intelligent debate?

~Mike

Mitt Romney on John Edwards

The Boston Globe has another attack add/article, wait, this is a democrat, it is a glowing report...

"PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- The day after formally announcing his presidential campaign, former North Carolina senator John Edwards came to New Hampshire, where he faced an overflow crowd and growing excitement..."

Mitt Romney on John Edwards:

ROMNEY: If you think trial lawyers need more money, our economy needs more law suits, and malpractice costs should go even higher, then send in John Edwards with him.

AUDIENCE: Boo.

ROMNEY: And Senator Edwards, if you don't like hearing that, sue me.

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Convention

Court can't force gay marriage vote

The Supreme Judicial Court said lawmakers are defying their constitutional duties by not voting, but said it has no authority to force them to act.

Golden business touch would give Romney added lustre

By Rebecca Knight

Published: December 29 2006 02:00 | Last updated: December 29 2006 02:00

Before he was elected governor of Massachusetts, and even before he rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games, Mitt Romney was known in business circles as the venture capitalist with the golden touch.

During his 14 years at the helm of Bain Capital, the Boston-based private equity firm, Mr Romney earned a reputation for an owlish knack for appraising opportunities - spotting start-ups with lucrative potential and taking troubled, undervalued companies and retooling their business models.

Mr Romney, who worked as a consultant for Bain & Co before he founded the spin-off venture capital firm with $37m, helped launch some 180 companies including Staples, The Sports Authority, and Domino's Pizza. He also he made his investors a lot of money: during his reign at Bain the firm's annual rate of return on realised investments exceeded 100 per cent.

As Mr Romney eyes a possible bid for the 2008 Republican nomination, some observers note that his limited experience in public office would be a big liability in the greater Republican party contest. He has only one term as governor under his belt and he managed to court controversy during that tenure - for instance, opposing gay marriage. However, even Mr Romney's detractors concede that his successful record in the private sector has left mostly a string of admirers.

Described by former colleagues as "tough-minded", "analytical" and bearing "Reagan-like leadership" qualities, Mr Romney - who holds degrees from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School - became well known in the world of venture capital for his ability to parse a lot of information in a short time, his sharp attention to detail and his penchant for poring through facts and figures.

Tom Stemberg was hawking around his business plan to start a chain of office supply stores when he first met Mr Romney in 1985. "It was a long business plan and the only group that had thoughtfully read it and taken it apart was Mitt and his team," he recalls. "There was one firm that laughed and said, 'Who in the world cares about how much they spend on pencils and erasers?' But Mitt paid a tremendous amount of attention to details like that."

Mr Stemberg remembers that, at one point, Mr Romney questioned his calculation that the amount that small businesses spent annually on office supplies was more than $1,000 per employee. Mr Romney said that he had surveyed businesses in Boston and they claimed to spend only about $250 a head. "So I told him that one of the big problems is that companies don't know what they spend. You have to look at the invoices," says Mr Stemberg.

That is exactly what Mr Romney and his Bain colleagues did - a tedious task. Mr Romney discovered that Mr Stemberg's figures were correct and Bain Capital made an initial investment of about $600,000 to start a little company called Staples. Today it has 69,000 employees and a market capitalisation of about $19.5bn (€14.5bn, £9.9bn).

During Mr Romney's career as a buyout specialist he sometimes had to make unpopular decisions - including trimming costs and slashing jobs - and not all of Bain's companies were resounding winners. But that was part of the job. "He is a decision maker and the buck stops with him," said one former colleague.

Bob White, a partner at Bain Capital and a friend of the out-going governor, says that Mr Romney's strength lies in his ability to surround himself with smart, passionate people - and, crucially, people with divergent views. "He believes it's very important to have people that don't all see everything the same way."

Mr White says that one of Mr Romney's finest hours in business came in the late 1980s. Bain & Co had embarked on an employee stock ownership plan by borrowing money to pay founders for shares that the company would then sell to new partners. But the estimated worth of the company was too much and Bain could not meet its debts.

In 1990 the partners asked Mr Romney to return from Bain Capital to oversee a restructuring of the company that entailed complicated negotiations with banks, as well as the company's former partners, to get significant portions of the debts forgiven.

Mr Romney managed to convince all but one of the top partners in the Boston office to go along with him, according to Mr White. "It was exactly the right thing to do," he says.

"The company was potentially weeks away from financial ruin, but he was able to turn it around and today it has done extraordinarily well." The company is today worth about $36bn.

Then came the Olympics. When Mr Romney arrived as its chief executive officer in 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Games had a $379m fiscal shortfall and had been hit by bribery allegations. "In walks Mitt and the place brightened immediately," recalls Frazier Bullock, who was chief operating officer of the games and also worked with Mr Romney at Bain.

"He understood the big picture right from the beginning and had a road map for how to rebuild."

Mr Romney reworked the organisation's policies, cut budgets and increased fundraising. The games ended in surplus and Mr Romney won national praise for turning them into a resounding commercial success. "Not only is he drop dead smart," says Mr Bullock, who now works at Sorenson Capital, "but he has a leadership quality that you can see and feel."

I recieved this e-mail

I received the following e-mail from an anonymous online person, on one of my blogs. It reads;

"He is wrong on the issue of gay marriage and civil unions. He can't have it both ways. You either support gay rights in every aspect from equal employment opportunities to equal marriage rights or he doesn't. How can people defend marriage like it's some Godly thing when you have people like Kevin Federline and Britney Spears, or the high divorce rate? Just because you are straight doesn't mean you will be a good parent. In any case, just because a country allows gay marriage or civil unions , does not mean that country will have a flood gate of gays marrying. Just look at the statistics of countries like Canada or Holland. I stand by the notion that if you are against gay rights and under that umbrella is gay marriage, then you are inherently prejudice. Doesn't mean you will use a homophobic slur, but inside you have hateful feelings. I have a strong feeling he would go ballistic if he found out any of his kids were gay."

The following is my response to the e-mail. I am posting it hear, as I believe this is the way many people feel, and because this individual did not give me an e-mail address…

"He is wrong on the issue of gay marriage and civil unions. He can't have it both ways. You either support gay rights in every aspect from equal employment opportunities to equal marriage rights or he doesn't."

This totally ignores Mitt Romney's argument, that yes you would come to that conclusion if you looked at Marriage as an institution that is created for the happiness of adults. Marriage was not created so that couples can show their love for each other for everyone to see, and feel good. Marriage is not a way for couples to love each other better, and as a public way for couples to tell each other how much they love each other.

Marriage was created as a legal contract to insure that children have a mother and father. Because marriage does not reform two complete idiots like Britney spears Kevin F into Ward and Judy Cleaver does not mean that it does no good. The institution of marriage provides many children with loving fathers and mothers. Because some fathers are stupid, does not mean that children do not need a father. Because some mothers are stupid, does not mean that children do not need a mother. If Kevin F or Britney Spears ever grow up to be complete individuals, it will probably be because the feel that their children need a good role model.

I think Marriage was created so that fathers and mothers could not easily abandon their children. How can you say that Mitt Romney is wrong and totally ignore any of his arguments? Please explain to me how Romney's arguments are not valid. I need to hear the reasons that Romney is wrong, not just your conclusion.

For those who know nothing (or choose to ignore) what Romney has said about Marriage click here:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Marriage

"How can people defend marriage like it's some Godly thing when you have people like Kevin Federline and Britney Spears, or the high divorce rate?"

Sure, most gay couples probably make better parents than Britney spears and Kevin Federline, but does the exception prove the rule? There is a book called the death of common sense. It says that Americans have tried to guarantee that the world is fair, but we don't do very good cost benefit analysis, and that our good effort of trying to make the world fair, often back fires and makes the world a better place. You really have to read the book. It is awesome. But it says that we should stop making the rule by the exception, but that we should use common sesnce and make policies that result in the most good for the most amount of people. Liberals are good hearted. They are motivated by trying to re-work the world and forcing it to be fair. But the world can not be forced, and we often to more good when we don't do a wise cost benefit analysis.

If you want to be simplistic you could look at just the adults and say that if straight couples should be allowed to marry, than gay couples should be allowed to marry. But the world is not simple. There are also the need of children.

In trying to give equality to homosexual parents, you take equality away from children. You create a situation were more children have difficulty relating to one of the sexes. You have more children that will either have deformed, or icomplete relationships with one of the sexes.

There is a problem with not enough male teachers for boys in the public school system. There are a lot of books written about it, that say that wemon teachers do not understand and relate well to the male students.

The ideal is to have both a mother and a father in the home. Because the ideal is never met, does not mean that we should not try.

"Just because you are straight doesn't mean you will be a good parent."

I never said that all straight people are good parents and all gay people are bad parents. I do believe that a child is more likely to grow up with understanding of both sexes if they grow up with both a mother and a father.

"In any case, just because a country allows gay marriage or civil unions, does not mean that country will have a flood gate of gays marrying. Just look at the statistics of countries like Canada or Holland. I stand by the notion that if you are against gay rights and under that umbrella is gay marriage, then you are inherently prejudice."

OK. If everyone who disagrees with you is prejudice, then I can play the same game. You are prejudice, because you disagree with me. Most children want both a mother and a father. If you are advocating that less children get to have both a mother and a father, you must be prejudice against children. Why else would you discriminate against them, and not give them what the majority of them want? You are a child-phobic prejudiced, red-neck, and I'm going to win this argument by repeating this to myself over and over again until I feel better about my decision.

"Doesn't mean you will use a homophobic slur, but inside you have hateful feelings. I have a strong feeling he would go ballistic if he found out any of his kids were gay."

This is not true. Mitt Romney has said the following:

• "This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

• "Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. "
• Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

It's a long-forgotten moment, but it was a poignant and revealing one. In the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's discovery of a right to gay marriage that had been long–hidden in the Commonwealth's John Adams penned constitution, Governor Mitt Romney had vigorously protested both the substantive result and the judicial arrogance that led to the result.

On the day the decision went into effect, dozens of gay couples descended on Massachusetts' city and town halls to get married. The TV cameras sought out Governor Romney for his response to the day's events. The media no doubt expected him to toss some red meat to the knuckle-dragging conservatives that Romney was courting in anticipation of a presidential bid. Instead, Romney pleaded that the public and gay marriage critics in particular bear in mind that this was a happy and joyous day for many individuals, and act respectfully and accordingly.

If you saw him deliver that sentiment on the news, you could see it was heartfelt. You could also see that Mitt Romney would not square with the stereotypical (and of course mistaken) view of a gay marriage opponent. He was not a hater and not a homophobe. Rather, he was a decent man who thought the policy of gay marriage was an unwise one and, regardless of the policy's wisdom, was disappointed in the judicial overreach that brought it into being.

I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT MOMENT in recent Romney history while assorted pundits have been trying to sort through the Romney record when it comes to gay rights issues. Of special interest this week is a 1994 interview Romney gave where he was extremely generous on matters of interest to the gay community. Because I was volunteering for him in 1994 and spent considerable time with him, I think I can help shed some light on this latest "scandal."

When he ran for Senate in '94 against Ted Kennedy, the opinions of Mitt Romney's church was a recurring subject of discussion, thanks largely to the efforts of the Boston Globe. One of the things that the theologians at the Globe noticed is that the tenets of Mormonism regarding homosexuality weren't particularly accepting or tolerant. The Globe kept implicitly pressuring Romney to make the choice – gays or his church. (Oddly, Ted Kennedy's Catholic faith didn't trigger any similar demands or curiosity on the Globe's part.)

 

Romney spent a solid chunk of the '94 campaign expressing his tolerance and acceptance for homosexuals. Naturally, nothing he could say in this regard would satisfy his critics. If he didn't explicitly condemn the teachings of his church, his critics would continue to bray. And bray they did, from practically the first day of his campaign until the last.

It was in this context that Romney made his now-famous comments in a 1994 interview with Bay Windows, a Boston newspaper that caters to the gay community. Among his observations were these:

 

    I feel that as a society and for me as an individual, it's incumbent on all of us to respect one another, regardless of our differences and beliefs, our differences in sexual orientation, in race and that America has always been a place, and should be a place, to welcome and tolerate people's differences.

 

    I personally feel and one of my core beliefs is that we should accept people of all backgrounds and recognize everyone as a brother and a sister because we are all part of the family of man.

Fueling the current controversy is the question, How could so vocal a supporter of gay rights in 1994 be such a prominent opponent of gay marriage in 2006?

FORGET THE PART that in the same interview, Romney also said, "Bill Weld does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position." Those looking for a scandal here certainly have.

The question itself regarding Romney's putatively shifting views suggests Romney has a penchant for flip-flopping with such audacity that John Kerry should be envious. There is, however, an answer to the question and it's not a particularly complex one. I spent a decent amount of time with Romney in '94, and got to know him reasonably well. He's not a hater. He's not a bigot. He's not a homophobe. No one who has worked with him or who actually has known him in any capacity says otherwise. And this is a man who has led a prominent and powerful business life.

Romney is also a traditionalist. He does not believe that institutions such as marriage should be mucked with. And he certainly doesn't believe that such institutions should be playthings for a gaggle of unelected officials who happen to wear black robes for a living.

In other words, his opposition to gay marriage is based on good faith differences with gay marriage proponents regarding where a particular legal line should be drawn. And by good faith, I mean that he arrives at his position not out of hate, bigotry or political calculation, but out of a true sense of moral conviction regarding what is best and noblest for our society.

On where the legal line should be drawn on gay marriage, he and I happen to differ. Unlike Romney, and unlike most of the readers of this site, I have no problem with legalizing gay marriage. But unlike Romney's critics, I know that the difference is a good faith one, and not the result of those I disagree with making venal calculations or indulging their prejudiced natures.

The preceding is the part that some narrow-minded gay marriage proponents just can't get. They think that if you're against gay marriage, you are necessarily a hater and by definition a homophobe. That's just not so.

Another thing regarding Romney and gay marriage warrants mentioning: This was not a fight he sought. Even given the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's prior reckless disregard for precedent and the democratic process, no one foresaw the SJC discovering a pre-existing right to gay marriage in the Commonwealth's 220 year old Constitution. Even by the SJC's own lofty standards for such things, it was a stunning piece of judicial arrogance. In short, it was not part of a Romney master-plan to be the anti-gay marriage candidate.

Critics of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists think the key to winning their support is to be the most-narrow minded and hate-filled candidate in the field. These critics chronically lament the bigotry of these specifically identifiable communities while crudely and cruelly caricaturizing them; it is a perverse credit to these critics that they never betray any sense of irony while doing so.

One of the reasons Mitt Romney will be increasingly successful as more people get to know him is because he is the real deal – Mitt is a good, honest and decent man. And those are far from his only virtues. But those are the virtues that Republicans of all religious and ethnic affiliations hunger for most in their '08 standard bearer.

Death, Taxes and McCain?

[McCain] wants people to believe that 2008 is his "turn", no matter how he stacks up against his Republican competition or against his likely Democratic opponent. That could be enough to get major donors to commit to him early and hogtie enough Republican state organizations to pre-empt a competitive primary race. But McCain is mercurial. And when the heat is on, he often lashes out.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/death_taxes_and_mccain.html

Mrs. Clinton has never governed, commanded or even managed anything larger than her Senate staff. The only time she was placed in charge of anything was when President Clinton appointed her to chair his task force on health care reform which promptly crashed and burned because its structure and operation violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (a law known only to some of us who had been constrained by it while in government.) The presidency would be on-the-job training for her. As it would be for Mr. Obama, whose only "job" outside of government was as a community activist. Voters and big-dollar donors will wonder if either of them is capable of running against a qualified and determined Republican. Not that there are many of them.

Americans seem preternaturally interested in a presidential contest that won't take place for another 23 months. The media – having to feed the beast called "24/7" – are spending every moment not consumed by the war or the latest celebrity criminal trial on the ups and downs of all the likely candidates. We're having too much fun with this to let anyone win yet, so we won't.

Meanwhile, whenever someone says so-and-so is the inevitable nominee, sit back, relax and think of Howard Dean.

This from Maurice Mcbride

Url: http://VirginiansforMittRomney.blogspot.com

The Boston Globe's reporting can be criticized for some things, but you have to admit it does have a flair for the inventive.  Yesterday's issue, for example, carried Scott Helman's article titled "Romney throwing sharp jabs at McCain."  "Oh, good!" I thought, "what's the latest?"  Well, it turns out that, according to Helman, "Romney's most recent public jab . . . came in a speech three weeks ago."  Three weeks ago! I know Christmas can be a slow news day, but three weeks ago?!  That's news?

Helman's story says:  "With the 2008 primary season just around the corner, Romney seems to be stepping up his criticism of McCain on everything from taxes to terrorism. And McCain, for the most part, is ignoring it."  http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/25/romney_throwing_sharp_jabs_at_mccain/

Now the story makes more sense, at least from the Globe's standpoint:  Mean-spirited Mitt Romney is trying to draw attention to himself, while the distinguished senior senator from Arizona does not stoop so low as to respond.

Q&A: Mitt Romney Discusses Iraq War, Reagan's Influence and Gay Marriage

Click here for the interview. Here is the intro:

As he ponders whether to seek the presidency in 2008, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday took a break from his family vacation in Utah to talk exclusively to HUMAN EVENTS about the War on Terror, his conservative beliefs and the role bloggers are playing in politics. He also clarified his views on abortion and gay marriage and addressed concerns about his healthcare plan.

Romney's term as governor ends on January 4, 2007, and he's expected to announce his future plans shortly thereafter. Recently he's reached out to conservatives, including National Review Online and talk-show host Hugh Hewitt to discuss his political views.

A complete transcript of our interview follows. It is also available to download in .mp3 format or via Windows Media.

~~~Mike

Hugh

Hugh

Posted by Mike on 12/28/06

Romney was on Human Events and Town Hall yesterday. Here is the link to the Hugh Hewitt transcript.

A blogger from the most conservative state in the country...

... Is now supporting the soon to be former governor of the most liberal state in the country...

http://idahoansformitt.wordpress.com/

He/she seems pretty cool.

What do you guys think?

How can I add links?

I'm trying to contrast the look to this site:

http://www.straighttalkamerica.com/mainsta.aspx

Here is a place that I am trying to collect McCain info... If you know the password, help me with it... If you don't know the password, I'll give it to you.

• McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell's debate coach.)

• McCain used to oppose Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

• In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

• McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

• McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

• McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

• McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won't back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

• McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

• McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he's pro-ethanol.

• McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

• And now he's both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

Photos

This photo provided by the Massachusetts governors office shows Gov. Mitt Romney, left, meeting with a Massachusetts Army National Guard member assigned to Aviation Task Force, Camp Buehring, in Kuwait in this May 23, 2006 file photo, before visiting Iraq. (AP Photo/United States Air Force, Lt. Col. Martin Moerschell, File)

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks at fundraiser for the Republican Party of Orange County in Irvine Calif. in this June 17, 2005 file photo. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File)

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gestures while speaking to a Republican Women's club in Concord, N.H. in this March 18, 2006 file photo. (AP Photo/Jim Cole, File)

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gestures while speaking to the Republican's at the 4th annual Ronald Reagan Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, in this Oct. 16, 2004 file photo. (AP Photo/Steve Pope, File)

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks during a holiday reception in Manchester, N.H., Thursday, Dec. 21, 2006. Romney will step down from office next month and is considered a possible 2008 presidential candidate. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands with former state Speaker of the House Donna Sytek at a holiday reception in Manchester, N.H., Thursday, Dec. 21, 2006. Romney will step down from office next month and is considered a possible 2008 presidential candidate. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney greets guests at a holiday reception at a holiday reception in Manchester, N.H., Thursday, Dec. 21, 2006. Romney will step down from office next month and is considered a possible 2008 presidential candidate. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?ei=UTF-8&p=mitt+romney&c=&fr=&c=news_photos