Posted on 12/06/2007 8:22:12 AM PST by La Enchiladita
(CNN) -- White House hopeful Mitt Romney said religious liberty "is fundamental to America's greatness," in his Thursday address on faith in America.
..."There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders," Romney said.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone," he said.
..."If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Fred may have a chance to be Mitt’s VP.
Or, maybe Attorney General...?
“I’d prefer a man who is guided by his beliefs and sticks by them no matter what the situation”
That man would be Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee.
Ya think, Rush might get on board with Mitt?!
Thank you very much for posting the entire speech!!
The speech was brilliant.
Although I want to see more of the other candidates, this man may very well be a gift that we can’t afford to turn down.
Rush stated that he’s been dreaming of a speech like the one Mitt gave.
Rush is so mushy sometimes....lol...:)
Hah! Dream on, buddy....
:)
Thanks for posting the full transcript!
It is coming in handy for many.
The company got their first warning last year. They’ve been fired.
Yep. Romney’s timing, not to mention how he delivered the speech, were designed specifically to smack Huckabee around for ‘going there’ in the first place.
It also puts Hillary Clinton into an awkward position down the road.
“Isn’t the main difference between a cult and a religion (other than longevity and acceptance) the fact that in a cult you cannot leave without repurcussions? Can Mormons leave without repurcussions? Perhaps they can.”
If someone wants to leave the church, all they have to do is send their Bishop a letter requesting it in writing, or join another church and inform their Bishop.
If someone leaves the church and then goes on some personal vendetta to attack the church and pull as many other people out of it as they can, I wouldn’t be interested in being around them. Not because they left, but because of their behavior. If someone fell into sin to the point where they do something that requires their excommunication but they are repentant, or they just became ambivalent about it or decided to leave without starting such a crusade it wouldn’t change my relationship with them much, if at all.
It is absolutely false that members are told to divorce if their partner leaves the church. Anyone who believes in their faith will encourage others to not leave, or to come back. Those joining us face the exact same kind of encouragement from the members of their former church and from family members who did not convert.
Needs repeating....over and over and over and...
He does admit to differences, albeit in very broad terms:
"My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths."
I think he should have been more explict that those differences are large, without getting into any details. In fact, I suggested to his staff that he say something like this:
"I recognize that my church has some fundamental theological differences with other Christian Churches, and that these differences are so large that some churches don't even consider my church to be Christian. That's okay. This is America and they're entitled to their opinion, and I don't see it as my job to change it. I'm not a spokesman for my church. However, I don't beleive these theological differences are relevant to the office of the president. I'm running for commander in chief, not pastor in chief."
But on the whole I think it was a good speech.
>>I don’t have my scriptures with me<<
www.biblegateway.com is what I commonly use when I don’t have my Bible with me. Since you’re already on-line, you may wish to check it out.
>>but there are several on not judging others, which, when translated from Greek, means not to condemn others.<<
1) In it’s context, Christ is speaking about hypocritical judgement. An example would be me, who smokes a pipe, condemning someone who smokes cigars. Or, a non-Christian trying to tell a Christian how to be a better Christian.
1a) Righteous judgment, made in the light of scripture, is not only acceptable, but necessary. The Bereans used righteous judgment when they searched the scriptures to see if Paul’s words had any merit. David admonished Solomon to “preserve sound judgment and discernment - they will be life to you”. Paul righteously judged the Corinthian and Galatian churches in his letters because what they were doing did not align with Scripture.
2) *I’m* not condemning anybody. I’m merely repeating what God’s word has already said about those who are outside of Christ.
3) There’s a difference between unrighteous judgment, righteous judgment and condemnation. Unrighteous judgment is in the example I provided in 1. Righteous judgment is showing someone what God’s word says on a particular subject - ie, someone saying that God loves everyone, when Scripture says otherwise. Condemnation is me saying that Mitt is going to go to hell because he’s a Mormon. I can’t say that. I can say what God’s word says about it, and show how Mormonism doesn’t align with God’s word, but I can’t condemn Mitt to hell.
>>think they know the scriptures in their literal translation<<
If you don’t believe the Bible is to be taken literally, then I hope you’re not using it as a guide in your life. If it’s not literal, then what’s the point? Feel free to show me which passages I posted are to be taken figuritively, and which are to be taken literally.
>>but also pick and choose<<
Please feel free then to provide scriptural support for your claims (that God loves everyone, and that those who are outside of Christ can gain Heaven), as well as any that counter what I’ve posted. That’s what good debate is all about!
We have no problem with calling Christ God, and we believe that Christ was begotten of the Father in the beginning as a spirit, then later begotten in the flesh as the Son of God.
But, as has been pointed out, it makes no difference as to being a good POTUS or not.
Yes, and a person's position on whether the CFR is consistent with those principles is a policy position.
“Why would a Mormon Bishop and his wife leave the church, unless they learned that Mormonism is based on a fraud?”
That is like asking ‘Why would Judas sell out Christ unless he learned Christ really wasn’t the Son of God?’
I’ve seen MANY converts to us be disowned by their families for leaving their former church. Do you object to that too?
You are one of the ignorant ones. I hope you will wake up and see the light.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.