Log In | Register
As a presidential candidate, he has been flip-flopping profusely in an effort to tailor his image to appeal to conservative voters. But moral and philosophical convictions cannot be peddled as products and his liberal record betrays his conservative facade.
Even if Mitt Romney held true convictions, Christians cannot vote for someone who not only belongs to but also leads as high priest a Christ-dishonoring cult that tries to pass itself off as Christian while teaching Satanic lies about Jesus (here is why).
MITT ROMNEY MORMON - High Mormon Priest Mitt Romney
Seeded on Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:34 AM EST
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (14)
I personally don't care which Republican candidate actually wins the nomination for President to me any candidate with and "R" behind his name will be bad for America, the American economy and the American people.
When you listen to Mitt Romney it is obvious that he is just as obsessed with Iran as Bush was with Iraq.
As a veteran it annoys me to no end that for a draft dodger who dodged the draft because of his faith during the Vietnam War he has certainly come to like the idea of starting a war if he were to be elected President.
If war was bad because he was a Mormon Priest as a younger man and he is still a High Priest in the Mormon Religion today what has changed and why does he support war as a older man who wouldn't have to personally fight or risk his life.
- 2 votes
#1 - Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:38 AM ESTThanks for the link to Godvoter.org. I did not realize how insane the rabid religious right really is. All religions are equally cults. If Mr. Romney is unfit to be president so then is every other believer from whichever cult they belong. I will not vote for any of the Rebublicans, they represent an ignorant constituency - anti-evolution and anti-abortion their most outstanding misunderstandings. Evolution is a fact! No ifs and or buts! Roe v Wade is good jurisprudence and, if you read it, allows government intervention in the process by degrees. Please, I would rather have an atheist who respects or dis-respects all religions than any true believer.
#2 - Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:05 PM ESTDo not assume all religious people are bad. Some "NO" a lot of us do not except what the right wing Evangelicals believe. There are a lot of us and I am one who who belongs to a Church that is excepting of all people. Of all races and GBLT people.
- 1 vote
Dr. Wes
I would rather have an atheist who respects or dis-respects all religions than any true believer.
Dis-respects? I don't want anyone, atheist, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Wiccan, agnostic, etc. who "dis-respects" people simply because they believe in a Creator. Maybe we should just concentrate on electing someone who will support our Constitutional rights, regardless of their personal beliefs.
- 2 votes
Hecates Daughter
I think we have reached the point or are close to reaching it where mankind no longer needs a religion based GOD.
We have harnessed the power of the atom which is more power than any primitive civilization could have ever imagined.
We fly through the air over distances that no one could have imagined just a couple of centuries ago.
We travel under the waters of our oceans
We can move mountains with our earth moving machines
We have traveled into space
We are unlocking the secrets of DNA
We are cloning extinct animals
We have created artificial intelligence
Soon we will have robots and then cyborgs
And finally we will begin deep space exploration.
Knowledge is our true GOD. And we are only limited by our imagination.
While all of this may be true, some people do believe in a Creator of some sort (most do; take a look at the statistics). Everyone should be free to believe or disbelieve, so long as that freedom does not infringe on another's rights. Freedom of thought must be allowed; including the freedom to believe in a Creator. I do not belong to a mainstream religion; nor do I claim to know the "truth". But based on my (albeit subjective) experiences and my reasoning, I would be lying if I said I did not believe in a Creator. Yes, I believe in evolution, yes I believe in equal rights, etc. But until we can 1. prove the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time or 2. create life "from scratch" (not cloning) I will continue to believe. And it is my right to do so; to be "dis-respected" for that belief is as wrong as "dis-respecting" atheists (which certain religious groups love to do, Idk why) for their disbelief.
Further, it is possible for atheists and believers to respect each other; my closest friend of nearly 20 years is, and has always been, an atheist.
- 1 vote
Hecate's Daughter
What people believe is not as important as to what is the truth.
Choosing to believe that the things I listed above was at one time enough to get a person hung or burned at the stake by the church.
The church today is a promoter and a major source of ignorance which is stifling the development of man.
Most of the racism, bigotry and hate that exist in the world today can be traced directly or indirectly to mans beliefs not in knowledge and science but in religious dogma and teachings.
I don't think we know the "truth" quite yet. I also think it is possible to believe in a Creator without following a bunch of dogma. I belong to no "church"...and a few hundred years ago I'D have been burned at the stake. But to imply that those who believe that a Creator started this whole "existence" thing are worthy of disrespect, simply because YOU feel science has all the answers (or will soon) seems a bit arrogant. I know about Galileo, I know about Bruno. I think teaching ID is insane. But I don't think we have reached a point where we can simply dismiss the idea of a Creator; nor "disrespect" those who believe in one.
I have met few atheists who approve of "disrespecting" someone for their beliefs, as most of the atheists I know have been the victims of disrespect by the Radical Right. Am I correct in assuming you believe you "know" (as in "for a fact" that there is no Creator?
I believe with all my being that there is, yet I am willing to admit I have no empirical evidence, and therefore do not "know" I am correct...
- 1 vote
I believe in the reality of our existence from the most primitive state of existence up to the modern era minus any mythical or mystical being given the credit or the blame for our own shortcomings.
#3 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:26 PM ESTI agree that any shortcomings we have are not the fault of the Creator; we choose to be kind or hurtful, and we suffer the consequences, regardless of how many "I'm sorry's" we say. Some call it karma; I think it's more "cause and effect".
Where I disagree is in the implication that it is okay to treat someone as a "second-class citizen" because that person believes, as I do, in a Creator.
And, I also think there is more to the "reality of our existence" than meets the eye; in much the same vein as Plato. Jmho, but I don't think I should be disrespected for it.
People who try to impose their beliefs on others, use their beliefs to deny equality for women, gays and lesbians, etc., or try to hinder science (stem cell research, etc.) based on their beliefs ARE a problem; but it is their actions that are worthy of disrespect, not their belief in a Creator.
You use the words "mythical" and "mystical". Again, I ask, do you claim to "know" there is no Creator?
- 1 vote
#4 - Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:44 PM ESTHecates Daughter
What do any of us really know except we are alive?
We know of death but we don't know death until we die.
The living have hope of a better life but for the dead it is over.
My belief in a Creator has nothing to do with an afterlife. I am concerned about how we treat each other in THIS life. As for it being "over" when you are dead...who's to say? Personally, I believe in reincarnation. But if given the choice between "the eternal recurrence" (a concept that is quite different from reincarnation, as I am sure you are aware) and non-existence, I'd take the non-existence. In the case of non-existence, death would be no different from the time before you were born...hence, you'd be too non-existent to care. I'd also take non-existence over an eternity worshiping a God with self-esteem problems.
I do not "know" what happens after one dies, so therefore I cannot claim "reincarnation is the truth!" anymore than I can claim "when you're dead, it's over." Can you?
- 1 vote
What do any of us really know except we are alive?
Actually, we don't even know that. What is "alive"? It obviously isn't the fullness of what we can be if we use it to describe how we live in this existence. We know that because our brains are capable of so much more than we use them for.
We might only be characters in a play thought up by another being. We might only be atoms in the larger scope of a larger being, much like our cells are part of us. We might only be a hologram of the universe and the universe a hologram of us.
There are many variations of "reality" that can and should be explored. To think we are the most important critters or inventions in the universe is simple arrogance and egoism. As is the idea we are the most important creation of a creator.
Because none of us has any proof our beliefs are factual, we should respect our own beliefs and those of others -- as long as others are not trying to deprive us of the right to our own beliefs. That's where religion goes awry. Too many religions are dedicated to controlling not only their own believers but everyone else. That is not and cannot be "godly." The need to dominate and control is as far from godly as I can imagine.
Each of us is spiritual, including the atheist. It matters not what we call our spiritual expressions. It only matters that it exists.
But religious dogma is to spirituality what prison is to freedom. Our spirituality is meant to evolve and change throughout life. That's how we progress into wisdom. Dogma requires just the opposite. It requires we force our spiritual selves to a standstill and to ask no questions nor make progress toward independent wisdom.
The idea that science can replace spirituality is a non-starter. Facts are merely facts. Spirituality is where wisdom resides.
- 3 votes
To even presuppose that there is a spiritual world requires imagination and some knowledge but that curiosity doesn't mean automatically that there is a creator, heaven or hell.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
