The Speech

[spare_change]

Yesterday, Mitt Romney made a speech defining the impact his religion would have on his performance if he were elected President - a sad commentary on the state of the American society that he even felt it was necessary and, even worse, that some demanded it. So much for religious freedom ....

However, in the speech was some very perceptive and lucid comments. I include them here --

"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

.......

"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, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

"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.

.............


"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

..............

"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

....................

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

......................................

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

.....................

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

[scoobertina]

It is sad that people demand to know about his personal beliefs about religion.. I for one cannot believe what has come about.. this country was founded on religion.. our right to believe as we want to believe...

thank you spare.. that was good commentary and because I don't catch any kind of news anymore it will be stored away for future references...

[tt]

The Religious Right has made a great deal out of wanting a "Moral Man." for President, yet Robertson endorsed Rudie, three (03) times married, divorced his wife on the T.V. news, kept his mistress in the Mayor's Mansion and his kids want nothing to do with him.

It isn't about Romney being a Mormon. It's his constant and unending flip/flopping. His insincere smile and plastic hair.

[oldandnaked]

The Religious Right has made a great deal out of wanting a "Moral Man." for President, yet Robertson endorsed Rudie, three (03) times married, divorced his wife on the T.V. news, kept his mistress in the Mayor's Mansion and his kids want nothing to do with him.

It isn't about Romney being a Mormon. It's his constant and unending flip/flopping. His insincere smile and plastic hair.

I'm not sure Mr. Robertson is the voice of the Religious Right. After hearing some of his statements over the past few years, I wouldn't be suprised if he were endorsing Alf or ET. Iowa is a stronghold for the RR and they seem to be leaning towards Huckabee.

Don't kid yourself about Romneys religion not being a factor, there are a good number of folks out there that wouldn't vote for him solely because of his being a Mormon. The same with not voting for Clinton because of her being a woman or Obama because he's black or his name sounds a little too similar to Osama.

[mrdiscreet]

Yes, sad that his religious views were forced to the table. "Society" did not demand this, the religious right did. That's why the religious right should be shown the door.

Sad that the religious right demanded it; sadder still that Romney confirmed he would govern as a theocrat. That is why he should be shown the door.

There was a huge difference between Romney's and Kennedy's "the Speech". Kennedy firmly spoke in favor of separation of church and state. Romney mouthed the phrase, then proceeded to assure the religious right wackos that he was their man.

[spare_change]

What, pray tell, is the difference between the religious right and the UAW?

[mrdiscreet]

What, pray tell, is the difference between the religious right and the UAW?

Hmmm, you are quite the riddler lately. But I'll take a stab: that the UAW accepts minorities as members?

[spare_change]

So does my church.

[mrdiscreet]

Plenty of liberals in the Catholic faith.

But of course that is a false religion to the religious right.

The SBC was founded upon defense of slavery, did not even nominally reject racism until 1995 (!) and CONTINUES to promote segregation in the guise of religion. By setting up "Abyssinian" (read: "black") churches, they have largely kept their white congregations "racially pure," especially in the South. Admittedly, not all of the SBC are of this mindset, but the practice continues of making non-whites uncomfortable in many Baptist churches, while at the same time offering help in organizing "your own churches" under the Baptist banner.

[mrdiscreet]

Goeffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago Professor of Constitutional Law

Mitt Romney's recent reflections on the role of religion in American politics implicitly called to mind a disturbingly distorted version of history that has become part of the conventional wisdom of American politics in recent years.

That version of history suggests that the Founders intended to create a "Christian Nation," and that we have unfortunately drifted away from that vision of the United States. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Those who promote this fiction confuse the Puritans, who intended to create a theocratic state, with the Founders, who lived 150 years later. The Founders were not Puritans, but men of the Enlightenment. They lived not in an Age of Faith, but in an Age of Reason. They viewed issues of religion through a prism of rational thought.

To be sure, there were traditional Christians among the Founders, including such men as John Jay, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Most of the Founders, however, were not traditional Christians, but deists who were quite skeptical of traditional Christianity. They believed that a benevolent Supreme Being had created the universe and the laws of nature and had given man the power of reason with which to discover the meaning of those laws. They viewed religious passion as irrational and dangerously divisive, and they challenged, both publicly and privately, the dogmas of traditional Christianity.

Benjamin Franklin, for example, dismissed most of Christian doctrine as "unintelligible." He believed in a deity who "delights" in man's "pursuit of happiness." He regarded Jesus as a wise moral philosopher, but not necessarily as a divine or divinely inspired figure. He viewed all religions as more or less interchangeable in their most fundamental tenets, which he believed required men to treat each other with kindness and respect.

Thomas Jefferson was a thoroughgoing skeptic who valued reason above faith. He subjected every religious tradition, including his own, to careful scrutiny. He had no patience for talk of miracles, revelation, and resurrection. Like Franklin, Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral philosopher, but insisted that Jesus' teachings had been distorted beyond all recognition by a succession of "corruptors," such as Paul, Augustine, and Calvin. He regarded such doctrines as predestination, trinitarianism, and original sin as "nonsense," "abracadabra" and "a deliria of crazy imaginations." He referred to Christianity as "our peculiar superstition" and maintained that "ridicule" was the only rational response to the "unintelligible propositions" of traditional Christianity.

John Adams, who identified most closely with the early Unitarians, also believed that the original teachings of Jesus had been sound, but that Christianity had subsequently gone awry. He wrote to Jefferson that the essence of his religious beliefs was captured in the phrase, "Be just and good." As President, Adams signed a treaty, unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, stating unambiguously that "the Government of the United States . . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

George Washington was respectful of traditional Christianity, but he did not have much use for it. His personal papers offer no evidence that he believed in biblical revelation, eternal life, or Jesus' divinity. Clergymen who knew Washington well bemoaned his skeptical approach to Christianity. Bishop William White, for example, admitted that no "degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in Christian revelation."

Tom Paine, the author of Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The Age of Reason, insisted that "the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian religion," because it "is free from those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason." Paine explained that deism's creed "is pure and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests. It honours Reason as the choicest gift of God to man" and "it avoids all presumptuous beliefs and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation." Paine dismissed Christianity as "a fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients." In Paine's view, traditional Christianity had "served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

These words no doubt sound shockingly blunt and "politically incorrect" to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders. The fable that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation is just that -- a fable.

It is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence does not invoke Jesus, or Christ, or Our Father, or the Almighty, but the "Laws of Nature," "Nature's God," the "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence," all phrases that belong to the tradition of deism. The Declaration of Independence is not a Puritan or Calvinist or Methodist or Baptist or Protestant or Catholic or Christian document, but a document of the Enlightenment. It is a statement that deeply and intentionally invokes the language of American deism. It is a document of its own time, and it speaks eloquently about what Americans of that time believed.

The Constitution goes even further. It does not invoke the deity at all. Unlike the Puritan documents of the early seventeenth century, it makes no reference whatever to God. It cites as its ultimate source of authority not "the command of God," but "We the People," the stated purpose of the Constitution is not to create a government "according to the will of God" but to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Significantly, the only reference to religion in the 1789 Constitution expressly prohibits the use of any religious test for public office.

The Founders were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But they also understood that religion was fundamentally a private and personal matter that had no place in the political life of a nation dedicated to the separation of church and state. They would have been appalled at the idea of the federal government sponsoring "faith-based" initiatives. They would have been quite happy to tolerate Mitt Romney's Mormonism - as long as he keeps it out of our government.

[dartgirl]

I would never dream of trying to debate you guys on religion and politics. But I do think it is a sad state of affairs that people fight and kill over religion. What should it matter how you worship or even if you do. Isn't it more important to just be a good person, to treat others fairly and live your life without being a burden on others. I never have understood why so many people are scared of the mormon religion. They are no better or worse than others and they do try and take care of their own.

No matter what you call him don't most all religions believe in a supreme being? Is it really necessary to kill, degrade and punish others who don't worship the same way you do. That is why I don't go to church anymore. Organized religion is just more than I can stand.

[spare_change]

I would never dream of trying to debate you guys on religion and politics. But I do think it is a sad state of affairs that people fight and kill over religion. What should it matter how you worship or even if you do. Isn't it more important to just be a good person, to treat others fairly and live your life without being a burden on others. I never have understood why so many people are scared of the mormon religion. They are no better or worse than others and they do try and take care of their own.

No matter what you call him don't most all religions believe in a supreme being? Is it really necessary to kill, degrade and punish others who don't worship the same way you do. That is why I don't go to church anymore. Organized religion is just more than I can stand.


Thank you, Dartgirl -- you are absolutely right -- it is an incredibly stupid thing to argue about. To deny the impact of God on US history is to deny reality. I am amazed at the venom and hatred that people will spew in order to try to justify their own existence without acceptance of God. It's not enough to put forth their views; they feel it necessary to denigrate, and degrade, the views of others as if by tearing them down, it gives credence to their position. In reality, those ideas should stand alone.

For every quote that the anti-Christians pull out in order to show that the founding fathers did not believe in religion, there are quotes that can be posited to show they did believe in it. For every quasi "expert" on Jefferson or Adams or Franklin claiming their disenchantment, and disenfranchisement, with Christianity, the other side can bring forth a quasi-expert, just as qualified, just as learned, who will prove the exact opposite.

As I said, it's an incredibly stupid thing to argue about -- as if we can reach back 280 years and read their minds. But, it's popular to demean Christianity, so that's what they do. It's pretty easy to attack people who died 275 years ago -- they aren't here to defend themselves. Members of the Christian community, on the other hand, secure in their beliefs, hunker down and wait for them to find somebody else to blame for their lot in life.

The Christian Right, this massive political movement, this supposed evil, this massive malignancy who, if some are to be believed, is responsible for every ill in the world, who caused dictators to massacre his own people, who caused "good little boys" to grow up to rape, to murder, to kill anyone who stands between them and absolute power and wealth, is no different than the UAW or NAACP or any of a myriad of other groups who try to foist their ideals on others, and try to manipulate in order to gain more power. Are they wrong? No more than the other organizations --- remember, the largest single lobbying organization in DC is AARP. Since they clearly favor seniors, even to the point of causing younger people to suffer, do we propose to attack them and drive them out? Women represent the largest single voting bloc -- do we cast them out, too? No. We let them all enter the political arena, fight for their causes, and may be the best man win.

So, one side screams shrilly, developing more lavish, more exotic, and more unbelievable scenarios of secret societies, of madness for power, of a lust for world domination, while the other side ignores them.... and so, they create even more outlandish scenarios, trumpeting them from rooftops, trying to get attention .... and the other side ignores them.

[mrdiscreet]

I would never dream of trying to debate you guys on religion and politics. But I do think it is a sad state of affairs that people fight and kill over religion. What should it matter how you worship or even if you do. Isn't it more important to just be a good person, to treat others fairly and live your life without being a burden on others. I never have understood why so many people are scared of the mormon religion. They are no better or worse than others and they do try and take care of their own.

No matter what you call him don't most all religions believe in a supreme being? Is it really necessary to kill, degrade and punish others who don't worship the same way you do. That is why I don't go to church anymore. Organized religion is just more than I can stand.

You should -- you have us both beat!

I think your post captured exactly what our Constitution tried to protect: a land where everyone's private beliefs are respected, but no one attempts to use public power to impose their own beliefs on others.

[mrdiscreet]

The Christian Right ... is no different than the UAW or NAACP or any of a myriad of other groups who try to foist their ideals on others, and try to manipulate in order to gain more power.

Exactly wrong. It's called separation of church and state, precisely so that an intolerant religious sect does not seize power and impose its "morality" on the rest of us.

If the SBC gained the political power it seeks, it -- as it openly professes -- would use state power to:

(1) criminalize alcohol consumption

(2) prohibit the teaching of evolution in school

(3) require "accommodations" for "voluntary" religious time, during the school day

(4) criminalize homosexuality

and that's just for starters.

The religious right specializes is claiming persecution (note all the made up persecution complex comments in Spare's response above) while it in fact seeks to persecute.

No one cares how the religious right choose to live their own lives -- until they try to tell us how to live ours.

[spare_change]

.... which, of course, is exactly what the party in power, whatever their affiliation, does. So, it isn't a question of IF you are told how to live your life, but by WHOM you are told.

[mrdiscreet]

Thank you, Dartgirl -- you are absolutely right -- it is an incredibly stupid thing to argue about. [But here comes the argument ...] To deny the impact of God on US history is to deny reality. I am amazed at the venom and hatred that people will spew [What people? Persecution complex Ex. 1] in order to try to justify their own existence without acceptance of God. [Why do non-Christians need to justify their existence?] It's not enough to put forth their views; they feel it necessary to denigrate, and degrade, the views of others as if by tearing them down, it gives credence to their position. In reality, those ideas should stand alone. [Persecution complex Ex. 2]

For every quote that the anti-Christians [persecution complex Ex. 3] pull out in order to show that the founding fathers did not believe in religion [correction: encouraged private belief, but rejected religion enforced by the State], there are quotes that can be posited to show they did believe in it. For every quasi "expert" on Jefferson or Adams or Franklin claiming their disenchantment, and disenfranchisement, with Christianity, the other side can bring forth a quasi-expert, just as qualified, just as learned, who will prove the exact opposite. [Wrong. And extra points for the persecution complex (Ex. 4) twist: no scholars claim the founders were hostile to religion. They held a broad range of religious (and non-religious) beliefs. But constitutional scholars broadly agree the founders emphatically did fear religious mandates imposed by the State. This not a matter of split scholarly opinion.]

As I said, it's an incredibly stupid thing to argue about -- as if we can reach back 280 years and read their minds. But, it's popular to demean Christianity, so that's what they do. [Who are "they"? persecution complex Ex. 5] It's pretty easy to attack people who died 275 years ago -- they aren't here to defend themselves. Members of the Christian community, on the other hand, secure in their beliefs, hunker down and wait for them to find somebody else to blame for their lot in life. [Hmmm, exactly who is denigrating and degrading whom here?]

The Christian Right, this massive political movement, this supposed evil, this massive malignancy who, if some are to be believed, is responsible for every ill in the world, who caused dictators to massacre his own people, who caused "good little boys" to grow up to rape, to murder, to kill anyone who stands between them and absolute power and wealth [Persecution complex Exs. 6,7,8,9,10. Wow!] , is no different than the UAW or NAACP or any of a myriad of other groups who try to foist their ideals on others, and try to manipulate in order to gain more power. Are they wrong? No more than the other organizations --- remember, the largest single lobbying organization in DC is AARP. Since they clearly favor seniors, even to the point of causing younger people to suffer, do we propose to attack them and drive them out? Women represent the largest single voting bloc -- do we cast them out, too? No. We let them all enter the political arena, fight for their causes, and may be the best man win.

So, one side screams shrilly, developing more lavish, more exotic, and more unbelievable scenarios of secret societies, of madness for power, of a lust for world domination [persecution complex Ex. 11], while the other side ignores them.... and so, they create even more outlandish scenarios, trumpeting them from rooftops, trying to get attention .... and the other side ignores them.

America, such an oppressive country to live in as a Christian!

[spare_change]

America, such an oppressive country to live in as a Christian!


You know, I feel perfectly comfortable being who I am in this country. I don't feel the least bit persecuted. It's just a shame you don't feel the same. I didn't realize the fact that I believe in God scared you so much.

[mrdiscreet]

.... which, of course, is exactly what the party in power, whatever their affiliation, does. So, it isn't a question of IF you are told how to live your life, but by WHOM you are told.

Now that's a surprising statement. So obedient! So unAmerican!

I choose liberty. Time to crack a beer (a Sam Adams :D). And anyone who wants to take my lager away from me will have to pry it out of my (icy) cold dead hands! :lmao

[spare_change]

"There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven
can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained."

-- George Washington (First Inaugural Address, 1789)

Sure sounds like a guy who didn't believe in God to me.

[mrdiscreet]

Well that's a thin reed.

George Washington and Religion

Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later.

When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception."

Clear evidence of his personal theology is lacking, even on his deathbed when he died a "death of civility" without expressions of Christian hope. His failure to document beliefs in conventional dogma, such as a life after death, is a clue that he may not qualify as a conventional Christian. Instead, Washington may be closer to a "warm deist" than a standard Anglican in colonial Virginia.

And on that note, I will take DartGirl's advice and end this loop -- without returning the insults you have just launched at me.

[spare_change]

Well that's a thin reed.

George Washington and Religion

Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later.

When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception."

Clear evidence of his personal theology is lacking, even on his deathbed when he died a "death of civility" without expressions of Christian hope. His failure to document beliefs in conventional dogma, such as a life after death, is a clue that he may not qualify as a conventional Christian. Instead, Washington may be closer to a "warm deist" than a standard Anglican in colonial Virginia.

And on that note, I will take DartGirl's advice and end this loop -- without returning the insults you have just launched at me.


Methinks your skin is much too thin -- I very carefully avoided launching insults at you. When in doubt, huh? It is not a personal attack to subject your assertions and arguments to scrutiny ... unless, of course, you feel threatened.

[mrdiscreet]

Methinks your skin is much too thin -- I very carefully avoided launching insults at you. When in doubt, huh? It is not a personal attack to subject your assertions and arguments to scrutiny ... unless, of course, you feel threatened.

This is too funny. Baiting comments that I am scared and feel threatened are not insulting? You have an interesting concept of civil discourse.

Feeling holy tonight, I turn the other cheek,

so as to take better aim ... and fart in your general direction :na

[spare_change]

Well, that's classy.

[Cotties]

Hope we are all behaving:sc

[tt]

I would never dream of trying to debate you guys on religion and politics. But I do think it is a sad state of affairs that people fight and kill over religion. What should it matter how you worship or even if you do. Isn't it more important to just be a good person, to treat others fairly and live your life without being a burden on others. I never have understood why so many people are scared of the mormon religion. They are no better or worse than others and they do try and take care of their own.

No matter what you call him don't most all religions believe in a supreme being? Is it really necessary to kill, degrade and punish others who don't worship the same way you do. That is why I don't go to church anymore. Organized religion is just more than I can stand.

I am very proud to be a diest. There is a god, but I for one really doubt if the maker of "The Heavens and The Earth." is consumed with te pity day to day of just ONE (01) planet that is in the midst of his/her creation.

Nor do I buy into the whole Organzied Religion thing, if there was only One (01) true church, then that is exactly what there would be, One (01) true church. I really don't care how a person worships, where a person worships, who a person worships or for that matter why a person worships. It is more important (at least to me) that a person carries out in their day to day life, the values that they as an individual believe in. Bible Beaters are also wife beaters. They will sit on a wooden pew on Sunday and profess a love of god, the strong belief in the love of god, and then turn around in the name of that self same god and kill, rape, torture, steal and in the name of that self same god, damn people who do not follow the same path.

Nope, I'll stay home, listen to some good jazz, read the newspaper and will, in my own and very private way give thanks.

And no, I'm am not wrong in doing exactly that.

[Barkiss]

Plenty of liberals in the Catholic faith.

But of course that is a false religion to the religious right.

The SBC was founded upon defense of slavery, did not even nominally reject racism until 1995 (!) and CONTINUES to promote segregation in the guise of religion. By setting up "Abyssinian" (read: "black") churches, they have largely kept their white congregations "racially pure," especially in the South. Admittedly, not all of the SBC are of this mindset, but the practice continues of making non-whites uncomfortable in many Baptist churches, while at the same time offering help in organizing "your own churches" under the Baptist banner.

Pretty bold statement from a Yankee living in Chicago who admits to not attending church. The SBC is actually the fastest growing minority, specifically blacks, religious organization in the world. Matter of fact, during the time that you declare the SBC "did not even nominally reject racism until 1995", Gary Frost, a black man, was serving as the SBC's 2nd Vice President. Might want to check you facts prior to stating something so obviously wrong.

Personally I grew up as a Southern Baptist. My entire family still attends Southern Baptist churches, serves on their boards, or as deacons in the churches. For my own reasons I converted to Catholism in the '90s; however I can say without a doubt that as I grew up there were many different shapes, sizes, colors, genders, etc...throughout each of the SBC churches I did missionaries for...all across the South.

[mrdiscreet]

Pretty bold statement from a Yankee living in Chicago who admits to not attending church. The SBC is actually the fastest growing minority, specifically blacks, religious organization in the world. Matter of fact, during the time that you declare the SBC "did not even nominally reject racism until 1995", Gary Frost, a black man, was serving as the SBC's 2nd Vice President. Might want to check you facts prior to stating something so obviously wrong.

Personally I grew up as a Southern Baptist. My entire family still attends Southern Baptist churches, serves on their boards, or as deacons in the churches. For my own reasons I converted to Catholism in the '90s; however I can say without a doubt that as I grew up there were many different shapes, sizes, colors, genders, etc...throughout each of the SBC churches I did missionaries for...all across the South.

Why would not attending church be something one would "admit to" as if it were wrong? In any event, I don't recall sharing my personal habits here, nor do I think we should be personalizing our posts.

But thank you for the compliment; I do like to think of myself as bold. And and fact-based:

SBC renounces racist past - Southern Baptist Convention


Christian Century (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058), July 5, 1995 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112)

THE SOUTHERN Baptist Convention voted June 20 to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery. On its opening day the convention altered its planned order of business in order to consider the statement of repudiation and repentance, prior to a celebration of the SBC's 150th anniversary the same evening. More than 20,000 Southern Baptists registered for the June 20-22 meeting at Atlanta's Georgia Dome.

And this from the SBC's own resolutions in 1995:

Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention
June 1995



WHEREAS, Since its founding in 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention has been an effective instrument of God in missions, evangelism, and social ministry; and

...

WHEREAS, Our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention; and

WHEREAS, Many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery; and

WHEREAS, In later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support, and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans; and
...

WHEREAS, Many of our congregations have intentionally and/or unintentionally excluded African-Americans from worship, membership, and leadership; and

That said, I was unaware of the growth black membership in the SBC; interesting, and thank you for the information.

[Barkiss]

Why would not attending church be something one would "admit to" as if it were wrong? In any event, I don't recall sharing my personal habits here, nor do I think we should be personalizing our posts.

But thank you for the compliment; I do like to think of myself as bold. And and fact-based:

First...my apologies if my sarcasm came across as insulting. Sometimes the damn keys on my keyboard have a hard time expressing the right attitude in my posts.

Second...whether or not you attend church or follow any organized religion is truly not my concern. And I might have mistaken you for someone else when I stated that you "admitted" to not attending church. Once again...my apologies.

However...I completely disagree that these posts shouldn't be personalized. Anyone can Google this day and age and fine a million and one different opinions on whatever subject interests them. However I tend to want to share and hear your personal beliefs and experiences in regards to whatever subject we are discussing. It is the personalization which makes these posts more entertaining to read...and I think if you truly thought about it...you would agree.

Lastly....you are absolutely correct that the SBC did hold a national conference in 1995 where they renounced their history in slavery and segragation. Let me repeat that....they renounced their HISTORY. They did not set a mandate that stated there would be no more slavery or segragation in their churches. All they did was apologize and renounce their involvement in such activities. Your post made it sound like the present day SBC was still involved in both. All I was disputing was that in my experiences, and from what I know of the SBC, recent history does not support such claims as slavery and racism existing in the SBC.

[mrdiscreet]

First...my apologies if my sarcasm came across as insulting. Sometimes the damn keys on my keyboard have a hard time expressing the right attitude in my posts.

Second...whether or not you attend church or follow any organized religion is truly not my concern. And I might have mistaken you for someone else when I stated that you "admitted" to not attending church. Once again...my apologies.

However...I completely disagree that these posts shouldn't be personalized. Anyone can Google this day and age and fine a million and one different opinions on whatever subject interests them. However I tend to want to share and hear your personal beliefs and experiences in regards to whatever subject we are discussing. It is the personalization which makes these posts more entertaining to read...and I think if you truly thought about it...you would agree.

Lastly....you are absolutely correct that the SBC did hold a national conference in 1995 where they renounced their history in slavery and segragation. Let me repeat that....they renounced their HISTORY. They did not set a mandate that stated there would be no more slavery or segragation in their churches. All they did was apologize and renounce their involvement in such activities. Your post made it sound like the present day SBC was still involved in both. All I was disputing was that in my experiences, and from what I know of the SBC, recent history does not support such claims as slavery and racism existing in the SBC.

Thank you. I was mostly offended because I am a Cubs fan, not a Yankees fan. :)

I do agree with you on sharing personal experience as each of us chooses, and that doing so makes posts here more sincere. I was really referring to feeling personally attacked, and happy we are not going that route.

Your comments on current minority growth in the SBC were educational for me, and fascinating. With SBC's active involvement as a GOP voting bloc, it would be a major shift if black SBC voting flips to GOP. Horrors!

Peace :wa:

[oldandnaked]

I think most of us agree in this day and age how a candidate worships shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they get nominated. Unfortunately it's a major factor to many. Can you imagine if one of them professed to be Islamic, Buddist, Hindu or God forbid Atheist or Agnostic. They wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.