How can I be sure

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Wow. Now anytime we cite an example of a non-religious person committing a heinous crime, he's really like a religious person. That's a wonderful leap of faith on your part.

Just admit you're out to lunch on this one, and cut your losses or you'll come out looking like Rocky on grapevine.

Religious people are no more likely to undo the Constitution than nonreligious people are. Your question was intended to be inflammatory and absurd. If you believe there's any truth to it, then you must on meds or something, or in need of an early morning scotch, friend.

I don't think I posed a realistic concern, but not for the reasons you state. It's not fair to compare religion restrained and informed by our enlightened civic society to religion not so affected. Religion is relatively harmless in this day and age in America. But even during Shakespeare's time Protestants were still hunting down Catholics and killing them and executing people who professed atheism. Mormonism has the same gene for dogmatic excess as any other religion. Dogmatic excess represented by fascism and communism is still dogmatic excess. Can you distinguish between radical Islam and facscism? History demonstrates that this is how religion mutates when you remove it from the enlightening and restraining effects of democratic institutions and attendant societal values. Again, such values and insitututions are the freakish exception in world history.

It may well be that Romney is less inclined than George Bush to disregard and disrespect basic liberties. But if so, it is because of his exposure to American democratic insitututions and values embodied in the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, rather than his particular religious uprbringing per se.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't think I posed a realistic concern, but not for the reasons you state. It's not fair to compare religion restrained and informed by our enlightened civic society to religion not so affected. Religion is relatively harmless in this day and age in America. But even during Shakespeare's time Protestants were still hunting down Catholics and killing them and executing people who professed atheism. Mormonism has the same gene for dogmatic excess as any other religion. Dogmatic excess represented by fascism and communism is still dogmatic excess. Can you distinguish between radical Islam and facscism? History demonstrates that this is how religion mutates when you remove it from the enlightening and restraining effects of democratic institutions and attendant societal values. Again, such values and insitututions are the freakish exception in world history.

It may well be that Romney is less inclined than George Bush to disregard and disrespect basic liberties. But if so, it is because of his exposure to American democratic insitututions and values embodied in the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, rather than his particular religious uprbringing per se.

The fact that he must be pragmatic living in Mass might also contribute to that. Or he could just be a reaonable, decent human being, even if he is a politician.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The fact that he must be pragmatic living in Mass might also contribute to that. Or he could just be a reaonable, decent human being, even if he is a politician.

I think you just made my point.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think you just made my point.

I don't agree with the "gene" theory or that religionists have an agenda driving them to excesses. That is a patently absurd theory.

Some persons have a control concept that drives them to excesses, and religion, economic or other causes are excuses for those controlmanias.

I sense none of that in Romney but I could just be buying into his shtick.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think you just made my point.

I'm not sure this is so. Do you contend that religions principles can only foster reasonable behavior in the presence of post-enlightenment ideas? Were no pre-enlightenment religious adherents good, decent persons? If any were, then your point is not proved, it seems to me.

[BlueK]

[QUOTE=SeattleUte;79370]if Romney wins he won't commence to systematically dismantle our Republican government like what happened to the Weimar Republic in Germany circa 1933?[/QUOTE

He couldn't possibly make a more valiant effort at that than our current president has, could he?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think Bush has tried as hard as he can to abridge the Bill of Rights, and would go much further if he could. Americans' greatest failing is that they take their liberties for granted. Their collective igonorance of history is such that they hardly appreciate that our system and its attendant privileges is a freakish exception in history, and probably doomed ultimatley to go away.

I agree about Americans' growing ignorance about this. However, if you think Romney is a bigger threat than some previous occupants of the White House to try this (like FDR or even GWB) then this is just your bigotry speaking.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

if Romney wins he won't commence to systematically dismantle our Republican government like what happened to the Weimar Republic in Germany circa 1933?

You can't.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I'm not sure this is so. Do you contend that religions principles can only foster reasonable behavior in the presence of post-enlightenment ideas? Were no pre-enlightenment religious adherents good, decent persons? If any were, then your point is not proved, it seems to me.

I don't contend that. I am not professing to address the full panoply of good or reasonable deeds in which humans can engage. Nor do I claim religious institutions are incapable of any such good deeds. There have been many performed by religious people and institutions. As you probably know, the most prominent radical Islamic organizations have gained substantial popular support by establishing hospitals, schools, and charitable organizations while the local civil authoritiarian governments (often US allies) did much less such good works.

What I am saying, and I think history fully supports me in this, is that religious institutions are fundamentally, implacabley and at a cellular level, hostile to democratic insitutions and civil liberties. They are intolerant of the conditions of plurality and diverse view points that are both a necessary foundation for and fostered by democratic institutions and liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. Moreover, I think that traditionally this hostility is self-evidently transmitted to the mainstream of religious adherants. For example, I saw in a recent post that Mormon Red Death said that when the brethren speak, thinking stops. In my experience, this is not an atypical mindset for an average Mormon. Now, do I want a president who has that mind set? Not on your freaking life.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Hitler, Stalin and Mao practiced religions called fascism and/or communism. These bore all the traits of religion, including the professed good intentions.

Totalitarian goverment shares some of the characteristics of organized religion, ergo?

Could you not also say that totalitarian governments share many of the characteristics of ALL governments, therefore all governments......