Reasons to agree
|
The Supreme Court got it exactly right today in their decision affirming an individual right to bear arms.
What concerns me is that four members of the court dissented. The narrow 5-4 ruling is yet another reminder of the importance of appointing strict constructionist judges who will not read rights out of the Constitution but instead affirm the ones that are plainly stated there.
In striking down the DC ban on handgun ownership, the Court stood up for one of our most cherished freedoms, the freedom to defend our lives, our property and our liberty. This should put to rest once and for all the fanciful notion that gun ownership in America is tied to membership in a state militia.
Religion and Freedom
As prepared by Mitt Romney for delivery to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Dinner
May 8, 2008
Thank you.
It is an honor for Ann and me to be with you this evening. We have a lot of friends who work with the Becket Fund. As you can imagine, that makes your recognition even more meaningful.
Your mission – and my topic this evening – involve the intertwining of religion and government. It's not a new topic. It was in the 12th century that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett famously refused to allow Henry II to control the Church of England. As you are well aware, his conviction came with a high price: he was killed by the king's soldiers in his own cathedral.
Our religious liberty in America was bought in large measure by the sacrifice of men and women like Thomas Beckett.
The battle for religious freedom is not over, nor is it likely to ever be. I appreciate the work you do to protect a fundamental human liberty and to defend those who are modern victims of religious intolerance and persecution.
As you know, I gave a speech about religious liberty during the height of my campaign. This was not a speech I was forced to give, it was a speech I wanted to give. I felt that I had a unique opportunity to address in a very public way the role of faith in America.
In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest – unheard and unheeded. It also gave me the chance to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.
Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off – after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers – why should non-believers get special treatment?
But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert the following: non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.
If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief – to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience – it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.
We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.
Perhaps the phrase which elicited the most comment – and controversy – was this: "[the Founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
Looking back, do I still believe that religion requires freedom?
History abounds with examples where religion has been imposed by the state upon a people – from the Greek city-state to the dictatorship of the Taliban. But that is not the faith of which I speak. True religious faith is a matter of conviction. It can only be discovered through personal communion with God, sought in the heart and in the heavens. And that path of personal discovery is of necessity free of constraint and censor. Yes, I believe religion requires freedom.
The more controversial assertion, however, was that freedom requires religion.
One critic dismissed this idea by pointing out that there are countries in Europe which have become godless but nevertheless remain democratic. But I was not speaking about Europe's recent experiments in state secularism, I was speaking about America and the larger family of free nations; and I was not speaking about a moment of time, but rather about a span of history. Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive – over centuries – if we were to abandon our faith in God?
I don't believe so.
This is hardly a novel view.
It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were recognized as having been gifted by God, not by kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure," Jefferson once asked, "when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?"
John Adams offers an added perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man's nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: "Human passions unbridled by morality and religion" he said "…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."
Nor can we overlook the fact that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.
"We and God have business with each other," William James once observed. "In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled." When a people's "deepest destiny" can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!
We have recently been visited by Pope Benedict XVI. It was interesting to me that both he and Pope John Paul II, testified of the connection between freedom and truth. Pope Benedict quoted his predecessor: "in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation." Calling those words "prophetic," he said they echo in some sense the conviction of George Washington's Farewell Address, that "religion and morality represent 'indispensable supports' of political prosperity." And then he added his own conviction: "Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation."
I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: "Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell."
I don't mean to suggest that truth can only be found in religion or that morality exists only among believers. But I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that "national morality" as Hamilton put it, "require[s] the aid of…divinely authoritative religion." Or as Washington put it, morality cannot prevail "in exclusion of religious principle." I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against moral relativism—which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable that it can label "evil good, and good evil;" in the words of Isaiah and "put darkness for light, and light for darkness."
I also believe that religion and the general precepts of morality defended by religion make us better men and women. And on the whole, I believe we are a stronger people and a stronger nation because of faith. Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy. That last teaching alone may help us escape the demographic nightmare that is haunting Europe.
There is one more reason why I am convinced that our freedom requires religion.
One day as a boy when a sermon at church was unusually boring, I asked my Dad to give me a dollar bill so I could look at something more interesting. On the back, there is a curious picture of a single eye surrounded by rays suspended over a pyramid—the great seal of the United States. What's that, I asked? My father explained that it was the eye of God, and that the Founders believed that He watched over the affairs of this nation. And I later learned that the words on the seal were from Virgil - Annuit Coeptis – "God has favored our undertakings."
This may not be at all compelling to the non-believer, but it has been compelling to every president who has led this nation at a time of peril. It is that God has blessed America. It is that God will bless America if we continue to deserve His blessing. Washington saw the hand of Providence in the nation's founding: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States."
As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: "we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy." And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.
God blesses America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.
Thank you, and may God continue to bless our great nation!
Images are from : http://markcronan.livejournal.com/
From HotAir:
Beware the cult of personality in all its forms.
From Wikipedia:
A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.
A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders.
Background
Throughout history, monarchs were almost always held in enormous reverence. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Imperial China (see Mandate of Heaven), ancient Egypt, Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, and the Roman Empire (see imperial cult) are especially noted for redefining monarchs as god-kings.
The resurgence of ancient Greek democratic ideas in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries made it increasingly difficult for monarchs to preserve this aura. However, the subsequent development of photography, sound recording, film and mass production, as well as public education and techniques used in commercial advertising, enabled political leaders to project a positive image like never before. It was with these circumstances in the 20th century that the best-known personality cults arose.
Purpose
Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and he becomes treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, however, and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example in Cuba public images of Fidel Castro are rare, and a personality cult around Castro is not encouraged officially, although images, posters, and billboards of Che Guevara abound. Even in the totalitarian regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia the image of Pol Pot himself was rarely seen, though in the latter's case this was merely to perpetuate the image of a faceless, invisible, omnipresent state leadership.[citation needed]
Examples from totalitarian regimes
The criticism of personality cults often focuses on the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Josip Broz Tito, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-sung and his son Kim Jong-il. During the peak of their reigns, these leaders were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, and artists and poets were instructed legally to produce only works that glorified the leader and their political movements. Other undemocratic leaders with such cults include leaders such as Eva Peron of Argentina and her husband Juan. The term cult of personality comes from Karl Marx's critique of the "cult of the individual" - expressed in a letter to German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss. In that, Marx states thus:
From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me… Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.
Nikita Khrushchev recalled Marx's criticism in his 1956 "Secret Speech" denouncing Stalin to the 20th Party Congress:
Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin's self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.[1].
This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, "the greatest leader," "sublime strategist of all times and nations." Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.
We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.
Journalist Bradley Martin documented the personality cults of North Korea's father-son leadership, "Eternal (formerly Great) Leader" Kim Il-sung and "Great (formerly Dear) Leader" Kim Jong-il.[2] While visiting North Korea in 1979 he noted that nearly all music, art, and sculpture that he observed glorified "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung, whose personality cult was then being extended to his son, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il.[2] Kim Il-sung rejected the notion that he had created a cult around himself and accused those who suggested so of "factionalism."[2] A US religious freedom investigation confirmed Martin's observation that North Korean schoolchildren learn to thank Kim Il-sung for all blessings as part of the cult.[3]
Former President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan is another oft-cited cultivator of a cult of personality.[4][5][6] Niyazov simultaneously cut funding to and partially disassembled the education system in the name of 'reform,' while injecting ideological indoctrination into it by requiring all schools to take his own book, the Ruhnama, as its primary text.[7][8] During Niyazov's rule there was no freedom of the press nor was there freedom of speech. This further meant that opposition to Niyazov was strictly forbidden and "major opposition figures have been imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or have fled the country, and their family members are routinely harassed by the authorities."[9] Additionally, a silhouette of Niyazov was placed on the screen of all television broadcasts[10] and statues and pictures of him were 'erected everywhere.'[11]. For these, and other reasons, the US Government has gone on to claim that by the time he died, "Niyazov's personality cult…had reached the dimensions of a state-imposed religion."[12].
University of Chicago professor Lisa Wedeen's book, "Ambiguities of Domination" documents the cult of personality which surrounded late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Numerous examples of his glorification are made throughout the book, such as displays of love and adoration for the "leader" put on at the opening ceremonies of the 1987 Mediterranean Games in Lattakia Syria.
Jihadism, like the cult of personality that follows Barkak Obama, is a youth movement, that promises change from the existing world order. Change, in and of itself, is not good. Cobra Commander can promise change. Karl Marx wanted Change. There was a stalinist youth movement. All the "cool" kids liked Stalin. Hitler had a youth movement. Sexy actresses liked Hitler. People will distort what I am saying. Obama is nothing like Stalin. Obama is nothing like Hitler. Obama may be good for our country. Obama might take us down the right path. But being popular with young, attractive, popular people does not mean that his policies are good. What are my greatest fears with Obama? We have a good country, with a balance of powers. We have the Judicial, legislative, and executive branches. But the founding fathers were concerned with about passions of the moment.
Could we in America have an elected official have a "bad" cult of personality? I think we are drifting that way. President Washington didn't want anyone's face on our money, and we didn't put anyones face on our money, until the 1900s. Wouldn't that tick you off, if you were George Washington? He specifically asked us not to put anyones face on the money, and we go and put HIS face on our money! Then in 1913, we think we know better than the founding fathers how to elect people to congress, and we decide that both houses of congress will be "baby kissers".
We already have a cult of personality with the presidents on our money, two houses of baby kissers, MTV & "Rock-the-vote", celebrities who never graduated from high-school (let alone college) thinking that they should tell us how to vote…
I can see the cult-of personality when you can't criticize Obama without being called a racist. It's the dumbing down of our culture. It's symbolism over substance. "We have the opportunity to truly transcend color this year by treating Barack Obama exactly the same we treated Michael Dukakis."
Obama said he is a uniter, but he brought his daughters for 20 years to a church that damns the United States of KKK. He had the most liberal voting record in the senate. He was more liberal than Dennis Kucinich. It is scary to have a guy who is more liberal than Dennis Kucinich as president, whom you can't criticize without being called a racist. But you can critisize him with some people. Not everyone calls you a racist, but they do not treat him equally. For instance, Obama said he had been to all 57 states. If Bush had said that, it would have been on every news channel. But it is not "cool" to make fun of Obama. Until now. YES WE SHALL!
Beware the cult of personality in all its forms.
A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.
A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders.
Background
Throughout history, monarchs were almost always held in enormous reverence. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Imperial China (see Mandate of Heaven), ancient Egypt, Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, and the Roman Empire (see imperial cult) are especially noted for redefining monarchs as god-kings.
The resurgence of ancient Greek democratic ideas in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries made it increasingly difficult for monarchs to preserve this aura. However, the subsequent development of photography, sound recording, film and mass production, as well as public education and techniques used in commercial advertising, enabled political leaders to project a positive image like never before. It was with these circumstances in the 20th century that the best-known personality cults arose.
Purpose
Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and he becomes treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, however, and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example in Cuba public images of Fidel Castro are rare, and a personality cult around Castro is not encouraged officially, although images, posters, and billboards of Che Guevara abound. Even in the totalitarian regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia the image of Pol Pot himself was rarely seen, though in the latter's case this was merely to perpetuate the image of a faceless, invisible, omnipresent state leadership.[citation needed]
Examples from totalitarian regimes
The criticism of personality cults often focuses on the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Josip Broz Tito, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-sung and his son Kim Jong-il. During the peak of their reigns, these leaders were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, and artists and poets were instructed legally to produce only works that glorified the leader and their political movements. Other undemocratic leaders with such cults include leaders such as Eva Peron of Argentina and her husband Juan. The term cult of personality comes from Karl Marx's critique of the "cult of the individual" - expressed in a letter to German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss. In that, Marx states thus:
From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me… Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.
Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin's self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.[1].
This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, "the greatest leader," "sublime strategist of all times and nations." Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.
We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.
Issues: Keeping Americans Safe
Reasons to agree:
Issues / Keeping Americans Safe
Reasons to agree
Books that agree
#
Web pages that agree
#
Reasons to agree
I would be interested to hear from anyone who has been a victim of gang activity. I think gangs are a big threat to our country. From Norco-terrorist, to the good old fashioned street gangs. I think Mitt Romney has good executive experience working with the police in Massachusetts to stand up to Crime.
Issues / Raising the Bar on Education
I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree; until then, here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:
Score: +7 (reasons to agree), + 41/2 [20] (reasons to agree with reasons to agree) = 27
Movies that disagree:
