Now, we understand the Mitt handle. What in hell were his parents thinking?
Still, I just don't trust people with "country club names." It's a huge red flag. He knows nothing about how ordinary people live. Not a freakin' clue.
Good for him, bad for us, if he is elected.
Dr. J.'s 'He Really Said That':
Willard 'Mit' Romney and the Case for Theocracy
Steven JonasIn his speech on "freedom" of religion, Mit Romney really 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."
I have been a skier for close to 50 years. For the first 30 of those I skied in the Northeast, where I live. For the last 20 or so, I have been lucky enough to be able to ski in the Colorado Rockies, mainly at Breckenridge. I am occasionally asked if I have ever skied in Utah (which does have excellent skiing, so I am told). "No," I reply, hoping to be jocular, "I don't ski in theocracies." Well, now I know that I wasn't being funny. The true intent of Romney's speech was not to deal with religious freedom, which in the American tradition is as much about the freedom from religion as about freedom of religion. For Romney, it is now quite clear, what he oddly calls "freedom" requires religious belief, requires belief in something he calls "God." He also makes it quite clear that if you don't believe in a Goddist form of "religion" as he defines it (no Buddhists allowed, apparently), you are not entitled to freedom.
Anyone who hasn't read the Book of Mormon should do so, ASAP
This philosophy is the essence of theocracy: the melding of government and religion. It happens that it has always turned out, that means a particular religion, the formulation of that government's rules around what the particular religion says they should be as, for example, in Islamic theocratic states such as (oh my, talk about irony) Iran and Saudi Arabia, and no "freedom" in the traditional American sense. Although this statement of Romney's surprises some, we should not be surprised. The most important thing about him, the element of him that in my view totally disqualifies him to be President of the United States, is that he grew up in a theocracy and obviously thinks that form of government and governing is the most natural thing in the world. Unusually for this classic flip-flopper on so many issues, on this one he is being entirely consistent. So why the spelling of his nickname above with only one "T?" Why on the belt buckle of every Nazi Wehrmacht soldier was the slogan: "Gott mit Uns."
The Nazis, we must correct, were not Theocrats. They were Fascists. Fascism is the close combination of government and corporations; so close, in fact, that one cannot really tell the difference. The corporations actually own government, kind of like they do here. It could well be called corporatism. Hitler founded his own church of sorts, but Nazi Germany was not a religious state in any way. That's not to say that religious totalitarianism is any better than fascism. It may even be worse because people will do incredibly horrible things in the name of God, more than they would for the sake of just about anything else, even money (though money and power are usually involved.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
No comments:
Post a Comment