Mitt Romney: Love all Religions (Except Islam)

[islamirama]

Mitt Romney's Big Speech: Love all Religions (Except Islam)

Mitt Romney had an almost impossible task before him today in College Station, Texas: he had to emphasize America's proud tradition of religious freedom while winning voters in what has essentially become a Christian party.


"A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith," said Romney, echoing John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech on his Catholic faith. "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."


That was essentially the message Kennedy delivered when he went before an organization of Baptist ministers and said that he would rather resign than let the Vatican dictate the decisions of the American government. "I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair," Kennedy said then. "I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none."


But Kennedy and Romney gave their speeches in drastically different environments. Kennedy was trying to reassure Democratic voters, who were and are less fervently religious than Republican voters and who are more comfortable with, as Kennedy urged, an "absolute" separation of Church and State. Moreover, there were 35 to 40 million Catholics in America at the time. Most every Protestant knew one. Many had a family member married to one.


Today, Romney is running in a party in which 37 percent of members identify as white evangelicals, 23 percent identify as white mainline Protestants, and 19 percent identify as non-Hispanic Catholic. Twenty-one percent are "other" or "don't know." In other words, 79 percent or more of the party is Christian. And Mormons number just five to six million, roughly two percent of the country.


It is because of the Republican Party's religiosity that Romney had to acknowledge that questions about his religion were legitimate, and that religion has a role in public life. "The notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning," said Romney. "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."


For the portion of the GOP that actually believes liberals are waging a War on Christmas, Romney said that God should remain on "our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history."


Romney didn't go into the details of the Mormon faith—other than to say "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind"—claiming that laying out such specifics for the judgment of the nation would "enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."


In fact, Romney only said the word Mormon once in the entire speech. That may have been strategic. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, white evangelical Protestants, the largest portion of the Republican Party, are the American religious group most reluctant to vote for a Mormon. Those who attend church once a week are even more hesitant: 41 percent say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate just because he is a Mormon. Only 21 percent of Catholics say the same, by contrast.


But Americans of all stripes have an uncomfortable relationship with Mormons. Just 53 percent of Americans as a whole expresses a favorable view of them. And only 52 percent buy Romney' argument that Mormonism is a Christian religion.


Romney, though, had a perfect distraction for his doubters, the religious group Americans distrust more than Mormons: Muslims. "Infinitely worse [than the loss of faith in society] is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom, killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny."


No matter how much Republican voters may distrust members of Romney's faith, they hate someone else more.


Source

[Woodrow]

I believe that has ended any chance of him getting the nomination.

[Belief_is_Power]

Mitt was the governor in my state, and he was terrible. He once said that the government should bug all masjids in the northeast. He has the look of an American president but his agenda is hidden and not in the favor of us muslims.

[Pygoscelis]

said Romney. "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."

This really makes me wonder about him. How would he feel if we insisted on having Islamic references in courthouse and goverment/public buildings? Or what if we insisted that a new US $1 coin be made that reads on it "In The Gods We Trust"? I bet he'd suddenly be siding with these secularist he so dreads.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Resigned]

Mitt was the governor in my state, and he was terrible. He once said that the government should bug all masjids in the northeast. He has the look of an American president but his agenda is hidden and not in the favor of us muslims.

Relative to hidden agendas, I wouldn’t expect that a muslim agenda would be in favor of anyone but muslims. Hence, the genius of a secular constitution where all the gods are allowed equal status… outside of government.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,
There is one God the creator of all that is seen and unseen. When I walk through town I see a part of God’s wonderful creation, I see people who could be atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew; all created by the same God. This makes us all children of the same God making us all brothers and sisters together.

I wonder how politicians might best act on a greatest meaning of one God, when we invade other countries we are killing God’s children.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

[Belief_is_Power]

when I said agenda I meant that anything that this man does will not help the muslims in this country if he is elected to office. The racial profiling wont stop, names like Islamofacists, Islamic radicals etc, will still be used by the government, the list goes on. if he is elected it will be just like another 8 years of Bush.

[Cognescenti]

Mitt was the governor in my state, and he was terrible. He once said that the government should bug all masjids in the northeast. He has the look of an American president but his agenda is hidden and not in the favor of us muslims.

I am sorry. Are you seriously claiming he has a hidden agenda against Muslims and that is motivating his run??? That is just kooky.

[Woodrow]

when I said agenda I meant that anything that this man does will not help the muslims in this country if he is elected to office. The racial profiling wont stop, names like Islamofacists, Islamic radicals etc, will still be used by the government, the list goes on. if he is elected it will be just like another 8 years of Bush.

During these early preparations for selecting the Presidential candidates, there will be many people throwing their hat in the ring. Most will never be seen as being viable contenders. I do not see much chance of Romney being endorsed as a candidate by any major political party. It is very doubtful that anyone could win the election with out the support of a major party.

The parties look for candidates that will attract voters, not cause any group to avoid them. Romney has alienated many groups not just Muslims, by his statements.

some groups that are actively against Romney are:

A Massachusetts activist group is very much against him.

Brian Camenker is director of the group MassResistance, a Bay State activist group that published a report -- titled "The Mitt Romney Deception" -- detailing the former Massachusetts governor's liberal record on issues like abortion and homosexuality. Camenker says he was shocked to hear that Dr. Dobson could be thinking of backing the Romney in his presidential bid, despite the Focus on the Family spokesman being privy to MassResistance's report.

source:http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/03/ro...obson_shou.php

In New Hampshire the "Log Cabin Republicans" oppose him:

From NBC/NJ’s Erin McPike
Romney will return to New Hampshire Monday for a two-day swing through the state, where he often focuses on fiscal issues. But just ahead of this visit, the Log Cabin Republicans have released a new radio ad in the state that criticizes the former Bay State governor on his record on taxes, saying he's "Mitt-flopped."

“Mitt Romney’s record doesn’t match his rhetoric on taxes and almost every other issue,” Patrick Sammon, the group's president, said in the release about the ad.

Giuliani's camp has also attacked Romney for his record on fiscal issues, but Romney returned with the claim on Monday that he cut taxes 19 times while in office, and the campaign later provided supporting documents.

"He raised taxes on some New Hampshire residents who worked in Massachusetts, taxing their income and their pensions. That's a Mitt-Flop," an announcer says in the ad, before charging that despite Romney’s claim to have close loopholes he did raise other taxes.

Source: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...29/488167.aspx


There are many, many more groups opposing him. This recent blunder of his seems to be that he is changing strategy by hoping to gain support of Islamic phobics, in hopes of getting somebody to support him.

He may want to be President, but I doubt very much he will be able to get any significant support to be a viable candidate.

[Resigned]

when I said agenda I meant that anything that this man does will not help the muslims in this country if he is elected to office. The racial profiling wont stop, names like Islamofacists, Islamic radicals etc, will still be used by the government, the list goes on. if he is elected it will be just like another 8 years of Bush.

A couple of points to consider:

a.) The office of the Presidency has no obligation or mandate to “help” one religious group vs. another. We do see that dynamic in muslim majority nations with the result being overt discrimination toward competing religions. History has shown that when religions propagate and when in control, the religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive belief systems. We don't have to assume this, we see it demonstrated in muslim majority nations in the Middle East and elsewhere. That is the design of the U.S. Constitution with the intent being quite clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people.

b.) “Racial profiling” is a misnomer unless you’re going to claim that muslims are a “race”.

c.) In connection with the terms you offered describing muslims, I have never heard a White House official use Islamofacists as a policy statement. I’ve heard the term ”Islamic radicals” used but so what? I wouldn’t disagree that one who uses their religious belief as justification for mass murder/suicide is not a radical.

[Cognescenti]

Good post Resigned.

To suggest that Romney's speech is an attempt to woo voters by appealing to those with an irrational fear of Islam is either deceptive or insular. It is a long speech and only mentions Islam briefly in two short passages. He mentions China briefly too. Is he therefore a Chinophobe too? The very idea that there are many Americans who would ignore any differences they have with Romney and vote for him because he allegedly defamed Muslims is insulting. There are many security voters, but they already have a candidate in McCain or Giuliani.

One can't simply take once sentence reprinted in the Mother Jones Blog and pretend that is an honest portrayal of his speech. The writers at Mother Jones Blog hate people of faith... Muslims, mainline Christians, Mormons..it doesn't matter. They are to be regarded as their intellectual inferiors.

His speech was clearly intended to allay fears of fundamentalist Christians about his Mormon beliefs. He is emphasizing those beliefs they share in common. I thought his analogy with Kennedy was a good one.

Here is the actual text of his speech for those who want to learn something about American politics. For those who don't, please reset your Islamophobe detectors to maximal gain and excuse the introduction of context and understanding.


"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.

"It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

"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.

"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

"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.

"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

"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.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

"As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

"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.

"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

"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.'

"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

"We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'

"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

"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.

"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'

"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

"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.

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'

"God bless the United States of America."

New York Times source

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us...ll&oref=slogin

[Keltoi]

Thanks for posting the whole speech cognescenti, I think it is important for those who truly wish to know what the speech was about. I actually thought the speech was fairly eloquent, and probably did him some good with undecided Republican voters. I don't think Mormonism is going to have a major impact on whether Romney gets the nomination, it will be more policy matters.

[Qingu]

I thought the speech was disgusting, dishonest, and a thinly-veiled pandering to the most ignorant segment of the American population, the evangelical Christians.

Let's consider his central claim: "You cannot have religion without freedom, just as you cannot have freedom without religion." This is patent nonsense. Most of Europe is secular, many atheists live there and in America. We all like freedom and many European countries are freer societies than America, with our Guantanamo Bay and complete disregard for individual privacy. Also, there are obvious examples of non-free religion, from the medieval Christian inquisition to the Taliban.

Mitt also perpetuates the enduring lie that America is a "Christian nation." Nevermind that Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, called the Bible a "dung-heap" and classed Jesus' virgin birth as a fable similar to Athena bursting out of Zeus's forehead. Though many founding fathers were Christians, many of them were explicitly not Christians but Deists who were strongly opposed to both the Bible and to the very concept of a national government tied to a priesthood.

I don't think Mitt Romney is actually stupid enough to believe what he said in the speech. I think he is just lying through his teeth to pander to the evangelicals who are stupid enough to believe it.

At the same time, I hope he does get nominated for the Republican side because he will be easy for the Democrats to defeat.

[Keltoi]

I thought the speech was disgusting, dishonest, and a thinly-veiled pandering to the most ignorant segment of the American population, the evangelical Christians.

Let's consider his central claim: "You cannot have religion without freedom, just as you cannot have freedom without religion." This is patent nonsense. Most of Europe is secular, many atheists live there and in America. We all like freedom and many European countries are freer societies than America, with our Guantanamo Bay and complete disregard for individual privacy. Also, there are obvious examples of non-free religion, from the medieval Christian inquisition to the Taliban.

Mitt also perpetuates the enduring lie that America is a "Christian nation." Nevermind that Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, called the Bible a "dung-heap" and classed Jesus' virgin birth as a fable similar to Athena bursting out of Zeus's forehead. Though many founding fathers were Christians, many of them were explicitly not Christians but Deists who were strongly opposed to both the Bible and to the very concept of a national government tied to a priesthood.

I don't think Mitt Romney is actually stupid enough to believe what he said in the speech. I think he is just lying through his teeth to pander to the evangelicals who are stupid enough to believe it.

At the same time, I hope he does get nominated for the Republican side because he will be easy for the Democrats to defeat.

Well, besides the stereotypical athiest hostility to anything involved with faith, you show that deep down you don't believe in democracy at all. If you did, you would understand that the majority of Americans are people of faith, and the leaders they choose will reflect that. Of course, that doesn't mean all the leaders we choose are honest representatives of that faith, but if one truly wants democracy, then one must accept that people of faith will choose leaders of faith. By the way, the majority of Democrats are people of faith as well.

[Qingu]

Well, besides the stereotypical athiest hostility to anything involved with faith, you show that deep down you don't believe in democracy at all. If you did, you would understand that the majority of Americans are people of faith, and the leaders they choose will reflect that.

How did you arrive at your conclusion that I don't understand this?

Of course I understand that if a majority of Americans are faithful they will vote in faithful candidates. In no way does this mean I have to agree with them, or that I shouldn't oppose them with arguments and reason.

This is actually a rather insidious suggestion on your part—that in opposing the opinion of the majority I am really opposing "democracy." I hope you don't actually believe this is true.

[Keltoi]

How did you arrive at your conclusion that I don't understand this?

Of course I understand that if a majority of Americans are faithful they will vote in faithful candidates. In no way does this mean I have to agree with them, or that I shouldn't oppose them with arguments and reason.

This is actually a rather insidious suggestion on your part—that in opposing the opinion of the majority I am really opposing "democracy." I hope you don't actually believe this is true.

Sorry, I actually had you confused with someone else. No, haven't seen enough of your posts to come to that conclusion. However, I would say your use of "arguments and reason" are more about attacking people of faith and have very little to do with politics. That is fine, but it does get irritating when "athiests" justify their insults with intellectual elitism. :D