Why Governor Romney Should Never Be President of the United States

I’ve long admired Rachel Maddow for her intelligence, her ability to stand firmly with a position while remaining essentially fair minded.

In last night’s devastating analysis of the problem with Governor Romney she does not avert her eyes from this hard issue, but enumerates what anyone considering the governor as a potential president of the United States needs to think about.

  • tyson

    if church and state should be separated, and the state should stay out of the church, then in turn shouldn’t the church (and hollywood for goodness sakes) stay out of the state? i am actually asking this question, not condemning your post. i have had an internal debate about this for awhile now. except the hollywood part. i definitely think they need to stay out of both.

  • http://www.boundlesswayzen.org jamesford

    Hi Tyson, Are you asking whether I can have a political opinion and speak it because I am a religious professional? The short answer is yes.

    The legal issues are in fact pretty simple. The state may not endorse a religion, favor one over another, or religion in general over none at all. That guarantees our rights as citizens to believe or not as we choose. The only legal restriction on churches as institutions is that they may not endorse or oppose particular candidates for office. As best I understand it this was introduced into the tax code, and it is all about tax exemption, because some fundamentalists pissed off President Johnson.

    I have no opinion about Hollywood other than it is a pretty little town.

  • http://algerblog.blogspot.com Algernon

    It strikes me as a very curious thing that, on the one hand, it is expected (if not applauded) that politicians will lie; yet, on the other hand, to refer to a lie as a “lie,” using that word accurately, is somehow shocking. Rachel Maddow had to return to this report the following evening to address a furor in the beltway over her “attack” when, in fact, all she was doing was pointing out lies, referring to them as such, and making a thesis that Romney does it more often than other politicians.

  • tyson

    Rev./Roshi Ford,

    Not the legality of it, but whether you should be expressing your opinion as a leader of a church that is tax-exempt. Again, not attacking you for doing so. I’m just not sure where my opinion falls, unless you are expressing your opinion on a matter that has direct religious implications, i.e. abortion or the death penalty.

  • James

    Dear Tyson,

    To be clear, as it states in the “about” section, this blog is by me, James. I’m not representing anything here, nor anyone, nor any institution, but only my monkey mind.

    If you want to know what the institutions I represent think about things, go to the official websites.

    And to reiterate, your apparent concerns about whether a religious leader can have opinions in certain areas and express them publicly are not the areas of our American laws. As I’ve mentioned so far as our laws are concerned, all concerning tax status, an institution may not endorse nor oppose a political candidate.

    Why you should think I should not express opinions is a curiosity to me.

    You appear to think there’s some ethical breach. I have no idea upon what you base this, beyond what appears to be a misunderstanding of what our American wall between church and state is supposed to do.

    If you find what I think and have to say interesting, you’re welcome to read my blog.

    If not, well, it was a pleasure meeting you. May you find a more congenial read somewhere…

    As to the two uncomfortable issues:

    I have problems with abortion, but find when it is a case of shove come to push, I stand for freedom of choice. I believe women must have control over their bodies, or they will be second class citizens.

    I think there are people who do things that deserve the death penalty. And too many innocent people have been executed, and even today there are those on death row I sure have doubts about their guilt or whether the punishment matches the crime, and with our criminal justice system (and any I can envision) there appears to be no way to guarantee the innocent are not killed. So, I oppose the death penalty.

    Regards

  • Rev. Aaron Payson

    The question of the seperation of church and state is one directed at the state and the church, not at private citizens who are also religious professionals. If politicians can weigh in on religious matters (pick your favorite topic here) then I believe it is paramount for those of conscience, including religious professionals, to speak the truth as they understand it in venues where they are representing their own opinion and not that of the church. This said, it would be quite another matter to preach a sermon condemning a political candidate. This, however does not mean that sermons directed at particular political issues are not welcome from the pulpit in my opinion.

  • tyson

    Rev. Ford,

    My apologies, because I guess I am having trouble communicating what I am trying to say. Damn words. But you did kind of answer my question in an indirect way. And I enjoy your blog very much, so I will keep reading if you don’t mind :)

    I wasn’t really asking for a debate on abortion or the death penalty, just using them as examples. But since you brought them up…

    In most cases the woman was in control of her body when she chose to have unprotected sex. I think after she makes that choice she loses the right to terminate another human beings life just to not inconvenience her own. And I think this is exactly what it is in MOST (not all) cases.

    As for the death penalty, I agree with you.

    Rev. Payson,

    Thanks for weighing in. Your answer helped clarify the matter for me.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X