Freedom is just another word for...ReligionFollow

Huh. Pretty good reason not to vote for the guy.

Sho'nuff.

Edited, Dec 6th 2007 12:20pm by Kaelesh

This is a big deal for Romney, as most people see him as the Mormon candidate.

Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom is a new one to me.
Not sure if even he has any clue what that was supposed to mean. And how can you disagree if you don't know what he's saying?

Genius!!

Then, the next step is that we all end up supplicating ourselves in front of some old tart and be taxed with no representation. Thank god for those Founding Fathers

Health Care - Yeah, I hate that it's world class and free. Phbbt

Food - Ignoring fast-food and corporate chains, give me a good British Restaurant over anywhere in Europe, let alone the United States of "You want plastic processed cheese with that?"

Teeth - *******. Grr

He also said

"I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law," Romney said. " If I am fortunate enough 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.”

But I guess that wouldn't have made for an interesting thread.

Not that I give a **** about Romney or anything....

Isn't RuPaul British?

FUck Off!

Wikipedia says San Diego Ca

Our drag acts are Hetero multilingual intellectuals.

I'll call your RuPaul and raise you an Eddie Izzard.

Cool. Never met Eddie Izzard but he's an amazing comedian (and how many English-speaking comedians could sell-out a stadium gig in Paris doing a 2 hour stand-up routine in French), and the fact that he's a straight transvestite is a great model for making bigots look like fUckwits.

Some of the founding fathers had slaves too, so is slavery another word for freedom too?

You sure you're not getting your twats all mixed up there?

Not to mention, gbaji won't leave marks.

Just to clarify for those who are thinking this is some broad "OMG! They're going to make religion mandatory" or something. If you read the whole transcript it's pretty clear he was talking about freedom in the context of a nation allowing full freedom to its citizens. He was not talking about individual freedom nor was he arguing that a person who didn't have religion wasn't "free".

He's making the opposite argument. That a nation that does not allow religion to be practiced freely is not a nation that provides freedom to its citizens. He's basically saying that the freedom with which citizens can practice religion without negative effects is a measurement of the overall freedom of that nation as a whole.

And it's a pretty valid observation.