Romney's paean to piety

If one were to be completely cynical, one might say that it is in Romney's political interests to emphasize the importance of religion, not only to do general sucking up to the Religious Right, but also to cast the battle as "religious vs. secular", rather than "fundamentalists vs. wacky Mormons". The more Romney pushes religion, the more he hopes to seem like "one of them", and to minimize the issue of his Mormonism.

How has this country reached the state where such inanity is considered presidential material?

Religious or not that question should be cause for concern for every American.

he failed to note those cathedrals were built on the burdened backs of peasants, and designed by engineers with no other outlet other than religious building. They certainly not inspired by holy piety. Europe was wracked over and over by religious/Monarchical conflict destroying tens of millions of live in the process. They abandon religion because it is empty, because it is a fools paradise by definition.

They remain empty precisely because of the religions.

Even more nauseating than Mitt's shameless transparent pandering to the religious fundies was the spectacle of MSM pundits falling all over themselves praising the speech. It takes a strong stomach to watch the news these days.

One bright spot: the Washington Post does have an editorial today reminding Mitt not everyone in the U.S. believes in God: "Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity."

to them, America is the only free nation in the world

Well spotted and well said! I've always maintained that America is one of the most heavily propagandised nations on earth. It's people are continuously fed the line that they are 'for freedom', 'for civilisation' and 'for justice', when the behavior of the US around the world demonstrates the exact opposite. Keep repeating a lie often enough and the people will believe it.

That's why I come to blogs like this. You can fool some of the people all of the time, etc... I'm glad to hear that not all of the people are fooled.

We've got our own problems in the UK, but I'm pleased to report that the average citizen (ahem, I mean 'subject') maintains a healthy cynicism about their government and about religion.

I knew Romney was scum, but my opinion of him just hit an all-time low.

Here he is all but calling for the fusion of church and state in America, and then he says: "The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches."

Nutjob.

And we're NOT at the forefront of civilized nations. The Scandinavian countries, if no one else - Iceland and Norway especially - definitely have one up on us in pretty much every aspect of life.

Believing America to be unique and exceptional usually means one of two things - either we shut ourselves off from the world, or we step outside and search for monsters. It's not possible to go back to the days of isolationism, so if America is exceptional, that means our days of being the school-yard bully are just beginning.

Patriotic, political dogma pisses me off almost as much as religion does.

Even more nauseating than Mitt's shameless transparent pandering to the religious fundies was the spectacle of MSM pundits falling all over themselves praising the speech.

The media may have liked it, but I can't imagine it will convince the fundies, who aren't likely to vote for a tri-theist.

It's amazing he is spitting out this crap only days after saying he would not accept Muslims into his cabinet. He's just trying to tell people he isn't "too Mormon" to be president. Unfortunately, he just showed he is too stupid to be president.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.

It is so comforting to know that theocracies are an impossibility.

I don't understand how people can get away with provably false statements.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"

As has been noted by others, freedom does not require religion as evidenced by most of western Europe.

But "religion requires freedom" is even more blatantly false. How many religious countries have no freedom whatsoever? And I'm not just talking about Muslim countries.

On the other hand, I take issue with Kevin L.'s characterization of the Scandinavian countries as being ahead of the U.S. They are economically stagnant.

His speech proves his lack of leadership ability....as if there were any doubts to begin with.

The words of JFK, who testified to his belief in the "absolute separation of church and state," remind you of what is a true leader.

Any fucking moron can lead a herd into a raging river full of hungry crocodiles. If you doubt that, watch wildebeests on the discovery channel some evening.

I dont think you have to be at all cynical to see that Uber. Its a statement of fact. It was, as are almost all political speeches, carefully calculated devices.

It was on purpose, and I have no doubt you've nailed that aspect of his speech.

. . .and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.

I'd love to see whether voters who think that this is a great idea would be thrilled to see a display declaring what a fabulous prophet Joseph Smith was. Seeing the "public display of religion is wonderful" crowd tested by some cases that are closer to the edge of the bell curve should be fun. I really want to see a passionate Scientologist take the nomination and really test the theory that public life should be all about one's religion.

His attempt to criticize Europe for the way it handles religion shows his ignorance. I listen to a Deustch-Weller podcast called "Dialogue", and it talks about religious issues over in Europe. What's amazing is that as a whole, the Europeans have a much more mature and practical approach to religion than Americans do, and the crazed anti-science, bigoted fanaticism we deal with on a daily basis over here is very rare over there. It makes sense, given that we got the crazy Puritans, who left Europe because they couldn't be as fanatical as they wanted.

Religion is not essential to freedom. Maturity is essential to freedom, and the religious fanatics we see clearly were not blessed with it.

One of the most worthy uses of sans serif, PZ :) Not that I was going to vote for this git anyway, but this speech is like what JFK's religion speech would sound like in Bizarro World...Hopefully there's some semblance of sanity left in the Republican Party that will stop this guy from getting the nomination.

The more Romney pushes religion, the more he hopes to seem like "one of them", and to minimize the issue of his Mormonism.

Wasn't there some expression about given a choice between a real republican and a fake republican, republican voters would choose the real republican every time (or some such)? So, given the choice between a real religious whack-job (Huckabee) and a fake religious whack-job (Romney) won't the religious nuts vote for the real whack-job? We don't really even have to get into the which cult is more stupid.

"Unfortunately, he just showed he is too stupid to be president."

Not possible. The lower limit on intelligemce for that job shows no signs of having been reached.

Oh, America is at the top in terms of economy, for sure, although we'll see what happens if the value of the dollar continues to drop. But by most other accounts - education, literacy, standard of living, life expectancy - Norway and such are ahead of us. Personally, I generally place higher value on other social indicators than on the economy - especially if it's only a question of "very good" against "excellent."

More to the point, Romney talks as though America is the one and only nation in the world that is a good place to live. In other words, he's an ignoramus.

The only Republican I could have seen myself voting for was Ron Paul. That was until I heard him call abortion murder.
All the others come off as faith-heads, or just wrong-headed w.r.t. policies like immigration, taxes or civil liberties.

At times it is hard to tell if he is an ignoramus or if he is trying to attract the ignoramuses. Either way, it is a sad situation.

he failed to note those cathedrals were built on the burdened backs of peasants, and designed by engineers with no other outlet other than religious building. They certainly not inspired by holy piety. Europe was wracked over and over by religious/Monarchical conflict destroying tens of millions of live in the process. They abandon religion because it is empty, because it is a fools paradise by definition.
They remain empty precisely because of the religions.
Posted by: The Stone

Dear Stone,
What a load of cack you do write.

Completely off the topic but I have to point this out. Last night I watched 'Slacker', first time in fifteen years. When the anarchist and the burglar are going for a walk, they walk past a 'Ron Paul for President' billboard. It was for the Libertarian Party. Had to laugh.

Classic but still good:

Hey, this is Europe. We took it from nobody; we won it from the bare soil that the ice left. The bones of our ancestors, and the stones of their works, are everywhere. Our liberties were won in wars and revolutions so terrible that we do not fear our governors: they fear us. Our children giggle and eat ice cream in the palaces of past rulers. We snap our fingers at kings. We laugh at popes. When we have built up tyrants, we have brought them down.

Ken Macleod

Tulse #1 wrote:

The more Romney pushes religion, the more he hopes to seem like "one of them", and to minimize the issue of his Mormonism.

Exactly. It seems to be a bit of a crap shoot when it comes to religious minorities supporting the separation of church and state. As others have pointed out, it's usually in their best interest to do so (as long as they are in the minority, at any rate.) But, if they think they can get away with it, sometimes their strategy is finding some other minority which is even more marginalized, and then stand next to the folks in power and use the word "we" a lot. They call it "coming together." We call it "ganging up."

You see it on school playgrounds. Unpopular kids won't always make friends with each other. Sometimes one or more will figure out who can be an Uber-nerd and taunt them, in hopes of being mistaken for "cool."

"Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply held religious belief - and I don't care what it is." (Eisenhower)

Watch for it -- separation of church and state will be declared a good thing. But we should not separate God and state. Religion should be kept out of government. But you can't keep GOD out. Religious tolerance is a virtue. We should tolerate people no matter what religion they have -- because they have a religion. And so forth.

Religious politicians will equivocate and talk out of both sides of their mouth, and hope that enough people can't see the contradiction. And I'm not sure if it makes them better or worse when they themselves don't seem to see it, either.

Summary of his speech in 5 words :

ATHEISTS CANNOT BE AMERICAN CITIZENS

How has this country reached the state where such inanity is considered presidential material?

It began with the "Moral Majority"* in the 1970s, climbing into bed with Reagan in the 80s, and the unwillingness of many to awaken from their torpidity enough to denounce right-wing fundamentalism as a brand of dangerous insanity.

We sowed the wind a generation ago, I'm afraid.

==

* Which is neither.

Once again, Sastra nails it. Romney is trying to talk the talk of religious freedom while still pandering to religious interests (in particular, the ones who think he belongs to a heretic cult), and is tripping over his words all over the place. And I fear that the number of people smart enough to realize it are vanishingly few.

Then there is Huckabee in an interview with Glenn Beck:

"Our manufacturers have the embedded tax, and guess which product ends up being cheaper? We`ve got a higher tax rate than France, for heaven`s sakes.

Now, the way to fix it is to change the tax code completely, get rid of the IRS, which we would do. That`s also a freedom of speech issue. No longer would some pastor be told, "You can`t say that because the IRS can come get you," because we'd come get the IRS and throw them out. April the 15 becomes just another pretty spring day in America."

Who is "we?" The fundamentalist preachers?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/19/gb.01.html

Sorry- Premature ejection-
The Huckster would pave the way for future hatred, bigotry, and politiking from the pulpit. All he has to do is get rid of the IRS. Busted!

It certainly won't happen on CNN, but I hope that some reporters keep on asking candidates what their positions are on the rights of non-believers. I'm secular, and I vote.

Rachel Maddow covered this well last night. In particular, the comparison between JFK's faith speech and Romney's. Ultimately, aside from the fact that they both were supposedly about faith, the two speeches couldn't have been more different. In fact, they were diametrically opposed to each other.

JFK's speech was "don't judge me on my religion because religion needs to be kept private." Romney: "In recent years, there has been a misguided trend toward keeping religion private."

JFK said, "religion doesn't matter." Romney said, "Religion is the most important thing."

Any comparison of Romney to JFK is as wrong as could be.

I think everyone should take a minute to send the Romney campaign a message to tell them what they think.

He's trying to makes sure all the Christians wingers don't go running to Huckabee.

They are both going for the hardcore fundies. They'll be trying to out religion each other until the primaries.

Which specific "religion" did Romney had in mind ? Any religion ??

Will we hear Romney say that Islam is Freedom ?

I mentioned this yesterday, and his whole take on religion and freedom pisses me off to no end.

I wonder if he's ever had any exposure to history or philosophy to make such a blatantly stupid statement.

1) Romney and other Repubs are not even trying to attract the secular voters. They know we are too smart to vote for their fear mongering, thinking only of their rich friends while praising the magical sky daddy asses. So why be surprised. Bush Sr. once said that atheists can't be patriotic citizens so this is the norm in the republican party.
2) Someone said earlier that media loved his speech. Conservative media did. I saw Larry Kudlow on CNBC and of course Fox Noise praising him. But Keith Olbermann gave him a proper whopping. I'm starting to think that he might be one of us (agnostic possibly) because he often takes pleasure in pointing out religious nonsense.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0tQGXNBgEI&eurl=http://www.democraticun…

Nutjob.

What part of "He's a Mormon" didn't click in before?

PZ's paragraph beginning:

We are not in the forefront of civilized nations.

is as pithy and spot-on a summary of our exasperating predicament as I have seen. What can be done about it? Democracy and misanthropy are a cruel combination.

Did he ever have the secular vote to begin with? Mormons are near the top of the list of religious kooks in my book.

Look, look... I can quote John Adams too!!!!

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

KK, learn science, not creation!

Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.

Iraq is a bugger, ain't it?

Here is everything which can lay hold of the eye, ear and imagination - everything which can charm and bewitch the simple and ignorant. I wonder how Luther ever broke the spell.

Religion fights dirty.

I must not write a word to you about politics, because you are a woman.

Women ain't so smart. That should fall right in line with the Mormons.

The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.

Wow.

Quoting John Adams is fun, he was pretty much a scattergun of political statements.

Here's the part of Mitt's speech that really bugged me:

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.

So that's over 10% of the population that will be his enemy? I mean I believe in religious freedom, but I certainly don't kneel and pray to a malicious, repugnant, malevolent bastard of a god. Am I friend or foe Mitt?

First impression of the speech, Mitt reminds me of Hitler. He certainly knows how to say the right things to incite a crowd. Mitt, outside the mainstream christian faith, basically said all the right things to apease them and also to alienate the 10% of the population that is not religious. He pandered to every religious affiliation in the country, and at the same time accused the secularist and atheists of ruining the country. He's sure to get applause for that from a room full of the religious.

Hold onto your ancient rites and texts. When the rest of the world is burning because muslims and christians just couldn't NOT kill eachother... we'll see who gets to point the finger at who.

Dear "Chris' Wills"

I can tell you're out of your league, when you're reduced to mere insults. Just like the rest of you religious crazies. Makes me smile. :-)

Oh by the way, we're going to steal back the solstice celebration your church stole centuries ago and installed its silly baby-mythology. Christmas was a dumb idea anyway.

Have a lovely 'Podsmas "Chris'".

he he he.

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.

As I travel across the country, I'm moved by the libraries, museums and educational institutions.

Places of worship? Where people go to perpetuate gross ignorance.

What a load o' crap.

Good luck, Twit. Your chances of winning the presidency are ZERO.

zero,

So can we call him Mittler?

Oh, and Godwin'd.

Good luck, Twit. Your chances of winning the presidency are ZERO.

Hey! Don't look at me, Mittler!

p.s. Heck yes, G... you just made my day with your wittiness.

PZ: "We are not in the forefront of civilized nations. ..."

I don't have a quarrel with the rest of the examples PZ Myers listed, but this one requires clarification:

"we have compromised our own civil liberties"

In general, Americans still have more civil liberties than Europeans. True, they are compromised relative what they were at the beginning of the decade. But they are still better than Europe. And the examples implied comparison with other Western countries ("not in the forefront of civilized nations").

I would provide links, but I don't want to run afoul of the filter.

------

Privacy International Press Release
12/14/05

"What is Wrong With Europe? PI Report Criticises EU anti-terror policies
Europe is failing to protect privacy and civil liberties, even more so than the U.S.

In a report released today Privacy International, a London-based watchdog organisation, compares the anti-terrorism approaches in the U.S. with those in Europe. It finds that on every policy involving mass surveillance of its citizens, the EU is prepared to go well beyond what the U.S. Government finds acceptable and palatable, and violate the privacy of citizens."

------

Moushumi Khan, Slate, 7/24/07: "Europe has a longer history of using informants as a surveillance tool in its Muslim populations."

------

Olofsson claims Sweden has tapped phones 'for decades'
9th March 2007
The Local

"Deputy prime minister Maud Olofsson has added a new twist to Sweden's divisive surveillance debate. The Centre Party leader claims that defence minister Mikael Odenberg's proposed legislation would merely codify practices that have already been in operation for decades."

--------

Newshour with Jim Lehrer, August 15, 2006:

MARGARET WARNER: So, Bob Leiken, how different are the U.S. and British authorities when it comes to -- when they confront a potential terror plot, in the investigatory phase?

ROBERT LEIKEN, The Nixon Center: I think, as Secretary Chertoff said, to use his words, the British can be more nimble, both because of their laws and because of the politics. They're allowed to get a wiretap without a court order. They can detain a terror suspect for as long as 28 days before he has to be charged. ...

ROBERT LEIKEN:... And in England, if you visit England, you'll see cameras all over the place, television cameras. Everything is on film. ...

TOM PARKER: ...(T)here is a difference in the way that we apply for telephone intercepts in the United Kingdom. In the intelligence sense, these are authorized by the home secretary, by a political figure, not by a judge. ...

ROBERT LEIKEN: ... This plot, this latest airline plot, was basically intercepted by infiltration. In the United States, if we want to go to a mosque, infiltrate a mosque, we have to get a court order. We have to go before a judge. You have to show at least reasonable suspicion. It used to be probable cause.

MARGARET WARNER: So in other words, that U.S. law enforcement has to depend more on, say, informants, rather than sending one of their own agents essentially undercover to pretend to be part of some group?

ROBERT LEIKEN: Or rather than, as happens in France and in Britain, getting a convict, not one of your own agents, but someone who you can turn in prison to work for you. ..

JEFFREY ROSEN: ...(A)s we've discussed, in Britain you can detain someone without charge for 28 days...

That's a tremendously important difference for the British because it allows them to delay arrests to allow investigations to proceed because they don't have to develop probable cause. They know that they can swoop down and detain someone without cause at any moment.

Once you are formally arrested in America, there are more protections at trial, greater access to lawyers. ...

I'd like to point out that in Utah, there is a clear separation of Church & State: about 0.5 miles.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&saddr…

"Freedom requires religion"

AAAAAAAARGH

"the religion of secularism"

Is that not an oxymoron?

How is enslaving your mind with delusions fredom?

This guy is an ass. Sounds alot like Bush too.

The only Republican I could have seen myself voting for was Ron Paul. That was until I heard him call abortion murder.

Ron Paul also supports quackery. He's the sponsor of the "Health Freedom Act," which is more accurately characterized as the "freedom from pesky government regulations that prevent quacks from practicing their quackery" act.

Re: #25 - I recall a BBC interview with Bush senior (when president) where he asserted that only christians could
a) be citizens, or possibly
b) be allowed to vote
- truthfully, I can't recall which it was now. I never did understand why that didn't blow up massively.

- truthfully, I can't recall which it was now. I never did understand why that didn't blow up massively

Why? Because probably a plurality, if not a majority, of our fellow citizens would agree with the sentiment.

Stupidity requires religion just as religion requires stupidity. Stupidity opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Stupidity and religion endure together, or perish alone.

There. Fixed it for you Mitt.

Dear "Chris' Wills"
I can tell you're out of your league, when you're reduced to mere insults. Just like the rest of you religious crazies. Makes me smile. :-)

Glad to hhave made you smile at this season.
Believe what you like.
Given what you wrote I'm happy not to be in your league.

Oh by the way, we're going to steal back the solstice celebration your church stole centuries ago and installed its silly baby-mythology. Christmas was a dumb idea anyway.

How is it stealing if it was originally yours?
Can I assume that you are a druid or some such given you claim ownership of the solstice festival?
Why do you assume that it is my church?

Have a lovely 'Podsmas "Chris'".
he he he.
Posted by: The Stone

Will do :o)

Oh yes, what you wrote originaly is still cack.

PZ: It would be a mistake to assume that I did not puke several times while writing my analysis of Romney's blathering. Actually, I started retching watching the analysis of Romney's speech on Hardball. Just thinking about it now makes me...

Oh crap. Gotta run .... stomach ... feels ... queasy ...

tim Rowledge #50 wrote:

- truthfully, I can't recall which it was now. I never did understand why that didn't blow up massively.

Probably because you've remembered it wrong, and it's a little uncertain whether it happened or not. I think it was a press conference (in Chicago?) when Bush Sr. was vice president. Atheist activist lawyer Rob Sherman asked him what he'd do to win atheist votes, and Bush replied that he didn't know. When Sherman followed up with "but of course you recognize that atheists are equal citizens and patriots" Bush is reported to have said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

The follow up was interesting, given what Romney said. Bush sr. allegedly then said

"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

Did this conversation take place? Maybe. There is no direct record of it, it was originally officially denied, and then all the back and forth on documents seems to be about who said to deny it and why. The details also seem to have changed. Rob Sherman doesn't have the most reliable reputation among the 'atheist community' to begin with -- so a lot of atheists hedge on this one.

That second statement -- I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists -- could be Romney's campaign slogan, though.

That speech was full of the most rank hypocrisy:
"Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

compared with

"A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith."
and
"religious tolerance would be a shallow principle, indeed, if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists -- could be Romney's campaign slogan, though.

Well, other than the first half of the sentence.

Braxton wrote:

On the other hand, I take issue with Kevin L.'s characterization of the Scandinavian countries as being ahead of the U.S. They are economically stagnant.

You must be kidding. Iceland and Norway have thriving ecomomies. As Kevin L mentions, all three Scandinavian countries, and Iceland and Finland as well, have extremely high standards of living, next to no corruption, more social equality than anywhere else, and, despite being located way north with darkness and coldness, are among the happiest people in the World. Not everything is perfect there to say the least, but the economy is not stagnant.

Next I expect to hear that because they all have socialist governments (which they don't), people aren't encouraged to work, and all that uneducated proud-not-to-have-a-passport american crap.

P.S. I'm a dane in CA for a reason. For instance, I'm a Ph.D. student in evolution, which is a field much more vibrant here than in Denmark (there are other reasons).

"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."

How did he convey the scare quotes around "enlightened"? Did he use his fingers? Use a goofy inflection? Pull a face? Because he certainly couldn't trust his audience enough to supply their own scare quotes, I'm sure.

This to some degree reiterates points already made, but a few weeks back, E.J. Dionne had a column in the Washington Post that nailed the issue about Romney and religion. Romney has an insuperable religion problem because he needs to hold the these two points together:

1. the most important thing about a candidate for POTUS is that he (they're always "he" on his side) has a life- and thought-controlling "Christian" faith; and

2. it is totally illicit, indeed deeply un-American, to inquire any further into the content of that faith.

Romney delenda est.

I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty.

I appreciate the implications perfectly.

Jerry Falwell... Pat Robertson... James Dobson... and on and on.

Religious liberty = mass stupidity, the likes of George Bush in the White House, and endless assaults on our educational system by a bunch of fucking fundie morons.

That's what religious liberty gets us.

I saw the piece on Nightline about Romney and the objections of the lunatic fringe of Christianity. It was a jaw-droppingly surreal experience to watch him blathering on one hand, and the mindless, drooling evangelical Christians screaming hysterically on the other. Stupid moron vs stupid idiots.

Sometimes I'm *so* ashamed. I hope none of those supposed alien species who've been keeping their eyes on us saw it ;^)

Lynn

I would like to know what promises Mitt Romney made to the LDS church during his ordination? Did he promise obedience to the church (the "one true church") and to advance its interests in preference to others?
I do not think Mitt swore an oath to follow Jesus and the dictates of his conscience. He swore obedience to the LDS Church, a different matter entirely.

Well, looking at your 3 candidates from the Republicans, Rommney, Huckabee and Giuliani ... I fear for what USA might become.

Good luck!

Bjorn, James Bjorn: "despite being located way north with darkness and coldness, are among the happiest people in the World."

Perhaps that is true of most, but these statistics are interesting.

NationMaster:

Suicide rate for young males, per 100,000

#8 Finland: 33
#10 Norway: 28.2
#15 United States: 21.9

Suicide rate for young female, per 100,000

#16 Norway: 5.2
#19 Sweden: 5
#25 United States: 3.8

Mitt, outside the mainstream christian faith, basically said all the right things to apease them and also to alienate the 10% of the population that is not religious

20% and growing.

Colugo,

Hey, I can cherry pick too!

Total Crimes

#1 United States 23,677,800
#27 Norway 330,071
>#60 Sweden -- they don't even make the top 60.

Now, what exactly was your point? Suicide is a 'sin'? Nobody buys into the concept of sin here. Suicide is a social problem? Only tenuously granted because there have been cultures that encouraged suicide as proper practice.

G, what's the point of comparing "total crimes" in nations with such different population sizes?

I hope none of those supposed alien species who've been keeping their eyes on us saw it

This kind of thing might be an explanation for the Fermi paradox.

And G: Colugo didn't cite suicide stats in reply to a claim about "sin", but in reply to a claim about who's "among the happiest people in the World."

Sweden: 13.2
Norway: 20.3

Us Total: 11.1
State of Alsaka: 23.6

Hm. What makes Alaska have by 4-5 points the highest suicide rates in America? Maybe because it's so far north?

If you factor in latitude, Norway is still "happier."

It's all role-play :

The problem for Romney is that he's squeezed between "God's bumlebee" and the "savior of New York".

So, the only thing that can beat that is "The Messenger of God".

That's the role he's playing.

The entire thing was incredibly offensive. The bit that realy cinched it for me was his little attempt at a tip of the hat towards Judaism on the subject of Chanukka.

I am an atheist. I am also a Jew, and I celebrate Chanukka along with a number of other Jewish holidays, most of which are pretty frank about being pre-monotheistic planting and harvest feasts. Chanukka, however is not a fertility feast. It is not about goodwill to man, joy to the world, or any of that Christmas crap. It's about family, sure, but only beause it is specifically a holiday about [i]not[/i] assimilating the religious practices of the majority. Hell, it's a military holiday celebrating the expulsion of the Neoassyrian empire from Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Neoassyrian tax system (which only in anachronistic retrospect looks like religion, because the taxed income went to the temples of the gods of the Assyrians, although this was done for practical rather than spiritual reasons).

The problem with Romney's (and the rest of the Religious Right's) concept of "Judeo-Christian" values is that such a concept does not exist. Chanukka is not remotely the equivalent of Christmas. If it's the equivalent of anything, it's the equivalent of Purim, another Jewish holiday with military undertones. The closest equivalent in American society is Independence Day, and that's even a stretch. And frankly, most Jews (including conservative and orthodox Jews) don't want a religious individual in the presidency. Neither do most devout Neopagans, Hindus, Muslims, Animists, Deists, assorted Theists, Unitarians, Wiccans, Buddhists, Sikhs, and so forth. It's not just the Atheists and Agnostics who are against public displays that promote Christianity as an American value. I think enough people are going to stand up against Romney that he won't be a viable candidate. As for his competitors, I have no idea how religion is going to pa out for them, but Romney is not a sure thing by far.

G (#67) wrote: "Hey, I can cherry pick too! Total Crimes..."

Yes, you can. Badly, too. At least Colugo was dealing with suicide rates, you are dealing with total numbers of crimes. So, it's not surprising at all that USA with roughly 303,000,000 people would have
24,000,000 crimes (.08), while Norway has 330,000 crimes for a population of 4,770,000 (.07, which is indeed lower, but not by much, and I'm rounding for quickness of reply, here).

And you certainly don't want to go into rates of school shootings, given the recent tragedy in Finland, population 5,300,000.

Suicide is considered a problem because medical science, or at least the APA and the other APA, says that it's a symptom of mental illness.

Suggest you honestly ask yourself the same question you asked Colugo.

The reaction from some talibangelists to the Romney's efforts is rather, um, interesting. This one is a must see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2007/12/unchristian_…

Enjoy :-)

The reaction from some talibangelists to the Romney's efforts is rather, um, interesting.

Umm. Yes. That was interesting.

There appears to be a little bit of a Pot/Kettle thing going on here.

Bureaucratus Minimis: To use the same "per 100,000" scale as Colugo's suicide stats, those crime rates come out to:
US: 7,920 per 100,000
NO: 6,918 per 100,000

So your rounding (to .08 and .07) doesn't change the comparison very much.

Stat picking isn't far from quote mining.

I'm sure the US's crime rates suck, but comapring total crimes is kinda silly.

Pyre -- thanks for recalculating using the same units as Colugo. I not only rounded the rates, but I also rounded the population and crime totals.

Pyre, Bureaucratus Minimus,

My point should have been fairly obvious. Cherry picking one statistic badly is not grounds for dismissing an entire argument about the relative happiness of nations. I guess sarcasm still doesn't translate over the interwebs.

Suicide is considered a problem because medical science, or at least the APA and the other APA, says that it's a symptom of mental illness.

As noted by inkadu, suicide rates in extreme latitudes are always higher than in the more central latitudes, which is largely thought to be due to lack of sunlight causing Seasonal Affective Disorder. I would hardly attribute this illness, while real, to the social structure of a society -- it's pretty much solely due to lack of light.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. [...] Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

That must be why Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are routinely held up as beacons of freedom, while Sweden and the Netherlands are at the top of every human rights organization's watchlist.

I watched the video that #75 linked to--hilarious! It's a scream to watch the nuts firing the "true Christer" bazookas at one another.

Brain Hertz #75 wrote:

The reaction from some talibangelists to the Romney's efforts is rather, um, interesting.

Yeah, I watched the video, thanks. What I find interesting is that charges of heresy coming from one sect and aimed at another is being labeled "unchristian." Oh, really?

In the Bible itself Jesus criticized those in his religion who have turned away from God. Paul warns about false Christians. Every single damn Christian denomination which has ever existed has splintered and then pointed their fingers at each other and cried that those other guys are apostates, heretics, they've ignored God, they've rejected Christ, and on and on and on. And most of the time it's been for picayune little points which only theologians can unravel, or esoteric differences, or which side of the cup to sip Jesus' blood from, or whether the blood is real or symbolic or "symbolically real."

Face it, the Mormons have gone to town and back on interpretation and invention. Of course they're going to have Christians claiming they're "not real Christians." And, by the same token, other Christians are of course going to say that hey, those Fundamentalists aren't REAL Christians -- because no REAL Christian would say some group of Christians weren't REAL Christians.

Why o why do all those other denominations keep interpreting for themselves? They should just let God be God. Like us.

Is it wrong for me to wish for the escalation of this little internicene war between Romney and the non-Mormons? You know, "Lord, make my enemies ridiculous", that sort of thing?

Sastra, I for one am quite happy to have all the fundy wackos snipe at each other -- it keeps them distracted from the Reality-Based Community.

Rey Fox,

As far as I can tell, your wish has already been granted, divine intervention or not.

Romney once again demonstrates his true colors: Fraudulent.

Inkadu: "What makes Alaska have by 4-5 points the highest suicide rates in America? Maybe because it's so far north?"

That is quite likely a major factor. (A long time ago I did a lit review on the hormonal basis of SAD, as Tulse mentioned, for an endocrinology course.) But demographic and social factors cannot be ruled out as contributing to differential rates. Intriguing.

Guy: Did he ever have the secular vote to begin with?

He was elected Governor of the most liberal state in the Union: apparently the "blues" are a lot more poltically flexible than "reds".

He was elected Governor of the most liberal state in the Union: apparently the "blues" are a lot more poltically flexible than "reds".

Not even the same Romney. Seriously. Same man, waaaaaaay different candidate.

Plus, we've got our share of whackjobs in the Bay State.

So, to look cleaner for the Died-In-The-Wool Christians, he's got to say :

"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."

Note the maximum hypocrisy : "may not all be the same", instead of "completely different".

And what does show of you Mitt ? Not only you hate secularism, but you're a dishonest man.

This guy is finished. He could have downplayed his religion (like Kennedy) isntead he's made a fatal mistake.

Quoting #73: "And frankly, most Jews (including conservative and orthodox Jews) don't want a religious individual in the presidency."

There are a lot of Jewish wingnuts who would welcome a religiowhack POTUS if it meant Iran would get bombed sooner rather than later.

And, at the time, Romney had a pretty strong national rep as a talented administrator (The Savior of the Olympics - remember?). His campaign was very well-funded (he put in over 6 million dollars himself). The Dem candidate, Shannon O'Brien, was comparatively weak.

Are suicide rates and crime rates really the only thing that's relevant when you're comparing quality of life across countries? There's more to being happy than not wanting to kill yourself.

I mean, really.

As a native of Nevada, I have heard for at least a few decades now that the suicide rate in Nevada is highest in the nation, and Clark County (in the south where Las Vegas is) is higher than the rest of the state. In 2004, the numbers for Alaska were higher, but 1994, 1996, and 2000, according to this site, Nevada was higher. Las Vegas gets more sunlight than almost every other city in the country (not Phoenix, of course) so there are obviously other demographic and social factors going on that influence suicide rates.

(as is my command of italics tags)

The God of Biscuits is right again. Every time I drive Rt. 2 (thankfully, no longer twice a day) past that monstrous Temple on top of Belmont Hill it creeps me out.

hmmmmmm...what social factors could be contributing to high suicide rates in Clark Co., Nevada?
It's a real puzzler, that one!

Hypothesis 1: Suicide rates correlate positively with latitude.

Hypothesis 2: Countries with low suicide rates are predominantly of a religion in which suicide is a mortal sin (Islam, Catholicism).

Hypothesis 3: There is no correlation between happiness and suicide rates on a per country basis.

Hypothesis 4: There is a correlation between happiness and suicide rate: In countries where suicide is not a mortal sin, unhappy people commit suicide before the WHO gets to poll them.
Suicide Rates (per 100,000), by country, year, and gender:IRAN 91 0.3 0.1GUATEMALA 84 0.9 0.1DENMARK 98 20.9 8.1

From
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Pierce (#90):

He was elected Governor of the most liberal state in the Union: apparently the "blues" are a lot more poltically flexible than "reds".

As his opponents for the Republican nomination (and their surrogates) have been pointing out for many months now, the Mitt Romney who was elected governor of Massachusetts was a very different guy--especially with regard to his approach toward various "values issues" on which the American Taliban and the median Massachusetts voter tend to disagree--than the Mitt Romney currently running for President is.

Just watched that video linked in #75--hee hee! It's a great little game of "Quien es mas nutso?"
The guy had one good line, though, referring to Mormonism as having "emerged from the satanic imagination of Joe Smith."

He thinks he's right ... in fact, he KNOWS he's right. And why? Because he's guided by the one true faith which teaches that under certain circumstances the little voice inside your head/heart/gonads is the voice of the Lord God.

You can take the President out of the Mormon (better yet, keep the President out of the Mormon) but you can't take the Mormon out of the President.

Mitt has a worldview that is fundamentally built from Mormon doctrine and lore. He may say that he won't answer to Mormon leadership but it's too late for that -- his mind has already been formed by them.

Really, it scares the shit out of me that this guy is even a remote possibilty for POTUS at this point.

Without reading the rest of the speech, I think Romney's point was supposed to be supportive of the separation of church and state rather than against it, with his example of europe. He was saying that the separation was still a good thing for religion, because look europe has official state religions thus not separating church and state, and hardly anyone is going to church, so because they dont have religious freedom, its been bad for religion. And we're all awesome because we do have religious freedom and here we are voluntarily going to church more than them without state endorsement. As to what the blather about freedom requiring religion is, I don't know.

And you certainly don't want to go into rates of school shootings, given the recent tragedy in Finland, population 5,300,000.

Why not? Making a rough calculation of all time school shooting deaths over current population size: US about 1/million, Finland about 2/million, other Nordic countries nil AFAIK.

And Finns have never claimed to be a particularly happy and carefree sort... those surveys surprise us as much as anyone :) But Bjorn did only say nordics were "among" the happiest (not, say, "definitely happier than you American losers") so citing suicide rates hardly falsifies that.

Romney delenda est.

Romney delendus est.

;)

And frankly, most Jews (including conservative and orthodox Jews) don't want a religious individual in the presidency. Neither do most devout Neopagans, Hindus, Muslims, Animists, Deists, assorted Theists, Unitarians, Wiccans, Buddhists, Sikhs, and so forth. It's not just the Atheists and Agnostics who are against public displays that promote Christianity as an American value.

JDP,

Don't forget Native Americans, we're not generally too hot on the "Christianity as an American value" bandwagon. Christianity did so well for Native peoples with the whole missionary program, relocation, reservations, encomienda, boarding schools, etc.

that means our days of being the school-yard bully are just beginning.

"You" and what army?

As has been noted by others, freedom does not require religion as evidenced by most of western Europe.

"Most of"???

On the other hand, I take issue with Kevin L.'s characterization of the Scandinavian countries as being ahead of the U.S. They are economically stagnant.

Yes, but at what a level! No working poor, no people with three jobs.

At times it is hard to tell if he is an ignoramus or if he is trying to attract the ignoramuses.

Or both.

"the religion of secularism"

Is that not an oxymoron?

No. It is not oxy- ("sharp"). It is just moron.

this little internicene war

Is that a typo or a pun...? :-)

He was saying that the separation was still a good thing for religion, because look europe has official state religions thus not separating church and state, and hardly anyone is going to church, so because they dont have religious freedom, its been bad for religion.

Except that most European countries haven't had an official religion since WWI, while the Great Church Emptying started later (think 1968).

David @108:

most European countries haven't had an official religion since WWI

Up to a point, Lord Copper. A surprisingly large number of European countries still have de jure or de facto state churches (the UK has two of 'em). It's just that, for most members these days, these churches are nothing more than a place to be (i) baptised, (ii) confirmed, (iii) married and (iv) eulogised. That is, they are venues for ceremonies to mark birth, coming of age, mating and death -- a very human thing altogether. A fair few members attend at Christmas or Easter; largely, I suspect, because the music tends to be good. (I'd go myself on Christmas for that very reason, but alas I must tend to the goose.)

In absolute terms there are plenty of religious Europeans, of course. But we are much less likely to be religious than Americans are, and for those of us who are religious, religion is likely to be more a hobby and a matter of aesthetics than anything else.

OTOH the USA, as a state, is far more secular than most European states. The US constitution demands a much clearer church/state separation than do the constitutions of almost all EU countries (France might be the outlier here). It is not the USA as an institution that is suffering from God on the brain, it is (a large segment of) the American people. If one could somehow combine the US constitution with the EU population, paradise would begin to beckon.

On the other hand, I take issue with Kevin L.'s characterization of the Scandinavian countries as being ahead of the U.S. They are economically stagnant.

This is the bullshit of right wingers, libertarians, and other amoral sociopathic misfits who care more about some economic chart than about actual people and the quality of their lives (accounting for climate, of course).

Without reading the rest of the speech

Maybe you should go do so before commenting and getting things so wrong.

"Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Iran and Saudi Arabia must be the freest countries on the planet.

"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."

Mitt Romney, Mohammed; Rael, Baha'ullah or the founder of Cao Dai, you choose.

This is late, but @ 63:

When Lattter-day Saints (including Romney) 'take out their endowment', they covenant to devote all their time, talents, and everything they have (or may have in the future) to the 'building up of the kingdom of God', defined as... wait for it... the LDS Church.

It's odd. He believes that Gordon Hinckley is a prophet with a direct line to god, but he's promising evangelicals that... what? he won't listen to him? Is this a tacit admission that his religion isn't really good for anything? Best when ignored?

And remember: Obstreperousness requires pomegranates just as pomegranates require obstreperousness!

"I would like to know what promises Mitt Romney made to the LDS church during his ordination? Did he promise obedience to the church (the "one true church") and to advance its interests in preference to others?
I do not think Mitt swore an oath to follow Jesus and the dictates of his conscience. He swore obedience to the LDS Church, a different matter entirely."

This is only an issue if you think Romney takes any such hypothetical oaths seriously.

I mean, come on, Bush promised to "...well and faithfully serve..."

"On the other hand, I take issue with Kevin L.'s characterization of the Scandinavian countries as being ahead of the U.S. They are economically stagnant."

In terms of GDP per capita and productivity growth over the last decade then Scandinavia and western Europe are actually ahead of the United States.

Headline GDP growth in the Us is higher but only because the total population is growing faster there.

In other words, the Europeans are growing richer, the Americans are just growing more numerous.

Incidentally, a large percentage of the faster US population growth can be attributed to higher rates of illegal immigration. But I'm sure if and when you get that problem under control it'll have absolutely zero effect on those headline GDP growth numbers.

"Why o why do all those other denominations keep interpreting for themselves? They should just let God be God. Like us."

Why, because if you just let God be God, He vanishes -- poof! You have to keep imagining, interpreting, worshipping, praying, etc., etc., because otherwise He just doesn't exist at all.

Further to my last:

1. for the last couple of years even headline growth in the US has been lower than in "economically stagnant" Europe.

2. For the last decade or so the European economy has been held back by four factors:

1. High levels of national debt.

2. Rapidly growing aged populations and the need to fund their pensions.

3. Much higher petrol prices than in the US

4. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the resulting loss in trade with those countries and the massive amounts of aid paid to those countries (including East Germany). (The Europeans also had to deal with several hundred thousand refugees from the former Yugoslavia - a vastly larger and more intractable problem than, say, Hurricane Katrina.)

- European public debt is now being restrained while US debt is growing rapidly.

- The US is a decade or more behind the EU in terms of the ageing of its population - meaning the US still has to coem to terms with the problem. The current problems with Social Security and company pension fudns in the US are jsut the start.

- The recent rise in oil prices has eroded much of the difference between the US and EU in petrol prices. The US has seen prices roughly quadruple since George Bush took office, the EU has seen them roughly double.

- Eastern Europe is no longer the basket case it once was, economic growth there is now supportign economci growth in Europe.

In 10 years time, the Europeans will probably be shaking their heads over the "economically stagnant" Americans.

#106: Mea maxima culpa.

Mrs. Tilton, for a moment, you make me regret that my days as a theist are behind me. You remind me though, that what I value from that time is still a part of me, whether or not the map I've been on my own to draft has ever matched the territory.

A fair few members attend at Christmas or Easter; largely, I suspect, because the music tends to be good. (I'd go myself on Christmas for that very reason, but alas I must tend to the goose.)

When I finally got it through my mother's head that I was an atheist, part of her argument was, "but you sang in the church choir in college..."

I was a music major. The choir director was our music history professor. We sang Poulenc, Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Handel, and lots of other really cool shit. She didn't like my response that that was the reason I went to church.

Once i finish the PhD and find a new home, I'd like to sing again, find a good choral group. This time, though, it will not be a church choir.

"Is that a typo or a pun...? :-)"

It's an eggcorn, I suppose.

Listening to NPR today the interviewers were pretty careful not to point out that mormonism is a bunch of ridiculous barking madness that was frothed up by a two-bit conman. Does the mythical "liberal bias" in the media actually exist and does it require that complete bollocks be treated with respect?

We need to get a pastafarian in the next presidential race. "I believe this exactly because it is ridiculous. But it's no more ridiculous than what you believe, you religiotard!"

Ok.. I've got to try to scoop a few drops out of the bottom of the bucket. :( Can Romney at least pronounce "nuclear" correctly? If the republicrats can ever field a president that can pronounce "nuclear" correctly that'll be a huge step up, as far as I am concerned.

President Bush: willing to go to war for something he can't even pronounce

"Wasn't there some expression about given a choice between a real republican and a fake republican, republican voters would choose the real republican every time (or some such)? So, given the choice between a real religious whack-job (Huckabee) and a fake religious whack-job (Romney) won't the religious nuts vote for the real whack-job? We don't really even have to get into the which cult is more stupid."

Since when is either a fake religious nut job. Not only that, but they are both real true bigots. That's the worst part of it to me, if they were just religious nut jobs, I could write them off, but once they start talking about atheists not being citizens etc, its freaking scary.

PS: Mittler is awesome, I will do everything to spread that meme like it was a bad cold bug.

"Listening to NPR today the interviewers were pretty careful not to point out that mormonism is a bunch of ridiculous barking madness that was frothed up by a two-bit conman."

Fun fact: the mob that lynched Smith included Mormons as well as non-Mormons. What most of them had in common wasn't their religion but the fact they'd lost money in a bank swindle perpetrated by Smith.

Sigh. What a dull waste. I did really get a kick out of the "soul window" concept. Sadly for us atheists, our soul windows are painted shut!

"Romney delendus est"?
Is the adjectival phrase of the passive paraphrastic voice dependant on the gender of the noun, or independant of it?
I don't have my high school Latin text, but thinking about it, Romans used feminine nouns for countries, but the original quote uses "Carthago", which seems to be special to the passive paraphrastic if Carthage is a feminine noun.

mormonism is a bunch of ridiculous barking madness that was frothed up by a two-bit conman

How is that different from Christianity in general?

Here's the thing about Mitt Romney: wannabe Godwarrior or not, he's a hack. A worthless, lazy, half-baked slacker whose only worthwhile selling point is his stable marriage.

I live in Massachusetts. Romney was even more disengaged than Dubya. And I can't help but notice that the street he lives on, which happens to in be the same town I grew up in, is one of the few good roads in a town notorious for being run by rich cheapskates who can't be bothered to keep the roads in good shape.

That must be why Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are routinely held up as beacons of freedom, while Sweden and the Netherlands are at the top of every human rights organization's watchlist.

Nicely put...

I saw the speech and it just confirmed my first impressions about the man- instincts that were formed when I heard the name "Mitt". For what is a Mitt after all but a leathery shell, a hollow skin stitched together for someone else's hand to move around? This piece of political sporting equipment showed us all just who'd be wearing him if he made it into the Presidential game- whatever wacko fundie who could deliver the votes. Naturally, it wasn't any surprise when Mitt laid himself open in hopes that some pastor would ignore his LDS maker's mark and rub neat's-foot oil into his cracking campaign...

I´m very late to the comments so no-one will probably read this but..
What the religious right and believers have done to the mordern political dialogue in the U.S. is probably going to be our downfall and Milt Romnys whoredom, embracement and appeasment of ignorance is clearly very very ugly and scary BUT
Stop with the superior and secular Europe already, please.
It´s not so. Really there is no santa claus even in europe.
I just watched swedish scool kids being paraded to church during school hours to celebrate the first advent (even swedish communists defend this vehemntly by exclaiming "It´s our swedish heritage!") and may I remind your readers of which country banned the "Life of Brian" because it was offensive to christianity (norway).
The U.S. is truly fucked up but believe me the rest of the world is too and religion is a world wide cultural and political poison.
Please as americans stop assuming that just because people are speaking french they gotta be more cultured, they´re just like us and actually culturally and historically the root of much of our and of the worlds current problems.

JDP, here are a couple of other opinions on Hanakkah.

http://happydays.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/my-real-holiday/

"Some of these Hellenized Jews came to resent their Temple taxes going up in smoke in the form of animal sacrifices. The Talmud tells how Miriam, a Hellenized Jew, removed her sandal and struck the Temple altar with it, yelling: "Wolf, Wolf, you have squandered the riches of Israel!" Others of this group, led by the high priest Menelaus, asked Emperor Antiochus IV to put Judea under the empire's laws and ban the laws of Moses. Progressive, urbane Jews were already living this way, but the pious, poorer Jews were outraged and rose up.

The violence began when, according to Maccabees II, "a certain Jew" went up to give sacrifice to the Imperial idols and Mattathias's "wrath was kindled ... and running upon him he slew him upon the altar: Moreover the man whom king Antiochus had sent, who compelled them to sacrifice, he slew at the same time." The killer's son Judah would come to be called Maccabee (the hammer) for his ruthless soldiering. Wherever the Maccabees triumphed, secular Jewish men were brutalized, even beheaded. Of Miriam's fate, the Talmud tells only that she "was punished"; we may assume other women were, too."

Also Chris Hitchens, a bit more strongly. "Bah, HanukkahThe holiday celebrates the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness."

http://www.slate.com/id/2179045/fr/rss/

@Tulse #130:

mormonism is a bunch of ridiculous barking madness that was frothed up by a two-bit conman

How is that different from Christianity in general?

It's very different! You see, Christianity is a bunch of ridiculous barking madness that was frothed up by many two-bit conmen. How could you not grasp that obvious distinction?

Which European countries have a state religion? The UK has two de jure ones; the Scandinavian countries recently stopped having de jure ones; Spain and Portugal, I guess, had de jure ones till 1975 and de facto ones even longer; Italy presumably had a de facto one till 1945, but since then has always had a very strong communist party; even Poland does not really count as having a de facto one, though it probably did between the world wars; how close does Ireland come? Belarus and, increasingly, Russia have a cult of personality...

President Bush: willing to go to war for something he can't even pronounce

It has been suggested that what he actually pronounces is an eggcorn: "newkiller".

Is the adjectival phrase of the passive paraphrastic voice dependant on the gender of the noun, or independant of it?
I don't have my high school Latin text, but thinking about it, Romans used feminine nouns for countries, but the original quote uses "Carthago", which seems to be special to the passive paraphrastic if Carthage is a feminine noun.

Huh?

Where does the term "periphrastic passive voice" come from? Delendus/-a/-um is the gerundivum: "is to be destroyed"/"should/must be destroyed". Like a participle, it is declined like an adjective and agrees in gender with the noun. Romney is a he and therefore delendus, a male to-be-destroyed one. The city of Carthage is a she (Karthago, Karthaginis...) and therefore delenda.

Wm et David laudandi sunt propter eorum peritiam grammaticam.

Yeah, what he said.

BrianX (#131): Well, they finally did just re-pave most of Pleasant St. That's something anyway. Also, we're about to get a couple of liquor stores! Major progress!

Sven:

Oh, I'm through there quite a lot. In fact I just got a look at the Spirited Gourmet the other day while stopping by Ohlin's for our weekly pastry ration. (Out of towners, check it out. It's on Common St. Totally old-school hometown bakery. The bread is mezza-mezza, but my parents like the honey health bread. Turnovers are awesome though.)

noncarborundum:

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Liquor stores in Belmont?! I lived there for a few years - got tired of having to go to Cambridge or Watertown for my booze. (It's a joke, son. Belmont, Cambridge, and Watertown all meet. I literally walked one block and crossed the street to get to a packie.)

The Mittster is a hack.

heh. Yeah, on a good day I can throw a tennis ball into Watertown from my front porch. But enough about Belmont...back to Mittler.

Which European countries have a state religion? The UK has two de jure ones; the Scandinavian countries recently stopped having de jure ones;

Norway, Denmark and Iceland still have state churches.

Brian X,

A commendable sentiment, but I believe you've been misled. This quote itself, no matter how profound it seems, is not correct Latin (for "sonatur" read "videtur" -- if my dictionaries are correct, "sonatur" can't be used this way).

"How is that different from Christianity in general?"

Successful parasites don;t kill their hosts. Hell, given enough time they can even evolve into symbiotes.

The "Catholicism" and "Protestant" memes have had hundreds of years to evolve into nonlethal forms (which is why you don't see the Catholic hierarchy condemning usury anymore and you don't see many Protestant preachers preaching total disobedience to all state authority any more.

Mormonism is probably going to progress down the same path of adaptation - but it hasn't had as long to do so.

(Of course, some religions retain customs which are inimical to some individuals if not to society as a whole - much of Sharia law as interpreted by the Wahabi sect or Hindu practices such as Suti are examples.)

Ian, I don't know why you think that Mormonism isn't well-adapted -- it's done extremely well in certain ecological niches.

David, thank you. It's been years since I've cracked a Latin book. Maybe it's only me, but my teacher and text cited Cato's quote as the exemplar of the passive paraphrastic. It even came up in state competitions (although the state is Florida, which may explain why I flaked on my declension).

A clarification: David is right that delendus/a/um is a gerundive and must agree with the noun it modifies (thus Romney delendus est).

However, another name for the gerundive is the "future passive participle", and the construction in which this participle is used with a form of the verb esse to indicate obligation or necessity is commonly known as the "passive periphrastic". So (spelling aside) autumn is also correct and needn't worry (on this account, at least) about the state of Latin teaching in Florida.

Rugosa #143: Yeah, there's a new wine & cheese type store in Cushing Square, in the strip on the east side of Common St. just north of Trapelo Rd.

that means our days of being the school-yard bully are just beginning.

"You" and what army?

As has been noted by others, freedom does not require religion as evidenced by most of western Europe.

"Most of"???

On the other hand, I take issue with Kevin L.'s characterization of the Scandinavian countries as being ahead of the U.S. They are economically stagnant.

Yes, but at what a level! No working poor, no people with three jobs.

At times it is hard to tell if he is an ignoramus or if he is trying to attract the ignoramuses.

Or both.

"the religion of secularism"

Is that not an oxymoron?

No. It is not oxy- ("sharp"). It is just moron.

this little internicene war

Is that a typo or a pun...? :-)

He was saying that the separation was still a good thing for religion, because look europe has official state religions thus not separating church and state, and hardly anyone is going to church, so because they dont have religious freedom, its been bad for religion.

Except that most European countries haven't had an official religion since WWI, while the Great Church Emptying started later (think 1968).

Which European countries have a state religion? The UK has two de jure ones; the Scandinavian countries recently stopped having de jure ones; Spain and Portugal, I guess, had de jure ones till 1975 and de facto ones even longer; Italy presumably had a de facto one till 1945, but since then has always had a very strong communist party; even Poland does not really count as having a de facto one, though it probably did between the world wars; how close does Ireland come? Belarus and, increasingly, Russia have a cult of personality...

President Bush: willing to go to war for something he can't even pronounce

It has been suggested that what he actually pronounces is an eggcorn: "newkiller".

Is the adjectival phrase of the passive paraphrastic voice dependant on the gender of the noun, or independant of it?
I don't have my high school Latin text, but thinking about it, Romans used feminine nouns for countries, but the original quote uses "Carthago", which seems to be special to the passive paraphrastic if Carthage is a feminine noun.

Huh?

Where does the term "periphrastic passive voice" come from? Delendus/-a/-um is the gerundivum: "is to be destroyed"/"should/must be destroyed". Like a participle, it is declined like an adjective and agrees in gender with the noun. Romney is a he and therefore delendus, a male to-be-destroyed one. The city of Carthage is a she (Karthago, Karthaginis...) and therefore delenda.