In talking about the Declaration of Independence at a campaign rally..., Mitt Romney emphasized pursuit of happiness. Gingrich, on the other hand, has been emphasizing the "life, liberty" part—as in how the "secular left" wants to take yours away.Hmmm.
Romney wants you to be happy. Gingrich wants you to be aggrieved. Romney doesn't mention religion. Gingrich wants you to think the "secular left" is robbing you of yours. The supposed deprivation of religious freedom is a central facet of Gingrich's attempt to win the religious right vote....
१६ मार्च, २०१२
"Romney's Religion of Happiness vs. Gingrich's Religion of Grievance."
A Sarah Posner headline over at Religion Dispatches. Excerpt:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५ टिप्पण्या:
They're making Newt sound like a Lefty; Milton like a Conservative.
All these posts on happiness merits mention of this week's Prager column:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293265/who-happy-dennis-prager
Sarah Posner -
The unstoppable offspring of Sarah Palin and Richard Posner.
. . . and men are that they might have joy.
2 Nephi 2:25
I'd make a joke about how Romney is pushing his religion, but I'm afraid it'd go over most people's heads.
Mitt Romney emphasized pursuit of happiness. Gingrich, on the other hand, has been emphasizing the "life, liberty" part—as in how the "secular left" wants to take yours away
Romney could learn from Newt. Because now Romney strikes me as someone who'll provide Bread & Circus while our freedom is whittled away by the socialist Nanny State.
Geoff is right:
"Happiness is the design and object of our existance...."
And in relation to being a happy 'warrior' versus cultivating grievances against your fellow citizens:
“I have the most liberal sentiments, and feelings of charity towards all sects, parties, and denominations; and the rights and liberties of conscience, I hold most sacred and dear, and despise no man for differing with me in matters of opinion.”
“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”
Joseph Smith
"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.
All sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this."
John Adams, "Thoughts on Government," 1776.
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=37
False dichotomy, in semantics only. Religion is a set of deeds in response to a gift. Happiness is that gift.
The string of posts, on happiness, above this one is wandering driven by semantic shuffling.
The prius of anything is all that's important about it.
I figured I'd look at the article... so...
Romney is positive (but still warns against government stealing your happiness) and Newt talks about life and liberty and people who want to steal that from you and those are completely different things.
And Newt figures that fertilized eggs are people (I'm shocked, actually) and there is a link! So I think, okay, I think it's really weird if Newt is the hardest of hardcore on pro-life issues, so I'm gonna look...
And the link supporting this claim is... bum bum bum!.. a former article Posner wrote explaining that Newt is icky.
Whoo hooo!
Oh and the Newt is icky post mentioned the horror (horror!) that Newt thought it was a good idea for poor kids to work janitors. OMG!
(Haven't we been talking about that? Okay, so *I* have, but...)
Hope they are right about Mitt. 0bama is definitely happy in his own skin and i like that, but why is he surrounded by all those nanny-statists?
Pursuit of happiness. Requires life and liberty right? No guarantees given, just the right to pursue free of government interference. With exceptions that insure the rights of others. Who can argue with that? Well, who can successfully argue with that? Seems self-evident.
I think that the thing that a lot of supporters of both Gingrich and Santorum forget is that if they won, they would be stuck listening to the guy for at least the next four years. And, yes, that is one of the reasons that I hope that Obama loses - I am just so tired of his whining and lying. Nothing is his fault. Even if he predicted it.
I think that we would do much better with a happy warrior in the White House, esp. in these times of uncertainty. That is one of the things that FDR seemed to give our ancestors, hope and an upbeat attitude.
This faux analysis is what happens when one overthinks thngs.
Romney, a Mormon, does not and will not talk about religion (just as Barak Hussein mostly avoided race issues an at least came to them reluctantly). It is the smart thing to do.
Gingtich has no such "baggage" that can possibly spiral out of control.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा