Letters to the Editor
-
Mr. Conason....
I love you.
-
Freedom REQUIRES religion?
Home don't tink so, Mork Romney. Nahnoo, nahnoo.
Y'know. I'm pretty agnostic (bordering on "soft" atheist), but right now I'm managing a Christmas CD release produced by a couple of my friends (click my name), simply because it's a beautiful work of musical art, notwithstanding that I'm way Life of Brian on the whole Jesus thing. I love my Amy Grant Christmas CDs as well. When I'm at my Mother-in-Law's in Alabama, I bow my head during grace at the supper table and at the long-winded bible-thumping "invocations" at the high school basketball games, etc., out of simple tolerant respect for my in-laws. They, in turn, don't rub my nose in their faith.
I refuse to accept second-class citizenship, Mr. Romney, because I don't require "religion" to be the law-abiding, documentably productive, loyal, and moral person that I am.
So, STFU.
Mork.
-
Conason gets it right
Kudos to Joe Conason who is not so easy to con as Michael Scherer.
Conason is exactly right about the inherent bigotry of religion-exploiting pols like Huckabee and Romney (and GW Bush).
Joe Conason also does not succumb to the temptation, found so often even among secularists, to elide the issue by talking about "removing religion from the public square" and such tripe.
No one but no one - not one single person of any stature in public life and not a single person I have ever read or heard of - wants to remove religion from the public square.
Even Dawkins and Hitchens do not advocate outlawing religion.
The public square is where you find just about every church in the country. The public square, by definition, absolutely permeates our society. No one is going to remove religion from the public square.
We are talking about keeping religion out of government and government out of religion.
One thing: the public square.
Something different: the government.
Secularists, who may or may not be religious, insist that the vision of the founding fathers be honored by separating church and state.
That shouldn't be so hard to understand, but Romney and Huckabee will continue to exploit the fact that, indeed, millions of Americans are not able to grasp this simple distinction.
-
You're so right
Thank God I'm a Taoist.
-
Author
What a pompous a** the author is. The article is riddled with derision and dripping with disdain. Get a clue. If you want someone to read and take your article seriously try to write with some professionalism and integrity instead of trying to push your own opinion of the candidates.
-
AMEN
Well said! As a 43 yr old single mother who transplanted from NY to Salt Lake City, (and who also happens to be a recovering Catholic)let me just say there is nobody more intolerant than a middle-aged Mormon man.
-
zackandzanesmom
Best laugh of the evening. Thanks. Joe Conason's publication history and political credibility track records speak for themselves.Mork and Huck are two patent phonies deserving of being called out relentlessly.
-
Dear zachandzanesmom
Joe Conason writes opinion pieces. He's a professional opinion writer. It's his job to write articles which have his opinion. I, for one, enjoy his scorn of the notion that you must be a religious person to be a moral person because that notion is worthy of scorn.
I had a guy once tell me he didn't believe in evolution. I told him that that was the difference between science and religion: Science is true whether you believe in it or not.
-
zackandzanesmom
Are you kidding me? Did you read this article by Conason? Everything he states is part of the United States Constitution. Read it and understand we are not all part of the "christian" part of this nation.
-
Religion
Is a mental disease for those unwilling to accept reality. The fact that a majority of the American populace believe in things which can not be proven is as disgusting as any other "faith" historically forced upon the general populace like...oh, the earth is flat, the sun revolves around earth or more recently: The rapture will happen within our lifetime, etc. If humans keep believing in fairy tales, they don't deserve to evolve. Oh wait, they don't believe in that either! I suppose I should just accept that the world is 6,000 years old and humans walked with dinosaurs. Sure! The Koolaid tastes great!
-
New Troll On The Block
Speaking of pompous asshats, we have a new 'un on the block -- zackandzanesmom -- who definitely has an agenda to push. Something tells me that you're one of the folks who calls herself a CHRISTIAN. Fine & dandy, no difference to me if you kneel before your concept of Gawd -- Cosmic Muffin or Hairy Thunderer -- just don't expect me, or Gawd forbid, my kids to do likewise.
-
WHY it seems to be required
Well, let's face it. Religion gives an easy-to-use tag to identify our enemies. Mr. Politician professes his love for Mr. Godbotherer and in return, Mr. Godbotherer names Mr. Politician's enemies as the church's enemies. You ever look at a nice big church and wonder how many college educations it took to build those walls? How many people condemned THEIR OWN CHILDREN to a life of bondage to make sure Mr. Godbotherer got a house with a REALLY NICE VIEW? And no, my parents paid for part of my education so I've no personal axe to grind. That's why I find it refreshing to find a politician that will name his religious affiliation and then MAKE NO FURTHER MENTION OF IT.
Thank GOD there is a candidate available who uses REASON and the Constitution as his ideals in voting for and in crafting legislation. You don't really have to ask anymore who it is, do you? It's only the media saying he can't win that keeps you from going to his website NOW. Well, we won't quit. And when we go to church, it'll be for our SOULS and not to find out who we'll BEE voting for. You're going to end up voting for him - why not be the discoverer instead of the follower?
-
Dead on, Joe
Not a word wasted in wrenching the hypocrisy into morning light. Thanks.
-
it's precisely because
of people like Romney and Huckabee that secularists have had to come out more forcefully against the inclusion of religion in public life. Atheists like myself have always accepted the fact that an open disbeliever is not likely to win any presidential races in the near future. We've been secure enough in the knowledge that most candidates have never expressly exempted non-Jesus-Christ-accepting Americans from the category of citizen.
But now? Now we (along with Jews, Muslims, and liberal and moderate Christians) are finding ourselves forced into a militantly secular, if not anti-religious, stance simply to preserve our liberties.