Letters to the Editor
-
Freedom requiring religion is NONSENSE!
The only way that expression could make sense is if it meant that the only way you could KNOW that you were free, or the only way you could prove to others that you were free, would be by being able to say "look! I'm free to practice my religion. Therefore I'm free!" or "Look! That person over there is free to practice their religion even though it's not the same as mine! That's how free we are here!" The only way it makes sense would be to say "Freedom of religion requires religion." To that I say, "duh!" If religion didn't exist, we wouldn't be free to practice (or not) our own version of it.
And to the person who said that Romney was using "religion" to mean "moral values", that's also hogwash. After all, he said "Freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom." Well, "freedom requires moral values" is patently false. Someone who kills with impunity just because he feels like it obviously doesn't have moral values. And "moral values requires freedom" is also patently untrue. Tienamen Square, Nelson Mandela, any number of examples there.