Letters to the Editor
-
why not vote against him b/c of his church?
Why shouldn't people vote against him because of his church? Are you saying that people shouldn't vote against him b/c he's a Mormon, or that a candidate's religious beliefs should never be a reason to vote against him?
-
okay, call him out
True, it's ominous. Once Romney declares that "freedom requires religion," it's fair game to make him speak to his understanding of "religion."
I've been disappointed at the religion-bashing on this site; spewing contempt for anyone religious, however scholarly or reactionary their religious sensibility, is a dumb way to try to advance the political culture in progressive directions. But Romney is playing a disingenuous and destructive game, so he deserves to get called out on it.
-
Damn it, Mitt
I'm a Mormon. Which means I'm about to get hit with "b-b-b-Joseph!" comments right after this, but hey - I don't give a crap what your religion is. (I loved the ending of that South Park episode.)
But Mitt has it wrong. Freedom does *not* require religion. For Freedom to work, as enshrined by the Founding Fathers, requires freedom of government *from* religion.
One of the tenants of the Mormon faith is the the US Constitution is a divinely inspired document - not perfect, as nothing made by man can be, but a pretty damn good thing. And what's enshrined in the Constitution?
No religious test.
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion from government.
Every Mormon that I've met - from living a few years in Utah (blech) and beyond have agreed with the 11th article of faith: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
This includes the knowledge the church must be kept separate from state - let Caeser be rendered unto Caeser, and God unto God. Yes, there is an inherant contradiction with early church leaders running for office under "theodemocracy" - which I take to mean they thought they had a good idea and didn't really think it true. (Yes, Mormon leaders were human beings with dumb ideas too - hey, it was the early 1800's. Give them a break - there was stupidity to go around.)
For Mr. Romney to claim that Freedom *needs* religion is wrong. *Religion* needs Freedom. Without the latter, no person can truly express their religious beliefs.
I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with him (he's been off my voting list for some time for the flip-flopping - I support gay marriage (shock, I know), but his "oh, I love them, no wait, I hate them" bugs the hell out of me). Most of the other Mormons I go to church with aren't voting for Mr. Romney either (though we may be in a minority - I haven't done a nationwide poll) because we think he's reached incorrect conclusions.
-
Funny....
I've always linked religion with constraint, not freedom.
-
Just more pandering
Mitt is just pandering to Christians rightfully suspicious of the ludicrous flim-flam known as Mormonism.
No freedom without religion? I would argue that religion has more repressive of human freedom over the centuries than any political ideology.
Romney is such an empty suit that if one eliminated all his shameless pandering, one would be hard-pressed to cite a single substantive quote from him.
-
Guess Iranians have a lot of freedom
So, under Romney's logic, Iranians must have a lot of freedom; if he is elected, he is going to bring his brand of freedom into that Oval Office. Next thing you know, to have freedom you must register your religion.
-
I hope I don't hate myself for writing this BUT
Maybe what he meant is that people who are politically free still need some kind of moral structure to guide them and that moral structure has turned out to be religion.
An evolutionary biologist might say that people will invent the rules that help them co-exist and make those rules into their religion.
Look I'm a Democrat so there's zero chance I'm ever throwing my vote in Romney's direction.
But I'm also a nerd and I have a particular affection for ideas and meanings and I don't think what he's saying is that ominous.
That statement is historically ludicrous, unless Romney somehow considers the non-monotheistic Zeus-and-Jupiter belief systems that flourished in fifth century Athens and under the Roman republic to be part of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
That was not a "belief system" in ancient Athens -- that was THEIR RELIGION.
So his statement is not ludicrous, because he said freedom requires religion -- he didn't say freedom requires Judeo-Christian religion. At least not in the quote you've dissected for us.
Athenian democracy was based on Athenian religion, which is why the free people of Athens freely and democratically condemned Socrates to die for mocking the Eleusinian mysteries.
That's also why they attacked his protege Alcibiades, and why Alcibiades defected to the Spartans and ended up kicking Athens' ass.
Oh well. Freedom requires religion but religion can really screw over freedom. When Alcibiades defected to the Spartans, Athenian democracy was all but finished.
So he's right but he's wrong. Athenian democracy was based on religion but religious zeal also turned out to be its undoing.
-
Religion Bashing
I don't see much of it on this site.
What I do see is the appropriate bashing of people for using/abusing religion as a means for achieving their political ends, usually with a very high degree of manipulation and hypocrisy.
-
Wow
This 'verb' should provide excellent fodder for Democratic campaigns, but I'll bet not one is willing to use it. They are all too busy trying to pander to religious voters, and they know that 2/3 of secular votes are already in their pocket. So, they will let our 'freedom' hang in the wind, just like always. Plus ca change...
-
Why not?
"no one should quiz him about his religious beliefs or vote against him because of his church."
Why not? Religions are sets of beliefs which include positive assertions about reality and the universe. A while ago a bunch of candidates were asked if they believed in evolution. Why can't we ask them if they believe in magical golden tablets? Why can we ask them if they think the estate tax is wrong but not ask if drinking coffee is wrong?
Why can't we acknowledge the obvious reason he doesn't want to talk about his religion: because he knows everyone will think he is stupid. Why will we think that? Because it is stupid.