Does anybody agree with this view and can defend it? As a freedom-loving atheist, I of course disagree.
I can offer no argument, just as I cannot provide an argument against a statement like “a bicycle requires mashed potatoes”. It is simply something I do not see as a requirement.
I thought it was the most bizarre, meaningless statement I’ve heard in ages. And to the extent I think I understand what he was saying, he was also wrong.
I agree that he wants the Fundamentalists’ vote.
(and that he’s willing to forgo the anti-non sequitirists’ vote.)
He’s right. Freedom requires conforming to a particular set of beliefs, and the total disregard for choosing any other nonspiritual path. For it is true that only with religion do you look deep into the soul to answer significant questions, whilst completely ignoring an alternate set.
Oh, and assuming he actually said “God”, there, that’s kinda pointing to a particular faith. Expecially if he is of a faith which refers to their deity by that name. So, bad CNN. No biscuit.
So would Mr Romney have any problem with a Hindu person, who believes in multiple gods, becoming president? Or a Buddhist, who believes in no god? Alternativeliy, would he argue that Hinduism and Buddhism are not “religions” because they aren’t monotheist? I notice that he only mentioned Christianity and Judaism, and didn’t even mention Islam.
I wonder if the 1940’s people of the Jewish religion would agree with that statement. Or any female of Mitt’s religion who wants the freedom to run one of their religious institutions.
I hope someone asks him if nonbelievers fall into his big tent, or of we’re excluded.
It would have nice if he had the guts to face the anti-Mormon bigotry of some Iowa voters (based on quotations from them in the Times) head on. They oppose him specifically because they don’t think that all religions are equivalent.
It would also have been nice if he had the guts of JFK and had done the speech in front of people who might have a problem with his religion, not the nice, safe Bush library.
A bicycle does requires mashed potatoes, and some meat loaf, possibly some green beans. Food=Fuel.
As for Mitt, he’s a lot harder to explain. Let’s try popping him into the oven at 375 for about 6 hours and see if he makes more sense then.
N8 - a freedom loving theist who also disagrees
Freedom requires religion.
Islam is a religion.
Freedom requires Islam.
The Islamics hate us for our freedom.
Could Dana Perino please explain this for me?
I think his bullshit about “the religion of secularism” makes his views on that topic pretty clear.
He also very deliberately avoided discussing any differences Mormonism might have with Christianity or any other religion, which is the actual issue people wanted to know about. But we’re talking about Mitt Romney here.
Not quite true.
“I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.”
Of course, he spent more time (though not much) talking about Islamic extemism.
Pandering, yes, but I think his context is that freedom of religion can’t exist if religion doesn’t exist, and if we don’t have freedom of religion, we can’t have true freedom. I would liken it to saying that we couldn’t have true freedom if speech didn’t exist or if the press didn’t exist or if people never wanted to petition the government for grievances. Obviously, his handlers didn’t think the thing through very well or they would have encountered this philosophical conundrum – Do we need to have freedom to do something that doesn’t exist and which, in theory, then, we wouldn’t be able to do anyway? Would that be the same as saying we need the freedom for each of us to exist in two places simultaneously?
Oh, but see, when he says “religion” he actually means his religion, so your argument fails in line 2.
The real argument, being clarified helpfully by Rushbo et al, is that we would have no “natural rights” without religion, and that the only reason why we have the freedoms we enjoy is that the founding fathers were religious men, specifically Christians.
Had they been godless atheists, we would not have, for example, freedom of peaceable assembly.
My post has a link to his speech. I think he’s saying that without religion, our souls aren’t free, so we’re not free.
I have a different take, of course.
A free society must permit freedom of thought - no argument there, surely, and the reason for America’s religious plurality is its good record regarding this over the years.
Therefore, freedom necessarily means that there will be religious people in society, since they will choose to worship.
The societies in the world that block such expression of faith, or of different faiths, are by definition not free societies.
As for religious tests - I think that was made clear as well:
Now, I believe that is true whether that faith is placed in God or in humanity.
No, it doesn’t.
Why is it that religious people are required? He’s not saying “freedom means people will be able to worship as they want”; he’s saying “freedom requires religion”; that without religion, there could be no freedom. He’s saying that an atheist society could not possibly be free - even if none of those people wanted to worship, even if they had the choice to be religious but did not take it up. There is no religion, and thus there can be no freedom.
Do you believe that allowing the expression of **no faith all ** is similarly a necessity for a free society?
Mitt Romney, in speaking out specifically against “secularism”, seems not to.
Freedom requires faith, because all morality is faith-based. Therefore, the belief that freedom is good is faith-based.
Or perhaps Mitt holds it to be self-evident, that men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that liberty is among those rights, and that one of the duties of President is to secure these rights among men.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s a good thing Romney said faith, then, and not religion, isn’t it? After all, faith-based would be fine; religion based excludes rather a lot of morality. I’m glad no-one’s swapped in similar but different words in order to make this seem more palatable.
Perhaps he does. But where in that does it say worship of that Creator, with specific rituals and requirements as pertain to a religion, is required? I don’t believe the text in question says anything about that, alas. I’m sure he probably does believe what you say, and good on him. But that is not what people are castigating him for - as I imagine you are able to see.
Is that a joke?
So Mitt is a deist? Deism is what evolved into atheism and agnosticism once science illuminated the workings of the world.
Mitt believes his his imaginary friend will kick the shit out of him forever if he doesn’t behave according to some arbitrary rules. Is that freedom? Is it opposite day?