So Mitt Romney may be a Mormon, but he talks just like an Evangelical:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.
Um, no. Freedom requires religion? What, so unless I practice a religion, I am only an enslaved automaton? That’s funny because it’s the people mired in the practice of their religion who look like enslaved automatons to me. This is the kind of ridiculous doublespeak that is absolutely terrifying for anybody who does not want this nation to fall into the kind of thing Sinclair Lewis is alleged to have predicted (he probably didn’t, but it’s still a good point): fascism wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. Or, if you prefer an Orwellian tinge, Freedom is (religious) slavery!
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
No, that’s just stupid, or ignorant, or a willful misrepresentation of the state of affairs, or something. Nobody with any consequential power “seek[s] to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God.” However, religion is a private affair. That means anyone speaking on behalf of the government, as the mouthpiece of a government agency, or in a position of government authority, such as that granted by government employment, should not be speaking in a religious way, so as to create the impression that the religious views he or she articulates are sanctioned by the government.
How many times does this need to be explained to all the hard-headed idiots like Romney and his ilk who keep going around spouting this ridiculous misrepresentation? Here’s an example: If you are a school teacher who believes in God, then you can go into public and talk about it. You can even try to convert me. But while you are in the classroom, carrying out your function as a state-employed educator in a compulsory educational system, where the only free schools are state schools, and you are discussing religion in such a way as to give the impression that your beliefs are “normal” or “correct,” while other beliefs are not, then you have overstepped the boundaries. You can take the same example and shift the facts to fit any other government position.
Don’t be a fool. Don’t buy this stuff that Romney is shoveling. He’s just plain wrong. He’s trying to mobilize a group of voters who want to see the ideological administration of this nation carried even further than the current administration has carried it. These are the people who will bring us fascism wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross and Romney is trying to get their votes. Watch out.
December 9, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Romney either doesn’t know or forgets that the whole “under god” and “in god we trust” crap was the result of the big Red Scare of the 1950s and we have Eisenhower to thank for that ridiculous legacy. Atheism equaled Communisim in 1950s eyes.
The original pledge, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, says nothing about god nor even the United States: “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The fearmongers of the 1950s felt that anyone, especially Communists, could be reciting that pledge and no one would ever know that it was the United States to whom one was pledging allegiance. As others have pointed out, they forgot that little bit about “liberty and justice for all” didn’t apply to Communism in 1954.
Romney and others of his ilk are just plain wrong.
December 20, 2007 at 11:48 am
Ron Paul recently used this pseudo-Lewis quote to criticize Mike Huckabee’s recent Christmas message to Iowans. I’m curious to hear your opinions on Ron Paul, in general and specifically as an atheist.
December 20, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I don’t know much about Ron Paul, but I don’t think he really matters. I would rather see libertarians in the Legislature than in the Executive, anyway.
My favorite in the presidential race is Barack Obama. He’s a very impressive guy. Smart and inspiring, seems like a regular guy, and also seems like he actually listens to people. Doesn’t seem to be driven by ideology, so much as by idealism. Coming down to the end of a two-term administration that has been extremely ideological, another ideologue is the last thing I want to see in the Oval Office (even a libertarian ideologue).
I caught bits and pieces of the President’s press conference this morning and one of the reporters asked him what he thinks is most important to being President. He responded that it’s having solid principles from which one does not deviate. I think that’s ridiculous. The key to being a good President, I think, is being personally centered, but open to diverse perspectives, because this is a diverse nation. I think Barack Obama can do that. From what little I know of Ron Paul, I don’t think he can do that. He’s married to libertarianism too closely.
December 21, 2007 at 10:13 am
It seems to me that a libertarian would be ideal for protecting diversity.
This video sums it up well:
The Philosophy of Liberty
Besides being likable and non-idealogical, what do you like about Obama? What positions of his do you support and why?
December 22, 2007 at 12:34 am
Diversity and liberty are better protected by the legislature and the judiciary. The function of the executive is to execute the laws created by the legislature. An executive can’t protect diversity and liberty so much as smash them by overreaching the constitutional powers of the office and disregarding the other branches. Like George W. Bush has done.
As well, libertarian candidates all strike me as slightly insane, including Ron Paul.
Plus, I would sooner trust a lawyer in the Oval Office than just about anybody else, because a lawyer had to go to law school and actually learn how our system works. Or you can have idiots like George W. Bush, who seems to think presidents are like kings.
I like Obama because he seems terribly vague about everything. After eight years of this hack George W. Bush who thinks leadership means having “principles” and sticking to them (i.e., taking positions and holding them stubbornly, despite intense criticism), I want somebody who will be more responsive to the public, rather than to an imaginary divine mandate. I suspect Obama would be something like a mix between (Bill) Clinton and (Jack) Kennedy.
Honestly, I don’t think candidates’ “positions” mean anything. Most of them change their positions all the time. Unless they’re George W. Bush and they think being president is like being king, or being “the decider.” I don’t care what “positions” a candidate has. I care that a candidate is individually and personally able to see things from different points of view and make nuanced decisions that may or not appear to be consistent or inconsistent with previous decisions.
Nobody else has all the information that a president has when he (or she, someday) makes decisions, or sees the decision from quite the same perspective. To take a “position” on an issue is like saying, “I’m going to disregard the possibility that this issue is not what I or you or anyone else thinks it is, I am going to assume it is one thing and only one thing, and I am not going to address the individual situation on its merits.” That goes back to the lawyer thing. Somebody trained in the law is much more likely not to do that when all the information comes in. What matters to me is not so much which conclusions the president comes to, but how he or she comes to those conclusions.
I am fairly certain that the path to tyranny is a leader who does not take a thoughtful approach to issues, who is afraid to appear contradictory. Leaders like George W. Bush have only one tool at their disposal—a hammer. That makes everything look like a nail. For us, now, a “nail” is “terror” and insecurity.
Leaders who will be inconsistent, who will be unsure, who will deliberate painfully, who will continue to question their own decisions, are not going to be tyrants. I fear the carefree and “principled” leader who just applies a simplistic formula to everything, never seems to worry, and just keeps repeating himself. And taking vacations.