The Daily Briefing

MORE ON ROMNEY, GOD AND WILL SWAIM

Rachel PowersThu. December 06
 

Whew!   There’s been a lot of healthy debate over Will Swaim’s Mitt Romney posting.  Most of it has centered on Romney’s Mormonism, but there is a larger issue that hasn’t received nearly as much attention, one that Will brought up from the outset: what is the place of religion in government?

Romney is unequivocal:  “Freedom requires religion”

So athiests are the enemies of democracy?   And fundamentalists (of any stripe) are freedom’s greatest defenders?  How else can we read Romney’s comments?

Tags: , , , , ,

RELATED

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Jesus says right on Rachael! Jesus does not like the LDS leadership because the keep trying to Baptize Jesus and other dead people. Also there's that problematic Moutain Meadow Massacre. Also, Jesus never had a Fraud conviction which is more than Jesus can say for Joseph Smith. Jesus doesn't normally keep track of where Souls are. That's really more of my my Father's function (he's a Catholic) Anyway, I recently asked him where Joseph Smith soul resided. He told me - and the news is not good. Let's just say that he's currently residing with Benito Mussolini, Rick James and Bob Crane in an undisclosed location. Sorry. By the way - Jesus also hates that green punch you guys serve at weddings. Serve liquor and coffee. It makes for a better reception.

    thank you.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm just going to ignore the first comment since it's obvious that he or she is an ignorant fool with little or no knowledge of LDS doctrine. Rachel - I think people are jumping to the wrong conclusions with Romney's faith speech. "Freedom requires religion"? Yes! Why? Well first, one must understand what religion is. It is a belief in something or something someone is devoted to. This includes Jews, Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, and yes Atheists also. Romney said he wants all religions (beliefs) welcome in the public square, and frankly that's what freedom is all about.
    • ^
    • v
    William, I appreciate the thoughtful (and optimistic) posting. Let me respond with an anecdote:

    I had a *wonderful* teacher when I was a 5th grader at Lowell Elementary (Where are you now, Rodney Sinclair, formerly of room 14?). Every morning he pulled out his guitar and led a little sing-a-long: we covered "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," CCR's "Down on the Corner," that sort of thing. "With a Little Help from My Friends" was also on the set list, and the first day that we sang the song--while doing a read-through of the lyrics which he had distributed on damp mimeographed sheets--Mr. Sinclair said, "you know, when they say 'I get high with a little help from my friends,' I really think that they mean getting high on life!" We were 5th graders, after all.

    All due respect, your comment reminded me of that very sweet fib. I would love to believe that Romney was raising a tent so vast that it sheltered athiests. But he simply didn't say that. He didn't say that freedom requires belief, or passionate devotion to an ideal. He was speaking to a party that puts a premium on religious observance, and he wrote his speech accordingly: "freedom requires religion." I wish that there had been an opportunity to ask him if he considers atheism a belief system akin to religion (atheists might answer in the negative), but absent that, we can only go by what he *actually says*, and his record.

    I wonder how he feels about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (venganza.org)?
    • ^
    • v
    Rachel-
    I was just stating what the word religion actually means (A system of beliefs). Now whether or not Romney meant it to be defined that way is left up to each person. On Romney's webstie today at 2:30pm he is taking questions about the faith speech and I plan on asking him about the statement we are discussing. The reason that I'm optimistic about the true definition of religion is because since I joined the LDS church "religion" has always been defined this way by members who would be considered educated. Romney fits this description and his record doesn't indicate otherwise. I acutally didn't even consider this statement as meaning anything else until I saw criticism of the speech on CNN. Anyways, you could be right or maybe he used the word the way he knew how. Maybe he did it on purpose to appeal to evangelicals and to be able to technically say that he wasn't excluding anyone. It will be interesting in seeing how he answers this question today. Sweet story by the way. I hope there wasn't some underlying insult by comparing me to a 5th grader:)

blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.