I’ll give you two ways to review Mitt’s speech on religion, “Faith in America.” After the jump, the video, as well as the transcript.
But first, the whole 20 minutes of flaming crap boils down to this:
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.Now where in that statement does he place non-believers in the American tapestry of freedom? What about faiths that aren’t monotheistic? What about pagan belief? Satanism? Are all religions equal in Mitt’s book?
He appears not to leave any room for people without a belief in a higher power at all. In fact, he makes the common mistake — though for many bible-beaters it’s purposeful — that one needs to belong to a faith community in order to be a moral person.
“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.He spent some bit of time glossing over the “Mormon issue,” and other than declaring that “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind,” the long-winded speech doesn’t address any of the aspects of his religion that fundies have difficulties with. In fact, one supporter, Richard Land, honcho of the Southern Baptist Convention, even with Mitt’s declaration, still isn’t sure that the former governor of Massachusetts can be considered a Christian. But there’s no religious test for public office, you know.
This did make me think of a Q of the day:
Which is more likely to be elected president of the U.S first (and why) - a Muslim or an atheist?
Mitt’s speech and the reaction on the right to it, after the jump.
His speech. He was introduced by Poppy Bush at his presidential library.
***“Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.
“It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.
“Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.
“America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.
“Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
“There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.
“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
“As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
“There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
“Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
“There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
“I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: 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. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.
“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
“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.
“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.
“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’
“Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
“They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
“We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’
“The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.
“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
“These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me…’
“My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
“Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
“It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.
“We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.
“I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
“Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom… killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
“The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
“In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.
“Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. ‘They were too divided in religious sentiments’, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
“Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
“And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God … they founded this great nation.
“In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty.’ And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, ‘with freedom’s holy light.’
“God bless the United States of America.”
Responses from the peanut gallery:
Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, said, “I think he did what he thought he needed to do to address concerns about whether he might use his particular faith as the basis for his decisions as president.”James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, called Romney’s speech “a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy.” He added, “Whether it will answer all the questions and concerns of evangelical Christian voters is yet to be determined, but the governor is to be commended for articulating the importance of our religious heritage as it relates to today.”
The Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said, “While I may disagree with some of the points made in the speech, including his lack of acknowledgment of the values and contributions of the nonreligious among us, I appreciate the overall tone.”
Among the critics was Costas Panagopoulos, a political science professor at Fordham University. “Make no mistake about it, this was a political speech,” Panagopoulos said. “Romney sounded like he is running for pastor-in-chief rather than commander in chief.”
…[I]n an AP-Yahoo poll last month, half said they had some problems supporting a Mormon presidential candidate, including one-fifth who said that would make them very uncomfortable.
Fifty-six percent of white evangelical Christians - a major portion of likely participants in the early GOP presidential contests in Iowa and South Carolina - expressed reservations about a Mormon candidate.
47 Responses to “Mitt’s pious bullsh*t”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
“Freedom requires religion.”
Does Scientology count?
Is secularism a religion?
Well, at least someone thought of that. Of course, I have it on good authority that the Interfaith Alliance is practically atheist anyway, given its left-wing interpretation of religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
But hey, the Nazarene Church (of which Dr. Dobson is a member), thinks otherwise, and believes that its godly doctrine should influence policy. Who are the Founders to say otherwise, especially since every single one of them was supposedly a fundamentalist Christian? So with that settled, let’s check the Nazarene manual:
“…Christ’s Church ought, first, to keep itself simple and free from an emphasis on wealth and extravagance and, second, to give itself to the care, feeding, clothing, and shelter of the poor. Throughout th Bible and in the life and example of Jesus, God identifies with and assists the poor, the oppressed, and those in society who cannot speak for themselves. In the same way, we, too, are called to identify with and to enter into solidarity with the poor and not simply to offer charity from positions of comfort.”
Oh, whoops. I’m sure Dobson (and Romney) will get on that one right away… once they’re done campaigning for tax cuts and oppression.
A Muslim. Despite all the recent brouhaha and attempts to demonize the Other with whom we are locked in eternal war, I think enough people will grow weary of this, and be more willing to accept people of the Muslim faith, just as they finally learned to accept Catholics and Jews. And since a Muslim can spout much of the rhetoric from Romney’s speech, even to the point of saying, “At least I’m not godless,” he or she could probably swing the electorate towards a campaign that supports our shared Judeochristislamic heritage. Atheists, with their intrinsic lack of any moral sense, will remain beyond the pale for a long time to come.No you freakin’ don’t. It is important to realise that while most of the “faith community” shares nominally similar beliefs about Jebus, the details vary widely because they are, at heart, a bunch of splitters - and if rationalists can exploit those differences there is a very good chance of watching the Religious Right tear itself apart in an orgy of internecine strife.
Don’t let anyone get away with this wishy-washy “we all believe in Jesus” crap. As Emo Philips put it: “Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?”
““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.””
The religiously inclined probably see this as being one of two mistakes built into the Constitution - the other being “The 3/5’s Compromise”.
Of course, for many fundnuts, it was abolishing the 3/5’s Compromise that was wrong…
We’ll definitely have a Muslim president before an Atheist. Hell, a certain percentage of the population would vote for Osamsa Bin Laden if the other choice were an Atheist.
“At least he believe sin God and religion and all that good stuff.”
“Hell, a certain percentage of the population would vote for Osamsa Bin Laden if the other choice were an Atheist.”
Scary, but true…
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Um…Didn’t religion exist for millennia without freedom? I guess it was a slow, lingering death.
Which is more likely to be elected president of the U.S first (and why) - a Muslim or an atheist?
I’m going to go against the conventional wisdom here and say an atheist–but with the caveat that neither will be elected president for the next fifty to one hundred years at the least, and perhaps longer. It seems to me that there is a rise in the levels of atheism nationwide, and that it’s growing. We’re a long way from being able to elect anyone, but that will change over time, just as the prejudice against other minority candidates has faded over time.
I dunno, I think an atheist will be elected first - but not an open one, not by a longshot. I’d say someone who makes vaguely Christian overtures but who says “my personal beliefs are just that” could be electable once the tide of hyper-religiosity turns. The outright rabid islamophobia of a large segment of the population is going to be really hard for any muslim politician to overcome.
Just the opposite, Willard, just the opposite.
“we share a common creed of
moralmorals convictions”Fixed.
I’ll second-third-whatever the sentiment that we will probably have a closetted athiest sooner than a Muslim. I’m not sure how to estimate, and don’t have a good feel for, just how uncomfortable being openly athiest makes moderately to just-barely religious folk feel. Obviously, people whose identity is very caught up in faith are more likely to be made uncomfortable by the assertion that their religion is based on no more than comfortable fantasy. But if the trend is toward a generally more secular society, then there will be less of those people, and more people who are sort of vaguely X, but not really that into it. And how THEY deal with athiesm in theory and practice is the important bit. Anyone know?
I could see that being potentially harder to overcome than racial and religious bigotry, so lean a bit more toward the Muslim candidate’s chances than the “out” athiest, at least for a bit.
I suspect we’ve already, technically, elected an atheist, though I couldn’t tell you which of the 43 it would be. People say what they have to say to get elected, but whether any of them have meant it or not, I have no idea. Hell, last I was aware, Dubya didn’t even attend church services regularly, for all of his chosen-by-ceiling-cat-ness.
It would be a much bigger stretch for me to think that we might have elected a closet Muslim somewhere along the line.
Tough call, but religion is mostly about tribal identity, and most of us atheists were born to this religious tribe or that, and thus still carry that identification with us. If you found a properly racist atheist, he could carry the day. My my gut senses that a lot of people know Muslims and just don’t realize they know Muslims. They might be mildly afraid of The Terrorists but not really that invested in it. They think of Muslims as this stereotype and since their Muslim neighbors don’t fit it (the women don’t cover their heads, etc.), they don’t realize they already know and accept Muslims. A Muslim candidate whose family wasn’t given to overt displays of faith could probably get pretty far, as people realized they’re not so different after all.
I agree with mr_subjunctive: I’m quite sure there already has been an atheist President, probably more than once.
Well, certainly. We’ve definitely already elected non-Christians who mouthed vague platitudes, as micheyd suggests. (Adams ran against Jefferson’s “atheism” in 1800, without bothering to point out his own Unitarianism.) But I suspect Ms. Spaulding meant declared atheists, not stealth. Otherwise, the old rubric about an atheist being unable to get elected dogcatcher in this country never applied. And based on “By their fruits you shall know them,” stealth amoralists have been drawn to politics in disproportionate numbers.“I’d say someone who makes vaguely Christian overtures but who says “my personal beliefs are just that” could be electable once the tide of hyper-religiosity turns.”
By that standard, we’ve probably already HAD an “atheist” as president, considering that very few presidents (especially during the first 50-years of the Republic) have been fire ‘n brimstone dogmatists…
The problem I have with Mormons is not their religion but their politics. They tend to be right-wing nut jobs.
…I really need to read more carefully before posting…
I tried to call his campaign to complain, but they didn’t pick up and the general voicemail box is full.
For all his love of religion, he seems to not realize that some religious Americans aren’t monotheists (or for that matter, aren’t of the Judeo-Christian/Muslim tradition). I guess we don’t count as good or inspiring Americans.
Mitt’s main problem isn’t that he’s Mormon (that doesn’t help him, but it’s not his big problem). It’s that he’s a Mormon who who wants the votes of the ultra-sectarian right. If he wasn’t courting them, he could pull the JFK, “you-don’t-ask-a-soldier” line and that would be that.
JFK was campaign among rabid anti-Catholics, BUT he wasn’t courting the anti-Catholics. It’s a fine distinction, but an important one. Mitt hopes to get fundie votes and so his gymnastics are absurd.
As far as the question of the day, I say atheist, although not for several decades. My reasoning? Islam is unlikely to spread beyond its immigrant base and swarthy groups like that don’t do well on the national level (quick, name the last Italian-American president). Atheists can be totally “normal” looking WASPs. As Amanda pointed out, most atheists come from a religious tradition, even if it’s nominal. That gives the fig leaf to those who would object to voting for the “evil atheist”.
There is not a “Judeo-Christian tradition”. That’s Christianist for “Hey, Jews, we give money to Israel, so STFU.”
Tough call, but religion is mostly about tribal identity, and most of us atheists were born to this religious tribe or that, and thus still carry that identification with us.
Word. And an awful lot still carry the cultural bigotry and baggage from it.
Romney’s speech was purely a love letter to evangelical Christians. He’s sure as hell not saying that he really, truly respects Muslims, or Hindus, or Wiccans. He wants the fundie vote, end of story.
The Massachusetts constitution requires that the state governor be a Christian.
There was some debate, but unfortunately not enough, as to whether Mormonism is a legitimate or heretical sect of Christianity.
I do believe that there are some of the basic tenets of Christianity which Mormons do not subscribe to, but I haven’t looked into it in any depth recently. It was something that came up many years ago in discussion with some senior Anglican prelates. IIRC, they had doubts about Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses as well as Mormons.
Either way, it doesn’t really matter. Whatever his religion, Mitt is a sleazy bastard who’d sell his grandmother if he thought it would get him what he wanted. His religion is the last of the reasons I have for not voting for him.
The Massachusetts constitution requires that the state governor be a Christian.
There was some debate, but unfortunately not enough, as to whether Mormonism is a legitimate or heretical sect of Christianity.
I do believe that there are some of the basic tenets of Christianity which Mormons do not subscribe to, but I haven’t looked into it in any depth recently. It was something that came up many years ago in discussion with some senior Anglican prelates. IIRC, they had doubts about Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses as well as Mormons.
Either way, it doesn’t really matter. Whatever his religion, Mitt is a sleazy bastard who’d sell his grandmother if he thought it would get him what he wanted. His religion is the last of the reasons I have for not voting for him.
I love how he cites abolition and civil rights as moral principles that all religious people recognize the rightness of, when he belongs to a church where black people were banned from priesthood until 1978 (Brigham Young said that “‘No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood’), and their belief in the inferior status of non-whites is pervasive in their texts and apparent in their political stances over the past century. According to ReligiousTolerance.org:
In no way were Mormons EVER strong proponents of abolition or civil rights for African-Americans when these were issues of contention in society. And they were definitely in direct opposition to other faiths (like Quakers) on these issues. Does anyone really believe his revisionist bullsh*t that all people of religious faith are really the same in their recognition of the inherent rightness of these positions??
(and of course, by “civil rights,” we all know he doesn’t mean civil rights for queer folks…)
Mythago- I’m not sure if that was addressed to me, but I was referring to his courting of people from that particular monotheistic tradition, where Muslims and Jews get credit for being sort-of like Christianity. (as opposed to other monotheists who are ignored nearly as much as polytheists).
I did manage to get through and the nice woman on the other end assured me that Mr. Romney respects “all faith” as being “American”. I would love to hear what they say to someone who is atheist.
In fact, he makes the common mistake — though for many bible-beaters it’s purposeful — that one needs to belong to a faith community in order to be a moral person.
The thing is, I think most institutional religions make it *harder* to be a moral person. (Not impossible, just harder.)
Which is more likely to be elected president of the U.S first (and why) - a Muslim or an atheist?
I suspect we’ll elect an acknowledged Muslim before we elect an acknowledged atheist, but it’ll be a white guy who converted later in life, probably in order to marry.
Let’s not forget that while unquestionably, churches took the lead in the abolition and civil rights movements, there were plenty of churches on the other side of that divide, fighting to keep slavery legal and to keep African-Americans as second-class citizens.
but I was referring to his courting of people from that particular monotheistic tradition, where Muslims and Jews get credit for being sort-of like Christianity
That would be the “Judeo-Christo-Islamic” tradition, then. “Judeo-Christian” really is just a Christian buzzword for “Christian and let’s give the Jews a pat on the head, the poor old fossils.”
Today’s Bad Reporter summed Mitt up nicely.
I’d say we have already likely elected at least an agnostic, if not an atheist. It is only that they were an agnostic or atheist who did not admit that, claiming most likely to be an unobservant Christian or sidestepping the issue completely by play acting belief.
The real question should be which will be elect first, a practicing Muslim or open atheist?
It’s reassuring to see, now that I’ve read some of the comments, that I am not alone in my belief.
I don’t have much love lost on this guy but I hope to God he stops Huckabee.
“Which is more likely to be elected president of the U.S first (and why) - a Muslim or an atheist?”
An atheist who doesn’t mind compromising her or his own personal beliefs and will lie on that one question:
“Of COURSE I’m a Christian; aren’t YOU??” Then after election, pull a “bait and switch”.
Think about it- once you’re in office, you’re not impeachable simply because you aren’t a Christian! It hasn’t become a job requirement.
Yet…
Atheist, I think. Mainly because of the way things go, eventually non-belief I think will hit critical mass (probably one more generation or so), and a lot of people who claimed to have these beliefs will suddenly lose them. The cultural power of them will shrink significantly, thus, less reason to have them. Those that still cling to said power like a security blanket will be up and arms, and will claim that they are being persecuted, mainly because religious beliefs will become basically meaningless when it comes to judging one’s ideas or character.
The other thing, is that for a long time, various immoral religious groups have been doing a very good job of tying their wagon to more moral religious groups, defining them all as one big happy family, when that’s far from the case. The more moral religious groups are very slow to oppose this, as publicizing this in their eyes will only hurt their own image.
Needless to say, I think they don’t recognize that they have a choice…either distance themselves very publicly or probably be get thrown out with the bathwater.
The problem here seems to be more semantic than anything–”Freedom requires religion” should have been “freedom requires a spiritual life” (fine, I’m more or less quoting the Dalai Lama now). That would have been more inclusive without Romney having to appear as someone he’s not.
What I appreciated about the speech, even though it does engage some of the usual fallacies, is its respectful tone towards non-wingnut beliefs–for someone running for the Republican nomination, that’s a huge step, especially given the conservative evangelical base he needs to mobilize, too. While I hear your anger, respect and tolerance, to me, are major factors when discussing spiritual issues (bullsh*t, anyone?).
Such provisions in state constitutions are no longer valid, as decided by the US Supreme Court case of Torcaso v Watkins, 1961. The first amendment of the US Constitution takes priority over state constitutions in this case.
I’m not sure about the Muslim-or-atheist-first thing, but whichever one it is, I’d be willing to bet that that person will be a right-winger who is completely acceptable to the wingnuts in every other way.
After all, our first divorced president was Ronald Mr. Traditional Family Values Reagan.
Not inclusive enough. It seems that a lot of people still don’t get it: you can be a complete, moral, passionate human being and not have anything remotely resembling a “spiritual life.” We don’t need spirituality, and some of us think that we’d be better off without the silly notion.
What freedom does require is people with the personal courage and morality to examine their inner selves, their thoughts and their actions. People DO need to live in their own heads a bit and really think about how what they think or say or do may or may not be moral. Religion can serve these purposes, but that’s not what most people use it for.
Freedom and morality require compassion and love for each other and for the earth. We aspiritual types are perfectly capable of these things. It makes me crazy that, even on the left, where religion and spirituality can often take on a more nebulous, universalist, inclusive, even somewhat hippie-dippie tone, that a lot of these people STILL think the atheist/aspiritualists are “missing” something. No, we’re not. We fucking get the picture, and we’re on your side. The problem is all that talk about love for the Earth-Mother-Spirit and how without that we cannot love the environment* is annoying and tends to alienate people who would otherwise happily work for the exact same goals as the people who say this kind of nonsense.
*The exact words or particular spiritual notions vary from person to person, but this sentiment is pervasive in the environmental sustainable/organic agriculture movement and it gets on my nerves big time. These people have lots of reason and science on their side, and there would probably be more rationalists and scientists working for them if we weren’t constantly being told how cold-hearted and uncaring we are.
While that would have been more inclusive, it still would have been crap. It’s just a couple of abstract ideas trying to define each other, and doing backflips in the ether in the meantime. Define “freedom.” Define “spirituality.” Now do it in a concrete way that a majority can agree on both definitions and see if the first requires the latter. It’s an impossible task, because we all have different definitions of freedom and spirituality, and for some of us, the two can both exist without ever coming in contact with each other.
Translation: “You FundieVangelists agree with me, whether you’re smart enough to realize it or not. It’s time you got it into your heads that you have more in common with me than with our mutual enemies. Face it, who’d you rather see in the White House: a Baptist willing to march in line with sexual misfits and unwed mothers, or a Mormon who, sure enough, was willing to pander to people like that in order to obtain a gubernatorial position but who now is willing to give ‘em the go-by in order to take the next step up? So, folks, act in your best interests and don’t make difficulties, because you know what kind of political objectives we share as well as I do, even tho’ for convenience’ sake I am now calling those shared political objectives ‘a common creed of moral convictions’. Don’t play dumb now, you know perfectly well what I mean. Think hard. Jesus may not be humping for Huckabee as hard as Huckabee thinks He is, and in that case, Mormon Mitt may be the only chance you have to impose your political will on the nation at large. Think of that “common cause” you wish to chart, from which nobody will be permitted to deviate, then hold your nose if you must, and vote for the man with enough money, enough influence, enough consultants, and enough personal moral flexibility to make it all happen. Don’t you understand, people? You’re being given a second chance. Don’t you blow this opportunity the way you blew the last.”
Dunc:
Don’t let anyone get away with this wishy-washy “we all believe in Jesus” crap. As Emo Philips put it: “Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?”
Don’t forget the episode of Cheers where Woody and his fiancee Kelly had a fight because they thought each other was heretical because they belonged to different Synods of the Lutheran Church.
I’m not sure whether an atheist or Muslim is more likely to be elected first, but here are the percent of people who say they would be less likely to support a person running for president because they are(from Pew Research):
atheist: 61%
Muslim: 45%
Mormon: 25%
Evangelical Christian: 16%
Jewish: 11%
Catholic: 7%
Hispanic: 15%
Female: 12%
Black: 6%
Excellent post; thank you.
How is this different from a spiritual life (as opposed to religion, two terms which this discussion still doesn’t separate cleanly)? For myself, I think that what you’re describing is exactly that–no matter whether you put a/ several God/ gods/ spaghetti monsters in the middle, or you don’t.
How is this different from a spiritual life
What exactly is this?
One of the reasons I reject a language of “spirituality” is because it’s so devoid of meaning because it means too many things. If it means some supernatural “sprit” essence inside of us–the religious type of soul–then i’ve got no use for it and it’s just as ridiculous as the belief in a deity. If it’s intense emotional experience, why not talk about it as such?
Charlotte, the description given there is of an self-examined, ethical life.
Spirituality strongly implies the belief in spirit– non-material existence, whether it be in your own soul, animistic spirits, shamanism, pantheism, etc, etc, etc.
Strong atheism rejects the idea of souls and sticks to the realm of the measurable and the intangibles that have a direct, quantifiable impact on the measurable. There is no need for spirituality to justify their belief in truth, for instance– truth makes human interactions work differently than lies do. They can believe in mercy, because each merciful action has a direct impact on how lives are lived.