Let me paraphrase Mitt Romney: Don't hate me for my religion, hate atheists and agnostics for theirs!
This is his JFK speech on religious tolerance? This must be a joke. How is anyone taking this seriously?
Here is the exact quote from Romney's speech:
"It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They're wrong."
How about if I said this:
"It is as if Romney is intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of Mormonism. He is wrong."
Well, actually there would be nothing wrong with that since Mormonism is wrong. Their prophet looked into a magic hat to read magic tablets with his magic glasses. Magic hat? Really?
I'm agnostic. I don't believe in any of the major, organized religions. So, I'm not singling out Mormonism. There are patently absurd parts of all of the religious texts (in fact, most of the texts). I'm always amused by Christians -- who believe the magic man Jesus is going to suck them up into heaven while the rest of us die fiery deaths -- making fun of Mormons for their quizzical beliefs.
But this isn't about legitimate criticism of each other's beliefs. It's one thing to criticize a person's religious beliefs and it's another to do it while pretending to give a speech about religious tolerance.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Romney criticizing atheists or agnostics. I also don't think there's anything wrong with him criticizing the people who set up the "religion" of secularism in this country, namely George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc.
He's not going to get my vote, but thanks to the people he criticizes, it's a free country. He can believe and say anything he likes. Just don't pretend to be tolerant while you're doing it.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
I am a high priest of the religion of the Early Morning Saints of the "No Stamps Collectors" (EMSNSC), and we really had a hostile debate, which almost got into beating each other up, with some priests of the Late Evening Saints of the "No Coins Collectors" (LESNCC) denomination. I finally convinced the damn non-believer guy, who does not believe in the holy EMSNSC religion, that if he would not give up his faith and follow mine, he will doubtlessly wind up in hell, where the devil, a stamp collector, will roast him through all eternity.
Because of your choice of punctuation, your assertion applies to all Christians, as opposed to all to whom it might apply. Are you referring specifically to Christians who believe such a thing, or did you mean to suggest that all of us C.'s think alike (and on such a primitive, literal-minded level)? Just wondering.
No, the founders did not create a secular nation. Simple logic tells us as much. To wit, our nation's founders very carefully avoided establishing any religious requirement (which would involve a state church, etc.). A concept of freedom that wouldn't work (or make much sense as a notion) if they had not also carefully avoided the opposite--i.e., the establishment any SECULAR requirement. Their stance on the issue of religion or lack thereof is a NEUTRAL one. Neither for nor against.
Secular, please keep in mind, does NOT mean neutral. It denotes an irreligious system--i.e., the opposite of religious. I think a lot of folks are trying to sneak the concept through the gates by equating it with ideological tolerance/neutrality. Rather, it IS an ideology, even as vigorously as richard dawkins and others lie about that point.
Our founders wanted freedom to choose. Obviously, to the extent that our system is religious OR secular (irreligious), choice is curtailed.
A neutral stance best facilitates free choice. Obviously. A secular system is one that would discriminate against the faithful. This isn't Advanced Civics.
You have hit the nail square on the head. Tolerance is a one-way street with these religious zealots. Agape.
I believe what should be the common thread in all religions including Atheism and Agnostics is Faith. Not the belief in a God.
And yes I know Atheists and Agnostics are not part of any religion, that is if your thinking of religion as being an organized worship of a deity and not just a fervant belief in something.
It's your faith that brings such things as Peace, Love, Tolerance, Understanding, Humanity and Humility into your life.
Faith can be a very strong thing. If people have faith that there is a deity out there looking over them, then there is. It's what they believe. It's their faith.
But people can also have faith without it being in a deity.
Romney laid out the best defense for agnostics and atheists when he noted that religious tolerance is meaningless when we only tolerate those we agree with.
Just because de didn't directly mention everybody in every type of belief system or none, doesn't make him intolerant. Just means he didn't want to take 12 hours to make the speech.
Tolerance means we respect even those we don't agree with.
You all need to show what it is you are asking others for.
Since there are said to be more Repos than us non-
believers, this could work for him.
Except, the same rule applies to various other minorities
pissed off by & at Repos, so *collectively* it could just
be his & their downfall.
The *certainty* of the True Believer is wondrous
to behold, no?
Romney's speech should be understood as the religious equivalent of this. He does not want to change the system of ins and outs. He just wants to move the mormons from the out group to the in group. This is historically common enough. It is obviously not praiseworthy.
Besides that, good post and good point. I utterly hated Romney's speech, and as a practicing Mormon myself, I felt he dealt with my faith dismissively by not answering what people really care about.
"I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. [Governor Romney], you're no Jack Kennedy."
If a Mormon were running for the Democratic nomination a speech about his religion would have been unnecessary until the general campaign, much like JFK's speech.
In fact I remember ending up in a car once (needed a ride home, long story) with a small group of Christians and somehow the topic of Jehova's Witnesses came up.
Long story short, it ended with them all getting a good laugh at the wacky beliefs of that "fringe religion".
Right, because pregnancy without sex and stories about zombies (what else do you call people coming back from the dead?) are so clearly rational.
PS---For the record, I'm technically agnostic too, only because I can't actually disprove God (or the invisible goblin that steals one sock from every load of my laundry).
With that said, I'm much more willing to accept that idea that *something* created all this, but that *it* doesn't necessarily have our best interests at heart (i.e. *it* is more likely to be neutral about our lives and deaths at best).
My biggest impression of religion is that it exists to give men an excuse to control women and be cruel to animals.
He needs his hair mussed up.