Romney: "Freedom requires religion" [Archive]

Prometheus

6th December 2007, 01:54 PM

I don't think there's anything illogical here. The first and third statements in the OP (I'm not sure if the paraphrase is apt or not though) are part of a valid argument:

Premise: Answering specific questions about my faith would enable an religious test of my candidacy.
Premise: Such a test is wrong.
Conclusion: It would be wrong to answer such questions.

Whether or not the premises are true is another matter, of course.

The second statement in the OP is the part of an entirely separate argument:

Premise: A leader who believes in God is able to promote freedom.
Premise: I believe in God.
Conclusion: As a leader I will be able to promote freedom.

Again, a valid argument, though not necessarily sound.

The premises are seriously questionable, however. Anyone got an example of an atheist leader who has actually promoted freedom?

Wheezebucket

6th December 2007, 01:55 PM

Romney's a loony sack of ****. Always has been, always will be.

sackett

6th December 2007, 02:11 PM

Napoleon once said that if he was king of a Muslim country, he'd convert to Mohammedism, and if he was created king of the Jews he'd rebuild the Temple. He wasn't kidding one bit.

If Romney or any of the others found out that the atheist vote was crucial, they'd renounce Jeezis and spit on the Cross. In a New York minute.

No politician ever let his religion, or anything else, get in the way of his ambition.

ravdin

6th December 2007, 02:48 PM

The "religious test" that Romney keeps bringing up is a fallacy (at least in the way that he's framing it).

It's true there is no religious test for elected officials. This means that Romney is free to put himself in the running for president, as is a Baptist, Jew, Hindu, or even an atheist. He is not disqualified on those grounds, nor should he be.

That does not mean that voters don't have the right to take his religious beliefs into account, or that it would be wrong to vote for him (or not to vote for him) based on what we know about his religion.

I think he knows the difference and he is intentionally muddying the waters.

DoubtingStephen

6th December 2007, 03:02 PM

The second statement in the OP is the part of an entirely separate argument:

Premise: A leader who believes in God is able to promote freedom.
Premise: I believe in God.
Conclusion: As a leader I will be able to promote freedom.

You failed to accurately represent what Magic Underwear Mitt actually said. Here with added emphasis:

only leaders who believe in God can promote freedom.

Now I suggest that a person who is not afflicted with religious delusions is also capable of promoting freedom. In fact such a person might be more conscious of how vitally important it is that those who have adopted a reality-based lifestyle choice are able to be free from religion, and the dreadful injustices that religious fairy tales are so often used to promote.

BPSCG

6th December 2007, 03:05 PM

Paraphrase of Romney's speech today:

"It's not important which faith I belong to. It only matters that I believe in God because only leaders who believe in God can promote freedom. But I will not answer specific questions about how I believe in God because that would constitute a religious test for office, which is unconstitutional."

Does freedom require logic?Emphasis mine.

Is that an exact quote, or, as you put it, a paraphrase? Your use of quotation marks indicate an exact quote, but I wasn't able to find anything in the couple of news stories I read that indicate he said anything remotely resembling what you quoted, particularly the part I highlighted.

If you can't link yet (welcome to the forum!), please at least tell us the website and story where you found this.

JoeEllison

6th December 2007, 03:06 PM

Romney has declared himself unfit for public office, just in case some people mistook him for a legitimate choice. The paraphrase doesn't seem quite accurate, but what he said was still kind of loopy and contradictory.

Darth Rotor

6th December 2007, 03:10 PM

Paraphrase of Romney's speech today:

"It's not important which faith I belong to. It only matters that I believe in God because only leaders who believe in God can promote freedom. But I will not answer specific questions about how I believe in God because that would constitute a religious test for office, which is unconstitutional."

Does freedom require logic?
It would be useful if you showed his actual utterance, as considering his position by your words seems a silly thing to do.

Are you aware that there is already a thread on this forum where his words are linked to, and quoted?

ETA: Correction, the thread wherein that was first raised by Pardalis (hthttp://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3219189&postcount=115tp://)this A.M. was in the subforum on the 2008 election. My response here. (hthttp://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3219258&postcount=117tp://)

DR

firecoins

6th December 2007, 03:13 PM

I promote freedom. I don't believe in God. Of course, I am not a leader.

JoeEllison

6th December 2007, 03:15 PM

Paraphrase of Romney's speech today:

"It's not important which faith I belong to. It only matters that I believe in God because only leaders who believe in God can promote freedom. But I will not answer specific questions about how I believe in God because that would constitute a religious test for office, which is unconstitutional."

Does freedom require logic?
I think you owe us an apology here. Romney is a nutjob, and unfit for the presidency, based on the things he actually says and does. You don't need to doll it up to make him seem worse. You do democracy a disservice by "paraphrasing" to support your agenda, when the words he actually said don't line up with the impression you give.

Darth Rotor

6th December 2007, 03:22 PM

BPSCG

6th December 2007, 03:25 PM

Does anyone have a link to the actual speech? WaPo doesn't have it, Drudge doesn't have it.

letsthink

6th December 2007, 03:27 PM

Yes, I am watching the talking head reviewing Romney's speech. They are saying what a good speech it is, how inclusive it is. Yes, inclusive for Christians or "all children under god."

I hate this crap. There is no way an atheist or someone who isn't a Christian (or maybe a jew) could become president. I think it forces some candidates to lie. And I don't want to have to think too much about how superstitious our candidates may be.

I hope he is not on a mission from god, as our current president seems to believe.

Darth Rotor

6th December 2007, 03:33 PM

Does anyone have a link to the actual speech? WaPo doesn't have it, Drudge doesn't have it.

Here is part of it from a cnn link that Pardalis provided earlier.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/...ech/index.html

Since our catcher groupie didn't provide any words, I will.
Romney, who hopes to become the first Mormon president, said "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," the former Massachusetts governor said.

"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."

CNN contributor Bill Bennett said he wasn't sure Romney addressed the concerns voters might have with Mormonism, but, he added, "I don't think he had to."

"I can see this speech he just gave being given by any of the Republican candidates and most of the Democratic candidates, frankly. I'm not sure he was responding to the concern 'what about this Mormon thing?' " Bennett said. "I think he will probably get more questions on it, not fewer."
==snip==
"What he is trying to say is 'I am a person of faith. Forget the fact what my faith is, that I am a Mormon. You might be Christian. You might be Jewish. I'm a person of faith. I believe in God,' " Martin said.

Romney said religion is essential to freedom, without pointing to any specific faith.

"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," the GOP contender said.
Basically, he was making sense until he went there, the italicized part.

I still wonder at how he came up with that as a rational position to espouse.

Maybe he picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue. ;)

DR

DoubtingStephen

6th December 2007, 03:38 PM

If freedom requires religion, as Romney falsely claims, would it then follow that only a theocracy can be a free country?

Is freedom of religion only possible if atheism is outlawed?

That is obviously preposterous.

ImaginalDisc

6th December 2007, 03:39 PM

Romney avoided explaining differences in his church's beliefs and other faiths. Instead, he pointed to similarities between churches in America, saying they share a "common creed of moral convictions."

Wow, that manages to insult practically everyone. Some churches condemn homosexuality, dancing, drinking, fornication, and abortion, while others don't. Given the wide variation on moral codes in churches, what "common creed of moral convictions" do they share. Furthermore, is he implying that non-Christian don't have morals?

latent aaaack

6th December 2007, 03:40 PM

Hear that Swedes - of whom over 80% are atheist? If you can stop engaging in your national past times of volleyball and sex for a few minutes, you are now on notice that you'll be in a fascist dictatorship any day now. You're next, other freakishly high human development index countries in the region that out perform the USA in most indicators of freedom.

And south west Asia - stop embarrassing our logic.

Darth Rotor

6th December 2007, 03:42 PM

If freedom requires religion, as Romney falsely claims, would it then follow that only a theocracy can be a free country?
Well, then it's time to move to Iran, don't you think? I hear the food is good, but the fashion atrocious.
Is freedom of religion only possible if atheism is outlawed?
Freedom of religion is only possible in a land where religion is not outlawed (by either a secularist dogma like Marxism or a single religion outlawing all others due to its official status). I think that is either the converse or contrapositive of your query.
That is obviously preposterous.
Mitt sure seems to have failed to look at his remarks and their implications before uttering them, eh? Also known as stepping on the old lizard with golf spikes.

DR

Darth Rotor

6th December 2007, 03:48 PM

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html#cnnSTCText)

But apparently "religious liberty" does not include the liberty to be non-religious:
That's one way to take his comment, which sadly for him, rather shot a hole in some otherwise sensible observations.

From the link:

Romney, who hopes to become the first Mormon president, said "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," the former Massachusetts governor said.

"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."

. . . snip . . .
Romney spoke at former President George H. W. Bush's presidential library at Texas A&M University before a crowd of about 300 people: a combination of friends, family and religious and conservative leaders.

"What he is trying to say is 'I am a person of faith. Forget the fact what my faith is, that I am a Mormon. You might be Christian. You might be Jewish. I'm a person of faith. I believe in God,' " Martin said.
Given his audience, and the fact that the odds are that he has zero support among atheists, being in the GOP, and a Mormon, I wonder if he has written off the atheist vote, and the agnostic vote.

More likely, he forgot, when speaking to a friendly audience, that his remarks would reach, well, pretty much anyone and everyone.

You'd think a guy who'd been in politics this long would grok that.

Guess not. As I said in the other thread, looks like he picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue.

DR

Snide

6th December 2007, 03:50 PM

Wow. Is this guy for real? That sounds like satire.Agreed. That ranks up their with Daddy Bush's questioning whether atheists can be considered as citizens.

ravdin

6th December 2007, 04:03 PM

DoubtingStephen

6th December 2007, 04:04 PM

While this may be true at least to some extent of all politicians, Magic Underwear Mitt seems to have an especially stellar record for going back on his word. While running for Governor in Massachusetts he swore he would never let his religious beliefs influence his actions as Governor in controversial matters such as abortion and gay marriage.

While he never stated outright that his religious bias was the basis for his ceaseless tirades against equal rights for all citizens, it is also true that he never offered a logical basis for his efforts either.

I've followed his career because of his election in Massachusetts, a state where I lived for many years, and because he is famously opposed to my civil rights. From my point of view he is a wolf in wolf's magic underwear.

brodski

6th December 2007, 04:10 PM

I've merged these two threads as they cover the same topic

UserGoogol

7th December 2007, 04:12 AM

I think people in this thread are interpreting Romney's words more harshly than is necessary. There are more gracious interpretations of his words, although I would ultimately fairly strongly disagree with the more gracious interpretations interpretations just as much as your more negative one.

What he says is:

"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," the GOP contender said.

I don't think he means this to mean "'religious liberty' does not include the liberty to be non-religious." I think it means that there's more to "freedom" than simply having the government not force things on you. Even if government is out of your hair, without religion your life is being controlled by spiritual anguish and when you are separated from God in this way you aren't free to really flourish. Only with the power of religion can you really live freely. However, this sort of freedom is not necessarily something that the government can or should force on you, since that sort of touchy-feely crap is not the sort of thing you can really force on people.

It's a fairly popular philosophy among religious people. I don't agree for it for the obvious reasons, (lol I'm atheist) but I can definitely see the logic behind it, especially since the general idea of positive liberty is something I agree with, just in the liberal rather than conservative conception of positive liberty. (That is, freedom to go to school, have good health care, stuff like that.)

Tricky

7th December 2007, 06:34 AM

Kerberos

7th December 2007, 02:44 PM

Here's a link to the complete speech (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5357428.html).

One thing that should be noted is that this is really not about Romney and Mormonism. It is about Huckabee and Iowa. Huckabee has made enormous strides in Iowa by playing the "I'm more Christian than you" card. He has surged ahead in the polls there simply because Iowa is heavily populated with religious fundamentalists. This strategy will not win him the nomination, much less the election, but it is enough to derail Romney and Mitt had to make an answer to it.

It is notable that he pretty much repeated what John Kennedy said back in 1960.

I never read Kennedy's speech, but Romney's speech seemed somewhat inconsistent and hypocritical. He wasn't arguing that his belief was irrelevant, he was arguing that the specifics of his belief was irrelevant, but the fact that he did beleive was relevant, as was the broad lines (meaning the points where he agreed with mainstream Christianity).

pgwenthold

7th December 2007, 03:04 PM

Here's a link to the complete speech (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5357428.html).

One thing that should be noted is that this is really not about Romney and Mormonism. It is about Huckabee and Iowa. Huckabee has made enormous strides in Iowa by playing the "I'm more Christian than you" card. He has surged ahead in the polls there simply because Iowa is heavily populated with religious fundamentalists. This strategy will not win him the nomination, much less the election, but it is enough to derail Romney and Mitt had to make an answer to it.

It is notable that he pretty much repeated what John Kennedy said back in 1960.

In NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM did he repeat what JFK said in 1960. This is a complete lie.

In fact, Romney's speech said the complete opposite of what JFK said in 1960. JFK said, "Do not judge me based on my religion, because my religion is focused inward." Romney said, "In recent years there has been a mistaken trend to focus your religion inward."

How is that repeating what JFK said? It's not.

corplinx

7th December 2007, 03:28 PM

corplinx

7th December 2007, 03:36 PM

Conservatives will read Romney's speech in a different light than your commies and hippies do. The commies and hippies read it looking for contradictions or hypocrisy. Here is what the conservatives will study on:

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.

Conservatives will read this as "all the religious right crap stops if i win and im going to run the country the way i see fit". Conservatives will be looking for Romney to sell them out if victorious. Conservatives who want to vote for Romney of course will see no such thing.

If you look at Romney's record, most of the religious pandering he does and the religious worries people have about him are equally funny.

Pardalis

7th December 2007, 03:58 PM

It is notable that he pretty much repeated what John Kennedy said back in 1960.

Which speech?

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/

ETA: I guess it would be this one:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/JFK+Pre-Pres/Address+of+Senator+John+F.+Kennedy+to+the+Greater+ Houston+Ministerial+Association.htm

Pardalis

7th December 2007, 04:07 PM

From Romney's speech:

"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.

[...]

We do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."Again, he completely ignores atheism as a valid choice.

and then there's this:

"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's 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."And also:

"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?"Is he implying a person without faith can't seek office, or can't share these values?

Although it's not my country and it's not any of my business, but it's a very strange speech, for someone from a place where secularism is a given (Harper does have this kind of thinking though).

hgc

7th December 2007, 06:55 PM

Romney has always been a boring, pragmatic leader. When did he become a crazy/nutjob? Is this just plain bigotry or is a big lie people want to spread? He may be talking the primary talk, but his record doesn't support that talk.

When he decided he wanted to be the GOP candidate for president. It's the pragmatic thing for him to become.

Look at McCain - You know I don't like him, but...
Against torture + No theocrat = No GOP pres nominee.

And McCain's beating crazy-ass war drums for crying out loud. Radical clerics only need apply (professional, a la Huckabee, or avocational, a la Romney). Giuliani may not be a religious nutjob either, but he's wall-to-wall torture and also employs the most slavering Iran war hawks (N. Podoretz) in Christandom.

Puppycow

8th December 2007, 05:20 AM

Hitchens on Romney's Speech (http://www.slate.com/id/2179404/)

Piazza

9th December 2007, 07:41 PM

I think you owe us an apology here. Romney is a nutjob, and unfit for the presidency, based on the things he actually says and does. You don't need to doll it up to make him seem worse. You do democracy a disservice by "paraphrasing" to support your agenda, when the words he actually said don't line up with the impression you give.

I don't see the need for an apology.

I don't even think the Romney campaign would take issue with the statements in my paraphrase of his speech, and I'll bet that in private they would agree that the paraphrase captures the intended message. They might not like the way my condensed version illustrates Romney's illogic and/or hypocrisy, however, but doing so was my main point in writing.

This is almost trivial, but as a service to democracy I will provide some of the quotes from the Romney speech that correspond to my paraphrase:

"It's not important which faith I belong to."
Romney: "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."
"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."

"It only matters that I believe in God because only leaders who believe in God can promote freedom."
Romney: "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."
"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.'"

"But I will not answer specific questions about how I believe in God because that would constitute a religious test for office, which is unconstitutional."
Romney: "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."

My main point in the original post was to highlight the hypocritical way in which Romney plays it two ways with the "no religious test" clause in Article 6 of the Constitution. He's right that adhering to a specific religion should not prevent anyone from holding public office, but when he says that American values "are not unique to any one denomination," he's clearly also making the case that one needs to believe in God in some way to share in those values and thus qualify for office. He's desperately searching for some common ground with the evangelical Christians who are going over to Huckabee because they are suspicious of Romney's Mormonism, and he's doing this at the expense of those who favor "secularism".

Romney's convenient and self-serving interpretation of the "no religious test" clause is that a test for belief alone is consistent with the framers' intent, but this is simply not correct. When such a test was actually proposed as alternative in 1788, it was shot down by a broad coalition of clerical and secular defenders of the original language. An excellent and well-referenced account of this debate may be found in:

Kramnick I and Moore RL (1996) "The Godless Constitution", WW Norton, New York.

ponderingturtle

10th December 2007, 10:39 AM

ravdin

10th December 2007, 10:56 AM

I don't see the need for an apology.

I agree....

Joe, I think YOU should apologize for your inflamed rhetoric.

fishbob

10th December 2007, 02:40 PM

To paraphrase bathroom* graffiti from the '70s:

"Freedom requires religion like a fish requires a bicycle."

*( Hole in the Wall, Austin Texas, 1975 )

Pardalis

10th December 2007, 05:07 PM

To paraphrase bathroom* graffiti from the '70s:

"Freedom requires religion like a fish requires a bicycle."

*( Hole in the Wall, Austin Texas, 1975 )

I think it's "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" from feminist Gloria Steinem (also in a U2 song).

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/414150.html

But I guess your version works just as well. :)

Prometheus

12th December 2007, 12:47 AM

"Freedom requires religion like a fish requires a bicycle."

Or perhaps more like the way light requires darkness.

Ion

12th December 2007, 03:17 PM

...Anyone got an example of an atheist leader who has actually promoted freedom?
All leaders promoting freedom are atheists.

Religious leaders promote obscurantism and enslavement to feudal systems 600 years ago, to Capitalism today.

For example, religions like Christianity promote the man-made idea that humans are sinful, which is against human rights.
The Bible writes that adultering women are to be stoned, which is against human rights.
The Bible promotes that one imaginary 'God' is to be worshiped otherwise the worshiper is guilty of sin, which is against human rights.
The Bible writes that slaves have to obey masters.

Historically, wars are spread by religious people (The 30 Years War in 1500, Bush war in Iraq in 2003, etc) and science is held back due to religion (Galilei was tortured in 1500 by the Inquisition into denying his study of movement of planets, Bush denies global warming in 2006).

November 27 2007 The San Diego Union Tribune in page A2 under Method of treating cobra draws contention in India I read about a religious belief in 2007:

"...Compounding the problem is the widespread belief in the snakes's divine powers, and a religious prohibition on harming the deadly reptiles. The cobra, in particular, occupies a hollowed place in the Hindu religion.
According to a legend largely believed here in Mushari, the monocled cobras -black serpents with a clear circle on their hoods- first settled in the area of 911, and the orders of the snake goddess Manasa.
The reptiles, one of a number of cobra species that live in India, are revered as incarnations of gods. Only Brahmins -members of the Hinduism's priestly caste- are allowed to touch them.
...
"If you don't visit the doctor and just come to us, the bite will be cured in two, three days," explains Chakraborty's son Nayan, a saffron-clad priest, "We tell people that if you don't listen to god and go to a hospital, it's at your own risk."
...
She called on Chakraborty, the chief priest, and spent the first hours after the bite applying mud and chanting. Feeling her body go rigid..."

Tell me Prometheus that this religious belief has made any improvement in human knowledge since 1300, or that religion itself evolved at all and how religion represents freedom.

In contrast, atheists promote the idea that humans are innocent until proven guilty (adopted in U.S. law today), and that rationality and human responsability trump phony beliefs (adopted in U.S. law today).

Examples of atheist leaders are Goran Persson, the Prime Minister of Sweden until 2006, amongst hundreds in Scandinavian and Western European countries today.

Learn history and science in order to debate this, Prometheus.
Hear that Swedes - of whom over 80% are atheist? ...
Yes.

Prometheus

12th December 2007, 09:02 PM

All leaders promoting freedom are atheists.

Religious leaders promote obscurantism and enslavement to feudal systems 600 years ago, to Capitalism today.

For example, religions like Christianity promote the man-made idea that humans are sinful, which is against human rights.
The Bible writes that adultering women are to be stoned, which is against human rights.
The Bible promotes that one imaginary 'God' is to be worshiped otherwise the worshiper is guilty of sin, which is against human rights.
The Bible writes that slaves have to obey masters.

Historically, wars are spread by religious people (The 30 Years War in 1500, Bush war in Iraq in 2003, etc) and science is held back due to religion (Galilei was tortured in 1500 by the Inquisition into denying his study of movement of planets, Bush denies global warming in 2006).

November 27 2007 The San Diego Union Tribune in page A2 under Method of treating cobra draws contention in India I read about a religious belief in 2007:

"...Compounding the problem is the widespread belief in the snakes's divine powers, and a religious prohibition on harming the deadly reptiles. The cobra, in particular, occupies a hollowed place in the Hindu religion.
According to a legend largely believed here in Mushari, the monocled cobras -black serpents with a clear circle on their hoods- first settled in the area of 911, and the orders of the snake goddess Manasa.
The reptiles, one of a number of cobra species that live in India, are revered as incarnations of gods. Only Brahmins -members of the Hinduism's priestly caste- are allowed to touch them.
...
"If you don't visit the doctor and just come to us, the bite will be cured in two, three days," explains Chakraborty's son Nayan, a saffron-clad priest, "We tell people that if you don't listen to god and go to a hospital, it's at your own risk."
...
She called on Chakraborty, the chief priest, and spent the first hours after the bite applying mud and chanting. Feeling her body go rigid..."

Tell me Prometheus that this religious belief has made any improvement in human knowledge since 1300, or that religion itself evolved at all and how religion represents freedom.

In contrast, atheists promote the idea that humans are innocent until proven guilty (adopted in U.S. law today), and that rationality and human responsability trump phony beliefs (adopted in U.S. law today).

Examples of atheist leaders are Goran Persson, the Prime Minister of Sweden until 2006, amongst hundreds in Scandinavian and Western European countries today.

Learn history and science in order to debate this, Prometheus.

Yes.

Ion, I'm sorry you worked so hard setting up and then knocking down a strawman in response to a fraction of my post, taken out of context. Had you bothered to read and understand the entire post it should have been clear to you that I'm substantially in agreement with you (I am an atheist), and that I was only pointing out that the problem with Romney's statement was not a lapse in validity but in the truth of his argument's premises. In fact, you didn't even need to read the whole post, but just the sentence before the one you quoted in which I pointed out that his premises were "seriously questionable". I asked if anyone could think of an example, merely because I could not bring one to mind at that moment.

Ion

13th December 2007, 12:22 PM

You see, Prometheus, I have a problem with this:

...
Premise: A leader who believes in God is able to promote freedom.
Premise: I believe in God.
Conclusion: As a leader I will be able to promote freedom.

Again, a valid argument, though not necessarily sound.

The premises are seriously questionable, however. Anyone got an example of an atheist leader who has actually promoted freedom?
especially with this:

"...Premise: A leader who believes in God is able to promote freedom.
Premise: I believe in God.
Conclusion: As a leader I will be able to promote freedom.

Again, a valid argument,..."

Why?

Because I don't consider belief in 'God' a requirement to promote freedom to be "...a valid argument...".

For me the premise advocated in U.S. (i.e. "...A leader who believes in God is able to promote freedom..."), is more than "...seriously questionable...", it is false and dangerous to freedom.

I consider belief in 'God' to give good odds of promoting human abuse.

In the name of an imaginary divinity, people here on earth don't take social responsabilities, don't develop rational thinking, but instead they trample on human rights.

When I came to U.S. a decade ago I gave the benefit of the doubt to things that are bizarre according to my education, but wanted to see how they unfold.
They unfold into abuses.
See Bush's war in Iraq -a crime promoted by a so called family values President who today doesn't want to cover chidren healthcare with taxparer money but wants to cover his greedy war with taxpayer money- endorsed in 2005 by the Southern Baptist Convention in Tennessee.

The result is that today I cut short any attempt at compromizing.

For example, a few days ago when some well meaning aerobic water instructor wanted to enroll me in her class because water aerobics is like lifting weights according to her, I pointed out that she and her students are in poor shape healthwise compared to me and my program; she resorted to saying that water aerobics would give me 'form and spirituality', and I said that her 'spirituality' is a human excuse for being a fat and slow swimmer, but that me learning data about fast swimming does make me fast and fit.
So I shut down the excuse of spirituality and highlighted the importance of science.

I am vary wary of now in belief of God, because this is in the background of laying off people from work for Capitalist profits, accumulating wealth like bourgeois from Europe in 1800 were doing and letting people down, killing people in wars for profits, disregarding human rights, science and facts.

Prometheus

13th December 2007, 08:23 PM

You see, Prometheus, I have a problem with this:

especially with this:

"...Premise: A leader who believes in God is able to promote freedom.
Premise: I believe in God.
Conclusion: As a leader I will be able to promote freedom.

Again, a valid argument,..."

Why?

Because I don't consider belief in 'God' a requirement to promote freedom to be "...a valid argument...".

For me the premise advocated in U.S. (i.e. "...A leader who believes in God is able to promote freedom..."), is more than "...seriously questionable...", it is false and dangerous to freedom.

I'm sorry, Ion. I sometimes forget that most people have not studied formal logic, and are thus unaware of the definition of "valid", as you seem to be.

A valid argument is one in which, if all of it's premises are true, then it's conclusion must also be true. To describe an argument as "valid" in no way suggests that it is sound (correct).

When you say,

"Because I don't consider belief in 'God' a requirement to promote freedom to be [i]"...a valid argument...""

you are absolutely correct, because, not only is that statement not a "valid argument", but in fact it is not an argument at all--just a piece of one (the conclusion).

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/critiquing.htm

Although, we're using different terminology, I agree with the spirit of everything you've said in your posts above.

Ion

14th December 2007, 02:48 PM

I'm sorry, Ion. I sometimes forget that most people have not studied formal logic, and are thus unaware of the definition of "valid", as you seem to be.

A valid argument is one in which, if all of it's premises are true, then it's conclusion must also be true. To describe an argument as "valid" in no way suggests that it is sound (correct).
...

OK.

(In my dissent, I also downgraded the premise of Freedom requires religion from "...questionable..." to "...false and dangerous...").

Let's unite.

In www.infidels.org, prometheus_fr (I don't know if he is related to you) posted over two threads a well researched history of French's laicite (i.e. secularism).

Great atheist leaders include former French President Jacques Chirac, who ridiculed and opposed Bush's religious inspirations for war and Capitalism, who wanted a secular European Union and banned religious veils in public places, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder who was dumbfounded by and opposed Bush's religious inspirations for war and Capitalism.
(I am more reserved today about their respective successors, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel)

If you don't live in U.S., Prometheus, then you don't measure as much as I do the danger of religiosity.
The danger is not just in the Middle East.
It's here, in U.S..

Right now Romney's claim to religiosity hijacks the concepts of "...freedom..." and "...family values..." when in fact religiosity attacks them.

Prometheus

15th December 2007, 11:12 PM

OK.

(In my dissent, I also downgraded the premise of Freedom requires religion from "...questionable..." to "...false and dangerous...").

Let's unite.

In www.infidels.org, prometheus_fr (I don't know if he is related to you) posted over two threads a well researched history of French's laicite (i.e. secularism).

Great atheist leaders include former French President Jacques Chirac, who ridiculed and opposed Bush's religious inspirations for war and Capitalism, who wanted a secular European Union and banned religious veils in public places, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder who was dumbfounded by and opposed Bush's religious inspirations for war and Capitalism.
(I am more reserved today about their respective successors, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel)

If you don't live in U.S., Prometheus, then you don't measure as much as I do the danger of religiosity.
The danger is not just in the Middle East.
It's here, in U.S..

Right now Romney's claim to religiosity hijacks the concepts of "...freedom..." and "...family values..." when in fact religiosity attacks them.

I don't know prometheus_fr, he sounds like a great guy, though :cool:

I agree that the level of religiosity in the U.S. is dangerous. In fact, I find it profoundly disturbing. I'm not particularly worried about Romney, though, mainly because I don't believe he has a prayer (pun intended) of getting elected. For one thing, the rightwing nutjobs are far too invested in the idea that Massachusetts is nothing but a bastion of liberal, atheist, commie academics. For them to admit that "taxachusetts" actually chose a governor who they would also like to be President, would just create way too much cognitive dissonance for them.

Also, though Romney's a successful businessman, and an accomplished fundraiser, he's not really a particularly astute politician. He never could have been elected in Mass. even, had he just decided to run on his own. The only reason he stole the Republican nomination there was because his predecessor, Jane Swift, was dumb enough to try to fire one of the state's rich fat cat powerbrokers from his cushy job at the Turnpike Authority, and he started a "Draft Romney" campaign just to spite her.

Piazza

17th December 2007, 08:19 AM

Romney on "Meet the Press" yesterday:

MR. RUSSERT: "Freedom requires religion." Can you have freedom without organized religion?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, I was paraphrasing and underlining, if you will, a quote that I'd just read from John Adams, who said that our constitutional form of government in this nation would require morality and freedom to be able to survive. And, of course, George Washington said virtually the same thing, that we were a nation that required a level of morality and religion in order to be a great nation and survive. And I think there's truth to that, that the--that the great experiment of democracy, the experiment of America's freedom has, as its basis, a sense of morality and a recognition that religious foundations are part of that, that morality.

And so I believe that long-term for America to remain a great nation and to lead the world, we must have a recognition of our religious base. Now, that's, of course, not a particular denomination. But the, the founders of the nation, coming from different faiths and different persuasions, nonetheless all believed that the, the creator was an instrumental part of the founding of this nation. And I believe that that part of history should be taught, I believe that we should recognize the divine with everything from celebrations in the town square, with menorahs and nativity scenes, as well as in our history books, talking about the fact that the creators did believe in a fundamental sense of, of the divine. And, and recognizing that that gives us a moral code, a suggestion of what is right and wrong, that is--that is, in many respects, unique in the world.

We, we believe, as a nation, from the founding of this nation, that God gave the individual certain inalienable rights. That's not a constitutional guarantee, that's not a policy guarantee, it's a guarantee from our creator. And, of course, the corollary is that, that if we're all children of the same God, that we have a duty to one another, to care for one another, Americans first and the people of the world second. And, and finally, that freedom is something which is--which is of a, an eternal nature. And so all of these things, I think, are part of what makes America unique and part of what gives us confidence that freedom can ring forever in, in this--in this land.

MR. RUSSERT: But when you say freedom requires religion, can you be a moral person and be an atheist?

GOV. ROMNEY: Oh, oh, of course. Oh, of course.

MR. RUSSERT: And participate in freedom?

GOV. ROMNEY: Oh, of course. Yes, this...

MR. RUSSERT: So freedom doesn't require religion?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, this--the, the context was talking about the, the founding of the nation and the, the sense in this case of John Adams describing the fact that our constitutional form of government and this American experiment required morality, which in turn required religion. And, and yet, of course, on an individual basis, you have many individuals of great morality and--that, that don't have any particular faith.

MR. RUSSERT: So if you determined that the most qualified person for the Supreme Court or for attorney general or secretary of education happened to be an atheist or an agnostic, that wouldn't prevent you from appointing them?

GOV. ROMNEY: Of course not. You, you, you look at individuals based upon their skills and their ability, their values, their intelligence. And there are many who are agnostic or atheist or who have very different beliefs about the nature of the divine than I do, and, and you evaluate them based on their skills. But I, I can tell you that I, I myself am a person of faith and, and respect the, the sense of the common bond of humanity that comes from that, that fundamental belief.

MR. RUSSERT: But there'd be no litmus test?

GOV. ROMNEY: No, no. There's no litmus test of, of that nature.

I was pleasantly surprised by Romney's readiness to admit so enthusiastically that an atheist can be a moral person because this implication was conspicuously missing from his speech last week. In that speech, he only made allowances for people of different faiths and not for those who have no religion at all.

DoubtingStephen

17th December 2007, 08:28 AM

I was pleasantly surprised by Romney's readiness to admit so enthusiastically that an atheist can be a moral person because this implication was conspicuously missing from his speech last week. In that speech, he only made allowances for people of different faiths and not for those who have no religion at all.

That was very refreshing indeed. Still, it was a really dumbass thing for him to have said "freedom requires religion" in the first place. I doubt if George H. W. Bush would ever have conceded that an atheist could be a decent person.

Romney does have a sufficient level of intelligence that it could be measured, and he speaks English fluently, so those factors put him several notches above our current national embarrassment.

Father Dagon

17th December 2007, 08:36 AM

Paraphrase of Romney's speech today:

"It's not important which faith I belong to. It only matters that I believe in God because only leaders who believe in God can promote freedom. But I will not answer specific questions about how I believe in God because that would constitute a religious test for office, which is unconstitutional."

Does freedom require logic?Romey's POV is "belief in belief". It's not important what people believe, only that they believe. I can only respect religions, movements and ideologies that wants an almost total victory.* The idea that religions, movements and ideologies serves some purpouse,** even though they are abhorrent for one self, is nothing less than feudalism.

*) Judaism is not proselytic. But as long as non-jews follow The Law, there's no reason to proselytize. Therefore I can respect Judaism.

**) Yeah, some religions, movements and ideoloiges serves only the purpuse to give me fresh lulz. But that is not a feudalistic POV.

Prometheus

17th December 2007, 01:02 PM

Piazza

17th December 2007, 02:01 PM

Several of the founders of the U.S., Washington for instance, were Freemasons, and one of the requirements of Freemasonry is that members must believe in a God, but they don't care which particular religion one belongs to. So in that sense, Romney was right to frame his comments in terms of the founders' beliefs.

You're correct in pointing out that some of the founders wanted belief to be a qualification for office, but what actually made it into the Constitution was "... no religious test shall ever be required ...". Some modern proponents of religion say the framers' intent with this clause was to avoid excluding someone of a particular faith from office, but that excluding atheists would have received their approval. This is just not the case. The issue was explicitly debated at the time and the majority opinion was that this language should be put in specifically to preserve the rights of non-believers to hold office.

As an atheist, I'd be more comfortable if Romney had repeatedly referred to "some of the founders" or "a few of the founders" instead of "the founders", but that wouldn't have made for a very convincing speech.