My thoughts on Romney's big speech today:
It's absolutely pathetic that in this day and age, some people could withhold their vote from someone because of their religious beliefs. I am ashamed to share a country with the sort of jackasses that would do so. Perhaps they should read the Constitution - "no religious test shall be applied" to anyone running for office. This goes for Mormons, mainstream Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists... anybody. If the government can't apply such a test, we as voters shouldn't either. End of story.
There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney - his religion should not be one of them. So let's all just drop the subject and move on, shall we?
Update: The Post editorial board drives a truck through a gaping hole in Romney's actual speech. Given that, in my experience, atheists tend to be among the most passionate supporters of liberty, the idea that "freedom requires religion" is particularly ridiculous. As is the idea that "religion requires freedom." Insert your favorite historical example here. That one actually made me laugh out loud when I heard it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yeah, I was quite amused with the "freedom requires religion and vice versa" bit. If God doesn't require religion (as is my own personal belief), then freedom certainly doesn't. This whole Mormon debacle is ludicrous. There are far far better reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney.
I wouldn't withhold my vote solely on the basis of a candidate's religion, but the fact of them being religious is itself a major strike against them in my book. It isn't because of their religion, it's because of the lack of reason and independent thought required for an adult to be religious. And statements like Romney's strengthen that opinion: why would I vote for someone who prejudges me as immoral and unconcerned with freedom? It takes a certain kind of idiocy to believe in a higher power in the first place. But I could still vote for such an idiot (or be friends with such an idiot)--after all, if we believe the candidates' statements (which, I don't in many cases), they all believe in Jeebus.
But I can't vote for them when they combine that idiocy with the further mistakes of 1) conforming one's beliefs (and the actions one bases on his beliefs) to a particular arbitrary set of beliefs approved by a particular arbitrary religious governing body, 2) making it a public issue in an election and spouting off at every opportunity about what an idiot one is, just because most of the other people in the country are idiots, too, and 3) alienating large sects of the population by saying that they can't uphold freedom and aren't moral. Furthermore, the more ludicrous one's religion is, the more idiotic one must be to adhere to it. So Mormon candidates, or Scientology candidates get more points taken off than normal candidates.
So in sum, I could care less about what a candidate does every Sunday morning, but I do want a President who is intelligent, logical, and strong-willed.
I think you're not recognizing the important role a person's religion can play in his carrying out of the presidency. President Bush's religion has clearly played a role in his presidency; why wouldn't we want to know something about how Romney's faith might affect his presidency?
And the Constitution is meant to allow people to think and believe what they want while preventing the government from legally discriminating based on these same things. If it's just dumb for a person to believe a Mormon shouldn't be president, then let the market place of ideas and the democratic system prove them wrong. But the Constitution is in place, in part, to allow people to believe what they want, including how they think a candidate's faith might affect his or her presidency.
Post a Comment