Does freedom require religion?

I wouldn't worry, you still have the freedom to misinterpret and spin what he actually said. No-one can stop you (unfortunately) and that means you'll have a good run yet.


Sounds fair enough. Unless you are an atheist who wants all religious expression supressed I guess, in that case the fact he happens to be religious is bad enough....

Quote from BBC Article

That's not all he said.

The guy is obviously delusional, or his magic underpants are too tight, if he can't separate religion and freedom. That and he knows nothing of the founding fathers.

He's also the guy that would exclude someone from his cabinet depending of their religion, specifically Muslims, but I wouldn't be surprised if he harbored the same attitude towards jews.

He knows that a real appeal for tolerance was based on his theology (Mormonism) it would not have gone over well with the group he was trying to appease, the evangelicals.

The founding father's views were better expressed by Kennedy when he said:

Freedom requires religion? That's absolutely ludicrous.

Religion is trying to dominate politics in a country that was founded by people who tried to escape other countries where religion had dominated politics.

Bah. America was founded by people who were pissed off because they weren't allowed to oppress the people they wanted to.

Oh yeah I forgot.

Just don't let it happen again.

And Huckabee thinks that gay marriage will destroy our civilization.

Literally.

Destroy it.

Well, maybe gay married terrorists...

You can't believe the weight off your shoulders after you renounce false gods.

Wilt thou take all, pale Galilean?

An Atlas fears no such weight on his shoulders.....

As a matter of fact, they're all false.

And that's the authentic word so if you don't believe you die infidel !!

From Washington Post campaign blog entry:


So while candidates for high office are tripping all over themselves to profess their love of Jesus and the supremacy of God in all things, the real problems lie in petty, symbolic displays.

Because a manger scene "in the public square" is a much more robust expression of our national godliness than our political class being obliged to genuflect at every opportunity.

One would have to assume that a political culture that features the putative front runner to be his party's candidate for president making a speech that baldly asserts "freedom requires religion", wherein said culture does not find such a declaration surprising or controversial, is not exactly actively repressing expressions of faith.

Ted Sorensen..."helped draft Kennedy's 1960 speech on Roman Catholicism"

• I'm ready for a discussion of Mormons getting their own planet after they die.
• I'm ready for a discussion of Mormons becoming the God of that planet.
• I'm ready for a discussion of the Mormon idea that the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition was once just a regular guy who died and got his own planet.
• I'm ready for a discussion of the Mormon belief in pre-existence.
• I'm ready for a discussion of Mormons posthumously baptizing people without contacting the family and without respect to the individual's religionespecially the long-standing practice of baptizing dead Jews.

Can we have that discussion now?

I really disagree with two of Sorensen's comments:

1. " Q. Romney made the statement "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Do you think Kennedy would have agreed with that?

Sorensen: I don't think anyone would disagree strongly with that. "

He is seriously deluded - for one thing, 12% of the country is atheist, and I bet every one of us disagree strongly with that statement.

2. "This country is in deep, serious trouble, and thoughtful citizens surely are going to make up their minds based on the major issues confronting the country and the major qualities of the candidates and not on such superficial tests as religion, race, or gender."

Race and Gender are superficial differences, but Religion is not 'what you are', but 'what you think is true'. It is not superficial, and in my mind it totally disqualifies Romney and Huckabee both.

A few thoughts off the top of my head:
Are not the most positive aspects of organized religion: "community, support and charitable activities"?
Humans are more than capable of acknowledging a "higher power" without having to attend churches, mosques or synagogue services.
People do not need to publicly demonstrate that they belong to an approved religious doctrine in order to believe in a "higher power" either.
Public exhibitions of piety have been strongly disapproved of by Jesus and others.
A strong sense of morality and decency seems to have little correlation with whatever religion, if any at all, a person is attached to.
How many people hide behind their respective faiths to conceal activities that are 180º in opposition to the teachings?
The attachment of an "approved", or officially sanctioned religious doctrine to any government at any time in history tends to result in hatred, bloodshed and misery, rather than overall goodwill, peace and benevolence.
Religious freedom demands non-attachment of a specific religion w.r.t. government.
The acknowledging, or (attempted) communications with a "higher power" is a solo, personal, private spiritual exercise, and is unique for each of us 6 billion humans.
etc etc

Question: What is behind the motivation behind those who want to forge close ties between one certain approved religious axis, namely Judeo-Christianity, and government, especially when the Founders knew full well that an officially approved religion was a something to be avoided at all cost?
I wonder if its got anything to do with the plague of "control freaks" currently in offfice?

My 2 cents, for an agnostic.

82% of Americans believe in God, 79% believe in miracles, 75% believe in heaven, 72% believe Jesus is God, 62% believe in hell and the devil. 42% believe in evolution.



100% of Mormons believe in soft, comfy underwear.

I think it has nothing to do with religion whatever. It's about this: the GOP coalition with the Christian right is crucial, and in order to sustain that coalition, they have to pander to them.

I'm sick to death of all this pandering. I'm sick to death of all this lip-service to faith. I'm sick to death of how when a politician says "I'm a devout Christian, and when you elect me, I'll lead by Christian principles!" everyone says "OK!" If politicians are going to make political hay out of their religious beliefs, then I believe we get to know all the ins and outs of their beliefs.

In short, if Romney didn't want people in Mississippi asking him very, very hard questions about, say, how Moroni got to be an Angel and not a god of his own planet, he should've kept his yap shut about religion. But no. He didn't. He made hay out of it.

Same goes for Bush. No one, to my knowledge, has ever, you know, asked him anything specific about what he believes. He says he's a devout Christian day in and day out, but I've never seen him talk about it, nor have I seen anyone ask him what his specific beliefs are.

That guy has one sweet package.....

I know the speech was a big deal on today's news, but I haven't actually had time to stop and listen to it.

That said, it does make sense on a certain level. The only thing is that you must think of 'religion' as what it is, a systemic set of beliefs that inform your worldview.

While atheists and secularists run from the word, atheism is a religion.

And freedom at its most basic level does require that individuals be able to freely choose the beliefs that largely guide their thoughts, desires and actions.

So it's not ludicrous at all.

Uh, no. That's what you spun his comments to mean.


That is an incredibly broad statement. I also think you'd have difficulty supporting it. Clearly you'll be able to point to some examples of freedom of thought being surrendered, but proving your assertion as you made it in context would be difficult.


That's because you hate all Republicans, particularly ones that happen to believe in God.



Actually, I'm pretty sure you know nothing of the founding fathers. What he was saying was that our nation was founded on an appeal to The Almighty and on a belief that freedom was not granted from the power of men, but from Him. It was a God-given right.


Funny, here is what actually happened:



It would be awesome of that above statement made any sense whatsoever.

Turns out it's not that you don't believe in God, it's just that you believe you're him.

Her.

Exactly!

So...... what he was actually saying was "freedom and some kind of coherent world view go hand in hand." Funny that he chose such a fraught word as religion to make his point.


Because being against something is close enough to a belief to qualify. As is being for things. So "religion" means "sentient".


Let's see here...... nope, still ludicrous.

When he said "religion" he meant "religion."

If there's any indication that he's talking about something broader than that, then that's your burden to prove. Anything can make sense if you generalize it enough. Whether he actually or intended to convey that generalization is another matter entirely. And judging by the fact that he said "religion," I think it's safe to say that "religion" is what he was talking about.




What is it with you people lately?

First we have Nick stretching the definition of jingoism to what some people think includes, apparently, vigorous masturbation, and now you're misconstruing religion as something applicable in the same way to non-supernatural beliefs. I know people use the word religion colloquially to say things like "music is my religion" or "sex is my religion." But used like that, anything can be a "religion." So your point is ultimately meaningless.


I agree with this.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." -Justice Kennedy (Planned Parenthood v. Casey)

Bullshit. The founding fathers believed that the power of the government is derived from the governed people, not from a higher power, "God". The treaty of Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" and that treaty was written when Washington was President and signed when Adams was president. They weren't atheists and they believed in God, but they had serious misgivings about the Bible being the inspired word of God, and Christianity itself. Remember the "Jefferson Bible"? Washington went to his masonic meetings more often than he went to his episcopalian church services.

Or you can check this paper out.

"He knows that a real appeal for tolerance based on his theology (Mormonism) would not have gone over well with the group he was trying to appease, the evangelicals."

There fixed it for you. In other words, if he tried explaining his batshit crazy religion to people, even the evangelicals would balk.

Source