![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave his speech this week, and enough people have commented on it that I'm sure everyone's already heard enough. But that's never stopped me before.... After reading his speech and mulling this over for a few days, I find that it's apparent to me that -- in the eyes of Romney and those of his ilk -- I am not qualified to be an American.
After all, I don't believe in any god at all. None.
"Freedom requires religion..." That's what Romney said in his speech. Therefore, since Romney is equating our country with freedoms, our country requires religion. Evidently there actually is a required religious test despite the fact that our constitution specifically forbids one. At least there is in Romney's view -- and he wants to make sure that everyone knows he passes that litmus test.
Strangely, nowhere, nowhere in this speech of supposed unity and tolerance is there any mention of those who don't believe in one of the three Judeo-Christian religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). None. Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Agonistics, Aethiests, et. al.: they evidently don't exist in Romney's definition of "religious freedom."
As for the separation of church and state, Romney gives lip service to that idea, then rapidly contradicts himself: "...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." What? Not believing in a religion is a religion? I find that concept insulting, frankly. No one's asking that people not display signs of their faith. You want to put a creche in your front yard? Fine. You want to put a menorah in your window? Fine. But I don't want my city, state, or federal government putting up a religious display. Period. That's the government pushing a faith.
Worse, Romney has a religious test for judges, too: "Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith on which our constitution rests."
"We believe that every single human being is a child of God." I don't, emphatically. I believe that every single human being is a child of biological evolutionary processes. And a government that operates by that principle that we are "children of God" has not separated religion from politics.
"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government." Wow... I am obviously not an American in Romney's view, since I consider our liberty to be entirely deriving from the work of human beings, not coming to us as a "gift of God."
"Any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty has a friend and ally in me." Obviously, I have no friend nor ally in Romney. Neither does a Pagan, nor a Buddhist, nor... well, the list is long.
It would seem that for Mitt Romney, and for those candidates who agree with his point of view, that there is freedom of religion in the United States as long as you're a Christian, and we'll perhaps tolerate you if you're Jewish, and we'll even pretend to tolerate you if you're Muslim as long as you're not one of those awful fundamentalist types. But if you're anything else.... well, there's no freedom for you, Bucko.
After all, I don't believe in any god at all. None.
"Freedom requires religion..." That's what Romney said in his speech. Therefore, since Romney is equating our country with freedoms, our country requires religion. Evidently there actually is a required religious test despite the fact that our constitution specifically forbids one. At least there is in Romney's view -- and he wants to make sure that everyone knows he passes that litmus test.
Strangely, nowhere, nowhere in this speech of supposed unity and tolerance is there any mention of those who don't believe in one of the three Judeo-Christian religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). None. Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Agonistics, Aethiests, et. al.: they evidently don't exist in Romney's definition of "religious freedom."
As for the separation of church and state, Romney gives lip service to that idea, then rapidly contradicts himself: "...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." What? Not believing in a religion is a religion? I find that concept insulting, frankly. No one's asking that people not display signs of their faith. You want to put a creche in your front yard? Fine. You want to put a menorah in your window? Fine. But I don't want my city, state, or federal government putting up a religious display. Period. That's the government pushing a faith.
Worse, Romney has a religious test for judges, too: "Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith on which our constitution rests."
"We believe that every single human being is a child of God." I don't, emphatically. I believe that every single human being is a child of biological evolutionary processes. And a government that operates by that principle that we are "children of God" has not separated religion from politics.
"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government." Wow... I am obviously not an American in Romney's view, since I consider our liberty to be entirely deriving from the work of human beings, not coming to us as a "gift of God."
"Any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty has a friend and ally in me." Obviously, I have no friend nor ally in Romney. Neither does a Pagan, nor a Buddhist, nor... well, the list is long.
It would seem that for Mitt Romney, and for those candidates who agree with his point of view, that there is freedom of religion in the United States as long as you're a Christian, and we'll perhaps tolerate you if you're Jewish, and we'll even pretend to tolerate you if you're Muslim as long as you're not one of those awful fundamentalist types. But if you're anything else.... well, there's no freedom for you, Bucko.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
It's like Republicans have some neurological disorder that causes them to spout mind-boggling hypocrisy every time they open their mouths.
From:
no subject
K. [who in your state legislature supports day-of voter registration, audit-able voting machines, and better guidance on the county level? How can you get involved?]
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
We've got a state religion, but religion is barely an issue over here. Politicians just don't mention their faith (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7111620.stm), assuming they've got any; it's just not done.
And the concept of atheists feeling marginalised or uncomfortable in society is alien to me.
From:
no subject
I have been speculating for some time that we're going to have a major showdown in about 2016, where the Mormons, Catholics and Baptists face off against one another to determine the One True Religion. Anyone who scrapes beneath the outer facade can quickly determine that these are three separate systems of religious practice, and once they've cleared the field of the groups that are two small to count, it will become obvious. And they won't like it. I expect the country to split into four: The Northeast over to the Mississippi will be Catholic, the Southeast will be Baptist, the Pacific Northwest plus Utah and Montana (maybe the Dakotas, too) will be Mormon, and California will be its own country. I don't know what will happen to the Amish; they'll probably be ignored, so there will be an Amish belt through Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, which may absorb Michigan as well.
Of course, this civil war - and it will be one - will be followed in about 2020 by the purchase of the USA by the Chinese as debt redemption, and they will institute their policy of No Religion with a vengeance.
Hey, you could at least get a couple of novels out of these ideas.... :-)
From:
A commotted Christian speaks on this..
I, at first glance, would appear to qualify. But, as an ELCA Lutheran, I probably would'nt, if old Milt scratched the surface. The ELCA is pro-choice,
has, 'reconciling' congregations (ones that accept GLBT/same sex couples as full members in their congregations, and accept gay pastors. There is some hoo-haa on whether the minister can be in a committed, monogamous same-sex relationship and be ordained, but the Lutheran church is getting around that in a typically scandanavian way... just have a bishop that agrees with this ordain them. After ordination, no biggie.
Article 6 of the Constitution should be REQUIRED reading for any candidate to public office. They should be able to recite it and explain it before they can be placed on the ballot.
These candidates wearing their religion on their sleeves really annoys me..
Oh, well... "If This Goes On" Here we come!
From:
Re: A commotted Christian speaks on this..
Unless you are Bradley Schmeling, and still end up defrocked (albiet he's still in place in his church). Sorry, I live in Atlanta and my housemate was involved in organizing the defense for Brad's trial. It's all a little raw.
And I agree with you that the Lutherns are waaaaay ahead of lots of other Christians on any number of things :).
From:
Re: A commotted Christian speaks on this..
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I almost threw a shoe through my television.
From:
no subject