Print
The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply
by Steve Chapman, Star Tribune
Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/12900371.html
Mitt Romney crafts a solution that, if nothing else, works really well for him.
Mitt Romney is worried about religious intolerance. He fears that religious and nonreligious people will unite to punish him because of his Mormon faith. He thinks it would be much more in keeping with America's noblest traditions if Mormons and other believers joined together to punish people of no faith.
This month, Romney showed up at the George H.W. Bush Library in College Station, Texas, to announce that even if it costs him the White House, his Mormonism is nonnegotiable. That came as a relief to those who suspected he would defuse the issue by undergoing a Methodist baptism.
Like John F. Kennedy, who said in 1960 that the presidency should not be "tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group," Romney said there should be no religious test for this office. "A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith," he said.
Rejected because of his faith, no. But rejected for his lack of faith? That's another question. Romney evinces a powerful aversion to skeptics. "We need to have a person of faith lead the country," he said in February, which sounds like a religious test to me.
In case anyone doubts his inhospitable stance toward freethinkers, scoffers and Sunday-morning layabouts, his speech confirmed it. Nowhere did he make the slightest effort to suggest that anyone unsure of the existence of God has anything to contribute to our democratic dialogue. In fact, he went out of his way to denounce decadent European societies "too busy or too 'enlightened' to ... kneel in prayer."
When he said "we do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith," he drew a line that excludes those professing no creed. Zoroastrians and Taoists in, agnostics out.
As he sees it, any American who doesn't worship at least one god is eating away at our democratic structure like a hungry termite. He quoted John Adams: "Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people." Romney went further: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
He ignores evidence that the framers thought otherwise. The Constitution they so painstakingly drafted contains not a single mention of the Almighty -- unlike the Articles of Confederation, which it replaced. A 1796 treaty, signed by that very same John Adams and ratified by the Senate, stipulated that the U.S. government "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
If the founders thought religion was indispensable to a free republic, why does the national charter say "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office"? Wouldn't it have made more sense to include a religious test?
Romney's theory that faith is essential to liberty suggests he has yet to visit the modern world. He doesn't try to explain countries like Germany, France and Norway -- free democracies where most people no longer believe in God. Religion is not exactly synonymous with personal freedom in, say, the Muslim world. Organized Christianity once coexisted comfortably with, and often sponsored, oppression in Europe and elsewhere.
The former Massachusetts governor makes equally imaginative claims about those who champion church-state separation. He believes they "are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism." Oh? You would look long and hard to find any secularist or civil libertarian who thinks the government should officially espouse atheism or encourage Americans to abandon religion.
Believers insist on keeping "In God We Trust" on our currency. Where are the nonbelievers who want to replace it with "There Is No God"? Secularists don't expect the government to take their side -- only to practice neutrality. They think 1) all Americans should be free to practice the religion they choose and 2) none should have the active assistance of the government.
But neutrality between belief and nonbelief is something Romney can't abide. He thinks the government must be firmly and vocally on the side of religion. Only when it comes to Mormonism versus other religions does he recognize the value of neutrality as a principle. Isn't that convenient?
In the end, though, Romney accomplished what he set out to do. No one can possibly justify voting against him because he's a Mormon. Not when he's provided so many other good reasons.
Steve Chapman's column is distributed by Creators Syndicate.
Reposted from:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/12900371.html
Mitt Romney crafts a solution that, if nothing else, works really well for him.
Mitt Romney is worried about religious intolerance. He fears that religious and nonreligious people will unite to punish him because of his Mormon faith. He thinks it would be much more in keeping with America's noblest traditions if Mormons and other believers joined together to punish people of no faith.
This month, Romney showed up at the George H.W. Bush Library in College Station, Texas, to announce that even if it costs him the White House, his Mormonism is nonnegotiable. That came as a relief to those who suspected he would defuse the issue by undergoing a Methodist baptism.
Like John F. Kennedy, who said in 1960 that the presidency should not be "tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group," Romney said there should be no religious test for this office. "A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith," he said.
Rejected because of his faith, no. But rejected for his lack of faith? That's another question. Romney evinces a powerful aversion to skeptics. "We need to have a person of faith lead the country," he said in February, which sounds like a religious test to me.
In case anyone doubts his inhospitable stance toward freethinkers, scoffers and Sunday-morning layabouts, his speech confirmed it. Nowhere did he make the slightest effort to suggest that anyone unsure of the existence of God has anything to contribute to our democratic dialogue. In fact, he went out of his way to denounce decadent European societies "too busy or too 'enlightened' to ... kneel in prayer."
When he said "we do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith," he drew a line that excludes those professing no creed. Zoroastrians and Taoists in, agnostics out.
As he sees it, any American who doesn't worship at least one god is eating away at our democratic structure like a hungry termite. He quoted John Adams: "Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people." Romney went further: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
He ignores evidence that the framers thought otherwise. The Constitution they so painstakingly drafted contains not a single mention of the Almighty -- unlike the Articles of Confederation, which it replaced. A 1796 treaty, signed by that very same John Adams and ratified by the Senate, stipulated that the U.S. government "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
If the founders thought religion was indispensable to a free republic, why does the national charter say "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office"? Wouldn't it have made more sense to include a religious test?
Romney's theory that faith is essential to liberty suggests he has yet to visit the modern world. He doesn't try to explain countries like Germany, France and Norway -- free democracies where most people no longer believe in God. Religion is not exactly synonymous with personal freedom in, say, the Muslim world. Organized Christianity once coexisted comfortably with, and often sponsored, oppression in Europe and elsewhere.
The former Massachusetts governor makes equally imaginative claims about those who champion church-state separation. He believes they "are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism." Oh? You would look long and hard to find any secularist or civil libertarian who thinks the government should officially espouse atheism or encourage Americans to abandon religion.
Believers insist on keeping "In God We Trust" on our currency. Where are the nonbelievers who want to replace it with "There Is No God"? Secularists don't expect the government to take their side -- only to practice neutrality. They think 1) all Americans should be free to practice the religion they choose and 2) none should have the active assistance of the government.
But neutrality between belief and nonbelief is something Romney can't abide. He thinks the government must be firmly and vocally on the side of religion. Only when it comes to Mormonism versus other religions does he recognize the value of neutrality as a principle. Isn't that convenient?
In the end, though, Romney accomplished what he set out to do. No one can possibly justify voting against him because he's a Mormon. Not when he's provided so many other good reasons.
Steve Chapman's column is distributed by Creators Syndicate.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 41 of 41 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #106195 by Ty_Webb on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I think Hitchens hit the nail pretty much on the head with Romney's comments. He seems to think that a religious test for office includes the people voting based on the religion of the candidate. This is not a religious test. He could still win. A religious test is saying that in order to even stand, you have to profess your faith in the almighty. It appears that Romney would like a religious test, given his comments about nontheists. He just doesn't want people to vote against him because he is a mormon (can't help thinking I've misspelt that).Other Comments by Ty_Webb
3. Comment #106196 by eno on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 pm
My dear American cousins! I love you so much and I love your land incredibly, especially the West Coast. But why do you allow this to go on in your country? I'm probably being too harsh so I apologise but please don't allow this man (or Huckleberry or whatever he's called) into that fine White House!Not that you have much to choose from. I spend a little time every morning before work reading the online New York Times and Washington Post and am saddened by your political choices. Of course, its not a great deal better here in Blighty but at least our leaders actually believe in evolution.
Good luck my friends.
reno
Other Comments by eno
4. Comment #106213 by BigJohn on January 2, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Ty_Webb: I think maybe you added a superfluous 'm' to your spelling. But, on the other hand, wasn't their famous archangel named Moron I? Other Comments by BigJohn
5. Comment #106215 by al-rawandi on January 2, 2008 at 1:54 pm
reno,It is an uphill battle. Huckabee? I just call him dingelberry.
There are too many people who believe the bible is the word of god. I just hide in San Francisco.
I was a professional athlete (sport will remain ambiguous). I was in West Virginia playing. I thought I was going to die.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
6. Comment #106219 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm
San Francisco, eh? Watch out for those tigers. Other Comments by annabanana
7. Comment #106223 by al-rawandi on January 2, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Ya. There are tigers everywhere. I look out my office window and there is a tiger down there eating someone. Dead sprint to the car after work. I don't have to out run the tiger, just the chubby guy next to me.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
8. Comment #106227 by annabanana on January 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Well, good luck with that. I'm guessing as long as you don't taunt them and then run to the nearest cafe screaming like a madman and making them think that you ARE a madman, you'll be ok. I'm on the East Coast which means that it's 5 and I'm going to the gym to outrun the fat that's chasing me. See you all tomorrow! Other Comments by annabanana
9. Comment #106255 by Crosius on January 2, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I think the theists are creating a situation where an athiest candidate can have a powerful, rousing, Kennedy/M.L.King-esque "I believe... in AMERICA!" speech that would make any theist foolish enough to ask "Do you believe in (my) god" look petty and small in the debate where the question was asked.Other Comments by Crosius
10. Comment #106281 by Matt7895 on January 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Decadent Europe eh? Ignorant. Other Comments by Matt7895
11. Comment #106421 by Atheist_from_Hell on January 2, 2008 at 9:55 pm
RE: Comment 4 (#106213) by BigJohnPerhaps Joe Smith misspelled the archangel's name by leaving a 'c' off the end of it.
Other Comments by Atheist_from_Hell
12. Comment #106444 by kitti-avi on January 3, 2008 at 12:52 am
"decadent europe too busy to pray" SHOCKER!!!Oooooor.... they don't want to as they don't think there's any point? *Romney's head explodes*
From a Decadent European ;)
Other Comments by kitti-avi
13. Comment #106445 by eric.malitz on January 3, 2008 at 1:02 am
Reno:You're right- there is not much to choose from. There are no real choices to be made in politics in this country. Only Moron A or Moron B. No politicians, as far as I can tell, are really truely educated in important fields outside general politics.
Other Comments by eric.malitz
14. Comment #106448 by Tyler Durden on January 3, 2008 at 1:25 am
In fact, he (Romney) went out of his way to denounce decadent European societies "too busy or too 'enlightened' to ... kneel in prayer."Yep, that's us Europeans, too enlightened to kneel in prayer to imaginary fairies in the sky! And he says it likes it's a bad thing. Idiot.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
15. Comment #106455 by Philip1978 on January 3, 2008 at 1:37 am
In fact, he (Romney) went out of his way to denounce decadent European societies "too busy or too 'enlightened' to ... kneel in prayer.
Yes Mr Romney, at least I don't think the Enlightenment shines out of my arse like the sun supposedly shines out of yours, bloody cheek!
I suppose anyone who believes the rubbish that John Smith wrote down in that stupid book of lies, they are ready to believe anything they like!
This election is going to be a weird one for sure! :)
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
16. Comment #106458 by Quetzalcoatl on January 3, 2008 at 1:45 am
Hmm. Mitt Romney calling US decadent. Surely a religion which advocates polyamory is more decadent than any European country? Oh wait, they don't do that any more. Neither are they racist. Or credulous.Does anyone else find it ironic that the name of the angel who dictated this crap was MORONi?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
17. Comment #106462 by Tyler Durden on January 3, 2008 at 1:53 am
This election is going to be a weird one for sure! :)"Vote for me, I believe in God."
"No, vote for me, I believe in God more that he does."
"Oh no you don't!!"
"Oh yes I do!"
Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
18. Comment #106467 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 2:04 am
Great. The most powerful nation on earth, quite possible about to be governed by another complete nob-jockey. Beyond tears. Other Comments by irate_atheist
19. Comment #106469 by Tyler Durden on January 3, 2008 at 2:09 am
Great. The most powerful nation on earth, ;)
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
20. Comment #106471 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 2:13 am
19. Comment #106469 by Tyler Durden -Hmm...Obama seems at least sane (in comparison?).
Other Comments by irate_atheist
21. Comment #106474 by Tyler Durden on January 3, 2008 at 2:27 am
I like Obama, he maybe a tad too young/inexperienced/intellectual to win it this time around, but certainly one for the future.However, they're all playing the same game:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/index.html
"According to the religion-based Web site Beliefnet.com and its "God-o-Meter" tool that measures "God-talk" in the presidential campaigns, Obama invokes religion more than any of his Democratic competitors."
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
22. Comment #106484 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 3:07 am
21. Comment #106474 by Tyler Durden -True, true. But mayhap he's smart enough to not believe his own propaganda? We can but hope, more in faith than certainty.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
23. Comment #106485 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 3:12 am
Mitt Romney is worried about religious intolerance. He fears that religious and nonreligious people will unite to punish him because of his Mormon faith. He thinks it would be much more in keeping with America's noblest traditions if Mormons and other believers joined together to punish people of no faith.
This is precisely why I do not hold out much hope for rallying the moderate religious to stand with atheists (or whatever you want to call what they call "the godless") against the extremists. For many people with a belief in a god, especially "moderates", ANY faith is better than none at all.
Other Comments by PJG
24. Comment #106554 by Barbara on January 3, 2008 at 6:16 am
Mitt Romney is worried about religious intolerance. He fears that religious and nonreligious people will unite to punish him because of his Mormon faith. He thinks it would be much more in keeping with America's noblest tradition if Mormons and other believers joined together to punish people of no faith.
What noble tradition would that be?
*shudder*
Other Comments by Barbara
25. Comment #106555 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 6:17 am
This about sums it up...http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33878
Other Comments by Rtambree
26. Comment #106558 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 6:27 am
It does make me wonder.The current US administration is concerned about a a country that contains thousands of theocrats that may or may not be able to produce a single nuclear device.
Should we be equally worried about a country that has thousands of nuclear devices turning into a theocracy?
Other Comments by epeeist
27. Comment #106717 by al-rawandi on January 3, 2008 at 10:06 am
epeeist,You are very right. That is a good comparison. We have the weapons and are rapidly developing theocracy.
We may be closer to theocracy than Iran is to a nuclear device.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
28. Comment #106726 by JayLee on January 3, 2008 at 10:38 am
"True, true. But mayhap he's smart enough to not believe his own propaganda? We can but hope, more in faith than certainty. "So, a liar is better? Hope in faith?
None of the candidates are great choices. I'll decide who I'll vote for based on what their policies look to be.
As for this continual American bashing in comparison to Europe in these comments, wearing your atheism on your sleeve for every choice and judgement is very much like religious dogma. It does seem to be the way many posters define themselves. It really is tedious. I know many believers, even in the piney woods of East Texas, who are less dogmatic and more open-minded than many of the "atheists" that post here.
I've spent a lot of time in Europe and the UK and am not particularly reassured by politicians and their religious or political views in either of those places.
Other Comments by JayLee
29. Comment #106769 by the great teapot on January 3, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Mr Romney,I believe that all male politicians are prophets of the lord. I have had it revealed to me that all the chosen ones achieved this status when they caught a sexual disease during the act of copulation with their mother, other than the fact I have had this revealed to me by God I have no other proof but I accept this revelation on faith. Can I now join the ranks of presidential candidates now I am a man of faith.
Naturally no woman could have met this criteria and they are unsuitable for office.
Other Comments by the great teapot
30. Comment #106772 by al-rawandi on January 3, 2008 at 12:43 pm
the great teapot,We need to know what denomination you are from...
The Clap, Herpes, Crabs, HPV...
I mean these are serious doctrinal differences. I must be made aware before I cast a vote.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
31. Comment #106776 by the great teapot on January 3, 2008 at 12:47 pm
You are asking too many questions Al-Rawndi it is almost as though you are searching for evidence.Never put your candidates to the test.
Other Comments by the great teapot
32. Comment #106778 by al-rawandi on January 3, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Fine.I will go with the Clap. Has a jovial sound to it.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
33. Comment #106779 by al-rawandi on January 3, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Besides, I have a friend with the clap. They are very moderate, and tolerate other disease.Not like Crabs. Those guys are pushy.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
34. Comment #106915 by paulcaira on January 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm
rtambree:If it wasn't The Onion, could anyone tell that wasn't genuine?
Beyond satire.
Other Comments by paulcaira
35. Comment #107010 by sillysighbean on January 3, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Mitt Romney was crushed in the Iowa caucuses. Cheer up everyone.The Evangelicals put in Hucklebee, but his act will not fly next week in New Hampshire. Obama has the mojo and sent a clear message to the Clintons (Hillary finishing 3rd to Edwards). Obama will be the next president of the United States, so do not despair our friends across the pond.
Other Comments by sillysighbean
36. Comment #107451 by arogop on January 4, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Obama will be the next president of the United States, so do not despair our friends across the pond.
Obama does not stands a chance yet. Neither does Huck.
Other Comments by arogop
37. Comment #107453 by al-rawandi on January 4, 2008 at 2:37 pm
arogop,We had a HUGE running debate over Obama on the Huckabee thread.
They all equally reek of corrupt money and fecal matter, near as I can tell anyway.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
38. Comment #107616 by AshtonBlack on January 4, 2008 at 8:33 pm
JL:-I've spent a lot of time in Europe and the UK
Last time I checked (it's been a while) the UK was in Europe.
It does seem to be the way many posters define themselves
On an athiest website you expected what? But fair enough. We're commenting on this topic, which is basically "Mitt Romney: Religious Whack Job! Shocker". It's a bit hard not to mention it, my friend.
Other Comments by AshtonBlack
39. Comment #107885 by Duff on January 5, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Let me go out on a limb here, folks. The "Smirking Hick Huckabee" (Hitche's mandatory moniker), Brother Romney, strange Guliani, and the other lightweights are history.In the end, it will be between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Neither of which are stupid, nor overly religious, and both of which will be fabulous presidents compared to the present holder of the office.
Other Comments by Duff
40. Comment #110363 by mjwemdee on January 11, 2008 at 3:53 am
Comment #107885 by Duff:In the end, it will be between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Neither of which are stupid, nor overly religious, and both of which will be fabulous presidents compared to the present holder of the office./blockquote>
Oh, I do so hope you're right.
Other Comments by mjwemdee
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat. Cranks and fundamentalists are too often victimised as scapegoats for religion in general. It is only quite recently that Christianity reinvented itself in non-fundamentalist guise, and Islam has yet to do so (see Ibn Warraq's excellent book, Why I am not a Muslim). Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven't been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. "
Richard Dawkins
"Religions do make claims about the universe--the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false."
Richard Dawkins
"Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
Richard Dawkins
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend"
Richard Jeni
Other Recommended Reading
Infidel
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #106184 by Racquel Donkins on January 2, 2008 at 1:07 pm
romney...e very very sik manOther Comments by Racquel Donkins