So there you have it. According to Mitt Romney, if you do not believe in the God of the Bible, then you are leading the US on a path to destruction. I'm not sure which is more annoying: Romney's pandering to the evangelicals in a last-ditch effort to win in Iowa, or his utter ignorance of the religious beliefs of our nation's founders.
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.
Putting the words "In God We Trust" on our money had nothing to do with the Founders. According to the US Treasury, "The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War." And, "IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin."
As for the pledge, religioustolerance.org says, "In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words 'under God.'" I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Founders had nothing to do with that, either.
Of course, Romney's view of religion is predictably Christ-centric. He said, "I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God." So either he hasn't encountered that many faiths, or he feels that all religions have the same god.
It seems to me that Romney's view on religion is rather single-minded. Tolerance of religion means tolerance of his religion. Freedom to worship means freedom to worship the god of the Bible. Our rights come from his god. Our laws come from his god. Our nation exists only because of his god. If you're a person of faith, you're obviously worshiping his god. If you're not a person of faith, then you're what's wrong with this country.
So, Romney's message to all Atheists: Go to hell. America doesn't need you.
(All quotes from Romney's speech were grabbed from WCVB in Boston.)
7 comments:
hey there.....Mitt was appealing to republicans who tend to be christians. He isn't going to get your vote no matter what. Do you really expect a candidate to trash God in a speech? Atheism is not so popular. His speech should not be so threatening to you. Our society is getting further and further away from God and this should make you happy. Should every candidate be a secularist? I don't understand your anger. I feel the attacks of evangelicals as a Mormon. Why shouldn't a Mormon be allowed to run for President and why is it threatening?
Nikki
Hey, Nikki, thanks for the comments. Many good questions.
First, I understand that Mitt was pandering to the Christian right. He was performing that age-old dodge of pointing the finger at some other group, to divert attention away from himself. He told all those Christians who have been dogging him about being Mormon to instead focus on the dreaded "secularists." It was a cheap shot, I thought, but it looks like many Christians took the bait.
I do not expect Mitt, or any candidate, to trash God in a speech. Aside from it being political suicide, if he believes in God, then that's his thing and more power to him. What I resent is the suggestion that it is only by the grace of his God that America was founded and thrived, and that it is only by the grace of his God that America will survive.
It's interesting that you mention that "Atheism is not so popular." I agree. According to this study, Atheists are the most distrusted of all "minority" groups. However, America was founded not on the principle of protecting the merely unpopular, it was founded on the principle of protecting the most despised. Freedom of speech protects the words we find most offensive. Freedom of religion protects the faiths that we find most absurd. The fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments protect the most vile putrid despicable criminals, because in America we believe that even the murderers and rapists deserve a fair trial. So Atheism being unpopular, or distrusted, or even despised, does not make it any less valid, any less protected. It does not make Atheists any less American. And yet, there's Mitt:
"It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
And: "We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."
And: "Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
Those of us who haven't knelt in prayer, Mitt doesn't want anything to do with us. America, according to him, doesn't want anything to do with us. Someone needs to remind Mitt that religious tolerance doesn't just mean Christians accepting Mormons. It also means Mormons accepting Atheists.
And just for the record, I don't oppose a Mormon running for president. If there were a Mormon running under the Green Party ticket, I'd maybe even vote for her (or him).
A lot of the lines of his speech come from doctrine of Mormonism. If you were to read the Book of Mormon it would validate what I am saying. We discussed this a bit in the war on christmas post, on how christians feel this nation is free because of an adherence to natural law or God's commandments. Though I do think that most atheists actually are living a judeao-christian life. They don't kill, steal, commit adultry(or maybe they do). These are all laws that are on the books because of religious and biblical tradition and I am sure that none of them you would agree should be done away with.....so my point is there is some common ground that religious and non-religious can find. Of course I liked the Romney speech. I found it to be sincere and we are taught as Mormons to find the common ground with people instead of fighting about things in which we disagree. Call it pandering but everything he said was consistent with LDS doctrine. We just have ugly little evangelicals that twist our doctrine. The History of our Church may be strange but I don't know a religion that doesn't have a shady past. Your atheism may be in the minority but religious zealots were far greater in number when the nation began and a state religion hasn't been imposed.....to me there are far more secularists than ever before. Your views aren't fully represented but then again neither are mine. good conversation.
Nikki
Nikki,
I would agree that "there is some common ground that religious and non-religious can find." I just don't think that Romney's speech reflected that opinion.
I would disagree with your assertion (that has been made by many) that our laws are derived from God's commandments.
1. You shall have no other Gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain...
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
OK, we're half-way through and we're 0-for-5.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife...
So as I see it, only 3 of the 10 are actual laws. (Adultry wasn't illegal last I checked.)
Our laws are derived from the Constitution, which doesn't mention God anywhere. Fortunately, the founding fathers were not religious zealots. For the most part, they were anti-religion. (Not atheists, of course. Deists.)
Adultry is illegal in some states it just isn't enforced and so is sodomy which means homo-sexuals in some states are breaking the law. Bearing false witness it could be argued as perjury and coveting does lead to stealing......I think you understood my point without splitting hairs. A lot of laws fall under the realm of natural law. Natural law in the law school world is God's laws. I had an entire class in college on this very subject. Natural law vs. secular law and the constitution and where are we now. We are much closer to secular law that natural law. Laws are derived from a societal moral code. Where does an atheists moral code stem from? I understand some laws are for safety reasons, but many are derived from an injustice or what society deems to be a moral litmus such as discrimination, drug use,racism, pornagraphy etc. Now these laws may not fall under the big 10 but ones conscience tells them that these things are indeed wrong, of course God gave us our conscience. Good vs. evil in the atheist world doesn't exist so where does your moral compass take you if your choices in life bear no accountibility, only logic? I am asking sincerely. I am interested in knowing.
Of course Romney was not trying to appeal to a common ground with atheists, it was with evangelicals who sit in their castles an define christendom. His speech was for the religious. Don't take it as a threat to secularism when he is honest about his belief, at least he is honest. Who is it that you will be supporting for President and I guarantee he will be bagging on religion. It goes both ways. Mitt will never get your vote no matter what so don't get pissed that he bagged on secularism in his speech. And I know for you there is no love lost either.
provocative topic......thanks for letting me chime in.
Nikki,
I can't speak for other non-believers, but my beliefs regarding morality are thus: Every human being is born with the same unalienable rights. (Sounds familiar, right?) However, I don't believe that these rights are given to us by some deity. If they were given to us by a god, then they could be taken away by that god as well. I don't believe they are given to us by the government either. The government is there (in part) to protect the rights that we are born with.
I suppose that you could say my idea of morality is similar to what Christians refer to as The Golden Rule (which may be an oversimplification, but it should suffice.)
As for Mitt, he wants people to give him a chance and not disqualify him from running for president due to his religious beliefs. I'm all for that. However, he has basically said that people need to believe in a god in order to propel America forward. That without a belief in a god, America is doomed. Why should I (or anyone) disregard his religious beliefs if he is not willing to do the same?
And if he is simply dogging on Atheist because he's pandering to the evangelicals, then he is a coward. If he truly believes that Atheists are every bit as patriotic and valuable as the religious, then he should have the guts to say so.
Final note: I don't know yet who I'm supporting for president. The Green Party doesn't choose their candidate until July.
Again, thanks for the comments. Good discussion.
Would pandering to the atheists really get him your vote? Let's be intellectually honest. I don't think he was asking for a complete disregard of his religion, I think he was commiting to be a President who is not making decisions based on what Salt lake has to say. Of course his views are religiously based and separation is impossible. My Mormonism is who I am. It is a culture and a religion. Would you be willing to separate yourself from your secularist ideals and embrace God? I think not. The inclusion that you seek will not soon be seen in an a predominately religious society. I find it a moot point to condemn Romney and his speech. Agreement will never be reached and he will never get your vote and quite frankly if he appealed to you he wouldn't appeal to me or any other religious person. So I guess my point is. I am glad you find him repugnant. In the words of George W. Bush "As far as I am concerned all the right people hate me or I would be doing something wrong". Of course that is a different subject. I am not saying you shouldn't have a voice, I am just trying to point out that the battle of a secularist while it is getting stronger, is not soon going to be joined by christians, or those that call themselves such. I do think our country needs all Americans and unfortunately we all have differing opinions on why we are essentially going in the toilet. Bringing two opposite points of view to an agreement would mean someone giving up their ideals......who should that be? Where is the middle ground?
Nikki
Post a Comment