OpEdNews Op Eds

Mitt and Me

By       Message Stephen Pizzo     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Author 6445
Become a Fan
  (12 fans)
- Advertisement -
If Mitt Romney hoped to quell concerns about his religious beliefs yesterday he failed miserably. In fact, I believe he revealed himself in ways that should cause every American to worry more, not less, about what's rattling around in this guy's well-groomed head.

During his speech Romney made several pronouncements as though they were accepted facts. Here are those statements, in his own words, followed by my reaction as I listened to his speech: (Which I emailed to the Romney campaign headquarters as well.)

MITT:  "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

ME: You're only half right, Mitt. The free and open practice of religion depends entirely on the freedom -- freedom to worship as one pleases, or not to worship at all.  But freedom itself is not so constrained. Freedom, unlike religion, is the natural state of being. It's how humans would live unless one of two outside, artificial forces step in and restrict freedom. Those two forces are government and religion. Each of those two forces have, in more ways than can be counted over the eons, done more to restrict human freedom than any other forces in the universe.

MITT: "Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God."

ME: Freedom also opens the windows of the mind which for many leads humans to discover that religions -- all of them -- are remnants of primitive mankind's fear of the unknown and unknowable. Religious ceremonies were -- and remain -- mankind's feeble attempts to reassure itself they could have some control over the gigantic natural forces that surrounded them and which nurtured them one day and tried to kill them the next. So they turned to magic and prayers. (How prayers are really treated)
- Advertisement -

MITT: "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

ME: You got that sound bite exactly backwards, Mitt. Throughout human history it's been the first goal of any religion to trim freedom's wings. The first thing a new religion does is to start making a list of things it wants people to stop doing. And, as time goes on, those list grow. They can never seem to stop with common sense rules like  "don't kill and steal from each other." Sooner or later the list of "sins" grow to include sexual behavior, what people can and can't eat and drink, what they can and can't say -- or even think, where they can and can't go, even what they can and can't  wear.  So Mitt, you were dead wrong here. Religion has always been at odds with freedom. And the more freedom given to the religious, the less freedom the religious were willing to grant the (once) free.

MITT: "Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are."

- Advertisement -
ME: Absolutely right, but not for the reasons you would cite, Mitt. Two decades ago America's Christian right decided their religious opposition to certain entirely secular behaviors needed to be outlawed or otherwise restricted, not by changing people's minds, but by law. That religious blacklist included abortion, condoms use by teens, birth control, foreign aid for family planning, same-sex marriages, gays, prayer in schools.. on and on.  Fundamentalist Christians pushed to elect leaders who promised to codify their shared religious beliefs into civil law. And so it came to pass that millions of Americans who did not share those beliefs saw their freedoms eroded. Choice, and choices, narrowed. Freedoms narrowed. Had that not occurred I would have no reason to care what religious dogma a candidate holds dear. We secularists didn't start this fight, they did. The so-called "war on religion in the public square" is a self-inflicted wound. Because once one side breaches the barrier between church and state the other side will try to fill that breach.

MITT: "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."

ME: Oh, man, what chutzpah. Do you mean like you did when you were pro-choice to win the governorship of Mass. and then switched to anti-choice to appeal to the religious right in the presidential primaries? So you mean someone just like you, Mitt.

MITT: "It's important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions."

ME: Well, excuuuuuuuse me for even existing, Mitt. As a non-theist I, and tens of millions of Americans like me, do not share a common creed with theists. We do not share your belief in the spirit-world. Rather than sharing those beliefs we reject belief is the supernatural. 

MITT:  "We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion."

ME: Is that why the Christian right been insisting that its theologically-based moral codes be imposed on our entire population? Is that why the current "born-again" President has been stacking government agencies, such as the Federal Drug Administration to the courts, Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, even the Supreme Court, with those who share the narrow beliefs of fundamentalist Christian sects? What does the term "separation" mean to you Mitt -- separating us from the freedom to live as we each wish?

MITT: "But 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... They wish to remove all mention of religion from the public square."

ME: Whew! Where do I begin? First of all, in a free country, the public square is a debating society, not a lecture hall. If you come to the public square espousing your beliefs expect an argument. When you say people like me want to chase religion from the public square what you are really saying is you don't want us to challenge religious beliefs. Well, forget about it. Besides, people like you are yourself highly selective when it comes to just which metaphysical beliefs that are acceptable in the public squares. Just let some believers in astrology erect a monument to astrology on a courthouse steps and see how fast mainstream religious folk scream foul.

MITT: "Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life."

ME: Yes, and that's the right way to view it too. There's all kinds of things about other's lives I have no interest in knowing about; what they did in bed last night and with whom, who they voted for, how much money they earn and, right on the top of that list, their religious/metaphysical beliefs. All that kind of stuff falls smack dab into the "don't ask, don't tell" category as far as I'm concerned. The only time I get concerned is when some group starts insisting that I believe and/or live as they do. That's when your religious beliefs stop being a private affair and becomes extremely personal -- to me.

MITT: "It is as if they're (secularists) intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong." 


ME: Ah, now, isn't THAT a telling comment. You believe that people like me are trying to sneak a new religion into the mix -- "secularism." Don't you see the irony in that remarkable remark? Wasn't it your "prophet," Joseph Smith, who himself "snuck" a new religion into the established Christian pack as recently as the 1830s? If I recall from my reading of history Smith was not viewed much differently than you now view we secularists.  But hey, maybe he's given me an idea. If the religious right is successful in finishing the job of breaking down the wall between church and state, the only way we secularists may be able to get what we want is to call ourselves a religion. Then we could demand our rights too. We could demand that our "religious beliefs" be codified into law too. And, whenever we are opposed by anyone we can accuse them of "religious persecution." Then we too could take advantage of all those juicy tax breaks religions get.  (The Church of Secularism ... services every weekend starting at 9 pm at Filmore East -- Hymns by the Greatful Dead. )

MITT: "The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.  "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. (APPLAUSE)

ME: I know you have trouble seeing it from your vantage, but Islam is one the fastest growing religions in the US. What happens if the day arrives when Muslims  outnumber Christians in the US? Would you be for changing the pledge and currency to, "In Allah We Trust?" I Didn't think so. Seems your religious tolerance has its limits. Well, mine too.

MITT: "Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.' (APPLAUSE)

ME: I thought George Washington gave us liberty. I thought it was the courage and valor of George and all the men and women who died over the past couple of centuries to defeat those who would take or freedoms away, who we honor for our liberties. That's where our liberty came from, and that's where it's defended. And you dishonor those heroes whey you ascribe those victories to the intercession of a supernatural spirit. Every time you do that you reduce those heroes to little more godly canon fodder.

MITT: "We (Americans) believe that every single human being is a child of God –"

ME: There you go again. No Mitt, not every American believes "every single human being" is "a child of God." Many of us believe we are extraordinarily fortunate accidents of universal forces -- forces we are just beginning to unravel, but may be destined to never fully understand. We believe we are creatures of the universe, maybe the only such creatures. Maybe not the only such creatures. Maybe we're the smartest creatures in the universe, maybe not. But rather than children of some supernatural being, we believe we are, as the song in Hair put it,  "stardust." And that's where our beliefs coincide: "From dust, to dust."

 MITT: "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. (APPLAUSE)

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Stephen Pizzo has been published everywhere from The New York Times to Mother Jones magazine. His book, Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans, was nominated for a (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Secrets Kill Too

Dying for Change

What's the Matter With Gaza?

Who You Callin' Un-American?

I Was At the Birth...

How Crazy is Too Crazy to be President?