Comments on: Judge Romney by His Religion

By: Mike Huckabee’s Crackup, David Frum, and Religion in Politics | truenorthnewsandcommentary.com | Lowell Brown

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:48:36 +0000

[...] this writer at the Frum Forum plows ground that have already been plowed ad nauseam. An atheist, he thinks Romney’s [...]

By: durandujam

durandujam — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:28:44 +0000

Alex is right – religion matters. But the beliefs themself don’t matter.

Religious beliefs are not determinist. The church down the block embraces gay marriage, my atheist friend is vehemently pro-life. It’s how the beliefs will affect you decision making that matters.

Romney’s religion influenced his views on marriage, healthcare and abortion. Huckabee’s views did the same. On the other hand, Stark and Obama are probably not very influenced by religion – Stark has none, and none of Obama’s policies are derived from his Christianity.

Romney may think that our rights come from God, Alex may not. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. What difference does it make? Would President Romney mandate belief? Would President Knepper outlaw belief? Of course not. Neither could and, more importantly, neither would. Their beliefs only matter insofar as they change their actions.

I’m not a Mormon. But I’d vote for a Mormon if I happened to have the same view. I’m not a Christian or a Jew. I’ve voted for Christians and Jews before. Is it implausible we could reach the same conclusions from different streams of thought? I think not.

(Oh, and contrary to what many commenters think, atheists and Mormons are not dishonest and are not doomed to ruin this country because they’re “misguided” or don’t understand its “Christian foundation.” For that matter, Christians aren’t a bunch misguided liars either. Our citizens get their values from different places, but all have an ethical and moral code that respects and protects others. Few who go into politics don’t go in for self-promotion. Some get corrupted in office, and many become disillusioned, but most all entered because they felt they could make the country a better place, not just for themselves but for others.)

By: Edward Sisson

Edward Sisson — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:21:03 +0000

I should add that the ability of a society to function under a limited government depends largely on whether the people under that government possess. in their hearts and minds, such principles of self-restraint from force and violence, and of charitable giving of their own property, that there is within the society neither widespread violence that must be suppressed, nor widespread self-centered greed that leaves the poor in need of government to aid them. No religion or philosophy has achieved such effects to the extent idealists desire, but of all that have occurred in history, Christianity as practiced and understood in America has come closest — and this, I submit, has been vital to the success of limited government to be sufficient government in America. The obvious cultural and social value of a peaceable and charitable citizenry explains why humanists and atheists seem constantly to be constructing arguments about how their systems, if generally adopted by the American people in place of Christianity, would produce the same result — a peaceable and charitable citizenry.

By: Lavaux

Lavaux — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:28:16 +0000

Glad to read that Mr. Knepper is not going to run for office. I’d vote against him solely on the basis of his atheism because a materialist’s utilitarian ethics can’t appreciate or comprehend the sanctity of human life or the absolute necessity to severely circumscribe the state’s authority to destroy it or fail to protect it whenever possible. Indeed, I view atheism as bizarre and irrational, particularly in view of its stunted and enervating epistemology, which is why I couldn’t trust an atheist politician to fashion a reliably principled accord with American constituents concerning his policy preferences.

Like it or not, Mr. Knepper, Christianity supplies the raw materials from which many of America’s mores and norms are fashioned, which in turn provide the blueprint that legislators, courts and executives are careful to consult when writing her legal codes, case law, rules and regulations. Purely secular justifications, standards and measures can be provided for the architecture of the entire edifice, but we Christians understand and highly value its true origin, and we are pleased to rely on this understanding and value when voting. You’d do well to learn how to live with this fact.

By: Edward Sisson

Edward Sisson — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:24:17 +0000

Romney’s comment that “Freedom requires religion” is squarely within the oldest American traditions, reflecting the sentiments of George Washington in his Farewell Address, of John Adams, of Thomas Jefferson, of Abraham Lincoln, of Noah Webster, and of many courts.

A website on separation of church and state, in its “list of flawed quotes,” see http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/flawq.htm
has an excellent list of accurate quotes, taking issue not with what the speakers said, but rather, with arguments advanced by some advocates today that the speakers’ words are useful in understanding the Constitutional power of the federal government to support religion.

But the general sentiment that freedom requires religion, even if not applicable to understanding the powers of the federal government, has a broader meaning about the health of the society of which the government is but a part. One can certainly and reasonably argue whether freedom does or does not require religion, but it is not reasonable to argue that Romney’s statement is new, unusual, or against the grain of American tradition.

Moreover, given that the historical speakers (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln) include some of our greatest Presidents, it would appear that a belief that freedom requires religion ought to be taken as a signifier of a potentially good President, rather than a warning-flag of a potentially bad President.

By: Should Romney Be Judged By His Religion? » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:01:56 +0000

[...] all religions are “equally bizarre and irrational”—argues that Mitt Romney should be judged based on his religion: If freedom requires religion, if his Mormon faith sustains his life and he will be true to those [...]

By: brutus1791

brutus1791 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:25:32 +0000

Alex,

You are not an athiest. You are an anti-theist. Homebrook does a good job pointing out the religiosity of anti-theists such as yourself.

Religions are not perfect, they are built upon revelation (whether one believes in that or not is wholly up to themselves, in Locke’s America) by men with the help of thier reason… and thus will be faulty. Because men are faulty. You are no better than the bigots who said JFK would be taking direct orders from the Pope if he became president.

Athens vs. Jeruselem. Reason v. Revelation… the good thing about the west is that we have these tensions and can discuss them and their influence

By: Franny

Franny — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:02:38 +0000

Did anybody ask Obama about his religion and church for 20 years? No they didn’t. The press decided it wasn’t important. Now we are all paying the price. So leave religion out of it.

By: homebrook

homebrook — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:20:32 +0000

I agree that one should consider a person’s religious beliefs in determining what might underly policy decisions while in office. But Alex, your own atheism is a religion, the most irrational of all religions, and the one that requires the most faith – faith in ‘chance’, which is nothing at all. How do you come up with any standard from which to judge other people? Where do you get that standard? Also, given your materialist world view, where do you get the non material ‘laws’ of logic? Where do you get meaning at all? How do I discern a difference between the meaninglessness of a lightening strike and the electrical signals in your brain. Think about it. You fail by your own standard.

By: bradpeterson

bradpeterson — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:36:18 +0000

Alex,

Judge a man by his policies and actions. Not by his faith.

I don’t judge atheists on what could easily be seen as a lack of morals. Obviously, it would be incredibly immature to think such a thing. I judge any person (atheist, agnostic or religious) on policies, and then decide if I think they’re best for the nation.

And it is equally immature for you to say “Mormons have a different view of the afterlife. I find it strange. This is important in judging him as a politician.” What in the world does that have to do with policy? Absolutely nothing.

And why is it damning for Romney to say that free societies must have religion, and religion must insist on free societies? What is wrong about that? And then to juxtapose that with Romney saying he’ll be true to his beliefs? That’s a problem to you? Sheesh.

(And yes, you absolutely fit my definition of bigot. You, of course, will deny it. But then, how many people admit to being a bigot? Perhaps others might just be on to something when they label you this way.)