Mitt Romney Doesn't Understand What America is All About

krepitch · December 11th, 2007, 06:18 AM

After his speech last week, Mitt Romney is now at the very bottom of my list of candidates I would support. The beginning of this editorial explains why.

Quote:

America’s atheists

Believe it or not

Dec 11th 2007 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com

No one represents the block of frustrated Americans who do not believe in God

MITT ROMNEY hopes to become America’s first Mormon president. But, if he pulled off an unlikely victory, he would not be the first Mormon to take high office: his father was a governor and two current senators are Mormons. Nor would he be the first to break a religious barrier. John Kennedy was the first Catholic president; Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was Al Gore’s presidential running mate in 2000. And a Muslim congressman took his oath of office on a Koran in January, another first.

Mr Romney recently gave a speech extolling religious liberty, decrying religious “tests” for office, and invoking the faith of some of America’s founding fathers. All this, naturally, was designed to help his quest for the presidency. The speech thrilled many religious conservatives, and plenty of pundits thought it served him well politically too. But members of one minority with virtually no political success in America were left sputtering with frustration. America’s atheists and agnostics felt excluded when Mr Romney said that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

According to figures compiled by the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), almost 30m people claimed “no religion” in 2001, a doubling from 1991. This dwarfs America’s 2.8m who describe themselves as Jews according to the same survey (although other estimates suggest that the Jewish population is much larger, at about 6m). Catholicism, the country’s largest Christian denomination, boasts 51m followers. In other words, irreligion claims a surprisingly large number of adherents. Mr Romney’s attack on disbelievers prompted Christopher Hitchens, a well-known polemicist and the author of “God Is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything”, to describe him as “Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity)”. Others cited Thomas Jefferson’s ruder comments about religion. Even some conservative columnists chided Mr Romney for not saying, as George Bush has, that people of no faith at all are Americans too.

And yet those with no religious beliefs are shut out from political power. Earlier this year, a secularist group offered $1,000 to the highest-ranking politician in the land who would publicly proclaim no belief in God. This turned out to be Peter Stark, a Democratic congressman from the San Francisco area. He is the only congressman, of 535, who professes no belief in the Almighty.

Mr Stark suspects that many of his colleagues secretly agree with him. But they dare not do so publicly, even Democrats. And every one of the Democratic presidential contenders has talked about God; they even submitted to an awkward debate on religion, in which they were asked about their biggest sin and their favourite bible verses. The Republicans were not put through a similar inquisition; their religious bona fides are apparently not in any doubt.

What accounts for the failure of atheists to organise and wield influence? One problem is that they are hardly a cohesive group. Another issue is simply branding. “Atheist” has an ugly ring in American ears and it merely defines what people are not. “Godless” is worse, its derogatory attachment to “communist” may never be broken. “Humanist” sounds too hippyish. A few have taken to calling themselves “Brights” for no good reason and to widespread mirth. And “secular” isn’t quite the word either; one can be a Christian secularist.

But another failing of the irreligious movement has been its tendency, frequently, to pick the wrong fights. Keeping the Ten Commandments out of an Alabama courthouse is one thing. But attacking a Christmas nativity scene on public property does more harm than good. Such secular crusades allow Christians—after all, the overwhelming majority of the country—to feel under attack, and even to declare that they are on the defensive in a “War on Christmas”. When a liberal federal court in California struck the words “under God” from the pledge of allegiance, religious conservatives rallied. Atheists might be tactically wise to accept the overwhelming majority’s comfort with such “ceremonial deism”.

If atheists, agnostics and secularists could polish their image they might prove powerful, and increasingly so. If the number of people declaring “no religion” can double over the ten years to 2001 who know how many more there are now or might be in years to come. Polls have shown that eight years of Mr Bush’s mix of piety, divisiveness and incompetence have pushed young people towards the secular in higher numbers than before.

If these growing ranks concentrate on areas where American religiosity can do harm—over-aggressive proselytising in the armed forces, undermining science or AIDS programmes, alienating minorities at home and Muslims abroad—they could wield the sort of influence that any other minority representing 10% of the country might do. An unbelieving president still seems an unlikely prospect. On the other hand, only 53% of Americans still say they would not vote for an otherwise well-qualified atheist.

Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

At least President Bush has enough decency to at least recognize the rights of nonbelievers. I hope Mitt Romney gets trounced, as all evasise hypocrites should.

Mulli · December 11th, 2007, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Earlier this year, a secularist group offered $1,000 to the highest-ranking politician in the land who would publicly proclaim no belief in God.

Ooh, $1000. Wow, now that is some clout.

DWKB · December 11th, 2007, 06:21 AM

One of the few times GW was more inclusive than his father:

Quote:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

George Herbert Walker Bush

Also Hitchens on Romney

Linderbee · December 11th, 2007, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWKB

One of the few times GW was more inclusive than his father:

George Herbert Walker Bush

Also Hitchens on Romney

Wow. So glad I can say I didn't vote for any of 'em.

Rivercard · December 11th, 2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulli

Ooh, $1000. Wow, now that is some clout.

$1,000........

Linderbee · December 11th, 2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivercard

$1,000........

Mulli · December 11th, 2007, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivercard

$1,000........

exactly what I was thinking!

Chris_Sanders · December 12th, 2007, 01:07 PM

I spent years in the Mormon Church. I will never...ever vote for a Mormon. Anyone who does is asking for a Theocracy run by that church. That church meddles in everything you do when you are a member. Imagine it setting social policy.

If Romney wins the Republican nomination you can expect a landslide Democrat win. I can't fathom a Protestant voting for a Mormon. Not happening.

Heucrazy · December 12th, 2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sanders

I spent years in the Mormon Church. I will never...ever vote for a Mormon. Anyone who does is asking for a Theocracy run by that church. That church meddles in everything you do when you are a member. Imagine it setting social policy.

If Romney wins the Republican nomination you can expect a landslide Democrat win. I can't fathom a Protestant voting for a Mormon. Not happening.

How can you say that about a church that is so close to God that they can get visions from God saying that it is now ok for Mormons to drink soda right around the same time they bought a bunch of Coca-Cola stock?

KloD · December 12th, 2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heucrazy

How can you say that about a church that is so close to God that they can get visions from God saying that it is now ok for Mormons to drink soda right around the same time they bought a bunch of Coca-Cola stock?

It's Urban legend. Snopes

Heucrazy · December 12th, 2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KloD

It's Urban legend. Snopes

I would have gotten away with it it wasn't for you hippies and your annoying web site.

KloD · December 12th, 2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heucrazy

I would have gotten away with it it wasn't for you hippies and your annoying web site.

Actually I thought the same for years until I found that site a few years ago and looked up a bunch of crap that I had been told as a kid.

Oh, and it's "meddling hippies". snopes