Mitt vs. atheists, martyrs

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

-- Mitt Romney, Dec. 6, 2007

I'll probably want to discuss Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech at greater length later, but the quote above was the sound bite so let's deal with that first.

That's a nice bit of parallelism. It pleases the ear even as it disturbs the brain. In a formal sense, the statement is valid. The first part is not true "just as" the second part is not true.

Romney repeatedly says in his speech that his topic is religious liberty and his own faith. Given that, it's not surprising that he would argue that "freedom" and "religion" are compatible or complementary. But he goes beyond that, arguing that each requires the other -- that religion is necessary for freedom and that freedom is necessary for religion.

Let's deal with the latter assertion first: "religion requires freedom." There are far too many counter-examples for this to be true. Think of China, where the government denies religious freedom to millions of Christians and Falun Gong adherents and Tibetan Buddhists. Yet despite this lack of freedom, despite this active oppression -- and, in a way, in response to this oppression -- these faiths are all thriving. This is what the early Christian theologian Tertullian was getting at when he said, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Religion can survive, and thrive, in the absence of freedom.

This part of Romney's statement only makes sense if you read it as meaning "religion deserves freedom," but this is a weird and unhelpful way of stating this truth. Consider, as another example, the statement "speech deserves freedom." Stating it that way makes it seem as though the freedom and the right in question belong to speech itself, in the abstract, rather than to the speakers. Likewise, Romney makes it seem as though religious liberty -- freedom of conscience -- is something that belongs to religion itself in the abstract, rather than to every person. (There's a reason why Jefferson did not write the Declaration of Independence this way. He did not write: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.") Every individual deserves religious liberty and justice requires that they be accorded that right, but religion does not require freedom.

But as potentially troubling and unfactual as the latter part of Romney's assertion is, the first part of it is worse.

"Freedom requires religion," Romney said. Had he said, "Freedom requires religious freedom," then I would agree, absolutely. Try to imagine if you can a society in which people were denied this most intimate of freedoms, the freedom of conscience, yet remained in all other respects free. Such a thing is impossible. This is part of the genius of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Take away any one of those freedoms and you take away the others as well. Each of those freedoms requires the others.

But Romney did not say that freedom requires religious freedom. He said, "Freedom requires religion." And that's a contradictory statement -- a very different, and very frightening, thing.

If freedom requires religion, then the a-religious and irreligious, the non-religious and un-religious are the enemies of freedom. Romney believes, in other words, that atheism is incompatible with freedom. Whatever it is he means by "religious liberty," he does not believe it can safely be applied to atheists.

Keep in mind that this is Mitt "double Guantanamo" Romney talking -- he's made it clear what he wants to do to those he regards as the enemies of freedom.

Much of the rest of Romney's speech recalls President Eisenhower's famous gaffe, "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is." That is, essentially, Romney's strategy for coping with voters' suspicions about his Mormonism -- a vague appeal to the grand, but contentless, importance of "deeply felt religious faith." Yet this emphasis on sincerity over substance makes no sense when applied to his claim that "Freedom requires religion."

Whatever else that claim means, it seems to imply that freedom requires the right kind of religion. Having already established, in the case of atheists, that individuals are neither competent nor entitled to decide for themselves what they should or should not believe, it thus falls to the government to make this decision.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" implies that the government must protect religion's right to freedom by determining which believers have the right kind of religion (the kind that freedom requires) and which believers have the wrong kind of religion (the kind that threatens freedom by exercising it).

I'm a Baptist, which means that for me religious liberty is not only a human right and a constitutional right, it is also a religious belief. We Baptists believe in "soul freedom," meaning nobody else can decide for you what it is that you believe (that's why we don't baptize until you're old enough to choose baptism for yourself). So I'm pretty sure, from Romney's point of view, that I'm the wrong kind of believer with the wrong kind of religion. How about you?

Comments

[Lee Ratner]

I just want to make a minor correction Fred. I work as an Immigrant lawyer. Most, nearly all, of the cases I do are asylum claims from China. Some of the cases are people persecuted for their involvement in Falun Gong. Falun Gong explicitly does not view itself as a religion.

[Rosina]

they had a display of Christmas trees, and a local rabbi requested that they also put up a menorah, which he would provide. They didn't want to. He threatened a lawsuit. Instead of putting up the menorah, they took down the trees.

What worries me about this story is that the rabbi equated "One of the oldest symbols of the Jewish faith, the menorah, a seven-branched candelabrum used in the Temple." with a Christmas tree - not with a Nativity scene, or a crucifix - but with a pagan symbol of midwinter that has no religious significance in itself at all. Christmas trees do not 'represent the nation of Christ' as the menorah is said to 'represent the nation of Israel' (and I am not sure if that is the current nation, or the historic one). So the rabbi was either devaluing a very important religious symbol, or showing a fair lack of understanding of the Christian religion. Christmas trees are not revered symbols, placed on altars at Christmas. It struck me at the time as a very misplaced demand for inclusion, which tried to insist on a religious symbol being included in a secular, festive display.

On the question of inclusion, I would prefer to see the religions celebrating their own festivals (and inviting non-co-religionists to join in) rather than all trying to squeeze into Christmas. Six happy occasions must be better than one blandified one.

[Jeff]

he's simply pandering to the religious right

I don't get this. The Religious Right doesn't seem like it's all that big a percentage of the populations. It would be as if Dems went ONLY after unions, to the exclusion of blacks, latin@s* and the poor. I really hope this comes back to bite them, when everyone who ISN'T a fundie votes dor the Dems.

The military uses an atom drawing for atheist soldiers' headstones, which I find strange since atheists don't worship atoms.

Don't you know that ALL scientists are atheist! [/sarcasm]

Mormons and fundies can be political bedfellows

You can probably leave out the "political"...

[Jake]

Oh, poor Scott. *hugs*

[Jake]

@Rosina: I expect the rabbi wasn't asking them to put up the seven-branched menorah you describe, but rather the channukiah, a nine-branched menorah used during the celebration of Channukah. And you can historically contextualise all you want, but the fact is that in modern-day North America, the decorated midwinter evergreen is a symbol of Christmas and by extension Christianity to a majority of people, just as the nine-branched menorah is a symbol of Channukah and by extension Judaism. They are equivalent symbols in this case.

[Cyllan]

It struck me at the time as a very misplaced demand for inclusion, which tried to insist on a religious symbol being included in a secular, festive display.

Interesting. Most of the non-Christians that I know consider the Christmas Tree to be a symbol of Christmas. No, it's not a sign of Christ, but it is a symbol of the celebration of Christ's birth which makes it a symbol of a religious holiday. It is not a secular symbol to them or to me.

[cjmr's husband]

@Jeff,

The religious right isn't a particularly large portion of the population of the U.S.

But it is a large population of the likely voters in the Iowa caucuses.

Yet another reason to let some other state go first.

[Jeff]

Fred's a Baptist and tells people what to do financially all the time.

I have NEVER felt that Fred tells me what to do. He posts on a subject and asks "Does that seem right to you?" The fact that we have sooooo many viewpoints on any subject indicates that we don't feel pressured into toeing a "party line".

==========================

So the rabbi was either devaluing a very important religious symbol, or showing a fair lack of understanding of the Christian religion

Yes and no. A Christmas tree is not EXPLICITLY Christian, just as the modern Santa Claus, patron saint of consumerism, isn't. However, both are associated with Christians (you don't see Christmas trees at any other time than Christmas, and if an official lit a tree as a symbol of Yule, he wouldn't have a job the next day).

================================

latin@s*

I left off my footnote. I've seen this used whenever there a mixed-gender group of Hispanics (I'm not real clear on the difference between Hispanic and latin@). It seems very elegant to me because it incorporates both the "o" and the "a".

[GailVortex]

Rosina--

On the question of inclusion, I would prefer to see the religions celebrating their own festivals (and inviting non-co-religionists to join in) rather than all trying to squeeze into Christmas. Six happy occasions must be better than one blandified one.

Ok, but now that (at least in the malls of the US) Christmas extends from before Halloween through New Year's, how do other festivals during that time period (i.e., Hannukah) get any face time? It doesn't seem like you're proposing that Christmas not be in the public square, so presumably other festivals have a right to the public square as well?

[mmack]

Fred's a Baptist and tells people what to do financially all the time

Fred, mrs. mmack and I have $10K to put in investments. Should we put it in energy stocks, emerging markets funds, or convert it to Euros?

TIA,
mmack

The "public domain" comment reads especially weird to those of use concerned with copyright issues, where that phrase has a very specific meaning. I mean, as far as I know, the only people who have shown any desire to keep any religion out of the public domain are the Scientologists, who have taken legal action against people disseminating Scientologist scriptures without permission.

[inge]

Izzy, one more type: "Religion sucks, god sucks, the world sucks. The other guy must be right." Plus some added suckery of parents, teachers and priests, occasionally justified if you knew their backgrounds.

Seeing them clash with your type b) was fun.

[inge]

Rosina, So the rabbi was either devaluing a very important religious symbol, or showing a fair lack of understanding of the Christian religion.

My first thought, too, (I would have phrased it snarkily as him attacking paganism like any good monotheist) but ownership of symbols is a complicated process decided in the mind of the audience.

[Izzy]

Inge: Ahh, yes. The Hollow Ones, in "Mage: the Ascension" terminology. And as good an argument for extending corporal punishment into high schools as I've ever seen--if for personal satisfaction if nothing else.

I tend to class them in with the Mall Goths, and hate both rather equally: the entire world does not suck because your parents got divorced, dumbass. (Likewise, while I'm fine with scientific atheism, the "ZOMG kids picked on me in high school THERE IS NO GOD" sort, who I encountered in college, just need to be punched in the teeth a few times.)

[Geds]

the "ZOMG kids picked on me in high school THERE IS NO GOD" sort, who I encountered in college, just need to be punched in the teeth a few times.

Wouldn't that exacerbate the problem?

[Jake]

Wouldn't that exacerbate the problem?
Not if they can't talk.

[Izzy]

Geds: Could do, yeah--though there's always "Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about," which is a fine phrase that sees too little use in modern times, IMO.

Really, though, the thing of it is that, once people annoy me enough, I really cease to be interested in bringing them hope and light and happiness. Emokids pretty much all qualify. (And I don't actually punch people in the teeth, or advocate doing so; my target practice is strictly verbal, in reality.)

[Geds]

Not if they can't talk.

Jake 1, Geds 0

[jamoche]

I'm the wrong kind of believer; I'm Catholic, which to some people means I blindly follow whatever comes from Rome (no) or I look to the writings of various church scholars rather than just reading the Bible and coming to my own decisions - which have to match those of the "Bible-believing Christians" or else I'm doing it wrong.

The second is closer to the truth; it's a complicated subject, and not my area of expertise. Any other subject, nobody would object at all to anyone supplementing their own impressions with expert opinions; why should this be different?

And I admit, for a great deal of our history there was no freedom, just religion, but look where that got us - the Reformation, without which there'd be no Counter-Reformation which is where we started to clean up our act.

[inge]

Geds: Wouldn't that exacerbate the problem?

Would not make much of a difference, actually. As I said, some of those "God sucks, I root for the other side" had a legitimate bone to pick with authority, from teachers that believed in corporeal punishment, to parents who believed that religion's prime use was to scare children into obedience, to priests that snitched to parents and teachers.

[Raka]

Tonio: I imagine a religious schism between the Protonians and the Electronites.

indifferent children: I don't mind the Electronite dogma, but do they have to be so damn negative about everything?

I always chuckle at the Protonians and the Electronites, with their dogmatic interpretations of the Periodic Table and impassioned jeremiads against attributes of the atomic model that any outsider would consider minutia. My sect accepts the benefits of many teachings. Does it really matter whether we base our beliefs primarily on the Bohr model or the Schrödinger equation? Our observable world is the same either way. Faith is the evidence of things unseen, after all. Well, faith and black-body radiation. And the double-slit experiment. Anyway.

If you ever tire of microscopically narrow perspectives and the inflexible doctrine of the quantum clergy, know that you will always be welcome among the uNeutronian uNiversalists. Where relativism meets relativity.

[Jeff]

If you ever tire of microscopically narrow perspectives and the inflexible doctrine of the quantum clergy, know that you will always be welcome among the uNeutronian uNiversalists. Where relativism meets relativity.

Beautiful!

[mcc]

What boggled my mind at first here is how many comparisons were made, both before and after Mitt's speech, to "the JFK speech". The comparison beforehand made sense, since the political purpose of both speeches was known to be "you should have tolerance for my religion". But now the speech was given, it is clear that the two speeches had essentially opposite content-- JFK saying "You should have tolerance for my religion, simply because it is a religion, and America as a nation should never give precedence to any religion.". Mitt Romney saying "You should have tolerance for my religion, simply because it's not one of the BAD religions, and America as a nation should always give precedence to the good religions". The audacity of Mitt's speech is on the face of it breathtaking: invocation of the founding fathers' commitment to religious freedom, as part of an appeal for the various Christian religions to band together to fight those other religions we don't like, like Islam and "Secularism".

Then I thought about it some more and I began to wonder if I'd missed the point. If you think about it, Mitt really has two religion problems. Number one is that Mitt belongs to a religious sect, Mormonism, against which there today exists a truly startling amount of bigotry. Number two is that if you look at Mitt's history, then by Republican standards, he doesn't really seem to be all that religious. That is, I'm quite convinced that he's deeply personally religious, but in somewhat more public terms-- rather, how he governed-- up until incredibly recently Romney seemed (from everything I've seen) to have quite clearly believed that his personal religion should not dictate how he as an elected official governs, repeatedly stressing his tolerance of things like homosexuality and abortion. In other words, he was a secularist. It's of course possible to be simultaneously religious and secularist-- heck, Fred is, and gives us at the top of this thread a great example of what that looks like. And it seems like roughly until he decided he wanted to run for president, Mitt Romney was simultaneously religious and secularist too. Running as a Republican, that's a dangerous history to have.

And so yesterday Mitt gives a speech where he attempts to set up a dichotomy between religiousness and secularism, where he insists that being religious-- indeed, the very notion of religious freedom itself-- is predicated on rejecting secularism. And although I don't know what the reaction to this speech was on the religious right, the response from the ACLU left (including me) has been pretty uniform: This is a crass attack on atheists, an attempt to distort the idea of religious freedom, etc. Not present anywhere I've seen is the criticism that Mitt might not actually believe any of this "religion is freedom" stuff. Mitt gets attacked as a bigot, but not a phony. I'm almost beginning to wonder if that's the way he wants it. I honestly don't know whether this speech will help with Mitt's "Mormon Problem", but with his other problem, it seems like it has a good shot.

[Jack Bishop (the other Jake)]

One of the oldest symbols of the Jewish faith, the menorah, a seven-branched candelabrum used in the Temple.

This is actually even murkier than the rabbi lets on, since the hannukiah, the nine-branched holiday candelabrum, is a different religious device than the menorah, which is the seven-branched candelabrum in the temple. There's a connection between the two (since the ostensible miracle celebrated by the lighting of the hannukiah is the unexpectedly long life of a temple menorah), but they are different symbols. The hannukiah is the obvious analogue to the Christmas tree (inasmuch as both are seasonal-festival symbols) and it is not a sacred symbol of Judaism, but rather a symbol of a fairly minor winter festival, whose significance in the public eye is monumentally exaggerated due to the secular importance attached to the winter-festival season. In other words, almost exactly like the Christmas tree (except that Christmas is at least a major holiday, even if the secular aspects are something of a different beast altogether).

I'm not real clear on the difference between Hispanic and latin@

One describes a language group, the other a geographical (and rather murkily, an ethnic) background. To the extent we need the classification, latina@ seems better than Hispanic to me. Argentinians are both latin and Hispanic; Brazilians are latin but not Hispanic, Spaniards and Equatorial Guineans are Hispanic but not latin. If we want a cultural and ethnic subdivision to make any sense, it seems like the Argentinians have a lot more in common with the Brazilians than they do with Europeans or Africans.

[ladoña]

During his speech Romney attacked secularism to avoid talking about the role his religion would play if elected president. Sign this petition to tell Mitt Romney to stop creating smoke screens and start addressing the issues people care about.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/romneyfaithspeech

[ladoña]

During his speech Romney attacked secularism to avoid talking about the role his religion would play if elected president. Sign this petition to tell Mitt Romney to stop creating smoke screens and start addressing the issues people care about.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/romneyfaithspeech

[Geds]

Dangit. I hate it when the comment spam is topical and doesn't involve Chinese translations of various erection pills...

[cjmr]

I find it really annoying that comment spam gets through on the same day that I'm having to type characters for every single comment I want to make.

[forestwalker]

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

Romney's an idiot. Nietzsche said essentially the same thing, though, and he was right on.

[Robin Lionheart]

The former president who introduced Governor Romney once said “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” Profoundly un-American, and very obnoxious.

Mitt's speech was too.

“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 the Pledge...”

No, we are not, we do not. I am an American too. That’s why we should not acknowledge your God on our money and in the Pledge our children are directed to recite daily.

[Raka]

Geds: Dangit. I hate it when the comment spam is topical and doesn't involve Chinese translations of various erection pills...

Erection pills are always topical.

[Rosina]

Sorry - I started this, but then went off to have dinner.

Jeff: Yes and no. A Christmas tree is not EXPLICITLY Christian, just as the modern Santa Claus, patron saint of consumerism, isn't. However, both are associated with Christians (you don't see Christmas trees at any other time than Christmas, and if an official lit a tree as a symbol of Yule, he wouldn't have a job the next day).

I would say that Christmas trees are associated with Christmas rather than Christians - they become pretty globally ubiquitous around Christmas, even in places that are not Christian - Chinese restaurants, international airports in non-Christian countries. And if Christmas trees had been around during Cromwell's commonwealth, I bet they would have gone the way of the maypole.

I thought that the airport might (like me) have seen them as a non-religious symbol of Christmas as an secular Festive Season, distinguished from Creches and carols. And if so, I can see that taking them down is a reasonable response to someone telling them that they had to add a specifically religious symbol to it, or face court. They would have been caught between turning it into a religious display when that was what they were avoiding, or accepting that Christmas trees are as potent a symbol of Christianity as the Menorah is of Judaism, and then taking them down because they didn't want a religious display.

[Jeff]

Sorry - I started this, but then went off to have dinner.

For shame. Slacktivist is supposed to be your number 1, number 2 and numbe3 priority.

I think we'll have to agree that I'm right to disagree. [BEG]

[cjmr]

Geds: Dangit. I hate it when the comment spam is topical and doesn't involve Chinese translations of various erection pills...

Raka: Erection pills are always topical.

Guys, if you're using erection pills topically, you're doing it wrong...

[Raka]

cjmr: Guys, if you're using erection pills topically, you're doing it wrong...

YES! Thank you! I saw it as I set it up, but the call-and-response makes for FAR superior punnage.

[mcc]

If you take away people's right to gather for worship you've taken away their right to peaceable assembly. If you take away their right to proclaim their religious beliefs, you've taken away their freedom of speech. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there's no need to make freedom of religion explicit, since it follows directly from the other rights, but given the number of people who somehow manage not to realise that, best to make it explicit anyway.

So there are exactly two things I can think of which are included in "religious freedom" in the U.S. today that wouldn't be fully covered by the other rights.

1. Government isn't allowed to specifically endorse any religion, in case the other religions might feel bad. Any privilege government offers to a religion it has to simultaneously offer to all other religions plus none, and it isn't allowed to take actions which encourage or inhibit religious observance. This is different from how government treats non-religion. Government is allowed to endorse Chicago-school capitalist economics over Marxism, or vice versa. It can actively promote the theory of Darwinian evolution to schoolchildren. It can fly a flag on government property featuring the Minute Maid logo, or Enron, and it doesn't have to "balance" this with the Snapple logo or whatever. It can't do the same with a cross.

2. Religious observants are allowed "reasonable accommodation" for their religious beliefs, both in governmental policy and in private contexts. If your religious beliefs tell you you have to wear a purple necklace all the time, and you take a job somewhere with a policy that employees aren't allowed to wear jewelry, then you get to wear your purple necklace anyway and your employer isn't allowed to do anything about it. This is different from how law treats non-religious convictions. An adherent of the philosophy of Ayn Rand does not get concessions from their employer as a result.

Both of these are part of the notion of "religious freedom" we find applied in U.S. laws and courts (although as far as I know the extent to which #2 applies varies from state to state). Not everybody agrees with these two points, though. #1 is objected to by certain religious people, like Mitt Romney up there, because they claim that it bars their religion from being allowed to do things they think it should be allowed to do. #2 is objected to by some atheists I've met, because they feel it gives religious adherents special privileges which are not extended to others.

[madjoey]

mcc: An adherent of the philosophy of Ayn Rand does not get concessions from their employer as a result.

Not true. They get shuttled back and forth to work on the short bus.

*zing!* Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

[Jeff]

It can fly a flag on government property featuring the Minute Maid logo

Even when a new field is built (or an old one refurbished) with community funds (usually by extortion), it's still not considered "government property". It's usually owned or leased by the ballclub.

[Cautious Man]

Romney’s speech boils down to this -

1. There most certainly is a religious test for public office.

2. I pass that test. Other people don’t, but we won’t get into that now.

3. Don’t ask me any questions about my religious beliefs - trust me, I do pass the test.

[Cactus Wren]

Because what they really hate is that having to include religions other than their own. They hate it so much they would rather remove all traces of religion from the public sphere.

That's an interesting and brilliant observation, McJulie.

It also leads to a self-fulfilling sense of religious zeal. The Rabbi asked for inclusion, it was taken as an attack, they took the display down and blamed the Rabbi. So it's the Rabbi's fault there's no Christmas, even though they themselves made the decision to pull the tree down.

Voila! You have a ready-made controversy.

'Way back in 1996, students at one Salt Lake City high school tried to form a Gay/Straight Alliance club. The city school board reacted by voting 4/3 to ban all nonacademic clubs from the city's public schools -- including the Chess Club, the Ski Club, the Bible Club, and SADD.

One member of the Beef Club (a group that gathered to eat steaks and burgers) said of the decision, "Everyone suffers because of the gays." Yeah, how dare "thuhgays" demand the special right to form a club just like everyone else. They are persecuting us by refusing to accept their Divinely mandated second-class status.

(More information here. The hilarious part is that the "Equal Access Act", the all-or-none law that mandated either allowing all clubs or banning all, was passed specifically to allow religious clubs to meet on school grounds.)

[Robin Lionheart]

Cactus reminds me of another example of similar hypocrisy I read about.

To summarize, in Virginia's Albemarle School District, groups that evangelized to schoolchildren wanted to send home advertising flyers with the kids. The school thought this violated separation of church and state, but courts ruled that if the school sends home flyers about secular community groups, they have to do so for religious community groups too.

But oh, the outrage when first Wiccans and then atheists tried to make use of this new policy the evangelicals had won for themselves! Won't someone think of the children!

[Vermic]

...the largely secular societies in Western Europe have not seen any greater moral breakdown than the largely religious US.

This. This is what always comes to mind whenever I hear Pat Robertson or some other fundie loon "explain" a hurricane or earthquake as God's punishment on America for teaching evolution or gay rights or whatever. I always wonder why, if God is so free with the natural disasters for such relatively minor national offenses, more thoroughly secular places like Western Europe aren't enormous smoking craters by now. I suppose it's because America is God's Own Nation (as everyone knows), so His standards are higher here.

[janet]

When I hear right-wingers use the word "freedom," I always want to say "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Jesurgislac]

Cactus Wren: One member of the Beef Club (a group that gathered to eat steaks and burgers) said of the decision, "Everyone suffers because of the gays." Yeah, how dare "thuhgays" demand the special right to form a club just like everyone else. They are persecuting us by refusing to accept their Divinely mandated second-class status.

See The Innocent Backlash.

When the archdiocese of Boston, under pressure from the Vatican, decided to shut down Catholic Charities in 2006, they claimed this was because they'd been "forced" to do it - not by the actors in the decision, but because Catholic Charities would have been required by law to consider same-sex couples as adoptive parents, which they had been doing anyway for the previous ten years: and then they blamed teh gays, who were harming the children in need of adoptive parents by causing this backlash by seeking to adopt children and wanting to be treated as legally a couple. Etc.

When you are determined to persecute, it's much, much better if you can pretend that it's the fault of your victim that you are being forced to persecute them, and look how horrid the persecution is! How terrible for the persecutor.

[Ryan Ferneau]

The military uses an atom drawing for atheist soldiers' headstones, which I find strange since atheists don't worship atoms.

Of course not. It means they worship Jimmy Neutron, silly.

Also, MikeJ said the Scott quoted text, not Fred, just in case anybody else is keeping track.

Anyone who agrees with Fred is OBVIOUSLY his sockpuppet anyway.

[josephdietrich]

It is a speech like this that makes me glad that Mr. Romney will never win the presidency.

[Jake]

The military uses an atom drawing for atheist soldiers' headstones, which I find strange since atheists don't worship atoms.

So are you saying that Christians worship crosses?

I agree that the atom is silly, but not because atheists don't worship it, rather because a) the atom is not a *symbol* of atheism and b) for a lot of atheists, our atheism is not a defining characteristic of our lives, it's just the default position. When I die, I don't want an "atheist" symbol on my stone, because atheism to me isn't an important part of who I am in the same way that religion is for many people. I don't go to atheist meetings or follow atheist rules or teachings or participate in atheist charities or whatever. When it comes down to summing up my life in a single symbol, the fact that I didn't believe in God is the least of it. Why place so much importance on something that I *don't* believe in? The whole thing amounts to making sure that even on atheists' headstones, the concept of God is still central.

[Seth]

Going back slightly, I think you can make a compelling argument that secular Europe is far, far more moral than the US.

Which area has major candidates tripping over each other to not only condone torture, but to actively increase its use?

Which area is indifferent to a substantial portion of its population (45 million, or about 15%) going without health insurance, and an even larger portion going without meaningful health CARE? (The difference is that health insurance might be junk, something to consider when there's a push for mandatory health INSURANCE vs. government-backed health CARE.)

Which area has the highest (or at least one of the highest) incarcation rates in the world? One where many people serve long sentences for relatively minor offenses, while people higher up in the food chain get reductions since they can turn on their peers. One where the young men in one major ethnic group are more likely to be in prison than in college.

Which area is throwing its children to the wolves by insisting on an unrealistic "abstinence" program instead of a proactive "we hope you wait, but if you act here is what you need to do to protect yourself" policy? Which area is now experiencing an increase in teen pregnancy for the first time in over a decade?

Which area is telling people that they're irresponsible for filing bankruptcy and won't be let off the hook... despite the fact that the majority of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses (see above), and a majority of what remains are due to job loss and prolonged unemployment? Only 10% or so are truly irresponsible.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I have a really hard time keeping myself from bursting into laughter when people say the US is more moral than the rest of the world.

(BTW I deliberately did not include the death penalty, gun control or abortion since they're flashpoints and I think people of good will can come to differing conclusions. Yet we overlook countless other things that are much more black-and-white.)

[scyllacat]

Ok, where did the blue gloves come in, and am I the only person who immediately flashed "hands of blue" and wonder if he's preparing to do a cavity search?

[Drak Pope]

I agree that the atom is silly, but not because atheists don't worship it, rather because a) the atom is not a *symbol* of atheism

I've seen that symbol, and it looks suspiciously like the logo for American Atheists, a well-known atheist group.