As a lifelong atheist who's somehow managed to get through her life without murdering, raping and torturing, I of course was miffed by Mitt Romney's speech about his faith. Instead of using the opportunity to denounce bigotry and invoke the nobility of a Constitution that treats all Americans equally, he encouraged the faulty reasoning that bigotry thrives on, and directed it at an easy target.
Religion describes what a person believes, not what they are. This isn't a surprising thing to hear an atheist assert, but you would think that a member of a religion that puts such a strong emphasis on evangelism would be likely to agree.
This occurred to me after the visit I received from two LDS missionaries yesterday. It was a polite interaction, only mildly awkward given the subject matter, and not very memorable. But it brought Romney to mind, and his attempt to use my unpopular view of the Universe to wedge himself into the White House. If he won't acknowledge any kind of value in including nonbelievers in American life, he can't have had a great time on the mission he spent in France in the 60's. Why would he waste his time trying to convert people who have already proven their worthlessness?
When you believe in the inherent dignity of every human being, secularism is a pretty simple concept. It bestows rights on every individual and leaves them to decide how best to exercise them. Ideally there are no exceptions, there is no test. If you believe your rights are not bestowed by the State but by God himself, it gets more complicated. A person's rights are defined by God, enforced by people who can only have so much knowledge about a person's religiosity, and can't really be considered "rights" to begin with when they're dependent on how you exercise them.
Romney said that "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," but this doesn't make a bit of sense when you use any kind of normal definition of freedom. Disallowing people to not choose a faith doesn't sound very free to me. And what's more, it doesn't respect the concept of freely choosing a religion, something that Christian evangelism relies on.
Either Romney's years of service as a missionary were an empty exercise that confirmed his belief that nonbelievers are the "them" to his "us," or he's willing to invalidate a major tenet of his faith for a chance to be come President. Whichever it is, his support of bigotry has strengthened the underpinnings of anti-Mormon bigotry, and I'd be disappointed to see someone who was operating under either notion in the White House.
Sarah,
As we all know, Mitt's true faith is in his own ambition and desperate need to advance. I am pretty certain he would speak in tongues, bark like a dog, or bathe in the Ganges if it would get him elected.
But you're right, it's deeply offensive to those of us who are skeptics or non-believers to suggest that we couldn't possibly be moral actors. And the notion that religion correspondends to feedom is laughable and speaks to the historic illiteracy of both Mitt and the media that reported so fawningly on his speech.
Posted by: Sir Charles | December 09, 2007 at 09:50 PM
Mitt apparently denounced the "religion of secularism" in his speech. This is something I absolutely cannot get my head around. I mean, if they think secularism is a religion, then what do they think is wrong with it?
Posted by: brooksfoe | December 09, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Speaking as someone who's gone to Mass for all of his 22 and change years, religion is a racket. It's pretty much the root of all oligarchy, and a way for people to be separated from their money. For that matter, even though I do believe in some kind of higher power (in as much of a Muslim/Buddhist/Transhumanist/etc. sense as anything else), religion is nothing more than a way to control people with dogma and scripture, and those two ain't nothin' but some guy's opinion.
On another note, I really hope those church shootings don't lead to something big. The news mentioned that at least one of the churches had participated in a "controversial" missionary program aimed at converting Muslims. I sincerely hope that was a case of irresponsible baseless fearmongering.
Posted by: Glenn Fayard | December 09, 2007 at 11:52 PM
The news mentioned that at least one of the churches had participated in a "controversial" missionary program aimed at converting Muslims. I sincerely hope that was a case of irresponsible baseless fearmongering.
"Controversial" missionary programs among Muslims are the ones where Christians act as if they are Muslims: they observe all practices, go to mosque, pray, everything. Some Christian missionaries have become Mullahs in order to have even more influence. After they've completely assimilated and gained trust, they start to talk about Jesus, portraying him as the fulfillment of Islam. It's incredibly dangerous, for the missionary and for anyone who converts as a result of their influence.
And it's wrong. Christianity's ethical demands don't get thrown out the window just because one is "spreading the gospel." At least they shouldn't be.
Posted by: Stephen | December 10, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Wow -- way to bring Christianity into (even more) disrepute! What do these missionaries expect to accomplish, except to portray Christianity as a religion of lying poseurs?
Posted by: Tom | December 10, 2007 at 03:06 AM
Disallowing people to not choose a faith doesn't sound very free to me. And what's more, it doesn't respect the concept of freely choosing a religion, something that Christian evangelism relies on.
This exactly. Excellent post, Sara. And I agree with Sir C that Multiple Choice Mitt--or Willard, as Shakes has taken to calling him--would probably do anything, ANYTHING, for the fifty bucks, so to speak. When it comes to the question of How Far Would Mitt Go to Pander, I wouldn't even rule out the possibility of him walking barefoot across hot coals while forty leeches were attached to his manly bits.
Posted by: litbrit | December 10, 2007 at 09:48 AM
I am guessing that those would have to be very small leeches.
Posted by: Sir Charles | December 10, 2007 at 11:02 AM
To say there is no morality without god is to deny our humanity.Is this tied in with the rapture?When Milt speaks his belief in the bible,is he referring to the joseph smith version?
Posted by: paper tiger | December 10, 2007 at 04:00 PM
The question that I have for you 'atheists' is:
1)Do you send Christmas Cards?
2)Do you exchange gifts on or about the 25th of December?
3)Do you tell your parents how much of an atheist you are and that you believe that Christ is a crock?
Posted by: El Viajero | December 11, 2007 at 12:09 PM
No cards -- I try to keep up with my friends throughout the year.
No prezzies -- though it's taken *years* to get it through some people's heads. I'd rather buy a prezzie when I'm visiting, or I see something in a store that reminds me of a friend or relative, than cram it all into December.
And yes, my parents know I'm an agnostic -- but why would I say I think their beliefs are "a crock?" They brought me up better behaved than than.
Posted by: sherrold | December 11, 2007 at 01:58 PM
...my parents know I'm an agnostic
Agnostic is not atheism.
Next, please
Posted by: El Viajero | December 11, 2007 at 02:40 PM
I don't send Christmas cards, I do exchange gifts at Christmas (my family does on the 24th, though), and neither of my parents are religious.
My question for you: do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Posted by: Sara | December 11, 2007 at 10:16 PM
1)Do you send Christmas Cards?
I should. It's the polite thing to do, if people don't think you're Christian.
2)Do you exchange gifts on or about the 25th of December?
Sure. So does everyone else in America who isn't specifically any other religion, and some of those that are.
3)Do you tell your parents how much of an atheist you are and that you believe that Christ is a crock?
What--are you demanding I be a dick to my parents? I don't believe in their religion. On the other hand, reason has never been proven to have any particular ethical value. Their religion isn't hurting anyone. Why do I have an obligation to change it?
-- ACS
Posted by: ACS | December 11, 2007 at 11:17 PM
What--are you demanding I be a dick to my parents?
You are embarrassed to let your parents know of your belief...or lach thereof.
Their religion isn't hurting anyone.
I agree. Chritianity is not a problem.
Why do I have an obligation to change it?
Not suggesting that you try to change anyone. Suggesting that your position is so reviled that you are embarrassed to tell your parents that you think Christ is a crock.....and it's true.
Posted by: El Viajero | December 12, 2007 at 11:49 AM
You are embarrassed to let your parents know of your belief...or lach thereof.
My parents know I'm an atheist, if that's what you mean. My nonbelief in God, however, is not the central fact of my life. Which means I'm obligated, as a decent human being, not to rub my philosophical disagreement with them in their face at every last opportunity.
-- ACS
Posted by: ACS | December 12, 2007 at 01:11 PM
Why not? You do on this board...
Posted by: El Viajero | December 12, 2007 at 05:20 PM
You asked a question, jackass. I answered it.
-- ACS
Posted by: ACS | December 12, 2007 at 07:38 PM