…and this is a 
Romney's paean to piety
Category: Politics • Religion
Posted on: December 7, 2007 11:09 AM, by PZ Myers
Well, Mitt Romney just lost the secular vote.
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Oh, wait. He never had it.
That speech was an appalling piece of dreck. He claimed the mantle of John F. Kennedy, but no, he's no idealistic Democrat, and he sure mangled the Kennedy sentiment that we should elect our presidents as secular leaders, with no allegiance to any church, into an obscene insistence that our presidents must be fervent religious kooks.
It was also a speech that required the listener to be grossly ignorant to accept its premises. It was actually self-refuting.
I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
The nations of Europe are free; religion is perishing, yet somehow, democratic institutions thrive. His thesis that freedom requires religion is shown to be wrong right there in his own speech. Not that it will matter to the religious fanatics who will praise his speech — to them, America is the only free nation in the world, so they won't see the contradiction.
The American exceptionalism was everywhere in that talk, too.
The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
We are not in the forefront of civilized nations. As the Religious Right has risen ascendant, we have launched a pre-emptive, unjust war against Iraq; our government threatens another crusade against Iran; we have endorsed torture; we have compromised our own civil liberties; we have seen science belittled and diminished in favor of theocratic ideology; our educational system is being starved to death; the gulf between the rich and poor has steadily widened; and the selfishness of the wealthy has led to the erosion of our essential infrastructure. We have become a banana republic in mentality with the largest armory in the world.
Standing at the forefront of civilized nations is not a right, and you don't achieve that status by going to church. Whatever nation holds that position will do so by the hard work of promoting the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens, and by supporting their intellectual and economic potential. Tax cuts for the rich and pious mumblings are not part of the equation.
Greg Laden has a more thorough dissection of the revolting speech. He must have a stronger stomach than I do, because trying to read Romney's mindless blitherings made me want to retch. How has this country reached the state where such inanity is considered presidential material?
Politics
Comments
If one were to be completely cynical, one might say that it is in Romney's political interests to emphasize the importance of religion, not only to do general sucking up to the Religious Right, but also to cast the battle as "religious vs. secular", rather than "fundamentalists vs. wacky Mormons". The more Romney pushes religion, the more he hopes to seem like "one of them", and to minimize the issue of his Mormonism.
Posted by: Tulse | December 7, 2007 11:18 AM
Religious or not that question should be cause for concern for every American.
Posted by: Uber | December 7, 2007 11:20 AM
he failed to note those cathedrals were built on the burdened backs of peasants, and designed by engineers with no other outlet other than religious building. They certainly not inspired by holy piety. Europe was wracked over and over by religious/Monarchical conflict destroying tens of millions of live in the process. They abandon religion because it is empty, because it is a fools paradise by definition.
They remain empty precisely because of the religions.
Posted by: The Stone | December 7, 2007 11:21 AM
Even more nauseating than Mitt's shameless transparent pandering to the religious fundies was the spectacle of MSM pundits falling all over themselves praising the speech. It takes a strong stomach to watch the news these days.
One bright spot: the Washington Post does have an editorial today reminding Mitt not everyone in the U.S. believes in God: "Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity."
Posted by: Nan | December 7, 2007 11:24 AM
Well spotted and well said! I've always maintained that America is one of the most heavily propagandised nations on earth. It's people are continuously fed the line that they are 'for freedom', 'for civilisation' and 'for justice', when the behavior of the US around the world demonstrates the exact opposite. Keep repeating a lie often enough and the people will believe it.
That's why I come to blogs like this. You can fool some of the people all of the time, etc... I'm glad to hear that not all of the people are fooled.
We've got our own problems in the UK, but I'm pleased to report that the average citizen (ahem, I mean 'subject') maintains a healthy cynicism about their government and about religion.
Posted by: Tom | December 7, 2007 11:27 AM
I knew Romney was scum, but my opinion of him just hit an all-time low.
Here he is all but calling for the fusion of church and state in America, and then he says: "The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches."
Nutjob.
And we're NOT at the forefront of civilized nations. The Scandinavian countries, if no one else - Iceland and Norway especially - definitely have one up on us in pretty much every aspect of life.
Believing America to be unique and exceptional usually means one of two things - either we shut ourselves off from the world, or we step outside and search for monsters. It's not possible to go back to the days of isolationism, so if America is exceptional, that means our days of being the school-yard bully are just beginning.
Patriotic, political dogma pisses me off almost as much as religion does.
Posted by: Kevin L. | December 7, 2007 11:28 AM
The media may have liked it, but I can't imagine it will convince the fundies, who aren't likely to vote for a tri-theist.
Posted by: Tulse | December 7, 2007 11:29 AM
It's amazing he is spitting out this crap only days after saying he would not accept Muslims into his cabinet. He's just trying to tell people he isn't "too Mormon" to be president. Unfortunately, he just showed he is too stupid to be president.
Posted by: Thadd | December 7, 2007 11:29 AM
It is so comforting to know that theocracies are an impossibility.
Posted by: Janine | December 7, 2007 11:31 AM
I don't understand how people can get away with provably false statements.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom"
As has been noted by others, freedom does not require religion as evidenced by most of western Europe.
But "religion requires freedom" is even more blatantly false. How many religious countries have no freedom whatsoever? And I'm not just talking about Muslim countries.
On the other hand, I take issue with Kevin L.'s characterization of the Scandinavian countries as being ahead of the U.S. They are economically stagnant.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | December 7, 2007 11:33 AM
His speech proves his lack of leadership ability....as if there were any doubts to begin with.
The words of JFK, who testified to his belief in the "absolute separation of church and state," remind you of what is a true leader.
Any fucking moron can lead a herd into a raging river full of hungry crocodiles. If you doubt that, watch wildebeests on the discovery channel some evening.
Posted by: me | December 7, 2007 11:34 AM
I dont think you have to be at all cynical to see that Uber. Its a statement of fact. It was, as are almost all political speeches, carefully calculated devices.
It was on purpose, and I have no doubt you've nailed that aspect of his speech.
Posted by: The Stone | December 7, 2007 11:35 AM
I'd love to see whether voters who think that this is a great idea would be thrilled to see a display declaring what a fabulous prophet Joseph Smith was. Seeing the "public display of religion is wonderful" crowd tested by some cases that are closer to the edge of the bell curve should be fun. I really want to see a passionate Scientologist take the nomination and really test the theory that public life should be all about one's religion.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 7, 2007 11:36 AM
His attempt to criticize Europe for the way it handles religion shows his ignorance. I listen to a Deustch-Weller podcast called "Dialogue", and it talks about religious issues over in Europe. What's amazing is that as a whole, the Europeans have a much more mature and practical approach to religion than Americans do, and the crazed anti-science, bigoted fanaticism we deal with on a daily basis over here is very rare over there. It makes sense, given that we got the crazy Puritans, who left Europe because they couldn't be as fanatical as they wanted.
Religion is not essential to freedom. Maturity is essential to freedom, and the religious fanatics we see clearly were not blessed with it.
Posted by: MemeGene | December 7, 2007 11:36 AM
One of the most worthy uses of sans serif, PZ :) Not that I was going to vote for this git anyway, but this speech is like what JFK's religion speech would sound like in Bizarro World...Hopefully there's some semblance of sanity left in the Republican Party that will stop this guy from getting the nomination.
Posted by: Chris R. | December 7, 2007 11:37 AM
Wasn't there some expression about given a choice between a real republican and a fake republican, republican voters would choose the real republican every time (or some such)? So, given the choice between a real religious whack-job (Huckabee) and a fake religious whack-job (Romney) won't the religious nuts vote for the real whack-job? We don't really even have to get into the which cult is more stupid.
Posted by: Afterthought | December 7, 2007 11:37 AM
"Unfortunately, he just showed he is too stupid to be president."
Not possible. The lower limit on intelligemce for that job shows no signs of having been reached.
Posted by: CanadaGoose | December 7, 2007 11:39 AM
Oh, America is at the top in terms of economy, for sure, although we'll see what happens if the value of the dollar continues to drop. But by most other accounts - education, literacy, standard of living, life expectancy - Norway and such are ahead of us. Personally, I generally place higher value on other social indicators than on the economy - especially if it's only a question of "very good" against "excellent."
More to the point, Romney talks as though America is the one and only nation in the world that is a good place to live. In other words, he's an ignoramus.
Posted by: Kevin L. | December 7, 2007 11:42 AM
The only Republican I could have seen myself voting for was Ron Paul. That was until I heard him call abortion murder.
All the others come off as faith-heads, or just wrong-headed w.r.t. policies like immigration, taxes or civil liberties.
Posted by: Robert Thille | December 7, 2007 11:45 AM
Posted by: Kevin L. | December 7, 2007 11:42 AM
At times it is hard to tell if he is an ignoramus or if he is trying to attract the ignoramuses. Either way, it is a sad situation.
Posted by: Janine | December 7, 2007 11:46 AM
Dear Stone,
What a load of cack you do write.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | December 7, 2007 11:49 AM
Completely off the topic but I have to point this out. Last night I watched 'Slacker', first time in fifteen years. When the anarchist and the burglar are going for a walk, they walk past a 'Ron Paul for President' billboard. It was for the Libertarian Party. Had to laugh.
Posted by: Janine | December 7, 2007 11:51 AM
Classic but still good:
Ken Macleod
Posted by: Arnaud | December 7, 2007 11:52 AM
Tulse #1 wrote:
Exactly. It seems to be a bit of a crap shoot when it comes to religious minorities supporting the separation of church and state. As others have pointed out, it's usually in their best interest to do so (as long as they are in the minority, at any rate.) But, if they think they can get away with it, sometimes their strategy is finding some other minority which is even more marginalized, and then stand next to the folks in power and use the word "we" a lot. They call it "coming together." We call it "ganging up."
You see it on school playgrounds. Unpopular kids won't always make friends with each other. Sometimes one or more will figure out who can be an Uber-nerd and taunt them, in hopes of being mistaken for "cool."
"Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply held religious belief - and I don't care what it is." (Eisenhower)
Watch for it -- separation of church and state will be declared a good thing. But we should not separate God and state. Religion should be kept out of government. But you can't keep GOD out. Religious tolerance is a virtue. We should tolerate people no matter what religion they have -- because they have a religion. And so forth.
Religious politicians will equivocate and talk out of both sides of their mouth, and hope that enough people can't see the contradiction. And I'm not sure if it makes them better or worse when they themselves don't seem to see it, either.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 7, 2007 11:55 AM
Summary of his speech in 5 words :
ATHEISTS CANNOT BE AMERICAN CITIZENS
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 7, 2007 11:56 AM
It began with the "Moral Majority"* in the 1970s, climbing into bed with Reagan in the 80s, and the unwillingness of many to awaken from their torpidity enough to denounce right-wing fundamentalism as a brand of dangerous insanity.
We sowed the wind a generation ago, I'm afraid.
==
* Which is neither.
Posted by: Warren | December 7, 2007 12:02 PM
Once again, Sastra nails it. Romney is trying to talk the talk of religious freedom while still pandering to religious interests (in particular, the ones who think he belongs to a heretic cult), and is tripping over his words all over the place. And I fear that the number of people smart enough to realize it are vanishingly few.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 7, 2007 12:07 PM
Then there is Huckabee in an interview with Glenn Beck:
Who is "we?" The fundamentalist preachers?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/19/gb.01.html
Posted by: dale | December 7, 2007 12:17 PM
Sorry- Premature ejection-
The Huckster would pave the way for future hatred, bigotry, and politiking from the pulpit. All he has to do is get rid of the IRS. Busted!
Posted by: dale | December 7, 2007 12:19 PM
It certainly won't happen on CNN, but I hope that some reporters keep on asking candidates what their positions are on the rights of non-believers. I'm secular, and I vote.
Posted by: Richard | December 7, 2007 12:20 PM
Rachel Maddow covered this well last night. In particular, the comparison between JFK's faith speech and Romney's. Ultimately, aside from the fact that they both were supposedly about faith, the two speeches couldn't have been more different. In fact, they were diametrically opposed to each other.
JFK's speech was "don't judge me on my religion because religion needs to be kept private." Romney: "In recent years, there has been a misguided trend toward keeping religion private."
JFK said, "religion doesn't matter." Romney said, "Religion is the most important thing."
Any comparison of Romney to JFK is as wrong as could be.
Posted by: Pablo | December 7, 2007 12:25 PM
I think everyone should take a minute to send the Romney campaign a message to tell them what they think.
Posted by: Moopheus | December 7, 2007 12:27 PM
He's trying to makes sure all the Christians wingers don't go running to Huckabee.
They are both going for the hardcore fundies. They'll be trying to out religion each other until the primaries.
Posted by: Stevie_C | December 7, 2007 12:27 PM
Which specific "religion" did Romney had in mind ? Any religion ??
Will we hear Romney say that Islam is Freedom ?
Posted by: _Arthur | December 7, 2007 12:28 PM
I mentioned this yesterday, and his whole take on religion and freedom pisses me off to no end.
I wonder if he's ever had any exposure to history or philosophy to make such a blatantly stupid statement.
Posted by: G | December 7, 2007 12:28 PM
1) Romney and other Repubs are not even trying to attract the secular voters. They know we are too smart to vote for their fear mongering, thinking only of their rich friends while praising the magical sky daddy asses. So why be surprised. Bush Sr. once said that atheists can't be patriotic citizens so this is the norm in the republican party.
2) Someone said earlier that media loved his speech. Conservative media did. I saw Larry Kudlow on CNBC and of course Fox Noise praising him. But Keith Olbermann gave him a proper whopping. I'm starting to think that he might be one of us (agnostic possibly) because he often takes pleasure in pointing out religious nonsense.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0tQGXNBgEI&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x74482
Posted by: Alexander | December 7, 2007 12:30 PM
Nutjob.
What part of "He's a Mormon" didn't click in before?
Posted by: MAJeff | December 7, 2007 12:30 PM
PZ's paragraph beginning:
is as pithy and spot-on a summary of our exasperating predicament as I have seen. What can be done about it? Democracy and misanthropy are a cruel combination.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 7, 2007 12:32 PM
Did he ever have the secular vote to begin with? Mormons are near the top of the list of religious kooks in my book.
Posted by: Guy | December 7, 2007 12:38 PM
Look, look... I can quote John Adams too!!!!
KK, learn science, not creation! Iraq is a bugger, ain't it? Religion fights dirty. Women ain't so smart. That should fall right in line with the Mormons. Wow.Quoting John Adams is fun, he was pretty much a scattergun of political statements.
Here's the part of Mitt's speech that really bugged me:
So that's over 10% of the population that will be his enemy? I mean I believe in religious freedom, but I certainly don't kneel and pray to a malicious, repugnant, malevolent bastard of a god. Am I friend or foe Mitt?
First impression of the speech, Mitt reminds me of Hitler. He certainly knows how to say the right things to incite a crowd. Mitt, outside the mainstream christian faith, basically said all the right things to apease them and also to alienate the 10% of the population that is not religious. He pandered to every religious affiliation in the country, and at the same time accused the secularist and atheists of ruining the country. He's sure to get applause for that from a room full of the religious.
Hold onto your ancient rites and texts. When the rest of the world is burning because muslims and christians just couldn't NOT kill eachother... we'll see who gets to point the finger at who.
Posted by: zer0 | December 7, 2007 12:40 PM
Dear "Chris' Wills"
I can tell you're out of your league, when you're reduced to mere insults. Just like the rest of you religious crazies. Makes me smile. :-)
Oh by the way, we're going to steal back the solstice celebration your church stole centuries ago and installed its silly baby-mythology. Christmas was a dumb idea anyway.
Have a lovely 'Podsmas "Chris'".
he he he.
Posted by: The Stone | December 7, 2007 12:48 PM
As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.
As I travel across the country, I'm moved by the libraries, museums and educational institutions.
Places of worship? Where people go to perpetuate gross ignorance.
What a load o' crap.
Good luck, Twit. Your chances of winning the presidency are ZERO.
Posted by: CalGeorge | December 7, 2007 12:48 PM
zero,
So can we call him Mittler?
Oh, and Godwin'd.
Posted by: G | December 7, 2007 12:53 PM
p.s. Heck yes, G... you just made my day with your wittiness.
Posted by: zer0 | December 7, 2007 1:00 PM
PZ: "We are not in the forefront of civilized nations. ..."
I don't have a quarrel with the rest of the examples PZ Myers listed, but this one requires clarification:
"we have compromised our own civil liberties"
In general, Americans still have more civil liberties than Europeans. True, they are compromised relative what they were at the beginning of the decade. But they are still better than Europe. And the examples implied comparison with other Western countries ("not in the forefront of civilized nations").
I would provide links, but I don't want to run afoul of the filter.
------
Privacy International Press Release
12/14/05
"What is Wrong With Europe? PI Report Criticises EU anti-terror policies
Europe is failing to protect privacy and civil liberties, even more so than the U.S.
In a report released today Privacy International, a London-based watchdog organisation, compares the anti-terrorism approaches in the U.S. with those in Europe. It finds that on every policy involving mass surveillance of its citizens, the EU is prepared to go well beyond what the U.S. Government finds acceptable and palatable, and violate the privacy of citizens."
------
Moushumi Khan, Slate, 7/24/07: "Europe has a longer history of using informants as a surveillance tool in its Muslim populations."
------
Olofsson claims Sweden has tapped phones 'for decades'
9th March 2007
The Local
"Deputy prime minister Maud Olofsson has added a new twist to Sweden's divisive surveillance debate. The Centre Party leader claims that defence minister Mikael Odenberg's proposed legislation would merely codify practices that have already been in operation for decades."
--------
Newshour with Jim Lehrer, August 15, 2006:
MARGARET WARNER: So, Bob Leiken, how different are the U.S. and British authorities when it comes to -- when they confront a potential terror plot, in the investigatory phase?
ROBERT LEIKEN, The Nixon Center: I think, as Secretary Chertoff said, to use his words, the British can be more nimble, both because of their laws and because of the politics. They're allowed to get a wiretap without a court order. They can detain a terror suspect for as long as 28 days before he has to be charged. ...
ROBERT LEIKEN:... And in England, if you visit England, you'll see cameras all over the place, television cameras. Everything is on film. ...
TOM PARKER: ...(T)here is a difference in the way that we apply for telephone intercepts in the United Kingdom. In the intelligence sense, these are authorized by the home secretary, by a political figure, not by a judge. ...
ROBERT LEIKEN: ... This plot, this latest airline plot, was basically intercepted by infiltration. In the United States, if we want to go to a mosque, infiltrate a mosque, we have to get a court order. We have to go before a judge. You have to show at least reasonable suspicion. It used to be probable cause.
MARGARET WARNER: So in other words, that U.S. law enforcement has to depend more on, say, informants, rather than sending one of their own agents essentially undercover to pretend to be part of some group?
ROBERT LEIKEN: Or rather than, as happens in France and in Britain, getting a convict, not one of your own agents, but someone who you can turn in prison to work for you. ..
JEFFREY ROSEN: ...(A)s we've discussed, in Britain you can detain someone without charge for 28 days...
That's a tremendously important difference for the British because it allows them to delay arrests to allow investigations to proceed because they don't have to develop probable cause. They know that they can swoop down and detain someone without cause at any moment.
Once you are formally arrested in America, there are more protections at trial, greater access to lawyers. ...
Posted by: Colugo | December 7, 2007 1:06 PM
I'd like to point out that in Utah, there is a clear separation of Church & State: about 0.5 miles.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&saddr=50+W+N+Temple&daddr=utah+state+capitol&sll=40.77225,-111.89035&sspn=0.012805,0.025578&ie=UTF8&ll=40.77333,-111.890335&spn=0.012805,0.025578&t=h&z=15&om=1
Posted by: Utah Athiest | December 7, 2007 1:11 PM
"Freedom requires religion"
AAAAAAAARGH
"the religion of secularism"
Is that not an oxymoron?
Posted by: Meg | December 7, 2007 1:29 PM
How is enslaving your mind with delusions fredom?
This guy is an ass. Sounds alot like Bush too.
Posted by: Stevie_C | December 7, 2007 1:32 PM
Ron Paul also supports quackery. He's the sponsor of the "Health Freedom Act," which is more accurately characterized as the "freedom from pesky government regulations that prevent quacks from practicing their quackery" act.
Posted by: Orac | December 7, 2007 1:43 PM
Re: #25 - I recall a BBC interview with Bush senior (when president) where he asserted that only christians could
a) be citizens, or possibly
b) be allowed to vote
- truthfully, I can't recall which it was now. I never did understand why that didn't blow up massively.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | December 7, 2007 1:43 PM
- truthfully, I can't recall which it was now. I never did understand why that didn't blow up massively
Why? Because probably a plurality, if not a majority, of our fellow citizens would agree with the sentiment.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 7, 2007 1:45 PM
Stupidity requires religion just as religion requires stupidity. Stupidity opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Stupidity and religion endure together, or perish alone.
There. Fixed it for you Mitt.
Posted by: Margaret | December 7, 2007 1:59 PM
Glad to hhave made you smile at this season.
Believe what you like.
Given what you wrote I'm happy not to be in your league.
How is it stealing if it was originally yours?
Can I assume that you are a druid or some such given you claim ownership of the solstice festival?
Why do you assume that it is my church?
Will do :o)
Oh yes, what you wrote originaly is still cack.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | December 7, 2007 2:01 PM
PZ: It would be a mistake to assume that I did not puke several times while writing my analysis of Romney's blathering. Actually, I started retching watching the analysis of Romney's speech on Hardball. Just thinking about it now makes me...
Oh crap. Gotta run .... stomach ... feels ... queasy ...
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 7, 2007 2:03 PM
tim Rowledge #50 wrote:
Probably because you've remembered it wrong, and it's a little uncertain whether it happened or not. I think it was a press conference (in Chicago?) when Bush Sr. was vice president. Atheist activist lawyer Rob Sherman asked him what he'd do to win atheist votes, and Bush replied that he didn't know. When Sherman followed up with "but of course you recognize that atheists are equal citizens and patriots" Bush is reported to have said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
The follow up was interesting, given what Romney said. Bush sr. allegedly then said
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
Did this conversation take place? Maybe. There is no direct record of it, it was originally officially denied, and then all the back and forth on documents seems to be about who said to deny it and why. The details also seem to have changed. Rob Sherman doesn't have the most reliable reputation among the 'atheist community' to begin with -- so a lot of atheists hedge on this one.
That second statement -- I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists -- could be Romney's campaign slogan, though.
Posted by: Sastra | December 7, 2007 2:08 PM
That speech was full of the most rank hypocrisy:
"Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
compared with
"A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith."
and
"religious tolerance would be a shallow principle, indeed, if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
Posted by: Owen | December 7, 2007 2:13 PM
I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists -- could be Romney's campaign slogan, though.
Well, other than the first half of the sentence.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 7, 2007 2:18 PM
Braxton wrote:
You must be kidding. Iceland and Norway have thriving ecomomies. As Kevin L mentions, all three Scandinavian countries, and Iceland and Finland as well, have extremely high standards of living, next to no corruption, more social equality than anywhere else, and, despite being located way north with darkness and coldness, are among the happiest people in the World. Not everything is perfect there to say the least, but the economy is not stagnant.
Next I expect to hear that because they all have socialist governments (which they don't), people aren't encouraged to work, and all that uneducated proud-not-to-have-a-passport american crap.
P.S. I'm a dane in CA for a reason. For instance, I'm a Ph.D. student in evolution, which is a field much more vibrant here than in Denmark (there are other reasons).
Posted by: Bjorn, James Bjorn | December 7, 2007 2:20 PM
"They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer."
How did he convey the scare quotes around "enlightened"? Did he use his fingers? Use a goofy inflection? Pull a face? Because he certainly couldn't trust his audience enough to supply their own scare quotes, I'm sure.
Posted by: NickM | December 7, 2007 2:26 PM
This to some degree reiterates points already made, but a few weeks back, E.J. Dionne had a column in the Washington Post that nailed the issue about Romney and religion. Romney has an insuperable religion problem because he needs to hold the these two points together:
1. the most important thing about a candidate for POTUS is that he (they're always "he" on his side) has a life- and thought-controlling "Christian" faith; and
2. it is totally illicit, indeed deeply un-American, to inquire any further into the content of that faith.
Romney delenda est.
Posted by: Tom | December 7, 2007 2:28 PM
I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty.
I appreciate the implications perfectly.
Jerry Falwell... Pat Robertson... James Dobson... and on and on.
Religious liberty = mass stupidity, the likes of George Bush in the White House, and endless assaults on our educational system by a bunch of fucking fundie morons.
That's what religious liberty gets us.
Posted by: CalGeorge | December 7, 2007 2:31 PM
I saw the piece on Nightline about Romney and the objections of the lunatic fringe of Christianity. It was a jaw-droppingly surreal experience to watch him blathering on one hand, and the mindless, drooling evangelical Christians screaming hysterically on the other. Stupid moron vs stupid idiots.
Sometimes I'm *so* ashamed. I hope none of those supposed alien species who've been keeping their eyes on us saw it ;^)
Lynn
Posted by: Lynn | December 7, 2007 2:32 PM
I would like to know what promises Mitt Romney made to the LDS church during his ordination? Did he promise obedience to the church (the "one true church") and to advance its interests in preference to others?
I do not think Mitt swore an oath to follow Jesus and the dictates of his conscience. He swore obedience to the LDS Church, a different matter entirely.
Posted by: Mooser | December 7, 2007 2:46 PM
Well, looking at your 3 candidates from the Republicans, Rommney, Huckabee and Giuliani ... I fear for what USA might become.
Good luck!
Posted by: Arcturus | December 7, 2007 2:47 PM
Bjorn, James Bjorn: "despite being located way north with darkness and coldness, are among the happiest people in the World."
Perhaps that is true of most, but these statistics are interesting.
NationMaster:
Suicide rate for young males, per 100,000
#8 Finland: 33
#10 Norway: 28.2
#15 United States: 21.9
Suicide rate for young female, per 100,000
#16 Norway: 5.2
#19 Sweden: 5
#25 United States: 3.8
Posted by: Colugo | December 7, 2007 2:47 PM
20% and growing.
Posted by: JimC | December 7, 2007 3:07 PM
Colugo,
Hey, I can cherry pick too!
Total Crimes
#1 United States 23,677,800
#27 Norway 330,071
>#60 Sweden -- they don't even make the top 60.
Now, what exactly was your point? Suicide is a 'sin'? Nobody buys into the concept of sin here. Suicide is a social problem? Only tenuously granted because there have been cultures that encouraged suicide as proper practice.
Posted by: G | December 7, 2007 3:07 PM
G, what's the point of comparing "total crimes" in nations with such different population sizes?
Posted by: Pyre | December 7, 2007 3:23 PM
This kind of thing might be an explanation for the Fermi paradox.
Posted by: Tulse | December 7, 2007 3:25 PM
And G: Colugo didn't cite suicide stats in reply to a claim about "sin", but in reply to a claim about who's "among the happiest people in the World."
Posted by: Pyre | December 7, 2007 3:27 PM
Sweden: 13.2
Norway: 20.3
Us Total: 11.1
State of Alsaka: 23.6
Hm. What makes Alaska have by 4-5 points the highest suicide rates in America? Maybe because it's so far north?
If you factor in latitude, Norway is still "happier."
Posted by: inkadu | December 7, 2007 3:40 PM
It's all role-play :
The problem for Romney is that he's squeezed between "God's bumlebee" and the "savior of New York".
So, the only thing that can beat that is "The Messenger of God".
That's the role he's playing.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 7, 2007 3:46 PM
The entire thing was incredibly offensive. The bit that realy cinched it for me was his little attempt at a tip of the hat towards Judaism on the subject of Chanukka.
I am an atheist. I am also a Jew, and I celebrate Chanukka along with a number of other Jewish holidays, most of which are pretty frank about being pre-monotheistic planting and harvest feasts. Chanukka, however is not a fertility feast. It is not about goodwill to man, joy to the world, or any of that Christmas crap. It's about family, sure, but only beause it is specifically a holiday about [i]not[/i] assimilating the religious practices of the majority. Hell, it's a military holiday celebrating the expulsion of the Neoassyrian empire from Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Neoassyrian tax system (which only in anachronistic retrospect looks like religion, because the taxed income went to the temples of the gods of the Assyrians, although this was done for practical rather than spiritual reasons).
The problem with Romney's (and the rest of the Religious Right's) concept of "Judeo-Christian" values is that such a concept does not exist. Chanukka is not remotely the equivalent of Christmas. If it's the equivalent of anything, it's the equivalent of Purim, another Jewish holiday with military undertones. The closest equivalent in American society is Independence Day, and that's even a stretch. And frankly, most Jews (including conservative and orthodox Jews) don't want a religious individual in the presidency. Neither do most devout Neopagans, Hindus, Muslims, Animists, Deists, assorted Theists, Unitarians, Wiccans, Buddhists, Sikhs, and so forth. It's not just the Atheists and Agnostics who are against public displays that promote Christianity as an American value. I think enough people are going to stand up against Romney that he won't be a viable candidate. As for his competitors, I have no idea how religion is going to pa out for them, but Romney is not a sure thing by far.
Posted by: JDP | December 7, 2007 3:52 PM
G (#67) wrote: "Hey, I can cherry pick too! Total Crimes..."
Yes, you can. Badly, too. At least Colugo was dealing with suicide rates, you are dealing with total numbers of crimes. So, it's not surprising at all that USA with roughly 303,000,000 people would have
24,000,000 crimes (.08), while Norway has 330,000 crimes for a population of 4,770,000 (.07, which is indeed lower, but not by much, and I'm rounding for quickness of reply, here).
And you certainly don't want to go into rates of school shootings, given the recent tragedy in Finland, population 5,300,000.
Suicide is considered a problem because medical science, or at least the APA and the other APA, says that it's a symptom of mental illness.
Suggest you honestly ask yourself the same question you asked Colugo.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 7, 2007 3:54 PM
The reaction from some talibangelists to the Romney's efforts is rather, um, interesting. This one is a must see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2007/12/unchristian_behaviour.html
Enjoy :-)
Posted by: Brain Hertz | December 7, 2007 4:01 PM
The reaction from some talibangelists to the Romney's efforts is rather, um, interesting.
Umm. Yes. That was interesting.
There appears to be a little bit of a Pot/Kettle thing going on here.
Posted by: CalGeorge | December 7, 2007 4:10 PM
Bureaucratus Minimis: To use the same "per 100,000" scale as Colugo's suicide stats, those crime rates come out to:
US: 7,920 per 100,000
NO: 6,918 per 100,000
So your rounding (to .08 and .07) doesn't change the comparison very much.
Posted by: Pyre | December 7, 2007 4:13 PM
Stat picking isn't far from quote mining.
I'm sure the US's crime rates suck, but comapring total crimes is kinda silly.
Posted by: Stevie_C | December 7, 2007 4:18 PM
Pyre -- thanks for recalculating using the same units as Colugo. I not only rounded the rates, but I also rounded the population and crime totals.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 7, 2007 4:21 PM
Pyre, Bureaucratus Minimus,
My point should have been fairly obvious. Cherry picking one statistic badly is not grounds for dismissing an entire argument about the relative happiness of nations. I guess sarcasm still doesn't translate over the interwebs.
Posted by: G | December 7, 2007 4:22 PM