I'm late to this party, but the arresting statement in Mitt's religion speech was this:
"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," the GOP contender said.
Doesn't seem like much of a leap from that statement to assert that the non-religious don't deserve freedom.
Scary.
And the statement itself flies in the face of religious history...didn't Christianity itself get started and prosper under the yoke of Roman tyranny? Hasn't Christianity itself been the catalyst of crushing oppression? Seems to me that religion has often been the enemy of freedom.
Ryan Sager's thoughts.
2 comments:
Leave it to the New York Times to have an intelligent and thought-out response. Right along with what you were saying.
Saudi Arabia is arguably the most religious country in the world. Every action there is monitored by religious police, and if they see someone do something they don't like, they can beat you or cut off some appendage.
Women are required to remain segregated from all males who are not members of their household. Therefore, all workplaces must be segregated by sex. Women cannot receive driver's licenses, nor are they allowed to be driven by men who are not family members. A woman cannot go out in public alone. A man's testimony is equal to that of two women in court. A woman must obtain the written consent of a male family member to receive medical treatment.
If this is what Romney means by freedom, I'm on my way to Canada.
Post a Comment