Mitt Romney’s weird religion is relevant to voters

If someone who was running as a serious candidate to become president of the United States said, "I believe in the Tooth Fairy," wouldn't that be a reason to question his qualifications to lead our country?

I sure do. That's why I answered my own question on my other blog the way I did. To the query "Mormon Mitt Romney believes in really weird stuff. So?" I said:

We currently have a faith-based presidency. George Bush has absolute faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God who died for our sins. He also has absolute faith that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's difficult, if not impossible, to separate these faiths.

When you're repeatedly willing to deny evident facts about reality in favor of a dogmatic belief, this points to a fundamental mindset. Lots of people do this. I have myself, back when I was a true believer in a religion.

But I wasn't running for president. Romney is. A politician's religious belief definitely shouldn't be off limits for questioning. I'd love to hear a reporter ask Romney, "Now, tell us what you think about those golden plates…"

In 1827 the golden plates supposedly were dug up in New York by the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. They'd been protected by an angel named Moroni and engraved by Mormon, a pre-Columbian prophet-warrior. Smith translated the plates by looking into seer stones called Urim and Thummin.

And Romney believes this crap.

Which is even more disturbing than if he believed in the Tooth Fairy, because the Tooth Fairy doesn't take positions on important social issues like gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, and teaching creationism.

Yesterday Romney gave a speech, "Faith in America." It provides even more evidence why this guy, along with every other Republican presidential candidate, would be a disaster if, god forbid, he ever became president.

The speech has been criticized by the Portland Oregonian in an editorial, "Your America is too small." It's right on.

He could have articulated a vision of religious freedom so broad, so all-encompassing – and so confident in itself – that it could embrace even skeptics. But he didn't. Instead, he took a predictable slap at "the religion of secularism." And he failed to offer even a stout defense of his own faith, barely mentioning the word "Mormon."

I also liked a Washington Post editorial, "No freedom without religion?" Astoundingly, Romney said "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…freedom and religion endure together or perish alone."

Huh? This makes no sense at all. Why the heck does freedom require religion? The Post pointed out:

But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government," Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.

In his speech Romney said that he believes in his Mormon faith and he endeavors to live by it.

So Romney holds that Mormonism is believable, despite this description (by Christopher Hitchens in his book "God is Not Great") of what happened after Joseph Smith's wife destroyed the first 116 pages of her husband's revelation, which took place behind a blanket.

Mrs. Smith was having none of this, and was already furious with the fecklessness of her husband. She stole the first hundred and sixteen pages and challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably—given his power of revelation—he could. (Determined women like this appear far too seldom in the history of religion.)

After a very bad few weeks, the ingenious Smith countered with another revelation. He could not replicate the original, which might be in the devil's hands by now and open to a "satanic verses" interpretation. But the all-foreseeing Lord had meanwhile furnished some smaller plates, indeed the very plates of Nephi, which told a fairly similar tale.

With infinite labor, the translation was resumed, with new scriveners behind the blanket as occasion demanded, and when it was completed all the original golden plates were transported to heaven, where apparently they remain to this day.

Now, all religions are unbelievable. If they weren't, their tenets would be known as "science." In other words, founded in reality rather than fantasy.

So every presidential candidate who professes to be religious should be questioned as closely as he or she would be if a fervent belief in the Tooth Fairy had been proudly communicated to the voters.

Romney was interviewed on NPR a few days before his faith speech. He didn't like being asked if he has a literal belief in the Genesis version of creation. Yet Romney said that the Bible is the word of God, and he tries to live by it.

Meaning, he does believe that the universe was created a few thousand years ago in seven days. And his presidential actions would be founded on such astoundingly unscientific beliefs.

This disqualifies him to be president. Along with every other fundamentalist candidate. Hopefully the American voters will agree with me.

It's OK to believe in the Tooth Fairy when you're five years old. But if you want to hold onto the religious equivalent of that belief into adulthood, you shouldn't be seeking the presidency of the United States.

Comments

[Tucson]

It's surprising in a country of 300+ million people that a more inspiring, courageous and articulate candidate does not appear on the stage.

I don't care about Romney's religion because to me it is no more deluded than straight-up Christianity or the belief that you can create a level playing field in human civilization. Anyone who gets elected will have to be at least a little shifty, power hungry and sell out to special interest groups. It's a media-money game and sound-bytes move masses. Everyone knows that. It's a matter of picking your poison. My particular poison is not going to be neurotic about killing terrorists and creating an enforcable immigrant policy. The function of government is to keep us safe and maintain order in society. That is, live and let live as long as you don't impose your trip on someone else.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

I believe "Mrs. Harris" --> Mrs. Smith.

Also - although I am a registered Republican - I'll probably be stuck voting Libertarian as a protest again this coming year.

Here's something I stumbled on yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBo4E77ZXo. Each may consider it as they so see fit.

Robert Paul Howard

[Tucson]

RPH,

I think protest votes for candidates that have no chance is a waste. Even if you don't like any of the candidates that have a real chance to win you probably would prefer one over the other..the lesser of two evils and all that. Your vote could actually make a difference if it's another really close election with hanging chads, etc.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Tucson [Bob, I presume],

You are welcome to your opinion.

Robert Paul Howard

[!@#$%]

There are atheists who are morally conservative and oppose Queer marrige and adoption,abortion for any reason and would'nt care if Creationism was taught as religious belief instead of biological.

[Komposer]

What scares me most about a faith-based presidency is the unspoken motivations behind certain foreign policy decisions. Is it going too far to suggest that one reason for our alliance with Israel is a belief that Christians are protecting the holy land for the second coming of Christ? I think Sam Harris even postulates this...
And what about the other faith-based narratives lurking in our background? Manifest Destiny, and the Crusades come to mind, along with the War on Terror. The days of the rich white Christian policing, "protecting," and raping the world seem not yet to be over.
I pray for the future of the world that we elect a democrat this time around.

[tAo]

Congressman Dr. RON PAUL is, far and above the rest, the man best suited and most capable to be the next President of The United States of America, and to defend the nation, and the Constitutional rights, and the welfare of all Americans.

The rest of the candidates on both sides are seriously BAD news.

RON PAUL has enormous grass-roots support and favor, and is the only true conservative/liberatrian who can possibly beat the dreaded Hillary/Obama.

Please Support and Vote for RON PAUL for President in 2008.

If you don't know much about Dr RON PAUL, then please get informed asap.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Also check out the numerous Ron Paul YouTube videos and audios.

[tAo]

Elect a Democrat? You must be stupid or crazy. Electing a "democrat" basically means electing Hillary/Obama. If you want the Iraq war/occupation to continue, if you want to attack Iran and start WWIII, if you want to utterly destroy the USA with the proposed North American Union, if you want to continue the advance of the NWO facist police state... then by all means vote for the democrat candidates - mostly likely Hillary & Osama Obama. Of course Guiliani and McCain are just as awful.

Democratic candidates are socialist elitists, and the the phony Republican candidates are actually neo-con facist elitists.

The only sane choice is a libertarian conservative and constitutionalist and old-school republican like Dr RON PAUL.

[!@#$%]

Too many wacky libertarian extremists and oddball conspiracy theorists support Ron Paul-I can't stand to click on the news section at YouTube anymore because of all his supporter's videos!

[Bob]

Tao,

Well, I did the unthinkable...I registered as a Republican so I could vote for Ron Paul in the Primary election. He believes in health freedom big time, which is something I value enormously.

Additionally, he is the only candidate that I am aware of that admits to the fact that we are doomed financially as a nation if do don't preserve our sovereignty and save our dollar, which is slowly going down the toilet.

!@#$% wrote, "Too many wacky libertarian extremists and oddball conspiracy theorists support Ron Paul" - Bullshit!

Tao, glad to hear that you support Dr. Paul.

Bob

[!@#$%]

Bob,
I know the truth is painful sometimes,but most Americans will NEVER support a quasi-libertarian like Ronnie Paul. It just aint gonna happen Dude!

[Bob]

!@#$,

You may be right. But one has to begin somewhere and Ron Paul is receiving enormous support on the grassroots level. That, in and of itself, is a valuable statement about the many Americans who feel so discontent.

If we continue with politics as usual, we'll end up in deep shit. And, that ain't no bullshit.

Bob

[Sita]

One has to vote the party of one's own choice,even when a small party at first,when one wants a change,imo.

[Tucson]

If you think Mormonism is Moronism, check out the incredible creation myths of ten other religions and cultures:

http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs-1.html

Christians would disparage nine of these myths as absurd and yet find their own equally absurd creation myth perfectly acceptable (myth #1).

[Robert Paul Howard]

To Ron Paul supporters:

Here's another: http://wonkette.com/338053/monster-demon-wrestler-endorses-paul.

Robert Paul Howard

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

Since my previous attempt to leave this message failed, I try again:

To supporters of Ron Paul:

Here's another: http://wonkette.com/338053/monster-demon-wrestler-endorses-paul.

Robert Paul Howard

[tAo]

RPH,

Are you trying to put down Ron Paul's campaign for president? If so, you are failing miserably. The site that you posted was worse than stupid if you ask me.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear tAo (tao, Swami Jnaneshvarananda Giri, whoever you really are):

I did not ask you. But I do see that you are violating your own statement as posted on Brian's 12/20/07 blog presentation:

"I would also like to inform everyone that I have decided that from now I will only respond to the subject matter of Brian's posts, and not to other commenters. So I will not be answering any more questions, nor will I be debating any issues with other guest commenters. I feel that any comments that I make here from now on should be directly related to what Brian writes, and not to other commenters."
Posted by: tAo | December 20, 2007 at 11:14 PM

Robert Paul Howard

[Tucson]

Tao,

The site RPH provided may not be a stupid put down of Paul. There is a highlighted phrase, "..endorsed Ron Paul.." in there which led to this:

http://people.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements/2007/12/19/glenn-jacobs/

[tAo]

To Robet Paul Howard (or whoever you are):

I don't give a damn whether or not you asked me.

Not only was the site that you posted quite stupid and lame, but you yourself are even more stupid and lame. So it doesn't surprise me when you make such inane rebuttals.

And btw, I'll criticise both the stupid site that you posted, as well as your inane rebuttal comment... if I so choose.

It appears that you must also have been too stupid to notice my recent comment to Rakesh where I clearly stated:

"I had previously decided not to debate anymore with other commenters such as yourself, but there seems to be a need for clarity"

So the next time you get the urge to make another inane and ignorant comment, or post another incredibly stupid and shallow website, please try to do so with a bit more substance and intelligence instead.

[Robert Paul Howard]

To whoever might be interested,

Please think critically for yourselves about the substance and intelligence of my remarks.

Notice how this so-called Swami Jnaneshvarananda Giri (whoever he is) quickly slips into his usual mode of insults and personal abuse whenever anyone touches on one of his hang-ups. Observe how he tries to co-opt one of his later statements - which I had already seen - to rationalize his violation his own previous statement about how he would thereafter act. See how he twists its meaning to excuse and cover over his own unreliable contradiction of word and behavior. Notice how he quickly devolves from supposed "critical thinking" into mere abusive name-calling.

Although he can certainly "choose" to bitch and moan about anything that offends one of his hang-ups, I still remain free to cite another site which he won't like: http://wonkette.com/338921/march-of-the-paultards.

While he freely advocates Maharshi's wisdom of silence to/for others, this swami seems quite incapable of abiding by it himself. For one who has said that the ego does not even exist, he has for several years shown more egotism on this weblog than anyone else. Don't take my word for it: go back, look, see, critically assess, judge for yourselves. Notice how his "critical thinking" so quickly turns into abusive name-calling and insults aimed against anyone who does not knuckle under to his assertions/opinions. It is no wonder that he "tend[s] to be perceived by some as being rather sharp and harsh in many of...[his] criticisms...." He is so. He is quite a bullying thug in his behavior.

Now, since this swami is always ready to rail like a spoiled brat against anyone who does not give an obsequious response to his words, assertions, opinions, and directives, I fully expect that he will soon reply to my observations here with another of his vicious responses, bitching and moaning about what I have pointed out, denying the validity of what I have pointed out, condemning me for having dared to think critically about his words and his behavior. I wonder how many typographical errors his passions and incompetence will cause him to make when he does so. I wonder what rationalizations and excuses he will provide to again justify himself for once more attacking me. I wonder how he will again display his self-centered, overweening egotism once more.

But I don't give a damn.

Robert Paul Howard

[tAo]

To Robert Paul Howard:

Please do try to think about and be aware oif the lack of substance and truth in your insulting remarks.

Notice how you slip into a mode of insults and personal abuse whenever anyone exposes your not so subtle ridicule and hypocrisy.

Observe yourself and how you try to rationalize or conceal your insults and distortions.

See how you twist the statements and meanings of other commenters to cover-up your own contradictions and insulting behavior.

Notice how you quickly devolve into mere abuse and sleazy insults such as posting sites like: http://wonkette.com/338921/march-of-the-paultards , or "bitch and moan" about anything that offends or exposes one of your childish hang-ups.

As for Ramana Maharshi and "silence" (about which you obviously have no insight or any real understanding of what that actually means), I am under no obligation of any sort to remain silent especially on an internet blog such as this.

And fyi, I never said "that the ego does not even exist". You are deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting me, and that showes your dishonesty. And here is another example of your deliberately false distortion in which you said: "He is quite a bullying thug in his behavior." I'll leave that to the sagacity of the other readers to decide.

And to even bother to mention somone's minor typographical errors, and to derogatorily call it "incompetence" shows what an extremely shallow and immature person you really are.

I wonder what rationalizations and excuses you will use to again once more engage in conceal your derogatory attacks upon me, and for your insulting and ridiculing of Congressman Dr. Ron Paul and his campaign for President. I wonder how you will again display your childishness and hypocrisy.

So I'll say once again...

Not only is the site that you posted pathetically lame and incrediby inane, but enormously disrespectful, insulting, and abusive (ie: "March of the Paultards", "asshole", etc) towards a very fine and honorable man and presidential candidate, US Congressman Dr. Ron Paul... but you yourself are even more pathetic, lame, insulting and abusive. And moreover, your filthy hypocrisy actually proves what a 'retard' you are. So it doesn't surprise me when you come back with another inane and childish rebuttal.

And btw, the reasonable criticism that I have made regarding the inane and sleazy site that you posted, as well as your own inane and abusive comments towards me, is only giving you back the rotten garbage that you already threw at me, and worse, at Dr. Ron Paul.

Furthermore, it again appears that you must also be so utterly stupid that you deliberately ignored my previous comment where I had clearly stated my reason for reversing my previous decision about refraining from further debating with other guest commenters (such as yourself):

"I had previously decided not to debate anymore with other commenters such as yourself, but there seems to be a need for clarity"

Therefore, I am always free to change my mind if I so choose, and its none of your concern. There was no "violation" or "contradiction" or "excuse" about anything. I made myself quite clear. It is you are the one who is "distorting". It's laughable that someone can be as foolish and hypocritical and childish as you apparently are.

So do us all a big favor and try not to reveal what a Howard-tard you are the next time you get another urge to make another inane and distorted comment... or post another pathetically inane, sleazy, and insulting website that ridicules someone (Dr Ron Paul) who is far more virtuous, intelligent, and honorable than you are.

As a matter of fact, you really suck.

[Tucson]

RPH,

I know only a little about him, but after going to http://wonkette.com/338921/march-of-the-paultards I would be inclined to say the site is more reflective of the immaturity, deficiencies and lack of character of the authors than that of Ron Paul.

[Robert Paul Howard]

To all,

As fully expected, the old swami reacted above just as I predicted he would: distorting and twisting the facts in more of his self-excusing rationalizations and name-calling attacks.

But, as I said before, please check for yourselves: go back, read for yourselves, exercise your own judgment(s) about how he has regularly behaved over the last several years.

And since another of his hang-ups seems to be his determination to always have the last word, we can expect that it probably won't be long before we'll again see him doing even more of the same.

Robert Paul Howard

[Jesse, Pittsburgh PA]

I hoped Dubya's religiosity would be an anomaly, but I was wrong. Lip-service to God has always been a prerequisite to the presidency, but in 200+ years, no candidates have accepted (and pushed on others) dogma as fervently as the ones we have now. Romney is worse because of his faith's opportunism. All religion's driven by politics, but Mormonism is incompatible with reality because it arose post-Enlightenment, when people should've known better. Mormonism eliminated polygamy to gain entry into the US. Their prophesy was shaped by expediency, making divine intervention (or mental illness, which can innocently be mistaken for such) less likely. Romney's history is similar. He swore to uphold Roe v. Wade so he could govern a blue state, but once there, he resumed being pro-life. I have more respect for an opinionated man with whom I disagree than I do for a man whose stances are determined by focus groups saying what'll make him "popular".

[Steeve]

I just stumbled upon your blogs. Please keep them up! I believe in many of the same things you do, but you are much better at communicating them.