Five Before Chaos

No, I’m not talking about conservatism, mindless Obama zombies or anything of the sort. Woke up this am with a nasty case of the pukes and the aches. Then Jenni got it tonight. The dogs are the only ones feeling good here right now. So I’m cranky.

Anyways, just wanted to give you the latest on Campaign-Related Godidiocy®, this time about Mitt Romney’s much-touted speech about faith. Many thought it was going to be an appeal as to why Mormonism isn’t even batshit-insane crazier that evangelical fundamentalism (which it is), but instead, we were treated to mind-numbing nuggets of wisdom such as “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. . . . Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” Things like that are not only obviously untrue, but the fact that a major prez candidate is spewing that stuff makes me want to drink a broken glass smoothie or something. Basically, the whole gist of Romney’s blathering that it doesn’t matter what you believed in, as long as you are a person of faith. To count in Romney’s America, you must believe in something that can never be proven true. Okay. Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster count?

Scott Chapman over at the Chicago Tribune has written a superb, rational op-ed that really takes Romney to the mat over this b.s.:

In case anyone doubts his inhospitable stance toward freethinkers, scoffers and Sunday-morning lay-a-beds, his speech confirmed it. Nowhere did he make the slightest effort to suggest that anyone unsure of the existence of God has anything to contribute to our democratic dialogue. In fact, he went out of his way to denounce decadent European societies “too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to . . . kneel in prayer.”

Romney’s theory that faith is essential to liberty suggests he has yet to visit the modern world. He doesn’t try to explain countries like Germany, France and Norway—free democracies where most people no longer believe in God. Religion is not exactly synonymous with personal freedom in, say, the Muslim world. Organized Christianity once coexisted comfortably with, and often sponsored, oppression in Europe and elsewhere.

And the big point, which seems to be lost on all those many Xtians suffering from an eternal persecution complex (emphasis mine):

Secularists don’t expect the government to take their side—only to practice neutrality. They think 1) all Americans should be free to practice the religion they choose and 2) none should have the active assistance of the government.

But neutrality between belief and non-belief is something Romney can’t abide. He thinks the government must be firmly and vocally on the side of religion. Only when it comes to Mormonism versus other religions does he recognize the value of neutrality as a principle. Isn’t that convenient?

One could say that Romney doesn’t have a chance in hell (any more do the other rapidly declining GOP presidential hopelessnesses), so what’s the big deal? It’s a big deal because, contrary to what Romney says, this kind of talk is contrary to real freedom in a big way. And we’re indeed arriving at a scary place in our nation’s history where this kind of talk is not openly and forcefully challenged.