CNN: "Freedom requires religion" says Mitt Romney

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

Romney is so full of shit his eyes are brown, to speak of freedom in such lofty terms when he won't even take preemptive nuclear strikes off the table.

 

[Spirit of '76]

I'm a believer, but this should piss a few non-believers off...

"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. - Romney


Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html

Leonard Read made much the same argument in his excellent book Elements of Libertarian Leadership. He said that ultimately we cannot understand what it means to be free unless we are striving for the type of spiritual perfection that comes from understanding that Liberty comes from the Creator and not from man-made institutions.

 

[RonPaulMania]

False.

My very existance allows for my freedom. I am BORN with it. That is the only real implication- that we are born with rights. It doesnt matter if a "god" "made us." The fact that we are born and exist is enough.

Actually your statement is false and unsupportable from both an historical and philosophical perspective. Care to tell me why you have those rights from birth? Based on what? You can't say, "I have rights because I do." That would be a premise that is not self-evident without a belief in God. Without it your statement is a truism that defies it's own existence because you are positing a causeless effect.

Neither the State NOR a "god" grants inalienable rights. otherwise you are just substituting God for the State and not supportive of actual freedom IMHO.

That's Communism repackaged as libertarianism. Humanity does not have self-evident rights without a principle from which they derive them. You believe you can have an effect without a cause which again is illogical. You only see color from light, and all rights of man must come from something other than man, given by man, to give him a dignity above other empirical life.

The cause of life does not grant liberty unless you grant similar liberties to all other forms of life and therefore you've never eaten because that would be cannibalizing other forms of life that should have liberty. Grass doesn't have rights, neither do cows. That's why we eat them and control their lives.

Your stance leaves you in a precarious position. Do you just drink water and milk?

 

[scoot87]

I guess I missed that part of the Epistle of St. James that states that he who transgresses one part of the law transgresses them all, and the Matthew 7:21 connection where anyone who calls Christ Lord but doesn't do the Father's will cannot go to Heaven, and the John 3... you get the point...

You version of Christianity is not found in the Bibles, Patristic sources, or Church tradition which St. Paul tells us to hold fast.

And these quotations from the bible do not contradict the relationship aspect. Concerning doing the Father's will is to say that this in this self-sacrificing relationship, we must submit our life to the will of the Father. The part of transgressing one part of the law then you transgress all makes the point about religiosity and how we arent able to abide by all the rules of the Old Testament but are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. So there is not contradiction, but your examples prove that in order to get to Heaven, we must have a relationship that strives to abide by the will of God or else it isnt a true relationship and that religion by doing good works does not work but only by accepting Christ.

 

[noxagol]

Rights come from ownership, not god. If you own things, you have rights over it, and the right is to dictate what happens to it. If someone does something to or on your property that you do not approve, they owe you compensation. And property is very open ended, not just land and stuff. Your body and thoughts are property as well.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Rights come from ownership, not god.

I'm glad to know that Ron Paul disagrees with you when he says, "Our rights come from our Creator."

I am not "property". I am a human being.

 

[noxagol]

I'm glad to know that Ron Paul disagrees with you when he says, "Our rights come from our Creator."

I am not "property". I am a human being.

You are arguing semantics to make yourself feel better.

 

[InRonWeTrust]

I'm a believer, but this should piss a few non-believers off...

"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. - Romney


Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html

As an athiest, I say fuck you, Mitt.

 

[driller80545]

Is he speaking of the freedom the puritans enjoyed?

 

[driller80545]

god has nothing to do with rights. if anything, the church historically has attempted again and again to harness freedoms. and the neo cons are doing it again, in the ruse of family values. my rights are mine because i not only demand them, but i also grant you the same. as far as the cow that got eaten having no rights, i guess neither did the guy the grizzly enjoyed for supper. ha

 

[peruvianRP]

My freedom of religion is my freedom from religion.

 

[Spirit of '76]

You are arguing semantics to make yourself feel better.

...says the guy who describes people as "property".

 

[driller80545]

to have rights you must demand them. and then you must defend them. and that is why i am trying to assist Dr. Paul in his election.

 

[bootstrap]

freedom is a fundamental part of the nature of an honest human

He's actually correct. He saying you can't separate one's freedoms from God. If you don't admit that God exists and that all rights are given by God than freedom is consequently lost. It's in the Constitution and it's philosophically correct as well.

Suppose God didn't exist and we didn't have an immortal soul given dignity because immortal souls are a reflection of God, why should we have any more liberty than a dog? The founders believed this from a deistic perspective, and previous Church/State relationships from Europe understood this connection from a specific religion. The Constitution stopped a specific Church/State relationship, but it was never intended to be devoid of God as even the founders understand there is no freedom without God.

Sadly, I have found no other person who has thought about these kinds of philosophical issues to understand them. Freedom does not the existence of God, or any kind of "super-authoritarian", and freedom certainly does not require religion (a type of social organization). Unfortunately, to treat this topic thoroughly, I'd have to write 100 pages. But here is a stream of consciousness explanation that hopefully helps someone grapple with this issue.

This discussion presumes a few mostly-uncontraversial ideas that I will not justify for lack of time and space: volition (which I like to call "self-determinism") and causality (that actions have consequences).

In modern times, humans are born into a world already populated by billions of other humans. Humans need shelter, clothing, water and food to survive (and various other things to enjoy life, but that's mostly side-issue to this topic). However, the quantity of naturally occurring caves (for shelter), clean water (to drink), and wild animals-and-plants (for food) is grossly insufficient to support life for billions of humans. Therefore, to survive in the modern world, humans must take actions that produce (which means "create") shelter, clothing, drink, food.

When a human takes these actions, the person is the *cause* of his own survival. In other words, a human literally causes his own existence (in the future). If a person does not have freedom (to chose his own actions), a person has no way to cause his own continued existence (and in that case, is utterly dependent upon the actions of others).

This is a brief description of the fundamental nature of every honest modern human --- to identify and enact actions that cause the existence of self. True, exceptions are possible. The existence of gravely disabled person can be extended [until his recovery] by other productive humans. And the existence of a human can be extended by unethical means - by taking goods produced by other humans (by means of fraud, theft, taxation, etc). However, notice that this cannot work unless some humans did produce goods.

I see now how impossible it is to compress this into a few paragraphs. So I'll just leave it at the above to help anyone interested get on the right track.

 

[driller80545]

I don't know, bootstrap, but what comes to first to my mind is "what about serfs, or the people in a socialist society". they are forced to create (causation) but certainly are not showered in freedom or personal liberty. I think that I will still maintain that rights exist when they are demanded and defended, otherwise they are not included in man's business of survival.

 

[user]

Romney's next speech: "Freedom is slavery..."

 

[InRonWeTrust]

My freedom of religion is my freedom from religion.

WORD.

 

[RonPaulMania]

Rights come from ownership, not god. If you own things, you have rights over it, and the right is to dictate what happens to it. If someone does something to or on your property that you do not approve, they owe you compensation. And property is very open ended, not just land and stuff. Your body and thoughts are property as well.

Do you actually really believe that? What do you own at birth? What do you own at 10 years old? Do you believe you should be free and have rights at 10 years old? Yet you own nothing. You legally don't own your body under the age of reason as it falls squarely on your parents to guide you.

I feel like I'm arguing against my little brother sometimes. Gratuitous arguments without collaborating teleology is no argument.

Where do you guys come up with such pop philosophy? Seriously, I have no idea where you people come up with this stuff but I'm very interested because it makes no sense.

 

[driller80545]

And what do you believe? Are rights god given, earned, or demanded like respect?

 

[Duckman]

People once believed that kings were allowed to rule absolutely by divine right. That antiquated thinking was removed by the Enlightenment, which spawned the Constitution.

Unfortunately there is still antiquated thinking with regards to rights. They exist because they are from god, since without the invisible being, we'd have no reason to respect anyone. We could kill and enslave as we please, without regard for civilization.

I don't want to disrespect anyone's religion, but I define a right as something you cannot take away from me because it is mine alone. I believe it is a very rational concept to say that this is what defines a right, and for the good of civilization we will respect the concept of rights. No god required.