Mitt Romney's Kennedy Moment?

Last Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a speech in which he argued that his Mormon religious beliefs should not prevent Americans from voting for him.

I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions… I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

The main intended audience of Romney’s speech was the Republican Party’s base of right-wing Christians, many of whom are deeply suspicious of Mormonism and consider it a cult. In this respect, Romney faces a similar dilemma to another famous American politician who confronted skepticism about his faith – President John F. Kennedy.

The first (and still the only) Roman Catholic ever to be elected President, Kennedy likewise had to persuade the public that his religion would not cause him to impose doctrines on them which they did not share. In a famous 1960 speech, Kennedy effectively laid those doubts to rest with a resounding defense of the importance of separation of church and state:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

…I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

Clearly, Romney wants to invoke the image of President Kennedy; he alluded to this speech in his own address. But Romney is in a far more difficult bind, because the audience he’s trying to reach is vehemently opposed to the separation of church and state. Right-wing Christians want to force their own theological vision on the nation, and for Romney to assert that he’ll keep religion apart from government would only further push them away from him. It’s no surprise, therefore, that Romney’s allusion to Kennedy’s speech was a very brief and glancing one. He said only that “Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president,” omitting Kennedy’s argument for an expansive view of separation.

Romney’s own proposal was a very different one:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom….

…The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

This vague, ecumenical-sounding statement is, in fact, a bolt of vicious bigotry directed at atheists. This fact was noticed and pointed out by a Christian blogger, Slacktivist (who also capably dissects the other absurdities in the speech):

If freedom requires religion, then the a-religious and irreligious, the non-religious and un-religious are the enemies of freedom. Romney believes, in other words, that atheism is incompatible with freedom. Whatever it is he means by “religious liberty,” he does not believe it can safely be applied to atheists.

By repeating the right-wing rhetoric about how separation of church and state is fully compatible with official sanction of belief in God and discrimination against atheists, Romney shows what his intent is. He doesn’t truly want a candidate’s religious beliefs to be considered irrelevant. He’s just pleading for the circle of religious bigotry toward outsiders expanded slightly to include him – so that he can be on the inside, hurling barbs at those who believe differently, rather than on the outside, on the receiving end of those barbs from his fellow theocrats.

Romney’s stance is remarkably like that of his fellow Mormon, Orson Scott Card, who likewise argued that America is a secular nation with no religious test and then proceeded to arrogantly dismiss all atheist Americans as unqualified for elected office. Far from pleading for a truly universal tolerance, Romney, like so many other aspiring theocrats through history, wants just enough tolerance for himself, but has no intent or desire to extend that same tolerance to others. His plight as a member of a distrusted minority has given him surprisingly little insight or empathy toward others in the same situation. Rather than abolish religious persecution, he simply aspires to be part of the majority so that he can redirect that persecution toward his chosen adversaries.

About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, Broken Ring, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • terrence

    Been waiting for this post for days! Maybe somebody should remind Mr. Romney of at least one American atheist who risked life and limb for his country in the greatest struggle it’s ever had – Col. Ingersoll. Nevertheless, he seems like a decent guy and doesn’t scare me nearly as much as the “Huckabee surge.” I can see this one designating the Creation Museum a national monument.

    I sent this email to the campaign: “Does Mr. Romney believe that the nation he proposes to lead was once inhabited by a vast Hebrew civilization?” No answer yet — will post their reply when it comes. Gasp…getting weak now…skin turning blue…must…have…air…..

  • AttemptingReason

    Card’s book Ender’s Game is still one of my favorites, though no longer number one as it was when I was twelve. I remember how disappointed I was to find out he is an asshole, earlier this year. Romney is clearly an ass as well, not that I was going to vote for him anyway.

  • TheMightyThor

    NOTE TO EBONMUSE: I am not sufficiently computer literate to provide a link, but I think you and the readers of this blog would be GREATLY interested in an article written in the Chicago Tribune by columnist Steve Chapman on this very subject. The article has generated some 100+ responses, mostly vitriolic and ad hominem attacks. There is also an overwhelming ignorance of the meaning of the term “atheist”. You are more eloquent than I could hope to be, so I would appreciate it if you would grace those boobs with some hard teachin’ and while you’re at it, please provide a link for your readers. Thanks.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    I believe TheMightyThor is referring to this article, which is indeed superb.

  • BletchleyPark

    The main problem with Gov. Romney running for president is his Mormon beliefs. These beliefs are anti-science (references to a Creator). The scientists who know about biology, paleontology, and geology have no doubts about evolution’s veracity and ability to explain life as we know it on this planet. Mormons believe that an ignorant farm boy had angels visiting him, and one had him “translate” a book that describes the vast majority of the inhabitants of South, Central, and North Amerindians as being descended from a Hebrew family that left Jerusalem.

    DNA evidence, among other scientific evidence, shows that the vast majority of the earliest inhabitants of the Americas came over the Bering Strait. None of the events, cities, wars, or even geography as described in the Book of Mormon have been discovered or verified by pre-Colombian experts in archeology. This is consistent with a boy making up a storybook. He did this so he wouldn’t have to work hard on a farm. Make yourself a preacher prophet, and you can be Crespo Dollar–ignorant and rich. Mitt Romney really believes that Joe Smith saw angels and was right to have sex with multiple teenagers when he ruled the city of Nauvoo.

    The Mormon religion is so easily shown to be highly improbable and based on absurd stories for the gullible. If Mr. Romney really subscribes to these beliefs, then we should not entrust the Oval Office to him. His Skepto-meter is broken or only works in certain circumstances. Maybe deep down he has realized that Mormonism is probably false, but it takes intellectual courage to leave the church and admit that you, your father, Steve Young, and the Osmonds are dead wrong. It sounds so noble to hold tight to “the faith of my fathers”, but you must jettison the faith of your fathers if it’s wrong!

    Mike Huckabee may be worse with his history of being a Baptist who doesn’t support evolution. Evolution is as established a principle in science as photosynthesis is–trying to act like you’re smart but just have a different opinion about life on Earth is not an option. These people stick their heads in the sand. The don’t understand science, and I don’t want these superstitious bozos in the White House. Science is gonna come up in your presidency, fellas! Stem-cell research is important! Understanding the basics of climate change, carbon emissions, etc. all call for someone who respects science and will gather esteemed scientists to give him/her advice to augment their basic understanding of these important principles.

    No Pastor Huckabee. No Gov. Romney. Your religion or lack thereof shouldn’t matter one bit if you want to be Commander-in-Chief; but if your religion has tenets that are against science, you forfeit your right to be taken seriously.

  • Gary
  • javaman

    If you want to really see how nutty the Mormon cult is , please watch the following cartoon that was designed for children as a first exposure to their faith. But bear in mind they left out the part of Joseph Smith using the seer stone to read the gold tablets in a hat with a cloth over his head.

    Get ready for a real belly laugh.

  • javaman

    Try again. The Mormon cartoon is accessible at:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo

  • TheMightyThor

    Gary and Ebonmuse: Thank you!

  • lpetrich

    That was produced by some opponents of Mormonism, but as far as I can tell, it’s mostly accurate.

    For more details, check out Richard Packham’s page Investigating Mormonism, complete with chapter-and-verse quotes for the odder beliefs in Mormonism.

    Mormon theology, it must be said, has the look of a Bible-thumper trying to write science fiction. It’s something of a transition from the purely-earthbound theologies of older religions and the modern-Universe theologies of the likes of Scientology.

  • Old Timer

    That cartoon is not mostly true. It is full of made up crap and highly distorted tales of anti-Mormons. Like most propaganda, adjectives are added to suggest different meanings and suppositions are added to make the story more ridiculous. There is no doctrine of Jesus being married or how Mary was impregnated. Mormons are serious scientists and work with dinosaur bones, carbon dating and DNA research. The Hebrew travelers were a minority of one female (mtDNA) diluted by 10 million or so prior inhabitants and were eventually destroyed, according to their own records. Because of immediate intermarriage the mtDNA could have easily been lost after a few generations.
    The only source of what the Mormons teach and believe is at lds.org and mormon.org (not .com). The entire cannon of doctrine is found at those sites. All the scriptures are there with a pretty good search engine.
    Every Mormon that could write kept a journal, so there are a lot of speculations out there. I have written two myself, but that is not doctrine of the church.
    When Anti’s write about us it sounds very strange and stupid. You should give up. You will never get it right.

  • Eric

    Old Timer:

    The cult of Mormonism is bizarre and doesn’t have a shred of truth to it. Not one. And anyone who subscribes to this particular brand of crazy is guilty of intellectual dishonesty and feeble-mindedness.

  • Alex Weaver

    When Anti’s write about us it sounds very strange and stupid.

    I can’t imagine why…

    Question, then: mind communicating the church’s official position on gender roles?

  • Old Timer

    To Alex

    Females have the babies, but they have to get some help from Males. Half the babies are males and half are females. A couple of males cannot have a baby together. If they do, breast feeding may be a problem.

    A couple of females cannot have a baby together without some outside help. Does that work for you?

    If the human race is going to continue, it is best done with one male and one female as a breeding pair. Close relatives do not make good breeding pairs.

    Fundamentally, we all understand it the same way. If you are not part of a breeding pair, you are not contributing to the future of mankind. Husband and wife are responsible to each other for survival. Have I left anything out?

  • Alex Weaver

    And in terms of authority and suitability for various roles not directly related to biological reproduction?

    Yes, as I understand it you have left something out.

  • James Picone

    Yeah, blatant sexism and homophobia? Officially crazy.

    Anyway, on the OP, I find it incredibly amusing that the various articles I’ve read about this in the news – Australian newspapers saw fit to carry an article on this – all mentioned a fairly interesting survey – the one where Americans were asked if they wouldn’t vote for a candidate who was otherwise qualified and a member of their party if they were black, female, Mormon, Muslim, etc.. Except they only mentioned that the value for mormons was ‘over 50%’ (I haven’t gone and looked up the study to check if they’ve misquoted), and completely failed to notice that atheists got something like 61% of people not voting for them /just/ because of their atheism, /despite/ them being fully qualified.

    But Mormons are the ones that have it hard, of course.

  • Old Timer

    Men can hold the Aaronic priesthood from 12 to 18 and hold the Melchizedic priesthood from 18 yrs and on. Men can be presidents of Deacons, Priests, Elders and High Priests and can be Bishops. Women can be Presidents of Relief Society and Women’s Youth Groups all the way up the ladder to be equal to Presiding Bishop of the entire church. In General women do not get ordained to the Priesthood but in Temple sealings are joined to the Melchizedic Priesthood of their husbands. As Paul explained to the Corinthians the wife answers to her husband so long as her husband answers properly to God. That last statement is more than I have ever seen explained on the web. My wife has served as a Relief Society President and I can testify that it is almost equivalent to a Bishop in responsibility and duties to minister to the needs of the members. Neither is the Woman without the man nor the Man without the woman in the Lord. Priesthood is a two person unit as the highest functional condition. Only men are ordained to Priesthood. Both men and women are set apart in duties and offices of the church. Women work in the church in many but not all functions.
    Ministering ordnances such as Baptism, ordinations and sacraments of the Lord’s supper are performed by Priesthood as you would expect to see in the Catholic church.
    Going to bed now.

  • Alex Weaver

    So in other words, no, you (plural) don’t believe in the moral and social equality of men and women, but are on some level aware that modern society has rightly come to recognize your view as morally and factually bankrupt, yet are unwilling to abandon it, so you hem and haw and make elaborate excuses.

  • http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/ C. L. Hanson

    That cartoon is not mostly true. It is full of made up crap and highly distorted tales of anti-Mormons. Like most propaganda, adjectives are added to suggest different meanings and suppositions are added to make the story more ridiculous. There is no doctrine of Jesus being married or how Mary was impregnated.

    I agree with you that the cartoon was probably made by people who find Mormon beliefs ridiculous. However, I’ve seen it a number of times, and as someone born and raised Mormon — from a very Mormon family with a proud LDS history going back to Nauvoo days — that the cartoon gives an essentially accurate picture of Mormon doctrine.

    Regarding the doctrine of Jesus being married or how Mary got impregnated: you’re right it’s not doctrinal. But that’s only because the current leadership refuses to pronounce either way on this type of issues. These ideas were preached by the early General Authorities, and they are in the Journal of Discourses. Perhaps the current General Authorities view these teachings as just theories, but if so, they can say so. As it is, the belief that Jesus was a polygamist and that Elohim impregnated Mary (in the “Biblical knowledge” sense) are “folk doctrines” that are currently believed by many real live Mormons.

    For more discussion from real-life current and former Mormons trying to pin down whether the LDS church teaches Jesus was a polygamist or not, see this thread.

  • http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/ C. L. Hanson

    Sorry, I hit send before proofreading. I mean “I can affirm that the cartoon gives an essentially accurate picture.”

    I am not an “anti-Mormon” and I don’t have any agenda to deconvert Mormons. Follow my link to my blog and you’ll see a couple years worth of blog entries to back me up on this.

    However, from a purely strategic point of view, I can give the makers of this cartoon the same kind of high marks I can give Mitt for his strategy of bemoaning religious discrimination while affirming religious discrimination. So many “anti-Mormon” materials are easy to laugh off because they hold up mainstream Christian views against Mormons views, with the (incorrect) assumption that mainstream Christian views will look reasonable by comparison. This cartoon, by contrast, presents Mormon theology all by itself, with no commentary. And Mormons, if they’re honest with themselves, will admit that it’s essentially accurate, and even if the filmmakers deliberately played up everything that will make these ideas look as weird as possible, they didn’t make this stuff up out of thin air.

  • velkyn

    Old timer wrote “To Alex

    Females have the babies, but they have to get some help from Males. Half the babies are males and half are females. A couple of males cannot have a baby together. If they do, breast feeding may be a problem.
    A couple of females cannot have a baby together without some outside help. Does that work for you?
    If the human race is going to continue, it is best done with one male and one female as a breeding pair. Close relatives do not make good breeding pairs.
    Fundamentally, we all understand it the same way. If you are not part of a breeding pair, you are not contributing to the future of mankind. Husband and wife are responsible to each other for survival. Have I left anything out?”

    Well, other than a clue…. What of those who are infertile, OT? Are they not contributing to mankind? “We all” don’t understand a thing you are trying to say. *I* think that you are a stupid bigot.

  • BletchleyPark

    All of you contributing to the thread on Mormonism make interesting points. Mormonism is absolutely fascinating! It is clearly a sect started by an Elmer Gantry-type named Joe Smith. Their history is full of their prophets and “general authorities” making absurd statements that have clearly been proven false. For example, people living on the moon–yes, that was prophetic revelation. Jesus would return to the Earth in heavenly glory before 1900. Even in the 1940s and later, these “prophets” said evolution was false. The 19th century prophets condoned killing members of their community who had committed adultery or other “serious sins”, because spilling their blood was the only way they had a chance in the afterlife.

    The very bedrock of Mormonism hinges on whether or not the Book of Mormon is a written record of ancient colonizers of the Americas hundreds of years BCE and for about 400 years after. The Book of Mormon describes cities of hundreds of thousands of people, complete with buildings, currency, art, etc. They colonized all throughout the Americas, no matter what the Mormon apologists say–that’s what the BoM says. Not one fragment of evidence has ever, ever been discovered to back up anything mentioned in the BoM. The idea that indigenous peoples in North, Central, and South America are descendants of Hebrews has been proven false, yet the Mormons still exist!

    How Mr. Marriott, Mitt Romney, and the thousands of other educated Mormons are able to wall off reality to such an extent! I can’t imagine. Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things” tries, but never really is able to diagnose the psychological syndrome that allows these people to live day in and day out–believing utter nonsense.

  • Karen

    How Mr. Marriott, Mitt Romney, and the thousands of other educated Mormons are able to wall off reality to such an extent!

    Let’s not forget Ken Jennings, Jeopardy! champion extraordinaire and no slouch in the brains department.

    Basically, they do the same thing that fundamentalists of all stripes do: They hold their religious beliefs separate and sacrosanct from logic and rationality. And never the twain shall meet. If reality contradicts one’s religious beliefs, that reality must simply be flawed, or misunderstood, because religious beliefs are unquestionable.

    The ability to do this comes through childhood indoctrination, which is thorough and comprehensive in all fundamentalist families. Eventually, for some of us, the cognitive dissonance between religion and reality grows too large and we start investigating our beliefs. More often than not, they do not hold up.

  • DamienSansBlog

    I understand that Romney’s getting a lot of press about this, and that all the evangelicals have their panties in a knot about it (especially here, where half the churches are holding Mormon “education” seminars and the radio stations are comparing Mormonism to “real” Christianity)…

    …But I can’t see how it’s relevant to atheists. So we’ve got another Republican who’s in bed with religion, and the religion is Very Probably Silly. What’s new here?

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    What I find heartening is how many other people have noticed the anti-atheist bigotry implicit in Romney’s speech. Aside from Slacktivist, whom I already quoted, here are some others:

    The Mahablog:

    His basic message was “Well, yeah, I’m a Mormon, but LOOK — OVER THERE! IT’S A DIRTY FILTHY ATHEIST!”

    Joan Walsh of Salon:

    I sometimes find the anti-God stridency of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens grating. Listening to Romney’s speech I realized what a necessary corrective it is to corrosive political pandering.

    Street Prophets:

    Romney rightly intuited that in some quarters faith forms a communal boundary. If you have a broadly conservative faith, you’re in the club. If you don’t, then you’re the enemy. His strategy, then, was to locate Mormonism within that “broadly conservative faith” by declaring it to be the enemy of the same people that conservative Christians are allied against.

    Joe Conason:

    Surely Romney knows that Mormonism, in particular, was historically hostile to liberty for blacks as well as women. The founders of his church believed that God had cursed the world’s dark-skinned people. They rejected abolitionism and later the civil rights movement. And their acceptance of full membership for African-Americans in the LDS church dates back only 30 years.

    If Romney is going to attack humanists and secularists as “wrong,” then let him explain why they were so far ahead of his church on the greatest moral issues of the past half-century.

    Ezra Klein:

    Romney did not stand against intolerance. Instead, he simply asked that it not be directed against him, a man of faith. You can be intolerant, but do it to them, over there. They’re even more different.

    The Washington Post:

    [Romney]‘s right, too, that no one should vote against him, or for him, because he is a Mormon. We only wish his empathy for religious minorities such as his own extended a bit further, to those who do not believe in God.

    I’m surprised and delighted to see so many people express outrage over this thinly-veiled slap at atheism. This may well be a further sign of the mainstreaming of nonbelief, thanks to the efforts of our passionate spokespeople.

  • Tomas S

    Romney’s idea that Freedom needs Religion reminds me of something I’m going through now — that the Boy Scouts of America require members to believe. It doesn’t matter what you belive, as long as you’re not an atheist. Since the Mormons are the biggest sponsor of the BSA, I wonder if there’s a connection here.

  • Karen

    Ebon, I made the same observation over the weekend. I read or skimmed probably 2 dozen columns and every one of them objected to his “freedom requires religion” statement and mentioned that he had alienated non-religious Americans.

    I think that statement would hardly have raised eyebrows 30 years ago, and even a decade ago it would have been remarked on by a minority of commentators. The fact that the majority in the mainstream press raised objections is definitely a good sign for us!

  • OMGF

    Romney’s idea that Freedom needs Religion reminds me of something I’m going through now — that the Boy Scouts of America require members to believe. It doesn’t matter what you belive, as long as you’re not an atheist. Since the Mormons are the biggest sponsor of the BSA, I wonder if there’s a connection here.

    That and BSA’s discrimination against gays is enough for me to not want anything to do with them. In fact, I’ve brought it up a few times to others how the BSA discriminates against both atheists and gays. You’d be surprised at how surprised most people are to hear that.

  • http://lfab-uvm.blogspot.com/ C. L. Hanson

    I’m surprised and delighted to see so many people express outrage over this thinly-veiled slap at atheism. This may well be a further sign of the mainstreaming of nonbelief, thanks to the efforts of our passionate spokespeople.

    Wow, I’m impressed too!!! The mainstream media treating atheists like ordinary people who deserve rights, instead of treating us like the bogeyman? I guess all it took was another out group (Mormons) picking on atheists in order to get a little sympathy. Thanks, Mitt!!! :D

    But even though Mitt’s vision of freedom excludes non-believers, I won’t respond in kind. I’d rather include everyone, see my passionate secularism.

  • Tomas S

    OMGF: You’d be surprised at how surprised most people are to hear that.

    Actually, I wouldn’t. I see it all the time. (insert smilie or frownie here as appropriate.)

    It was my search for information as both an atheist and the father of a scout that brought me to this site. Many many people assured me that there is no religion in scouting even though the scouts themselves say differently – such as on the membership application.

    I don’t really want to turn this into a discussion about scouting per se, but it’s interesting to contemplate whether the idea that “all faith is okay as long as it’s faith” is some kind of Mormon wedge.

  • Jeff T.

    One of the biggest ironies that I see in religious people is the assumption that God was responsible for a certain action. Mr. Romney states that God gave this country liberty and yet he fails to understand that if this is true, then God picked a horrible way to give it to us… the Revolutionary War and he is therefore a murderer.

    A similar idea is from the recent tragedy in Colorado that involved a Security Officer shooting a mass murderer. She then gave credit to God for taking out the culprit while failing to acknowledge that God must therefore be responsible for the gunman’s actions from the beginning.

    While this concept could probably be expressed more poetically by many of the readers here and is only slightly related to this thread—I just had to say it because I am sick and tired of seeing this particular logical fallicy being repeated over and over by people in the media.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org/ Ebonmuse

    Apropos of some earlier comments in this thread, here’s an enlightening article on whether Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers.

    The June 1986 edition of Ensign, the “official magazine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” explained the answer this way: “On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some — especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel ‘who was in authority in the presence of God,’ a ‘son of the morning’ … Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother.”

    Here’s the original Ensign article.

  • DamienSansBlog

    So the discussion is not about how silly Mormonism is (despite the best efforts of Old Timer et al.), but how this particular Mormon slung mud at atheists to distract the non-Mormon faithful.

    OK. I stand corrected.

  • terrence

    Time was, whenever I heard or saw an example of some elite pointyheaded arrogant Euroweenie snob disparaging my (USA) country, my patriotic hackles would get raised bigtime. But now tonight, when I see two leading GOP candidates vying for the presidency of this nation sparring over who holds the correct mythological fairy tale (re: Jesus and his alleged brother), I can only ruefully agree NO WONDER THEY THINK WE ARE A BUNCH OF BOOBS.

  • View from Here

    There’s an interesting article on Romney and a variety of other phenomena involving the “peddling of religious sensationalism” here:

    http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/jesus-judas-and-dead-sea-scrolls-peddling-religious-sensationalism-america

  • http://reasonoverreligion.blogspot.com/ Reason over religion!

    There is scientific evidence that religion and morality are not inderdependant. In fact, it is more than likely that religion actually has a corrupting influence on morality.

    Freedom requires religion? This guy should be laughed off the stage, let alone nominated for President.

  • Adviser Moppet

    I liked Pat Condell’s reply better. “Freedom requires religion like a slug requires salt”. It’s on his youtube page.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X