creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum
15 Feb 2012
Obama's Fiscal Fakery: How Can You Pay Down the National Debt by Building It Up?

Decrying "a decade of deficits" on Monday, President Obama declared that "my budget lays out a … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Bogus Busts: New York City Continues Its Illegal Crackdown on Pot Smokers

Thirty-five years ago, New York's legislature decriminalized marijuana possession. Numbers released last week … Read More.

1 Feb 2012
Complexity Compounded

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama used billionaire investor Warren Buffett's secretary,… Read More.

And Everybody Hates the Atheists

Share Comment

The take-home message of Mitt Romney's recent speech on religion and politics was pretty clear: I may be a Mormon, but at least I'm not an atheist.

Romney sought to strengthen his advantage as a presidential candidate known for being religious while assuaging the concerns of Americans who are reluctant to vote for a Mormon. He did so by reinforcing the public's longstanding prejudice against unbelievers, arguing that religion — any religion — is preferable to no religion at all.

According to an August survey by the Pew Center on Religion and Public Life, nearly half of those who express an opinion describe Romney as "very religious," and "most Americans continue to say that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs." At the same time, one in four Americans say a candidate's Mormonism would make them less likely to vote for him, and this aversion is especially strong among voters for whom a candidate's religiosity matters most: More than a third of white Republican evangelicals, who play an important role in choosing their party's nominee, are leery of Mormon candidates.

But the same survey that highlighted this problem also suggested a solution. "Being a Mormon is viewed as far less of a liability for a presidential candidate than not believing in God or being a Muslim," the Pew Center noted.

Bashing Muslims would fly in the face of the distinction President Bush always has drawn between violent jihadists and their moderate co-religionists. In his speech, Romney took the same tack, condemning "radical Islamists" while admiring ordinary Muslims' "commitment to frequent prayer" (along with Catholics' "profound ceremony," Pentecostals' "tenderness of spirit," Lutherans' "confident independence" and Jews' "ancient traditions").

Romney made no such distinctions in his treatment of atheists, who get even worse poll ratings than Muslims. While "45 percent express reluctance about voting for a Muslim," the Pew Center reports, "61 percent say they would be less likely to support a candidate who does not believe in God."

In a December 6-9 Gallup poll, nearly half of the respondents endorsed an even stronger anti-atheist statement, saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person" of their own party "who happened to be an atheist." The corresponding number for a Mormon candidate was 17 percent, about the same as before Romney's speech.

Romney tried to build on this advantage, wrapping together all religions, except for "the religion of secularism," in a warm, fuzzy package.

"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me," he said. "We do not insist on a single strain of religion; rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

Americans who have never "knelt in prayer" clearly should not bother auditioning for the "symphony of faith." Romney conspicuously failed to address the question of whether they also are excluded from his circle of friends and allies.

Romney's justification for treating all religions as presumptively good, no matter how wildly contradictory their teachings, is that they all share a "common creed of moral convictions." He enumerated three: "the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty." Yeah, there's no way an atheist could believe in those things.

To back up his claim that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," Romney cited John Adams' comment that "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." Adams, a Unitarian who rejected orthodox Christian beliefs (including the divinity of Christ, which Romney was at pains to affirm), valued religion in general because he believed it restrained "human passions" such as "avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry."

Like other founders who leaned toward deism or agnosticism, Adams thought religion was important not because it was true but because it helped keep the common people in line. Romney's promiscuous ecumenism suggests he holds a similar view.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine, and his work appears in the new Reason anthology "Choice" (BenBella Books). To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
John Adams was not a traditional Unitarian, as we know them today, nor have I ever come across any reference to his denial of the deity of Christ. What you say may be true, I will not claim to know the heart of a living man, let alone a man dead two hundred years, but I have never heard that and can find no direct reference other than one of the elders of his church holding to Unitarianism and his father supporting that elder as a deacon. Unitarians were Congregationalists at that time and as a whole held to Covenant theology.
Most religious people do not hate atheists, they hate "sin". Atheists deny the existence of sin, by their lack of belief in a moral definitive. Are all atheists Immoral? No. Are all religious people moral? No. The majority of atheists have no standard of behavior other than the society in which they live. A government of people whose behavior will change to fit the soicietal norm can only degenerate, having no standard other than changeable laws, in a society like that stability becomes a crime.
People of faith are vilified today. Why? because their beliefs and influence prohibit our government from deleting our freedoms based on the modern cultural view that we are "free" to behave, personally, in any way without consequence. Acting irresponsibly is not free, someone is paying the bills. Is it a coincidence that religious people got to work, pay their bills, raise their children, and support charities more,"religiously", in general than their secular counterparts. I personally do not think so.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Dave
Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:40 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Jacob Sullum
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

23 Jun 2010 Oil Gushes and Power Rushes

6 Aug 2008 File Keepers

11 Jun 2008 Cigarette Flavoratism