Casting Stones

Casting Stones

Romney’s Attack on Non-Believers

posted by swaldman | 5:43pm Thursday December 6, 2007

I was struck by the bald attack on non-believers:
“Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.”
He went beyond assailing “secularism” (though he did that too), to specifically give non-believers a lower status. Politicians have long decried “secularism,” a vague all-purpose enemy. And of course they invariably implicitly treat non-believers as second-class citizens by relentlessly celebrating the value of religion. But Romney went a step farther, saying he would not be a “friend” or “ally” of the non-believer.
About three percent of the population are atheists or agnostics, according to a study by the Pew Religious Forum. Another 7.5% are “secularists” who have no religious affiliation and few or no religious beliefs or practices.
That means there are four or five times as many non-believers as there are Mormons.


I can’t quite remember a candidate declaring his distaste for a particular demographic group quite this way. Non-believers and secularists may not be a big voting bloc in the Republican primaries, but 10.5% is roughly 22 million people.
Romney had a difficult task. He wanted to be very pro-religion to appeal to religious conservative voters. At the same time, he needed a philosophical formulation that would assuage Christians about his Mormonism. What he came up with was a formula that rallied all people of faith against a common enemy: secularism and secularists.



Previous Posts

Same-Sex Marriage: Are the People Sovereign, or is it to be the Courts?
On Nov. 4, 2008, the people of California, Florida and Arizona joined the ranks of the nearly 40 of the United States that have outlawed same-sex marriage either by amending their respective state constitutions or by passing appropriate legislation. The three states mentioned above amended their sta

posted 4:11:30pm Nov. 14, 2008 | read full post »

Traditional Marriage Wins Big
Social conservatives and defenders of traditional marriage won tremendous strategic victories in ballot initiatives on Nov. 4. First and foremost, the defenders of traditional marriage overturned the California Supreme Court's legalization last June of same-sex marriage. Despite being outspent nearl

posted 11:35:03am Nov. 07, 2008 | read full post »

America: Fulfilling her promises
All Americans should take great pride and satisfaction in the election of an African-American as president of the United States. Given our nation's tragic racial history, it says something noble and fine about America that Barack Obama, both a product of a biracial marriage and the son of a Kenyan f

posted 2:03:21pm Nov. 06, 2008 | read full post »

The Party Platforms: Instructive Guides to Informed Voting - Part 3
Every year (beginning in 1988) the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has published a comparison of the two major party platforms to assist Southern Baptists and other people of faith as they seek guidance in the decision for whom to cast their ballots in the presidential ele

posted 1:44:04pm Oct. 31, 2008 | read full post »

McCain, Obama, and the Military
Which candidate for president enjoys the most support among the military, active and retired? The Military Times recently released the results of a poll of their readership (Active Duty military, Reserve-National Guard members, and "military retirees"). They found that among "Active Duty" military J

posted 4:15:25pm Oct. 29, 2008 | read full post »

Advertisement
Comments read comments(25)
post a comment
nnmns

posted December 6, 2007 at 7:09 pm


Thank you Steve. Good observations.
I heard a Muslim in a program presenting Islam to a crowd probably mostly Christians. He as much as said “we may not be Christians but at least we aren’t those —— atheists”. Atheists and agnostics seem to be the whipping boys of any out religion that wants to show it’s like the others and I guess of any preacher who’s afraid people will see the advantages of staying home on Sunday mornings.



report abuse
 

Shannon

posted December 6, 2007 at 8:48 pm


I have heard some people say that Romney couldn’t find his way out of a paper bag. He seemed smart enough. That is, until he said those statements.
Last time I checked, this country was made up of people of all different religious backgrounds and beliefs, and that those people needed to be served too, not just those who believe a certain way.
How ironic is it that the people who make up a large part of the Republican voting bloc wouldn’t consider Romney a Christian at all because he isn’t one of a certain subset of Christians? In trying to appeal to those people, he dismissed everyone else. Big mistake.



report abuse
 

Kathaleen AZ

posted December 6, 2007 at 9:21 pm


I work with a few of the morman religion and they are great people. They also stress that they are sent letters and the church does not encourage them to vote for any particular politician. I am of the catholic faith and remember a good friend of my Mom telling her that there is no way a Catholic will become president. History proved her wrong. Again the media is trying the scare tactic with Mitt’s religion but if you read about the Morman religion you won’t believe the lies stated. At least he is not a hypocrite like Hillary Clinton who uses religion when convenient and is a vile person.



report abuse
 

Larry Parker

posted December 6, 2007 at 10:05 pm


Steven:
Remember Romney’s audience.
He wasn’t appealing to the general electorate. He was appealing to Republican primary voters — a constituency which I’m fairly certain contains almost no atheists and few agnostics.
Of course I noticed the slight. But I’m less bothered given to whom Romney was directing his remarks.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 6, 2007 at 10:44 pm


So Larry you are saying he’s saying something now but he doesn’t mean it because he’s just talking to some people? You could well be right.
Kathaleen, on the vileness scale Hillary doesn’t come close to GWB (responsible for the pointless deaths of thousands and thousands of people) or even several of the Republican candidates.
And you really don’t call changing his mind on abortion and gay rights to try to fit his electorate hypocritical?



report abuse
 

DLounsbury

posted December 7, 2007 at 1:01 am


Wow. Out from that amazing speech Romney delivered you actually deduced an attack on non-believers. You have to look awfully hard and have an amazingly defensive posture to make that illogical of a deduction. Romney’s message was a positive one that made the net broader. Romney didn’t say that non-believers weren’t his allies, only that he feels those who pray are. Either you are a sophist who is using sleight of hand to fool folks or you just need a primer in logic. Most entry level philosophy classes teach basic logic. Some are even available online.



report abuse
 

Karen

posted December 7, 2007 at 2:08 am


After years of hearing how simply not mentioning religion frequently enough, DLoudnsbury, was the same as being disrepectful, I find those comments a touch ironic.
But I do know that Romney has not stated that the non-believer WILL find a friend and ally in him.
And no, Larry, the primary voters are not very likely to contain a lot of non-believers. But if he wins, his constituency will. So, once this process is over, it might be useful to suss him out regarding whether THAT constituency (which actually numbers more than Mormons, Jews, Hindus and Muslims combined) will find him a ‘friend and ally’ as well.
And naw, it isn’t the worst diss ever given our group.
That’d be far more direct (rather than by omission) by the former President Bush (as opposed to the current one.)
Where he declared that he wasn’t sure atheists could be considered ‘citizens or patriots’, since this was ‘one nation under God, after all’.
Not that I heard a lot of supportive outrage from anyone on that one either.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 7, 2007 at 3:23 am


This is from David Brooks’ column in the NYT; a conservative columnist.
“But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.
The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.”
So even a sometimes-thoughtful conservative saw it.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 7, 2007 at 7:00 am


Karl Rove and his little mentee have been willing for a long time now to split the country for their political gain and it’s worked all too well for them. Now Mitt Romney is headed down that ugly path.



report abuse
 

Liam Sauer-Wooden

posted December 7, 2007 at 8:22 am


“…deduced an attack on non-believers.”
Little if any deduction needed to be used after Mr. Romney made a public exhibition of his pro-Christian bias.



report abuse
 

Pam

posted December 7, 2007 at 9:00 am


I wonder sometimes if the mere perfunctory acknowledgement of a non-believer’s rights has any real value. It usually has a tone, that if persued, would probably result in a ‘just sit down and shut up’ attitude. I hardly think most overtly religious people, if pressed, would actually belief in equal respect and equal rights of those who are not believers.



report abuse
 

Karen

posted December 7, 2007 at 9:03 am


Well, yeah. But, at least the last few years, when the politicians made an obvious play for the religious vote, a few have at least managed a token acknowledgment that the nonbelievers.. well, existed.



report abuse
 

Karen

posted December 7, 2007 at 9:34 am


So, Donny, to get specific.. If atheists are ‘not at all to be tolerated’, what, exactly, does this lack of tolerance mean?
What do you propose be done to those atheists who, because they are atheists, apparently can’t be relied upon to keep their promises and oaths?
That they can’t, for instance, serve in public office? Or sign contracts, or conduct business? What, exactly, is it that atheists should be required, or forbidden from doing in your view?
Go ahead, don’t hold back (not that you ever do). Tell us what you /really/ think.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 7, 2007 at 9:49 am


Locke was not such a great thinker at all if he thought we aren’t bound by promises, covenants and oaths. Laws and concern for others’ good opinion count for us at least as much as for the believers in Big Invisible Friends.
I’d have said people who don’t subscribe to a foundation-less faith, a hypothesis with no supporting evidence, should be honored.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted December 7, 2007 at 10:19 am


“Abortionists, which Hillary is and Romney supposedly “was,” are responsible for tens of millions of deaths.”
Actually I doubt either of them ever performed an abortion. But both have been for abortion rights, Hillary being consistent still is, Romney being Romney has changed his tune.
But while we are talking about deaths, meat eaters are responsible for billions of deaths. And, like fetuses, cows hogs and pigs are not humans. Actually cows hogs and pigs suffer fear and pain when they die but fetuses early in the term probably can’t suffer much if any pain and in a competently done abortion it’s over quickly and they never have cause for fear before an abortion.
So while we’d all like to cut down the need for abortions, they are not nearly as serious as some would have us believe.
And instead of arguing about abortions and gay marriages we really need to be thinking about the serious problems like war and especially global warming. That could indeed kill us all.



report abuse
 

Shannon Richey

posted December 7, 2007 at 9:56 pm


Larry, I do see that he was trying to appeal to the Republican voting bloc, but I can guarantee you that at least half of the people he was playing to (closer to two-thirds, actually) would not consider Romney as a possibility because they do not consider Mormons (or anyone but their little group) to be Christian, and they will only vote for a Christian. These are the people who voted in GWB. Apparently all they need to hear is that the person claims to be a Christian of the right type; the fruits don’t seem to make a difference.
I grew up with these people; I dated several. I used to be a fundamentalist (although I was sort of a closet liberal). So I am familiar with how these people think. Actually, some of them don’t seem to think at all.
But I will stop being mean now.



report abuse
 

bkekcs

posted December 9, 2007 at 11:35 am


Show me where he said he wouldn’t be a friend or ally to the “non-believer”.



report abuse
 

Karen

posted December 9, 2007 at 12:46 pm


He listed those that would find a friend or ally in Mitt. Non-believers weren’t in the list.
It could mean neutrality, but I find no reason to think that he would consider us friends or allies when we don’t qualify. (knelt in prayer to the Almighty.)
Now, if he had said anyone who, say, ‘had red hair will find a friend and ally in Mitt’, and you don’t, would you feel he considered you such?



report abuse
 

Karen

posted December 9, 2007 at 12:49 pm


And I do find, again, that thought humorous.
I mean, how many years was the Democratic Party tarred as being ‘anti-religious’, simply for not doing such things as referencing religion, God and faith in their speeches often enough, or paying enough visits to religious leaders and venues?
And now the same conclusions are being drawn by a speech in which the qualities are specifically mentioned to be a ‘friend and ally’ of the speaker, why would such a conclusion be right then, and wrong now?



report abuse
 

Erik

posted December 14, 2007 at 12:45 am


“Any believer in secular freedom, any person who has stood up to myths and dogma, has a friend and ally in me.”
Religion is a festering cancer on our planet and pity the ignorant.
Atheism forever.



report abuse
 

GEORGE A STEPHEN

posted December 14, 2007 at 9:29 am


i do not believe mormons discriminate against any other religious or non-religious groups of any kind they believe we are all sons and daughters of our heavenly father.



report abuse
 

Wizard of ID

posted December 25, 2007 at 8:05 pm


Why do atheists claim to have no religion when they follow a religious philosophy and advocate a dogma, same as everybody else?
Why do atheists criticize religion as divisive and discriminatory when they preach against those who do not share their doctrine?



report abuse
 

Leisuredan

posted December 26, 2007 at 8:30 pm


Atheists want a Religious advocate to include them in a statement on their religion??? How “Alice in Wonderland” that desire is. Of course Atheists have only rotten tomatoes to throw a those of religion. Mitt said nothing against Atheists but look at the comments such as “Atheism forever.” What does that have to do with Mitt’s monologue?



report abuse
 

Joe bob

posted July 27, 2008 at 3:31 pm


As a man who travels by himself I find that many “families” are training themselves and their children to belittle strangers. Call them drug addicts, drug dealers, non believers. Today a young child asked her parent why we talk this way about people. The young mother said “we don’t
want those people around us you never know when they will go crazy and hit us.”
We talk this way because they don’t know Jesus. We say these things because they eventually throw a fit and we win. The child said “win what Mommie.” The mother said we hire them for jobs but we don’t pay them because they don’t believe. They are just beasts we use to further the glory thats is Christs love.



report abuse
 

Pingback: Is Romney a Bigot? - God-O-Meter

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Share this story


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Help

Media Kit

Subscribe

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.