Mitt Romney Fights Anti-Mormon Bigotry with Anti-Atheist Bigotry
Voter: "You, sir, are a pretender. You don't know the Lord. You are a Mormon."
(BOOS)
Romney: (Chuckling) "Let me, uh, let me offer just a thought. And that is, uh, one of the great things about this great land, is we have people of different faiths and different persuasions. And uh, I'm convinced that the nation, that the nation does need, the nation does need to have people of different faiths but we need to have a person of faith lead the country."
(APPLAUSE)
Source: ABC News
ABC and other news organizations are framing this positively, showing how effectively Mitt Romney can "face down" anti-Mormon comments. The fact that Romney does so with equally vile bigotry of his own is completely ignored. The audience there even cheered his anti-atheist bigotry right after booing the anti-Mormon bigotry. Why? Probably because while Americans are able to recognize that anti-Mormon bigotry is wrong (though not all do and it's been a long process), they are unable to accept that anti-atheist bigotry is wrong.
ABC and other news organizations implicitly accept, agree with, and spread the Good News of Romney's underlying message: "people of faith" are good, moral, decent people you can trust with leadership, responsibility, and authority in the government. Even if their "faith" is a bit different from yours, that's OK because it's still "faith" and that's all that matters. People without faith, however, are decrepit, immoral, untrustworthy, and should not be trusted with any power or authority over Americans.
Regardless of how strange, different, or unusual a person's faith it, at least they aren't an atheist.
Anyone who claimed that religious theists cannot be trusted with political power and should not hold political office would be immediately denounced as a bigot; Romney basically stated that irreligious atheists cannot be trusted with political power and should not hold public office yet he's more-or-less praised for how he handled the heckler. He's not denounced as a bigot because religious theists in this country are unable or unwilling to accept irreligious atheists as equals; therefore, bigotry against them is treated as natural and normal. It's not even "real" bigotry — just a recognition of the facts of life.
Of course, there will always be a certain amount of prejudice, bigotry, and suspicion that won't go away. There may be valid reasons why a person will not be inclined to vote for a Catholic, Mormon, or Buddhist. A candidate's religion is an ideology from which a voter might draw valid, reasonable expectations about how that candidate will act or make decisions. Refusing to vote for a person based on their religious ideology need not be worse than refusing to vote for them based on their political ideology — provided, of course, that one has an accurate, fair, and reasonable understanding of that ideology.
That's the theory, at least — in practice, refusing to vote for someone because of their religion often has more to do with bigotry than with reasoned objections to a person's ideological position. Refusing to vote for an atheist goes much further, in that atheism isn't even an ideology from which anything can be justifiably inferred. You can't make any valid inferences about what a person believes, how they will act, or what sorts of decisions they may make simply based on the fact that they are an atheist.
It's not a problem, necessarily, for politicians to talk about religion. Most politicians need to connect to voters quickly and cleanly; one way or accomplishing this is to get voters to accept that the candidate has a foundation of reliable values. Religion, of course, is an easy way to accomplish this. There's nothing inherently wrong a candidate saying that, for example, "as a Catholic I have learned to value X, Y, Z." Where significant problems arise is when a candidate starts implying, or even stating outright, that no non-Catholics can be trusted to value X, Y, and Z.
This is precisely what's happening with Mitt Romney and other Christians who lean so heavily on the "people of faith" rhetoric. Christians created the entire "people of faith" category as code to draw a line between themselves and irreligious atheists — but where those on the outside might even include theists who don't meet the entry requirements. It's a litmus test for determining whether a person is willing to toe the line on various social, political, and cultural issues. If you aren't, then you don’t have "real faith" and aren't in the cool kids' club any more — you're relegated the outer darkness where atheists, skeptics, freethinkers, and other misshapen creatures dwell.
Thus, contrary to the straw man constructed by Nathan Newman, it's not that atheists want to see religious talk taken out of public debate. Atheists are, in fact, commonly attacked for daring to give their opinions about religion and religious beliefs in public debates. Instead, it's just that atheists want to see anti-atheist bigotry taken out of public debate — even when that bigotry is presented in religious terms. Religion is not a justification or excuse for bigotry. It's rather like wanting to see racism removed from public debate, then to hear an apologist for racism declare that anti-racists are really trying to stop people from talking about race entirely. It's wrong, unfair, unjust, and ultimately serves as a cover to abet continued racism. No one who does such a thing can be believed if they claim to actually oppose the bigotry in question.
This sort of indecency — both from open bigots like Romney and people like Newman who enable such bigotry to continue — is precisely what atheists can be so "uncivil" about in their public statements. Atheists are told by grave and serious people that we wouldn't be so reviled, distrusted, and discriminated against if we simply didn't use provocative language or talk out of turn.
In the meantime, some of these same grave and serious people turn around and make excuses for the indecent, immoral, and unjust bigotry of religious theists like Mitt Romney. It's OK for a person with his power and authority to suggest that atheists are unfit for public office, but it's not OK for a simple atheist blogger to object if they don't do so in a sufficiently civil manner. Atheists should dismiss such objections — first, because incivility pales in comparison to indecency and, second, because the objections aren't being made honestly.
Demands that atheists be more civil are just the first steps in a long process of shifting the goal posts: Newman's post is a response to some very civil and polite posts from Atrios, but see how far his civility got him? Without incivility to focus on and attack, Newman just created a Straw Man as a way to ignore Atrios's central point. That's the defining characteristic of theists' responses to atheists' complaints: ignore the actual substance of our complaints and the arguments we offer in favor or some irrelevant or nonexistent issue that can distract everyone from the indecency or immorality that's really the issue.
So don't worry about being accused of incivility or dismissed because you're vulgar, impolite, or somehow uncivil. Those are just excuses because these same accusers are more likely than not to find other justifications to dismiss, ignore, or misrepresent what you say. There are plenty of atheists out there taking a variety of approaches — some are more civil and some are less so; some are more polite and some are more pointed. Anyone put off by the less polite approaches (and that's not always unreasonable) have plenty of other options to pick from; the fact that they don't, and instead spend their time picking on uncivil blog posts, demonstrates where their real interest lies.
Comments
First of all, the culture of America is one of faith. My understanding of the pilgrims is that they came here seeking religious freedom. The founders of this country spoke incessently of their reliance on God. People of Faith are those who hold the traditions of those who have built this nation. Everything that is good in this nation or any other has come because God has had a hand in it.
I have noticed that Christians for the most part have a great reliance upon God for the direction and sustenance of this nation of ours in its performance among the family of nations on this earth.
While you have scorned Christians and Mormons for seeking “People of Faith” I have never seen an Agnostic or Atheism bring value to the people of the United States as a whole. If you consider those who have taken prayer out of school and trying to remove any wording about God from the American culture, I would have no desire to vote for such a person to any public office because they would not represent my values and core beliefs. In deed, I would find them to be more of a hinderance to their representation of me then any outside forces could ever provide.
What does this mean?
They had religious freedom in Holland. They came seeking economic opportunities.
However, even if what you say is true, what does that have to do with this post?
Some did, some didn’t. Any one person’s personal reliance on some god, however, says absolutely nothing about America’s political structure, government, laws, or culture. These same people made a point of declaring that there would be no religious tests for public office - the only mention of religion in the Constitution’s main body.
I find it curious that you would cite such people as an authority in this matter when you admit at the end of your comment that you are comfortable with apply a personal religious test when it comes to your votes. Obviously you have that right, but it’s just as obvious that your values are not the same as the founders you are trying to cite as justification for your personal religious test.
So, you’re claiming that the irreligious and atheists do not hold America traditions and had nothing to do with the building of this nation?
Please provide support for this claim.
I have noticed that despite claiming that they rely on God, most Christians nevertheless do all same things that non-Christians do in order to survive — they don’t actually rely on any gods, they rely on themselves and their own hard work.
Please cite examples of how Christainity has brought value to the people of the United States as a whole.
Prayer has not been taken out of school.
Please cite examples of people doing this.
Since no one has done what you cite above, then you are describing a non-existent group of people for whom you would not vote.
In practice, though, what you mean is that you would not vote for atheists and you are justifying this with myths and misrepresentations. That’s like refusing to vote for a black person by saying that black people are naturally inclined to commit more crimes.
Do you even know any atheists, such that your claims might have any foundation in fact and reality?
Relying on your interpretation of Mr. Romney’s comments, one would be forced to conclude that he was antagonizing atheism. However, that’s a narrow interpretation, considering only three of the nine definitions of “faith” in an unabridged dictionary actually refer to God or a system of beliefs. Granted, since religion *was* the topic of the conversation, it’s a facile subject to latch onto and run with. And run you did.
It’s clear that atheists put up with a lot of crap from theists (see above) and vice-versa, but there’s no reason to find crap where it doesn’t even exist. I like Romney, but I don’t believe that he’s perfect - I just don’t think anti-atheistic bigotry is one of his imperfections. I would have to see a much clearer example before I’d consider otherwise.
Andrew, if Romney intended “person of faith” to be universally inclusive then what did his statement actually mean? It would be as empty of content as saying “we need a living person to lead the country.” Clearly Romney, and his audience, believed that there was significance to being a “person of faith,” and that means that there was significance to not being a “person of faith.” Please tell me which of the nine definitions of faith Romney was referring to if not the religious definitions.
Romney didn’t simply use the term “faith,” he used the phrase “person of faith,” derived from “people of faith.” Do you honestly believe that it is not meant to refer to religion and theism? If so, please cite examples of politicians in recent years using it to refer to anything other than religion and theism.
Do you believe that Bush’s “faith based initiative” and “faith based agenda” aren’t all about religion and theism?
I don’t think there’s any question that Romney was talking about religious faith. Does that mean he holds anti-atheist feelings? No, not necessarily, although it wouldn’t surprise me if he did.
As I see it, Romney is just pandering to his audience, as he did when he ran for governor here in Massachusetts. He told us he’d never do anything to take away a woman’s right to control her body, and he said he’d be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy.
When he decided to run for president instead of reelection, he started traveling around the country stressing how different he was from the people of Massachusetts, mocking us, and basically saying he’d lied to us.
Romney’s trying to run as a republican… he has to pander to the religious and of course, we as non-believers can certainly take offense to his remarks but since I entirely expected rhetoric like that, and have never voted republican, I won’t cast a vote for Romney… not so tough really.
candid, in reference to the #1 comment…if agnostics and atheists contributed nothing to society or the world, in general, that would be so much better than the hatred, bloodshed and destruction that religious people contribute on a routine basis. who started the iraq war and under, at best, dubious pretences?…american christians. speaking for myself, science is our only hope to discover the truth about existence. in the meantime…’do no harm’ is how i try to be. for the most part, religions are default social and tradition baggage and with it the necessary self righteousness and intolerance and pride at being the only right ones. in the evolution of humans we had to go through this metaphysical phase but hopefully it will fall away like a booster rocket as we continue to evolve into the scientific era.
I have never seen an Agnostic or Atheism bring value to the people of the United States as a whole. — Candid
Bill Gates is an atheist who some would say has contributed value to the people of the United States as a whole. You may have heard of Gates. He started a little software company that has met with a measure of success.
Gates has also been known to give a widow’s mite to charity.
I am willing to bet a nickel that Candid does not practice the religion the Pilgrims practised.
The Pilgrims opposed Confession, Penance, Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, Confession and Last Rites.
Icons and religious symbols such as crosses, statues, stain-glass windows, fancy architecture, and other worldly manifestations of religion were rejected as a form of idolatry
The Pilgrims did not celebrate Christmas and Easter. These holidays were invented by man to memorialize Jesus, and are not prescribed by the Bible or celebrated by the early Christian churches, and therefore cannot be considered Holy days.
They considered marriage a civil affair, not to be handled by the church ministers, but instead by civil magistrates.
I guess Candid has also never heard of Edison, Carnegie, Anthony (Susan B), Twain, Disney, etc etc etc
The best way to think of the Pilgrims are the modern Taliban. They share so many of the same attitudes. With the exception of Slavery..the taliban are against it. The Pilgrims sold whatever Pequot Indians they could find into slavery (after ambushing and slaughtering the tribes first). Gimme that old time religion!!
It’s unbelievable to me that someone as mentally incompetent as Austin Cline actually has a job writing this crap. He can’t even think of substantive topics to write about. Hey Austin, if you everything you say in your blogs is true about atheism, maybe you should move somewhere more socialistic; like France or Venezuela! You disgust me!
That’s a pretty serious accusation. Can you back it up?
Why isn’t anti-atheist bigotry on the part of a Republican candidate for president a “substantive topic”?
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the connection. How would the truth of what I say about atheism (can you support your implication that it’s not?) logically entail that moving to a place like France would be a good idea?
Really, why?
so my question to you mr. cline is what would you have said if faced with romney’s situation?
i’m not quite sure you’d be able to reply better than romney did seeing as you have no background information as to what the LDS religion is all about.
romney didn’t condemn atheists. he said that religious diversity adds to the United States. he just needs America to realize that a mormon can make a wonderful president.
his religion does not make him any less of a candidate for president.
He could have simply stopped at pointing out that America is a nation of many religions. If he wanted to go further, he could have stated that there is no religious test for public office and thus that a candidate’s qualifications for public office do not depend on their religious beliefs.
That’s a pretty serious accusation. Can you support it?
It really doesn’t matter what the LDS religion “is all about” here because Romney is running for President of the United States, not President of the LDS church — thus his answer must reflect the standards for the former office and not the latter.
Yes he did, by implication, because he words were that atheists should not lead the country. If you disagree, then please explain how his actual words do not signal this.
He didn’t use those words; you can read those words as implied, but there is far less in his actual words which suggest he meant “a Mormon can make a wonder president” than there is to suggest he believes that atheists shouldn’t be president.
That is true, and he should have limited himself to saying that. Because he went on to express anti-atheist bigotry, though, he rendered himself less worthy of being president. Saying that “we need to have a person of faith lead the country” is no less bigoted than saying “we need to have a person with faith in Jesus lead the country” or “we need a white person to lead this country.”
me: he said that religious diversity adds to the United States. he just needs America to realize that a mormon can make a wonderful president.
you: He didn’t use those words; you can read those words as implied, but there is far less in his actual words which suggest he meant “a Mormon can make a wonder president” than there is to suggest he believes that atheists shouldn’t be president.
me again: he implied it. make up your mind about whether or not you are taking his words literally or taking what you thought he MIGHT have implied.
and as far as religion goes: a man’s religion is what makes him who he is. the topic is never going to go away for him because that is the only “dirt” people can seem to find on him.
and a person of faith can mean anything. especially when people like you interpret it incorrectly. an atheist has faith that there is no god. he is still a person of faith, is he not?
I didn’t say that he didn’t imply what you attribute to him; I simply say that his actual words hold far less connection to what you are reading into them than what you denied he said above. I further challenged you to explain what you think he really said if it’s not what I described — but you have not provided any alternative explanation which fits the facts better than what I have described.
Not really, no. The phrases “person of faith” and “people of faith” have acquired specific political meanings today.
If it can really “mean anything,” then how can any interpretation be incorrect?
That is incorrect.
funny how you back your own bullsh*t with another incorrect article written by yourself.
If you think my explanation is incorrect, please explain how and why. If you cannot, there would appear to be little basis in rejecting it.
I notice you still haven’t offered an alternative explanation for what you think Romney meant. If you really do believe that all people have faith, and thus he included everyone — even atheists — then why use that phrase to begin with? If “people of faith” means “everyone,” then it doesn’t seem to mean much of anything. Why not simply say “all people”?
Tell me, if he really did mean to say that atheists shouldn’t serve as president, would you object to that? Would you disagree with him?
to me romney said that people of faith are all people. he did not say anything about atheists because atheist ARE people of faith. they just do not cling to god like the rest of society does.
if he cleary stated, “i don’t want atheists serving as president.” i think i might take that offensively even though i do not associate with those kind of people.
however, that is not what he said, and that is not what he implied.
if a senator opposes same-sex marriage becuase his personal opinion and belief objects to it, are you going to condemn them and claim that they are bigots?
you have spent so much time pointing out a nonexistent fault of romney’s and completely skipped over the statement that he was replying to.
mormon’s are pretenders?
by stating that you are siding with the larger bigot in the situation.
i mean by stating that romney is the bigot, you are siding with the biased voter.
don’t want you to get confused there.
i would hate for you to think i made such an accusation.
but knowing you, you’d probably reply with a:
my, that’s a serious accusation. why would you say that?
because you can’t seem to formulate a better reply.
Can you support this interpretation?
How so?
“Those kinds of people”? What does that mean?
Probably, depending on what sort of defense they offer.
On the contrary, I specifically describe the heckler’s comments as bigotry.
How so?
I’m still waiting for you to explain how the other article I linked to is “incorrect.”
funny Romney parody here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y2pG6EbQuA