Saturday, August 25, 2012

@MittRomney defends #ReligiousFreedom

In a brilliant execution of counter programming, on the same night that NBC ran a hit piece attacking the Church of Latter Day Saints, Romney granted an interview to the Catholic cable channel, EWTN, to explain his position on religious freedom:

Later in the episode, Arroyo interviewed the author, Kevin Seamus Hasson, about his book, The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War over Religion in America .

Hasson points out that we don't regularly address gender diversity the way the did on The Practice, with gender neutral restrooms. Similarly, we shouldn't approach religious diversity with government mandated atheism. However, I'm not certain if I agree entirely with either the straw man Manichean constructs:

One side (dubbed “Pilgrims” in the book) wants to legally coerce any religious conscience with which they disagree while the other side (called “Park Rangers”) thinks that all religion must be purely private. Both seem prepared to battle to the death over these issues. The rest of us, that vast majority in the middle, duck and cover as best we can while wondering why we must always fight every detail of anything to do with religion.

or the semantic turn of phrase of substituting freedom of conscience for freedom of religion:

However, that is where Hasson’s insistence on the value of conscience is so valuable. By reminding us that conscience is the core of religious conviction, he takes us to the true turning point of religious liberty. This in turn frees us to totally disagree with another’s religious convictions while, with complete integrity, conceding that they do, indeed, have the right to be wrong.

since that's precisely what the Obama administration wants:

It is the crumbling of our constitution's first guaranteed freedom: the freedom of religion. This issue is more significant and has far greater implications for America's future. People have forgotten that America was founded by people who came here to escape religious persecution. Freedom of religion is the first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights - before freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and every other freedom.

And yet today, at the city, the state, and the federal levels, government bureaucrats are daily trying to limit that freedom, impose restrictions, and stifle expressions of faith on campuses, in hospitals, and in businesses. There are widespread attempts to redefine the First Amendment to simply mean "You are free to believe anything at your place of worship but you are not free to practice your conscience elsewhere."

The constitution doesn't just guarantee your freedom to worship; it guarantees you freedom from government intervention in you daily living out what you believe. That's why we've chosen to host a civil forum on religious freedom in September instead of the presidential forum. It's a fight for the constitution, not a personality.

Admittedly, I could be inferring more than the blog reviewer implied, since Hasson asserted that religion is personal, but not private, thus seeming to offer greater opposition to his "park ranger" opponents. I acknowledge that theocrats are certainly historic figures, but I'm not entirely certain that intolerant pilgrims are as powerful and prevalent in today's day and age as he presents.

If there were any Muslims living in America at the time of the English pilgrim landing, there would have been an equal number of Jews and even more Catholics living in Spanish America. I don't know why the snarky progressive cartoonist above decided to only include Muslims and leave out Jews and Catholics in his mean meme. This seems to provide oxygen to imperialist jihadists who wish to establish a global caliphate by trying to conflate Muslims with Native Americans in order to rationalize their agenda, as per this dubiousness:

There are numerous accounts of Muslims who were integrated within Native Indian tribes pre Columbus, of Turkic, Moorish and African Muslims leaving colonies to live amongst the Native Indians. There are also historical letters and colonial advertisements describing the threat to the colonies of African Muslim Slaves fleeing and integrating with the Native American Indians. There is also the case of Mahomet Weyonomonof the Mohegan tribe, who arrived in Britain in 1736 CE (1148 AH) [1]century to discuss the land grabs by the British

No comments :

Post a Comment