ROMNEY: "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom." Is either statement true? Why/why not?

Answer 1

I don't think either statement is true. There can be a free state without religion (for example, the Netherlands is the least religious state in Europe) and there can also be a religious state without freedom (for example, Iran).

Answer 2

Freedom requires religion? Not in my world. I do not have a religion, although I am a Spiritual person. I do not have to feel guilt about NOT doing something or DOING something.
I do not go by anybody else's interpretation of a religion and I do not have to answer to a Priest, or a Reverend.

As to religion requires freedom. I do not agree with that statement either. Religion in other countries demand every thing else BUT FREEDOM. Romney is a good Mormon and there are rules and regulations in that religion just as in any other. I do not call telling somebody how and why they should live, freedom. I call myself free, because I can investigate any religion any time without guilt and without prejudice. An open mind will teach you a lot, however, in any particular religion you do not have the freedom to investigate any other way, unless you go against the teachings. Like J>W> for instance.

Mind you I suppose being able to change the rules of a Church as the years go on, is a kind of freedom. Look to the year 1978 when the L.D.S. Church changed certain teachings.

I say this without prejudice, because I feel everybody should have the freedom to make their own choices. When it comes to Politics and religion, that is probably a shady place to be.
re

Answer 3

Freedom does not require religion - indeed freedom can exist perfectly well in the absence of religion. But it does require the ability to form or follow a religion, since the denial of the freedom to have delusions or a spiritual experience is...by definition...a denial of a basic human freedom. Religion does not require freedom either - in fact, it's perfectly possible for religion to flourish without freedom. But religion probably endures longer and more effectively when it operates in an atmosphere of perceived freedom, as the greater the degree of perceived freedom, the fewer hard questions the human mind is obliged to ask, and therefore the less intense is the logical scrutiny to which the religion's constructs are subjected.

Answer 4

>Freedom requires religion

Wrong. It requires the ability for people to adopt religious beliefs if they want to, but it does not require that anyone actually exercise that ability. It is possible to have a free country which just happens to be populated entirely by atheists, although such a country has probably never existed since the beginning of human civilization.

>just as religion requires freedom.

Wrong. It is possible to have a totalitarian regime which allows (or, more likely, forces) people to be religious. In fact, there have been times when people attempted to create just such regimes.

If you still don't believe me, let's try taking that quote and turning it around. Like this:

"Freedom requires atheism, just as atheism requires freedom."

How many people do you think would agree with this? Not very many, that's for sure, and most of them would be atheists. The general american christian public would regard the new quote as ridiculous, and can easily see the reasons why. So in that case, why should anyone view Romney's actual quote any differently? Oh, right...because they're biased.

Answer 5

I think that any short, seemingly "perfect" statement like this bears close scrutiny. It is written as and intended to be a soundbite--quotable--and it is; it just doesn't happen to be an adequate description of the nature of things.

"Freedom requires religion": How? Freedom--true freedom, as in the capacity to choose one's own fate, to be autonomous, to act and live without compulsion--certainly doesn't rely on religion. It relies on our ability to be empathetic creatures (so we can allow the freedom of others), on our ability to be rational creatures (so we don't think our freedom can come at the cost of others' rights), on our ability to be moral, ethical, and just. No religion holds the corner on those abilities. In fact, many religions hold concepts which are antithetical to the premise of freedom.

"Religion requires freedom": Well, this could be true depending on what Romney meant in specific. (This "it depends" situation is part of the issue I have with the cute, pithy, soundbite-speeches most politicians currently make.) Plurality in society in terms of religion certainly depends on the society accepting the premises of personal freedom. The survival of one religion over all others may very well depend on the lack of personal freedom; a theocratic government which limits the freedom of its citizens would absolutely ensure the advancement of the faith, in action if not in true "belief".

Answer 6

Freedom requires that each person be allowed to choose a religion or not. It does not require religion to exist.

Religion, if it were to actually serve any god, would require the freedom to believe or not without the threat of hell.

Answer 7

If you want to practice the faith of your choice then you need the freedom to do so. That part I agree with. The second part of his statement assumes that without morality then freedom can result in chaos and without religion there can be no morality. That's flat out wrong.

Answer 8

Absolutely not. I saw that interview.

Why? Because religion has NOTHING to do with freedom. Period. If he had said that freedom requires the right to worship as you see fit, that would be one thing. That would be true. But saying that freedom REQUIRES religion is completely wrong. How is it freedom to require religion? How is it "freedom" to need to believe in magical, invisible, supernatural beings? He was just passing on the lie that you need to believe in God to have morals. I am astonished that someone who wants to be the leader of our country can be so completely ignorant.

Anyone who says something like that shouldn't even be allowed to run for president.

Answer 9

Religion conditions you to believe in THEIR concept of religion and beliefs, etc etc. You cannot choose what to believe in, within a religion. You have to accept ALL that they teach.
The Bible is full of "preaching" which is conditioning you to have the fear of God in you, and reinforces the fear of death, so that you will choose to believe in the Bible, etc.
If people had the freedom of choice - they would reject that which does not make sense to them (appears unbelievable to be fiction) - and it is only because of the conditioning that they go along with it.
People have the freedom of choice these days to choose whether they want to be involved with religion or not (in past eras - they had no choice), and that is why there are fewer attending than in past generations.

Answer 10

pure and undefiled religion is caring for the widow and the fatherless, but it is also economic freedom from tryants and dictators.
Yes these statements are true.

religion teaches mankind to have faith and repent of sins. by repenting from sin(s) we become free from the bondage consequences. example a teenage doesnt heed the words of the prophets and engages in sexual pleasures with a girl. the girl becomes pregnant, but after having the child they find they dont love each other. the guy ends up paying child support for 18 years. this is a form of bondage. and it is not fun to give half of your paycheck away.
this is not freedom, it is consequences for sin. But, if a man were to be sealed to a wife there is a convenant and a promise that blessing and faith will prove to bless and reward.

it takes the priesthood of God, not of the churches of babylon, to teach the commandments of God so that we might have life and freedom and rejoice more abundantly