Mitt Romney in one of his speech's said: " Freedom need Religion just as Religion need Freedom" Do you agree?

Question

Ok has there ever been in mankind's history a period of Freedom without the help or presence of religion. And has there been Religion preesent but without real freedom for the masses?

Answer 1

First off, if Romney said that he needs "to go be reteached" his english... because it makes no sense unless it was ebonics. Second, (let's assume he actually said "needs" instead of "need") I agree with this statement completely (because of how I look at it). Yes, religion needs freedom if it is a religion that allows choice of each individual person. Some religion doesn't need freedom. Look at radical Islam. How free are women to choose (just the beginning)? How free were people who disagreed with the Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition? They are or were not free at all. So does that religion need freedom? No. It worked and works fine for however long it takes for people to demand freedom. But most commonly known religions (every religion in the U.S.) need freedom in order to allow people to choose right from wrong depending on what they believe.
Does freedom need religion? Yes. Do I mean organized religion (i.e. Catholic Church, Buddhist Temple, LDS Church, Muslim Mosque, Baptist Church or Jewish Sect)? No! Freedom doesn't need organized religion. Freedom does need religion in general. Have you ever heard, "science is my religion." Or, "philosophy is my religion." Now sure Romney honestly said this in a pathetic attempt to pander to the religious right. But truthfully religion is just how we look at the world. If we are atheist and we live our lives based on what we see as the best for whatever and whomever we value then that is our religion. Freedom needs religion, organized or not. Without this value system freedom will not continue. If we live our lives so that freedom is not important to us then freedom will die. So freedom needs religion that values freedom. If we all become convinced that in order to be happy in our lives we don't need freedom then it will surely cease to exist. In the end, the statement made by Mitt Romney is true or untrue depending on how you look at it.

Answer 2

No, that's an insult to any atheist or agnostic American. Apparently he believes they can't believe in or support freedom.

He tried to sell this speech as his Kennedy moment but the difference was very clear.

Kennedy's speech was full of bold, direct confrontation of the issues facing him not as a Catholic, but as Democratic candidate for president. Romney's speech is, beginning to end, a distortion of history. Not only does he attempt to strip the Democrat from JFK, he is ready to accept every lie about the relationship between religion and the history of the United States. His speech plays to the full set of fears Republicans have used to bludgeon the public over the last twenty years, and builds to a frighteningly explicit demand for theocracy

Answer 3

yes it make perfect sense and is totally true. This country was founded on religious freedom afterall. You can't have one without the other. Countries that try to force religion on people are not sucessful at anything, economic or otherwise. And countries with no religion are pretty messed up too.

Answer 4

No I don't agree. You can have freedom without religion. I don't know why he said that.
I agree that religion needs freedom, freedom to worship any way you want without fear of the government.

Answer 5

Not reallly. Granted, you could write a very compelling historio-social analysis showing that religion played--and can play--an important role in promoting and protecting freedom.

But history also shows that religion can--and often is--used as a vehicle for destroying freedom.

Romney's comment is really nothing but an empty political slogan--it doesn't have any real meaning. It sounds good--until you look into what he said. And there's really nothing but a nice sounding phrase designed to attract people who don't take the trouple to analyze what they hear.

It falls into the same category as "if we don't figt them there, we will have to fight them there," "you are either with us or against us," and so on. Noise without meaning.

Answer 6

Freedom needs nothing more than the will of the people to be free.

Religion needs freedom. Freedom does not need religion.

~X~

Answer 7

In no instance have... the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.
James Madison
Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government.
James Madison

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.
James Madison
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.
James Madison
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.
Thomas Jefferson

Answer 8

I think his reasoning may be that religion is one thing, in modern times, that fights against the rise of dictatorships.

However, that definitely wasn't true in WWII.

I believe that some kind of positive belief system is necessary just to give a country a moral conscience.

And just believing that everyone is nice and that wars are never necessary doesn't quite cut it.

Answer 9

Not even remotely. Religion needs freedom to exist. Freedom has no need for religion.

Answer 10

I think freedom, in order to have any ultimate meaning, needs recognition that all of mankind serves a higher purpose and a higher power. You can call that faith or religion or spirituality... or whatever you like.

Oh... and if Romney was right, to any degree, it was purely incidental. Romney cares about Romney.