ROMNEY ON RELIGION

Mr. Romney's speech on religion was fairly
instructive, and at times inspiring. It was also
factually incorrect on at least two counts: his
claim that "freedom requires religion" is
demonstrably false. There is no necessary
connection between those two. Historically,
religion has more often been the enemy of
freedom than it has been a friend.

Among our founding fathers, the leading
writer on freedom (Tom Paine) was an atheist.
He was a friend of Voltaire, France's leading
writer on freedom, also an atheist. Both saw
religion as a major threat to freedom, not a help.
Obviously, their views on freedom did not
depend on, or were derived from, religion.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution,
also took a dim view of the influence of religion
on government. He wrote: "a zeal for different
opinions concerning religion" has throughout
history "inflamed [men and women] with
mutual animosity, and rendered them much
more disposed to vex and oppress each other,
than to cooperate for their common good." He
fought long and hard (and successfully) to
prevent the country, in its official documents,
from being named a "Christian" nation. He
fought unsuccessfully against publicly paid
chaplains in Congress and in the armed forces.

Mr. Romney also erred in attacking something
he called the "new religion of secularism." Not
only is there no such religion, it's an impossi-
bility! It's a contradiction in terms: an oxymoron,
like "an army of one." "Secular" is an adjective.
It means "nonreligious." You can't have a non-
religious religion.

Religions have rites, rules, and revelations -- all
pertaining to the sacred. There's nothing sacred
in secularity. That's the criticism against it. It is,
by definition, unsacred, unreligion, this worldly,
profane. It looks like Mr. Romney is confused
about what religion is, as well as what it does.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net