Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom” – do you think this is true? What does it mean?
Mitt’s got a real problem. He can’t get the nomination if the Protestant Christian Fundies and other evangelicals don’t support him and they think Mormonism is a weird cult. So he’s desperately trying to convince them that he’s one of them and will support their political agenda. (Unlike Jack Kennedy who basically said that his religion was personal and not relevant to how he would act as President.) Problem is that he has flip flopped on so many of the issues that they get hysterical about (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) that they trust him about as far as they can throw him. They may be nutz on matters theological but they aren’t stupid and they know when somebody is blowing smoke up their tabernacles. Mitt’s half right: Religion requires freedom. Without religious freedom the majority (or the most powerful sect) invariably tries to suppress everybody else’s belief and establish theirs as the “official” religion. This plays well with the Fundies who are utterly convinced that they are
