“Freedom requires religion,” Mitt Romney said.

Hoo boy, where do I start?

1. What Romney really meant was “Freedom requires Christianity.” He basically said that in the rest of the speech. (Anointed and all – oh, I forgot, we’re not talking about that.) Where does it leave non-Christians? Are they not freedom-worthy? By attempting to straddle the fence, it seems Mittens gave himself a wedgie. The great wedgie of prejudice, known to unman the unworthy.

2. True freedom, as Buddhists see it, actually eschews (James Lipton, if you’re reading this, that’s my favorite word after “puppy”) religious restriction. More precisely, it transcends all boundaries and all religions are built with boundaries. In fact, most are built on boundaries. (That’s why Buddhism is not a religion.)

3. “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” We know what Mittens has to lose.

Comments