'Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom' - Willard 'Mitt' Romney.
What a poorly tossed plateful of unadulterated word salad, with mumbo-pocus dressing.
Using the tined fork of literal truth®, allow me a moment's parse through it, looking for the hairy bits to push aside.
'Freedom requires religion': Apart from the merest philosophical finger touch ('why?') needed to bring this house of cards down, the definitions are clear:
-The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.
-Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
-The power to determine action without restraint.
-Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
-A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.
-A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
-The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
So, how does 'the state of being exempt from external control' require a 'moral code governing the conduct of human affairs'...exactly?
And let us stand this statement on its wobbly head, as Romney has done - How does believing in a 'superhuman agency or agencies', conducting one's affairs by their tenets and asserting a superior dominion over the individual's freedom of choice to the deity of choice ('God's will') reconcile with 'autonomy and self-determination'?
Gosh, Willard, I don't think you've thought this all the way through...qu'elle surprise.
Religion, by its nature, is restrictive...How much or how little being solely dependent on the belief requirements of the individual.
It is meant, among other things, to be used as a method of societal control and personal discipline, and by its own definition and practise cannot be 'free'.
Freedom, by contrast, is an unrestricted state...Of course, there is no such thing as ultimate freedom, simply because the human species as a whole is unprepared for the high personal level of responsibilities required to maintain it.
That said, the nature of indulging such a state conspires to reduce the amount and degree of controls upon it, according to the comfort zone of the individual.
Thus, by its very nature and definitions, a 'control' such as religion runs counter to the concept of freedom.
Now, one can use freedom to worship, or not, and by how much or how little depending solely upon their own predilections, but neither state requires one another, even in the currently incipient Christian States Of America as invisioned by power-hungry zealots heaven bent on marking their assigned seating for the Rapture.
Oh, and knock off the contrived Kennedy comparisons, Mitt...Whether subjectively dreamt or externally assigned, that camel doesn't quite make it through the eye of the needle.