Fire and Brimstone?

In his December column, "The politics of religion in America", The Boston Globe's columnist James Carroll joins the ranks of innumerable others by taking a stance on how those very subjects are intertwined in America.  Initially inspired by Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, Carroll's column expounds on the confusing differences between religious and political freedom.  He argues that although the religious, including Romney, claim that America's mandate for political freedom springs forth from religious values and ideals of freedom and equality, the "most overtly religious people" in our country actually oppose freedom.  According to Carroll, the religious right is responsible for supporting many of the negative parts of our political system that "secular" Europe already eliminated, such as the death penalty and an insatiable desire for war.  Closing out his column, Carroll attacks all forms of faith, not singling out Mormonism, and ensuring that this views on faith come through clearly.

I find it interesting first that the religious leaders would establish themselves as a source and proponent of freedom, given that religion was actually quite the opposite merely 150 years ago.  As discussed in "Religion and Politics in the United States, by Kenneth D. Wald and Allison Calhoun-Brown, religion was popular for the lower classes because it gave them hope for the next life, and the upper classes propagated it because it encouraged the lower classes to accept their position in life as God's will, and helped pacify them.  Looking at such a history, it appears that religion and the political freedom advocated by Jefferson are mutually exclusive ideals.  I agree with Carroll in this point, that Romney's speech lacked factual basis, but despite the other examples he mentions, I do not see the connection between his early argument and the statement that "every religion is a religion of myth".  With this remark, Carroll makes the transition from an argument that is reasonably well documented, or at least convincing, to raining fire and brimstone on the basis of religion, which causes me to rethink his opening point.  Without taking such a position, Carroll's column would be much more credible, but an important part of being a columnist is inciting heated discussion, right?