During an interview with Ann Curry on the Today show he was asked about some New Orleans residents who are wearing “Brad Pitt for Mayor” t-shirts.
He responded “I don't have a chance” because “I'm running on the gay marriage, no religion, legalization and taxation of marijuana platform.”
Why would be not have a chance?
A redefinition of marriage much needed taxes and the abolishment of religion—what is there not to like? Surely, Dan Barker and his Freedom From Religion Foundation (an organization that was founded in a country which was premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression) would support him—after all, the closer it gets to years end the more Dan Barker considers his budget and begins to file lawsuit after lawsuit in order to play the victim-underdog-martyr and reap donations (the underdog how’s not under God— little dyslexia humor).
Also, Bill Maher asked Brad Pitt, “What is it about religion you don't like?”
You know, I grew up in a religious family, in a religious community and it just doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't work for me in the long run…
I never wanted to step on anyone else's religion and their beliefs — that's what's great about our country — until I started seeing it defining policy…
Like gay marriage, you have a group of people telling other people how to live their lives, and you can't do that…
I just say you have to, you really have to check what country you're living in because the freedom that allows you to practice religion is the same freedom you're stepping on. That's not right. And I want to add that if there was a nation of gay married couples who were telling you you couldn't practice your religion, I'd be speaking up for you too. So, let's stop the nonsense.
Unfortunately, his statements are too brief and generic. For example, what does he mean by “religion”? Very many people I know who would be labeled as “religious” actually despise religion—count me in.
I, for one, grew up in a 100% secular family, in a secular community and it just doesn't make sense to me. But there are a lot of true and evidenced things that, nevertheless, do not make sense to me.
That it does not work in the long run is also undefined: is he referring to epistemology, theology or divorcing his wife to shack up with his girlfriend?
He should consider that his freedom of speech is premised upon “religion” defining policy.
Next comes a self-defeating argument, “you have a group of people telling other people how to live their lives, and you can't do that”—but what if I want to live a life wherein I tell other people how to live their lives? Now, Brad Pitt is telling me that I cannot do that. Yet, this is the very thing which he said we cannot do.
Moreover, there are certain concepts of marriage which any reasonable person would oppose surely, including Brad Pitt. For instance, in his personal life he seems to oppose one man and one woman together for life and until death. Yet, I am referring to concepts which are not solely related to his personal life but that of others which he would surely oppose.
He is quite reasonable is noting that “the freedom that allows you to practice religion is the same freedom you're stepping on” and this is the very reason why in this great country some exercise the God premised freedom oppose it and some exercise the God premised freedom to support it. This is not nonsense but the manner in which a free country functions—not by Brad Pitt bequeathing that “you can't do that,” “That's not right” and “nonsense.”