Chipping Away At The Separation of Church and State

"Freedom is not lost by a sudden thrust in the dark of the night, but, by single imperceptable digits, one at a time..."
.... Dr. Roy O. McClain

Today Mitt Romney said:

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God."

I say, the oath of office of the president of the United States is a promise to "We The People of the United States" to uphold the Constitution; it is not a promise to God on the Constitution to uphold the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or the Koran, or any single religious text or belief, though that does not preclude the making of a promise to one's God to uphold the Constitution, if so inclined. One's relationship to one's religion is and should be of no issue or concern to the larger public.

Implicit in the oath of office of the president of the United States is, also, what Brigham Young said, is Mormon belief that "...every class of worshipers [are to be] most strictly protected in their municipal rights and in the privileges of worshiping who, what, and when they please, not infringing upon the rights of others".

In the first part of today's speech, Romney told us that he believes, with Brigham Young, in the protection of "...the privileges of worship who, what, and when they please, not infringing upon the rights of others"; however, in the second part of his speech he tells us his views on municipal rights with words that propose to undermine the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution's First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Scarecrow has more on how his words propose to undermine the Constitution and he and says it better:

"You see, the framers understood that to keep a diverse nation from tearing itself apart in religious strife they had to preserve and protect two equally important principles: the one respecting the free exercise of religion, which Romney now invokes, and the other, which Romney seeks to undermine, prohibiting the state from establishing religion.

It's on this latter principle where Romney sends a [message] to the fundamentalists who most distrust his religious views. When he says he shares their views, he means he shares the view that government should be free to undermine the establishment clause when promoting those religious tenets that he and the fundamentalists share. We hear that message throughout the speech, but to set the stage, Romney first performs an intellectual sleight of hand.

"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam's words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'"

[Where does that leave the views noted in the Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams on June 10, 1797 that contains the clause: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"? [Seems to me that John Adams was saying that morality and religion are not confined to just the Christian religion. editor's note.]

Note that when Romney is quoting the founders, the survival of freedom is explicitly linked to religious freedom. But then Romney does a bait and switch in the next paragraph:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
So the original principle was that freedom and religious freedom are indivisible; that is, one is part of the other."

When Romney translates it, freedom and religion require each other, and that's the wedge he then uses to undermine the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. He then starts chipping away:

"No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. [note that in the following the establishment prohibition is now missing] But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong. The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

Most Americans would say, "well that's probably okay," but he's not done. Having said it's okay to limit the scope of the Establishment Clause, he goes on to assure the fundamentalists, who want to strangle that clause, that he's sympathetic:

'We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

"Ceremony and word"? Does that mean laws? Or faith-based initiatives run out of the White House? And what does he mean by "teaching of our history?" Isn't that a message to teaching religion -- read: our common Christian religion -- in public schools? And how should we interpret Romney's new litmus test for federal judges, if not as a requirement that they be willing to endorse government efforts to chip away at the Establishment Clause?

Romney continues:

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. [That seems to be Muslims, I think.] And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."

Then, where does that leave those who have not knelt in prayer?" (End of Scarecrow quote.)

Ted Sorensen on CNN then demonstrates that the ideas on the separation of church and state of John F. Kennedy are entirely different from the ones in Mitt Romney's speech:

"...JFK wanted to particularly stress that he believed in the separation between church and state. He believed that no one needed to worry about a Catholic bishop or a cardinal dictating to him as a president, and that freedom of religion included freedom for those to go to any church or not to go to any church at all. So, Romney emphasized the role of religion in public life more strongly than JFK did or would have....Kennedy said, his views of religion were totally his business and not the business of the American people."

Peter Montgomery shows why the Romney's emphasis is different from the JFK emphasis:

"...Romney in a dramatically different situation (from the JFK speech in 1960) is in a heated primary race, losing conservative evangelical Christian voters to Mike Huckabee, and walking a tightrope. He can’t make JFK’s appeal to church-state separation, because he’s trying to get support from people who think church-state separation is, in Pat Robertson’s phrase, a “lie of the left.” Ditto for an appeal to religious tolerance, not a high priority for the “Christian nation” crowd.

Romney’s appeal is to try to convince Fundamentalist voters that they should care less about the theology of Mormonism and more about his pledge to support their religious policy priorities down the line, especially the dismantling of the wall separating church and state—and judges who agree. That’s been enough to win the support of some high-profile Fundamentalist leaders, including Paul Weyrich, Lou Sheldon and Jay Sekulow.

Thus, Romney finds himself in a bit of a box, partly of his own making. Given the power of the Fundamentalist voters in the GOP primary, and the de facto religious test many of them apply to the presidency, Romney has stressed the importance of electing a person of faith. But when he has tried to assure the Fundamentalist voters that he is a follower of Christ, he has drawn stern warnings from people like the Southern Baptists’ Richard Land, because many evangelicals view Mormonism as a cult.

According to http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=267

Pew polls, more than a third of white evangelicals, and more than 4 in 10 of evangelicals who attend church weekly, say they’re less likely to vote for a candidate who is Mormon. Says Land, “When he goes around and says Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior, he ticks off at least half the evangelicals.”

Mike Huckabee, in many ways the dream candidate for Fundamentalist voters, isn’t trying to make things any easier for Romney. While deflecting opportunities to comment directly on whether or not Mormons are Christians, Huckabee has encouraged others to ask Romney. “If we’re going to ask me about my faith, let’s ask all the candidates about theirs,” he suggests. “Now as you noticed, I’m not hesitant or reluctant to talk about mine.”

In October, a prominent Dallas minister, Robert Jeffress, speaking of Romney, said, “It’s a little hypocritical for the last eight years to be talking about how important it is for us to elect a Christian president and then turn around and endorse a non-Christian,” he said. “Christian conservatives are going to have to decide whether having a Christian president is really important or not.”

The Fundamentalist's long public war on church-state separation and religious pluralism has been cheered on by Republican officials as long as it has been a weapon against Democratic candidates. But it’s not as much fun for them when the target is one of the GOP’s top contenders." (End of Peter Montgomery quote.)

Now from Peterr:

"From start to finish, Romney's speech this morning entitled "Faith in America" was a political -- not a religious -- speech. Romney wanted to say "I believe in the separation of church and state," yet he tried to reach out to evaneglicals who are moving toward Mike Huckabee and bring them back by saying in essence "Americans are people of faith, their leader must be a person of faith, and I'm the best faithful leader out there."

It's kind of hard to reconcile those two, but Mitt gave it a good try. The best way to do it, of course, is to go after the straw people. For instance, early in the speech Romney said, "But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God."

That's not quite it, exactly.

What "some" people want removed from the public domain is the government taking official notice of and granting preference to (a) religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs, and (b) favoring certain religious believers over others with different beliefs (religous or otherwise).

The Constitution says not one word about God, and refers to religion only twice -- and both times in the negative, to constrain the government's interaction with religion. People are free to impose a religious test (or any other kind of test, for that matter) on the candidates for office as they consider for whom they will vote; [but] the government cannot put such a test as a requirement for holding office. People are free to be religious or not; the government must be blind to religion.

There were many things in the speech that indicated to me the lack of knowledge...on Romney's part as to who believers are, what they think, and how they live.

But the bigger problem I saw in Romney's speech jumped out when he said this:

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."

For all Romney says about history in this speech, this paragraph is proof that his knowledge is very limited, indeed. Abolition of slavery, for instance, divided families, congregations, and entire denominations. The Presbyterians split in 1861, and didn't reunite until 1983, for crying out loud.

Despite his claim of a "common course" based on "great moral principles," there continues to be great division among religious people over all kinds of issues.

Committed Roman Catholics, for instance, interpret "right to life" to mean opposition to the death penalty; evangelical fundamentalists see the death penalty as a completely separate issue. Some religious groups embrace GLBTs, while others do not. Yet Romney, trying to reach the evangelicals who are moving toward Huckabee, blithely says in essence, "all religious folks have the same moral beliefs." However, the above instances note that that is not true.

"We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny," says Romney -- but he makes it clear he is talking only about "radical Islam."

Romney's language about America's churches having a common moral creed and his assumption that every American is religious points to a different kind of tyranny when he says, "And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."

Where once again does that leave those who have not knelt in prayer to the Almighty?

The bottom line for Romney is that he has to reach out to the fundamentalist evangelical voters. He mouths the words about separation of church and state to mollify moderates, but his strongest language is aimed directly at the evangelicals who are leaning toward Huckabee and others on the right, telling them that he's a good, religious guy -- and Americans need a good religious leader in the White House.

Lots of the pre-speech hype and post-speech spin has compared this speech with John F. Kennedy's address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. In comparing the actual speeches, though, the endings make clear that Romney and Kennedy are two very different kinds of politicians, trying to reach two very different kinds of people.

Kennedy said this to close his speech:

"But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God."

Compare that with Romney's conclusion:

"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics. Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation. In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.' God bless the United States of America."

Kennedy's last word is from the constitution and Romney's is a story about prayer. Kennedy wants to speak to all Americans; Romney wants to reach the evangelical fundamentalists." (End of Peterr quote.)

So, now, what do we have here? Courtesy of the International Herald Tribune:

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, called Romney’s speech “a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy.” He added, “Whether it will answer all the questions and concerns of evangelical Christian voters is yet to be determined, but the governor is to be commended for articulating the importance of our religious heritage as it relates to today.”

Sounds like Dobson is opening the door to further conversations with Romney. It’s a lot more of a welcome than Rudy’s ever going to get.

And this from E. J. Dionne, columnist from the Washington Post:

"... “Freedom,” he said, “requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
And to those who see religion as “merely a private affair with no place in public life,” he had this to say: “It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America—the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

Well. Religion can certainly be conducive to freedom. But does freedom require religion? Is religion always conducive to freedom? Does freedom not also thrive in far more secular societies than our own? Isn’t the better course for our nation to seek solidarity among lovers of liberty, secular as well as religious? After all, it was a coalition of believers and secularists, as the Princeton scholar Jeffrey Stout has noted, that sent a communist dictatorship tumbling down in Pope John Paul II’s native Poland.

And Romney’s knock on the “religion of secularism” was pure pandering to the religious right. I hope Romney’s eloquence about “our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty” persuades voters who need convincing that it would be terribly divisive if his Mormonism were a factor in how he fares in the primaries. I wish he had felt less need to water down his boldness with politically convenient assertions that would also divide us, just in different ways. "

Now, Kevin Drum:

"....Romney is doing nothing more than engaging in what's become routine disparagement of those who aren't religious. Not only does Romney not have the courage to speak in even a single passing phrase about the nonreligious, as JFK did, he went out of his way to insist that "freedom requires religion," that no movement of conscience is possible without religion, and that judges had better respect our "foundation of faith" lest our country's entire greatness disappear."

And Joan Walsh:

"Romney blasted "the new religion of secularism," referring to those who continue to argue for strict separation of church and state, which apparently, like certain of the Geneva Conventions under the Bush administration, is becoming "quaint." I sometimes find the anti-God stridency of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens grating. Listening to Romney's speech I realized what a necessary corrective it is to corrosive political pandering. Calling secularism "religion" is a cheap shot not worthy of a major presidential candidate."

Even Sally Quinn theVillage Sunday School teacher and society hostess said this:

"...I have to say that I'm really stunned because I think it was an obliteration of the idea of the separation of church and state. He eliminated anybody who was a doubter, an atheist, an agnostic, a seeker. It's like, if you believe in God or Christ, if not, you're not."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law," wroteThomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.

David Kuo pointed out that this whole discussion stokes division among all Americans and that it was wrong for him not to include non-believers among the American family.

Here are some very interesting takes on Mitt's speech at BeliefNet.

Steve Waldman:

"About three percent of the population are atheists or agnostics, according to a study by the Pew Religious Forum. Another 7.5% are secularists who have no religious affiliation and few or no religious beliefs or practices.That means there are four or five times as many non-believers as there are Mormons. A candidate declaring his distaste for a particular demographic group in this way has said that 22 million possible votes are of no matter to him. Non believers and secularists may not be a big voting bloc in the Republican primaries, but 10.5% is roughly 22 million people."

All Protestant faiths are offshoots of the Catholic faith, in whose eyes Protestants are often viewed as heretics and "false" Christians. A knowledge of the history of Christianity shows this. The argument rehashes the same old tired question of whether Mormons are Christian... evangelicals must get over therir obsession with this question. Theology's main value is that it illuminates the ways in which we are all trying to find our own unique meaning in life. In terms of Christianity, there are several interpretations: Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Mormon Christianity, and many other strains of Christianity.

Most evangelicals are not afraid that a President Romney will impose his esoteric Mormon morality on the rest of us and not really worried he’ll try to ban caffeine (though Huckabee might), or hand out tax breaks for special religious articles.....and as one evangelical says:

"Evangelicals are afraid that nominating a Mormon will legitimize a cult. Can Romney say something can assuage that fear. He didn't say it today.

And for evangelicals this makes his faith a legitimate concern for GOP primary voters. Why? Because Mitt will depress turnout. Many voters who might otherwise pull the GOP lever will stay home debating whether it’s worse to mainstream Mormonism forever, therefore, faith aside, he’s the wrong choice because he’s less likely to win.

It doesn’t matter how convincingly Romney claims he’ll compartmentalize his faith. Nor does it matter if, say, Romney makes the Huckster his veep. In fact, Romney taints the ticket whether he’s the presidential OR the vice presidential nominee. This is what a lot of evangelicals really think but are afraid to say publicly.

Even if Romney was Mormon only by name I still believe that nominating him would help to legitimize the Mormon faith. Which is only a problem because I believe that the Mormon faith is false and damaging to our culture. However, that being said, there are more damaging things being legitimized everyday, and it is my choice to help or not to help legitimize them, as it it is my government given right to vote for a president of my choice for my own reasons, religious included.

The next question I need to ask my self is what is most important? There are things more important than not helping to legitimize a cult, certainly, but do other candidates offer a better alternative then compromising on this issue? Probably. But, if Romney can present himself as the best candidate above all others, it'll make it very hard not to vote for him.

All that being said I've heard it said that the best way to deal with a cult is to let them speak up about what they believe. To allow the light to shine in the the poorly lit areas and reveal. It might be a good idea to allow Mormonism to be more mainstream, it may open people's eyes to its twisted version of "christianity" and draw more critics. It is a very new religion, quick growth and powerful people do not legitimize it. Maybe the result will be like that of Tom Cruise and Scientology.
Posted by: James December 7, 2007 3:07 PM "

Founders' Views:

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." ....Benjamin Franklin

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect." ....James Madison

"Had you [Thomas Jefferson] and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it." ...John Adams

"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words." ....-- Thomas Jefferson

"The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind." ....Thomas Paine

"Do Mormans, like evangelical Christians believe in the concept of Heaven and Hell? Do good in this life and be rewarded with everlasting peace in Paradise. So Mitt, based on the teachings of your Morman faith, will Cheney and bush, 2 guys that lied this country into war, a war that has led to 10's of thousands of needless deaths, be rewarded with eternal salvation? Have they lived and acted in accordance with your deep Morman values? As Commander in Chief would you willfully lie to the American people and manipulate critical information to justify a war? Your answers will help us decide if you're suited to be President of the USA.

He dropped in evangelical code phrases and themes like the de-Christianization of Europe, the dangers of a secular America and America's godly heritage.... He said he was going to stand up for his faith and that he wasn't going to get into the business of theology. Then he did just that.

In the middle of the speech was this: There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

In that single paragraph he blew his chance to shut the door on the pastor-in-chief idea because he was, consciously or not, making the theological argument that Mormonism was basically a part of historic Christianity. And it is, in the judgment of most liberal and conservative Christian theologians, not a part of historic Christianity. The fact that we will now be debating this is evidence of the one paragraph gaffe.

Kennedy's 1960 speech succeeded in no small part because it was devoid of any religious sentiment. Nowhere in that speech did Kennedy say anything about what he believed. In fact, he said religion was a fundamentally private matter.

"...perhaps because he wanted evangelicals to know that Mike Huckabee wasn't the only one who could talk about Jesus, he did the theology thing. And now, instead of moving past this matter - as we should be doing because debating theology is decidedly not what presidential elections are supposed to be about..."

"All of this points to our very, very big problem. Our debate and discussion about faith and politics is, increasingly, just a discussion about faith. That is toxic for our politics and for our faith. We need to be having theological discussions. They are important and valuable. We certainly need to be talking about politics. Pick your reason why.
But we're not getting either one. Instead we are getting politically-inspired theology discussions and theologically-inspired political discussions. Someone needs to hit a reset button because this is one of the ways religious intolerance takes root.

Perhaps what our country could use right now is a pledge by all of the candidates for president to:

1) Declare they respect and admire the faith of every other candidate;

2) Admit that no particular religion qualifies or disqualifies anyone for the presidency;

3) Promise not to manipulate religion to advance their political agendas.

Yes it is a small thing, yes it is a symbolic thing, but it might begin to restore some sanity to our increasingly goofy faith and politics discussion.

They just might have written, religion is the lightning bug, and faith, the lightning bolt, while perhaps knowing that America would spend at least the next three hundred years trying to reverse those tenets in the pursuit of power, greed, personal aggrandizement, political domination and world-threatening behaviors like "nation-building".

"Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the atheist? ... Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God." ...Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to Thomas Law, 1814.

Freedom does not require religion. In fact, freedom from the tyranny of religion was the start of democratic governments in the western world. Putting an end to the divine right of kings as well as the divine connection of priests was and remains essential for freedom of thought and action. Romney's statement that this nation is not for those of us who believe rational thought can lead one to a proper life is mistaken. Most of the nation's Founding Father's would have been dismayed by this turn of events.

Hitchens and Dawkins and others have every right to their smug, smarmy, shallow contempt for religion, and to broadcast it as they see fit. That's a core principle of both my own religous ethics and what I understand of Constitutional law. But I really can't see them as "corrective" to theocratic pandering like Romney's. Rather, they just blindly hand him ammunition. They handily confirm the Christian right's boogeyman of combative, anti-faith non-believers, even as they stand alongside it and help uphold its lazy bigotry that there can be no tolerant, peaceful, liberal, or intellectually honest faith. Or any that joyfully respects a free, secular state with equal protection for all its citizens without regard to belief.

Romney's statement should be very disturbing to religious believers. Not only what he says to the rights of our non-religous fellow citizens...but what if Romney gets it into his head to define just what religion freedom requires? I doubt mine would make the cut.... " (comment by an atheist)

Religion, Inc.

America is where Christianity has come to die. It's not going to be a pretty death, either, at the rate the fundamentalists are going with it -- if ever a faith was more roundly gutted and compromised than American-style Christianity, it hasn't been invented, yet. The desired welding of Church(tm) and State(tm) is a recipe for dogmatic oblivion and crosscultural apocalypse. The revolution will be televangelized.

Rebuild that Jeffersonian Wall!

"It's Mr. Romney who deserves the opprobrium, not atheists or religious folks per se. The realization that he must kowtow to fundamentalist Protestants who hold the power in his party must be galling to him, yet he does it. He does it regardless of what he may or may not believe himself.

As a lifelong Catholic.... I hope for the reestablishment in our country of a strong wall of separation between ANY church and our state. Please, keep the creches and menorahs and satanic altars off the city hall steps; (by the way, who's going to answer the question as to which 10 commandments we're going to worship in the park? So far, they've never been the ones I know.)

Let kids who aren't part of the controlling religious culture get through their day without any pressures to pray from their teachers; get some historical sense ingrained into our citizens so they stop falling for the "Christian, godly founders" line. Let scientists teach science, not fairy tales. Let people love and partner with whomever they choose. End capital punishment and find compassionate and sensible ways to deal with undocumented immingrants. Find better ways to help the milions of voiceless poor in our rich nation. Vote for the candidates we think will do the best job, regardless of their religion, and regardless of which ones our religious leaders approve of. Donohue or Robertson, they sing from the same hymnal. Worry more about our own failings and a lot less about our neighbors'.

What a nice country that might be. I can go to church and my best friend can stay home, and our wives can meet at temple. We're all about as likely to end up in heaven as not, regardless. Well, if there is one....

Second, religious beliefs provide unique insight into the man or woman being examined. If a candidate says, for example, that he takes the Bible literally, as "the inspired word of God," then he is saying that he believes in the right to commit genocide in order to steal land, in slavery, in selling one's own daughter into slavery, in murdering one's own children for disobedience, that there was no death on Planet Earth prior to 4004 BC, that the sun can stop moving across the sky, etc.

While we cannot by law require a candidate to be of or not be of a particular religious persuasion, we have every right, indeed we have a duty to our nation to question every candidate tirelessly as to these kinds of questions so that we can judge the character of the man or woman. A candidate that believes the earth and every life form on it is only 6,000 years old rejects 99.9% of everything we have learned about science, about physics, and about the universe. I have a right (and desire) to know if the person I'm voting for rejects the full body of our scientific learning.

If, on the other hand, a candidate says that he believes the Bible but concedes that many of the stories therein should be read as metaphors rather than taken literally, we have different problem.

Which stories are true and which are just stories? How does one know? Dare I suggest that the picking and choosing is done to the advantage of the individual's own personal aims and needs? Is that not exactly what happened in the lead up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Third, the Mormon issue is of specific concern because of how it plays along with these first two points. The vast majority of Americans – remember that Mormons make up less than two percent of our population – are deeply ignorant of what Mormons really believe and would immediately disqualify a Mormon candidate for president if said candidate ever spoke openly of those beliefs. (Mormons believe all non-Mormon Christians since the days of the Apostles are and were heretics, for one thing.)

Knowing what Mitt Romney or any other candidate believes is – or should be for any thinking person – an absolute requirement in the choice for president. The idea that we cannot ask about a candidate's faith or religious beliefs is preposterous. The fact that the press won’t ask about a candidate's faith or religious beliefs is criminal.

If you think religion does not play a role regardless of majority public opinions in almost everything our government does...you need only look to two hot button issues for the Fundamentalist Christians. More than 70% of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose and more than 75% of current active duty military personnel believe gays and lesbian should be able to serve openly, as they do in most all leading nations. But would Mitt Romney have a chance if he voiced support for either of these religion-based controversies?

Unless a candidate can stand before America's church leaders and declare, "My religious beliefs, my faith, will never influence any decision I make as president and will never influence any policy set forth by my administration, then we absolutely must know what those beliefs are. Furthermore, we (the people) did not introduce this discussion of faith in the first place. If the Fundamentalist Christians can make religion an issue in any way, then it must be examined and discussed as an issue. An issue because it is important to them.

Imagine a Jewish candidate. Will you not admit the absolute number one point of rejection by Republicans would be: He (or she) rejects Jesus Christ as the son of God? Tolerance for another's religious beliefs does not mean that you accept those beliefs as viable; rather, it means that you accept that a person has the right to hold those beliefs. A person's religious beliefs – fundamentalist, moderate, anti-theist – inform and guide in the most elementary ways. To anyone who suggests that a candidate's religious beliefs are not an issue, I need only direct you, once again, to our Current Occupant. Imagine if God had told him NOT to invade Iraq. Or, imagine if God told him to issue an executive order overturning Roe VS Wade. If he, with God's blessing, can destroy the Constitution without so much as whimper from the cowering general public, what's to stop him – or any other religion proponent – from throwing out one pesky little verdict?

If you do not know or bother to ask what a person believes, you have no cause to ever – not ever – complain when his or her belief system comes in opposition to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". ...David, a Catholic. (End of quote)

Governor Romney :

"You roundly disregard the great diversity of religious beliefs and mislead your audience regarding historical facts demonstrating a need for an education in the areas of religion and history. To begin there are several of the more egregious errors I found in your speech:

Error 1) you appreciate “the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages.”

Not so, Judaism has changed considerably through the ages. In the United States alone there are three main branches of Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. There are traditional variations within and amongst each of them, and none of them practices Judaism the way it was practiced when the Temple of Solomon was around. Even in the time of Solomon, there were different sects of Jews, with differing traditions.

Error 2) you claim that all religions have “principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself . . .”

Not so: All religions do not hold these values in common. In more modern times, your religion campaigned against a Constitutional Amendment that would have given equal rights to women. Other religions or their adherents were in favor of equal rights for women. Finally, what exactly do you mean by “the right to life itself?” If you mean that the government should have the ability to control women’s bodies, then no, not all religions favor that.

Error 3) you said, “during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.”

You wrongly suppose that Judaism and Christianity are the country’s only two religions, or systems of belief.

Error 4) you said that we all, “believe that every single human being is a child of God.”

I know that members of your religion believe that, but lots of religions don’t. Most religions believe that we are God’s creations, but not that we are his children, other than in an adoptive sense.

Some Jews believe that G-d created Adam out of the Earth, and Eve from Adam, and that we are their descendants. Other Jews believe in evolution. Many Jews don’t even believe in God. Don’t be shocked. Many religions can function just fine without being God centered.

Error 5) you said, “No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty.”

Our sacrifice has been miniscule compared with others. Look at plight of the Native Americans who we slaughtered and displaced to get this great country of ours. They sacrificed a lot more, and got a lot less.

Error 6) of World Wars I and II you said, “America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars.”

We got everything from those two wars. We became the world’s number one superpower.

Error 7) you said of Americans, “They came here from England to seek freedom of religion.”

Not so. Americans have come from all over the world. Some of them came from England. Some of them came from China. Some of them came because they had been sold into slavery. Our heritage as Americans is not merely and English one.

I hope you found this instructive. If you would like to continue your education, or you would just like to know more about how an atheistic Jew sees America, please don’t hesitate to give me a call."

To many Christians, not being able to persuade others to adopt their views is a loss of freedom... in putting up the Ten Commandments up in public buildings: which particular ten commandments would be used for that, the Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon set?

The sooner that we stop using the rules of specific versions of Christianity to drive our political decision making and start sticking to principles (which are pretty common across religions), the better off we'll be.

Romney is telling conservative Christian voters that they should not be view him as the enemy because of his mormon faith. He tells them they should view him as an ally against the secular state.

The Founders of the Constitution of the United States believed:

"...specific religious practices were not to be the business of governments and secularism and atheism are to be tolerated. There is to be no religious test for election to office. Putting "in god we trust" on coins, opening Congress with a prayer, displaying creches,the ten commandments, and menorahs in the public square, are ok for me. Using government money for faith based programs that signifcantly promote a religion, or teaching religious practice in public schools clearly are not acceptable.

The Fundamentalists do not accept this. They believe that America was founded as a Christian nation and should function as one. The separation wall between church and state stipulated in the first amendment is to be demolished. They see the federal courts as the roadblock to this goal and have as their primary political objective to place enough like minded justices on the Supreme Court to nullify the first ammendment. This requires the religious right to gain the presidency and effective control of the Senate to effect this objective...left to their own devices, they would change the constitution to make christianity the national religion, restrict other religions, allow religious classes in public schools, and permit the spending of federal tax dollars on religious activities. These people believe they speak for God and they are not afraid to force the rest of us to live by their rules.

Thank goodness he spoke up! Now, we can truly understand Gov Romney's political idealogy and how they exclude all those who are not religious (in the way he defines religion). How can those who do not believe in a creator God have freedom? What country can they find and thrive in? Romney's stance here is cloaked with smiles, seeming reason and a false patriotism. Our government was designed to allow freedom of belief, and be inclusive; and from Romney's speech, he is proposing an inclusive/exclusive model, in what is widely viewed as a speech of pivotal importance, gives the thinking, open-minded voter ample grounds to disqualify the governor from this race."

"It would be nice if somebody in the media would be willing to ask Romney, plain and simple, how his contention that "secularism is dooming society and a good dose of religion is the answer" is any different than the contentions of Wahhabists and Taliban members who claim the exact same thing but with a different faith as the solution.

"...when Romney flipped on the abortion issue, he lost me. Not because we don't agree, but because he formed his initial pro-choice position as an adult, campaigning for it publicly. It was, presumably, the conclusion of an adult man as close to God then as he is now.

And yet, now, he feels completely different! While I think it is a sign of maturity to rethink a position, Romney didn't really display much when he flopped a 180 on the abortion issue. He saw that it wasn't possible to win the Republican nomination unless he compromised his principles, and so he did.

No wonder he's so anxious to get us to agree that 'freedom requires religion' - - since his stance on everything else is so malleable, taking this sort of global, nonsensensical stance gives him carte blanche to change this beliefs at will, so long as they are 'religious'.

For the record Dawkins and Hitchens are anti-organized religion, not anti-God. Not believing in something is quite different from being anti - something. Which religions? The summary left me wondering -- does Romney equate "religion" with just Judiasm, Christianity and Islam? Or is there room at his table for Buddhists, Hindus, and billions of other people as well? This isn't a rhetorical question since an increasing number of Americans follow those religions, both as native followers and converts. In my community the most popular "churches" in the local alternate newspaper's yearly ratings are a Unity church (#1) and a Shambhala Buddhist center (#2). Both would be alien places to most people.

If secularism is a religion... ...then, according to Romney, freedom requires it. "Freedom requires humility, love, and open-mindedness." In some contexts, that is the same as saying, "Freedom requires religion."

Romney's quotes on torture are much disturbing. As an atheist, why is it that to so many religions, "atheist" is synonymous with "immoral"? That somehow because I don't subscribe to any religion, I'll end breaking laws, killing people, crashing cars, breaking into houses, and whatnot? That I cannot possibly have a moral compass without religion?

There are far more laws and rules that govern my life, as an atheist than those found in religious texts. I happen to be a nice person. I mow the lawn, pick up my neighbor's mail, volunteer, and generally live a sane, lawful life.

If I hailed from India and explained to my Christian neighbors that I was Hindu, and celebrating Diwali, the Christian neighbors would think it was interesting, and welcome the diversity in their neighborhood. If I announced to my Christian neighbors publicly that I'm an atheist, I'm greeted with either sorrow or silence. Why? Why is it so frightening to religious people to have someone in their midst who just doesn't buy it? Why is it socially acceptable to say "I'm a Presbyterian" or "we're Jewish" or "my family is Mormon" but not "I'm an atheist"? Why does being an atheist feel like a dirty secret in America?

Freedom does NOT require religion. Freedom requires that people are allowed to practice their religions as they see fit, and also that people are allowed to NOT practice any religion and still be accepted members of society.

Romney uses exclusionary, repressive, totalitarian language against other Americans? Okay, I can understand - though never approve - that kind of talk about other countries; but Romney is advocating an antagonistic stance against law-abiding citizens of the country he wants to run. Not terrorists, not illegal immigrants, not criminals. Just plain ol' Americans, who work and eat and pay taxes, who haven't done anybody any harm and whose only offense is exercising the very same rights that Romney himself trumpets in his speech. Those rights belong to EVERYBODY - didn't this guy show up for high school Civics class?? " End of quote.

A little perspective on Mormon Doctrine. Mormons teach that mankind come to earth for a purpose. That purpose is to be tested. Two plans in the pre-mortal existence were presented to Mormon God. One was by Satan who would force everyone to obey God's commandments. The other one was presented by God's first first-born, Jesus, who wanted man to decide and choose for himself whether to follow God and progress (evolve) throughout the eternities, or reject God's laws and be subject to the eternal status quo. God chose to give mankind the freedom to choose for themselves.

From Mitt's perspective, the freedoms that exist in the United States come from God, freedoms that were instituted to allow the restored true gospel of Jesus Christ to be restored in a country that values freedom of religion and tolerance for divergent beliefs. Mitt truly believes this. While what Romney believes is true, his understanding is very limited and compromised.

But, God also gave man the freedom not to believe that. The common historic version of Christianity is not the one Mormons believe and to teach in public education the Christian religion as generally practiced by Americans would be to teach false doctrine from the Mormon perspective.

In what context does religion equate to "humility, love, and open-mindedness"? Freedom requires religion?" Maybe in Saudi Arabia or Talibanistan, where nonbelievers are publicly executed. "Secularism is a religion?" Anyone who would say that doesn't know the difference between philosophy and religion, and is incapable of successfully practicing either.

When an obviously intelligent presidential candidate has to abase himself to win the support of religionists in order to secure the nomination of a major American political party, at least one segment of this country is in need of correcting its course, and it's up to the rest of us to put forth the means or correction. Romney's speech was an example of the tail wagging the elephant."

It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. --John Adams

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. -- Fisher Ames, the man who actually drafted the First Amendment, not Thomas Jefferson, who wasn't even in the country when the Constitution was written.

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. --Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence.

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. --Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. --Joseph Storey, Supreme Court justice

There's way more of the same for anyone who's actually interested in the facts. What Romney said today would be considered mealy-mouthed to our Founders.

Treaty of Tripoli?

Article 11 reads: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." John Adams approved and signed it.

"The central reason why religion cannot be open minded - it teaches that there is one universal truth and it has the answers. Science, on the other hand, teaches that we don't have the answers, most of the stuff we think we know is wrong, and that until we can prove something we should be very careful of actually accepting it as fact.

Atheism is not a denial of the gods, it is a denial of our belief in the gods. Should the evidence mount up going against our basic assumption of there being no gods, our beliefs will mostly shift accordingly (Though whether we follow those gods is another question entirely.)

Now atheists are generally fearful because there are various christianists out there who seem to think atheism equals immorality when the only movement I can think of seriously dedicated to bringing about the end of the world I can think of - the Rapturist movement - is, in fact, religious.

The Bible does not tell us to not engage in slavery, it does not tell us to not engage in torture, it does not tell us to treat other races as equals.

Nor are people who aren't Christians less moral (Just look up some jail statistics for example.) This is not to say that Christians are less moral than atheists, but rather simply that we are not moral people because someone up there decided to tell us to be moral. We are moral because we have advanced towards empathy, towards caring about each other and have started to look beyond established beliefs to find our moral mores.

In the face of Romney's statments, let's make it tougher:

Let's say something like "We live in a pluralistic society where a wall has been built between church and state in order to protect all of us from the imposition of religion. We do not need to follow a particular creed or to even be religious or even believe in God to be full citizens."

Candidates should proclaim loud and clear about the values that inform our democracy -- among them the freedom to worship as we will but also freedom from the rule of religion in our lives. Our seminal documents speak to this. This is who we are as a nation. Anyone who says that the wall does not exist or that the wall should be brought down, who conflates freedom and religious belief, does not get it.

On the other hand, maybe we should all be asking (again and once more) why the candidates are even talking about personal religious beliefs in the first place as a measure of their suitability for office. This is serious stuff with serious long-term consequences to our collective freedoms.

There are still a number of other religions that are NOT covered by this "acceptance" in the public sphere in this country. And my point is, if you can't expressly ACCEPT and WELCOME all of them, then you shouldn't be expressly accepting and welcoming only SOME of them.

"Freedom is not lost by a sudden thrust in the dark of the night, but by single imperceptable digits, one at a time...." Roy O. McClain, Pastor First Baptist Church, Atlanta, in a seminar in 1958.