I find sweeping statements such as Mr. Berlinerblau's "the Golden Age of American Secularism is over" highly suspect. That may be the current assumption, but I woundn't take it to the bank. A common mistake of those who try to plot the future is to extrapolate the recent past into the future. Things rarely work out that way. In the 1940's and '50s people predicted a clean-cut, well-ordered Tomorrowland. What they got (and produced) was a counter-culture that was the antithesis of that. Likewise, counter-culture utopians of the 1960's and 70's saw the future reflected in their Aquarian visions. What that vision produced was a monumental Reaction. That Reaction is where we find ourselves today. The vast majority of this movement is over 40. It consists of remnants of those generations that came of age before the 60's, Boomers who were never sympathetic to the counter-culture and Boomers and those younger that have second thoughts regarding what the social revolution has wrought. Most of these people are trying to turn back or reset the cultural clock, so to speak. Their ideology in some cases, is rooted in pre-Enlightenment thinking. Many reject rational or critical thinking altogether. This type of meme can only go so far in a technically advanced culture. Younger, more rationally-minded generations don't subscribe to it generally. They have been born and raised in the Post 60's Paradigm and are comfortable with it. They may have issues with some of it's excesses, but they don't want to turn the clock back by any means. This Reaction has already peaked (2001-2005) and now is in the process of waning. It is more of an internalized psychodrama among Boomers than any sort of long-term trend, in my opinion. I think that by the 2020's and 30's secularism will have made a huge comeback in a world torn and sick of irrational fundamentalist thought.

Those who ask if Romney has sons in the military, and are very offended that he does not, seldom have sons of their own in the military -- and very seldom have served themselves. They are mightily offended by this state of affairs, so much so that they intend to vote for other candidates, who have also never served in the military, and who may have even committed acts of treason during wartime.

I have a husband heading to Afghanistan shortly, and yet somehow I manage to not twist the life choices of Romney's sons into an indictment of Romney.

Some have called Mitt’s religion a red herring and now Jacques accuses Mitt of isolating and castigating certain types of Americans... whatever!

There will always be prejudice among those who profess intellectual piety – you can witness many of them acting like jackals sniffing at the blood of personal opportunism in “what Mitt forgot” OpEds and other articles or blogs on the Internet.

For me, I continue to be impressed by Mitt. Over the years he has worked hard to be worthy of the mantle of Leadership that this country needs to move forward into a future of world community and commerce. And while the MSM stand ready to crucify, belittle, and try to subvert the politics of electing a leader of Mitt's intelligence, compassion, integrity, and now leadership, my desire is that the American people will see through the rhetoric, bigotry, and personal agendas and nominate Mitt because he is a man that is a product of his American faith and values.

As an agnostic (atheist on my bad days), I found Mr. Romney's obvious pandering to religious conservatives troubling but certainly not surprising. Unbelievers have always been society's scapegoats, along with people of color and foreigners.

Portraying himself as a defender of faith against the looming specter of secularism deflects the conversation away from the specifics of Mormonism, which, from what I've read, is probably the wisest course.

I am Pagan myself, and I was quite happy too see these words in Governor Romney’s speech.

“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.

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.' “

For I absolutely agree with him, I do think if we are true to the intention of the Founding Fathers, that our public square should reflect the Diversity of the Rainforest, not a mute and timid desert. Instead we have steered another course for a generation or so now. Lest My Pentacle Offend the Christian, we put it aside. Lest the Cross offend the Hebrew, we put it aside. Lest the Torah offend the Muslim, we put it aside. We have scrubbed the public square so clean of all signs of our faith, that today children are released for a few days off to celebrate “Spring Holiday.” For Easter – or Ostra, Might offend, and naked of any mark of faith we meet in the Public Square as Secularists.

There are maybe 3 things in all the world I agree with Pat Robertson on, :) but one of them certainly is the incremental establishment of Agnosticism as our national belief. Religion like smoking, is something people should do at home, if they must. It is as much a De’Facto reality today, as De Facto discrimination was a reality in the Northern states in the late 50’s and early 60’s.

I am unlikely to vote for Mitt, as a registered Democrat, I have a very different view of the economic course I would like to see our country take in the next 4 (or 8) years, but I am very glad he has added this speech to the public debate.

Ama tu ANKI, BB.
(Mother of Heaven and Earth.)

Getting back to the essay, I agree with Jaques. Romney is responding primarily to the challenge that Huckabee is presenting in Iowa. He is conconcerned that Huckabee will drive a Jesus wedge between himself and the evangelical voting block. Even if Huckabee doesn't compete with Romney on total votes, Romney is depending on the religious conservative wing of the Republican party in his battle with Juliani, whose base lies more in the traditional corporate establishment wing of the party. If Huckabee gains significant momentum, Juliani wins the nomination. Unless, of course, there is some kind of religious conservative groundswell in the Republican party that takes Huckabee (or Romney, if he's successful against Huckabee) to the general election.

The speech was total hypocrisy. First, it was not about the general public fearing Mormons (they don't - George Romney and Mo Udall ran without the subject ever coming up). It was (as Charles Krauthamer writes today) about Huckabee in Iowa claiming to be the Christian, and polls showing evangelicals in Iowa squirming at a Mormon. Second, he invokes the "no religious test for office" clause as a convenient way of not describing his religion, then turns around and proclaims Jesus his lord and saviour (so he can fool evangelicals into not paying attention to the fact that no evangelical theologian thinks Mormons are christians), and then proclaims that you have to have some religion to be an American at all (atheists are not welcome). despicable.

The Moral Majority's "secular humanist" strategy worked because America was still recovering from the social turbulence of the 1960s and early 1970s. The ranks of fundamentalist Christianity were growing because many people, especially white men, felt threatened by the reforms of those years.

But I see hopeful signs that fundamentalism's power is lessening. As the larger evangelical community debates global warming, the fundamentalists seem to be increasingly marginalized. I would like to be optimistic that more and more Christians will reject the type of demagoguery that Romney espouses.