To Sherman L. Cohn:
I think it is pretty obvious that Berlinerblau was referring to Congress as a whole, as opposed to individual candidates (for Congress, the presidency, etc.). He did not mean that candidates for Congress cannot discuss their religious beliefs. Any individual can express such beliefs. But Congress cannot pass laws that privilege one religious view over others.

In your comment about J. Brent Walker's observation that Separation of Church and State does not “mean that candidates for office cannot discuss their religious beliefs and other values and, specifically, how these would inform the candidates’ leadership style and policy positions,” you stated painful agreement, but then went on to opine "The Constitution, as I understand it, does not forbid this behavior by an individual (as opposed to Congress)." You states that "in coming weeks I hope to revisit this issue."

I hope you do. I look forward to your analysis of how the Constitution forbids candidates for Congress from speaking about their religious believes and values, if that is what you meant.

Running as a secular is absurd, and will continue so. Kucinich and Paul both are Constitutional spotters, as close to seculars as we can expect to run for President. While viable on a local level they both have little credibility on a national level.

As a secular I am less concerned with a candidate using religion to get elected than I am for his/her policies and actions that respect the separation of church and state ... and are progressive.

"I listened to what Bush said to the Christian Coalition during his campaign. Unfortunately, he was careful not to say the same things to the rest of the country and we got a president who believes God directs his actions."

Some liberal Christians suggest that Bush used "dog whistles" in his campaign speeches for general audiences. Phrases that sounded somewhat neutral to non-Christians and to non-evangelical Christians, but that signaled to the evangelicals that Bush was one of them.

"When there is debate on the subject of belief the first thing most religious persons do is tell us we don't have proper morals."

I wouldn't say "most," but you have an excellent point. The ones who say things like that aren't even talking about morality in terms of consequences of actions. They're talking simply about rules allegedly handed down from a supreme being. Huckabee's wish to amend the Constitution is derived from the latter. He implies that to to disagree with him is to disagree with God. He's not even bothering to make secular arguments against abortion and gay marriage.

It difficult to work with religious persons when it comes to separation of church and state. When there is debate on the subject of belief the first thing most religious persons do is tell us we don't have proper morals. So how can a politician to admit to a secular world view in the US?

Organized religions provide a block of voters while secular persons do not. So of course the politicians will pander to them. I want to hear what the candidates have to say on the subject so I make an informed decision when I vote.

For instance I listened to what Bush said to the Christian Coalition during his campaign. Unfortunately, he was careful not to say the same things to the rest of the country and we got a president who believes God directs his actions. Huckabees belief that the constitution should be changed in accordance with his God view is scary to me. However, at least he said it in public for all to hear and that is a good thing.

I much doubt you will see anyone coming out as secular in an election anytime soon.

The vast majority of the New Atheists do NOT "speak of all religious people as perfect imbeciles." The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne makes the same error as Berlinerblau. Their false claim sounds exactly like the straw man created by some fundamentalist commentators intent on bashing all atheists, almost as if Berlinerblau and Dionne hadn't read the New Atheist books at all.

I absolutely agree with Berlinerblau that the majority of American secularists are placid religious people who reject Mike Huckabee's theocratic stance. I urged these secularists to end their placidity and make their voices heard. Regardless of Huckabee's chances of getting elected, his stance represents a danger to both freedom and democracy. Romney's bashing of secularists represents the same general danger, but in a different specific way since it could lead to witch-hunts against non-Christians.

Believers, please leave me some air. If you want to believe that your beliefs are not beliefs but rather are Truths that is just fine with me. But please restrain your desire to put me on The Path of righteousness.

Part of the problem might stem from the kind of "ethical shorthand" that is invoked when a candidate espouses a particular (or no) religious view. While most major religions have a kind of moral compass that can be inferred from their primary writings and mapped onto a candidate (for good or ill, accurate or inaccurate as it might be), there is no such well-known, generally agreed-upon (or even enforced!) set of morals that will be applied when a candidate espouses their belief in a secular world.

An agnostic/atheist candidate is better off making the ethical and moral statements directly. So, probably, should the religious candidate, but they don't have to. They might actually prefer the nebulous information gained from their looser affiliation with a religious sect, as it can imply different things to different people, making it politically wise (if, perhaps, ironically unethical by those same sets of beliefs).