Romney Too Quick to Debunk Church-State Separation

Tonio - love your thoughts - as always, but more than usual.

Will be using them frequently.

Rev Walker - thank you for recognizing Romney's speech for what it was.

I am heartened that influencial religious people are as tuned in as atheists are about the separation issue.

Governor Romney, like most of the Republican's who are running for their party's nomination, gives strong hints to the Christian right that he is on their side. After listening to his points and reading articles about the speech, I do not feel that he either fully understands the full concept of separation of Church and State or he simple seeks to modify it.

In addition to my above comments, I wish to express the profound fear I experience when day after day I see the headlines in newspapers and news magazines which tout religious "Tolerance." Tolerance implies by its very meaning that something that can be taken away, as in "no longer tolerated. In the formation of the Bill of Rights, Baptist and others insisted that the rights concerning religion be free from such terms. It is frightening that the use of the term tolerance seems to be replacing term religious freedom. The United States Constitution in the first amendment
grants freedom of religion and by that even to right to have no religion.

Ah... I get it now. A poster on the main thread explained the whole "God gave us our freedom" thing. Apparently it comes from the concept of Natural Law, which claims that the Almighty bestowed freedom upon America. It's a favorite philosophy of the conservative movement.

Learn something new every day.

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.

At least the nations leading newspapers editorial pages get it:

From the NY Times:

Faith vs. the Faithless

By DAVID BROOKS

...“But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious.”...

And again from the NY Times:

Editorial
The Crisis of Faith

“Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office...

He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy...

CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?”

The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.

From the Washington Post:

No Freedom Without Religion?

There's a gap in Mitt Romney's admirable call for tolerance.

“RELIGIOUS liberty is, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared yesterday, "fundamental to America's greatness." With religious division inciting violence across the globe, he is right to celebrate America's tradition of religious tolerance. He's right, too, that no one should vote against him, or for him, because he is a Mormon. We only wish his empathy for religious minorities such as his own extended a bit further, to those who do not believe in God...

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government," Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.

All Christians are going to hell anyhow - http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

All Christians are going to hell anyhow - http//www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Mitt is a Christian alright but he's no Baptist. Everybody who's anybody at all knows Baptist will run the kingdom of Jesus while we anxiously await His return the claim the throne of God. If not God then some supernatural being to be sure.

That's why the "God vote" negates all other votes.

But which one does Lucifer really want to head, "one nation under God?" Not Romney because he's in favor of religious freedom. Devil is taking no chances. Only a good Baptist will do to run His kingdom. Baptists are just "dying" to get to the kingdom of the father of Jesus. You could say they are in one "hell" of a hurry.

That really is God Pat Robertson talks to. The fact that the voice comes out of the tolit bowl with him setting on it may be ignored. He's such a nice man and a such a good Baptist. WHAT? Pat's not running for president? He's holding out for king. We already got a king - Elvis. Pat did NOT endorse Romney. Make a note of that.

Paganplace - I absolutely agree with you that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Believe me, I know that more than most. I was just questioning the fact that many people, including Romney, are saying that God (or insert deity here) GAVE us our liberty. Our ancestors fought for it, whether they fought in the Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, WWII, or the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements. Sometimes the enemies of liberty are not from without, but from within.

To expand on my previous post, NO government should take any position on any religion's deity. Government should be like a football referee in this regard. Imagine if a ref at a Redskins-Cowboys game was wearing one team's logo on an armband. One couldn't expect the ref to be unbiased in his calls, and even if the ref pledged to be unbiased, he would still be giving the appearance of a conflict of interest.

"that didn't doesn't mean the federal government couldn't acknowledge and honor God or the nation's Christian culture, heritage, and beliefs."

That's the whole problem. None of those things are exclusively Christian and there is no reason they should be. By declaring those things to be exclusively Christian, one essentially says that non-Christians are not fully American. The federal government should have no position on any deity.

Look at it this way - suppose a new religion arises and most Americans convert to it, with Christians left as a tiny minority. But America would (hopefully) honor the First Amendment principle of government neutrality among competing religions. In other words, America would still be America where it really counts. America isn't about any religion's god.

So Romney didn't say the right things. Could he have? I just wonder, had he said all those things people mentioned in their comments here, would the mormon issue be done away with, once and for all?

Mitt Romney would be an excellent president, because he has been a successful leader in the past.

Yes his remarks were tailored towards certain groups of people, but somehow this seems to be the daily bread and butter of any politician out there who wants to garner votes. The ones who don't and say things as they are, usually don't get elected (sad as it is).

It seems wrong to me that a politician just has to belong to one of the big Christian denominations and be pro-life and immidiately has a stock of voters at hand, independant from what the rest of his agenda might be. While those things are not unimportant, yet there might be more urgent things to consider- who puts a stop to the deterioration of the family, gives young people a perspective, stops unemployment, protects the country etc.; not: "What do you think about the Bible" (Amazing book, by the way).

It's sad but predictable that someone on the Supreme Court Bar is so ignorant.

The First Amendment's establishment clause was instituted to protect official established churches in the states from any federal established church that might supercede them.

Massachusetts, for example, would NEVER have ratified the Constitution or the Bill of Rights if it had thought that its official, state-sanctioned, established Congregationalist Church were threatened.

After ratification, the Founding Fathers were actively involved in the federal government, in all three branches, saying prayers, making religious proclamations, and more. They didn't have a specific denomination as the official established federal church, but that didn't and doesn't mean the federal government couldn't acknowledge and honor God or the nation's Christian culture, heritage, and beliefs.

"Unalienable. Not even for clergy or any politicians claiming to speak for the 'God' of the Deists to take away. Unalienable."

The Creator mentioned in the Declaration is not necessarily the god of the theists or even the god of the deists. "Endowed" doesn't have to mean that these rights were consciously granted by such a god. I suspect that the reference was deliberately crafted to be broad, encompassing naturalism as well as supernaturalism. The principle of inalienable rights would still hold in a naturalistic context, and rightly so.

"God GAVE us our freedom? Gee, I always learned that we fought the British for it!"

I will say *this,* Athena....

We fought off the British to *be able to say*

"We hold these truths to be self-evident."

I hope I needn't repeat the quotation, but, actually, it was said that in the name of the highest non-authoritarian....authority conceivable, that in fact, it was held to be *self evident* that we are endowed by 'our Creator' with certain *unalienable* rights.

Unalienable. Not even for clergy or any politicians claiming to speak for the 'God' of the Deists to take away. Unalienable.

This is not a 'God' I have difficulty 'trusting in.' I have *trouble* when people try to ascribe their specific arrogated religious authority to that 'Creator.'

As Americans, we accept this as both given, and non-negotiable, and *unalienable.*

This is what we live by.

And anyone who says they *own* that neither understands 'liberty,' nor America, nor, dare I say, 'God.'

I will as readily say Lady made us with certain unalienable rights. Not in the way *they* think, but these rights nonetheless remain *unalienable ones.*

They cannot be taken away. Under any auspices.

Not even if people think they know 'God.'

And this is how we live.

If we do not....

"Disinformation is forever."

I vote we live.

The price of freedom, Athena, (as any Pagan who'd take on the brazen helm with that name would know) .... Is eternal vigilance.

No matter how comfy some would make tyranny for us. :)

Romney is unable to rise above his religious indoctrination.But then,who is? Childhood indoctrination into religion is most powerful,and
usually lasts a lifetime.
But a better man would rise above it and see religion for the scam it is.
I find it hard to respect anyone who can't.

Well said, Rev. Walker and Paganplace! Both I and my Catholic husband were creeped out by Romney's speech.

God GAVE us our freedom? Gee, I always learned that we fought the British for it!

Lets see Walker an ordained minister, by whos authority and he gets paid by his church. Serving man or God. He is also not a nice guy with a sharp toung. Not a Christian

Lets see Walker an ordained minister, by whos authority and he gets paid by his church. Serving man or God. He is also not a nice guy with a sharp toung. Not a Christian

Lets see Walker an ordained minister, by whos authority and he gets paid by his church. Serving man or God. He is also not a nice guy with a sharp toung. Not a Christian

Lets see Walker an ordained minister, by whos authority and he gets paid by his church. Serving man or God. He is also not a nice guy with a sharp toung. Not a Christian

Lets see Walker an ordained minister, by whos athority and he gets paid by his churcu. Serving man or God. He is also not a nice guy

Lets see Walker an ordained minister, by whos athority and he gets paid by his churcu. Serving man or God. He is also not a nice guy

" Dan:

One or two thoughts regarding former Gov. Romney's comments about the unidentified "they" who, apparently, are bent on silencing religious values/perspectives from the political debate, and who, apparently, still hunt nativity scenes in December and wring their collective hands every time they pull out a one-dollar bill:"

Gods. Could we get *over* this, already? It's like, 'Samhain is the warmup, and the Christian midwinter holiday has become 'Blame the Pagans for our intrusive consumerism,'

...Would you get off it, already? If you want a bloody manger on the courthouse lawn, let a Jew or a Pagan or a Hindu put up a light, too, ...it's not like a five-pointed star even *registers* as Pagan when put up in electric lights this time of year.

Really.

We like the lights, we like the trees, we like the fun. We don't like Fox News telling everyone we 'hate' you and need to be quashed any time a moment of holiday cheer doesn't exclude non-Christians.

Personally, since the Pagan holiday is a little offset, I have a tradition of spending Christmas Even in places where Christians with nowhere to go congregate.

You got 'Peace On Earth' muzak blaring everywhere from Halloween to three days past new Year's... How bout a littel *peace in the neighborhood?*

How bout, *let's not fight, this season, already? *

If you can do that, you might be less worried about what brand of Religious Right corporate toadie Romney is, and look a little harder at the candidates' positions.

Or, at least, you could not turn this of all seasons into the biggest season of *hate* that non-Christians get to endure.

"freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

What does this mean? Does it mean that I am not free?

Mr Romney, not only did you stick your foot in your mouth when you said that, you were also trying to stick it up my ... freedom.

He used various code phrases and buzzwords in an attempt to convince the evangelicals that he is one of them, and not a member of some strange cult. I cannot see that he was successful in this effort. He convinced few, if any of them.

In addition that phrase I quoted will be taken as a buzzword by all the atheists and agnostics and other-than-christian believers to mean "you are not American".

He tries to deflate the bigotry of the evangelicals and in the same breath validates the bigotry of any believer for the non-believer.

Excellent point about Romney's frightening "they." Romney might really believe that removal of creationism and mandatory prayer in public schools amounts to driving religion underground, or even a deliberate attempt to drive it underground. Or he might simply be manipulating the fears of conservative Christians. Or both.

I haven't been following Romney's campaign. Does he often bash the same targets as the James Dobsons and Tony Perkinses, namely the "elites" in Hollywood, the media and academia?

One or two thoughts regarding former Gov. Romney's comments about the unidentified "they" who, apparently, are bent on silencing religious values/perspectives from the political debate, and who, apparently, still hunt nativity scenes in December and wring their collective hands every time they pull out a one-dollar bill:

To criticise those who campaign for a position beyond the limits of constitutional jurisprudence or the deminimus as somehow defining a threat to religion in society is merely a scare tactic designed to pacify very conservative sections of the electorate. Who are Romney's frightening "they?" I've not met any such group.

If Romney had selected an issue of real siginificance -such as his support requiring manditory financial reports from most religious institutions in Massachusetts- he would have offered the country an unadulterated version of his views on the intersection of the religion clauses. Romney's method is one of polarization and acquiesence to most expedenient positions. Please do not mistake Romney's soft words as indicative of a true champion of religious freedom and liberty.

One or two thoughts regarding former Gov. Romney's comments about the unidentified "they" who, apparently, are bent on silencing religious values/perspectives from the political debate, and who, apparently, still hunt nativity scenes in December and wring their collective hands every time they pull out a one-dollar bill:

To criticise those who campaign for a position beyond the limits of constitutional jurisprudence or the deminimus as somehow defining a threat to religion in society is merely a scare tactic designed to pacify very conservative sections of the electorate. Who are Romney's frightening "they?" I've not met any such group.

If Romney had selected an issue of real siginificance -such as his support requiring manditory financial reports from most religious institutions in Massachusetts- he would have offered the country an unadulterated version of his views on the intersection of the religion clauses. Romney's method is one of polarization and acquiesence to most expedenient positions. Please do not mistake Romney's soft words as indicative of a true champion of religious freedom and liberty.

" Ralph:

"In order to remove the "I'm more religious than you!" diatribe from our elections of servants of the people, the rules should be changed so that only certified atheists would be allowed to run for pubic office."

Or.... candidates could speak of a rational basis for what they promise to do, and people could take the trouble to think about it instead of let themselves be flattered and pandered to?

If anyone thinks that a governance based on reason is insufficient, ....I propose we try getting to where reason can get us *first,* and *then* you might find people of differing religions aren't so opposed to the next step.

Personally, I think you 'once-born' faiths have a disadvantage, here. You may call yourselves 'born again,' but you're so wound up in being rewarded for your personal mortal mind's righteousness, that you can't even accpt that a long view exists.

You've been expecting the world will end with your persons for centuries, now.

How bout we run our world like it's to endure to the seventh generation after us?

It'd be a start.

And you might find your soul sits easier in your body, too.

If you believe you will be beamed out of your responsibilities to your descendants, well, bully for you.

Kindly don't spend the 'meek's' inheritance while you're about proving it to yourself.

Well said!! Would that Gov. Romney were half as intelligent, or as tolerant, as this.

He doesn't get it, does he? His right to be a Mormon depends on church/state separation. Without it, he would be up the creek.

He doesn't get it, does he? His right to be a Mormon depends on church/state separation. Without it, he would be up the creek.

In order to remove the "I'm more religious than you!" diatribe from our elections of servants of the people, the rules should be changed so that only certified atheists would be allowed to run for pubic office. The idea that God has blessed this Country seems strange, when one considers that we killed the Indians and took their land. We had slave-owners for our "Founding Fathers", allowed slave ownership for the first 100 years of our nationhood, and insist on invading any country which we consider un-democratic or believers of "some kind of funny, non-Christian" religion.

Bill Camarda wrote:

"Jed Rothwell: I thought about it before calling it a lie, and not just a flight of rhetoric."

I am sure you did, but I suspected it is mere rhetoric.

"But didn't Romney do his missionary work in France? . . . He knows well enough that France is no totalitarian state."

Good point! I forgot about that. I was thinking he may be like Bush, who never went to Europe before he was president, and who does not evince much interest in other countries.

Jacoby's analysis in this section has many points in common with Walker's but it is harsher:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/12/romney_unfit_not_as_a_mormon_b.html

In order to remove the "I'm more religious than you!" diatribe from our elections of servants of the people, the rules should be changed so that only certified atheists would be allowed to run for pubic office. The idea that God has blessed this Country seems strange, when one considers that we killed the Indians and took their land. We had slave-owners for our "Founding Fathers", allowed slave ownership for the first 100 years of our nationhood, and insist on invading any country which we consider un-democratic or believers of "some kind of funny, non-Christian" religion.

"DUH! - these are exactly the points that Gov. Romney made."

I find people have a hard time spotting the exclusionary language when they aren't actually-excluded.

Like Bush's rhetorical idea of religious freedom: "Everyone is entitled to worship (my) God in their own way (unless of course that leads them to disagree with him, then they're 'with the terrorists.' ) "

Romney's a panderer to the Religious Right. He's also made promises of 'tolerance' before and gone back on them.

Forget about it.

The author writes:

Church-state separation actually ensures our vibrant religious landscape and in no way strips the public square of talk about religion and matters of faith. Church-state separation simply requires that official government action have a secular purpose and have the primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

Governor Romney should also understand that “secular” is not a bad word. While our culture need not be secular, our government must be – not in the sense of being hostile to religion, but being religiously neutral. Government must not be allowed to meddle in religion, for or against, or take sides in religious disputes, favoring one religion over another. As soon as it does, it denies someone’s religious liberty.

DUH! - these are exactly the points that Gov. Romney made.

I read that, there, Bill. I was just further pointing out that for those inclined to use political power to disenfranchise those who are perceived as 'minorities,' ...those minorities aren't as small as some who push some readings of some 'polls' might have you believe.

Paganplace: Points well taken. I was just trying to get across that there are a LOT of people who don't fit into Mitt Romney's definitions, or his America...

Jed Rothwell: I thought about it before calling it a lie, and not just a flight of rhetoric. But didn't Romney do his missionary work in France? He's kind of made a career of criticizing the French lately. He knows well enough that France is no totalitarian state. Since the statement had a specific meaning, it seemed to get beyond the level of "mere meaningless rhetoric" to outright lie. My opinion, anyhow -- thanks!

Thank you, Rev. Walker, for your informed, reasoned defense of our secular government. Your fair-minded consideration of nonbelievers is greatly appreciated.

"his Mormonism should not disqualify him, legally or politically"

Running for office, winning elections is not binary, it is not about qualified/unqualified. It analog, who best represents my opinion and can lead the charge.

Being Mormon does not and has never disqualified anyone. It may hold them less politically attractive, that's all.

Is his Mormon belief system a factor for my vote? Yes and no.. it's ONE of the factors... I have studied Mormonism and frankly just don't buy it..... Therefore Romney and I do not share a basic, core philosophy... that has to affect my voting preference..
The guys that say that the bible is literal, same problem.. I am not admonishing them for their belief, I'm just not voting for people to run a secular government, that controls our own WMD’s that see the basic stuff of life completely differently than I do. I can not vote for someone that believes that they can pray to a god and expect a miracle in return.

My first impression was that the speech wasn't bad. It was what I expected. After re-reading Walker's column and the comments here, I now agree the speech was pretty awful.

I mean, how hard would it have been for him to throw a sop to the atheists? And not to conflate "secular" with "atheism"?

Regarding Bill Camarda's comments, I agree Romney is wrong about the nations of Western Europe, Canada, Japan and so on. But I wouldn't call it a "lie" so much as overheated political rhetoric. Or perhaps he does not know much about other countries and he is unaware of how many atheists they harbor. I'll bet he does not realize how many Americans are atheists! He may find out soon.

Bravo again on this column. It is one of the best I have seen here. I shall read Walker's other contributions, if I can navigate the crazy index system in this department.

Oh, and, before Bush was elected, the same polls were used to note with alarm how a *majority* of Americans considered themselves at most 'Spiritual, not religious' in order to scare 'the base' (With irony, I note that that's exactly what 'Al Qaida' means in Arabic) ...into mobilizing.

Now that these guys are in power, they say, 'Most Americans Believe in Our God In Our Way, So We Can Claim Mandate To Do What We Want In Spite of Record Low Approval Ratings. Just Act 'Persecuted' and Attack If Anyone Says They Aren't One Of Us.'

Polls.

Gotta know how to read em and look at the methodology.

"That is 23% of American adults: somewhat more than 50,000,000 Americans."

I'll also point out, if you were ever someone of another faith group who'd *taken* one of these polls, you either say you 'believe in God' or the data gets thrown out. because the questions aren't worded in terms of there being more than one God to talk about.

I apologize for having previously posted this comment on Dr. Stevens-Arroyo's thread, but I think it's important that no one, particularly a Baptist or Evangelical, be taken in by Mr. Romney's empty blatherings.

Hence:

Mitt Romney is your typical M.B.A. moneyman who is adept at squeezing the last penny out of any project, to the exclusion of all other interests and values.

When such a one attempts to speak on larger and more important issues, such as religion and government, he discovers that his mind is insufficiently imaginative, generous and expansive to talk sensibly about the topic.

He's therefore reduced to mouthing thoughtless cliches which pander to the ignorant religious.

Paraphrasing Dr. Johnson:

"Sir, Mitt Romney's attempt to speak on religion and government is like a dog walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Dead on. Romney couldn't give the leave my religion out of this speech some of us would like to hear because he doesn't want to concede the man of faith turf to Huckabee. I suspect that if he were able, he would allay any Kennedy-esque fears by just saying it's how he was raised and it would never get in the way of his basic faith in political expediency in a million years, but can't pull that off. so he has to tap dance, which does not make for much of a speech. I still wonder if he's opened the door for evangelicals to just come right out and say they don't think Mormons are christians (they don't) even if Huckabee managed to duck the question (to which he knows perfectly well the answer) for fear of offending nearly everyone no matter which answer he gave

Excellent editorial. As an Atheist with an extremely religious immediate an extended family, I find it terrifying that Romney explicitly left nonbelievers out of his speech.

His speech went something like this:

If you are religious, you are American. All religious people should be tolerant of each other because it's important that we're religious first and everything else comes second. Atheists aren't included because they don't believe in God and therefore aren't Americans. God bless us (religious folks).

Anyone who knows anything about Constitutional Law knows how frightfully wrong Romney's speech was. I only hope the media understands and conveys this message.

I appreciate your observations about non-believers.

According to a 2006 Harris poll of U.S. adults:

• 11% are “not sure whether or not there is a God”
• 6% are “somewhat certain that there is no God”
• 6% are “absolutely certain” that God does not exist

That is 23% of American adults: somewhat more than 50,000,000 Americans.

Many of these Americans have searched their hearts -- searched hard -- and not heard God’s voice speaking to them, even in the quietest moments. Others find the sacred books of thousands (or hundreds) of years ago incompatible with what they have learned about the universe through science. Others are alienated by the ignorant and bullheaded certainty of the religious leaders they have heard in the public square. Still others are simply not sure.

But virtually all of them are good citizens, good Americans. They contribute to their communities. They teach their children values. They are honorable people. They do not become serial killers or child molesters because they cannot truthfully say they are people of faith.

There is no place for these fifty million citizens in Mitt Romney’s America. Mitt Romney stands before us and says that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” They do not. If that were true, the nations of Western Europe – with their cathedrals, “so grand... so empty” – would be tyrannies. As would Canada, where only 30% of citizens say religion is very important in their lives. As would Japan, where only 12% do. Mr. Romney knows his claim is demonstrably false, and chooses, unsurprisingly, to lie.

For tens of millions of Americans, liberty includes the right to stand outside of Mr. Romney’s “symphony of faith,” respect its players and singers – and expect equal respect from them in return.

When John F. Kennedy spoke about religion in 1960, he said, “I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end — where all men and all churches are treated as equal — where every man has the same right to attend or NOT to attend the church of his choice.”

Even George W. Bush, who is second to no man in his readiness to publicly express his faith, said this last year: “The United States of America must never lose sight of this beautiful principle: You can worship or not worship and you’re equally American. You’re equally American if you’re a Christian, Jew or Muslim, atheist, agnostic. We must never lose sight of that. That’s what distinguishes us from the Taliban.”

George W. Bush, uncharacteristically, said it perfectly. That is precisely what distinguishes us from the Taliban. John F. Kennedy, too, had it right. Mitt Romney has it wrong, and knows better, but as usual, prefers the worst sort of pandering to any form of courage.

With that and Tonio's qualification, (especially about putting two-ton stone depictions of the Ten Commandments, which start off by *commanding* who and who not to worship, in a courthouse that's supposed to be about civil justice,) ...here's some of the meat of the matter. :)

I'll further point out that what I see in Romney's career is that he started out running for office in Massachusetts claiming that his radical religious affiliations were about diversity and freedom, then, once in power, he's shifted his positions to claim he's *the same* as the conservatives who want to impose their religious ways on all of us through government power.

It would be interesting if he were elected, as it may break some of the assumptions of America being a monolithic 'Christian nation' that's just three-quarters full of 'sinners,' but I would challenge Mr. Romney to understand that, if faith is what he values, that people of real faith don't always agree on what 'values' the government should impose with force of law.

Most Americans, at least who understand how our nation works, don't see a few atheists or people of alternative religions trying to 'banish God' from the public square: what we see is a vocal minority trying to push *their view of their God* into power over all, and, you may notice when push comes to shove, *exclude all other voices.*

Jed Rothwell wrote, "It wasn't a bad speech, but I thought it was creepy when he chided the Europeans about their lack of religion."

I tend to read that section as Romney trying desperately to ingratiate himself with the "Old Europe", "go it alone" crowd who support the current administration. In any event, it's just another reason not to vote for him...

Bravo! Well said. As an atheist friendly to religion, I applaud and agree completely.

It wasn't a bad speech, but I thought it was creepy when he chided the Europeans about their lack of religion. I do not think a politician should go around telling people they should get on their knees and pray. Not us, and not foreigners. It is not his job.

Tonio,

I thought that Walker was just using that as a rhetorical point, not that he actually believes non-believers are advocating for it. But your point is well-taken.

While Walker made some good points, he invoked a straw man that must be debunked: "Nonbelievers do not have the right to strip the public square of talk about religion or ban religious values from political discourse." Rational non-Christians do not advocate such things. I suspect that straw man was created by a minority of Christians who do not understand that government and the "public square" are not synonymous. Keeping the Ten Commandments from being displayed in courtrooms reinforces exactly the government neutrality that Walker rightly praises. It does nothing to strip the public square of religious talk

Dead on analysis. Well said.