And no, it wasn’t just a press release; I heard Dobson on Hugh Hewitt’s show, praising Romney.

It was only a matter of time before the Fundies woke up and realized that Huckabee was the only candidate who was really one of them.

Aren’t they all that way? How would it make Romney any worse than the others? What on earth am I expecting – another Reagan?

Ron PAUL, Ron PAUL, Ron PAUL….

I agree with people’s praise of the speech’s content. ***Therefore, I will address myself to something completely different.***

I have now put the second sentence in bold for you, and added ***stars***. I hope it shows up now, on whatever monitor or browser you are using.

Other than that – Glad you liked it!

And it’s all about “feelings”, nothing more than ILC’s feelings… what a crack-up. Very funny.

Care to name a major issue that’s he’s flip-flopped on since entering the race?

In other words: Since he formally declared candidacy on Feb. 13, 2007? I am 100% certain Romney is much too calculating and careful a politician to have made any flip-flops since then – so, no one should try to meet your challenge. People who find the flip-flops, look back over a longer period of time.

“When city officials planted a 7-foot-tall Christmas tree next to a 20-foot-tall menorah in the plaza in front of City Hall, some residents barked. They telephoned City Hall, wrote letters and testified at a public hearing that the tiny tree in the shadow of the huge Hanukkah symbol was an insult to Christians“.

Proving that, yes, even to Christians, “size matters.”

Care to name a major issue that’s he’s flip-flopped on since entering the race?

Your party’s own guy in 2004, JohnKerry, flip flopped like a salmon on the river shore caught by a black bear… so I know you know what real flip flopping is, KYK.

As for the idea of needing religion to have freedom, I find that rather odd. Christianity was the religion of monarchy (Divine Right of Kings and all that) until 1776. Democracy and human rights are a product of the enlightment, not of Christian doctrine. Our modern concept of religion reinforcing democracy is something we created in America and exported to a few other western countries. It’s not something that one finds in the scriptures.

And about separation of church and state. I think Christian groups that want to break down the wall between religion and government do so at their own peril. Freedom from meddling by the state has served religion quite well in America for the last two hundred years. Even the act of taking money from the government creates a dependency on the state and we all know that no one gives you money without eventually setting the rules for what you can and can’t do with that money. There are always strings attached and churches, temples and mosques and whatever else there might be are better off raising their own monies privately and maintaining autonomy than they are having the government tell them what they then can and cannot do. What happens when the day comes that the government is hostile to particular forms of religion if that wall is no longer there for protection? I know a good many religious leaders (including fundamentalists) are not on the bandwagon of faith-based initiatives for that very reason. But I don’t think their voices are being heard very loudly.

I thought Romney did an superb job at addressing the issue of religion in politics… not for those who advance the secular agenda and have a grudging antagonims toward Faith, but for those who believe religion is important in our society and felt the secularist’s hammer on this issue.

I disagree with the instant pundits who claim he didn’t address HIS faith and how being a Mormon will temper a Romney presidency (which he did speak to, in fact; it won’t).

I also disagree with emminent conservative moralist Bill Bennet when he conjured that Mitt made a speech that just about every GOP and Democrat presidential nominee candidate could have made… Bill’s forgetting that the Democrats would have focused on how Thos Jefferson stood against the tide of religionist Founding Fathers and helped secure liberty for the non-believers… how the wall of separation should be used to squeeze and push religious representations out of the public marketplace.

My parents used to speak about how JFK as a Catholic was viewed with suspicion by a significant minority in America… much like some have viewed Mitt as a Mormon. Religious bigotry or just ignorance about the faith, I don’t know. I think many GOP primary voters will take comfort in Mitt speaking about God, faith, Jesus Christ and how those influence Mitt’s life, inform his dedication to fellow men and might affect his presidency.

I know many gays hold a deep seated and rightly formed antagonism toward men of faith and the institution of religion. Frankly, nothing Mitt can say or do will influence the opinion of those secularists. But, then, that wasn’t his target audience, was it?

Thanks for your post on Mitt’s speech. We share the same attention to the important parts of the speech.

“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.”

“Public domain” and “public life” here obviously meaning “at government expense, on government property, and with government sanction.” There appears to be a confoundation of “public” and “government” which is symptomatic of modern politics. The founders clearly intended that “We the People” were to be “the public,” and that government (that artificial entity whose potential tyranny they strove so mightily to restrain) should not impinge upon it by promoting one [religious] view over another (thus, no “official, government-approved religion” like the Church of England).

“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.”

Certainly, the Founders were all [professed] Christians (you really couldn’t be a respectable member of society back then otherwise), and presumably thought that religion (meaning their own religion, of course) was a positive force in society. And I certainly believe that they would be made uncomfortable by a society which didn’t have that “edifying influence” and moral guidance which they no doubt took for granted.

But keep in mind, they were Christians, and saw a Christian society, Christian government, and Christian public. It would almost certainly have been outside of their worldview that, 230 years later, so many “foreign” religions would be acceptable (at least to some degree, even if only in principle more than practice) in the public sphere.

While I certainly don’t think that religion should be discriminated against by government (any more than any other set of beliefs or customs), there is a difference between not suppressing something and promoting it, even if by acquiescence. For example, people often talk about “opening the public square” to seasonal displays (usually citing Christian and Jewish religious holidays). But would that include every religion equally, even on their most important days? Buddhists, Muslims, Animists, Wiccans, Native Americans, the list goes on.

Equal access for all religions? Unlikely. Which means that now our government is deciding which religions are “more important” or “more socially deserving” of access to our public spaces. And whose scripture gets written on the walls of our court houses? Should we have a vote? Apportion wall space by demographics? Not to mention that this will always, in some manner, end up costing taxpayer money, so inevitably (as is true of everything government does) someone will end up being forced to promote a religion which they don’t believe in (at best) or oppose.

I don’t have an issue with a politician who is strongly religious (Ron Paul is a fairly “conservative” Christian, but one that doesn’t believe in forcing his personal moral views on the public). I personally don’t trust Romney, but I don’t really feel that he is any more faithful to his religious positions than he was to any of his other disposable stands. We see how steadfast he was in maintaining those even though “the people” elected him to serve based on them. While I can understand how a Christian might have reservations about electing someone with views which differ from their own, I don’t really feel that it’s much different than any other particular aspect(s) of a politician which they allow for.

GL, did I write all that? Sorry. :/