Romney called 'Secular Humanism' a religion, then called it wrong while giving a speech asking for religious tolerance. Was the irony missed by him? This is what happens when you try to mix religion and logic.

In essence, Romney declared that you have to be religious to be an American. I have no doubt that there are more 'non-religious' people in this country than there are Mormons.
His attempt at trying to 'out bigot' Huckabee is shameful.
He is obviously pandering to a group that considers his church a cult. Now Christians know how the Jews feel. It was okay for Christians to add to the Old Testament, but when the Mormons try to add to the Christian' New Testament, that's considered blasphemy. Go figure.

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration may invoke a "Creator," but, as he went on to show in the battle over the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, he and most of his peers did not believe in a god who intervened in human affairs or in a god who had sent a son for a human sacrifice.

"freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."
Any stooge can think of an example where freedom exists without religion—and even more easily of an instance where religion exists without (or in negation of) freedom.

I, for one, do not need to be lectured by such pious individuals on the founding of our country, nor do I need to be told that because I do not consider myself 'religious' somehow that makes me less of an American. This is ignorance on a grand scale.

Just don't get me started on Huckabee!

Joe,

This post was for you. I figured you'd chime in.

Joe,
Jefferson offered confusing statements on religion throughout his life. Some folks call him a deist, but at various points he expressed in his writings a belief that God did intervene in human affairs. You are right, however, he did not believe in the divinity of Christ.

Although I am not a Romney or Huckabee fan, I think that one of the important points that they make -- rather badly, I agree -- is that the United States was founded by people whose culture, thought, laws, and morality emerged from a Christian culture and worldview.

This does not "establish" Christianity as THE religion of the United States. In my opinion, however (which does not mean much), the further American societies have moved away from basic Christian concepts in their public life, the shakier the republic has gotten. I do not think that a utilitarian ethic can be used to successfully defend life, liberty, and property. Sorry if this is a bit confusing....

(The issue seems to me to be whether or not government should play a role in promoting Christian values. Most Republicans believe it should. I --and most libertarians-- believe that it should not.)

I agree with you Rick. Valuing life, liberty and property are things that require a moral compass. For the Christian, that moral compass is the Bible.

There are moral people out there that don't have that compass, but they lack a basis for their morality. Over time, a morality with no basis is compromised to the point where anything goes. The only thing that matters is me. Once the majority gets to that point, the only liberty that they’ll defend is their own. It is at that point that liberty will cease to exist for all of us.

"Jefferson offered confusing statements on religion throughout his life. Some folks call him a deist, but at various points he expressed in his writings a belief that God did intervene in human affairs. You are right, however, he did not believe in the divinity of Christ."

One only has to look to Jefferson's obelisk to see what he declared as his three most important achievements in his life. One of which was the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom. In that Statue he stated,...

"That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

This was drafted only three years after the 'Declaration of Independence'. It is clear that Jefferson believed in 'a wall of separation' between church and state (look to his letter to the Baptists Association in Danbury). And to that I say, 'Build Up that Wall'.

"...the United States was founded by people whose culture, thought, laws, and morality emerged from a Christian culture and worldview.",

I argue, whether one was a Deist, Christian or otherwise, the purpose of the US Government was to be neutral in respect to religion. The very person Romney mentions, John Adams, approved the 'Treaty of Tripoli' which clearly states that,
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
This Treaty was unanimously ratified (a rare occurrence in that time) with no outcry or complaints. Does this not prove in a direct way that we were intended to be a secular nation?

"In my opinion, however ..., the further American societies have moved away from basic Christian concepts in their public life, the shakier the republic has gotten. I do not think that a utilitarian ethic can be used to successfully defend life, liberty, and property."

The ideals of Life, liberty and property can be argued for without believing Jesus is divine or in Christian ethics. Nowhere in the Declaration or Constitution does it say Jesus or Christ, but merely the idea of a 'Creator' or 'Nature's God'. Another clear sign that the Founders wanted to keep this from being a 'Christian Nation', but one of inclusion.

Tell me one good deed that a Christian or religious person can do that a non-believer can not.
I do not believe people get their 'morals' from the Bible. I believe morals are innate and available to everyone and evolve through various societal outlets. People claiming to get their morals from the Bible are cherry-picking between the nasty parts and the good parts.

"Valuing life, liberty and property are things that require a moral compass."

This is a blind statement. To suggest that only religious people have 'morals' is back-wood logic. For you to go further and state that you use the Bible as a moral compass only proves my point. Do you believe in stoning those who work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36) or the killing of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)? Do you believe that people who have been married more than once are adulterers (Luke 16:18)? Do you believe slavery is okay (1 Peter 2:18 - among others)? What about 'God approved' genocide (1 Samuel 15:2-3)? Which parts do you selectively use as a 'moral compass'?

"...There are moral people out there that don't have that compass, but they lack a basis for their morality."

What did people do prior to the 'Ten Commandments'? Did they think murder was okay? Did they think stealing was okay or lying? Of course not, they would not have managed as well as they did.
It's an insult to everyones dignity to suggest that 'without the Bible', we are all lost and immoral.
You are essentially saying that without the Bible, you would be a murderer, a thief, adulterer and all-around nasty person. Such a low opinion of ones-self should be doctored, not preached to.

I clearly stated that I believe people can be moral without knowing why they are being moral. I believe Romans 1:16-22:

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

Thanks for the 'non-response' to my last statement, Dutch.

Since you've decided to be evasive, let it not be said that I have.

""The righteous will live by faith."
Faith, yes. Logic and reason, no. According to Ecclesiastes 7:20, there is no 'just' man.

"...The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness..."

So, the "wrath of God" will be upon the unbelievers? This is the same God who claims we are his creation and this his proof of love? Remind me not to sell-out my children like this. You essentially believe in a god who created us sick and then demands that we become well.

"...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

So, those who fail to see evidence of God's existence are "without excuse." A clear case of bad logic mixed with intolerant dogma.

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."

In Matthew 5:22, Jesus clearly states,...

...Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Tsk, tsk, Dutch.

I'm sure it's clear to everyone reading this thread that Dutch has cherry-picked a verse in the attempt to scold and damn people who do not believe as he. But, my guess is, he, and others of like mind, wants me to tolerate his beliefs. Its your quoting of scriptures to try and inflict guilt and fear, that makes that argument bogus.

In the same book you quoted by Paul(Romans 1), it is stated that Jesus was the "...seed of David, according to the flesh" (1:3). This clearly contradicts Matthew and Luke's claim that Joseph was not Jesus' father. This is important to the fulfillment of prophecy and the claims by Christians as it relates to the connection to David. So, is he 'of the flesh' (Joesph's link to David) or a virgin birth (in which lineage through Mary (women) is not recognized in the Old Testament or Judaism)?

I feel like I responded to your points. I felt sure that you knew Christians weren't bound by Old Testament Law, so I ignored those "points".

You're the one who started the cherry-picking of Scripture, not me.

How is my quoting something that I know you don't believe supposed to "inflict guilt and fear"? Now you are being illogical. I was simply explaining my beliefs. And I certainly wasn't scolding or damning anyone. I am a sinner like everyone else.

Let u snot cherry pick at the Founders. It is clear that Jefferson believed in 'a wall of separation' between church and state takes a statement made to one group of people who were concerned about creation of a state church.

Let us argue the merits of a state church, state religion or government control of same. But the "wall" was never defined as so many are quick to use it.

A Government that is OF the people, FOR the people and BY the people cannot possibly be defined as dividing the people from their particular faiths. It is like baking a German Chocolate cake and forbidding the use of chocolate.

Romney's speech clearly spoke to the greatness of our country. To nitpick it on PC grounds proves someone did not undertand it - or they have a much smaller agenda to fulfill.

Joe,
We can look at both logic and history. Of course people can practice moral behavior without believing in Christianity. But, if we look at history, we can see that liberal regimes -- and I use that word in its 18th century context -- arose in areas that had long been Christian in culture. Liberals used the cultural capital of the previous generations to attempt to build stable regimes.

My point about society and Christianity is this: when American societies have moved further away from Christian ethics (especially the teaching of individual moral responsibility), we have seen the decline of liberty, not its increase. The breakdown of the family, for example, in the 20th century (which can easily be demonstrated by statistics) has coincided with an increase in government at all levels. Coincidence? I think not. Instead, I think that as society breaks down, people look to government, rather than to their families and local social institutions, for assistance. As society abjures individual responsibility (and blame all problems on racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), statism increases. If some formless "force" rather than individuals is responsible for our evils, then we must collectively fight the monster with the only institution big enough and pervasive enough to do so -- the federal government. That is the logic of statists from the early 20th century to today. It is what unites the neocons and Democrats.

As many scholars have pointed out, there was wide disagreement about church and state issues in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Jefferson's "wall of separation" was a phrase in a private letter. It is not part of the Constitution. The first amendment, in most early 19th century interpretations, meant simply that the US Government could not support any one Chrisitian church with tax dollars. State governments, however, did. Massachusetts and Connecticut had established churches until the later 1820s and early 1830s. I personally endorse Jefferson's view of the issue, but I think that there are other legitimate historical interpretations of the First Amendment.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think what Romney refers to is his belief that Religion is necessary in America in order to sustain tranquility and support the common welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of liberty.