Distasteful as all the Bible thumping and ostentatious piety of the Republican presidential aspirants certainly are, the time may have come to address their religious pretensions directly, instead of turning away in mild disgust. For the truth is that no matter how often candidates like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee promise to uphold the Constitution and protect religious freedom, they are clearly seeking to impose the restrictive tests of faith that the nation's founders abhorred.

Cherishing the freedoms protected by a secular society need not imply any disrespect for religion. But when candidates like Romney and Huckabee press the boundaries of the Constitution to promote themselves as candidates of faith, it is time to push back.

In a hypothetical election between Romney and Hillary, I was planning on voting for Hillary. Not anymore. I find it disgraceful how Romney is pandering to the religious right. I realize he needs the votes, but I see it as a form of selling out.
Meanwhile, he criticizes Europe...while more of Europe is enjoying great freedoms, while most of Europe actually follows Christ's teachings about helping the poor, and while the Euro is becoming the monetary unit of choice over the dollar as its worth skyrockets.
It's too bad that Romney is joining the hypocritical religious right and ignoring Christ's teachings about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.
Romney, you just lost my vote.

Mr. Cannon,

If this nation is in moral decline because of secularism, a view I assume you also hold, why is this happening at a time when America's religious fervency is at an all time high?

Yup. Romney skirted the hard stuff. We'll see in a few weeks how well he really did.

I don't know if Romney's speech endeared him to the religious right, time will soon tell that.

What disappoints me about Romney's speech (as good as it was), is that Romney is not running for the President of Christian America, or even President of Religious America. He is running for President of the United States of America. Our country's problems cannot be traced directly to lack of religion. They are complex problems requiring thoughtful and intelligent action.

I honestly believe that "secularism" is not the enemy of this nation. Religious fanaticism is far more dangerous (and has been shown to be so time and again.)

It is disappointing that Romney chose the "secular" boogeyman to pick his fight with.

What doesn't surprise me one bit is that Joe and Chris Cannon don't understand what the root causes of our nations problems are.

Maybe some folks just need an "angry God" to motivate them to do the right things.

I thought Mitt Romney's speech was well prepared and right on the money. I found myself applauding at some of his key points as I watched from my living room. It felt like "President Mitt Romney speaking!"

I guess I need a better name than just Tim, seeing there are two of us posting here.
My comment early on should've read "I was planning on voting for Romney". My bad.
I'm really impressed by the first few comments here (Anonymous, Kevin, and ???). Maybe things aren't as bad (at least in Utah) as I imagined.

Americans have been complaining about national moral decline since the day after the Constitution was ratified.

I've always enjoyed listening to Joe and reading his comments. He is a thoughtful and well read.

I do find myself at odds with his interpretation of the Enlightenment though. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and many other founding fathers declared themselves to be Enlightenment thinkers.

None of these people rejected God or morality. What they rejected was the divine right of kings. They rejected the notion that laws should be enacted on behalf of any one religious faith.

For years politicians of the Mormon faith have embraced the political activism of Evangelicals on "moral issues" such as Gay marriage, Abortion, and evolution. They have joined Evangelicals in having a religious test for laws based on the tenants of certain religious faiths.

Now that philosophy is coming back to haunt them. It turns out that religious tests of morality are ever expanding. Now, much to everyone's dismay, Mitt Romney is finding stiff opposition to his candidacy purely because of he doesn't meet a religious test of orthodoxy as set down by Evangelical ministers. That is exactly what the Enlightenment wanted to avoid.

Guess what...
Romney doesn't embrace the political activism of Evangelicals on evolution.
Right now, at least, he doesn't have problems with evolution.
We'll see if the demands from the religious right change his mind.

Republicans worked hard twenty years ago to energize the Christian fundamentalists in our country and convince this homogeneous block of voters that theirs was the Party of God. This strategy worked well enough in its early phases, and was pivotal in the Republican Revolution that lasted from the Reagan presidency to the the "Contract with America" of 1994.

Since then, however, we've begun to see the entirely predictable failure of this strategy as the far-right of the GOP, full of their own sense of power, are now sniping at each other over who's particular brand of Christianity is worthy of their votes.

The GOP-led injection of fundamentalist religion into the party's hierarchy and platform is now backfiring, and it's increasingly apparent that, in spite of Mitt's speech, a significant number of evangelicals won't vote for him because he's not their brand of Christian.

That's going to cost him the candidacy, if not the election, and Republicans have no one but themselves to blame for it.

As many distinguished commentators have observed, Mitt Romney delivered two speeches at the same time. One speech reassured Americans who believe in the separation of church and state that he would honor that principle. The other speech reassured Americans who believe in a religious test for office (prohibited by the Constitution) that he met that test.

These positions are mutually exclusive. Romney is trying to have it both ways. If he knows that, he's a shameless panderer who lacks the character that we should demand in a President. If he doesn't know that, his cluelessness disqualifies him for the office that he seeks.

Romney is a very bright man, so my conclusion is that he's shameless. In the short run, his 6 December speech may help him. In the long run, however, after Americans thoroughly ponder what he said, I think his remarks will hurt him, for they expose him as a man whose ultimate belief is that saying whatever he needs to say to get elected is the ultimate act of statesmanship.

There are those who believe Govenor Romney will say anything to get elected or flip to any position supported by the majority. I beg to differ. If such a statement were true, he would be for the minimization of religion in the US, abortion rights for women, increase in taxation (a democratic plank strongly supported by Clinton and Obama), etc. I see, instead, a man who lives by his conscience and by his convictions. He has adjusted his view when more information has enlightened his thought process and has never hidden that fact. I firmly believe a leader who lives by his or her convictions, has ethics, integrity, and a background of leadership and service strongly qualifies them for the presidency. A number of Reps and Dems fit that qualification.
Mitt is not pandering to the religious conservatives, but addressing their concerns of his faith in that it doesn't matter what church he's a member of, only that his faith helps to guide him in his marriage, life, and in business/politics. Those are some of the values all good leaders should have and it shouldn't matter what church they go - or do not go - to.

Governor Romney was pushed into the unfortunate position of having to discuss religion in the public square by the persistent questions that have plagued him since he announced his candidacy. In my opinion, he spoke openly about his faith in a respectful manner. To those who find secularism so desirable, we are faced with rampant consummerism, sexual excess, and violence in our country today. A product of our collective loss of a moral compass. The "live for today as there is no tomorrow" that secularism inspires has led us to this. It is hard to look beyond our own wants, needs and desires when the guidelines presented are determined by situational ethics and conventional wisdom that is not founded upon enternal truths. Truths, by the way, that transcend any religion.

Mitt's speech was in some ways impressive but as others have noted it was internally inconsistent, promising separation of church and state on the one hand, while seeking to meet the religious test of the religious right on the other, and arguing apparently for state-sanctioned religion in the public square. Sadly the Republican Party has overreacted to perceived state hostility to religion, and in so doing jeopardizes the very freedom it purports to advance. Those most committed to religious freedom should at the same time be those most concerned to avoid state entanglement in religion. I don't know whether Mitt's speech helps him politically but if it does, in taking a page from the Reagan/Bush/Huckabee playbook, his conduct is bound to increase hostility toward those whose views to not comport with the de facto state religion, whether people of faith or not.

It's easy to blame secularism for all of our problems. Problem is, it's not to blame. Look at more secular countries (like in Europe). They have lower rates of consumerism, lower rates of teen pregnancy, lower rates of violence. And the vast majority of Europeans may call themselves Catholic or Protestant...but they are most certainly not religious.
Sorry, "Supporting Mitt". Your words sound nice but they don't hold up to closer scrutinizing. Much like some of Romney's comments on the topic.

Joe, you need to have your medication level checked.

Romney fell victim to the Republicans shoddy attempt to pander for power, giving rise to the religious right which now holds American politics hostage. He had a chance to change that bondage in bright light with a national audience and he failed. No leadership there.

Romney’s speech is his “symphony” of ironies. He distorted American history to make the God the basis of that which was created with considerable rational thought. He was omitted “under God” not in the original pledge, written in 1892 by a Baptist socialist and jammed in between words that were not intended to be separated by a deranged zealot senator in the 1950's.

While requesting religious tolerance from bigots, he was intolerant of those without “appropriate” religious affiliations.

He was shrill when he claimed Americans were tired of politicians who changed their positions for political convenience.

When JFK seized responsibility for his future decision he pledged to make decisions that were in the best interest of the country. Romney, unwilling to define torture or renounce waterboarding, was merely able to echo drivel about “within the law.”

Desirable, admirable, ethical, moral, Christian? I think not.

Romney is toast.
So is the GOP with the most corrupt and immoral administration in the history of the U.S.

Every time a leader claims that "God told him to to such-and-such" or that "I prayed long and hard about this decision" or that "God will support my decision" he is attempting to exercise the Divine Right of Kings.

We don't need anyone for President who believes in Divine Right. The last 7 years should have shown the problem with that.

Mitt and Huckabee both believe in Divine Right. They don't use God as a source of spiritual wisdom, they use God as a big stick to hit their opponents with. That's been a major theme of the GOP pretty much my whole life.

Now, if they told me Santa wouldn't bring me presents if I voted Democratic, then we might have something. :-)

History has a lot to say, none of it favorable, about heads of state claiming that God is taking a personal interest in them.

Only in the Mormon fishbowl of Salt Lake City could this attempt to pander be seen as histric. More likely it will be forgotten when Mitt fails to obtain the R nomination. That will not be because he is a Mormon (about which we learned nothing from his speech), but for the reasons his record, or lack thereof, as Governor of Massachusetts will demonstrate. After a losing bid to unseat Sen. Kennedy during which Mitt took positions more liberal than the Senator, he ran for Governor saying he would support choice and gay rights. Of course the minute he was elected he demonstrated a characteristic of all venture capitalist, the inability to work with people of opposing views. The VC's just fire them. In politics it is work them or face an empty record. Mitt was so busy running for President he cared not that his record would be empty. What is is most proud of was he did not do here. Too bad for us as we lost jobs and a lot more here while he was out speaking disrespectfully about the sate who had elected him. So you want to believe him now? Never again in Mass.

Mitt will make a great VP for Ron Paul.

PAUL, YOU MAKE ME LAUGH. YOU AND MOST OF THE OTHER OPINIONS/COMMENTS ARE SHOWING A GREAT LACK OF LIGHT AND KNOWLEGE.

Go Hillary you will be our next President.

So God inspired the writing of the constitution. Ironically, he (or she)selected brilliant deists who were history's most ardent admirers of The Enlightenment to write it. Equally ironic, some of the most odious documents in history were penned by avowed theists and recognized "fathers of the church." Go figure.

So being afraid of an imaginary father, who will send you to Hell is why people are "good"? Is that your only reason? I bet not! I think that is the worst reason to be "good". Doing it out of fear!?!
Atheists are not the problem. I prefer being "good" because that is what makes life GREAT for EVERYONE. I don't need a fear of eternal torture to be a good person. I bet most people don't.