Unable to Unite Even When Trying, republicans Move Toward Established Religion on the Sneak

From about twenty years of divisive rule, it's pretty clear that republicans are unable to unite the country even when trying. Mitt Romney's speech was as divisive as they come and the sad part is that it doesn't even occur to him and there's the rub for those of us in the non-Christian communities of the Illinois Tenth.

First, Romney's speech was directed toward an audience segment, evangelicals moving toward Huckabee. He was not even trying to talk to the nation, but a group many of the members of which believe in religious exclusion. That was the whole reason for the speech, so it was not the Kennedyesq unity speech as touted, but a plea by Romney to be included among the exclusive.

Second, Romney spoke of God, God with a capital G and God in the singular, so he already excluded Atheists, Buddhist, Hindus and others who do not worship a single god or any god. He said " I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God." I guess he's never met a Zoroastrian. They are among the people we are supposed to be defending by beating the war drums against Iran. There are about 15,000 in the United States. There are about 1,081,051 Hindus and 1,527,019 Buddhists in the United States.

Then, he excludes some more:

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

You should acknowledge the Creator. What about those whose religions or lack thereof do not have a Creator with a capital C or have a Creator, but not Mitt's. His sticking in the word menorah gave me no comfort as an American Jew because when people are excluded for religion, Jews are usually among the first to be excluded. Also, he seems to be saying no one can be a judge who does not share at least the foundation of his faith. So, there should be no consideration of religion for people deciding whether or not to vote for him, but he would not choose a judge who is not a Christian. We get it.

Third, in the above quote, Romney doesn't get it quite right. His reference to the Founders is incorrect history. Romnyy also referred to the famous slogans "under God" and "in God, we do indeed trust (sic)". Those who have never read the Constitution might think these are principles of our government from our Founders, Romney likely wants them to, but he is and they'd be incorrect. The phrase "In God We Trust" came about after the Civil War. The Treasury Department sought its adoption after Secretary Salmon P. Chase revieved after an empassioned plea written to him by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania. Congress passed approval legislation on April 22, 1864. The motto on currency was made mandatory on July 11, 1955 when Eisenhower signed Public Law 140. It is unconsitutional, but politicians fear challenging it. A Fifth Circuit Court allowed the motto to continue because they said it had a "secular purpose." Yeah, right. Oh, and I would guess most of you already know that the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 well after our founders were long dead and if they weren't, it might have killed them.

Romeny argued for a church and state separated only to the extent that no particular sect of Christianity is established as the state religion. He argued that a general form of Christianity be applied to law and ceremony. Romney's speech is no comparison to Kennedy's Sept. 12, 1960 speech in which he made the longstanding American argument for separation of church and state started by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Here are Kennedy's words:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, 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 attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I was less than one year old when Kennedy made his speech, but I remember growing up, it was part of what comforted the Jewish community, which at the time was less than twenty years past the holocaust. The security of American separation of church and state allowed American Jews to grow and succeed in this country. So, I cannot for the life of me understand why the American Jewish community would take lightly the growing idea that the United States of America is a Christian nation and we are simply a more favored group interlopers for the time being. I don't see how Israel can be secure if the American Jewish community is not.

If Romney's plea for inclusion for only his brand of Christianity gives you pause, note that Mike Huckabee believes his God is going to get him elected and sees himself as a Christian leader. Mark Kirk's buddy, John McCain, believes that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and Giuliani believes in religion, the religion of corporate profits and has no problem pandering to the Christians only community to get that done. Where they differ from Kennedy is that they are disingenuous about their push toward established religion while Kennedy came out and said if one wants a change from the tradition of separation, he should go out there and openly argue for an amendment to the Constitution. That way it would be clear what was being asked and the response could be made accordingly. republicans now just want to move their religions in on the sneak. Here's a rundown of all the candidates positions on separation of church and state.

republicans govern and profit through divisions and at best Romney's speech will go down in history as a national embarrassment, another attempt to move us away from our traditions that allowed our entire nation prosper and toward a past that didn't work out so well for the rest of the world. At worst, Americans will go for it or simply not care enough to stop it, and the nation will see consequent hard times to come.