Mitt Romney however is anything but consistent. You could say that he’s very hypocritical on religious. He’s said nobody in is cabinet should be a Muslim since he’s going to hire his staff based on a quota system.

Yet another time when people wouldn’t be consistent with what they believe.

All of what you say may be true, but it is not the concern of government to either teach those values or define what they are.

Perhaps your are right that religion is being used as a shorthand for morality by voters, but then that gets to the old conservative cannard that morality requires religion, which is simply untrue.

Both freedom and religion are needed to support each other as John Adams claims. In a democracy I must rely on my neighbor to teach their children values and principles of integrity, sacrifice and service. Most often it is through religion that these principles are taught. (That does not mean an agnostic or atheist can’t teach these principles). What it does mean as a democracy our people must be well educated, selfless, honest and principled. If our children do not learn these values we will begin to have generations of selfishness, ignorance, and corruption. If these behaviors become the majority of a generation the wise choices for the nation will become subject to a “what’s in it for me” perspective. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this by saying, “That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.”

The separation of church and state are required for balance of power. Our founder’s did not want the church to take over the government or government to control people’s beliefs, “Again Thomas Jefferson said, “In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.”

However in an attempt to define this line of power many feel they have lost the right to fully practice their religion.

I personally believe we do not teach tolerance of religion by removing all reference of any religion from our public view. If we want more tolerance and respect we must allow our children to learn about each other’s religion.

As our Third President of the United States said, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

I think a good moral compass is essential for good governance. Corrupt and self-serving elected officials are common, but voters want to avoid giving those people power. For some people, a good test for morality is religious piety and religious beliefs. If the voters are considering religion in that framework, the religious test is merely part of a larger test of morality and understandable.

Personally, I find the religious test for morality incompletely and usually draws in more factors than the morality of the person in consideration. But if you were to give me someone that subscribed to Confucianism, I’d vote for the politician immediately. But as many will point out, Confucianism isn’t really a religion, but a philosophy of morality and ethics for rulers of the state.

The kind of separation of religion and politics that I’m talking about is an end to the civic piety that politicians are seemingly required to observe in today’s society. It’s contary to the spirit of the Constitution, if not the very word.

It can be things like the stupid question at last week’s YouTube debate from the guy who wanted to know if the candidates believed “every word” of the Bible. Can you imagine the reaction from the Republican rank and file if someone had actually had the guts to answer “no” to a question like that ? Or, it can be inane stuff like the President taking his oath of office with his hand on a Bible and adding the words “so help me God” to the end of the oath — neither of which are required by the Constitution.

Why did Mitt Romney even need to make this speech ? Quite frankly, its because a bunch of narrow-minded evangelicals don’t think that Mormons are “true Christians”, whatever that means — I’m Catholic and I’m guessing they probably think the same thing about me.

I agree that voters can make decisions about a candidate based on whatever they choose, but, I think the way that religion gets dragged into politics like this is poisoness.

Religion should not be a requirement by the federal or state governments as a qualification for office, but such consideration does not apply to the voters. I can choose not to vote for Hillary because she’s a socialist, just like I can choose not to vote for Huckabee because his religious beliefs are too far “out there” and I think they’ll affect his presidency in ways I don’t support.

I refuse, as a voter, not to consider anything I believe may be relevant to a person’s qualifications to govern. If I believe that a person will allow his kooky religious beliefs to trump what I believe to be correct policy, you can bet I’m going to argue against his election, based upon his religious beliefs. Trying to avoid the subject is only asking for trouble.