Romney has clearly never read the Constitution. There is no mention of faith or God anywhere in the text. It does, however, say "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI).

So he's somewhat delusional. So were the liberals of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when the elected him Governor (but that's our problem, not yours...)

"Our Constitution was written for people of faith"?  That's funny, and I thought the Constitution protected me as an American citizen, regardless of my religion or lack thereof.  

Romney continues to dig his grave deeper; he reveals his own prejudices in the very appeals he makes to voters to refrain from prejudice.  Attributing his bigotry to great men like Washington and Adams, who believed and fought for the freedom to worship or not to worship, only makes his actions more reprehensible.

Poor ol mitt under fire for being a phony flake. Imagine that!

Romney has no clue on the constitution; isn't he a lawyer? Perhaps, he need to see Ron Paul for some schooling.

It's not about the constitution, it's about how societies function. Romney is referring to the later, and he is correct in his statement regarding religion and freedom.

I follow the American constitution, Romney follows the republicon one.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams--October 11, 1798

"freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom."  True enough, if you're running for President of Iran.

Nearly every founding document used the rhetoric of religion and of natural law. Whether it's "the Creator" or "Providence," religious language was used in all of the great American grabs at freedom. It would be totally fair to say that freedom in America required religion, because it did. Secular appeals on "moral" issues ring hollow. Like it or not, the American pulse requires religious rhetoric in order to garner majority support. The very right we have to post on this blog in opposition to our politicians is a result of the efforts of great men who employed the language of faith. Mitt is correct on this point, and he should elaborate on that. Faith is about believing what is apparently absurd, including ideas from resurrection to space flight. Faith is very much crucial in America, a place where we pride ourselves in seeking to achieve the impossible. That doesn't leave anyone out. Countless atheists have benefitted from the efforts of religious men and women who used the words and social networks of their faith to promote an inclusive agenda. Religion has certainly been very exclusive at times through our history, but I would agree that what has been achieved in America would not have happened without religion.

Bee, you have it mistaken.  When it comes to the Constitution, "Romney needs to consult his lawyers."

*****FirstRead, is this an actual quote or a typo?
He was asked if he thought a non-spiritual person could be a free person, and he returned with: "Of course not, that's not what I said."

That implies a non-spiritual person is not a free person.  Did I read this wrong too, I'm having trouble with that today.

NEWSWEEK POLL HAS HUCKABEE UP 19 IN IOWA

Well I guess the social conservatives first gave us Pat Robertson of the 700 Club and now a Minister ("the Christian Conservative") It just go to show that the American Taliban is alive and well.

I will go with Obama if this keeps up - Republicans need to get behind Mitt or McCain if they hope to win.

PS  Huckabee is dishonest - and is a bigot - I am not Mormon but I find his refusal to state if Mitt is a Christian disgusting.  Once the media sees him as a real candidate they will pile on - net result weakened Republican party.

i am a christian, but i for one am saddened that people should be hounded on their beliefs on a campaign trail. they have little if nothing to do with the issues. it's one thing to say my belief system makes me want to be a servant. it's another thing to try and turn politicians into theologians so one group feels more "comfortable" with them. i don't care if romney is a mormon, it's his positions that bug me more then anything else. i also don't like it that he's flip flopped on the abortion issue when he decided to run. i feel like he's just pandering to single issue voters. as a christian, i feel it's a slap in the face. i'm not stupid, i won't vote based on a single issue. being prolife isn't going to make me suddenly like you more...esp with his heartless stance on undocumented immigrants.

I would like to second the "I'll vote for Obama" message if Mitt or McCain don't get nominated. Huckabee brings nothing intellectual to the table, no skills beyond shaking hands and kissing babies. I WILL NOT EVER vote for another Bush-like candidate, and that's just what Huckabee is.

We have inalienable (God-given) rights - "... among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  Our rights come from God and are not the state's to give or take away.  The Constitution does not grant you the right to free speech, it says the government may not infringe upon it.  Our freedom and our rights are an objective reality that we have simply because we exist - it is part of the natural and moral law - and the nature of those rights is implied in the very way the Bill of Rights is written - it makes no sense otherwise.  

The fact that someone does not believe in objective reality doesn't mean he or she benefits any less from the fact that the founders of our Constitution - and particularly the Bill of Rights - based their work on their belief of objective moral and natural law.

It is at times disheartening as a Mormon to have my religion so blatantly attacked.  Please stop.

erik, If candidates are going to use religion in order to gain support and appear moral then they should be able to answer tough questions on it. I don't think the questions asked where attacks, especially at an Ask Mitt Anything Townhall.

I'm just very glad that the press picked up on that line about freedom need relion. I watched the speech and after ward Sally Quinn the only one to comment on it. Chris Matthews and the others discussing on MSNBC passed right over it. I recorded it so I'll watch again to make sure of that. It is an issue since the Repubs seem to be trying "out Christian" each other, and that disturbs me.

well said, john b. in DSM IA

romney can't stand the heat; it's lame and insulting to voters that he won't explain himself.

Most of you are focusing on anything you can to put a knock on Mitt. That was a fantastic speech. Sure, anyone can find fault with anything, but as a whole, Mitt described what America really wants--a rational America that recognises God, without favoritism of any one religion or sect. And yes, I'm sure that Mitt also believe the rule of law also protects those who do not believe in God. Does that mean that the rest of us cannot express our cultural and religious heritage? Until today I hadn't decided. But now, I'm voting for MITT!!!

Erik and all,
You stated that it was "his positions that bug" you. I seriously don't think people look at his record and just pick up the MSM lines they hear out there. For one, he has been "personally pro-life" (as is Harry Reid) his whole life but in '94 ran to protect the law that was on the books and that is why he says he was "effectively pro-choice". This was also 13 years ago people! He changed to a pro-life stance not just last year but the first year he became Gov and had to sign his first bill regarding this topic and could no longer be pro abortion. Shouldn't we be welcoming those that come over to our side?? Isn't that what we are trying to do with everyone and yet for Mitt we want to pound him into the ground about it. So he never flip-flopped. He changed his mind ONCE. Look back over your life and see if you've ever changed your stance or views on anything in the last 15 years? How many people voted for Perot in '92? Reagan's record wasn't always conservative as president and I think he was our greatest president. Mitt has a ton of support over here from the troops and we all look forward to calling him our Commander-in-Chief by Jan 2009. The man is truly conservative if we take off our religion blinders. Yes, I am also religious and attend church weekly but I am voting on a president not my pastor/minister/bishop/elder, etc.  

"txindep, Austin, TX" and "Mark, Woodbridge, VA" are correct. You may not support Mitt Romney, you may despise religion and the notion of it in government but don't rewrite history to suit your bias. Faith, the belief in God, played a huge role in our nation's birth and constitutional principles.

After making an effort to better understand the Mormon religion, an effort precipitated by all this Romney hoopla, I can only hope that he is not representative of a typical adherent of that religion. Romney continues to demonstrate his ignorance and dishonesty. And he definitely blew the atheist vote, lol.

He said that we "can't have freedom  without religion" which is nonsense.  Our freedom is guaranteed by a government forbidden to endorse any religion.  It is a secular entity that leaves questions of religion, including whether or not to believe a word of ANY religious teaching, entirely up to the private conscience of each individual.  

At least he didn't say, as Huckabee did, that God is performing fishes and loaves type miracles to make him our anointed President.  That alone ought to be enough to persuade any American patriot that Huckabee needs to be kept OUT of public office.  

Hasn't the conviction of George Bush that he doesn't need facts because God tells him what to do done enough damage?  Didn't we decide, a long time ago, that we didn't want anything to do with Kings  claiming to rule by divine right?

Anyone dumb enough to be a cult member is not qualified to be president.

Romney is going down.

What is so ironic, there were many of our Founding Fathers and then some of our great presidents and modern presidents that were not of the religious bent.  For instance George Washington was never baptized, Abraham Lincoln never stepped foot in church and President Eisenhower grew up a Jehovah Witness household.

I am extremely stressed that religion is an issue in this upcoming election.  With the so-called "values voters" being shot down with hypocrisy, greed, immoral behavior we have witnessed, I thought we could go back to basics.

g2825m, Iraq

While it is a fact that most service members have historically voted Republican, there are reasons you are not supposed to potray yourself as a spokes person for the Military while active duty.  The entire military does not vote for the same person.  The military is supposed to stay objective regardless of the Commander in Chief.  I personally do not want 75% - 80% of the candadites to win their respective nominations.  Mitt is one I would perfer to see lose.  I am independant and staying that way.  

g2825m, Iraq

While it is a fact that most service members have historically voted Republican, there are reasons you are not supposed to potray yourself as a spokes person for the Military while active duty.  The entire military does not vote for the same person.  The military is supposed to stay objective regardless of the Commander in Chief.  I personally do not want 75% - 80% of the candadites to win their respective nominations.  Mitt is one I would perfer to see lose.  I am independant and staying that way.  

I'm glad that Romney (and Huckabee) have brought the question of religion into the limelight.  For so long religion has been another one of those
third-rail issues which candidates delicately dance around, trying not to offend and often trying to (almost with a sort of machismo) out faith one another.

Well, as a person of faith, I for one, am sick of it.
Religion is a very personal thing.  And the Constitution provides all of us the right to believe, or not, and practice, or not, whatever belief system we wish.  

Yes, John Adams was a very religious Christian (and a good man), but the document of the Constitution is adamantly against the formation of a state religion.  And although the practice of religious belief is neither encouraged or discouraged, it is obvious that the founding fathers wanted this ability to believe, or not and to practice, or not,  as one of the priveledges granted in our land.

What is ironic, is that this document, our Constitution, this guarentee of individual liberties (and almost never a document of restrictions) is the ultimate distillation of Judeo-Christian tradition.  In it's desire to avoid a state religion and grant people the right not to be tested by their faith, it becomes a truly religious document.  A man/woman's value and perhaps their religiousity, should be judged by how strongly they adhere to God's path and not by how loudly they invoke his name; words are lies used to fill in the blanks that poor actions leave behind.

So lets stop worrying about who talks the best talk and instead, really look at the candidates who walk the walk.  Maybe it takes a little more investigation but the outcome (and the avoidance of demagoguery) is well worth it.  I've quoted this Harry Truman tale from the Michael Beschloss book 'Presidential Courage' before and here it is again: "Truman was not a regular churchgoer and disdained politicians who attended "for show."  A grandfather had once warned him that when someone prayed too loud, "you better go home and lock up your smokehouse."
Obama '08

Those closest to Rudy need to remove him from any public spectacle right now. Let Mitt and Huck backers shred each other to pieces. Rudy won't need to do a thing, or say anything. The battles between Mitt and Huck are making Rudy look good as each "punch" is delivered!

Yahoo for Romney!!!

He has so much support and brains, that's why he is being attacked.  Look at Huckabee, his closet is opening and it doesn't look good.


Mormon in America
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010955

Of course freedom and religion are inextricably intertwined.  No country has ever granted freedom that supressed religion and no suppressive religious state has ever guaranteed freedom.  Please point to a wholly secularized country that grants freedom of religion--you can' find one, now or in history.  The most oppressive governments are those who have either  forced religion (Islamic countries) or overtly fought against religion (communism).  The idea of a purely secular government founded by secularists who extends religious freedom is a pie in the sky idea--it has never happened.

Romney didn't express disdain for secular atheists, only those who intolerantly try to secularize everyone and everything else.  Romney didn't indicate that he would be intolerant of atheists; he indeed said "religious tolerance is a shallow principle indeed if we are only tolerant with those whom believe as we do."

The gospel according to Mitt:  You've gotta be religious to be a proper citizen of the U.S.  The guy is a neanderthal and an unequivocal hypocrite.  If this is all the Republican Party can offer (and Pastor Mike Huckabee, God's right hand man), may their candidate and sorry excuse for a platform be overwhelmingly defeated in '08.  No amount of flip-flopping can disguise these religious fanatics and their agenda to create a theocratic federal government.  

R.Merrel:

Romney's inalienable rights doctrine is straight from  Sam Adams and hordes of the founders.  The New York Times op ed agree with your limited view.  I will stick with Sam Adams,Jefferson, Hamilton and Romney.

"The gospel according to Mitt" simply reminded us that our liberty was a gift from God and that our founders recognized His hand in the miraculous founding of our nation. If we don't believe that, let's abandon God and all forms of religion and take our chances with potential multipule 9-11's and be happy with our new found "freedom."

Stop all the stupidity and just face it. Mitt Romney is the only capable, energetic, intelligent, non-lifelong politician who has a chance of beating the Democrats. Most of these anti-Mitt comments are probable from Clinton lovers who would rather face a loser like Giliani. At least with Giliani, Hillary would not have to be a discussion about morals and ethics. Mitt is a problem solver and lets face it, we've got problems. I don't care about Romney's religion, I see him as a true leader who can get the USA back on top.

Stop all the stupidity and just face it. Mitt Romney is the only capable, energetic, intelligent, non-lifelong politician who has a chance of beating the Democrats. Most of these anti-Mitt comments are probable from Clinton lovers who would rather face a loser like Giliani. At least with Giliani, Hillary would not have to be a discussion about morals and ethics. Mitt is a problem solver and lets face it, we've got problems. I don't care about Romney's religion, I see him as a true leader who can get the USA back on top.

Hey First Read- do you intentionaly put the negative comments first on this page for rhetorical reasons, or just a total lack of representative organization? Your article was so biased it made me think, "Is this the first place for political news, or the first place for political bias?" Keep up the good work

A typical "Ask Mitt Anything." Just like after Romney walked away from a voter's question, while the mic was still on and the camera still on him, Romney told someone on the platform,"They can ask me anything, that doesn't mean I'll answer anything" (courtesy of C-span).

While Romney loses composure in such trifling situations, America doesn't have much to look forward to, if he's elected president.

It's a good thing, for Romney anyway, he has a firm to make his millions, speech-writers and spokespersons on his campaign trail.

I agree, if Romney can't stand the heat, he needs to get off the stump! This 'emporer' has no clothes!

Check out an evangelical's response to the Romney speech:

http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2007/12/romney-speaks-out.html

g2825m- I think your comments were right on.  Sean, I think you misread his comments- he didn't say he was speaking for the whole military, but for the "tons" of soldiers who like Romney, that's all.

I like Romney because he is a good businessman, he has American values, I think he has some good policies, and I think he cares about this country.   I admire that he admits mistakes in his past and give reasonable, believable explanations for why his position has changed (once- not flip flopping back and forth) on certain issues- I think this is what makes him "real" and not "plastic" like so many people like to say.

Besides, for those of you who love to point figures at flip flops, now there's some new material out there for you to consider:  Have you heard about Huckabee's changing opinion on Cuba?  He even said that the reason he changed his mind on the embargo is because he's running for president (kind of lame, don't you think?).  And what about his thoughts on Gays and people with HIV/AIDS?  His explanation for that doesn't hold much water either.

Frankly, I liked Huckabee for awhile.  He was my second choice after Mitt in the Republican party.  But now that the spotlight on him is heating up, more and more things are coming to the surface which make him seem very fake, very biggoted, and very much NOT a good choice for the president of our country.

My choice?  Mitt 1st, then Obama.  Good thing I'm an independant.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):