Mitt Romney's speech on his religion and politics identified 'secularists' as the enemy within the state.

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

This is grist for the mill of the sensationalists who adore the facetiousness of the 'war on christmas" and other absurdities. Romney is arguing that secularism has no place in constitutionalism.

Republicanism views liberty as an intrinisic property of being human, not as a gift from a nether world, nor an unprovable religious form.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty.

he is also incorrect in characterising this to the American founders, who were in reality a mix of atheists and deists. The latter finding the idea of an omnipotent or omnipresent god repulsive.

Andrew Sullivan is insightful when he comments that and issue with the speech is that, "The first [issue] is the absence of any notion that religious freedom includes the freedom to have no religion whatever."

Romney's speech ahas to be taken as pandering to the evangelical base of the modern American Republican party. The evangelicals seem to not understand the basis for modern constitutionalism and want the injection of religion into political life. History has shown over and over again this is a bad idea which leads to dysfunctional governance if not tyranny.

It is particularly ironic as Romney did not make religion an issue in Massachussettes in his time as Governor there. The US North-East is a very liberal area of America that does not make decisions on religion, race, ethnicity or other discriminative components. Individuals are judged on their merit.

If Romney chose to run under the banner of liberalism he should be ahead on the US Republican side of politics as on merit he helped introduce one of the few working universal health care systems. Yet because he chose to pursue the evangelical base he has to run away from merit as his platform and instead embrace the uniting of God and Politics.

Very foolish in my opinion.

Andrew Sullivan links to a Ron Paul statement on the issue:

The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends."

In other words, a candidate should be judged on merit. Very republican, and very liberal.

Andrew Sullivan asks an interesting question as to why gays want to marry considering they have been politically and socially excluded for their sexuality. He takes a conservative view that it the gay community's desire for conservative values.

As someone who is going through a dragged out divorce which is still not settled despite being fourteen months since the separation I can honestly say I will get married again. My partner asked me this morning why I would want to given the hassles the divorce has put me through.

It is probably for the same reason the gay community does. Marriage is a universally recognized social convention that is a public declaration of love, commitment and devotion to your partner. It has transcended the religious and political basis for it simply because it so recognized as a convention.

If another more powerful convention came by which people could declare and re-affirm their love for each other then I imagine marriage would become a minority ceremony only practiced by certain denominations. But there isn't, so marriage is it.

Like I said, I am sure I will get married again. The divorce process, while emotionally difficult, has not left me with burnt fingers. It is still a good institution by which to publicly announce and affirm your love and devotion to your partner.

Andrew Sullivan channels Clive Hamilton;

We have mistaken consuming for living.

I don't think so. When money is cheap, and the labor market plentiful with rising salaries it is rational to live to the edge of income as more money can be easily found. It might not be wise, but it is rational. I don't consume heavily but I enjoy my sports car and eating out a lot; both of which are luxuries and can be termed consumption in the Hamilton mode.

I am completely meh on that meme of their being some spiritual and moral superiority in avoiding consumption. Capitalism is what it is, and one thing it does exceptionally well is reduce the cost of consumptive goods to the cost of production. It should be celebrated rather than decried as some sell-out of the soul and we should harken back to some mythical golden age where people survived without digital media, wide screen televisions and mass produced 400hp engines.

Me, I would rather live today and under capitalism than even fifty years ago and the crappy technologies from back then.