This pitting of people's religious views (or non-religious views) against one another in electoral contests is what as a culture we have worked hard to avoid. And the pathetic gyrations of Mitt Romney, hopelessly trying to pander to the religious right while simultaneously trying to sound Kennedyesque, may say more about the state of our political culture in this regard than anything else (with the possible exception of the Washington Post's front page flogging of a rumor that Barack Obama is or was a Muslim and trying to pretend that there was a news justification for it.)

Meanwhile Mike Huckabee, who has always been a candidate of the religious right naturally has, on closer examination, the grim record of an old time religious rightist. Routine reporting will undoubtedly surface more of the dark side of the seemingly sunny Mr. Huckabee, such as this much discussed item:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk."

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies.

There really is so much more.

People for the American Way explains why religious right activists like Mike. At the "Values Voters Summit" last fall, Huckabee wanted to make clear that he was their guy:

On marriage, he said he would lead an effort to pass a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as "one man, one woman, for life." On abortion, he needled the missing candidates and said "on this issue, our culture rises or falls." He backed the Iraq war, calling it a "theological war" against people "whose religious fanaticism will not be satisfied until every last one of us is dead, until our culture, our society, is completely obliterated from the face of the earth."

In the yes or no segment of the debate, Huckabee pledged himself to a long far-right wish-list, including:

-- support for ousted Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore's court-stripping bill to keep federal courts from meddling with public officials who use their office to promote religion;

-- vetoes of hate crimes legislation, ENDA (anti-discrimination law), and the fairness doctrine;

-- stripping schools of federal funding for exposing children to "homosexual propaganda"; repealing IRS restrictions on churches endorsing candidates;

-- bringing back Bush's social security privatization plan;
imposing a ban on federal funding for any U.S. group that performs or advocates for abortion;

-- boosting federal abstinence spending to match contraceptive funding.

So. Even as a lot of people (for example Bill Press) repeated, ad nauseum, the specious narrative that the religious right is dead, Mike Huckabee was out there successfully soliticiting more support from religious right leaders than anyone else (big news about Pat Robertson  endorsing Giulini, and Paul Weyrich endorsing Romney not withstanding) and in so doing, managed to make himself the front-runner in Iowa.  

Huckabee has, by my informal tally, been endorsed by such notably religious right leaders as: three past presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention; American Family Assocation founder Don Wildmon; Vision America honcho Rick Scarborough; former SBC 2nd Vice President, Wiley Drake;  televangelists James Robison, Ken Copeland, as well as Jerry Falwell Jr., Jonathan Falwell (brother of Jerry Sr.), Tim LaHaye, actor Chuck Norris and radio talk show host Janet Folger.

As for Romney's speech, it has been widely panned by those with an actual apprecation for the constitutional guarantees of the right of individual conscience. For example:

"I was disappointed in Romney's statement," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United [for Separation of Church and State's] executive director. "The founders of our Constitution meant for religion and government to be completely separate. Romney is wrong when he says we are in danger of taking separation too far or at risk of establishing a religion of secularism.

"I was particularly outraged that Romney thinks that the Constitution is somehow based on faith and that judges should rule accordingly, " Lynn said. "That's a gross misunderstanding of the framework of our constitutional system."

"I was also disappointed that Romney doesn't seem to recognize that many Americans are non-believers," Lynn continued. "Polls repeatedly show that millions of people have chosen to follow no spiritual path at all. They're good Americans too, and Romney ought to have recognized that fact.

"I am an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, and I believe in my faith," Lynn added. "But I believe just as strongly that non-believers are good Americans too. I wish Romney had said that."

Of course, Romney didn't need to impress Barry Lynn or indeed, very many (if any) of those who have read this far. He needed to persuade the religious right that he was an acceptable candidate.  The early reviews suggest he did not succeed, (generally warm press coverage not withstanding):

The Des Moines Register finds conservative Christians unpersuaded regarding Mitt Romney's claims about how his Mormon faith would affect a Romney presidency:

Most conservative Christian political activists and pastors who studied Mitt Romney's speech on Thursday addressing his Mormon faith agree it was something he had to do.

But few said it was strong enough to change the minds of evangelicals - a powerful force in Republican politics.

"It was a wise move on his part," said Chuck Hurley, a pro-family Christian activist and former Iowa legislator who has endorsed Gov. Mike Huckabee. "He is a gifted speaker and I would guess he will have mollified some people's concerns. But the more people investigate the beginnings of the Mormon church, the more uneasy they will be, and there's nothing he can do about that."

The Wall Street Journal found about the same thing.

But the former top political operative of the late religious right leader, D. James Kennedy offers a fiery statement that taps the underlying anti-Mormonism of large chunks of the religious right. Gary Cass says in a press release:

"Mitt Romney, Presidential candidate and Mormon Bishop, in his speech regarding his Mormon faith sounded conciliatory towards other faiths. But his position is not consistent with the Mormon beliefs he adamantly affirmed in whole and from which he refused to distance himself. The Mormon faith has, from its inception, attacked all other religions, especially orthodox Christianity," said Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.

"As a Bishop in the Mormon Church, Mitt Romney is free to believe Mormonism's doctrines, practice their secret rituals and take their sacred vows," said Cass, "but Romney's Mormon beliefs are not Christian. More importantly, he has not renounced Mormonism's historic antipathy toward Christianity. This is an important aspect of any evaluation the American voters make regarding his fitness for office."

"If Romney wants the Christian vote, more than the Mormon dollars supporting his campaign, he must demonstrate real respect, not rhetoric. If he does not renounce the historic Mormon hostility to Christianity, then we must conclude that he agrees with his church's defamation of the past."

It is only going to get uglier here, folks. The hard core of the religious right has always been all about religious supremacism, with all that that implies.

The 'America-was-founded-as-a-Christian-nation-and-must-be-restored' narrative is all about justifying that view, giving rank and filers a vision that they are destined for rulership of the nation, and indeed of all of the nations -- and might even have already gotten there but for the Satanic minions of the ACLU, liberals, secularists and such. These are bad enough -- but people like Bill and Hillary Clinton at least claim to be Christians (even if everyone, true Christians that is, know they are not), while a Mormon is an adherent of an anti-Christian religion. Thus the cognitive dissonance caused by a Mormon, no matter how apparently milquetoast, rising to the presidency, is just too great for large numbers of the rank and file of the religious right.  Sure, veterans of GOP politics like Dobson and Robertson might be able to make their peace even with Romney, but for most of the religious right, the ideology of Christian nationalism, and the long time pounding of pulpits against the said cult of Mormonism, does not unravel in day.

The framers of the Constitution were actutely aware of the history of religious warfare and persecution in Europe, and certainly in the 150 years of the colonies. They sought to innoculate the new nation as best they could against such conflicts. They did it in part by proscribing religious tests for public office, as stated in article 6 of the Constitution. This meant that one's religious views, or lack thereof, or changing one's mind about, would be irrelvant to our status as citizens.  As a culture, we have sought to create an ethos of respect for this underlying principle.

The religious right in all of their neo-theocratic fervor, have sought to undo all this. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney in their pursuit of the support of the religious right are doing great damage to alll that we have done as a nation to make the vision of the framers of the Constitution real in the lives of as many Americans as possible.

It is disgusting.  An outrage. And now it is time to get around to discussing why I titled this post: "The Framers of the Constitution are Counting on Us."

One of the hopes and goals for this site, was and is to help us all get a lot better at contending with these attacks on the culture of respect for religious difference, and the errosion of the underlying Constitutional principles.  I think we are making progress, but we clearly also have a long way to go.

Over at Daily Kos, Devilstower has an impassioned take on the failure of the Democratic  Party to stand up for these principles.

The fault lies in the same calculated cowardice that has dominated Democratic politics post-Carter, and especially in the last six years.  John Kennedy went to stand before his opponents and refused to tell them what they wanted to hear, but since September 2001, Democrats have increasingly scrambled to find acceptance, even if that meant reversing themselves so quickly they tripped on their own tongues.

We've reached the sorry state where the Republican Party officially and vocally support everything that John Kennedy stood up against in his 1960 speech.  The Democratic Party has adopted a strategy on this and many other issues, in which they either stand aside or lend half-hearted support to Republicans.  They do this in the hopes that when Republicans push too far, Democrats can pick up the pieces without having offended anyone.  That's the strategy of hyenas.  The strategy of vultures.

The strategy of vultures gives us both a party and a nation that would embarrass John Kennedy.  The erosion of that barrier between the interest of the state and that of the church gives us a church that Jesus would not recognize.  As an American and a Christian, I find both results terrifying.

Those ministers in 1960 might have hated what Kennedy had to say, but they applauded him for having the courage to say it.  What candidate today will have the guts to step forward, in the face of a conservative onslaught, and take the steps needed to redeem both state and church?

It is time to use what we have, even as we learn as we go.  It is time to demand -- and get --  more and better from our political and religious  leaders at all levels.  There is no time like the present to get started.

For all of the handwringing about the religious right and its considerable successes in recent decades -- we have history and the vast majority on our side. Given half a chance, most people do not want to live in a society in which bigotry and hatred are the norm and considered acceptable. Few want anything remotely theocratic -- although those relatively few remain powerful and politically effective.  (Just ask Huckabee).  

As citizens living in a constitutional democracy, we have the power to effect the changes we seek. And as Bob Edgar, (until recently, the General Secretary of the National  Council of Churches) used to tell us "We are the leaders we have been waiting for."