And yet more...

From firedoglake:

From start to finish, Romney's speech this morning entitled "Faith in America" was a political -- not a religious -- speech. Romney wanted to say "I believe in the separation of church and state," yet he tried to reach out to evaneglicals who are moving toward Mike Huckabee and bring them back by saying in essence "Americans are people of faith, their leader must be a person of faith, and I'm the best faithful leader out there."

It's kind of hard to reconcile those two, but Mitt gave it a good try.

...

What "some" people want removed from the public domain is the government taking official notice of and granting preference to (a) religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs, and (b) favoring certain religious believers over others with different beliefs (religous or otherwise). The Constitution says not one word about God, and refers to religion only twice -- and both times in the negative, to constrain the government's interaction with religion. People are free to impose a religious test (or any other kind of test, for that matter) on the candidates for office as they consider for whom they will vote; the government cannot put such a test as a requirement for holding office. People are free to be religious or not; the government must be blind to religion.

...

For all Romney says about history in this speech, this paragraph is proof that his knowledge is shallow indeed. Abolition of slavery, for instance, divided families, congregations, and entire denominations. The Presbyterians split in 1861, and didn't reunite until 1983, for crying out loud.

It's also proof of a subtle religious bigotry. Despite his claim of a "common course" based on "great moral principles," there continues to be great division among religious people over all kinds of issues. Committed Roman Catholics, for instance, interpret "right to life" to mean opposition to the death penalty; evangelical fundamentalists see the death penalty as a completely separate issue. Some religious groups embrace GLBTs, while others do not. Yet Romney, trying to reach the evangelicals who are moving toward Huckabee, blithely says in essence, "all religious folks have the same moral beliefs." Sorry, Governor, but your moral beliefs are much different than mine, and also much different from a lot of evangelicals.

"We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny," says Romney -- but he makes it clear he is talking only about "radical Islam." Romney's language about America's churches having a common moral creed and his assumption that every American is religious points to a different kind of tyranny from the TheoCon right. Says Romney, "And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."

Where, pray tell, does that leave those who have not knelt in prayer to the Almighty?

The bottom line for Romney is that he has to reach out to the right wing religious voters. He mouths the words about separation of church and state to mollify moderates, but his strongest language is aimed directly at the evangelicals who are leaning toward Huckabee and others on the right, telling them that he's a good, religious guy -- and Americans need a good religious leader in the White House.

Daily Kos:

...

In this formulation "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" Romney completely distorts or ignores history. In fact, religion has flourished alongside slavery and repression. In fact, organized religion has served as the instrument of repression from prehistory right into the modern day. Romney finds it convenient to disregard this.

In praising religious liberty, Romney mourns the empty cathedrals of state-sponsored churches in Europe, before returning to an attack on Islam.

...

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. 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 theme, played out in one discordant note after another through the remainder of Romney's speech, is perhaps the least tolerant expression uttered by anyone this side of Bill O'Reilly, certainly by anyone running for president. In Romney's speech, America isn't just a country where a number of religious people live, it's a country that is required to be religious.

...

In noting the "Creator" of the founding fathers, Romney discards any notion that this word was an abstract concept, a term for man's origin stated by a group of men operating decades before Darwin climbed aboard the Beagle. His list of religions among the founders doesn't entertain any idea of deism, much less atheism.

...

Rather than a defense of his personal beliefs, Romney's speech devolves into an exclusionary rewrite of history, one if which our country is founded by, for, and about religion. Romney assures the conservatives he hopes to woo that those who fall on their knees are his friends. And for what about those do don't kneel? Where is their place in Romney's America?

And this is something that is getting praise. Sure from politicians and pundits. But from the media? Can they just pool a brain, or have an energy drink and do some sound work?