To address Romney's perspective on the the separation of church and state I will once again examine his exegesis on 'faith in America' which he delivered in 2007. Romney seemed to make himself clear that if he was elected to office, he would not let his personal religious views corrupt his political decision-making when it came down to the overall well being of the nation. But how can one make such a claim so easily? After all, it seems unlikely that if one was to let their personal beliefs and ideologies take precedent over their duty as commander in chief that they would be directly conscious of their action. I don't believe that religion is something as simple and defined as a coat or jacket that one can put on and off at their convenience. Religion affects the individual and the individual's mind. It establishes significance in the way in which they think and reason, the way in which they live their lives, and the way in which they view and interact with the surrounding world.
During his speech, Romney notes that, "I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law." It is as if Romney is denouncing the notion that any one religion should have complete control or autonomy over our government and our laws, but he is simultaneously advocating on behalf of religion in general as being a necessary piece of our society, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," he continues, "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." This specific passage outlines Romney's view boldly.
He is arguing for freedom of religion, so long as one follows a religion with a specific theology, but his language becomes increasingly more anti-secularist as his speech continues, "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."
I found it incredibly interesting that Romney referred to secularism as a religion considering that by definition secularism is the absence of religion and religiosity. Furthermore, if secularism is a religion, as Romney points out, shouldn't it be afforded the same protection and equal treatment that Romney so passionately addressed earlier in his speech? Romney violated his own creed in singling out secularists. He expressed intolerance for a belief system and creed that is different from his own.
