We Separate Church and State for a Reason – Romney’s Perspective on Religion and the Presidency
On December 6, 2007, candidate Mitt Romney gave this speech at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas in order to reach evangelicals who were concerned about how Romney’s Mormon religion might affect his presidency. Michael Luo of The New York Times gives some background on the speech. The transcript is reproduced below.
Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Address:
It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.
America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.
Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams, ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.
Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ ? the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.
It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
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.
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.
We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’
Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
We believe that every single human being is a child of God. We are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’
The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.
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. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars — no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me…’
My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.
We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.
I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired, so grand , so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom. . . killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. 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. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion. Rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.
Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. ‘They were too divided in religious sentiments’, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God …they founded this great nation.
In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty.’ And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, ‘with freedom’s holy light.’
God bless the United States of America.”
Dangerous Redefinition: Candidates Recast Role of Religion in American Life
By Jason Hines -
I would like to say that Franklin Graham’s appearance on “Morning Joe” was unique in this political season. On Tuesday, Graham was asked whether he thought President Obama was a Christian. Graham said he has to take President Obama at his word, but that he did not know whether Obama was a Christian. When asked why he felt unsure about Obama’s spirituality, Graham recounted a story of when he asked the President how he came to me a Christian. Pastor Graham asserted that Obama started attending a Christian church only to make inroads into the communities he was working at the time. Furthermore, President Obama’s Christianity is further obscured because Muslims consider the President to be a son of Islam, and because the President’s actions do not show him to be a Christian. However, when he was asked whether Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich were Christians, Graham readily said yes. This would have been very surprising if not for Rick Santorum’s statements over the weekend that President Obama was attempting to establish a “phony theology,” a theology that is not based on Christianity.
Religion often becomes a political football during the election season, and this year is no exception. In addition to these statements questioning President Obama’s religion we have also seen contraception become a major religious freedom issue with many church charities and organizations upset about the new health insurance regulations. While there are many different ways to look at these subjects, I see a strong commonality in all of these events – they each deal with the power of definitions in interesting ways.
Santorum and Graham each seek to define what it means to be a Christian. For Franklin Graham it seems that your Christianity is in doubt if you fail to support his political agenda. For Santorum if you support an agenda that seeks to protect the environment, than you support a phony, unchristian theology. It was so odd to see Franklin Graham express doubt about President Obama’s theology and then turn around and wholeheartedly support the Christianity claims of Santorum and Gingrich. It would have been better if he stayed with his original line of thought – that he should believe what people say regarding their religion. The first problem with Graham’s statements is that so many of them are wrong. While the President may not have been as forthcoming with Pastor Graham in private conversation, he certainly has made very explicit statements about his faith, as recently as the National Prayer Breakfast on February 2nd of this year. Also, I am not an expert on Sharia law (and neither would I suspect is Pastor Graham), but it seems that he may be wrong about President Obama as a son of Islam. The freedom of conscience that people like Pastor Graham and Senator Santorum advocate for is the same freedom of conscience that should allow them to respect President Obama’s version of Christianity, even though it differs from theirs.
The attacks on President Obama’s religion and the Religious Right’s fight against the new healthcare regulations are evidence of another attempt of redefinition that is taking place in America. In fact, at the root, these attacks are an attempt to redefine the constitutional role of religion in American life. Both Senator Santorum and Pastor Graham have established a de facto religious test for the office of President. Why does it matter to Pastor Graham whether President Obama is a Christian? Why does it matter to Senator Santorum that Obama has a phony, unchristian theology? These things matter because to them a person should not be president unless they are Christian. And that Christianity cannot just be any Christianity, but a form of Christianity that is aligned with what they think is correct. The problem is that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids religious tests for public office. The “religious freedom” being claimed by Christian groups as they debate the new healthcare regulations is an attempt to redefine the principle of the separation of church and state. Never in U.S. history have the courts granted such expansive exemptions as the ones these denominations propose. The question of religious exemptions has been settled law since 1990, when Justice Scalia writing a Supreme Court opinion that established the principle in Employment Division v. Smith that religions cannot get exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability. These religious groups are seeking to establish a one-way principle for the separation of church and state where the government cannot interfere with them, but they are allowed to dictate to government as they please.
Michael Newdow – Question to Justice Scalia: Does the Establishment Clause Permit the Disregard of Devout Catholics?
Dr. Michael Newdow, an attorney and physician famous for his litigation on church-state issues from an atheist perspective, and and previous article contributor to ReligiousLiberty.TV, has now published an important law review article for the Capital University Law Review that discusses the history of American religious freedom and tolerance and why the majority should carefully consider the rights of the minority. Although one might disagree with his religious viewpoint, Newdow argues for people to be treated equally, regardless of what religious viewpoint they hold.
Here is an excerpt:
In reviewing the history of the religion clauses of the Constitution, onecan take two paths. One supports the basic ideal underlying ourconstitutional framework: equality, which is inclusive and is based onrespect for all religious opinions. The other leads to exclusion byadvocating for one or more non-universal religious views. The first reflects the Framers’ goals for guaranteeing liberty to all. The other guarantees liberty only to those who muster the political might to use the state’s machinery to advocate for their religious beliefs. The first exists to protect every individual. The other focuses on the fact that the white, male, property-owning Framers believed in God, and thus concludes thatthe magnificent document they created “permits the disregard” of religious minorities with alternative beliefs.
Why would anyone choose that latter path? Why go out of the way to“permit the disregard” of a minority when such a notion is nowhere to be found within the text of the Constitution, and a historical reading can as readily and more nobly support the equality principle? What sort of American patriot, citizen, or public servant would work towards such an end?”
The entire article, which is well worth reading, is available in PDF format for free download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1594374 (Click on “One-Click Download” once you follow this link to download the entire document for free.)
ACADEMIC ABSTRACT:
In June 2005, Justice Antonin Scalia contended that ‘the Establishment Clause…permits the disregard of devout atheists.’ This statement is extraordinary inasmuch as it appears to reverse an inexorable (albeit, at times, wandering) trend toward true equality. Thus, where individuals had previously been treated as less than equal on the basis of race (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford), gender (e.g., Bradwell v. State) and national origin (e.g., Korematsu v. United States), those odious decisions are no longer good law. In his McCreary dissent, it seems that Justice Scalia sought motion in the opposite direction: toward overturning equality, in the one constitutional arena where the Supreme Court had not previously proclaimed such a manifest animus toward minorities: religion.
This article takes three approaches in considering the Justice’s argument. First, recognizing that Justice Scalia prides himself on being a ‘textualist,’ it considers the Establishment Clause’s text (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’). Next, because Justice Scalia, in McCreary, used specific historical events to support his thesis, those events are analyzed to see if they were selected in a fair manner, and if they really stand for the proposition he claims.
Finally, in Part III, Justice Scalia’s brand of analysis is applied to his own Catholicism. It is shown that the United States of America was born of a literal hatred for Catholics, which was pervasive and persistent. One may well conclude, therefore, that under his approach, the Establishment Clause permits the disregard of his own religion.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1594374 (Click on “One-Click Download” once you follow this link to download the entire document.)
Blue Laws and Sunday Legislation-why do they exist? CNN Video
A video describing some of the religious and secular rationale behind American Sunday blue laws.
Senator – Conservative and Christian broadcasters could still be threatened by proposed broadcast regulations (KIITV)
From: http://www.kiiitv.com/news/religion/40717567.html
In a floor speech, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe noted that while the Senate voted last week against reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, it approved another amendment saying federal regulators should promote diversity in media ownership and ensure that broadcasters operate in the public interest.
Inhofe warned those are vague standards that could be used by opponents of Christian stations’ religious message or stands on moral and political issues.
The Oklahoma senator said, “The chilling effect that the mere threat of a lawsuit will have on religious broadcasters could be substantial.”
Read more.
The role of religion under Obama (CS Monitor)
EXCERPT:
WASHINGTON - After decades of ceding God to the GOP, at least in the public square, Democrats – with President Obama in the lead – are speaking with a fuller religious voice. The watchword? Inclusiveness.
It’s a voice that signals openness at a time when diversity in American religious life is rising.
“We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers,” Mr. Obama said in Tuesday’s inaugural address.
Wednesday’s National Prayer Service, a tradition since George Washington’s inauguration, featured faith leaders chosen “to symbolize America’s traditions of religious tolerance and freedom,” said the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee. It included, for the first time, a sermon delivered by a woman.
For Obama, the broad outreach into the faith community isn’t confined to ceremonies but is emerging as a key element in his approach to coalition-building, say religious leaders who worked on the transition.
Read the full article at http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0122/p01s02-usgn.html
Photo from Faithbase.
The Politics of Obama’s Faith and the Evangelical Left – Stephen Manfield
[amazonify]1595552502[/amazonify]
Thomas Nelson Publishers has published a new book objectively presenting Barack’s faith. This video introduces the book. Many voters question Obama’s authenticity and beliefs, both religious and political, and how the two intertwine. According to Stephen Mansfield, the author of this book, Barack is “raising the banner of what he hopes will be the faith-based politics of a new generation . . . and he will carry that banner to whatever heights of power his God and the American people allow.”
A portion of the proceeds of the sales of this book from the above link will go to support ReligiousLiberty.TV.
VEEPSTAKES: Will Alaska Governor Sarah Palin bring in Conservative Votes for McCain?
With Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty apparently out of the running for McCain’s VP pick, speculation this morning turns to Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. Scratch that . . . News Just In – Sarah Palin IS McCain’s running mate.
Richard Land was interviewed by CBS News and the following exchange took place:
CBSNews.com: Who’s on the list of people mentioned for VP that you think would most excite Southern Baptists and other members of the conservative faith community?
Richard Land: Probably Governor Palin of Alaska, because she’s a person of strong faith. She just had her fifth child, a Downs Syndrome child. And there’s a wonderful quote that she gave about her baby, and the fact that she would never, ever consider having an abortion just because her child had Downs Syndrome.
She’s strongly pro-life. She’s a virtual lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. She would ring so many bells. And I just think it would help with independents because she’s a woman. She’s a reform Governor. I think that, from what I hear, that would be the choice that would probably ring the most bells, along with Mike Huckabee, of course, who’s a Southern Baptist, along with Mike Huckabee, of course, who’s a Southern Baptist.
From: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/2008/08/leading-evangelical-says-palin-rings.html
As she is relatively new to the political world, only recently elected Governor of Alaska, there is not a lot of information about her policies aside from her own personal beliefs. Here is what Wikipedia users say about her background.
Family and personal background
Palin was born as Sarah Louise Heath in Sandpoint, Idaho, the daughter of Charles and Sally (Sheeran) Heath.[3] Her family moved to Alaska when she was an infant.[4] Charles Heath was a popular science teacher and coached track.[4] The Heaths were avid outdoors enthusiasts; Sarah and her father would sometimes wake at 3 a.m. to hunt moose before school, and the family would regularly run 5k and 10k races.[4]
Palin was the point guard and captain for the Wasilla High School Warriors, in Wasilla, Alaska, when they won the Alaska small-school basketball championship in 1982; she earned the nickname “Sarah Barracuda” because of her intense play.[4] She played the championship game despite a stress fracture in her ankle, hitting a critical free throw in the last seconds.[4] Palin, who was also the head of the school Fellowship of Christian Athletes, would lead the team in prayer before games.[4]
In 1984, Palin was second-place in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant after winning the Miss Wasilla contest earlier that year, winning a scholarship to help pay her way through college.[4][5] In the Wasilla pageant, she played the flute and also won Miss Congeniality.
Details of Palin’s personal life have contributed to her political image. She hunts, eats moose burgers, ice fishes, rides snowmobiles, and owns a float plane.[6][7] Palin holds a lifetime membership with the National Rifle Association. She admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska, but says that she did not like it.[8]
Palin holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Idaho where she also minored in politics. She briefly worked as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations while also working as a commercial fisherman with her husband, Todd, her high school sweetheart.[4] One summer when she was working on Todd’s fishing boat, the boat collided with a tender while she was holding onto the railing; Palin broke several fingers.[4] Outside the fishing season, Todd works for BP at an oil field on the North Slope[9] and is a champion snowmobiler, winning the 2000-mile “Iron Dog” race four times.[4] The two eloped shortly after Palin graduated college; when they learned they needed witnesses for the civil ceremony, they recruited two residents from the old-age home down the street.[4] Todd is a Native Yup’ik Eskimo.[4] The Palin family lives in Wasilla, about 40 miles (64 km) north of Anchorage.[10]
On September 11, 2007, the Palins’ son Track joined the Army. Eighteen years old at the time, he is the eldest of Palin’s five children.[10] Track now serves in an infantry brigade and will be deployed to Iraq in September. She also has three daughters: Bristol, 17, Willow, 13, and Piper, 7.[11] On April 18, 2008, Palin gave birth to her second son, Trig Paxson Van Palin, who has Down syndrome.[12] She returned to the office three days after giving birth.[13] Palin refused to let the results of prenatal genetic testing change her decision to have the baby. “I’m looking at him right now, and I see perfection,” Palin said. “Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?”[13]
High approval ratings
In July 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s.[6] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin’s approval rating at 80%. [54]
VIDEO: Madeleine Albright Discusses “The Mighty and The Almighty: United States Foreign Policy and God”
From Fora.TV – Recorded May 7th, 2006 – Madeleine Albright talks about [amazonify]B001CJP2IS::text::::The Mighty and The Almighty: United States Foreign Policy and God[/amazonify]. The former secretary of state offers a provocative and very personal look at the role of religion in America’s foreign policy. She argues that understanding the place and power of religion, and knowing how best to respond to it, is essential if America is to lead successfully around the world.
Click on “Open Tools” for a transcript and index.
VIDEO: VP Candidate Joe Biden on Religion, Government, and the Presidency (Fora.TV)
Recorded in May 2007, Delaware Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden discusses the role of religion in American society, and gives his thoughts on the separation between church and state.