By repeating the right-wing rhetoric about how separation of church and state is fully compatible with official sanction of belief in God and discrimination against atheists, Romney shows what his intent is. He doesn’t truly want a candidate’s religious beliefs to be considered irrelevant. He’s just pleading for the circle of religious bigotry toward outsiders expanded slightly to include him - so that he can be on the inside, hurling barbs at those who believe differently, rather than on the outside, on the receiving end of those barbs from his fellow theocrats.

But in that campaign, Smith coined a term that strangely resonates today. “There is not a nation or a dynasty now occupying the earth which acknowledges almighty God as their lawgiver,” Smith told the Neighbor newspaper in Nauvoo, Illinois. “I go emphatically, virtuously and humanely, for a theodemocracy, where God and the people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men in righteousness.”

I learned of this article through the blog of the author (Andrew Sullivan).  For the Times article, go here.  Sullivan argues that Romney explicitly excludes non-believers from public participation:

And then you noticed that Romney’s embrace of pluralism does not actually include atheists or agnostics or those with no faith at all. This was not a minor oversight. In fact those who want to preserve a secular hue to public debates were given no quarter: “It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

what Romney represents is not quite as benign as he makes it out to be. I would have had no qualms in supporting a Mormon for the presidency, as long as he vows to represent people of all faiths and none. But Romney decided against that. That matters. It is veiling intolerance under the guise of tolerance.

Nonbelief is rooted in the same freedom of conscience as belief. In fact they are inseparable. Freedom of religion must mean the right to come to the conclusion that there is no God at all. By eliding that critical piece of American mosaic, Romney revealed that he isn’t actually a pluralist. He is the anointed son of the organised religious right. And his own religion is still irritatingly in the way.

JFK ended his remarks promising to “faithfully execute the office of president” and would “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God.” Romney’s peroration is more in tune with our times. “Let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty’,” he said. Finally, with words approaching an anthem: “God bless the United States of America.” . . .

In 1962, the Supreme Court struck down a state-mandated and authorized prayer in the public schools. Two days later, President Kennedy deftly defended the decision in a nationally-televised press conference, one of the first of its kind. (Eisenhower’s were given on a tape-delayed basis.) “We have in this case a very easy remedy,” Kennedy said, “and that is to pray ourselves. We can pray a great deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of our children. I would hope that as a result of this decision, all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us,” he concluded, “will support the constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it.”

Can we imagine a president today — or a presidential candidate — speaking with such candor and historical understanding of American pluralism? (Let alone wit!) The mind boggles.

For the entire post, see here.

Which suggests strongly that all such affiliations are utlimately self-serving. But people cling to them long after any benefit is shown to be ephemeral at best.

(Besides, just so you know, the question was more than a little rhetorical._

Why did people become Christians? Why did people become Mormons? Why did people become Nazis? Why did people join the KKK? For better or worse, leaders of new movements — revolutionary leaders — tap into hidden desires and unstated prejudices.

For instance, I recently heard a televangelist exhorting listeners to become Christians because (I’m paraphrasing) Christianity promises *better things* than do other religions. Don’t you *want* to live forever? Don’t you *want* to see your dead loved-ones again? Don’t you *want* eternal bliss? Don’t you *want* your enemies to roast in hell for all eternity? Well, that’s what Christianity promises, so come join us: become a Christian! That was the gist of this preacher’s pitch.