The release of a report last week by the New Jersey Committee on Native American Community Affairs, created in 2006 by executive order to "evaluate the current social and economic conditions of Native Americans in New Jersey" puts the current debate on immigration into an interesting perspective.

From the vantage point of the original peoples of America, the vast majority of Americans, whether descendents of the original Dutch, Swedish, and English settlers of New Jersey, slaves brought here in chains, immigrant factory workers of the industrial age, or people who landed at Newark Airport 20 years ago, are recent arrivals. Three hundred and fifty years of European settlement, forced African migration, and global migration is but a brief chapter in the 10,000 years of human habitation in the state.

There were probably around 5,000 Native Americans in New Jersey when the Europeans first arrived. Like first peoples elsewhere in America, many were decimated by European diseases, to which they had no immunity, and died. Those who survived had to fend off land-hungry settlers, the "illegal immigrants" of their times, in cahoots with colonial authorities to defraud the native peoples out of their lands. Others retreated west of the Delaware, north to New York State, or into the mountains of North Jersey to preserve their cultures and ways of life.

We give scant attention today to the legacy of the vibrant and peace-loving peoples that once lived in the land between the Delaware and the Atlantic. Their memory should live on in the scores of place names derived from native languages: Hoboken, Weehauken, Totawa, Hopatcong, Matawan, Pennsauken, and many others. They should also be honored through an accurate retelling of their history, free of the stereotypes and myths that salve the conscience of those of us who directly or indirectly over the course of these last 350 years, benefited from their destruction and displacement. The report is correct in calling for the immediate retirement of all derogatory American Indian sports images and mascots, which by one tally number some 71 in New Jersey.

The report also argues that due attention should be paid to the needs and conditions of New Jersey's three state-recognized tribes: the Ramapough Lenape Indian Nation in north Jersey, the Naticoke Lenni-Lenape of south Jersey, and the Powhatan Renape Tribe of Burlington County, as well as members of other indigenous groups now resident in the state. Together, according to the 2006 American Community Survey, Native Americans constitute.2% of New Jersey's population, or 17,494 people - not a large group in new Jersey's' multicultural mosaic, but one that deserves special honor, respect, and consideration.

A few simple steps could make a big difference, such as state protection of Indian burial grounds and artifacts, property tax relief for land used for open air worship, greater attention to indigenous history in New Jersey's core curriculum standards, and enforcement of clean-up requirements for companies that pollute and contaminate land owned by Native Americans in north Jersey.

The report also recommends a series of steps to achieve better state coordination of and support for Native American affairs, including the hiring of professional staff for the currently all-volunteer New Jersey Commission on American Indian Affairs, and the appropriation of funds to support the establishment of three tribal service centers. These so-called "infrastructure" recommendations should be seen in the larger context of making New Jersey's state and local government more responsive to the needs and circumstances of all vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.

In the spirit of the report, we should all learn more about and honor the original inhabitants of this state we now call home. We are all immigrants in their eyes.

Mitt Romney spoke from the heart when he gave his talk on religion last week. Clearly, he may have won some friends among Christian fundamentalists, and shored up his candidacy for the Republican nomination. However, in the hindsight of history, his speech will likely be judged the wrong speech at the wrong time for the wrong people.

Yes, I know, piety plays well in the United States. It's now obligatory for presidential candidates to proclaim their devotion to God or Jesus, to attend church services on a regular basis, to merge the moral sphere with the public sphere, and to attack "secularism" as a threat to the foundation of the republic.

Romney tried to perform the neat trick of separating his Mormon religion, what he considers a private loyalty, from his allegiance to God and country, a "religious heritage" he shares with all the "faithful" people of the United States. Regrettably, only Christians and Jews seem to count among the faithful.

I have a number of problems with Romney's position. First, organized religion takes many forms in the United States today. Bahai's, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Sikhs, and indigenous native American religions, among others, bring their rich traditions and fresh perspectives on the meaning of life. I don't take the growing presence of these religions in the United States as a threat to spirituality, but rather an opportunity for dialogue and cross-fertilization that will benefit all religions. In my view, communities of faith aren't watered down through such contacts, but strengthened. To his credit, Romney did extol our nation's "symphony of faith," but he seemed to exclude many beautiful instruments from the symphony.

Second, faith has no value in and of itself, if it doesn't lead to right action. Indeed, blind faith, in the form of Muslim fanaticism, is precisely the evil that we are fighting around the world. It is the doubters of the world who may perform the true will of God, by puncturing the bombast of religious leaders, challenging orthodoxy when it conflicts with reason, and holding religion to a higher standard than the literal written word. Ironically, among the great doubters in American history were leading patriots of the American Revolution, including Tom Paine who denied the divinity of Jesus and decried the tyranny of organized religion, and Thomas Jefferson, who rewrote the New Testament to rid it of what he considered falsehood and supersition.

Yes, evil describes the actions of individuals -- not groups, communities, or organized religions. However, when evil cloaks itself in the sanctimony of organized religion and uses the power base of organized religion coupled with the power of the state to realize its ends, it becomes a profound threat to the peace of the world. The long sweep of history shows the danger of such lethal combinations.

There is nothing wrong with reflecting your faith and convictions in the public arena. There is a lot wrong when you imply that yours is the "one true faith," even if you draw lines broader than your own denomination. That kind of arrogance brings great nations to ruin.