Both men seem to have sincere conflictions and believes, they should share their
religious conflictions and believes with the voters; after all that is what
represents a big part of who they are and what voters can expect in their
representative actions. Ones religious believes in affiliation with a public
church should be shared with voters. If they are secular or neutral with no
loyal believe in any one religion then voters should have that information also.
As the founding fathers pointed out in the US Constitution the matters of
one's religion is private and should never beheld against a person running
for elected office. What Both President Obama and Gov. Romney are doing is very
commendable taking the personal part of each one's lives off the table. So
we can focus on the Record Of President Obama.
Seems like the Los Angeles Times cares about their religious conflictions more
here. I think it's more like this that the economy is a political black
hole, sucking every other issue into an impossibly dense void. CNBC is
reporting that America lost 129,000 millionaires last year. Or as Mitt Romney
calls them, "an endangered species we have to protect." It’s
being reported that Mitt Romney's personal Hotmail account has been hacked.
Yeah, Hotmail. Even Ron Paul was like, "Get with it, you old geezer!."
Speaking of Mitt Romney, his campaign is in the news for misspelling several
words on his promotional items. Today, Romney issued a press release that said,
"I'll get to the bottom of this, or my name isn't Malt
Ramrod." If I vote for you, can I ride your dancing horse?. Romney faces
potential resistance to his Mormon faith, and with Obama, many still believe
that he is a Muslim and they don't like his relationship with the Rev.
Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.. Americans want their president to be a man and to fix
the economy. That's all.My views.Like 'em, or
If this is a momentary detente, I guarantee you someone is just loading up to
fire the "shot heard 'round the world" when it comes to
religion.(I wouldn't mind lighting the fuse)
Is the writer correct that Obama's religion problem is "messier"
than Romney's? This could be an interesting debate, but developing the
argument that Romney's problem is actually "messier" would not pass
the censor here. This article also cites an unnamed "poll" finding 16%
believe Obama is a Muslim. How was the question phrased? More importantly, is
there anybody who WOULD vote for Obama, but is swayed against him because of
their belief about his religion? If you won't take his word that he is a
Christian, don't you already hate him anyway? Similarly, saying the
Reverend Wright issue "nearly sank Obama's 2008 campaign" just
isn't true. Obama's supporters take his word that he does not affirm
Wright's controversial statements and this issue won't get any
traction in 2012. Romney, however, confirms his Mormonism and many (perhaps
most) of his closest political supporters are within the group of people who
have a strong theological conflict with his beliefs.
"Obama has an even messier religion problem. Substantial numbers of voters
— 16 percent in a recent poll — continue to believe that he is a
Muslim"And that is no accident. Where would they have gotten
THAT idea?Just like the birth certificate issue.Those on
the right would rather be outraged by lies than satisfied with the truth.
11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (including several
presidents) were non-Trinitarian Christians, as is Mitt Romney, who is as
faithful as the most devout Founder. Contrast Mitt Romney’s
faith to that of Barack Obama: Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor, says
“it is hard to tell” if Barack Obama converted from Islam to
Christianity”. Wright says “church is not Barack's thing".
@BrentBot,And they forget to mention blacks and women when they made
every man have equal rights. So much for good people.You're
right Mitt's is as faithful as the most devout founder.
No one but each Mitt Romney or President Obama, and God, knows how faithful or
devout each is, and what each man believes in his heart. Can we all agree? And
None but God can say how well each has lived what he believes, either, or how
well he practices his faith in his private and public life in all respects. So
can we all stop trying to behave as if we are God for them and for others, while
we are at it?
The candidates may observe a truce about religion; their surrogates will not.
It would be ideal to think that in 1960, JFK's Houston speech on religon,
and how it would affect his ability to lead our country, would have put things
to rest. But, sadly, this form of bigotry still rears its ugly head when someone
yet "different" runs for national office. It's born of political
motivation, in my opinion. I sincerely hope that this does not become an
issue as November looms. Are we not guided by the constitution, not by what
happens to be a leader's choice of religon? I think we can be
confident with over 200 years of precendent, that we don't have to worry
about a president's religon, as much as his capability to be an effective
leader, guided by rule of law. This, I think, should be the yardstick of how we
measure and determine our choice in November.
@LValfre"And they forget to mention blacks and women when they
made every man have equal rights. So much for good people.You're right Mitt's is as faithful as the most devout
founder."Look at it in the context of the period. It must be
irritating for the PC crowd to know that all the founders were Anglo-Saxon. The
past is the past its time to move on.