|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Romney is trying to defend his Mormon religion as you probably already know.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_po/romney_religion
Now I'm not a big fan of Romney. I don't really trust his wishy washy behaviour, but I have to agree with a lot of the points his made in his attempt to stick up for his religion.
Quote:
declared Thursday that as president he would "serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause," and said calls for him to explain and justify his religious beliefs go against the profound wishes of the nation's founders. At the same time, he decried those who would remove from public life "any acknowledgment of God," and he said that "during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."
I have to say a perfectly balanced way of looking at it. I like that.
Quote:
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines," Romney said. "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."
Another good point. This is the kind of balance the government needs. It doesn't need to get rid of God from the government to not promote one religion over the other. To do so would promote the religion of atheism, and I honestly believe it is a religion. Instead of worshipping God, atheists worship humanism or man. Everybody worships something whether it's God, your car, Nascar, football, a favorite TV show. Something or someone is number one in everyone's life.
Quote:
"If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest," Romney said. "A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States." True very true.
I think Huckabee has made the right decision to not attack Romney's faith. While I am encouraged by politicians not stearing clear of faith issues, I don't think it's right for a politician to take someone else's religion and use it as a political club to bash their opponent on the head with.
From Huckabee
Quote:
"I think it's a matter of what his views are — whether they are consistent, whether they are authentic, just like mine are," Huckabee told NBC's "Today." "If I had actions that were completely opposite of my Christian faith, then I would think people would have reason to doubt if this part of my life, which is supposed to be so important, doesn't influence me. Then they would have to question whether or not there are other areas of my life that lack that authenticity as well.
I totally agree.
Quote:
"It has nothing to do with what faith a person has — it's whether or not that person's life is consistent with how he lives it."
Quote:
"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," Romney said. Another good point by Romney.
In conclusion I don't believe politics is a place for people to bring up whether or not Romney or Mormons are true Christians as reporters like to ask evangelicals. I think there is a time and a place to debate these things, and this isn't it. Romney is trying to interview for a job, plain and simple. The question should be will he support the same things I as a voter and a American citizen support or not. Will he bring policies of prosperity both morally and financially to this country or not.
The deal breaker for my vote is will he still be for and against the same things tomorrow as he is today. With Romney I just can't say for sure.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
