You can choose whomever you want to vote for. The point is this country was founded on freedom of religion and not just for Christians.
So for a Christian to use the public square to tear down a candidate just because of his religion in order to sway voters goes against what this country was founded on. In case you didn’t know, the election is for Commander in Chief, not theologian in chief.
It amazes me the double standard of some Christians, who say they’d vote for a nonbelieving Jew or a nonbelieving gentile but never a Morman even though he agrees with them on the moral issues. Where candidates stand on the issues is what matters. God’s not finished with them yet as far as their souls.
“You can choose whomever you want to vote for. The point is this country was founded on freedom of religion and not just for Christians.”
Well that’s mighty grand of you. And can I reject Scientologists, jihadis, Santerians, Wiccans, Satanists, Heavens Gaters, Moonies, Mormons or others because I disagree with their religious motives, or must I turn a blind eye, cackle like a chicken and just mindlessly pull the lever?
“So for a Christian to use the public square to tear down a candidate just because of his religion in order to sway voters goes against what this country was founded on.”
I have never called for anyone to be denied the right to 1) believe in whatever Baal they choose 2) run for any office they choose. I am just curious what kinds of people would deny me the right to express my opinion and furthermore deny me the right to vote the way I choose? I think Hugo Chavez has a similar voters rights plan.
“In case you didn’t know, the election is for Commander in Chief, not theologian in chief.”
Therefore, under your assumptions we could elect Moctezuma president, though he believed in cutting out the hearts of his political enemies, because it would be UNAMERICAN to ask about his religion. Wow, at what point do we get to paint Stupid on your back?
“It amazes me the double standard of some Christians, who say they’d vote for a nonbelieving Jew or a nonbelieving gentile but never a Morman even though he agrees with them on the moral issues.”
I don’t agree with Romney on the moral issues. For example, Mitt was 18 when he met his 15 year old wife to-be Ann, then he had his powerful father brainwash her into Mormonism in a 6 day indoctrination. Now maybe you want to uphold family values like brainwashing, but I don’t.
“Where candidates stand on the issues is what matters. God’s not finished with them yet as far as their souls.”
But, what if their issues, like Romneycare, are the result of their religious convictions on how the world works? But you know what, why try and debate a brick?
You are mistaken in regards to the country being founded on the freedom of religion outside of Christianity. You might want to go back to some original documents in studying the issue.
In any event, national governance is for believer and unbeliever alike. There is nothing wrong with those considering who to vote for to consider the beliefs of the candidates.
Quite the opposite, attempts to prevent voters from considering their exercise of religion goes against the first amendment of the Constitution. Nothing here prevents Romney from exercising his freedom, but rejection of others in their consideration of it inhibits their exercise thereof.