You won't get that lucky...
Posted on 12/14/2007 8:05:43 AM PST by SmithL
Let's keep religion out of the presidential campaign, if possible.
I say, to each his own. Let's rejoice that the founding fathers established a secular nation and that no one has to publicly defend his or her beliefs.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- put on the defensive because of his Mormon faith -- recently felt compelled to explain his religion to skeptical voters.
So he tore a page out of John F. Kennedy's 1960 campaign appearance before a group of Protestant ministers in Houston.
At the time, Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, had to dispel rumors that he would be taking orders from the Vatican if he won the presidency.
Kennedy assured the protestant clergy that the pope would have no place in his presidency. He won the day when he told the ministers that when his brother Joe Kennedy's plane disappeared over the English channel during World War II, no one asked what his religion was.
Last week, Romney delivered his religion speech at the George H.W. Bush Library at College Station, Texas, and pledged he would not allow any authorities of the Mormon church "exert influence" on his presidential decisions. "I will serve no one religion," he declared.
Romney is in a tough fight for the GOP presidential nomination with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Huckabee is tough on illegal immigrants -- but in the past favored schooling for their children.
A conservative, Huckabee opposes abortion and, at one time, wanted to isolate HIV/AIDS patients. He also supports a federal ban on gay marriage and advocates teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Huckabee isn't "tough" on anyone, whether illegals or murderers. What he says now are just lies to get votes. History is prologue. If elected, Huckabee would push through the DREAM Act and amnesty in his first 100 days.
I don't think it would be valid for anyone to say that a person's personal beliefs should not impact their decisions. (That would be dumb.). But I do believe that one Presidential candidate should refrain from making comments about another Presidential candidate's religion.
If she was a horse, they’d have put her down by now...for cause.
If you can answer yes then you pass the Helen religious litmus test, if No you are a unamerican, uneducated religious, bigot substantially the same as any other terrorist. Helen believes this liberal dogma with religious conviction.
And likely, they'll be as successful as social conservatives have been in stemming the tide of perversion.
***************
Helen is clueless. The Founding Fathers didn't intend to establish a "secular nation", they intended that the government would not infringe on our right to worship as we see fit.
Great post - absolutely correct.
You’re exactly right, and it’s a huge liberal blindspot. Everyone has religious beliefs, and all religious beliefs impact your decision making.
Atheism is a religion! I don’t know how the left continues to fail to recognize it. And it’s one of the most aggressive religions in trying to recruit new members.
Arrgghh.
...or an editor
Ow!
That one hurt more than usual.
Not to mention a man without faith thinks himself to be God. “Put not your faith in man?” And he who believes in nothing, will believe anything? I would also suggest, that most Americans want to at the very least know where the politician stands on faith. Shouldn’t we know for instance, if the pol is a muslim, who believes in sharia law?
BTTT great points!
Secular? I think if the "Mount Rushmore" gang were here, Helen would get a debate on that. I thought the Founders just didn't recognize any particular religious denomination as the State Religion? It's what I was taught, anyway.
That being said it wasn't a half-bad article until she regurgitated the Democrat issues at the very end, as if they were the only legitimate campaign issues.
Such restraint is the American way, I agree. It probably helps keep the country united and decreases the likelihood of religious conflict. It is also “civil”.
But my question still remains. Why would a man of faith choose politics, if in so doing he must restrain his faith? Moreover, if a man’s faith teaches that he is obliged to share such faith and correct those in error, why would the dictates of civility take precendence over this duty?
Same for the schools...
Proof positive...the former Liar-in-Chief will do anything in a dress.
Maybe because he believes that the kingdom of Christ extends to every institution including the civil magistrate. He knows that real liberty and prosperity are maximized when God's law is rightfully used in society. While trying to implement the law of God his methods are constrained by that same law (i.e. no proselytizing by the sword or by unjust taxing etc.).
Rick Donaldson: Keep Helen Thomas out of images, and out of journalism!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.