I will take exception to that remark- No one is looking for a saviour in the religious sense, but rather are looking for a candidate who is sure to uphold the Judeo-Christian ethic that is the basis of Western morality, and certainly the foundation of the culture of the United States in particular. To accuse Christians of looking for a "saviour" in any other than Christ is to be oblivious of the essence of Christian thought, by the very nature of the accusation.
German history should be instructive, as it was socialism that brought forth it's fruit in fascism, *not* adherence to the faith of her fathers. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
People who won’t vote for someone who doesn’t share their specific religious dogma are intolerant, closed-minded bigots. Plain and simple. These people are also not true Americans.
A statement born of ignorance, no doubt. Philosophy and religion are the same thing, and to suppose one would vote for something opposed to (or even indifferent to) what one believes is truth is an absurd statement. That the candidate's beliefs (philosophy) are akin to one's own would be a matter of paramount concern, as that belief predicts the candidate's actions.
To accuse Christians of intolerance is an asinine position. The Christian heritage of the Western world is the root of freedom. Of course one is intolerant of those wishing to cut off that root. Without it there is no sustenance. Freedom and Justice will wither and die. One may as well accuse us of being bigoted toward murderers and rapists, which of course, we are. It is a specious and inaccurate skewing of the concept, to say the very least.
Their highjacking of the Republican party brought us to incompetence and catastrophe that is the Bush administration.
The incompetence and catastrophe of the Bush administration is based in it's sojourn into socialism and globalism, and you must note that the Christian Right were among the first to pull support away when the administration strayed. In fact, his efforts toward globalism are still widely supported by all except the Conservatives, who have rejected such attempts outright. Those Conservatives are largely made up of the Christian Right.
Most of W.’s decisions may have been right, but the execution seems to be mostly faith-based. That doesn’t work in the real world.
All decisions are based upon faith of one form or another. A leader who would humble himself and subject himself to the will of Almighty God is less likely to enforce his own will with the aspirations of empire. Certainly a plus in my book.
One’s religious beliefs do not qualify one for anything other than to be a member of that religion.
That is not your decision. That is decided by the aggregated citizens of the United States, eighty-five percent of whom are Christians.
Your position is without merit.
Don't worry, for when the Anti-Christ DOES show his face, it will NOT have a 'religious' countenance!
He will be billed as a POLITICAL Savior; one who can bring PEACE to the World.
You spent a lot of energy misinterpreting what I wrote and/or trying to counter-argue with very poor logic.
For you and others who felt the need to respond to the “bigot” remark, please note that I was not speaking of values, but rather specific religious dogma. There is a huge difference.
In other words, Romney isn’t having a problem with Evangelicals because of his values. He is a concern because of the specific manner in which he chooses to worship God. -which is slightly different from their own. Everything else is the same, except that. But, that is reason enough not to vote for him. Now we can sit here and argue about Romney as a RINO, but to me he is by farthe most qualified candidate to be President among the entire field. The only reason he is not leading by a huge margin is because he is a Mormon and Evangelical voters have a problem with that.
To me that is close-minded bigotry and very far-away from the American ideal.