Fortunately, values can exist without the distortion of religion. Religion
should be a private relationship between the candidate and their relationship
with what they percieve to be god. I don't want in on that relationship,
nor do I want my public institutions in that relationship.
I would welcome a new president who I know would invoke the blessings of God
each and every day to help him in the important decision making for the welfare
of our people and our country. If it was good enough for Abraham Lincoln and
others, why not for Mitt Romney? God-fearing men established the Declaration of
Independence. They sought and received His help as they set out the U.S.
Constitution. We should never apologize for being a God-fearing nation no matter
what some may say. God bless America! Romney-Ryan 2012
Everyone's ethos is based on values of some origin. One persons ideology is
not automatically unacceptable because it is religious based and another's
acceptable because it is not. I don't want to be in the partnership of some
candidates and their values, secular or religious. Fabian collective mentality
is the guiding principle of one presidential candidate and individual effort the
other. The Marxist deity was flawed, faith-based sociology which is less
defensible than theism. Marx' was the breatest distortion.
It is wonderful that we have two equally God-fearing men, Mitt Romney and
President Obama, to vote for in this election.
@HutteriteYou are the only one.The founding fathers
founded this nation on religious liberty. So man may free express their
beliefs, values, principles and ideas in the public arena which most certainly
included religious.When you begin limiting which morals, values,
beliefs, ideas that can be heard in the public arena,or limiting
organization or groups, when you start picking and choosing who can
participate in the public arena,then you most certainly have lost
freedom. While we do not want government meddling in religion,We do not want to any person or however the people may organize
themselves, no matter how they may think or believe forbidden from the public
square. If you stop one person or group what will stop you or
government from stopping other persons or groups?The founding
fathers never had any intent of stopping any religion or religious persons from
speaking in the public square.Do you value freedom and liberty for
all or for none?Religion must have a public voice.
OWL, you've got it wrong, Mitt Romney is not a Marxist!
The amount of focus on Mitt Romney's religion has been extremely unfair and
unbalanced in comparison to Obama's. Lucky for Obama that no one has
bothered or been successful at determining what his religion is since he gives
so many mixed messages. One thing we do know however, is that he is not a
Hutterite is NOT the only one. not by a long shot.Citizens must have
freedom of speech. But to simplistically insist that "Religion must have a
public voice" ignores not only the Constitution, but the interpretation and
conventions that have guided us for centuries. Those interpretations and
conventions, made and propagated by the best legal and political minds in
American history, can accurately be summarized as "There should be a wall of
separation between Church and State", and there should never be even the
slightest hint of an "establishment of religion" by government or public
entities.Citizens are guaranteed certain rights. But Religions are
corporations. Insisting that religions should have the unfettered right to do as
they please (in the name of "religious freedom"), including meddling in
political, governmental, legal, and public affairs, is no different than saying,
"Churches are people, my friend"!While we do not want
government meddling in religion, and we don't want religion meddling in
Government by "cultivating candidates for office", or lobbying, or
buying politicians, or manipulating legislation in their favor, or legislating
away the rights of minority groups.
As a great book states, "By their works, you will know them."People are born with talents and abilities that carry into their whole life.
You cannot take those skills and learned, not only inborn abilities, knowledge
to help people and yourself in this life. Those inate feelins are solidified by
family members are you are preparing for life and really, no one can take those
from you. God gave them to us to make the world better and we have the choice
to use or not use them but only to a certain degree.We cannot spoil
God's plan but we can choose to make our own life miserable, which in turn
makes it worse for our parents, brothers and sisters and humanity as a whole.Negative isn't part of the plan for us but we can't get rid of
the positive as those parts shine on us and on God's creations.Thank goodness we are not left alone, even in politics. People would have us
believe that politics and religion should not be discussed. Now it is that
people of real Faith should not show it in any form. Let your light so Shine!
@A ScientistOnce again in your irreligious zealotry you got it wrong. The
First Amendment provides for freedom of speech for churches just as much as it
does everyone else; regardless of how much you may hate them.
I base my decisions more on a person's morals than I do on their values.
The first debate showed me that Mitt can make a stronger left turn then most
NASCAR divers. His continual flip-flopping on where he stands on the issues has
now lost my vote. He has no integrity (moral decision making) and values money
more than people ( values). People often have religious values but forget their
morality when it comes to treating their fellow man and community.
Nowhere in the Constitution, nor in the commentary on it by the most esteemed
minds, are Churches guaranteed freedom of speech. Individuals, yes, but not
Churches.Churches are not people my friend. But we understand if you
Romney supporters don't quite get that (anyone care for some more
@Caprice"One thing we do know however, is that he is not a
Christian."You know, I would think (mind if I assume your
religion for a second?) that a member of a Christian denomination that is
frequently attacked from other Christian groups as not being Christian or being
a corrupted version of Christianity... or some nonsense like that... I would
think that a member of such a church would not turn around and make the same
sort of attacks on other Christians.
This is easy, Obama has no values to spin.
If Obama claims to be Christian, it is not our place to nay-say that. The only
defensible definition of "Christian" is that someone claims to be one.
To say otherwise is to begin judging the orthodoxy of another person's
faith.Instead, we must judge the candidate's values and political
views based on their actions and history. What I have personally come up
with re Obama:1. Obama is a good man. His moral values are strong, and he
is trying to do what he believes is best for this country.2. Obama has a
completely screwed up sense of what is right for this country. He is a
keynesian and a moderate marxist. He believes that the bigger the federal
goverment is, the better. He believes that given a tough situation, Americans
are not capable of showing their greatness, so the government must coddle and
protect them from the hard things in life.
What I have personally come up with re Romney:1. Romney is a great man.
His moral values are strong, and he has shown a strong commitment to service
throughout his life. He understands people at a level most of us never will
(being a Bishop and Stake President provide training in this very few other
situations can). He truly wants to do what is best for this country.2.
Romney has a clear understanding of what it is to be American. He understands
the culture that created the greatest nation on earth, and he believes that
culture still exists in the hearts of the American people. He is a free-market
entrepreneur who knows what it takes to get control of finances and turn them
around. He is a leader of men who knows how to lead from the heart as well as
the mind, and can get tough when the job requires it.