As I read different topics of upcoming presidential nominees, Mitt Romney is the talk of the town; only because of his Mormon background. My question is what does it matter? Why does America care? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just saying that if he is an honest nominee, then he will seperate church and state if voted into office, and respect the diverse religions throughout the United States and the world? I just think that it is stupid to throw the vote away on him, just because of his religion, just like it is stupid to throw the vote away on Obama for being black, or Hilary for being a woman. It's childish and close-minded!
2007-04-01 00:42:49 · 16 answers · asked by wingsformarie06 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Everything about a person is going to be discussed when they run for the highest office in the land. If he were vegetarian, or a golfer, or had a stamp collection - that would all be discussed too by the media who are always looking for an angle for a story. The only reason it becomes a problem is if they make opinions on the facts of a person's life, like saying all stamp collectors are nerds, or if they treated one candidate unfairly by discussing his stamp collection but never mentioning that his opponent collected baseball cards.
2007-04-02 18:18:48 · answer #1 · answered by Sweet n Sour 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well i believe the problem is that there never was any seperation of church and stat, or else why would the president have to swear to god, and why is there in god we trust on the dollar! There will always be a connection between church and state because that was how it started, if the was no church there would be no state and vice versa! despite what people say they do discriminate against religion for this type of stuff! have you ever seen a Wiccan nominee for president?, how about budhist? you dont because this country is founded on any type of christianism and only christians of some sort will win any vote!
2007-04-01 07:51:44 · answer #2 · answered by deathjsx 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Separation of Church & State is actually the principle that:
No Law should be instituted that establishes a DOMINANT religion. So for example, if a Jew is elected President, then there is no issue as long as there are no laws instituting Jewish practice as part of the governement. It is also worth considering that the major threat to violating this principle comes from Christianity. Christians need to be more careful than others because they DO have a dominant religion in the US. When Bush talks about "Faith Based" government fund and programs it is really a code name for christianity. Many religions are NOT faith based, they are behavioral. Actually GW is violating the separation of church & state all the time!!!
2007-04-01 10:51:42 · answer #3 · answered by KenB 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Mitt Romney's religion should be immaterial. There were just as many anti-Catholics at the time John Kennedy ran but he certainly had the best interest of the Country and his religion did not affect his political life (can't say he lived a good Catholic personal life).
Romney's religion will only be something his opponents will use and I surely hope it turns on them. Oh yes they will not do it personally but through their henchmen.
Romney is not my choice at this time but I would not be disappointed if he won the primaries and would not hesitate to vote for him. He is a good man & that's what counts!
I would also vote for Joe Lieberman for the same reasons.
2007-04-01 10:32:36 · answer #4 · answered by Heidi 4 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you on not voting for someone because of race, color, creed, or religion. We should base our votes on the best person for the job at any given time. However, I feel the need to point out that the idea of separation of church and state does not apply to individuals, even the president. The only way it would ever come into play would be if he became president and then tried to force legislation which somehow abridges the freedom of religion. Just for the record though, I do not think it is closed minded to vote for someone because you feel comfortable with their convictions.
2007-04-01 07:53:21 · answer #5 · answered by Bryan 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Separation of Church and State is nowhere written in the Constitution. It's written so that the Government can not force a particular Religion upon the Nation. The made-up phrase you hear is used by people who are trying to fulfill an agenda. It doesn't even exist.
2007-04-01 10:06:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well first of all,you sound like someone that has boughten into the myth of "seperation of church and state" in the constitution it isn't there,LOOK. Second back when JFK was elected people thought a catholic could never be elected,we know how that turned out. Mitt Romney's ability to get elected will hinge more on his stance on current problems facing the country instead of the church he belongs to.
2007-04-01 21:53:34 · answer #7 · answered by ravalli_5 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. When Romney's father ran for president in 1968 his Mormon religion was not an issue. This was true even though George Romney was one generation closer to the polygamists ancestors in the family, and the Mormon Church of the time did not allow blacks to become full members or go to heaven!
So we've come a long way in our ability to assess the candidates based on rational criteria.
2007-04-01 07:51:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's not Mitt bringing up the religion.it's everyone else and personally for the benefit of Our country I would rather have a man/woman of faith in the highest position a person can have. The Presidential office needs to have a person with traditional values and morals.
2007-04-01 09:32:38 · answer #9 · answered by Classic96 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Could you tell me where in the Constitution of the United States of America do you find anything about "Separation of Church and State" ?
"Separation of Church and State" - is a fable, created by the secular neo-communists.
2007-04-04 20:05:33 · answer #10 · answered by roy_nexus_6 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋