I think that one good reason for not allowing a Mormon president is because he would take his oath of office on a Book of Mormon and there isn't any documented proof that the Book of Mormon is anything other than Joseph Smith Jr''s fantasy story. The Bible, on the other hand, has documented proof and is an ancient historical document.
Please list as many answers as possible. I am trying to come up with at least 100 for my online blog.
2007-07-01 08:47:14 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't know about reasons to not let him be president (oh, and he would take the oath on the Bible...On the KJV version in fact), but I can think of one very good reason to let him be president. The war in Iraq that never should have happened, would be over within minutes, and our troops would be home within the week!
2007-07-01 08:55:20 · answer #1 · answered by Kellye B 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Uh, there are so many problems here, it's hard to begin.
Bush swore on a Bible, and has consistently violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, so I don't see how it can possibly matter.
No lightening bolts from above have taken HIM out, have they?
By your reasoning from the age of the book, all presidents should take their oaths on either the Old Testament only, or perhaps a Sumerian cuneiform.
It is neither more nor less myth than your Bible.
Be that as it may, the book used should be one that is sacred to the person taking the oath, not one chosen by a particular citizen, and there's no reason that citizen should be YOU, in any case.
But the overriding reason you cannot prohibit a Mormon from becoming president is in a document for which you obviously have no respect whatsoever (much like our current president): The Constitution of the United States of America.
I suggest that if you want to live in a theocracy, you move to one.
Since there is not even one good reason for not permitting an elected official from taking office, and trying to do so violates said Constitution, your search for 100 such is both irrelevant and futile.
But this is certainly among the top ten anti-American posts I've seen on this web site.
2007-07-01 13:21:18 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are indeed a bigot, and remind me of Lee Harvey Oswald. Kennedy was the only non-protestant president in the history of America and look what happened to him.
While you're at it, why don't you make a list of 100 different kinds of people who shouldn't be allowed to be president? That would be a great blog for you. You can list, women, black people, Mexicans, Jews, Indians, atheists, etc. etc. etc.
Mormons believe in the Bible, and a Mormon president would take the oath on a Bible, so even your reason #1 is false. By the way, can you post the address of your blog? It must be brilliant with such great logic, and reporting facts that have no basis in truth.
I'm an atheist, but I will take a Mormon as president any day over another protestant Christian. Perhaps a Mormon would represent the majority of Americans are Christian, without giving in to the Christian Coalition on every single issue.
2007-07-06 13:30:31 · answer #3 · answered by Scott 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why would he take his oath on a Book of Mormon? He believes in the Bible.
You're assuming that we SHOULDN'T have a Mormon President JUST because he's Mormon. Did you have a problem with the Jehovah's Witness president? (you probably didn't even know that there was one).
Mitt is a Mormon, I like him. Harry Reid is a Mormon, I hate him. Orin Hatch is a Mormon, I'm so-so on him. See the correlation???
If you think he'll vote in ways that you'd approve of, then support him, otherwise find a candidate that will.
Frankly, I think that it's funny that this argument keeps coming up. None of the other candidates are being criticized for their religion, yet Mitt is "cleaner" than the rest of em. He's not a hypocrite and a liar like Hillary. He's been married once to the same woman (Guliani and others), he's raised a good family (Gore...although not officially running), he's popular in his own state (Edwards) and he's successfully made money without hurting others (Edwards).
He turned a $2 Billion dollar deficit into a $2 Billion dollar surplus in MA without raising taxes or making new ones. I'd like to see a president do that for the country. Not sure if he's my horse or not, but I like what I've seen so far.
Vote for a politician who will vote the way you want him to vote. Period. Voting (or not voting for) on religion alone is ridiculous.
2007-07-06 05:15:40 · answer #4 · answered by Ender 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The bible is not documented proof of anything. If he is taking an oath of office he should be able to do it on any book he believes. Just as you would have that right, just like everybody has that right. Not everyone takes the oath on the bible you know.
2007-07-01 08:54:39 · answer #5 · answered by punch 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
that's ridiculous. i'm an atheist, and an exMormon, and each thing your chum informed you is a lie. Mormons want to transform as many human beings as available. they're in no way going to be unwelcoming. EDIT: OH! Your chum may well be conversing with regard to the TEMPLE, wherein case, a number of what he pronounced is real. yet i do no longer think of there are armed guards. No non-mormons are allowed interior the temple, there ARE bar-coded "temple recommends," and additionally you're able to't pass to the temple for no less than a 365 days in case you finally end up baptized (and are the perfect age). so as that area is all real, yet in basic terms of the TEMPLE, no longer the church development which you pass to each week. they're attempting to fill those up as much as available.
2016-10-03 08:48:08 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bible is not required when taking the oath of office. Traditionally it's been used because all previous presidents have been Christian. To many the bible is fantasy stories with no basis in fact, It's simply 1800 years older than the book of Mormon.
BTW, the actual oath of office is:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Ending the oath with "so help me God" is a tradition begun by George Washington. It's not required.
2007-07-01 09:00:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'm speechless, almost. Mormons believe in BOTH The Bible and the Book of Mormon. Get your facts straight instead of trying to find proof to back up your ignorance and small mindedness.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
btw it seems you are a bigot, and Christians, if you are one, are not supposed to judge others. Deal with it!!!
And I mean all of this in the best possible way. Just speakin' my mind.
Blessed Be, and may Peace be with you
2007-07-08 03:48:52 · answer #8 · answered by Linda B 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The bible is no more real than any other religious book.
They are ALL fiction.
That said, as long as a candidate has reached the age of 35 and is a US born citizen, they meet all of the qualifications required under a REAL historical document- The US Constitution.
Besides, how's the current Christian working out for this country?
2007-07-01 08:54:05 · answer #9 · answered by No Chance Without Bernoulli 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
you're a bigot
and you can't even see the irony in your statements... "there isn't any documented proof that the Book of Mormon is anything other than Joseph Smith Jr''s fantasy story."
You believe in the fairy tales of the bible! LOL
not only that, but you are a lazy SOB who wants other people to do your thinking for you. Come up with your own stupid reasons.
2007-07-01 08:52:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋