2007-11-29 12:44:32 · 13 answers · asked by Silver 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I do not believe that any religious President poses a threat to freedom. Kennedy was ostensibly Roman Catholic, but, as we would later learn, hardly true to that religion.
Romney is another kettle of fish. Here's one of his pronouncements on "American Culture and Values."
"Last year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a blow against the family, as I'm sure you know. The court forgot that marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father."
- Governor Romney, Boston Globe, March 2, 2005
This implies, among other things, a belief that it is the government's business to tell people why they should get married.
What if a couple wants to get married and remain childless?
What if a single women chooses to have a child?
What if gay people wish to adopt?
What if a man chooses to be sterilized?
2007-11-29 14:38:40 · update #1
What we know in advance about Romney is that he believes that certain religious ideas should be the basis for public policy.
I don't think he can see any reason why they shouldn't be.
This is very different from raising questions about Kennedy's religion, or raising questions about whether a Muslim can run for President.
2007-11-29 14:41:30 · update #2
If he is elected his religion will become less of an issue. Those of us that have been around a while remember the hullabaloo raised when Kennedy was running. There were charges that the Pope would be running the country. It was really amazing to see that.
2007-11-29 13:32:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
A lot of Christians, sad to say, consider Mormonism blasphemy. The main reason I don't think Romney has a chance is that the Republican leadership knows a goodly percentage of Fundamentalist Christians will not vote for a Mormon. They don't talk about it but they know it's true.
2007-11-29 20:48:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
When Kennedy (a Democrat) was elected, people had the decency to respect his religion and they didn't fabricate lies about him before, during or after the election.
Why have you changed this policy?
Does this mean that they were more ethical than you?
More tolerant?
More decent?
Obviously.
2007-11-29 21:03:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
No clue, but you'll probably get one of those little church donation cards that tacks on an extra percent on every purchase and donates it to the church.
2007-11-29 20:47:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Mitt belongs in a church and never in the White House.
2007-11-29 20:47:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
its already a crime. look what happened to Don Imus. oh, right. you libs call it "hate speech" hey, i say tomato, you say tamahto...
2007-11-29 21:21:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I can not see that happening. He is a Mormon, not an extremist.
2007-11-30 00:00:49 · answer #7 · answered by fred g 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
maybe - it all depends what the "prophet" wants.
now what about plural marriage being made legal?
2007-11-30 01:44:01 · answer #8 · answered by EnberWolfe 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No - why do you say such a thing?
2007-11-29 20:49:09 · answer #9 · answered by Constitutional Watchdog 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no
2007-11-29 20:52:33 · answer #10 · answered by Mary Jo W 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋