All Comments (9)

ok is myanmar Where

@ Comment:

"You are trying to qualify him as a presidential candidate, once again, based on his religious background. You are using the non-believers as a stepping stone to promote your own personal views about his religious background and beliefs."

Romney and Huckabee both are using their religious affiliations to pander to their base - it isn't the rest of us that are applying a religious test for office - it is the Religious Right!

If you read her message correctly, Ms, Butler is really saying that to be secular is best, but if you bring your religion into it, we have a right to know how that religion is going to affect your actions as President!

I'd rather religion NEVER be an issue - but if it is, I want all the information I can get about how it will affect a candidate's beliefs and actions in office.

I am atheist, and I want the President to represent me too. If he/she cannot do that, then he/she has no business being in that office.

Ms. Butler,

You draw some very important conclusions about the need to unify the American People, and I agree. Too many differing opinions have torn this nation apart, and bit by bit, we have come unraveled. Just look at our condition now. Hillary Clinton made a comment regarding the need to get another Clinton back in the Whitehouse; they needed someone after George H. W. Bush to clean up the scandalous expenditures that government made under his direction, and that is what William Jefferson Clinton did (according to her).

Do people not realize that real democratic power is in congress and not the power of a president? The president's power is limited by the power of congress. All spending problems that we face are because of our congress. We are a government “…of the people, by the people, for the people....” Our president is just another balance to a system of government that must execute judgment, mercy, and equity through the alignment of powers of office. Mitt Romney is just another man who is fed up with the operations of politicking Imbeciles who try to hide their maneuverings under the guise of a president, and let him take the fall for their own misdeeds and/or personal greed.

Some of these congress men and women have been in office for up to 10 terms, and maybe even longer. Some have been in office for more than 30 years. That is "old" Washington at its finest. The real power lies with the people (congressional representation). Our president is a figure-head and a public relations officer when it comes to foreign relations, and locally he is a balance of power to help check the overrunning wave of congressional power.

We need someone who can deal with all types of people, who can help cut government spending, and can unite the people into a nation of greatness once again. I would think that you would have to agree that our nation is where it is because we have put God on the back burner. We have forgotten his providence over this nation; we have left His precepts and commandments off to the side of our own selfish pride and ambitions. We have become greedy and hateful of good and have chosen evil. As a minister you have seen the difference that “believing” will make in personal lives.

Just look at the decline of the dollar in the last 20 years. Its value has declined such that a stamp that cost us 20 cents just 20 years ago now costs us 41 cents. That is an inflation of over 205% in the last 2 decades, which goes through all 4 presidents that we had in the last 20 years. It has nothing to do with the President, but rather the actions of a stymied congress.

Our congressional idiots have voted themselves pay hikes and treated our nation like their own personal payroll for too long. The real corruption and need for change comes in congress, and we need a person who is willing to expose their follies and stand up for the will of the people.

We need to have congress share the burden of the taxed, the plight of the retired on Social Security, the lazy that stay on welfare; feel the effects of inflation, the burden of a high tax on middle class citizens, the encroaching loss of personal privacy and liberties that seem to disappear under the guise of National Security.

Mitt Romney stated the need to unite all people under the American way of life. As you mentioned, it is just that, the need to look past religious backgrounds while running for President.

It is hard for a nation to rally around a leader who does not stand up for his convictions. As you stated in your remarks, ".... But because he is asking us to elect him president of all Americans, it is important that he seek unity with all Americans, including those who do not worship God, and to explain the relationship between his faith and his politics." I find it hard to believe that your comments are directed at protecting the non-believers and more adequately aimed at prying at his faith, or you would not have included “…and to explain the relationship between his faith and his politics.”

The relationship of his faith and politics has been stated, as you so eloquently pointed out, "...does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty..." from his speech.

Any candidate is protected from any religious test for office. The constitution guarantees that. His right to not declare how his faith relates to his politics is his right. He already stated that his intentions were to server no one group, religion, or one people, but to represent all the people of the united States.

You are trying to qualify him as a presidential candidate, once again, based on his religious background. You are using the non-believers as a stepping stone to promote your own personal views about his religious background and beliefs.

He has no need to justify himself, any more than you would if you were to run for president. I would not vote for your based on what your religious background was, or the contest of your beliefs, but rather how your intentions as a leader are directed at influencing change in the face of inherent and sordid corruption and the burden of a giant government machine on its people really is. At least he stands up for what he believes in.

Many of us today probably wouldn't do that when faced with such tactics as he has already faced from a nation of skeptics and religious parties, and candidates, who are trying to undermine his candidacy because of his religious beliefs.

We need a President who has not been mired in personal disgrace or scandal that is not without the bonds of matrimony, fidelity, and truth. We suffered many years under the episode of a lying man, who lied directly to a Grand Jury by mincing words.

We don't need cunning men (and/or women) to lead us, but people with strength of character, who stand up for their convictions, and who lead, with faith in a nation and people whom they represent - regardless of how they believe and who believes or not. What is important is that they believe in the capacity of this great nation and its place in the global arena, as one of the greatest nations on the face of the earth.

We need to rally around the belief that a candidate is going to balance the powers of corrupt government, or save the powers of this nation by exposing the dirt that so cleverly hides in government halls. The contest is not based on the fact that a candidate is a Catholic, Mormon, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Methodist, Satanist, Agnostic, Atheist, Protestant, or that the non-believers were “excluded” in a speech.

Romney is such a man; he will not exclude any person or group of people based on what they believe or what they don’t believe. Next time try to see a person for who he or she really is, instead of through your “rose colored” glasses, colored by your own personal beliefs or non-beliefs. Look at what is good for the majority of the people, because you just can’t please everyone all the time. As a minister you know this well. There will always be those who stir up the nation in order to get their own 15 seconds in the spotlight.

"Romney should ... explain the relationship between his faith and his politics."

Unbelievable that because Romney is a Mormon he is therefore expected and obliged to preach his gospel. I have not heard a single "Because Hillary is a Methodist, she should explain the relationship between her faith and her politics" Nor for Huckabee, nor Juliani, nor Obama etc etc. What is it about being a Mormon that requires Romney to explain how his beliefs would impact a presidency? Hence the paradox: The Secularists and Evangelicals who are shouting out that Romney needs to say more about his religion are the very ones who are defending the separation between church and state; who would insist the political stage is not the place for preaching.

I'm glad the nation seems to have moved beyond murdering Mormons and casting them out for their beliefs, but it appears that the simple fact that they're a bit different is still threatening to a lot of Americans.

I think Romney struck a real good balance between NOT giving a sermon on the tenets of his religion, meanwhile addressing peoples' fears/questions about how his religion would inform his presidency, which should have already been obvious: it's important to him and of course it reflects in the way he views freedom. Hence the content of the speech.

Mitt Romney, I suppose, talked as a candidate, which means that he is after a certain amount of votes, which means that he has to appeal to the tastes of the greatest number of potential voters, which means that "almost 11 percent of the population" is not something to count on, which means that Mitt was clever enough to choose whom to please and whom to provoke, which means that he understands American politics very well, which means that he knows the Keys to the White House.
http://arabicwithlagouader.blogspot.com/

Puhlease.

Joseph Smith and his cult descendants have been lying from the very beginning.

Why would anyone expect Romney to be any different from his Dad?

Joseph Fahey wrote: "The bottom line is that he does impose a religious test on the White House by saying that secular people are "wrong" and by the implication that they do not walk into the White House with him. He pandered to his base here but, fortunately, a good many sincere fundamentalists and Evangelicals see right through his rhetoric."

I'm not so sure about that. After all, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" argument has worked well in the past, so why shouldn't it work now?

Has there been any study on how Christians (evangelical or mainstream) have reacted to this speech? Has Romney actually gained any traction since delivering the speech?

Rev. Butler is wise to see the good parts of Romney's speech but careful also to point out that he is excluding some Americans simply because they do not share his theistic faith. In addition to agnostics and atheists there are many nature-based and spirit-based religions that need to be included as well. The bottom line is that he does impose a religious test on the White House by saying that secular people are "wrong" and by the implication that they do not walk into the White House with him. He pandered to his base here but, fortunately, a good many sincere fundamentalists and Evangelicals see right through his rhetoric.

I was very much taken aback by Mr. Romney's remarks and have basically decided that he will not get my vote. That he is a Mormon does not bother me, but that he stooped so low as giving this speech in a blatant attempt the pander to the fundamentalist Christians has turned me off. If he now turns around and makes conciliatory gestures to non-believers he has lost all credibility with me.