Grandpa was reading the newspaper when all of a sudden he whispered a small curse. Both, grandma and I was startled by it and looked over to him. He crumbled up the paper and tossed it on the table then stood up and walked away. Both grandma and I knew that was his way of cooling down a bit so we said nothing.
When he returned he sat down and said; “One has to wonder if people actually read the Constitution for what it says or for what they want it to say. If people read it for what they want it to say then the founding fathers wasted their time in writing it and getting it passed by the States. For it no longer has any meaning for governing this country.
John Fund, writing an op-ed column over in the Wall Street Journal on June 25, 2007, was giving his opinion on the issue of Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency and how his religion was a factor in it. Without going into detail of what he says I agree with him that it shouldn’t be a factor. One can read it for themselves by following the link provided to the Wall Street Journal on the right.
But while I may agree with his conclusion I will disagree with him on his reasoning.
In it he quotes Alan Wolfe: ‘In some ways, [Romney's candidacy] is the best test of whether Americans have really put some of the old religious differences aside. And my guess is that they haven't.’
He also quotes his biographer Hugh Hewitt as saying ‘it will prove a disastrous turning point for all people of faith in public life.’ in reference to a perception of belief Romney lost because of his religious beliefs.
Then he turns around and says and I quote him; ‘Recognizing that Mr. Romney's faith is in some ways a major benefit to him while also discussing the backlash some voters have against him is perfectly appropriate.’
Each one of these implies that his religion will or could be a test of his qualifications. And the author considers it appropriate to discuss it. Now as I said I agree with the author that his religion should not be a test but for this reason;
‘The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.’
This and this alone should be the only reason needed to rebut any argument in regards to religion for a candidate. And it should be brought up every time someone mentions a man's religion in regards to his candidacy for office. And when people discuss the religion of Mitt Romney or any other candidate they ignore this Constitutional requirement.”
Is Your EGO Holding You Back From True Success?...
45 minutes ago
19 comments:
I was very surprised that both my parents, who are very born again Christian conservatives like Romney.
Heck, my dad even has good things to say about Rudy Giuliani.
I'd hate to think that religion would be a deciding factor in anyone's decision.
unfortunately tho, religion can be and is a factor for many based on how they preceive that religion.
and in the eyes of a lot of people Mormonism is a cult not a religion.
and look at the accusations that was thrown at JFK, that if he was elected the Pope would be the de facto president.
and we have a situation today that i don't think any muslem could be elected and won't be for many a generation now.
though i do wonder if an avowed athiest could ever be elected.
In 1928, Al Smith d, ran against Herbert Hoover r, for the Oval Office.
As the ballots indicated a clear win
for Hoover, Al Smith turned to
an aide and quipped, "Send a wire to the Pope... UNPACK!" reb
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
he laughs, good one snake hunters. welcome to the site. hope you enjoyed reading my thoughts.
Romney did not lose the primaries because of his religion. He lost it because Huckabee refused to drop out and allow Romney a chance. The conservative vote was split. I blame Huckabee for this. If he just would have dropped out instead of Romney, Romney may have actually had a chance.
Perhaps what I wrote on your other post is also worth repeating here.
"Perhaps the reason why religion has become such an important issue in the nominations of presidential candidates is because religion and particularly Christianity has been so under attack lately, that we feel that an important part of our defense is to put a Christian in the presidency. Though, I would have accepted Romney (A Mormon) as an O.K. option because he stood for a lot of the same things politically as the Christians do."
lista,
"I blame Huckabee for this. If he just would have dropped out instead of Romney, Romney may have actually had a chance."
you can't blame Huckabee for Romney's defeat. Huckabee had as much right as anyone to seek the office of the Presidency.
and to speculate what voters would have voted for if Huckabee had dropped out is just that, speculation. leave that to the libs to use.
Romney lost for one reason and one reason alone, he could not pwesuade enough voters to vote for him. and you yourself provided one reason, his religion.
"that we feel that an important part of our defense is to put a Christian in the presidency. Though, I would have accepted Romney (A Mormon) as an O.K. option because he stood for a lot of the same things politically as the Christians do."
in this statement you are declaring that the Mormon religion is not a Christian religion and that people did not vote for him because of it. this proves the idea of my post.
Quite often politicians consider the affects of their running in an election on the cause of the party. For example, if two conservative candidates run in an election (perhaps one on a third party ticket) against only one liberal, the liberal is likely to win because the conservative vote will be split. It is not uncommon at all for certain candidates to decide not to run for this very reason.
After observing the primaries this year, I sort of think that there are actually more than 2 parties and by this I mean that both of the parties appear to be split. The Republican party has a more liberal branch and a more conservative branch within it. What I saw happening is that Huckabee did not care enough about the cause of the conservative branch of the Republican party to pull out and give the other conservative, with the larger number of votes, the chance to win against the RINO (Republican in Name Only).
I don't know, maybe Huckabee was hung up on Romney's religion and therefore considered him more of an opponent than a conservative colleague working towards the same conservative cause that McCain is not really with us on.
In politics, we are much stronger in groups than we are as individuals. If we want to have more of a political impact, we need to be more united with other people who share our cause, even if one such person is Mormon.
In short, the Conservative Branch of the Republican Party was not united and that is why we are once again being forced to vote for a rather liberal RINO.
This is why I'm disappointed with Huckabee. To understand my point of view on this, you have to think in group terms, whether than individual terms, which I know is very hard for you.
Yes, Griper, I'm declaring that the Mormon religion is not accepted by most Christian groups as a part of the Christian family, yet I voted for him anyway and a lot of other Christians did as well.
take a look at your last two comments lista, you admit that romney's religion was a factor.
"Perhaps the reason why religion has become such an important issue in the nominations of presidential candidates is because religion and particularly Christianity has been so under attack lately"
"maybe Huckabee was hung up on Romney's religion and therefore considered him more of an opponent than a conservative colleague working towards the same conservative cause"
and it still is being used against an apponent. look at obama and the accusations against him in reference to his beliefs.
remember, lista, the whole idea behind my post was to enlighten everyone that religion should not be a factor in choosing a representative but it is. we can make all kinds of excuses for using religion as a weapon of politics but that is all it is, excuses not reasons.
I guess that I never did deny the fact that religion was a factor. I guess what you are trying to get me to respond to is your suggestion that religion "should not be a factor in choosing a representative".
Well, Ok, than maybe I should come right out and say that I'm not sure if I agree. When religion is under attack, we have to have a way to defend ourselves.
It was not the Christian church that made religion into a political issue. When the Atheists started insisting that prayer should not be allowed in schools and religious expressions should not be allowed on public property, they made religion into a political issue. The issues of Abortion and Homosexuality are often associated with Christianity and religion, yet they are political issues. The fact that politicians that are opposed to these two things are often religious is purely coincidental.
Also, who is going to be more motivated to protect the freedom of speech issues of Christians, than Christians, yet the political reason is the real motive for the vote, not the religion, at least that is the way it is with me.
Obama is under attack for what he believes because it involves prejudice and hate and these are valid issues. Let's not confuse the issue by insisting that any valid concern that even remotely resembles a religious issue, must be discarded and not considered.
I honestly do not know how many people decided not to vote for Romney because he is Mormon. To assume that that was the motive of most or even many of the voters is no better than assuming that those who do not vote for Obama are doing so because he is black, which is totally ridiculous.
What surprised me is how many people did vote for him and I still think that if Huckabee had dropped out, he would have had a chance at winning the election and I'm not the only one who thinks so.
lista,
"that religion "should not be a factor in choosing a representative"."
that is exactly what i'm saying. but the key word there is "should" that is a perfect tense word meaning it will only be true in a perfect world. and that is what the Constitution says, that we should not allow a person's religion be a factor just like we should not allow race to be factor nor gender but unfortunately each are a factor.
and politicians know this too. you'll see these factors used against them all the time to gain the vote where that factor is important to the voter.
they won't come out and use that factor explicitely but very subtlely both for themselves or against the opponent depending on audience they are addressing.
you saw both hillary and obama accuse the other of it during this campaign.
"To assume that that was the motive of most or even many of the voters is no better than assuming that those who do not vote for Obama are doing so because he is black"
yes that might be ridiculous to a point. but how many people did vote for obama on the basis he was black? that is just as wrong. and when over 90% of a certain class of people vote for him then in my mind race was the primary factor in many of those votes, that i have no doubt.
and it is not the atheist who is attacking tradition in this country it is those who profess to believe in God that are. there are very few if any professed atheists in Congress and no member of the Supreme Court is a professed atheist and they are the ones making the decisions that have outlawed all those things that are Christian in this nation.
the atheist can only present an argument that they should. it is up to the man in office to decide whether or not that argument should be accepted or not.
so what this ends up meaning is that regardless of whom we vote for the odds of probability declare that it will be for a member of the Christian community. so, why do we need to make religion a factor in our voting?
Yes, voting for someone just because he is black and for no other reason is silly and I wish so much that that wasn't occurring.
The atheists are the ones making all the noise and the Congress and Supreme Court are listening to them. I will vote for someone who cares about the freedom of speech of Christians in this country and against someone who does not. If the former is a strongly committed Christian and the later is less committed to Christianity, so be it. There is still a valid political reason for my vote. Bringing the problem of religious bias into the picture only fogs the issue of the real reason for my vote.
you have proven my point. the issues themselves are all that is needed to know, not the religion, color, gender, even age. it is when those factors are the reason people vote for a certain candidate or don't vote for them that "gripes" me.
the only time i would even consider the idea of their use is when both candidates are in agreement on all the issues. and the only time i could see that happening is when only one political party is the party of the nation, such as communistic nations where elections take place.
I guess we're in agreement than, yet I have a gripe as well. I dislike it when I'm being accused of prejudice and bias when in fact, there really is a valid political reason for my vote.
when that happens lista, think of an old adage i use. "what someone says of another says more about that person than it does about the one he was speaking of." then chalk it up to ideological ignorance on their part.
well, just found out my jury duty has been fulfilled for a year. i kinda like this new system they have now.
Yeh, I know. When you point your finger at someone else, you are pointing 4 fingers back at yourself and then there is that cute little saying that we used to say as kids, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Have you ever served on a jury? It's an interesting experience.
i served on a grand jury once. one to determine if there was enough evidence for the DA to hold some guys. i was in the minority vote on that one. lol
well, time to lie my head down to sleep. good night.
Jury votes have to be unanimous. What'd you do, hang the jury?
The one I was on was about a girl who was driving a stolen car. Her brother was the actual thief. We had to let her go cause there was no proof that she knew the car was stolen. She claimed that she thought her brother got it in exchange for drugs.
Yes, exactly. I was just typing my intention of going to bed myself when you sent your last comment. Good night.
only criminal trials need to have unanimous votes.
in the grand jury i was on we only needed to determine if the DA had enough evidence to hold the guys until he gathered more evidence to put them on trial. and that only requires a majority vote not an unanimous vote.
and the DA in this case did a hell of a job of leading us to believe he did have enough, that i'll admit. that is, until you really examined the evidence presented then it was obvious he did not. but he convinced enough persons to his side and that is all that counted.
and yes, i agree with you it was quite an experience. it taught me a lot about how the system works. and though i may have disagreed with the rest in this case i think it is a good system, flawed as it may be.
Post a Comment