There has been a lot of talk in regards to faith and politics. Republican candidate Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and there are those who will not vote for him because of his religion. Personally, I would not mind voting for the man, since his views align with mine in many instances. However, if someone did not want to vote for him solely based upon their faith is alright in my opinion.
The U.S. Constitution has barred a religious litmus test for candidates, seeking to promote a diverse political realm. But doesn't that test apply to the Federal Govt? Since when does the Constitution apply to the people and not to the government. That document was created to restrain the government, not to restrain the people!
I propose a question to people like Hugh Hewitt and other conservative Romneyites: would you support a candidate who believes in sharia law and instituting it upon America? Why would you treat them differently? It's ridiculous to hear people call other bigots because of this reason. Anyone has the freedom to vote against someone because of the way they part their hair! We the People have the right to say no to a candidate and impose litmus tests. It is ridiculous to be scolded by commentators because a person thinks differently.
I like Romney, and I appreciate his views and charisma (despite disagreeing with him theologically). Other people cannot jump over the hurdle of his religion; however, I do not think that it is intelligently honest to say people need to remove their faith from politics. To have conservative commentators say that is both hypocritical and unconstitutional.
Mark Simon
1 week ago
No comments:
Post a Comment