"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
It strikes me that there are lots of logical holes in the longer excerpt at the link to Marc Ambinder's blog. But just given how he talks about the oath above, and his ridiculous conflation of talking about one's church with a religious test ... I wouldn't trust this guy farther than my fat cat could throw him. And it seems entirely appropriate to ask a believer (much less a bishop, as Mitt is) their views on these matters as they obviously will influence their views on morality and public policy, which are clearly relevant to how he would lead the country. The is lame, sniveling, and seeking to win the embrace of the religious while saying nothing about his religion. He might well make a better president than some of his opponents, but as a leader he leaves a lot to be desired.Posted by armand at December 6, 2007 09:29 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics