Who needs faith?
Nathan Newman writes:
We need to have a person of fiath lead the country.
So what? I disagree with the statement, but it's no different in kind from someone saying they support Obama because they think we need a person of color as President, or saying they support Clinton because it's high time a woman was President. There's no violation of the Constitution for VOTERS to vote their religious beliefs, just as ethnic and racial solidarity has been common in elections without violating the 14th Amendment.
And at some level, why shouldn't a person's religious beliefs be relevant?
Mitt Romney is implying that you can't be a good president unless you're a religious believer. He's deluded, of course. On the other hand, I'm not surprised or offended by his blithe dismissal of atheists higher office.
Mitt's entitled to support whoever he wants for president--including his own personal, faithful self. He's entitled to run on whatever platform he wants, including the false claim that only the faithful can be good presidents.
It's just kind of a stupid for Mitt the Mormon to start a person-of-faith pissing match. The thing is, most American voters agree that only God-loving folk can be good presidents. Unfortunately for Mitt, a significant percentage of those religious believers regard Mitt's God as fictional and his faith as heresy. Every single person he's running against has a more mainstream faith than he does. So, I'd advise him to tread carefully.
All previous American presidents have at least publicly professed a belief in God. Some of them were good. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between which God they believed in and how good they were at being president.
What really matters is a president's policy positions, not his or her religious identity. An atheist president with Mitt's agenda would still be a bad president.