‘Why Every American Christian Should Vote for Mitt Romney’

The Christian Post asked me to distill the case for Mitt Romney down to 400 words.  Considering that I’ve probably written (conservatively) more than 400,000 on the topic, it was a challenge.  But here it is — the 400 word Christian case for Mitt Romney.  Share with all your wavering friends:

This election presents perhaps the clearest moral contrast of my adult life. On one side is a Republican candidate who is pro-life, supports marriage, defends religious liberty, has real-world experience creating jobs, and has a realistic understanding of the threat of jihad.

His opponent, the sitting president, is radically pro-abortion (when you support taxpayer funding of abortion, you’re beyond “pro-choice”), has launched a frontal assault on religious liberty and the most basic rights of conscience, seeks to redefine marriage, has led the most anemic economic recovery since the Great Depression, and advances a hope-based foreign policy that is imploding in front of our very eyes.

Simply put, I cannot understand the Christian case for Barack Obama.

But what about the Christian case for Mitt Romney? In Massachusetts – one of America’s most liberal states – he won a political leadership award from Massachusetts Citizens for Life after he vetoed expanded access to the so-called “morning after” abortion pill and vetoed a bill permitting embryonic stem cell research. And in the battle for marriage, Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, writes: “Mitt Romney didn’t just oppose court-ordered same-sex marriage with words, he fought hard, including behind the scenes.”

Regarding the economy, imagine for a moment you’re interviewing a job applicant. Your company is struggling, and you need somebody who can make you profitable again. Several of the applicants have impressive-sounding ideas, but only one of the candidates has actually made it happen – has actually executed the turnaround – not once, not twice, but three times, in different places and contexts. That person gets the job, and it’s not even close.

As a much younger man, Mitt Romney was named CEO of the struggling Bain & Company and brought it all the way back from the brink, leaving it financially healthy and prosperous. He helped found Bain Capital and turned it into an economic powerhouse, creating thousands of private-sector jobs and leaving it with $4 billion under management.

After his private sector success, he was called to save the Salt Lake City Olympics – the first post-9/11 games – from corruption and fiscal collapse. He turned an almost $400 million deficit into a $100 million profit – all while maintaining safety and security in tense times. Then, as governor of Massachusetts, he turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $700 million surplus and left office with a 4.7 percent state unemployment rate.

Finally, I know Mitt and Ann Romney, and like many others, my wife and I have experienced their kindness and compassion first-hand. They are people of integrity, they share your values, and they will live those values in the Oval Office.

Content Director’s Note: This post is a part of our Election Month at Patheos feature. Patheos was designed to present the world’s most compelling conversations on life’s most important questions. Please join the Facebook following for our new News and Politics Channel — and check back throughout the month for more commentary on Election 2012. Please use hashtag #PatheosElection on Twitter.

  • Pingback: ‘Why Every American Christian Should Vote for Mitt Romney’ | Evangelicals for Mitt

  • susan.meitner

    Romney may be prolife publically for political gain, but he is really only pro-money, pro-mitt, profitting by $50 million dollars from abortions. Look it up, this is true, he is trying to bury the facts, but it is true. I am not an Obama fan by any means, but Romney is a man who only cares about money and will say anything to get elected. His actions speak to kind of immoral, unethical man is really is–there is no way he should be president under any circumstances.

    • Bert Chapman

      What’s the source for your claim that Romney financially profited from abortion?

      • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

        Bert asked: “What’s the source for your claim that Romney financially profited from abortion?”

        Here it is:


        • Bert Chapman

          Daily Kos is a left wing rag read and believed by people with limited intelligence.

          • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

            Facts are facts regardless of the source… Are you disputing the facts they present?

            With you being so intelligent surely you can recognize facts when they’re presented no? Are you afraid of what you might read?

          • David French

            Even if you read Kos, you see that the Bain investment came after Romney left to run the Olympics. The source is self-refuting.

        • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

          Really David?? From the article:

          “Bain Capital, in the time Romney was listed as its legal head and even when he was attending Bain board meetings, was an owner of Stericycle, a major disposer of the dead bodies of aborted children in the United States.”

          • Evan Maughan

            Yes really,
            It is not simply, clear your desk and see you latter when you are CEO of a multibillion firm. Your again spouting the Obama line without knowing the facts. Pretend that Mitt was still fully in charge of Bain, and the Olympics, that is some amazing management skill! The problem with you’re blindly following the Obama talking points is that you fail to follow the facts (which you claim to be so on top of) of the timeline. Romney was not at Bain, period. Even if Romney was there and invested in a Medical Waste firm, it would not be as big a deal to me. Medical waste firms dispose of ALL types of medical waste, needles, bloody bandages, surgical “leftovers”, and contaminated – non autoclavable – tools.

            Finally the pro life issue is the one issue where Romney did reform his views, while he was Gov. of MA. It was at this time that he moved over to the right on the issue. This was after 1999.

          • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

            Evan wrote: “Even if Romney was there and invested in a Medical Waste firm, it would not be as big a deal to me.”

            And that is great… but how does that change the fact that he still profits from the abortion industry.

            I don’t claim that Mitt had a hand in the decision to fund that medical waste company – that is not the point. The point is that he did, and still does, clearly earn money from it.

        • Darin

          HA ha… that is your source??? Mother Jones!!! You have got to be kidding me. All may dismiss this whole sack of garbage propaganda that Mitt is the “profiteer of abortion”. I am floored by the lies about this good man. I say to everyone who believes this FILTH – that’s what it is FILTHY LIES – all who believe them are deceived. You can either follow the deceivers that make the case of Obama being more pro-life than Romney (an absurdity so grotesque, I nearly throw up in my mouth!) or you can follow the truth, from those who “actually KNOW the Romney’s”. If you are applying for a job, why do you ask for “references”?? To get to know your job candidate? And where do you want those “references” coming from?? From NON-related persons who know the candidate and can speak to their character and integrity. Somehow, when you are a candidate for President, people drop all sanity and reason; preferring, rather, to uphold a man who has lied about practically every campaign promise. As if that weren’t enough, Obama has lead one of the biggest cover ups in history with the Benghazi murders, which HE is responsible for. But Obama is more pro-life than Romney – you people make me sick! ROMNEY/RYAN for AMERICA. God save us from the insanity of those supporting Obamanation.

          • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

            Is this “Darin” a poe perhaps? He has to be…

            Darin wrote: “when you are a candidate for President, people drop all sanity and reason…”

            You wrote this, and the trotted out an hilarious list of insane and unreasonable statements about Obama! Things like:

            “a man who has lied about practically every campaign promise.”
            “Obama has lead one of the biggest cover ups in history with the Benghazi murders, which HE is responsible for.”

            Thank you for providing my laugh for this morning… ;)

          • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

            And btw Darin – nobody has said that Obama is “more pro-life than Romney”… just that Mitt Romney isn’t as pro-life as people are pretending he is… he’s more pro-money.

    • Evan Maughan

      If Romney were, “in it for the money” he has been incredibly foolish in his actions. First, why waste time running for office, time is money and running for office when you are making millions is a HUGE opportunity cost? Second, why serve in your church – giving thousands of hours of unpaid time, greedy bastards as you portray Mitt do not like giving anything away for free? Third, why leave Bain Cap. to help save the Olympics? At the height of your career, go off and serve the U.S. and bring the Olympics back from the brink. A hard and full time commitment which did not make Mitt any money (he donated his salary). Fourth, why become Gov. of MA for four years, again missed opportunity to make millions? Fith, why donate so much money to his church and charity? Mitt’s contributions to charity dwarf what Obama or Biden have given, in percentage or total dollars.

      So your claim that Mitt is in it for the money is a tad hollow and reeks of someone who has ignorantly swallowed the garbage coming out of the Obama campaign. You claim you are not an Obama fan and yet you spout many of the lies Obama has been trying to spread about Romney. Demonize Mitt, use class warfare and scare people from voting for him, because Obama sure can’t run on his record. You do not support Obama and yet you make such a perfect spokesman for his campaign.

      • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

        You ignore the a few key things about running for and serving the gov’t.

        While money has a lot to do with it the power is equally important – the lure of power is a strong one.

        And while you claim Romney left a lucrative job to join the gov’t you completely ignore ~what~ Romney can do~in~ gov’t to make him and his friends richer! Just look at Dick Cheney and how much he profited directly and indirectly from the war (Iraq) that HE started! He and his friends at Haliburton made a truck load of money – all because he was VP. There is PLENTY of money to be made (both directly and indirectly) from serving in gov’t – don’t be so naive!

        • Evan Maughan

          jatheist, YOUR A MINDREADER! I had no idea. Is this how you always judge people? Do you always assign them the worst of motives? Is this do to your psychic talent or simply projection reflecting who you are and your motives?

          • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

            Evan asked: “Is this how you always judge people?”

            I tend to take a skeptical position on things and judge the facts as they come in…

            I’m not sure why you’re jumping all over that particular comment by me – I was simply pointing out how people in governmental positions of power have more than enough ways to make (often shady) money out of it. To ignore this is naive… and, of course, it goes both ways (dems. and repubs.)

      • Evan Maughan

        And low and behold an article that supports exactly what I said and is terrific slap down for those Obamabots who believe their dear leaders propaganda about Mitt. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Romney-2-Billion-Sacrifice/2012/10/30/id/462075?s=al

    • Darin

      Romney changed to pro-life while in office as governor and DIDN’T run for reelection, THEREFORE, it was NOT for political gain. Stop spreading lies about this man. Stop it! Romney is the most qualified candidate I have seen run for office in my lifetime. I am so tired of people trying to smear him, knock him down; but you know what’s funny is, all the hail and storm you liberals rain down on him to knock him down, yet he is still standing. Not just standing, Mitt Romney is WINNING. For the resume/employment case ALONE, Mitt gets the job. That’s all we need to hire him, but I will not stand by and let Romney get smeared without defending him. “There is no AMERICAN future without a Romney Presidency.”

    • Kim

      I have watched this man, Mitt, since he fixed the Olympics, and have never seen anything but positive for him. He is a great family man, a great business man,a man of God ,and a brilliant man. I think he will work so hard for our country, and will not be away from Washington when we really need him there.

      • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

        And if Iran is ever looking for a route to the sea Mittens can provide them one! ;)

        • Rozy

          Romney didn’t get to elaborate on that statement; Iran has made an agreement with Syria to build/use a port on the Med. Sea to use to get to Europe and the Atlantic. Romney is well aware of international happenings (from running businesses and the Olympics) which makes him imminently more qualified than the current occupant of the White House.

  • Craig

    A vote for Romney is a vote for a man who believes he will be a god. Voting for Romney as a Christian is voting to normalize a powerful American cult preaching a false Christ and a false gospel.

    • Bert Chapman

      So do you think Obama and his most fervent supporters don’t have a deity complex?. If you think Romney represents bad religious and public policy beliefs, why haven’t you thrown your hat into the presidential campaign arena?

    • Evan Maughan

      Deity complex hmmm. Sounds serious. I bet Mitt has people fainting at his rallies, is being called a “Light Bringer”, The One, someone who can heal the Earth and cause the seas to stop rising. A man who has choirs of children singing songs of praise to him. Oooops, that’s Obama. Mitt is the one who would not even talk about the people he has helped in his life, the free service he has given, and gets embarrassed when people praise him. It took friends and family to bring out many of his good deeds (and he did not like it).

      Mitt is a man who has much to boast about but does not. Obama is a man who has nothing to boast about but does all the time. Who has the “Deity complex”? Enjoy voting for Obama, the Savior of the church of liberalism.

      • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

        Evan wrote: “Mitt is the one who would not even talk about the people he has helped in his life, the free service he has given…”

        Um yeah! That’s because he HAS TO shut up about his ridiculous religious beliefs! His Mormonism is a liability to his candidacy and he has to keep his beliefs to himself. As crazy as Christian beliefs are apparently the Christians think that Mormons beliefs are even crazier and wouldn’t vote for Mittens if they know more about his beliefs.

        • Kim

          I do not care what faith any person chooses. There are good and not so good people, but I think Romney is one of the best.

        • Evan Maughan

          jatheist, hard to tell where you are coming from other than being pro Obama. Not sure if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist – hard to tell. All I can say is that Mitt has spoken of his faith, but he does not wear it on his sleeve. One of the best speech Mitt has ever given was his faith in America Speech, it was not just one of Mitt’s best but one the best I have ever heard. The Left would love to turn this election into anything BUT your buddy Obama’s record.

          The antiMo attacks are expected, we saw them in ’08 from Huckelberry and in the primaries from Perry, why should the left be different? They’ll boo God in their convention so why not attack someone who believes strongly in God? If your “Christian” (that would be a shock baised on your own words) then you are wielding a double edge sword by mocking Romney’s faith. Calling his beliefs silly, weird, evil, whatever can easily be turned against anyone of faith. How “silly” to believe blindness can be cured with a spittle mud pack, or water to whine, or raising from the dead after three days, or Angelic visitations, prophecy, floating axes, talking Asses, these things are all “foolishness to those that believe not”.

          Finally, I am totally opposed to Calvinist thinking, yet our host is of that branch of Christianity. I would be more than happy to support David if he ever ran for office. Not because I agree with all of his theology, but from what I have observed of his character. I think your listening to the Obama bumper sticker campaign has blinded you to what a man of character Mitt is. Finally, beware how quick you are to judge a man to be so vile, that same judgement will be given back to you some day.

          • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

            I haven’t finished your comment yet Evan – but just let me say right off the bat that I am not “pro-Obama”… he has been terribly disappointing during his time in office. If the alternative were even slightly palletable I’d be campaigning for them… but alas it’s Mitt Romney. There is nothing genuine about Mitt – in fact, he changes position so often I don’t even know if he has an actual position on anything (other than self preservation.)

            It’s a shame that I favor an Obama win because I don’t like much about Obama’s first 4 years… but Mitt would be even worse (and don’t get me started on Paul Ryan – one horrible human being.)

          • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

            Evan wrote: “Not sure if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist”

            I am an atheist.

            Evan cont’d: “Mitt has spoken of his faith, but he does not wear it on his sleeve.”

            Because his faith is a liability to his campaign. Americans don’t trust mormons much and keeping his faith close to his sleeve is a purely self-serving move on Mitt’s part.

            Evan cont’d: “Calling his beliefs silly, weird, evil, whatever can easily be turned against anyone of faith.”

            I couldn’t agree more… religion – all religions – are ridiculous at best, and harmful at worst.

            Evan cont’d: “I think your listening to the Obama bumper sticker campaign has blinded you to what a man of character Mitt is.”

            Not really. It’s mostly Mitt’s own words that have condemned him in my mind… he can’t run from his own words:



    • Darin

      Lies Craig LIES. Romney voting to “normalize a cult”? Ridiculous!

    • Lisa Rief

      Why do so few Christians care about this truth???? Why are they willing to compromise their faith for politics? Or is it for money, in the end?

  • Frank

    Whether you like Romney or not, its an anathema to the Christian faith to have abortion on demand in the platform like the Dems do. The choice is clear, anybody but a democrat.

    • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

      Yeah – because the bible has so much to say about abortion! Abortion should be the only issue concerning Christians… amirite?

      • Evan Maughan

        jatheist, murder is spoken of quite frequently in the Bible. You may mock those who oppose abortion, but to say it is not a big topic in the Bible is very ignorant. You are right though, Christians should also be concerned about other things like Obama attacking religious freedom in this nation. Temporal things like having a debt that is now >16 trillion. A Commander n Chief who gets Americans killed and then lies about it to cover it up. A POTUS that shows contempt for Israel while bowing to our enemies. One who ignores people who are fighting tyranny like the protestors in Iran and throws gifts at the Muslim Brotherhood, and stabs our Eastern European allies in the back to appease Russia (for nothing in return).

        The list is huge. Should Christians support Romney only because of abortion? No. In this you are VERY correct.

  • Bill S

    My vote is for the more secular candidate. I’ve had it with religious ideologies. If Romney is elected, there will be enough of a swing in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. That in itself is a scary thought. Contraceptive coverage will be gone. And the rich won’t be asked to help reduce the defecit.

    • Evan Maughan

      Bill if Obama gets another four, we may no longer have a republic. The system is coming close to a collapse and Obama has no plan to solve the issue. I guess if you are a single issue voter – pro abortion – and care less about anything else, then Obama is your guy.

  • Mattiedef

    I cannot say I am convinced. Pro-life I’m for, but every other reason I got from this post was DARVO, wut, and “Just no.”

    America is a secular nation. Obama is opposed to abortion from his religion, but he cannot argue against it without a secular argument because this is a secular nation. Unless you bring a secular reason, you cannot oppose it. I oppose it because it harms human beings, but without responding to the causes for people seeking abortion, one cannot truly remove it.

    I can understand your reasons though, if you believe what you do.

    • David French

      I’m not sure I understand. On what basis do you say America is a “secular nation”? It’s one of the most religious nations in the entire world.

      • matthew

        We have a secular government. One that preserves religious liberty by not endorsing or enshrining any particular religion. This isn’t hard to understand, kinda Civics 101 material. Unless your of the reconstructionism bent.

        • Evan Maughan

          matthew, from a purely secular POV, there is not one single law that matters. Pure secularism means that there is no good or evil, no meaning in life because it is temporal, and with no higher laws but those of man, there is no foundation worth defending. The very foundation of the constitution is not secularism (as you groan over) but that our rights come from God and not man. Morality is based on the divine and the knowledge that life is not finite. Without that moral base, what meaning would the constitution have?

          Pure secularism is undermining the very foundation that has made this nation such a great nation for good in the world. Millions have come to know freedom, not because we espouse a secular state (leave that garbage to the Fascist and Communist) but because we our founded on the belief in God and that our rights are divine.

          • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

            Evan wrote: “from a purely secular POV, there is not one single law that matters.”

            Wow… I think you likely believe this is true – which is so sad for you… you have such a skewed vision of what a secular gov’t would mean/do.

            In a secular gov’t every single law matters – the laws themselves are arrived at without the aide of a supernatural diety, but that doesn’t mean they don’t “matter”!

          • matthew

            Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: “secular buildings”.

            Here is the definition of the word secular. You can find these things on google, next time you are confused over the meaning of a word.

            As for your comments on the founding of the country, I would suggest a history lesson. Perhaps you should start by reading the Federalist Papers.

          • Evan Maughan

            Matthew, I have read some of the Federalist papers, not all. Somehow I doubt that you have read any of them. As soon as you made that statement I could not think of any portion that would support a secular view of government. Indeed what they were attempting was to give more power to the government without granting too much and they did want to avoid excessive influence from any one group.

            Hamilton said this (it has been a long time so yes I had to go look this up but I knew that this was typical of their writing: “When we pass from the works of nature, in which all the delineations are perfectly accurate, and appear to be otherwise only from the imperfection of the eye which surveys them, to the institutions of man, in which the obscurity arises as well from the object itself as from the organ by which it is contemplated, we must perceive the necessity of moderating still further our expectations and hopes from the efforts of human sagacity. ” When they say nature, they mean God’s laws that govern all things.

            Also you did not get my first point. Secularism fails because it is so temporal in nature. If you take the integral from 0 to infinity of any constant, 10, 50, 100, 1,000,000 the answer is always zero. If you live to be 10, 50 or 100 years old, your life in comparison to the universe is equal to zero if there is no afterlife. Thus, life is meaningless, and good and evil have not real significance. Secular law alone is hollow and empty and has no real foundation. That is not what this nation was founded on. Maybe you should brush up on your calculus and both of us should read the Federalist Papers, me because I have forgotten so much and you because I really doubt you understood their meaning and intent.

  • Bill S

    We are a very religious nation but we have a secular government under Obama. That’s the way it should be.

    • Evan Maughan

      “we have a secular government under Obama. That’s the way it should be.”

      That statement makes me want to puke. Neither secularism nor Obama is the “way it should be”. Study our founders and you will realize what a myth the progressives have foisted upon us that this is a “secular” nation.

      • Darin

        Thank you Evan. “The ‘separation of church and state’ doctrine is a misinterpretation of the (U.S.) Constitution. The First Amendment… aims at forbidding all government-sponsored coercion of religious conscience. It does NOT forbid all religious influence upon politics or society.” – Alan Keyes

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/panmankey Jason Mankey

    Romney profited from abortions, the facts are as clear as day: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec

    I can’t imagine a clear case for Romeny, from a Christian perspective or any other. Yes, Romney was successful at Bain Capital, but Bain didn’t build things or contribute anything useful to society. Bain bought and sold businesses, ruining many along the way. and taking on very little of the risk involved with those purchases. That’s not to say that President Obama is the greatest President of all time or anything, but Romney is a political opportunist who will bankrupt the nation and possibly start a war with Iraq (war, not a Christian virtue, at least I don’t think so). There are good, principled Republicans out there, Romney is not one of them.

    • David French

      I’m sorry Jason, but that story has long been debunked, and I’d suggest you need to learn a bit more about venture capital and private equity.

      As for war being a Christian virtue, it depends on the circumstances. I’d rather see Iran (I’m guessing that’s what you mean rather than Iraq) not commit genocide against Israel. I don’t think it has to come to military strikes, but if we must strike, we must. As far as war goes, Iran has been waging one against us since 1979, including deploying parts of its Quds Force into Iraq.

      Only a tiny fringe of Christianity is pacifist. It’s hardly mainstream Christian theology.

      • matthew

        Do they have Weapons of Mass Destruction as well? Certainly the US would never strike first and kill possibly hundreds of thousands of people without clear evidence to support our claims. That has never happened before, right?

        But if we do go to war, I’m sure you’ll volunteer to fight, correct? We wouldn’t have people cheerleading violence from a position of absolute safety.

        Why does all this seem strangely familiar?

        • David French

          Check my bio Matthew.

          • matthew

            Yes, I did check the bio after I posted the comment. I apologize and retract the bit about absolute safety. However, the rest still stands. I would hope that a vet would be a little more cautious about cheerleading more neocon campaigns after the mistakes of Iraq.

        • Evan Maughan

          100s of thousands killed by the U.S. in the Iraq war. REALLY? Where did you get that number? Also, if you are so concerned about 100s of thousands of dead Iraqis, I thought you would be all for the Iraq war. It was not the U.S. that is responsible for the death of 100s of thousands of Iraqis, but Sadam. Finally, you were wrong about David, and you are wrong about many “cheerleading” for war. Most view the situation with Iran is no win situation. We missed a HUGE chance when the Iranian people were rising up against the Mullahs in ’09, but having Obama at the helm ment the U.S. supported the dictators and not the people. Had they completed their revolution, the threat of an Iranian nuke would have gone away or at least been delayed for many years. As time goes on options shrink.

          What is your solution to the problem matthew, from a lefty POV, let Iran get nukes? Attack them? Hope a lot and sprinkle some fairy dust on the problem and just wait for it to resolve itself in a nice way? Sanctions may have worked IF Obama had been more consistent, and got help from the Russians. You know that missile shield we gave away for nothing, the one where we stabbed our allies in the back, maybe BO could have got the Russians to at least help us in exchange for us dropping our shield. Nope. Didn’t happen.

          So again, what is your solution. It is easy to play the game of king of the moral high ground if you do not actually have to solve any complex problems.

          • matthew


            Although I wouldn’t consider wikipedia authoritative, it does list a variety of sources that have attempted to estimate casualties from the war. The lowest estimates are over 100,000. Higher end estimates put deaths from 500,000 to over a million. This doesn’t include refugees from the country. Most sources place this number at well over a million.

            As for my solution to Iran? Probably continue sanctions. From what we know about Iraq, sanctions were pretty damn effective and remarkably low cost but I’m open to well evidenced arguments for other policy. However, I do remember the run up to the Iraq war quite well; we were told they had WMDS and ties to Al Qaeda. They were an imminent threat to the US. During the last few weeks there were news stories that estimated Iraq was only a short way away from atomic, if not nuclear, weapons. We now know all this was false, and the evidence to support these claims, even at the time, was remarkably slim. So you’ll excuse me if I think skepticism is the appropriate response to suggestions that we have to go to war again.

      • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

        David wrote: “but that story has long been debunked”

        Can you present the evidence that it’s been debunked because from what I have seen/read it is a matter of fact that Romney has (and – I think – still does) profit from abortion.

  • Bill S

    “Neither secularism nor Obama is the “way it should be”. Really?

    OK. Vote for a change of administration. That’s fine. But what would you suggest in place of a secular government?

    • Evan Maughan

      I suggest going back to a time before the progressives and their war on God. Our Government is founded on Judeo Christian values. This form of government will only succeed as long as the majority of the people agree with those values (this includes, Hindus, Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Buddhist). Those who have a moral code that is greater than man’s. If all law takes away the divine, the abuse of “separation of church and state”, what meaning do those laws have? Why be “good” when “good” is meaningless. If man and state are the ultimate authority, life is temporary, then there can be no good or evil. No good or evil and laws loose all meaning.

      If I am nothing but a bag of sentient chemical reactions, then what does it profit me to do anything in life? I will die and forever after be erased from existence. Stephen Hawkin was one of the few atheist that truly understood what death, with no afterlife would mean, we are like computers that when they stop functioning, they are nothing… So law, punishment, reward, become meaningless because, in the eternal prospective, our lives are meaningless. How can you base laws (secular laws) if the foundation is nothing but eternal void?

  • Bill S

    Definition of Secular

    Adjective: Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: “secular buildings”.

    I think a secular government can function more effectively than a theocracy. Wouldn’t you agree?

    • David French

      Depends on the secular government. Mao and Stalin were pretty secular. I prefer a democratic republic comprised of citizens solidly grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics, values, and beliefs electing leaders who share those ethics, values, and beliefs. Eliminate either one of those two prongs and we start to run aground.

  • R Plavo

    Voting for Romney/Ryan is like voting for Ozzie and Harriet, or Bush/Cheney et al……I don’t know much about the Mormon religion, but it cannot be called Christian….the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism, and the Mormon Church does not recognize non-Mormon baptism, and so has to rebaptize millions…..frankly, they scare me because of their American “exceptionalism” and although the Dem party platform is repugnant on abortion, when that issue becomes the one and only issue, then there is no use discussing anything else…..just fall into Republican lala land…..and I can’t help but wondering about that R/R ticket, both lily white, clean-cut, gosh, darn, golly mainstream American…..not a tint of color anywhere…..on purpose?

  • Bill S

    R Plavo’s comment is a bit juvenile. (Ozzie and Harriet? Really? Bush/Cheney, OK, I can see that.)

    Romney’s religion should be a non-factor. He was my governor and I can honestly say that his (Mormon) faith had nothing to do with any decisions he made.

    I just don’t like Romney because he favors the rich and won’t make them take ownership for this country’s deficit. They are the most able to pay off the national debt with the least amount of pain. Why do they get off so easy? No more tax cuts for them.

    “I prefer a democratic republic comprised of citizens solidly grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics, values, and beliefs electing leaders who share those ethics, values, and beliefs.”

    David, I can live with that. That can be (and usually is) a secular government. I never said we were a secular nation…just that we have a secular government. As it well should be.

    • Rozy

      When did it become the responsibility of the wealthiest of a nation to provide for all the financial problems of a nation? Congress is the one who makes the laws, sets the budgets, appropriates money, etc. If they truly wanted to solve the problems they, themselves, have made, they could; Even if ALL of the wealth 0f the richest citizens was confiscated it would not be enough to pay down the deficit and fund all the entitlements, not to mention all the unfunded liabilities the congress has created. Serious cuts and changes have to be made to the entitlements and Romney/Ryan won’t shrink from the difficult tasks. It is my opinion that Romney has the best combination of knowledge, experience and temperment to get the job done.

  • Bruce McGlory

    His hatred for all the groups of people which god has told us to care for makes it impossible to vote for romney can still call yourself a good person. he’s a hate-monger and a liar.

    • Evan Maughan

      Bruce, sounds like you have fallen hook line and sinker for Obama’s strawman of Romney. The person you just described is in no way even close to the real Romney.

  • BDW


    Life without religion is not meaningless. Nor is it immoral. Judging by your last comment, I am sure you would find that hard to believe. But that is the reality, like it or not.

    It would take years of deprogramming for you to see it any other way. But you can go on and live in your happy little world if you want to.

  • BIll S


    “Why be “good” when “good” is meaningless.”?

    How do you go from secular government to that?

    Goodness exists outside of religion. Religion, any religion, does not have a monopoly on goodness.

    When you come right down to it, if Mitt Romney wins, he’s going to have a secular government as well. He’s just playing the pro-life card to get elected. But I think he will select Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe V Wade. With that and other reasons, I can’t vote for him.

  • Ryan

    I came here trying to look at all sides of the issue to make a common sense decision. Sadly I find mostly angry rhetoric, vitriol, name-calling and certainly very little Christ-like commentary. Very sad because everyone screaming that they are right just clouds everything else. As a Christian myself, if these threads were all I had to base Christianity upon I certainly wouldn’t blame someone for wanting to throw up their hands and denounce it. Based on that I realize that we can scream at each other, be nasty and smug but in the end what we want one way or the other will not be decided by us but by what is God’s will. If Obama is re-elected I will accept that God knows a future we cannot see and I will respect the man who holds the office because that’s what we should do, not only as good Americans but as good Christians. The same will be said if Romney is elected as our new president. Everyone needs to step back and realize we are all God’s children and in the end we are brothers and sisters in Christ. We fight so hard to make everyone else respect us and our view of Christianity but take our eyes off God in the process. We can’t be blessed while not following his example. Good evening all.

  • Mary

    With the abundance of conflicting information available to the average American voter, it’s hard to know who to trust, who is lying (and when), and to what end. The Obamanites say that Romney is the bad guy because (why?) he supposedly is profiting from abortions despite the fact that he’s against abortion (anything else?). The Mittenites say that Obama is the bad guy because of a lengthy laundry list of lies, deceptions, murder, and diverting blame elsewhere. It’s been said that everyone lies (at some point in their lives), and for various reasons. I can’t tell when someone lies to me unless I know firsthand what the truth of that particular matter is. Most politicians only lie when their mouths are moving. This being said, it seems that once again the voter is left with the choice of picking the “lesser of two evils”. I can’t vote for Obama because (1) he didn’t keep any of the campaign promises that prompted me to vote for him in 2008, (2) he and his wife both have shown complete disrespect for our country and our flag, (3) he was caught on microphone making nondescript promises to Russia, (4) he has tried, on several occasions, to wiggle out of being an ally to Israel, (5) he’s taken 17 vacations in the past 3 years (at our expense), (6) he bowed down (very low) before leaders of other countries when the proper protocol is a handshake, (7) seems to be making a concerted effort to bring America down, (8) has spent a lot of money to keep his identity a secret (birth certificate, college transcripts, etc.) and (9) he seems to be overly concerned about being politically correct so as not to offend our enemies. These are things that even an uninformed, slightly literate person can readily see as not being good for America as a country or our citizens individually. He has proven to me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that he is either incapable of leading America, or he is trying his best to undermine the country. On the other hand I’m reluctant to vote for Romney, either. I don’t want it to be about religion, but I think that may be at the root of my reluctance. It doesn’t matter to me (on a personal basis) if he overturns Roe v. Wade, nor does it matter to me (on a personal basis) if he outlaws same-sex marriage. These are not “personal” issues to me, although I do have my opinions regarding them. And, yes, my opinions are Bible-based so I am inclined to agree with Romney (to a point). Now, I know there are other presidential candidates on the ballot for whom I would feel better about electing. The problem with that is that my vote would be wasted because everything is centered around the Democrat-Republican ticket. So, getting back to the issue of voting for the lesser of the evils, I’d have to say that I’m going to side with Romney. At least Romney has not (yet) been accused of being the anti-Christ, as Obama has. I truly believe that Obama is evil and he scares me. But, then again, I’m also troubled that he seems to have an inordinate amount of atheist supporters, who seem to be star-struck.

  • lucas