George Rebane 

We now see Mitt Romney having to explain the relationship of his faith to its non-influence on his public policy decisions.  And, of course, Hillary is already wearing the Christian cross at opportune engagements.  But when pressed, both will swear on a stack of Bibles that their Bible will have no effect on how they deport themselves in public life.  So what does it mean to have a faith that can be left at the doorstep of the statehouse?  Some quotes from Romney’s speech and comments.

“A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”  If a person’s faith contains the core tenets that inform his interpretation of the world around, and guide his subsequent behavior, then what alternative tenets are we to extract from the candidate and trust that he will be faithful to them instead of his core beliefs?

“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.”  The common cause of the people is simply the intersection (the overlapping part) of the sets of their individual causes.  This intersection or common cause, taken across the land, will be very small indeed, reducing itself down to defense of the nation from outside aggression, settling disputes between the states, regulating basic transportation infrastructure, … . It most certainly does not include today’s intrusive participation of the state in our lives and along with its arbitrary programs of wealth redistribution.  Is this Romney’s intent as president? 

“I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”  Double hah!!  See above comment on faith.

“Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty?”  Not sure what any of these fine sounding values are anymore.  Bastiat said it better in stating that security, liberty, and property are the three fundamental co-dependent rights that establish and maintain a free people.

“We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.”  Amen!