Presidential Religion

Enough, Already!

Rating: 4.50

Should Christians vote for non-Christians? It’s an old question that’s become a burning -- and distracting -- issue.

Listen Now | Download

Chuck  Colson

A few days ago I was on the air with Los Angeles’s outstanding drive-time host, Frank Pastore — a keen worldview thinker. Frank told me his phone lines have been burning up over the comments made by a prominent evangelical pastor who said that presidential candidate Mitt Romney belongs to a cult.

Should Christians vote for a Mormon? Is Mormonism a cult? Let me say right off: These questions are an enormous distraction in an important presidential campaign. The secular media is using the pastor’s comments to paint evangelicals as bigots. The Chicago Tribune is calling this “hate speech.”

I want to say this to every Christian listening to my voice: Let’s stop criticizing candidates for their religious convictions.

And let me make a few things, as my former boss used to say, perfectly clear.

First, there is no religious test for public office. If you don’t believe me, check out the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Paragraph 3. The public statements of some evangelicals that they wouldn’t vote for Romney because of his Mormonism would cause the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves.

Second, as voters we are to choose the most competent people to be God’s magistrates to do justice, restrain evil, and preserve order. That’s what the Bible calls for. And in our country, where we have the precious liberty of choosing our leaders, we are responsible for picking competent men and women. See Jethro’s advice to Moses in Exodus 18. While choosing men to help him judge the people, Moses was to select first of all competent men. Those men were also to be godly — that is, men of good moral standing and character.

Third, let me answer the question that is causing so much angst. Is the Mormon faith Christian? No. It is not. There are significant and un-reconciled doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Christianity, like the sole sufficiency of Christ and the exclusivity of the Bible.

For me to say there are such differences in not “hate speech.” To deny that there are differences would be disrespectful of the truth claims made by Mormons and degrades my own truth claims. No one in good conscience can do that.

Having said that, there may be no other group of people I appreciate more as co-belligerents than the Mormons. They are stalwarts on life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty issues.

To sum up, I’m with Luther, who reportedly said that he would rather be governed by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.

Now I’ve never publicly endorsed a candidate, and I’m not doing it now. But I would personally vote for a competent nonbeliever who would protect life, liberty, and marriage, before I would vote for an incompetent Christian--or even a competent one--who would not stand for those overriding moral issues.

Our ultimate decision has to be based on what Augustine taught. We must live obediently in the City of Man as the best of citizens, doing our civic duty, which includes voting responsibly, as a reflection of our primary citizenship in the City of God.

Where does this leave us? Come on: Stop talking about the candidates’ religion. It’s distracting and it marginalizes Christianity in the public debate. Let’s continue instead to work to advance the Kingdom of God and pick, to the best of our ability, a candidate of competence and sound character who will preserve order and promote justice in our land.
Further Reading and Information
The Mormon Factor: Why Mitt Romney Makes Some Nervous
Stan Guthrie | BreakPoint.org | October 6, 2011


Christian Compromise
Sounds like many of you would vote to guarantee continued abortion in the country before you would vote for a Mormon or Muslim.

Well you can join the environmentalists who worked to ban DDT and in the process killed millions with malaria.

It is not "good intentions" that matter, it is results.

Christians tend to spiritualize things and give God too much credit for what happens in the world. Yes He is in control and forsees all, but just as He does not sit in heaven directing Tsunamis and earthquakes, He does not sit there directing people how to vote. God created the world, created the rules that run the universe and He OCCASIONALLY intervenes in the process to perform a miracle.

It is up to us work to establish the kingdom of God. If that means voting for a Mormon next year then that is what I'll do. That doesn't mean that we are endorsing the Mormon beliefs or equating them to Christianity. If you are too stupid to know the difference and explain it to someone then maybe you aren't much of Christian to start with. Aren't we instructed to be prepared to defend our faith? Instead of bashing Mormons spend some time educating yourself and others on what it means to be a Christian.

Learn how to compromise in order to achieve your goals without giving up your Christian beliefs. I think I'd pick voting for a Mormon and stopping abortion over voting for a "Christian" who wouldn't do anything about it.

And don't for a minute think that Obama is in any way a Christian. His beliefs are as opposed to true Christianity as a Mormon's.
Competency comes from God's wisdom
A candidate who is connected to the Vine is connected to the only Source of true wisdom. A candidate who is not connected to the Vine will only have the limited knowledge of the world with which to make decisions. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” 1 Cor. 3:19
Authority is God-Given
I have a great respect for Chuck Colson. Mr. Colson, you have done such valiant things and have been a great influence on helping me shape my Christian worldview. I often wonder what will happen to the Christian voice in the public arena once Mr. Colson and Dr. Dobson are gone. But this is one issue where I have to respectfully disagree. I honestly can't see how I'd ever be convinced to vote a Mormon into public office -- no matter how much our respective beliefs may be in line to fight for the greater good.

I think it's been explained in these comments already how Mr. Colson isn't quite using Exodus 18 in the correct manner, and how this passage would rather call us NOT to vote for a man like Romney into public office. I also have to bring Romans 13 into a Christian's reasoning. Paul says quite plainly in verse 1, "there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." He emphasizes that remain submissive to that authority (as Peter echoes in 1 Peter 2).

"Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?" Paul asks. "Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good." Remember that Paul wrote these words at a time when Nero was emperor -- a far more tyrannical ruler than any ruler of this nation has ever been. Granted, he had not yet reached the pinnacle of his persecution of the Christian faith, but he was putting Christians to death by the time Peter echoed the command to submit to authority in 1 Peter 2.

If the upcoming presidential election puts Mitt Romney against Barack Obama, then God has already decided in his sovereignty that the man who will rule this nation will be a man who does not fear God. This is because of how depraved the collective mind of our nation has become. I believe this is also why Obama became president in the first place -- a man with a Muslim name, a questionable background and sketchy acquaintances, won the highest office in the land during a war on Islamic extremism. How is that not out-of-your-mind craziness?

God is using the faith of Romney and Glenn Beck to further oust those who call themselves Christians but do not fear God. Instead the fear the loss of their security in their comfortable, conservative American lifestyles. Consider the Beck march on the mall in Washington, for example -- Christian leaders siding with Beck and calling him a Christian man! This is craziness! If we put our endorsement on Romney, we are saying that our vote in a man who is blasphemous toward God is the only hope for conservative values in our nation. It's not. The only hope for truth is God alone.

Regardless of what happens, God will prevail. And I will not empower a man who is blasphemous toward my God for the sake of conservative Christian values. Will it mean that Obama might win, the slaughter of the unborn continues, and the degradation of marriage in our nation? Yes, it might. But that's not for me to see. Again, that's happening because God is turning us over to a depraved mind (Romans 1), not because I didn't vote for a Mormon. I remain obedient to God and His word. And His word would not endorse Mitt Romney.
voting for competent
Thank you for your commentary. All that you have said in it makes sense, is wise and took courage for you to say it in the light of it bringing some strong feelings against you. Our citizens often will have a choice of only two candidates to choose from for president. It often happens that both presidential candidates profess to be Christians, both ascent to basic Christian teachings, but one or both may not have really come to understand from Scripture that which is a wise way to live and how to govern toward that end. When I saw the photo in the paper of two men in a passionate kiss shortly after the "Don't ask don't tell" policy was brought to an end during Obama's time of governing, I asked my self why this is happening. I remembered the many Christians who did not like either candidate much in the last election and decided not to vote. Had they instead looked to see which candidate was advocating the more closely biblical way of governing and voted for him, then the one openly advocating governance that included encouraging behavior that the Bible describes as abhorrent to God would not be governing and changing policies that led to that photo. Christians should feel a moral obligation to do their part in putting into office those who will govern wisely and particularly those who support protecting all living, innocent, human individuals (the abortion issue), wise sexual behavior as described in the Bible, etc. Given this, a Christian should be supporting and voting for the less than perfectly wise or religious but better and wiser candidate, or the "lesser of the two evils" as some would put it. It is unfortunate that while I would expect a professing Christian to govern more wisely than someone who is not, that may not be the case.
Mr. Colson, I agree with you
I have to say I agree with Mr. Colson here, and am concerned that those who posted comments in disagreement may be missing the point of his commentary. If we look back in American history, there have been a number of presidents who have been non-Christian, or whose Christianity was decidedly unorthodox (Jefferson, most famously, as well as Lincoln, Eisenhower and probably others).

I do not see how it is a sin to vote for a non-Christian, as Mr. Lofton suggests, if indeed they actually adhere to the values which are important to me as a Christian. I say this as a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, where there are very few candidates who espose any kind of Christian beliefs. Thus, I am left to decide who I think will govern to the best of their abilities. The other alternative is to simply not vote at all, which is in a way taking my voice out of the public square.

I should also add that we should not assume that just because a candidate is a Christian means that they will be the most competent to govern. We are sinners too, and we should not assume that just because one is Christian means that they will be a good candidate and always do what's right. If Thomas Jefferson were running for office today, I have a feeling that people would say, "Well, he isn't a Christian, so I'm not going to vote for him!" The point that I think Mr. Colson is trying to make is to look at a candidate based not only on their religious beliefs (though don't leave them aside), but on his record, and on whether he keeps his word. Let us not forget that there are some atheists that live more morally upright lives than many Christians.
Presidential Religion
Dear Mr. Colson,

I must respectfully disagree with both the premise of your commentary, and your translation of the passage from Exodus 18.

The text you refer to is as follows, "Moreover you shall provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens."

Those such as "fear God." That is not "godly," which you wrote with a lowercase g. That is men who fear God--with a capital G--the one true God of the Universe, meaning believers in God, not just those with good moral standing and character.

Dangerous, to change God to godly and then equate good moral standing and character with being a God-fearing person. The two are very different. There are plenty of folks out there with good moral standing and character who have NO relationship with the God of the Universe.

Further, you say that we are to choose FIRST able men. But the text is actually defining what MAKES an able man--a man who fears God (FIRST), a man of truth, a man who hates covetousness.

I believe the point you are trying to make is that running a candidate's faith into the ground in the public eye is not productive. On that, I would agree with you.

But your article makes it sound like Christians should keep faith out of the political picture. And honestly? For Christian people, faith IS the picture--and faith should color and influence every decision we make. The fact that a candidate is Mormon matters. Considerably.

Perhaps the public approach can be adjusted (as I agree that slinging accusations is not productive), but advising people to put blinders on in the political arena, and twisting biblical truths to suit, is not the answer.
Please don't post entire columns in the comment sections. That's not what they're for. Thank you.
Jesus reigns
Kudos to you Mr. John Lofton! Well said. Mr. Lindsey, what say you to this? and why one should need to check his faith condition for wanting what the bible instructs is beyond me?
"Religion" Most Important Issue Of All!
Sad to see Colson throw Jesus under the bus. And make no mistake about it. When you say "religion" is an irrelevant issue and should not be part of a political campaign, you are saying that Jesus is irrelevant and should not be part of a political campaign! Jesus Christ is Lord of ALL things and this includes "politics." Thus, those who reject, do not believe in, Jesus are disqualified from holding any of God's civil government offices which, He says, must be held by only God-fearing men. Here's my column on this very topic which ran on WorldNetDaily. And Colson should stop using that phony, fraudulent Luther quote.

John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute On The Constitution
Blog: JohnLofton.com
Recovering Republican

Religion is irrelevant?

By John Lofton

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.– Jesus speaking in Matthew 10:33.

It is quite astounding to see so many who say they are Christians denying Christ, saying that belief in Him is irrelevant and ought not to be talked about or be made an issue. To be sure, those who are doing this are not that explicit. But that, in effect, is exactly what they are doing – denying Christ.

What I am alluding to are the various reactions to questions about Mitt Romney's Mormonism and whether Mormonism is Christianity. This topic is, again, in the news. And here are some of the reactions by some folks who say they are Christians:

Michelle Bachmann says this whole subject is "irrelevant, so inconsequential as far as this campaign is concerned."

Herman Cain ducks the issue, saying he's not running for "theologian-in-chief."

Laura Ingraham, who wears a small gold cross on a chain around her neck, says this issue is a "distraction, a non-issue" and it is "incredibly unfair" to oppose Romney because he is a Mormon.

Karl Rove says about the "religion" issue: "It's the kind of thing that doesn't belong in politics." He says Lincoln did great things even though he was "an unorthodox Christian" – an ignorant, absurd statement since Lincoln was not any kind of a Christian.

Michael Cromartie, who directs the Evangelical Studies Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, says of those who will vote for president: "They know they're voting for a commander-in-chief, not bishop-in-chief, not preacher-in-chief, not pastor-in-chief."

And virtuecrat Bill Bennett, a Roman Catholic who years ago blew $8 million gambling in Vegas and said "it's never been a moral issue" for him, says calling Mormonism a non-Christian cult is "bigotry." He adds: "We do not need, nor should we have, a religious test for public office. Should we choose to hold someone's faith against him or her, we hurt only ourselves."

OK, the views here are, if nothing else, crystal clear. Politics-wise, the "religion" issue should be off-the-table. "Religion" should be a no-no, forbidden, taboo topic regardless of whether a candidate or an incumbent are Christians, non-Christians, members in bad standing of the Church of Satan. Whatever. Shut up about "religion."

But, are these views – held by people who say they are Christians – in accord with Christian/biblical teaching? Are these views correct? Well, no, of course not.For Christians, there are no questions more important than: "Who do you say Jesus is? Is He, as He says, God or not God? Is He, as He says, King of kings, Lord of lords? Does He or does He not, as He says, have all power in heaven and on earth?" For almost all of the history of Christendom, until modern, Godless times, these questions have been at the heart of the Christian faith. They have not been considered irrelevant, inconsequential or a distraction.

In fact, it can be said with no exaggeration, that knowing a person's "religion" is the most important thing you can know about that person! If you have only five minutes or five seconds with a candidate, ask that candidate about his religion, what God or god he does or does not serve. Because when you know about a person's "religion" you know what authority ultimately controls that person when nobody is looking.

I saw recently on TV a video clip of Mitt Romney saying in 2007 that if he became president, "I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interesting." I thought at the time, yikes! So, who or what then directs this man, motivates him? I also thought: Beware of "Autonomous Man" who is totally self-actuated and is under no constraints outside himself. History is littered with the corpses of the victims of such individuals.

Finally, all of us are "theologians" whether we know it or not, whether we seek public office or not. All of us have views regarding God, true views or false views. Thus, we are all either good or bad "theologians."

As regards the assertion that, for voters, there should be "no religious test" concerning candidates, this view is not Christian and is un-American. For Christians, all of life – including "politics" – is a "religious test." Scripture commands that all that we do must be "of faith" or it is sin. Thus, to vote for candidates who do not believe Jesus is Who He says He is – God, Lord over all things – is forbidden by God.

And the view that "religion" doesn't belong in politics is also un-American. From our beginning (early 1600s), for roughly two centuries, so-called Election Sermons were preached by Christian pastors to government officials telling them what God, what Christ, required of them. And, as William W. Sweet notes in his book "The Story Of Religion In America": "Frequently these sermons were printed at government expense and distributed among the town, and the themes discussed were discussed again in the pulpits throughout New England."

There is a sense, of course, in which Michele Bachmann is correct. As far as the current presidential campaign is concerned, the "religion" issue, any concern or discussion about what God, what Christ, has to do with civil government, has been "irrelevant," has been "inconsequential." The campaign, like our government now for generations, has been concerned only with bread alone and not with what God, what Christ, says is the role of civil government. And that is not good. As Psalm 9:17 tells us: "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."

With all do respect...
...to the venerable Mr. Colson, he could not be more wrong on this. Colson writes, "There is no religious test for public office," and then instructs us to search the Constitution for one, because it doesn't exist. He is, of course, right about that. But implicit in his argument is a belief that in the realm of voting and government, Christians should prioritize the Constitution over the Bible. That is what I call "patriotic idolatry" and I won't do that. No Christian should. Jesus owns my vote and He owns what I do in the voting booth. My jaw dropped when I read, "Our ultimate decision has to be based on what Augustine taught." Wrong again. My ultimate decision has to be based on what Jesus Christ taught. I turn to the Word of God as my authority, not the writings of man.

Secondly, Colson clearly lacks a full understanding of Mormonism. If he had a comprehensive historical and theological grasp on what someone like Mitt Romney actually believes, he would understand that a Romney presidency would be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the LDS Church. By that I mean that Mitt Romney - a "temple worthy" Mormon - has been bound by secret blood oaths in temple ritual; he has sworn to serve and submit to the commands and dictates of the "prophet" and the Quorum of the Twelve. Make no mistake: The establishment of an American Mormon socialist theocracy has long been the ultimate political goal of the LDS cult. Consult Rocky Hulse's book, "When Salt Lake City Calls," for a deep study of this particular matter. As someone else has written, "Mitt Romney is a Temple Mormon, a High Priest, and as such he has sworn blood oaths of sacrifice, obedience, and consecration to the church and the "Kingdom of God." His perfect obedience to these laws will allow him to become a god in the next life, the literal father of the people of a new and different earth."

Third, there is a surprising logical fallacy in what Colson posits here. Known as a "false dichotomy," his statement that he would vote for a "competent non-believer...before I would vote for an incompetent Christian" sets up a hypothetical situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. There are some competent Christian candidates, are there not? Of course there are. As such, Colson's statement is pointless at best and a disingenuous, argumentative canard at worst.

Fourth, Colson calls for preachers to stop discussing the religion of candidates because the secular media portrays Christians as bigots when we do it. The secular media also portrays us as bigots when we condemn same-sex "marriage." Should we also stop that, Mr. Colson? And furthermore, does Colson really think there is anything Christians can do or say - other than be completely silent - that will make the secular media portray us positively, sympathetically, or even somewhat realistically? But the most pressing question here is this: Who should we be trying to please, God or the media? (1 Thessalonians 2:4 says, "But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.")

Fifth, I am heartbroken by Colson's abuse of the Exodus 18 passage. He writes, "And in our country, where we have the precious liberty of choosing our leaders, we are responsible for picking competent men and women. See Jethro’s advice to Moses in Exodus 18. While choosing men to help him judge the people, Moses was to select first of all competent men. Those men were also to be godly — that is, men of good moral standing and character."

This is the verse to which Colson refers:
Exodus 18:21 -
"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth..."(KJV)
"Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth..." (NASB)

It is true that Mormons fear a god - a false god. They call him "Elohim" but he is not the God of the Bible. As Joseph Smith wrote in his "Book of Abraham," the god of Mormonism is one of many gods and is an extraterrestrial from the planet "Kolob." I can't believe Colson thinks this is what the passage means when Jethro instructs Moses to provide "able men, such as fear God, men of truth..." Can someone who worships a false god really be called a man who fears God? Can someone who believes and, as a Mormon bishop, also advances the deception of Mormonism really be called a man of truth? Jethro clearly meant men who fear the God of the Bible, the One True God. He most certainly did not mean Joseph Smith's science-fiction god. If Moses had employed Colson's understanding of Jethro's advice, Moses could have included pagan idolaters among the judges just as long as they were "able" and feared some kind of god - even a false one.

And I haven't even begun to touch on the other problem here: Mitt Romney's record is not the record of someone who can truly be listed among "stalwarts of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty" as Colson stated. This can be said of some Mormons, but not Romney. Romney's record on social issues "swings like a pendulum do." He was pro-abortion, now he claims to be pro-life. He once promised to be a strong supporter of homosexual rights, now he claims to be an opponent of same-sex marriage. Romney was rather lukewarm and ineffectual as governor in Massachusetts during the same-sex "marriage" debacle there and I blame his limp leadership in part for the landmark establishment of counterfeit matrimony in that state.

No one wants to see Obama defeated more than I do, Gay. But that need not and must not come at the cost of installing a cultist in office.

Pastor Jim Bennett
Rozetta Baptist Church
Dear Chuck, I have ALWAYS agreed with about all you have to say, and this is only a partial exception. In the current world - yes, I agree with having a Mormon in as president . But they cetainly ARE a cult, as they feel they are the only ones with truth. This is the major earmark for a cult, and theres more butI wont go there now.
Ihave mistakenly, argued with 'them' for MANY hours, it seems far worse when one sees that they do have the real bible too. Real truth - is available to all, all the time, or it isnt truth. And - we do not need one to teach us, as the Spirit shows us how to interpret its wonderful free truths. (I dont recall that verse sorry) from the Word of God...Thanks rp from NJ.
Faith, Worldview & Integrity
In general, I too would rather be governed by competence as opposed to incompetence. However, can we assume Luther was not anticipating that the Turk would impose his Islamic jihad worldview rule on the Church? I would suggest that the Turk Luther would vote for was not pretending to be a believer in Jesus Christ, who in fact held beliefs that enslaved millions keeping them from the truth of salvation.
You quote your former boss on the subject of clarity – he may not be the best person to offer as an example in this area; however, didn’t his ego override his moral ethics in the end? Isn’t that the point of scrutinizing a how a political candidate’s religious life/thought impacts his worldview?
Can you get more self-aggrandizing than to really believe that if you live according to a doctrine (which is absolutely the antithesis of Christian belief) that you will become a God equal to Jesus in the afterlife?
We currently have a POTUS who has claimed at different times to be both a Christian and a Muslim. It is impossible to reconcile the worldview differences this man has claimed to hold. The truth is he is a fascist to the core, which overrides any of his claimed religious beliefs. To our detriment we ignored Obama’s 20 years of tutelage under Jeremiah Wright – look where we are! You seem to be suggesting that we should now ignore the influence of Mormonism in a leader whose worldview will surely have an impact on our society at large.
I have Mormon friends who in many ways are ‘the salt of the earth’ by outward appearances – but my Bible says they are false teachers. If I believe what my Bible says I cannot in good conscience place them in authoritative rule over either believers or agnostics. It is not the Founding Fathers whose graves I fear will spin, but those of the saints who preached strong warnings against false teaching.
You say that ‘they are stalwarts on life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty issues’, and while that may be true, I feel the need to remind you that the ‘Sin City’ of the West, Las Vegas, was built by Mormons who had full knowledge that the intent of the draw to this ‘mecca of hedonism’ would lead other men and women into soul crushing immoral behaviors. At the time the LDS leadership forbid their own followers from participating in any of the offerings of the city and yet they profited enormously by the building of it. What does this say about the worldview of Mormonism? How, as a believer in Jesus Christ, can I politically support a candidate whose worldview would allow for such self-centered actions?
You are suggesting that as believers (all other considerations aside) we should be willing to place a man with known cult beliefs into the highest office of our land. Won’t that legitimize Mormonism? Is that is a good witness to the millions who are being led astray by the false teachings of Mormonism?
Mr. Colson – please explain to me – how is that doing the right thing?
Presidential Religion
Thanks Chuck for speaking out on this important subject! I did the same last week in my weekly devotional. Christians need to evaluate candidates based on their positions on issues and on their qualifications for holding public office -- not on their personal religious beliefs. Both Governor Romney,and JFK before him, have sought to place this question in a proper historical and constitutional framework. Thanks --once again --for challenging Christians to think! A rare thing these days, it appears.

Jack Wyman
Highalnd Village, TX
Nov. 2012
I am not taking Herman Cain out of the race just yet, He is a likley candidate,and is neck and neck with Romney. He also stands for those things that are upright in the eyes of God, I believe in the power of prayer, there are many who are praying for pro-life this time around. I have seen the movie 360 and agree it is an eye opener for those in the dark on the truth about abortion, I wish it would go viral as everyone should see this film, And I certainly hope you are wrong about Obama and Romney as the final two Mr. Selvaggio
You still must vote!
While I certainly can see the validity of Mr Howe's points, I think the reality of what will happen next November will make them impractical.

For example, when does Mr Romney's religion come into play? Will it be Romney vs. Mike Huckabee, winner take all, for the presidency? Ok, then, assuming they are close on most policy issues, I can make the distinction Mr. Howe is making and vote for Pastor Mike!

Romney vs. Obama, though, is the most probable match-up, and is a completely different thought process as to which to vote for. Because after the election, when the next appointment to the Supreme court is made, which of those 2 do you want to be in office? If you don't vote at all because of your understandable contentions with Mormonism, you must ask yourself, are you passively supporting the failure of valiant efforts to overturn Roe V. Wade, not to mention marriage court battles looming, etc. etc?

By the way, on the pro-life issue, let me shamelessly plug Ray Comfort's work--> 180movie.com
Presidential Religion
Well stated, Mr. Colson. Only in our polarized climate of culture warring could we become engaged in such shallow and idealogically-driven foolishness. And it seems to permeate both sides of the debate. We've already seen what happens with, shall we say, a less than competent Christian (Carter). Maybe a competent Turk could lead us out of the mindless morass on both sides that is splintering this country into factions.
Faith of The Candidate
Also Mr Colson, It was the not until 1820 that the Mormon church came into existance, The Constitution was written and first signed in 1776. They were at that time all united under ONE God.Had they forseen the coming distraction from the Word of God, perhaps the Constitution would contain such guidelines? But to condone that which is wrong on the basis of it not being in the constitution is at best unjust. All through the Old Testament we can see the results of nations being ruled by those who ignored the word of God and worshiped false idols.
Faith of The Candidate
First of all Mr. Colson, The faith of a candidate is very important. The faith of a man or a woman tells me a lot about their character, their mind set, and where their heart lies, whether or not they are convicted of heart to stand for the things that are upright before God. or the things that are not upright before God, such as same sex marriage, or the now teachings in our grade school system that same sex relationships are normal and acceptable, or whether they support abortion, the present day holocaust upon our lands that would cause even Hitler to blush. The moral standards of our country "world" are being downgraded right before our eyes, Because of men and women who have not the convictions of heart that a sound and biblical faith provides, I believe our founding Fathers would turn in their graves at your words that a Mormon, who has not the faith of Jesus Christ, But has written their own version of the bible, which is not the whole and inerrant word of God, as acceptable to take office of the president of the USA. I used to admire your teachings sir.