The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the power of the Government and not to control the thoughts, critical discussion and personal decisions of the public.
A constitutional limitation of the actions of the government may be necessary and have a good effect on society. However, the very same restriction applied to individuals can be a dangerous limitation on personal freedoms and have disastrous effects, if accepted and followed by much of the public. Yet, many people seem to wrongly believe that, if it is in the Constitution, they should practice the same thing in their personal lives.
Bill of Rights Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America prohibits the establishment of a state religion and also prohibits the Government from making laws that prohibit the practice of a religion. This does not mean that someone, who practices a certain religion, has the right to become president, without the voters considering what impact that religion may have on his decisions. It also does not mean that citizens cannot consider a President’s religion, as motivation. Practically anything can be declared to be part of one’s religion, even politics, no matter how perverse and obnoxious.
Many Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that all religions are equally good or that you should not be critical of a particular religion. Many have also been brainwashed into believing that all blacks are good, or at least that criticism of a particular black man is racist. Neither of these is true, in general, though everything depends on the circumstances, of course.
To use an extreme example to prove the point, Nazism is practiced as a religion by members of the Christian Identity movement. They have a absolute right to practice their Nazi religion as long as it does not harm the rights of others, but a Nazi does not have the right to be elected president without the public beening informed and having a critical discussion of the effects this would have on the country.
The politically-correct, consensus-driven, American mass media has especially failed to fully explain what Obama’s religion is all about, even deviously trying to pass it off as just traditional Christianity to an uninformed public. The media has been rather less kind to Mitt Romney, who is not just a Mormon, but a very high priest in the Mormon church. Here are a few links about Mormonism and the plan for world government by the Mormon church.
The race-based, black identity religion of Obama and the Mormon religion of Romney were both founded in America and both deal with the ultimate destiny of America, in what the followers of these home-grown religions see as the imminent end times. Both religions prophesy the imminent establishment of a theocracy in America and the destruction of the old system, which is held to be evil.
It is legitimate and proper to consider the religions of both of these men in your decision to support them for the office of the presidency or, in the case of Obama, to consider how his race-based political religion may be a motivation in his decision-making process and whether you should support his removal from office, either by the election box or by another legal means, such as impeachment or forced resignation.
It is extremely dangerous for American voters to be so uninformed about how the fate of America figures into the religious beliefs of both of these candidates. Americans have every right to factor that into their decisions of whether to support either of these two men or even to demand that Obama be removed from office.
Freedom of Religion does not mean that you have to ignore religion as an issue and to vote for members of such religions to be president. To think that way is completely insane and a very stupid misreading of the Constitution.
RELATED / SIMILAR ARTICLES