- I can't vote O'bama. Have you visited his church's website? It seems quite discriminatory to me. Their mission is very clear and he is a tithing member. Plus, even though he is not Muslim, he was raised with that influence. So, in my opinion, he is the candidate with baggage - Hilary doesn't have nearly as much. However, I'm not crazy about voting for her either. I do think you're right about McCain - he's older. Romney doesn't impress me either. What's wrong with Huckabee? He seems stable, conservative, and experienced. Please check out his church's website. Be sure to click on the "you tube" arrow to see/hear a short clip about the church's mission. Unbelievable. If the folks who were saying those same statements were white, they'd be in BIG ble. www.tucc.org/about.htm
- What's wrong with Huckabee you ask? He is associated with Kenneth Copeland, one of the biggest crooks in televangelism. He makes Jim Bakker look like a liberal! Face it, McCain is yesterday's news so you need to choose between Clinton and Obama. Neither is a great choice, but you are going to be looking at one of them for the next 4 years. If we leave "religion" out of the equation, as it should be, it comes down to domestic issues such as health care and jobs. Look at the candidates' views on these issues before you vote. If you vote based on race, gender or religion, you only display your ignorance of the real issues.
- Thank you, but I will leave religion in my choices. It embraces the fundamental principles our nation was founded on. One nation UNDER GOD. Remember?Just because one wants to vote for a political leader who doesn't mind voicing his Christian beliefs, does not mean the voter is weak minded or "ignorant". Even though I feel it is important for a leader of a country to hold religious beliefs, I don't think that meams I am voting based on that and only that. It is just one part of the entire picture. Thanks for the info about Huckabee's association with Copeland. I had not heard that and I will definitely check it out. If it's between O'Bama and Clinton, I'll have to vote Hilary. Atleast she's not a member of a church that is racist and proudly promotes AFRICA....notice they didn't say AMERICA. Scary. I have French descendents but I am really not concerned about promoting France. I live in America and that is where my heart and allegiance lie.
- Everyone can base their vote on whatever they choose; it's part of being an American. "As far as Obama's church website, there is not one word that leans toward being Anti-American. " <--- AFRICA IS NOT MY COUNTRY!!!! Their commitment is to AFRICA! They say it clearly and plainly. Get a grip. That website DOES offend me. And, I have the right to feel that way and voice my opinion. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton preach hate and reverse discrimination and that is exactly who O'Bama is associated with.
- From the Trinity United Church of Christ website: *We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.* I would agree, says it loudly and clearly, this church is true to their native land Africa, with no mention of USA. I have read and seen photos of O'Bama and the other candidates during the Pledge of Allegiance. All but for him participate with their hand over their heart. He has both hands beside him and no verbalizing....what does that tell the rest of us? RED FLAGS are flying, yet most do not even see the flailing!On the flipside, Hillary is no option either. It seems most have forgotten White watergate, the suspicous deaths in Clinton's cabinet members or staff, the shady stock dealings, the thieving from the White House, valuables and antiques, as they left at the end of Bill Clinton's last term and not a soul said a word....pretty pathetic choices indeed.
The website is a bit disturbing in a political sense... which, we should keep in mind, was not its intended purpose. It is a religious website and should be viewed as just that.
The problem with defining a political candidate by his race, gender or religion is that those are the very attributes that our founding fathers believed should be exempt from the definition of "equality for all". Equality means that we are "Americans", not Catholic Americans, black Americans, female Americans or gay Americans. It's great to be proud of your heritage and past, but as long as we continue to divide ourselves into groups based on race, gender and religion, we will never be "one" people.
At the turn of the last century, NYC was known as the "melting pot" of America because of the great influx of immigrants from other countries. The name implied that many cultures came together to form one that was distinctly "American". One hundred years later, we persist in ignoring the very principles on which our country was founded.
Sure, we all want a President who looks like us, thinks like us, worships like us, etc. The problem is... who is "us"? We are a diverse nation of men and women of various races, religions and lifestyles. The problems that plague us as a nation are health care, crime, drugs, substandard education and unemployment. If one's religion were a disqualifying factor in our history, JFK would never have been elected President. Let's vote for the "person" who can best unite us as a nation, rather than the candidate who will promote our personal agendas.