Hello Bob,   
      
    FS>> Romney's religion is not an issue.  Religion, as an issue, stopped   
    FS>> when John Kennedy was elected.   
      
    MM>> Romney's religion does affect public policy.   
      
    LL>> A president's religion does (and should) affect public   
    LL>> policy. I see a problem, a very big problem, if a president   
    LL>> were to run the office of the presidency as would an   
    LL>> atheist.  Americans are a religious (and spiritual) people.   
    LL>> Our constitution was written by religious (and spiritual)   
    LL>> people.  As such, our president should reflect the values   
    LL>> of the American people.   
      
   BK>The values of the American people are best expressed by the   
   BK>main body of the constitution's banning of religious tests for   
   BK>office, and the first amendment's requirement that the govt not   
   BK>promote religion.   
      
   Not promote a *specific* religion.  Big difference.   
      
   The First Amendment has a dual meaning, having nothing to do with a   
   president's duties.  Let's look at the phrase "Congress shall make no   
   law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free   
   expression thereof."  What does that mean?  In one sense, Congress   
   shall not establish a state church, or state religion.  In another   
   sense, the amendment prohibits the Congress from making any law which   
   would interfere with the beliefs held by anyone, regardless of what   
   those beliefs might be.   
      
   In regards to the presidency (and members of Congress, etc.), Article   
   VI stipulates that "no Religious Test shall ever be required as a   
   Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."   
      
   Why did the Framers of the Constitution include that clause?  Because   
   Christians loved to fight amongst themselves.  And the only way to get   
   them to agree on anything was to let everybody play.   
      
   It can be argued that any belief (including atheism) is a religion.   
   In fact, that is often the argument used by many theologians.  However,   
   not all governments (such as the government of Indonesia) view atheism   
   as a religion.  I'll give you an example -   
      
   Years ago I had an online conversation with a woman from Indonesia.   
   She explained how their government required an individual's religion   
   to be printed on their driver's license.  She was a Christian, so her   
   religion was noted as Christian on her driver's license.  Muslims   
   would have their religion noted as Islam.  Hindus would have their   
   religion noted as Hindu.  Buddhists, Bahai'i, Confucius, etc., same   
   thing.  However, atheism was not noted as being a religion, so their   
   religion reverted to the default religion - Islam.  Which explains   
   why there are so many Muslims in Indonesia.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)