The Truth About Mitt Romney's Taxes & Tithes

Jason Alexander, who is famous for playing George Costanza on the television show "Seinfeld" believes that Mitt Romney won't release his tax records because he believes there may be evidence that he's cheating the LDS Church out of millions of dollars by not paying his tithing:

Its a similar claim to Harry Reid made in which he accused Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years: 

Here's the transcript of Harry Reid's astonishing accusation:

He’s refused to release his tax returns, as we know. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a cabinet officer, he couldn’t be if he did the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for ten years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.

Jason Alexander accuses Romney of avoiding paying tithing. Harry Reid says Romney hasn't paid his taxes. 

Both claims are outright lies. 

Today Mitt Romney released a detailed report of his 2011 tax returns and Romney's trustee, whose name is Brad Malt, gives us a summary of the 2011 data:

- In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

- The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

-The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

Brad Malt, the trustee of the Romney family, also gives us a breakdown of the taxes paid by the Romney campaign for the last 20 years:

- In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

-During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

Its clear that Harry Reid's claim that Mitt Romney hasn't paid is any taxes is a LIE. Mitt Romney has paid 100% of his taxes for the past 20 years. What's even more important is to keep in mind that if you look at the numbers more closely, Mitt Romney paid 30% in taxes rather than the 13% to 14%.

As far Seinfeld actor Jason Alexander's claim that Mitt Romney hasn't paid tithing, the LDS Church does not publicly release how much tithing any member of the LDS Church has paid. That is a matter between the Bishop and the member. Mitt Romney has said that his tithing records should remain private even though by releasing his tax records, people can figure out how much he's given in tithing. 

"Our church doesn't publish how much people have given," Romney is reportedly quoted as saying in the forthcoming edition of Parade. "This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one's financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It's a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church."

However, records show that Mitt Romney has actually paid more than 10% in tithes to the LDS Church: 

The couple’s donations to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appear to be almost double the 10 percent tithe faithful members are asked to give to the Salt Lake City-based faith.

In addition to Romney’s direct contributions to the LDS Church, he also gave to the faith through his charity for a total of $3.07 million last year, according to his campaign. The campaign also said Friday that the Romneys have given, on average, 13.45 percent of their income annually to charity, including the LDS Church.

Jason Alexander's claim that Mitt Romney is cheating the Church of tithing funds is also NOT TRUE. Its clear that Mitt Romney has been a faithful tithing payer all along. 

For more information on the LDS practice of tithing, the LDS Newsroom gives a simple explanation on tithing and charitable donations while another official LDS website called Mormon.org explains what the Mormon Church does with these funds and why Mormons pay tithing.

Obama's Potential Strategy To Attack Mitt's Faith Won't Work

The last time there were rumors that President Obama was going to go after Mitt Romney's religion, he got slammed hard by Jon Stewart: 

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Once again, there is new speculation that Obama's surrogates plan to go after Mitt Romney's faith since none of Obama's attacks on Mitt are working:

Anyway, attacking Romney on Bain hasn't proved to be effective in any polls, but there is no reason for Obama to stop.  Again, what else does he have? Newsweek is doing its part this week by calling Romney a wimp, a la 1987. That petty insult didn't work against George H.W. Bush, but again, it shows the left is mentally exhausted. It reveals how trapped and empty it has become.

Obama will figure out a few more promises he can make to lure voters to the dole, but that has become old hat. I really believe there are meetings at the Obama campaign and at the White House (what's the difference?) where the question on the table is, "What can we give away to whom that will get us votes?" As the Obama campaign exhausts itself, having misspent money and failed with its messages too early in the election cycle, it is near the bottom of the barrel. The final 100 days are here and all Obama can do is attack — but he needs some new material.

I look for the "September surprise" to be Mormonism on trial. At first the attacks will come from marginal surrogates, then the reliable half-cocked usual suspects among Democrats in Congress.  (Somebody cue Debbie Wasserman Schultz.)  Next, a member of the left's apologencia from the MSM will write a cerebral, somber piece saying the tenets of Mormonism are fair game, and then we will be off to Slimytown. Romney will be confronted with this or that Mormon practice or theological position, the late-night comics will weigh in and Obama will have a distraction that could linger while he hopes for a break or something external to change the trajectory of the race.

However, going after Mitt Romney's faith is not a winning strategy for Obama: 

A new Pew survey released Thursday found that eight in 10 voters either are either completely “comfortable” with Romney being a Mormon or simply don’t care. White evangelicals are slightly more skeptical, but the poll found that it made no difference in how ardently they support Romney.

Further evidence indicates that attacking Mitt's faith would be a losing strategy for Obama: 

Not only do voters have huge information gaps when it comes to candidates’ religions, but they are not interested in learning more. Another Pew survey released July 24 found that only 16 percent of voters want to know more about Romney’s faith. There are a couple of explanations for that fact; voters may think they already know what candidates believe, or they might not find it particularly relevant to who they plan on voting for.

The latter is certainly the case for a large number of religious voters. Most voters surveyed say the economy is their primary issue, and other evidence suggests that Christians, Jews, and Mormons alike are more likely to vote for a candidate’s policies instead of basing their decision on his or her religion. (The same is true for other groups: immigrants, for example, consistently rate the economy as more important than immigration.) Sectarian political identification may have been alive and well in the JFK era, but it seems to have evaporated since then.

Regardless if the speculation that Obama or his surrogates will go after Mitt is true or not, its not winning strategy for Obama. Obama has unleashed all of his arsenal on Mitt and none of it has stuck. Obama might be desperate enough to try this attack on Mitt's religion just to win another term but the American people will see right through it.

Romney's Speech At Liberty University A Hit With Evangelicals And Atheists

Mitt Romney's speech at Liberty University has been well received by Evangelical leaders:

“I thought it was a really good speech,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, who had backed Mr. Santorum. “He hit on the religious freedom aspect, again recognizing the shared values while acknowledging the theological differences he has with them. I think he made very clear what marriage is, and in the context of his speech, he spoke about the importance of marriage and the family, even giving a hat tip to Senator Santorum.”

“I don’t think I could have improved upon the speech,” he added.

Gary L. Bauer, president of the Christian advocacy group American Values, who had strongly pushed for Mr. Santorum, said this speech would help assuage the concerns of evangelical Christians.

“I thought it was a home run, and I think so will most values voters,” he said. “He also clearly stood for the sanctity of life, clearly stood for the traditional definition of marriage, and I think importantly, encouraged the students to be bold and stand for those kinds of values, too. I think it’s going to be hard for critics to find much in this to criticize.” 

Mitt Romney's speech helped turn those who were lukewarm about his candidacy into strong supporters for him:

His staunch opposition to same-sex marriage, which provided one of the rare political moments in the speech, is helping Romney build a bridge to evangelicals, who hopscotched from one candidate to another in the primaries while shunning the front-runner.  Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, told the Washington Post recently, “So many people were rather lukewarm toward Governor Romney and were really looking for some more tangible reasons to support him. Then lo and behold, it just fell out of the sky when Obama came out and endorsed same-sex marriage.”

Even those who are associated with Liberty University were impressed with Mitt Romney:

Romney, even as a guest, was initially treated as an outsider at Liberty. The announcement that he would be the commencement speaker prompted an uproar. A graduation Facebook page was overrun with hundreds of posts objecting to the choice.

But on Saturday, the crowd received him warmly and Jerry Falwell Jr., the son of the founder who now heads the school, called Romney “the next president of the United States.” The university presented Romney with a chair, engraved with, “There’s always room for you at our table.”

Romney’s message struck the right chord with Dean Shelton, a 74-year-old retiree who lives in Lynchburg. Common faith is important, Shelton said, but shared values are even more so. “What I liked about it was that he had the right philosophy on life that we share,” he said.  “We’re not electing a minister, we’re electing a president.”  

For Craig and Rene Yoshino, who traveled from Seattle to see their daughter graduate, the candidate’s references to culture and traditional marriage were essential, although neither believes that Mormonism is a segment of Christianity.

 “It’s what matters for salvation, but not for the presidency,” he said. “Between Obama and Romney, Romney fits more closely with us.”

Mitt's speech also surprised many atheists since he included them in his speech and which lead many of them to be supportive of his speech. For many Atheists, having a conservative candidate reach out to them and acknowledge them is something that is "so abnormal to hear in conservative circles that it qualifies as something worth noting."

As a result, Mitt Romney's speech is resonating with alot of people because he's seeking to find common ground with all Americans even if they have different religious, political and social views. Its clear that Romney isn't seeking to be a Pastor in Chief or even to make a name for himself as the first Mormon in the White House. Our nation is a republic in which the government should represent the interests of all the people, rather than just a select few. Mitt speech shows that Romney is the leader America wants in which he will lead our country on the basis of values and beliefs that are common to most people.
Mitt Romney sincerely, genuinely and strongly wants to be a leader for all Americans and help get America back to excellent economic health so that people can have jobs, pay their bills, support their families and make a difference in their communities.

Mitt Romney Gives Commencement Speech At Liberty University

Today, Mitt Romney gave the commencement speech at Liberty University which is the largest Christian educational institution in America. His speech has made headlines in which he defended marriage as being between one man and one woman. 

However, I believe the best and most important part of his speech is how our Judeo-Christian traditions have shaped American culture:

Today, thanks to what you have gained here, you leave Liberty with conviction and confidence as your armor. You know what you believe.  You know who you are.  And you know Whom you will serve.  Not all colleges instill that kind of confidence, but it will be among the most prized qualities from your education here.  Moral certainty, clear standards, and a commitment to spiritual ideals will set you apart in a world that searches for meaning.

That said, your values will not always be the object of public admiration.  In fact, the more you live by your beliefs, the more you will endure the censure of the world. Christianity is not the faith of the complacent, the comfortable or of the timid. It demands and creates heroic souls like Wesley, Wilberforce, Bonhoeffer, John Paul the Second, and Billy Graham. Each showed, in their own way, the relentless and powerful influence of the message of Jesus Christ.  May that be your guide.

You enter a world with civilizations and economies that are far from equal.  Harvard historian David Landes devoted his lifelong study to understanding why some civilizations rise, and why others falter.  His conclusion:  Culture makes all the difference.  Not natural resources, not geography, but what people believe and value. Central to America’s rise to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision of the goodness and possibilities of every life.

The American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose greater than self, and, at the foundation, the pre-eminence of the family.

The power of these values is evidenced by a Brookings Institution study that Senator Rick Santorum brought to my attention.  For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2%.  But, if those things are absent, 76% will be poor.  Culture matters.

As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate.  So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage.  Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.

The protection of religious freedom has also become a matter of debate.  It strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of blessed with.  Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government.

But from the beginning, this nation trusted in God, not man.  Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution.  And whether the cause is justice for the persecuted, compassion for the needy and the sick, or mercy for the child waiting to be born, there is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action.

Mitt Romney points out that despite the fact that we are a nation of many faiths, we are bound together as a nation through Christian service

People of different faiths, like yours and mine, sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose, when there are so many differences in creed and theology.  Surely the answer is that we can meet in service, in shared moral convictions about our nation stemming from a common worldview. 

Christian service is still alive and well in America but it has been eroded by the growth of government since the 1930s.  I highly recommend two books that deal with the American history of charity prior to the New Deal programs of the 1930s and its decline afterwards. The first book is The Charity Organization Movement in the United States; A Study in America Philanthropy by Frank Dekker Watson. The second book is The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. 

People complain that our nation is divided because of politics but the solution to that problem is that Americans can form deeper connections with one another in our communities despite that we come from different faiths, economic backgrounds and political beliefs when we freely and willingly without government compulsion to serve one another. 

You can read watch the entire speech here or read the entire transcript of the speech here.  

Were Mormons...Socialists!?

It is no surprise that the intentional misrepresentation and attacks on Mitt Romney's faith continues in the media. One of the more interesting articles to come out about Mitt Romney's faith comes from online magazine Salon in which the author of the article, Troy Williams, claims that the Book of Mormon and Mormon history embraced and supports Socialism.

That claim is flat out not true.

Progressives are intentionally using cherry picked historical facts and scriptures to score political points against Mitt Romney as Lane Williams points out in his op-ed for the Deseret News: 

The first was in the online magazine Salon from Salt Lake blogger Troy Williams about how the Book of Mormon and Mormon history teaches Socialism. The article’s subheadline: “Joseph Smith would be horrified by the religion's present-day materialism — and uber-capitalist candidate.”

In fairness, some of Williams' article was thoughtful and thought-provoking, but exactly why is it Salon’s role to glibly say what would horrify Joseph Smith?

It’s off-putting, to say the least, when someone with an ax to grind cherry-picks elements of the Book of Mormon to bludgeon a political opponent or to score points in a public debate or to even try to further, as it seemed to me, the old trope that Latter-day Saints are hypocrites.

Progressives are attempting to use false and distorted facts to promote socialism getting the uninformed and the far left to believe this lie about the doctrines and history of the LDS Church. They are also attempting to scare voters away from voting for Mitt Romney either because of his faith or because of the strong opposition to socialism by conservatives and Republicans. 

What Is The Law Of Consecration? 

Wikipedia has a nice and simple explanation for those who are not familiar with this religious doctrine:

The Law of Consecration, as practiced by the Latter Day Saints, was for the support of the poor (Doctrine and Covenants 42:30). Latter Day Saints were asked to voluntarily deed (consecrate) their property to the Church of Christ, and the church then would assign to each member a "stewardship" of property "as much as is sufficient for himself and family" for his "needs, wants, family, and circumstances." If consecrated property became more than was sufficient for the assigned steward, the "residue" was "to be consecrated unto the bishop" kept for the benefit of "those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants."

A more detailed explanation of what the Law of Consecration can be found here.

Is The Law Of Consecration And Socialism The Same?

A simplistic description of the differences between the Law of Consecration and socialism reveals that they are philosophically not the same. In 1942 the First Presidency of the Church issued this strongly worded opposition to socialism and communism and explained why its different from the Law of Consecration:

Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the united order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the united order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and his needs," (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the united order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the united order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to heir faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet. [Conference Report, April 1942, p. 90]

Not only is the Law of Consecration not the same as Socialism in theory, but the are radically different in practice. An in depth look of the history and application of the Law of Consecration demonstrates how unlike these two systems are. Here's Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS Church explains how the Law of Consecration works: 

“Concerning the consecration of property:—First, it is not right to condescend to very great particulars in taking inventories. The fact is this, a man is bound by the law of the Church, to consecrate to the Bishop, before he can be considered a legal heir to the kingdom of Zion; and this, too, without constraint; and unless he does this, he cannot be acknowledged before the Lord on the Church Book therefore, to condescend to particulars, I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop. I speak of those who consecrate more than they need for the support of themselves and their families.

“The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent of both parties; for to give the Bishop power to say how much every man shall have, and he be obliged to comply with the Bishop’s judgment, is giving to the Bishop more power than a king has; and upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs, and the Bishop be obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion, and make a slave of the Bishop. The fact is, there must be a balance or equilibrium of power, between the Bishop and the people, and thus harmony and good will may be preserved among you.

“Therefore, those persons consecrating property to the Bishop in Zion, and then receiving an inheritance back, must reasonably show to the Bishop that they need as much as they claim. But in case the two parties cannot come to a mutual agreement, the Bishop is to have nothing to do about receiving such consecrations; and the case must be laid before a council of twelve High Priests, the Bishop not being one of the council, but he is to lay the case before them.” ( History of the Church, 1:364–65.)

One of the key differences both in theory and practice is in the distribution and ownership of private property:

The stewardship is private, not communal, property . The consecrator, or steward, was to be given a “writing,” or deed, that would “secure unto him his portion [stewardship]” ( D&C 51:4 ). Although it has been acknowledged that all things belong to the Lord, a stewardship represents a sacred entrustment of a portion from God to the individual. The stewardship is given with a deed of ownership so that individuals, through their agency, are fully responsible and accountable for that which is entrusted to them. The deed protects individuals if they are disqualified from participation as stewards (see D&C 51:4 ). For legal purposes, the stewardship was private property, even though the stewards themselves understood that it ultimately belonged to God. President Marion G. Romney explained:

“This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.

“The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 119; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 93 .)

By now, the distinction should be clear: Law of Consecration involves giving whereas socialism involves taking.

The taking is mandatory and is forcefully ripped out of your hands either by taxation, government confiscation or outright theft. If you don't "contribute" to the socialist community, harsh punishment follows which can range from imprisonment to death. The giving is also mandatory. You must rely on the state and no one else for support. Your moral and individual will eventually becomes lethargic, weak, and atrophied in which you no longer can work to support yourself and obtain what you need because everything is provided for you. Once you are completely dependent on the state, you become a slave of the state.

Ironically, the promised equal redistribution of wealth never happens since the takes all the property, gives back a very tiny portion of the redistributed property according to what they think you need in order to take the minimal effort it takes to keep the social order while the leaders keep everything to themselves. That is why you'll see leaders under Communist Russia, China, Cuba,  North Korea and socialist Venezuela living in wealth while the rest of the population lives in poverty.  

Another irony is that the socialism promises a better community in which people are brought together closer by sharing equally what they have with the less fortunate. However, the government actually robs people of the responsibility and need to give charitably since people feel that someone else, typically the state, is responsible for the poor and downtrodden and that individuals will only donate what the government requires them to give. As a result, the community is destroyed

In contrast, the Law of Consecration is a voluntary system in which you give to the Church everything you have, what you think you need is given back to you and you give away the rest of what you don't need so that others can have what they do need. Under this system, the community actually grows stronger, closer and united.

The Law of Consecration is a unique doctrine proposed by the LDS Church. However, even the simple practice of voluntary charity as practiced by various social and religious organizations produces better results for the poor and the community. I highly recommend two books that deal with the American history of charity prior to the New Deal programs of the 1930s and its decline afterwards. The first book is The Charity Organization Movement in the United States; A Study in America Philanthropy by Frank Dekker Watson. The second book is The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. 

Did The LDS Church Ever Embrace Socialism?

The simple answer: no.

In fact, it was immediately rejected by the Prophet Joseph Smith when the political theory was being spread to people in the United States.. The Prophet Joseph Smith attended a presentation on socialism in September 1843 at Nauvoo. His response was to declare that he “did not believe the doctrine.” ( History of the Church, 6:33). Since Joseph Smith's initial rejection of Socialism, prominent church leaders throughout LDS History have spoken out against socialism. The most well known and fierce rejection of socialism comes from the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson who gave a landmark speech on the LDS Church's rejection of socialism. Another vocal opponent of socialism was Elder Marion G. Romney (no relation to Mitt Romney) who spoke out strongly against it.

Conclusion

The fact is that the LDS Church has never supported socialism in its doctrines, in its practices or from its leadership starting with its founder to is present and current leader. Moreover, the LDS Church has always remained strongly opposed to socialism. 

Troy Williams wants you to believe that Joseph Smith would be disturbed by "the religion's present-day materialism -- and uber-capitalist candidate" Mitt Romney. But Joseph Smith would be more disturbed that Mr. Williams would claim that he and the Book of Mormon supports socialism. 

Jon Stewart: Mormon, Mo' Problems

Lately, my law practice has gotten busier than usual and when things settle down, I'll be back to writing blog articles. Until then, watch Jon Stewart's new hilarious commentary about the media's attacks on Mitt Romney's faith: 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Obama's New 2012 Re-election Strategy

Mitt Romney & Mormon Underwear

Bob Lonsberry, who is a well known conservative talk show host, has penned an article about the LDS use of temple garments which are known to members outside of the LDS Church as Mormon underwear or "magic underwear" as detractors of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints like to call it. 

Here's a portion of Bob Lonsberry's article below: 

What about Mitt Romney’s magic underwear?

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. That is a Christian religion founded in 1830 in upstate New York. Some Mormons do wear a religious garment under their outer clothes. Presumably, Mitt Romney is one of those Mormons.

What is a religious garment?

Well, it depends on the religion. Several faiths have unique bits of clothing that mostly seem to have the same purpose – to remind believers of who they are and what they have promised to God.

Thus the headwear of the Sikh, and the beads, prayer feathers, medicine pouches and shamanic robes of various Indian tribes.

As well as the yarmulke of some Jewish men and the head coverings of some Jewish women, and the aprons, trailing strings and hats of yet more followers of Judaism.

Or the phylacteries and other garments and devices described in particular detail in the Bible.

In that regard, it’s quite possible that Jesus, following the Old Testament Law of Moses and being an observant Jew, wore religiously prescribed garments.

Roman Catholic religious have worn sacred garments for 1,700 years. Similarly, religious garments – or “habits” – have been worn by Anglicans and religious of the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Greek Orthodox churches. Some of these garments are priestly, and just for ceremonial purposes, while others are worn constantly as a declaration of faith.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, specialized articles of religious clothing, of one type or another, have been worn for at least 4,000 years. Some of these have been visible, as a sign to the world, and some have been worn under other clothes, as a reminder to the wearer.

In Islam, many women wear religiously prescribed head coverings, as they have since the religion’s founding. Some Muslim women also wear a veil.

The notion of a religious head covering and even a veil is a belief also held for centuries by Christians and Jews. The Bible teaches men and women about the propriety of covering or uncovering their heads, particularly during prayer and worship. Some Christian denominations in America today, including some conservative Evangelicals and Mennonites, follow these teachings. Until a couple of generations ago, it was common for women to wear hats or scarves to mainstream American churches, to obey the biblical command to cover their heads.

The “babushkas” of many Eastern European women are worn in obedience to their understanding of their Catholic faith.

The point of all this is that religions around the world have various types of religious garments. If you do the math, most believers on earth belong to a religion that commands its followers or leaders to wear religiously significant clothing.

While some people find it odd or funny that the Mormons consider the temple garment to be sacred underwear, it is, nonetheless, like all other religious clothing, designed to help the believer of that faith remain more committed to their faith. For Mormons, the temple garments are religious clothing designed to help members of the LDS Church follow the teachings of that religion. It helps that person to be more focused on Jesus Christ, to be more diligent in keeping the commandments and covenants and to dress modestly when required.

While the temple garments may odd or strange to you, the idea of clothing being used to demonstrate commitment to one's faith is something everyone understand. Other items such as rings, earrings, pendants and jewelry also help people to be more dedicated to their faith. A well known example is people wearing crosses for necklaces or rings. As a result, the way people of other faiths demonstrate their commitment to their faith might be different from your own, it deserves respect and understanding.

Robert Jeffress Endorses Mitt Romney

I was very critical of Rick Perry's campaign for stubbornly allowing Pastor Robert Jeffress to spew religious bigotry on behalf of their campaign. Other people were quick to condemn Robert Jeffress for his comments about the LDS religion. Robert Jeffress wrote an op-ed defending his religious bigotry and I wrote a blog article dismantling his arguments.

As much as I strongly disagree with Pastor Robert Jeffress' opinions about the LDS Church being a non-Christian cult, he has kept his promise that he would get behind Mitt Romney if he became the Republican nominee. Here's what he said in October of 2011: 

ACOSTA: Wolf is asking me to ask you, are you saying that because of Mitt Romney's faith, that people should not vote for him? That people should not go into the voting booth and flip the switch for Mitt Romney because of his faith? Should that be held against him?

JEFFRESS: Look, I think if it came down to a contest between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, I would hold my nose and hope for Mitt Romney. I would rather have a non-Christian who at least supports biblical principles than a professing-Christian like Barack Obama who embraces unbiblical positions.

True to his word, Robert Jeffress is now getting behind Mitt Romney: 

The Southern Baptist pastor who last October called Mormonism a cult and said Mitt Romney is not a Christian is now endorsing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

The pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, tells The Associated Press that he still doesn't believe Mormons are Christians.

But Jeffress says voters will have to choose between a Christian like President Barack Obama and a Mormon like Romney. He says the difference is that Obama embraces non-biblical principles while Romney embraces biblical principles like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.

Given that choice, Jeffress says he believes Christians should support Romney in November "in spite of his Mormon faith."

Jeffress says that there are no perfect candidates - and no perfect pastors either.

Here's the video of the Pastor talking about his support for Mitt Romney: 

My respect for the Pastor has increased because he kept his word on supporting Mitt Romney. I agree with Ed Morrisey's observation about Robert Jeffress' endorsement: 

But hopefully Jeffress has learned a lesson about having to eat one’s words down the line, if not the dangers of indulging in ecumenical combat in the middle of a political campaign.

I hope he's learned his lesson because there is more at stake in Presidential elections than worrying about a candidate's faith or insisting that the Republican nominee be of a particular religion. As a result of Romney becoming the nominee, I don't think he will have to hold his nose in voting for Mitt Romney as he said he would last October and that he will be enthusiastic in voting for him. Moreover, other evangelicals have come out and said that they will vote for Romney in the general election. Even more interesting is that a recent poll taken in Virginia shows that evangelicals in that state would overwhelmingly vote for Romney. This poll that was conducted in Virginia might be true across the country in which evangelicals either don't care about Romney's faith or that they are so strongly opposed to Obama that are willing to vote for Mitt Romney and help the Republican party regain the White House in 2012.

Happy Easter 2012!!

I would like wish Christians everywhere a Happy Easter. Let us remember the true meaning of Easter. I would like to share "He Is Risen" as performed by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir: 

The Media Is Intentionally Misleading Its Viewers On Mitt Romney's Mormon Faith

When it comes to the media covering the Presidential elections, conservatives don't have a lot of trust in these institutions to present all the facts in a straightforward manner. The famous example is "Rathergate" in which Dan Rather attempted to create news about President George W. Bush in which he claimed to have authentic documents about Bush's service in the national guard only to have those documents exposed as forgeries.

The media has learned not to repeat the same mistake again. Rather than manufacture news based on falsified documents, the have shifted to a more subtle form of creating news by selectively editing important key facts. The most recent example of this tactic can be seen in the Treyvon Martin case in which NBC edited the 911 police call to make it look like George Zimmerman said "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black" when in reality that is not what he said on the 911 police tapes. As a result, NBC is now conducting an internal investigation into a major breach of journalistic practices.

NBC pulled the same trick on Mitt Romney in which Martin Bashir aired an edited audio clip of an audience member asking a question about Romney's faith. Jeffery Meyer, pointed out that NBC distorted what Mitt Romney said because of their bias towards Republicans:

Bashir, who loves to attack Republicans on a daily basis, has decided to deliberately distort Romney and selectively edit his words so as to create a controversy where none exists.  Such journalistic malpractice is unacceptable and MSNBC needs to be held accountable.

The media isn't always subtle in its distortion of the facts. Sometimes it throws journalistic integrity out the window and reports false facts as if they were true. Watch the clip below for a good example of this:

 

CNN should be ashamed because the LDS Church has no position on interracial marriage amd it has never forbidden interracial marriage. Consider the following statements from past Mormon leaders. President Spencer W. Kimball, in a speech given to BYU students in 1965, had this to say about interracial marriage:

"Now, the brethren feel that it is not the wisest thing to cross racial lines in dating and marrying. There is no condemnation. We have had some of our fine young people who have crossed the lines. We hope they will be very happy, but experience of the brethren through a hundred years has proved to us that marriage is a very difficult thing under any circumstances and the difficulty increases in interrace marriages." (Source: Interracial Marriage Discouraged", Church News, June 17, 1978, p. 2.)

Here's another statement from Spencer W. Kimball: 

“When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise. ” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball,” p. 302)

Another favorite tactic of the media is not distort the facts but to distort the viewer's perception of the facts as to elicit the desired response or reaction from the viewing audience either by reaffirming their biases or introducing them to it. Watch the clip for textbook application of this tactic below:

What Larry O’Donnell has done is use legitimate polling of people's willingness to vote for a candidate based on their religion as a means of cementing people's unwillingness to vote for a Mormon by distorting the history of the LDS Church. Noah Glyn, writing for National Review Online, summarizes O'Donnell's blatant and false distortion of the beginnings of the LDS religion:

Last night, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell attacked Mitt Romney, Mormonism, and Joseph Smith. According to O’Donnell, Smith only created Mormonism to justify his lax sexual mores.

In this case, O'Donnell admits his bias towards the LDS religion. As a result, O'Donnell isn't educating the public about the news as a news reporter should, but is preaching his gospel of religious bigotry to anyone who will listen. As a result, those who are already biased towards the LDS faith will have their beliefs reaffirmed and those who haven't had such a bias are now potentially infected with it.

The reason why the media has been dishonest in the way they cover Mitt Romney's faith is because many members of the media are liberal and are hostile to religion. Nancy French explains why the media has been untruthful about Mitt Romney's faith:

Secular leftists are often quite religious in their zeal to attack traditional values, and I’d say that they have Mormons in their crosshairs in large part because they’re quite effective in defending our culture. After all, there’s only 6 million Mormons in America, yet the media Left — from HBO to PBS to Broadway — has spent much of the last two election cycles flailing away at the LDS church.

In other words, the secular Left hates Mormons because they see the LDS church as a part of the same Judeo-Christian tradition we belong to; the same Judeo-Christian tradition they so despise. 

John Schroeder over at Article6 blog explains why the intentional distortion towards Mitt Romney's faith is unacceptable for a religiously diverse country as ours:  

We cannot take this bait.  These kinds of assaults – the “weirdness” of proxy baptism, polygamy as a justification for illicit sex – may have some appeal if you think Mormonism a “false” religion.  But here is the thing.  In a religiously pluralistic society like ours, if it stands against them, something similar will stand against us. 

Last year, it was revealed that Obama planned on attacking Mitt Romney's faith but that idea was immediately ridiculed. Recently, Senator Orrin Hatch asserted that Obama would go after Romney's faith and many Democrats immediately denied Obama would do that. The President knows he can't get 6 million Mormons in the United States to vote for him and that he may not have it in his election strategy to make Romney's faith an issue in the campaign. However, those in the media have already made it an issue in this election in which they will discourage as many Americans as they can to not vote for Romney by intentionally distorting their coverage of his faith.

Rick Santorum Doesn't Understand The Separation Of Chuch And State

After Rick Santorum's disastrous performance at the CNN GOP debate in Phoenix, Arizona, a video surfaced of him expressing his disgust with John F. Kennedy's famous address that he gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, about the role of his faith will play in his bid to become President. During the 1960 presidential election, many protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith could make decisions free from any input by the Catholic Church.

Before I get to the video of Rick Santorum's comments, I would like present the speech that Rick Santorum is referring to. Watch the clip below: 

You can read the transcript of Kennedy's speech here.

Rick Santorum gave a speech at the St. Thomas More College of Liberal Arts’ Symposium on Catholic Statesmanship and you can watch a brief clip of that speech below: 

A few days ago, Rick Santnorum was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos in which he was asked about why he strongly disagreed with J.F.K's speech: 

Here's the specific quote from J.F.K's speech that Rick Santorum has problems with:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him,” 

Rick Santorum's comments reveals why he isn't fit to be president because he believes that that religion should have an influence or involvement in the operation of the state but that "the state has no business telling the church what to do."  He fails to understand that religion oversteps its bounds when it attempts to tell their members who to vote for or forms a relationship with government in which it involved or has influence on the day to day administration of our government.

In a previous article, I explained the why the Founding Fathers did not allow religion to play a role administration of the affairs of the people: 

While the Founding Fathers wanted religion to play a role in public life, they also wanted to prevent the federal government from endorsing a specific denomination or sect. They also wanted people to vote for candidates running for Congress or President to focus on a candidate's values and not their religion. That  is  why the Founding Fathers specifically forbid religion as a litmus test in the Constitution.It was intended that a person's faith was never a factor in considering someone for elected office or as a requirement to hold a job in the federal government. 

Why did the Founding Fathers focus on values rather than religion when drafting the Constitution? 

The reason is because the Founding Fathers were purposely trying to avoid the mistake that Old Europe had made in that there was one religion had the endorsement of the Government at the exclusion of all other religions. In fact, England herself has suffered a wave of political instability as Catholic and Protestants fought to place a  Protestant or Catholic King or Queen on the throne. 

As a result,  the Founding Fathers understood many countries with a religiously pluralistic society, such as England, have struggled to unite their people of different faiths. The solution in Europe was to force unity through governmental endorsement of a particular religion. In other words, they thought religious unity could come from forced conformity to a particular faith. However, that created political and social instability.

The Founding Father had a different yet radical and novel solution to governing a religiously diverse society was to unite people based on common values shared by all faiths rather than uniting people based on a common religion. That is why America was and still is a politically and socially stable country.

Given that Rick Santorum is a Catholic, it amazes me that he wanted to throw up over a single but important line in J.F.K's speech given the fact that in the early period of American history, many states passed religiously bigoted laws simply because the majority of Americans at that time believed that Catholics were not Christians. 

The reasons why we need an absolute separation of church and state can clearly be seen today because we face those very problems that J.F.K warned about. For example, our government for many years have been trying to tell churches to do things that are contrary to its religious beliefs whether it be adoption, marriage or birth control. 

Furthermore, JFK's speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association also warned people about the dangers of  voters refusing to vote for a candidate simply because that candidate belongs to a different religion:

"For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist...Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril."

In the previous election and current presidential elections, we have seen religious leaders telling their members not to vote for a candidate because of his faith and we have seen people admitting that the will not vote for a candidate because of the religion they belong to. Yet, Rick Santorum believes that voters can look beyond a candidate's religion but fails to understand why they should.

J.F.K clearly understood this from European history and early American history that religion has a place in American life but it cannot tell politicians what to do nor who the American people should vote for. Rick Santorum apparently doesn't understand that concept which is why he doesn't understand why Kennedy said what he said in that speech in 1960. 

Kennedy was a devout Catholic talking to a large audience of Baptists who were suspicious of having a Catholic president who might simply obey the orders of the Church. As a result, Kennedy simply reiterated what Thomas Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists in response to a letter they sent to the newly elected President Jefferson. 

Rick Santorum is expected to and should have understood Kennedy's message, but he doesn't. In contrast, Mitt Romney understands J.F.K's speech much better than Rick Santorum because in his speech at the George Bush Presidential Library, he tells American people this: 

"Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

While I admire Rick Santorum's deep commitment to his Catholic faith, he doesn't have the proper perspective and he has a limited view as well as understanding about the proper roles of government and religion should play in American life. Mitt Romney has a broader and comprehensive view because he understands that our country was created on a foundation of common values that unites us as a people regardless of their faith and will govern our country on that basis. 

As a result, Mitt Romney is the best choice that voters can make in this election. 

California Teacher Punishes Students "Who Say God Bless You"

A teacher named Steve Cuckovich who teaches at William C. Wood High School in Vacaville, California has openly admitted that he will reduce if a student says "God Bless You" to someone who sneezes: 

In a perverse way, it makes sense that a health teacher would prefer that his students say Gesundheit —which in its most literal translation means “health-ness”—when someone sneezes. The one thing they can’t say inside the classroom of the delightfully named Steve Cuckovich is “God bless you.” If they do, they automatically lose 25 points off their grade.

Cuckovich, who teaches health at William C. Wood High School in Vacaville, California, claims that this standard rote response to a sneeze is disrespectful and disruptive.

Instead of sharing my thoughts on this matter, there's someone who has already given his deep insight on this issue. Over to you Dane Cook:

Is Newt Gingrich Playing Passive-Agressive With Romney's Faith

Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne, the Pentecoastal pastor who runs the The River at Tampa Bay church, held a Newt Gingrich rally on church grounds. After the completion of that pro-Newt rally, Dr. Rodney-Brown explained to Florida voters that they can overlook Newt's affairs but they cannot accept Romney's faith:

After the event, Howard-Browne said that the marital infidelities of Gingrich, like all sinners, could be left in the past. 

'We've got to hold people accountable. But if they say they've asked for forgiveness then we have to go with what the word of God said - we have to forgive.'

He expressed grave reservations, however, about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. 

'Mormonism is a cult and that's the problem,' he said. 

'Mormonism, if you study the whole history of it, and I'm not trying to create a problem, but they had death squads that would go around kill everybody that wasn't a Mormon.'

Mormons, he said, were 'very honourable people, very clean-married, godly, family' and their faith had 'been doctored up and painted nicely.' But the 'problem is the additon to the scripture, which is the book of Mormon, and all the other additives that Joseph Smith brought to the table.'

Howard-Browne said he was not aligned with any candidate, though he left the church grounds in Gingrich's bus afterwards. Gingrich was not present for his prayer.

Dennis Prager, a well known Los Angeles conservative talk show host has this to say about those who believe Romney's faith is a cult or a bizzare religion:

This kind of rhetoric about a candidate's religion has no place in any political campaign. Pastors like Robert Jeffress and Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne are preaching a dangerous, false and dark idea that a candidate's faith is more important than his values. 

The good news is that other religious leaders have publicly stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. Influential Christians like Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen , Richard J. Mouw, Reverend Franklin Graham and Reverend Rob Schenck have all stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. The truth is that a candidate's values is more important than his faith. 

I recommend my readers to watch a debate between attorney Jay Sekulow and Pastor Robert Jeffress on Mitt Romney's religion because they discuss whether or not a candidate's faith or values is the primary issue voters should be using when deciding to vote for a candidate. Its a powerful and educational debate that every voter should watch.

Newt Gingrich is trying to play the same old tired strategy of playing passive-aggressive with Mitt Romney's faith. This strategy started with Mike Huckabee who employed this trick during the 2008 Presidential election. Other candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry have attempted to employ this tactic in this election before dropping out of this race.

What is so interesting is that Newt Gingrich, along with other 2012 candidates, denounced Pastor Robert Jeffress who supported Rick Perry and called Mormonism a cult. When Craig Bergman, who used to be the Iowa campaign director for Newt Gingrich's campaign called the LDS religion a cult,  the Gingrich team quickly dispatched a spokesman to repudiate Craig Bergman's statement: 

"He made a comment to a focus group prior to becoming an employee that is inconsistent with Newt 2012's pledge to run a positive and solutions orientated campaign," said R.C. Hammond, press secretary for Gingrich.

Another Iowa Gingrich campaign staffer emphasized that Newt did not agree with Mr. Bergman's statement: 

Linda Upmeyer, the chairwoman for Gingrich’s Iowa campaign, reached by telephone for reaction this afternoon, said she’s never heard Gingrich himself say anything negative about Mormonism.

“I’ve never had any discussion that resembled that with Speaker Gingrich,” Upmeyer said. “I have no doubt there are people that reject Mormonism but I’ve never engaged in a conversation regarding that, ever.”

Is this part of a new desperate strategy to defeat Romney by employing a passive-aggressive strategy against Mitt's religion? So far, there has been no response from Newt Gringrich's campaign. They haven't rushed out to repudiate Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne's statements about Romney's faith like they have with Pastor Jeffress or Craig Bergman. I hope and expect that the Gingrich campaign issue a statement distancing themselves from Rodney-Browne's statements about the LDS faith very soon.

Mona Charen: Mormons Are The Wrong Kind Of Minority in America

Mona Charen has written a thought provoking article for National Review Online about the lack of excitement Mitt Romney that will surely come when compared to other minorities when they have reached a milestone or overcome a barrier if he becomes the first LDS President of the United States: 

The Washington Post proclaimed in a recent headline another historic “first” for the United States — the first female usher-in-chief at the White House. Stop the presses! The accompanying story reveals that the nominee hails from Jamaica, so it’s probably a two-fer. Oh boy.

The Post and other liberal organs are obsessed with firsts. The first female letter carrier to handle the Capitol Hill route will get a mention in the press. The first African-American anything is guaranteed at least a nod. You don’t even have to be first to get “first” treatment. The last two Supreme Court nominees have been women, joining a court that had already seated two women (one retired). Nevertheless, the femininity of the candidates was cheerily chatted up. When Barack Obama became the first black nominee of a major party and then the elected president, dignified notice of an historical milestone would have been appropriate. But you know what happened — the media went on an inebriated, extravagant first binge.

Funny how the first effect only works for some. If Mitt Romney is nominated and elected, he will be the first member of a highly persecuted American minority group to be so honored. Yet no one is celebrating the possibility of the first Mormon president. Anti-Mormon bias, which has proved remarkably persistent over decades, is scarcely ever condemned.

Mona Charen goes on to give a brief history of the persecution that Mormons faced in America just as other minority groups in America have such as African Americans or Catholics have in the past until a member of that group occupied the White House as President. She concludes that if Romney were to become our next President, Romney would make history but some people may not be thrilled with this milestone in American history.

While Mormons might be the "wrong" minority in America, there would be nothing wrong with having a Mormon in the White House because that nothing would change if a LDS politician were ever to become President: 

“I think everyone will find it very boring or normal in the White House itself,” said Joanna Brooks, a Mormon and a columnist at religiousdispatches.org.

“There’d be a Book of Mormon, maybe, in the nightstand,” said Brooks, grasping at straws to come up with some things that would change. Of course, she pointed out, there’s already one in the nightstand in every Marriott hotel room in America.

Mormons obey the Word of Wisdom, a religious law that prohibits consumption of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and illegal drugs. But does that mean that under a President Romney or Huntsman, the White House would go dry and sleep-deprived aides wouldn’t be permitted to refuel with coffee?

“I would absolutely predict and bet a thousand bucks that you would not have a dry White House,” Chuck Warren, a Republican strategist and a practicing Mormon, told The Daily Caller.

While he may not personally drink coffee, Romney doesn’t seem have a problem with being around it. The New York Times reported that he discussed his 2008 loss at a holiday party with former aides “over coffee, sandwiches and doughnuts,” and that he has held at least one campaign function at the Buddy Brew coffee shop in Tampa, Fla.

The same attitude appears to apply to alcohol. A Boston Globe write-up of Romney’s inaugural ball as governor identified that there was a cash bar present for those with standard tickets, while those willing to shell out the big bucks were upstairs in the “exclusive Martini Lounge” where “[v]odka flowed down the trunk of an elephant-shaped ice sculpture.” Many guests reportedly took advantage of it.

“We’ve had teetotalers in the White House before, including recently George W. Bush,” pointed out conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt during an interview on his radio show, “so I don’t think a lack of alcohol makes much of a difference.”

“I actually don’t think that their LDS [Latter-Day Saints] faith would in any way change anything that any American would see or observe, even if they were working in the White House,” added Hewitt, who authored a book titled “A Mormon in the White House.”

Mormons who spoke to TheDC were similarly unable to come up with examples of changes likely to come to a Mormon-led White House.

“There’s a strict law of chastity, but I don’t think presidents are required to cheat on their wives; they just do sometimes,” joked McKay Coppins, a reporter for The Daily Beast and Newsweek who is also a Mormon.

“Mormons generally are taught that on Sundays you’re not supposed to work,” mused Coppins. “But we also are taught that there are exceptions for jobs that need to be done on Sundays; for example, doctors. I would imagine that the job of president probably falls under there.”

However, there might be one unique aspect of having a Mormon president and that is his attendance at a LDS temple:

One unique challenge that could face a Mormon president, Coppins pointed out, would be what to do about a security detail when worshiping at temple.

Temples are not places Mormons go for routine weekly services — for that Mormons go to church. Temples are sacred places that Mormons attend more infrequently.

According to the church’s website, “the primary purpose of the temple is to provide a dedicated place where sacred ordinances needed for eternal life can be preformed. Because of its sacred nature, attendance in the temple is limited to Mormons who obey God’s commandments and therefore are worthy to enter.”

That last part could present a security issue for a Mormon president: how to worship at temple with Secret Service agents who may not be worthy Mormons, and without disrupting other worshipers in what Brooks described as a “setting that is highly private and designed to be very peaceful.”

Other Mormons who spoke to TheDC offered several suggestions, though no one could say for sure. The president could, perhaps, enter with Secret Service agents who were worthy Mormons, or simply not attend temple for the duration of his term in office, as it is not required.

The Mormon Church declined to make official comment on the matter. The Washington, D.C. Temple, located in Kensington, Md., also did not respond to TheDC’s request for comment.

Having a Mormon for President might be the very thing America needs. A man who has been successful both in the public and private sector, has been completely faithful to his wife for many years and has raised a wonderful family, and has had a scandal free political career. 

Americans are tired of scandals, corruption, drama and politics that come from the White House. We need a President who will do his job confidently, competently, intelligently and without fanfare just like most hard working Americans do when they go to work. 

Having a Mormon in the White House is the right kind of minority America needs and Mitt Romney is the right man for the job in 2012!