How can someone dare to say to people to leave their home lands just because they are not suiting their "ideal" life. That's bullshit.
This is exactly what struck me about Terry's statement. Even though it is safe to say that Christianity is still the largest religion in the US, there are an increasing amount of non-Christian Americans, and many of them weren't just born here; their familys have been living here for generations; Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Muslims, and Vodouisants have been been emigrating to this country for decades, and in some cases, centuries. They all have valid claims to being "American" as much as any Christian.
Hell, what about Native Americans? Although many of them were nominally converted to Christianity, over the past several decades there has been a resurgence of the old ways in the Native American community, and they have been here
far longer then any of European decent. Are they supposed to just "get out" because they want to revere their ancestral deities?
And all that doesn't take into account Americans who willing converted from Christianity to Islam, Buddhism, Baha'i, Zoroastrianism, or Wicca/Neo-Paganism. Does a voluntary change of faith make
them any less American? I think not.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying Terry's views are okay. My point is simply that there is a huge difference between (1) the potential president associating and potentially agreeing with someone who condones an attack on the country, and (2) the potential president associating and potentially agreeing with someone whose religious and/or political views may be offensive. #2 might be good reason to disagree with the guy, but #1 is a good reason to think he is not qualified for his office.
That's fair enough, but, even with a clear Christian majority, America is a nation of great religious diversity, so I would question whether a nominee who agrees with someone who says all non-Christian Americans should leave the country is anymore qualified to be the leader of such a nation then a nominee who is affiliated to someone who said terrorist attacks on America were "justified". While the latter may raise some concerns about national security, the former certainly raises concerns of gross ignorance about the nature of the domestic electorate, and betrays an inherent religious bias that, as far as I (and I'm certain many other non-Christian Americans) are concerned, qualifies as blatant bigotry
against American citizens. I would not want such a man as president and I certainly do not feel he should be leading a country of multiple faiths.