Compare to Obama:
“I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.” It may seem like a small thing, but I’d much rather hear “many of you” than “Americans.” Obama doesn’t implicitly condemn heathens.

I read most of both speeches (thanks for the link to Romney’s) and the difference in quality is astounding. Quite often I found myself thinking, “this is so true” or “why hasn’t anyone said this before?” while reading Obama’s. With Mitt though I felt lumped into a majority I don’t belong in: “Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.” Or: “We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust. … We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.” Not only does he completely deny atheism any dignity, but he perpetuates the myth that “Under God” and “In God we trust” has always been the American way, even though surely, as a politician, he knows the pledge was amended half a century ago, and currency didn’t always bear the motto either.