Op-Ed: Does It Matter Which Side Is More Of A Terrorist Risk?

There's a lot of talk about Obama's Muslim heritage and Palin's Christianity. When it comes to which is more of a danger for the United States what should you believe? The truth is they both are just as dangerous but perhaps in different ways.

Because Obama was born into a Muslim family there is a danger that his converting to Christianity would enrage extremist groups. Yes, those groups may attack the United States because of that issue. Of course as most people know, unless they have been hiding under a rock for eight years, they already have attacked. Still there would be a slight danger. Next we look at Sarah Palin's religion. Although the church she now attends is nondenominational she was raised Assemblies of God. Her religion is Pentecostal. She has made statements that it's God's Will that we are at war in Iraq. Those kind of statements may equally rile up extremist Muslims. Here's the bottom line. Both sides, both parties, when dealing with people that want to attack, have a risk. Those who want to rage attacks on the American people can use whoever is in office as their reasoning. The personal beliefs of a candidate only matters if they aim to make it governmental policy for the rest of the nation. That's where past performances come into order. And personal choice. The educated voter already knows that the nation is at risk of terrorist attack. It's the way this modern world is. So should we can hung up on what church someone in office goes to or does not go it? Does being in church every Sunday make someone more moral than someone who skips the pew? In the end, when it comes down to brass tacks the one sitting in the Oval Office has to be for all the people. Not just the ones who count on rosary beads, speak in tongues, pray to nature or pray to no one at all. The Oval Office isn't a religion. It's government. Church and state don't mix. At least they aren't supposed to.