I don't understand

I was catching up on the news on Yahoo! just now when I read the following in an article about Mitt Romney:

Romney was followed to the stage by Bryan Fischer, a director of the American Family Association, known for inflammatory remarks against homosexuality and "non-Christian religions," which he has said include Mormonism.

"The next president of the United States needs to be a man ... of sincere authentic genuine Christian faith," he said, in a jab at Romney.

Fischer said the next U.S. president must deny evolution, stop government assistance for the poor, veto any increase in the debt ceiling and "treat homosexual behavior not as a political cause at all, but as a threat to public health."

He called Islam the greatest long-term threat to U.S. liberty. "Every single mosque in America is a potential recruiting or training cell for Islamic terror," Fischer said.

So here are me things I don't understand. How can a man profess to be Christian and be so obviously NOT Christ-like? And for another matter, since when has the president needed to be Christian at all? Since when was that a requirement? Don't misunderstand me, of course, I very much appreciate having a leader in office who supports my ideas and beliefs, but there are plenty of good people in the world who aren't Christian.

And while I (in my admittedly limited knowledge of things) don't think we should be raising the debt ceiling either, I think everything else Fischer was quoted as saying is complete poo. The government should stop giving assistance to the poor? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's this bit in the New Testament in which Christ advocates the giving of assistance to the poor. When we're in the service of our fellow man, we're only in the service of our God. We need to have charity for the poor, not cut them off. And while I think perhaps we need to overhaul our welfare system and get some things straightened out, I don't think we should just leave people to starve on the streets either.

And can I just say that labeling the issue of same-sex marriage as a matter of "public health" seems a mite ridiculous? Personally, I don't think it's really a political issue either, but a moral one. While people may bash on political candidates for taking stances on purely moral issues, I think those politicians should own up to what they're really doing rather than hide behind the excuse that it's a matter of public health. If he's talking about the spread of AIDS or HIV, straight people can get it too. He may as well try to outlaw pre-marital sex because of "public health." And even if I think perhaps that would save a lot of people a lot of grief, the fact of the matter is the government doesn't really have the right to restrict our agency like that. If people want to make that choice, then fine. If you don't support it, also fine. But own up as to why you really don't support it rather than hiding behind a paltry excuse.

And as for his last point about Islamic mosques being potential terrorist breeding grounds? Give me a break. This country was founded on the idea that men could chose to worship how they would, and the minute the government starts deliberately targeting religious institutions within the country is the very same minute we need to take a long hard look at who we're putting into office.

Really, this article just really makes me hope that anyone who has two neurons to rub together can see that this Fischer man is very much lacking in qualities that would qualify him for any leadership position.