Some people have problems with a person who has merely spoken publically of their faith being President. I'm sure you've heard the complaints about Bush. I refuse to make a choice based on what religion someone belongs to.
Can you name one?
Nope. Can you show me what actions Mitt took at governor that shows he applied that oath he took the way some on this thread think he would as President? His past behavior shows us what he would do in the future.
nope
http://www.rethinking-mormonism.com/mitt-romney.htm
This link examines Romney and his oath. You may view it as an anti-site, but you won’t scare the Dems with that tactic. They don’t care if valid information comes from an ‘anti-mormon’ site or not.
I refuse to make a candidate choice that doesn't integrate what "higher powers" that person is trusting in, be it "Uncle Sam," the UN, L. Ron Hubbard's novel creation of beings out there, Urantia's "master aliens," or an unknown "council of gods."
I do not weigh the above in isolation; a candidate's character and values, position stances on social issues, voting and public track record, etc. are also important to integrate into the entire package.
What I don't understand is those who want to cut a donut hole out of a candidate (his or her faith) and then say, "It's not relevant or at best, it's trivial."