Both.
Listen. This is perhaps the best illustration on record: Hitler did not simply start rounding up Jews early in his political career. He first kicked into gear a smear campaign against Jews. In other words, beliefs about Jews preceded Krystalnacht and all that followed.
Whenever a people group has gotten in our way, we simply defined them out of existence. The heritage of the U.S. is not always worth defending: If Native Americans' land ownership was in the way, we simply labeled them as "savages" and took the land. If lack of currency prevented Southern plantations from employing enough crop laborers, we simply labeled them as "chattel" (Dred vs. Scott labeling) and took their free labor. The Nazis did the same thing w/the Jews: They simply labeled them as non-Aryans, and took their lives and all they owned.
With the pre-born, our country and the world simply defines them out of existence ("unwanted," "choice," "potential life" etc.) because, they, too, get in the way of our careers, relationships, economic goals, etc. Clinton, too, settled in on this definition of "potential life" and made it easier to choose no defense on their behalf.
It's this ability to first reconfigure people according to a less-than-human mindset that serves as a precursor to actual treatment as less-than-human.
I don't recall saying that one cannot criticize another faith. The issue I've been discussing is the lunacy of voting against (or for) someone simply because of their 'faith label'.
OK. I'll take your word for that. (I was actually broadening the focus to "folks around here" & you say that doesn't include you. Fine).
Uh, abortion is a political issue, so it would seem to me quite valid to vote for or against someone based on their position on this issue.
Yes. But you're missing my point: My point is that abortion is a political issue, but it's also a religious issue. It intersects and transcends both dimensions. But just because it's a religious issue, doesn't mean it's off-limits. My point is that Mitt's religious beliefs is both a religious issue AND a political issue, since his religion is tied into his character and values, and we evaluate candidates politically on both counts. So, likewise any candidate's religious beliefs intersects and transcends his political life.
Yep, that's a behavior.
In other words, beliefs about Jews preceded Krystalnacht and all that followed.
I could agree that his beliefs drove his behavior, but clearly, when he was smearing Jews, you could see how he was interpreting the beliefs (although I don't think Nazism even existed before Hitler, so 'interpretation' isn't the right word).
My point is that abortion is a political issue, but it's also a religious issue.
Yes, it can be both. But one's 'faith label' doesn't automatically indicate that individual's position on abortion.
My point is that Mitt's religious beliefs is both a religious issue AND a political issue
I could agree if you are also saying that his behavior, how he lives out his beliefs, his positions on issues are what you consider to be part of his religion and not just the fact that he is a Mormon. In point of fact, it is relatively recently that Mitt indicated he is pro-life. Previously, on this particular issue, his position was in opposition to that typically considered to be the position of the Mormon faith.
When you get right down to it, politically, I have quite a bit in common with most Mormons on social issues, because they are very socially conservative. And that is why I don't support Mitt - because his 'conversion' to social conservatism is recent enough to be suspect.