Replies

Oh, their track record would include personal things, such as do they sacrifice chickens during their religious ceremonies. But merely being an atheist, a satanist or a Wiccan wouldn't cause me to not vote for that person. It would be what they do with that belief that counts.

Now we're getting somewhere, and shows that folks are a little closer toward common ground than you think.

It seems to me you are saying, "Would I NOT vote for someone ONLY because they are a Satanist, Wicca, Muslim, Mormon, etc." Your answer is "no."

But does in fact what a person practices religiously enter into consideration along with their position on the issues and track record? Apparently your answer is "yes."

People are more than the religious label they wear, so yes, people should be evaluated wholistically. All I've been trying to do is to test the people who indicate that Mormonism or any religious practitioner should be "NO" issue whatsoever.

Once we agree that it's least it's part of the entire package (the common ground that I was talking about) then the only thing on which we have divergence is exactly how much weight does each voter attach to that consideration vs. other considerations. And that, I believe, belongs to the category of individual voter discretion.

But that isn’t being “nice”. We’re supposed to only be “fair” and never allow any other decision-making processes to enter into our thinking.

Everyone keeps talking about the length of Romney’s marriage. The Clintons have been married for 31 years. Does that make a good argument to vote for Hillary?

Why is it wrong to chose aspects of Romney’s life and study them closely when trying to determine who he is? One of those aspects would certainly be the LDS. Another would be his marriage and fidelity.

How can most voters, who are reliant on the MSM, learn about candidates unless everyone has open discussion? Surely a place as well known as FR would be ideal for discussing these issues.

But does in fact what a person practices religiously enter into consideration along with their position on the issues and track record? Apparently your answer is "yes."

If Mormons were required to sacrifice one new born baby a month, and if Mitt practiced that, yes, that would be an issue. Not the same as me disagreeing with him over the BOM. He and I can disagree on that, but that doesn't mean it would impact my vote. The things that I look for is what positions a person takes and how the individual expresses their views.

And that, I believe, belongs to the category of individual voter discretion.

Absolutely. I can't stop someone from voting for or against Mitt just because he is a Mormon. But if that's all they base their vote on, they are looney.