[Caramelgal]

While you might be on target on some other threads, you are way, way, off-base on this thread. In fact you are so mistaken I will call it a lie. First of all the story itself is about Romney's Mormon belief AND about Huckabee's question about this belief. What? Did you not read the article? Did you skip it & just go directly to the thread responses?

In answer to the last part of your statement: Yes I read the article and several other articles on the same topic. FYI the way I read the story, it was about Huckabee’s raising the question about Romney’s faith now when he (Huckabee) had sidestepped, refused to discuss or deemed the issue irrelevant just a few months earlier. Flip flop and pandering to the Bible Belt voters in Iowa?

Secondly, just about all of the first 200 responses to this were from folks provoked by Huckabee raising this question (from the let's keep religion-out-of-politics crowd), NOT from folks who challenge Mormonism or have concerns about Romney's belief system!!!

I read all the responses including the first 200 and I didn’t entirely agree with all of them either. I was responding not only to just those that have problems with the Mormon faith but all those (including myself at times) who have become angry and uncivil with one another in discussing the merits of one candidate vs. another based solely on tenants of religion rather than the bigger political issues at stake.

It seems to me that if these "let's keep religion-out-of-politics crowd" thought that discussing religion in a political race was an unworthy venture, many more of them would have veered away from this thread. But that wasn't the case, now was it?

So the so called "let's keep religion-out-of-politics crowd" are not allowed an opinion or voice as well on political threads? Are only you and only people who share your opinion allowed to chime in?

It seems to me that a few around here are in the “keep religion-out-of-politics” or rather and more precisely the “keep the religious-out-of-politics crowd” when the person’s religion differs from their own.

If these folks, or if you, didn't want to discuss a religious issue when it happens to dovetail into politics (you know you can't keep these things hermetically sealed no matter how much some folks sovereignly try), then what are you doing here on this particular thread?

Then what are Creationist doing on threads regarding Evolution, Science and Archeology? Are they not entitled to their opinion on those topics and am I not entitled to express mine?

There is nothing about this discussion that really “dovetails” religion and politics. The bigger question is and the one that begs an answer – would Romney’s religious beliefs prevent him from being a good President? Are his beliefs really relevant to this election? I say no. I say his record on political issues speaks to that already and why his is not on my short list. But I would vote for him over Huckabee based on their records and would certainly support Romney over Hillary or Obama or Edwards.

While Romney’s religion is not one you or I believe in, if he were running for deacon or elder of your church, then his religious beliefs would certainly be fair game and a very relevant discussion. But is there anything about his beliefs that are contrary to the Constitution? If elected President upon taking the oath of office, would Romney really dictate to you and I must believe? Would he pass a Presidential order that you and I must accept the tenants of the Mormon faith, take a few more wives (which modern mainstream LDS church rejects) and have 10% of your tax dollars donated to the LDS as a Tithe? This falls into the same sort of argument that some made many years ago (and a very few may still be making today) about a Catholic holding high office – “he will take his orders from the Pope before upholding his oath of office or the Constitution”.

It is my opinion where religion and politics “dovetail” is regarding the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I believe it is not the Government’s job or any elected official’s role to dictate to anyone what they need to believe in or not believe in regarding religion or creed. Nor do I believe it is the role of Government to limit or prohibit anyone from freely practicing their faith as long as they are good citizens and the practice of their faith does not advocate violence or sedition against our nation.

(There's threads galore about Huckabee that don't mention religion.)

Really? I’ve not read one recently were at least one person doesn’t post something about Mormonism being a “cult” and devolving into discussions about specific Scriptural interpretations rather than the greater political issues without ever bring home the point as to whether his (Romeny’s) religious beliefs or his record and current political views make or precludes him from being a Conservative’s candidate of choice.

Can we (and all the candidates) stick to the real issues in this election...So your personal litmus test of what constitutes "real" issues are those that you have a vision for (based on your comment "when we lose sight")...whereas these other issues you mentioned that are discussed are what? less than "real?" False issues (false being the opposite of "real?")

The issues I am most interested in, to name a just few and in no particular order of importance are; securing our boarders from illegal invasion, the future and direction of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Second Amendment, Abortion, Supreme Court nominations, Federal spending and taxation and fiscal responsibility, limited Federal involvement and intrusion into state and personal affairs that are not clearly defined by the Constitution, our trade relations with Communist China and China’s often overlooked and underestimated military threat to our security…

My personal litmus test for who I will ultimate vote for is not based on religion. Rather I base it on who is best qualified and fit to hold the office; who best understand the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law and will guide and serve this nation and all good citizens in this regard, regardless of race, creed or religion.

While you come across as trying to be "tolerant" of distinctive opinions ("you will get no argument from me" and "I support your right to believe as you choose and your freedom to express it" and "that is their right to follow their heart and conscience"), it's quite clear that those who haven't followed your vision of what's relevant and what's not have "degenerated" into either false issues or irrelevency.

I don’t even know how to respond to that as I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Are you implying that I am intolerant and uncivil for being tolerant and trying to bring civility to discussions regarding personal religious beliefs? If so, I find that a bit of an oxymoron.

And so, because you can't just let one Huckabee thread discuss religious points, you advocate a "separate but equal" approach & sovereignly come along & dictate: "Nope, these issues aren't relevant. Dump it into the religious trash section where it belongs"

I never called the Religion Thread a “trash section” as you did. I have great respect for the Religion Thread and therefore I refrain and don’t usually post my personal beliefs regarding religion or bait others into argument on matters of faith and dogma (excepting where perhaps a discussion that started out on News/Activism and was later moved to the Religion Thread by an Admin Mod).

In fact you are so mistaken I will call it a lie.

I regret that you disagree with me or didn’t get the point and gist of what I was trying to say. I’m happy to discuss and debate with you further if only you could agree to disagree rather than coming out of the box and calling me a “liar”. What I stated was my opinion. You may disagree with me but it isn’t a “lie” as far as I’m concerned. It is my opinion and one I stand by.

[Colofornian]

Thank you for your commitment to dialogue in your extended response. (I may respond to some of the other aspects you commented upon at a later time).

First of all, I need to stress that you were off-base in post #325 right from the get-go when you wrote that the basis of this thread was " not even remotely a discussion of religion." (I'm sorry but when a candidate is talking about the alleged relationship of Jesus & Satan, I think that might just qualify as "religious").

Me: It seems to me that if these "let's keep religion-out-of-politics crowd" thought that discussing religion in a political race was an unworthy venture, many more of them would have veered away from this thread. But that wasn't the case, now was it?

You: So the so called "let's keep religion-out-of-politics crowd" are not allowed an opinion or voice as well on political threads? Are only you and only people who share your opinion allowed to chime in?

Of course they are. But I'm not setting their personal standards, now am I? I think religion & politics intersects & is therefore worthy of discussion. That would reflect my personal standard. Others--including you based upon your earlier entry--think it doesn't. That would be their (and apparently your) personal standard.

It just seems a wee bit inconsistent to me, then, that folks with that latter personal standard...

(1)...see a very obvious thread that intersects these two spheres...

(2)...then come into the thread to give their personal religious standard where they state "No, the candidates' personal religions should remain totally remote"...

(3)...& then to complete the "shutout" attempt, a few--well namely you--can't understand why this thread has to mix the two spheres and that if the folks want to comment religiously, well, it should be done in the "religious section."

Allow me to provide an illustration. Let's say we have a theist candidate (Candidate A) running vs. an atheist candidate (Candidate B).

Candidate A makes some comment to the media that hints at Candidate B's atheism. A thread discussion opens up. You can't get any clearer that this is indeed a discussion about both politics & religion. Most of the early 200 posters then provide a worldview-based post--a religious worldview, I might add--that their religion or spiritual beliefs have taught them that the two do not mix. So, based upon those religious worldviews or spiritual beliefs, they chastise Candidate A. Then one poster says that any other posters who want to comment from the basis of their religious worldviews or spiritual beliefs...well, that's just out of bounds. If they want to do that, why there's a separate-but-equal eating section & water fountain called the "Religion" section.

What you fail to realize is that every poster--even atheists--is giving a religious/spiritual worldview opinion when they tell a candidate, "Thou shalt not mention another candidate's religious belief." (I mean, what Mt. Sinai did that directive come from?) So, here these folks are waved on ahead to proffer their religious/spiritual worldview on a matter...but boy, as soon as someone goes into more depth on the issue & really brings in more than the PC "allowed" spoonful of religious content, a self-designated poster-usher comes up & says, "Excuse, me, but you have exceeded the religious diet restrictions of our room. Please proceed to the 'Religious Dining Area' over yonder."

Me: ...it's quite clear that those who haven't followed your vision of what's relevant and what's not have "degenerated" into either false issues or irrelevency.

Your response: I don’t even know how to respond to that as I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Are you implying that I am intolerant and uncivil for being tolerant and trying to bring civility to discussions regarding personal religious beliefs? If so, I find that a bit of an oxymoron.

No. I'm saying that while one of your highest proclaimed values is "tolerance," you betray that value when you show intolerance of "discussions and arguments about religious doctrine to its appropriate place." (A truly absolute or consistent "tolerant" person would tolerate such discussions on this thread)

Finally, allow me to go back to the last part of your post in #325 which was the basis of my comment above (I will highlight the exact words that prompted my response):

You said in #325: If one wants to apply a purely religious litmus test for or against a candidate, then that is their right to follow their heart and conscience. But when we lose site of what is really important like preserving the Republic and the Constitution and our Liberties and Freedoms and instead fall into arguments about how many angels can sit on the head of pin, then we Conservatives risk becoming silly and irrelevant and do great dishonor to so many who gave us so much. Can we (and all the candidates) stick to the real issues in this election and move discussions and arguments about religious doctrine to its appropriate place – the Religion Thread?

A truly "tolerant" person doesn't try to be overly controlling or insistant upon issues of "relevancy" and "irrelevancy;" of "real" and "unreal" or false; of "really important" and "less important" (They simply "tolerate" whatever the discussion yields).

Otherwise, whatever perceived irrelevent, unreal/false, or less important issues come up in the discussion--well, these become intolerable to one trying to overmanage or micromanage the discussion.

Since you accuse others of contributing to degenerancy, it shows that you have a standard upon which you think others are infringing upon...you think your standard issues are "relevant" but religious ones (as they intermix with politics) to be irrelevant, less important, less vital--or "less than real--or false" issues.

While your straw man of angels dancing on the head of a pin is exactly that...certainly you & I could probably agree that many discussions don't seem to move too much further beyond that kind of obscure detail...Still, it doesn't render the entire realm of faith, of spiritual worldviews, as of the level of import you assign it (as one whole ball of wax, so to speak). You seem to think that just because some of the faith discussions smack of obscurity, that it disqualifies ALL spiritual, faith-based discussions as irrelevant, unreal or false, and much less important.