[tantiboh]

You’re under the impression that I care, big’ol_freeper. And, frankly, though the quoted post has little to do with my point, I disagree with Jim’s statement. It is American that we have the freedom to question a candidate based on his religion, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. If the religion is a force for good, however, it is entirely un-American to exercise that right. The pilgrims fled such discrimination; the founding fathers proscribed such discrimination from codified legitimacy; and wars have been fought to preserve our freedom from such discrimination. To make such a judgment based on the precepts of a peaceful, productive religion is to spit in the face of all that. And that is un-American.

Our freedom to do it does not make it right to do it.

[big'ol_freeper]

You sir are mistaken if you think I am concerned whether you care or not.




U.S. Army Retired

[Jim Robinson]

B/S. Some of you guys are pushing the abortionist, gay agenda advancing, gun grabbing, big government socialist nanny state lying liberal RINO BECAUSE of his religion. Conservatives are pushing back. And it’s perfectly within their rights. NOTHING un-American about it. If fact, claiming it is, IS un-American. If you can’t stand the heat, get out! Take Romney with you.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“If the religion is a force for good, however, it is entirely un-American to exercise that right.”

First, even Scientology and the Hare Krishnas would argue
they are a societal force for good. Not that they are any
more objective about themselves than any other group...
but that doesn’t mean we HAVE to use our personal vote on them.

Isn’t it a precept of mormonism to allow all to worship and
follow the convictions of their own heart?

My heart says, don’t vote for a cultist, despite any good
qualities he may have. And even if he isn’t of the couch-
jumping kind.

[Colofornian]

It is American that we have the freedom to question a candidate based on his religion, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. If the religion is a force for good, however, it is entirely un-American to exercise that right.

You beg the question by jumping to the assumption that the religion you cite is indeed "a force for good."

If you go to this ex-Mormon's snapshot of the fruits of Mormonism in Utah, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1940378/posts (post #165), you'll see it's not the "force for good" you make it out to be -- even on a social level...(an eternal spiritual level is another discussion).

I've also made the argument on several threads that a political leader who has seen his respected religious leaders shift gears on key theological tenets (polygamy; blacks as priests; Adam as God; blood atonement; exceptions granted for abortions; etc.) is more likely to feel free to swing free & loose with his own positions--especially on social positions. I mean, hey, if I think my God is at times free & loose on the number of partners, they what's the difference if I embrace gay civil unions (as Romney does) or tax-funded domestic partnership benefits (as Romney does)?

[Theophilus]

If the religion is a force for good

You speak about religion as if it were some sort of civic association. If good transcends a religion then the religion is false.