Since temple Mormons believe they are divine -- "gods in embryo" is a fave term of their leaders -- I didn't know that simply not wanting to vote for someone who considers themselves "divine" = an "Inquisition" of "personal standards."
What is galling is the two-facedness of so many: If Hillary Clinton had claimed in the '08 election that she was a god; or if Obama had come right out & said, "I'm the next Messiah." Do you think FReepers would had let those comments go?
Yes? Do I have a yes or no out of you on that?
Well, since it's a rhetorical Q, anyway, allow me to answer as I would see 98% of FREEPERS: The answer is "no" -- 98% to 100% of FREEPERS would NOT let such comments go...even though they ranged into the "religious" realm.
Now, here we've getting pulpit sermons from you & others telling us, "Thou shalt not consider character as it is informed by their religion" -- yet if Obama came right out & used the word "Messiah" FREEPERS would suddenly be discussing a LOT about Obama's religion.
In fact, let's actually move it from the hypothetical to the actual.
Just about daily on FR, I see some reference to Obama's ties to Islam. No proof, mind you. Just religious innuendo. Day after day. It's great if people want to mention it; (it'd be greater if they could actually put up quotes & links that more directly ties him to Islam).
But you know what? Somehow the ad hoc "Committee to Hermetically Seal Religion from Politics" -- of which you are an apparent "member" in good standing -- doesn't mount your pulpit to point fingers @ such posters with your "Thou shalt not discuss Obama's Religious Ties" sermons.
In fact, we didn't see you or your fellow committee members give the sermons in '08 when Jeremiah Wright was all the rage on FR? Why not?
Doesn't this sound like rampant two-faced hypocrisy to you? What? You only defend Romney? Huntsman? But when the same "principle" applies to other candidates, you're mum? How inconsistent is that?
There was plenty of discussion of Wright around here as I recall. I don’t recall specific posters but I do recall it coming up on many occasions. The big difference is that Romney is totally unqualified to be the Republican candidate by his record without ever mentioning his religion while Barry had no record, not even so much as his college transcripts to look at. So, there were fewer things you could point out when making an argument against him to that great mushy middle that ends up actually deciding elections. In the case of Barry, therefore, pointing out the outlandish and unChristian nature of the church he was a member of for so long was appropriate. What else could you show the mushy crowd that was on the record?