I don’t play games, words or otherwise. Nor did I accuse any of you of being racist. That’s your reading into it. It’s easy to misunderstand people since you don’t see and hear a person. I’m clear on what the discussion is about which started as a hit piece on Mitt Romney’s faith. It is not about tribe, but the question is whether a candidate who is of a non-accepted faith could/should be a candidate? Am I right that you think only Christians of accepted denominations should run?
Here’s a (to use your own sarcastic/incivility} newflash, I am American Indian (Delaware and Cherokee) as well as German, so I know all too well of what I speak. I know many who have converted to Christianity, but still keep traditions. The question was whether those who hadn’t converted would be acceptable.
What does your last paragraph have anything to do with anything?
I answered this in post #503.
I clearly stated there that as long as a person is a natural-born citizen of a proper age, constitutionally he is eligible to run. Doesn't matter what tribe; what race; what religion. ALL are welcome to run & become POTUS candidates.
That's what's great about our country. We don't have fences that preclude people from running.
Let's take a poll and just SEE what FR folks think??
Yes/NO is answer enough
If a MORMON runs for president; should his religion make a difference?
If a MUSLIM runs for president; should his religion make a difference?
Meaning that I wouldn't assume that once an Asia Minor Christian, or once an Asia Minor religious syncretist, always a Christian or always a religious syncretist. Native American traditional religionists have no more claim on future generations remaining syncretists or traditional religionists than Christians in what is now Turkey did back in the first century.