Exactly, Magritte. Bringing religion into any political debate is a recipe for potential disaster, in my opinion. There are plenty of policy-oriented issues that we can evaluate Romney (or any candidate) on without resorting to pointing fingers at his religion.
Well, I'd like to see you and Magritte step out of your potential display of open hypocrisy then (read post #51 for background).
If we can show, Magritte, that CT Jewish voters took Joseph Lieberman's Jewishness into primary or sole consideration when they voted for him, we'd like to hear that chorus from Wolfstar's "recipe for potential disaster" refrain that you seem to agree with.
We already know religious-based voting was the case among Western States' Mormon voters voting for Romney in '08. But still awaiting a rebuke of Mormon voters from the hypocrites and potential hypocrites.
I've heard these lines from Mormon FREEPERS going back to '07...yet I've haven't seen from a ONE-of-them open critiques of religious voters who vote primarily or only because a candidate shares their faith values.
Why not?
Is it because they -- and perhaps you as well -- know you'd be taking on the majority of America?
Is it because the very people you try to come across as nobly protecting -- religious minorities -- are the ones then you'd have to turn around and excoriate to be consistent?
Oh, and don't stop at religious minorities.
This situation is parallel to let's say, a number of FREEPERS who consistently might toss out the "S" word (sexist) at other FREEPERS. Why? Because those voters might take the sex of a candidate into strong(er) consideration.
Well, if those FREEPERS existed, then we'd expect them next to tackle all the GOP women who voted for the Palin-McCain ticket primarily or only because Palin was female and was breaking the GOP ticket ceiling. Right?
When are we going to see some consistency in your -- and similarly minded FREEPERS' -- accusations?