Naturally, no thread yet on Romney's speech Thursday

The only people who flatly will not vote for Mitt simply because of his religion are the religious bigots in his own party. Period.
Distinctly non-Mormon Massachusetts elected him soundly.

 

F_B just launched one about 500 feet into the upper deck.
Yawn, you really made yourself look like an idiot on this thread.

 

For the record, I don't find the hat story any sillier than many religious beliefs.

That said, there is a big difference between the "bigotry" you're decrying and finding a series of beliefs silly or not in keeping with the thought processes of someone fit to lead a nation.

If someone says, "I'm not going to vote for someone who wears funny underwear," that's probably based on a cultural bias.

If someone says, "I'm not going to vote for someone who thinks a con man in New York saw the word of God in his hat," that's fair comment and criticism of someone's thought processes. That's a lot different than saying "I'm not going to vote for someone who is black because they are black."

But, as has been said on here before, everyone running for president espouses religious belief, so the only people likely to not vote for Mitt Romney based on religion are those who find his religion in contrast with theirs, and not the skeptics.

 

Romney's religion should not even be an issue.

The most fundamental of all laws in this nation is the freedom of religion. Therefore, no candidate should ever be written off because of his own personal religious beliefs — or lack thereof.

Based purely on that, unless it is outright affecting his politics and he is campaigning in a way to impose his personal beliefs on you, then using that as a reason not to vote for someone is bigotry.

You don't like his politics? Fine. Don't vote for him. I don't care. But don't write someone off because he was reared in a religious society.

 

Well, that's a different argument, but since he gave a speech about it, it made it an issue, at least to some folks.

Again, in a perfect world, I agree with you.

Well, Romney is the one who said that "There is no freedom without religion." His religion does affect his politics. And people are perfectly free to think that someone who professes, for instance, belief in a literal interpretation of scripture, aren't smart enough or clear-thinking enough to hold political office. That's disagreement, not bigotry.

I don't see anyone here "writing someone off because he was reared in a religious society."

 

Romney's run the textbook "pander" campaign to the GOP's evy sector, and his campaign continues to feature all the heat and intensity of a wet match.

. . . . and this latest chapter simply exemplifies the above, as he clearly didn't feel the need to play this latest card -- until he felt Huckabee's moist breath on the back of his neck.

Potomac Fever, at its worst . . . what people (of BOTH parties) won't do to manipulate themselves into a favorable position, in this race . . . welcome to Debasement Central.

 

I've read the Smith bio Rough Rolling Stone, which is written by a Mormon. Hat or no hat, the circumstances surrounding Smith's "revelations" don't exactly reek of credibility. Worship whomever or whatever you want, but any non-Mormon who learns the story of the founding of Mormonism is likely to view it with a mix of amusement and skepticism.

By the way, I don't recommend Rough Rolling Stone if you're looking for a Smith bio. I do have Fawn Brodie's bio of Smith on my list.

 

Finlay got chance to watch Romney's speech and read copy of transcript. It was impressive- beautifully written and beautifully delivered. I bet he did himself a world of good.

I guarantee you that before yesterday's speech there were many who did not even know that the Mormon faith recognized the birth of Jesus Christ.

Mit has gone to the top of my short list.

 

My refusal to vote for Romney isn't bigotry. I don't dislike him because of his religion, I think he's probably a good man. But I want a President to think and reason, not blindly accept things told him by others. I wouldn't vote for Huckabee either. Why is it that religion is not allowed to be analyzed? If someone was running for President that staunchly believed the Earth is flat, I would hope most people would instantly disqualify him. I see no difference between that and religion.

To those who are espousing their open mindedness on a candidates religion, what if that religion were Santeria or voodoo? I'd bet most of you would have a problem with that.

 

Romney was governor of my state for four years. I never once thought of his religion. I never once heard a fellow citizen mention it. First he was popular, then he was not, for reasons that had nothing to do with his faith (but a good deal to do with his willingness to change positions at the drop of a poll). The only effect his Mormonism had on Romney's term in office is that his friendship with fellow Mormon Danny Ainge kept him going to Celtics games even though the team really stunk.
Voting for or against someone because of what they are as opposed to what they say or do is disgraceful. It's also a really good way for the voter to fuck him or herself over.

 

If that person is closed minded and believes in things I'm opposed to then it makes perfect sense. If people would keep their religion private, it would have no effect on me. But proclaiming ones faith while campaigning - that makes it an issue. I'm pro choice, I believe in evolution, I want stem cell research, but most religious candidates don't because of their religion.

There's also a big difference between being a governor and being a President. Governors deal mainly with fiscal issues. Presidents deal with social issues as well.

 

But Thomson, you are voting on the basis of those candidate's positions on public issues, which you oppose. If they said, "I'm against that personally, but I don't force my religion on people", would you then vote against a Mormon such as Harry Reid?