Romney's Not A Witch

I agree with....

Even when what is delved into or detailed is considered "not too much," there is a fine line between such sincere and necessary efforts and harmful discriminatory investigations (and the resulting discourse) which serves no purpose other than wound the candidate.

However, since the subject matter for my words was applicable to religious practices and beliefs, inclusive of pertinent business involvement/practices that the candidate has been a party to, I think discussion and discovery of facts on this is not only fair, but needed. Most is public information.

This isn't baseless and/or information to be twisted or sensationalized by the tabloids and cable pundits.  It's factual data needed to get a focused and authentic portrayal of a candidate who, both he and his family, have acknowledged the depth of their ties to this entity and even touted.

So I'm not allowed to worry that Reagan thinks his religion tells him that the Rapture could happen in his lifetime, and encouraging these biblical predictions is a good thing, even if it means widespread war, disease and famine?

I'm not allowed to examine how religion informs a candidate's attitude for women, whether he thinks that women should be second place at home and in the workplace, public or politics?

I shouldn't care about Ben Nelson's religious influences, even though those influences persuaded him to sell abortion services down the river during the health care debate?

We shouldn't pry into Joe Lieberman's religious nuttery in trying to push us to war with Iran over the last 4 years, even though Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Secretary with rather solid defense/security credentials has said that Iran is rational and not an existential threat?

Presumably whatever philosophy most informs a candidate's judgment and actions should be examined the most. If it's Romney's corporate raider philosophy, the pragmatism and anti-racism of his father, or the underpinnings of his religion, I want to know which of the 3, and how they mix.

Screw all the PC talk. If someone infers being a Southern Baptist to truly mean "the South's going to do it again" with all its racist fury, we damn right should consider religion and encourage everyone to vote against him or her. That doesn't mean the religion in particular is the problem (though in the case of the Southern Baptists, they believed that races should be kept separate, and even up to 1995 were still trying to figure out a proper apology).

But if religion's a major influence, like Mel Gibson's father's beliefs seem to be, it should affect our acceptance of that candidate. (and no, I don't care about what Gibson does as an actor or director short of some obvious gross and crass use of movies to incite say hate).

It's much less the minority religions that I worry about than the majority ones - the latter already proved they can dominate, both through dogma and military backing.

Hey there,

How the heck are you? Happy New Year.  

Interesting response.  We all are entitled to an opinion.  And what makes it so interesting is that yours is yours and while it differs from mine, attempting to denigrate me because you choose to assume facts not in evidence is your choice.  An attempt to stir the pot, bully per se.?

 I do choose to take issue with ....

I call bigoted bullshit.

'Bigoted' is such a nasty, derogative slur - we must be very careful how we utilize it so that we will not minimize its' true definition.  And I do wonder why you chose to view what I wrote thru such a negative, distorted lens.

Learning about any religious doctrine and practices should be encouraged.   Facts are facts.   I'm not asserting Mormons are to be vilified or disrespected.  And there's nothing I wrote that even suggests that fact.  Quite the opposite.  

People too often base their negative bias's on what they've heard about a religion - not on what only taking the time and effort to learn the facts that will provide them with - the truth. 

Every group, whether religion, gender, race, ethnic, political affiliation, etc. has the best and the worst representatives within their body.  

I was very fortunate to have been raised to know that no one should be demeaned or disrespected based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.  And that we all have a responsibility to stand up and speak out against those who do so, because they are the worst kind of bullies.  And I do.  I am.

Have a nice day.

I understand and support your stance in theory.  And, I am rabid about the TOTAL support of separation of church and state. 

But, as we know, the Repubs continue to tout their religious convictions as they repeatedly violate this 'law' and in their campaigns for public office. 

My stance, as stated, for me, is valid because of the above and ...... Any candidates religious fervor will impact their decisions on legislation and acts conducted under the umbrella of their public office.  That is a fact.  Based on that fact, understanding their particular religious ideology is important.  Not only for Romney, but any and all.

I remember your posts at the Cafe and rec'd most.  Glad to see you're still at the 'top of your game' and on site.  Always a pleasure to read and you always make me think, sometimes even re-evaluate.  

I expect some people wouldn't vote for atheists, and that would be their choice, based on their personal values. Being an atheist is also a choice, and I think anytime you want a public life, you have to defend those choices, and not all people are going to like you because of those choices. On the other hand some people may love you. That's part of the democratic process, and a risk to all who seek office. Some people make it through that process and some don't. I understand that's not an entirely PC opinion, but I think we see it borne out again and again in every election.