Though a woman and a black man can be viable candidates for president, it is sad that a candidate's religion is still an issue. I even got an email today from a Paultard attacking Obama for being a member of a "false church of Christ."

RFH -- Really F'ing Hilarious -- is the flow of Paulbots who have started calling LIARS hateradio.

It's like an iPod pointed at a tape recorder -- and both at maximum volume ... neither one capable of hearing.

I know its a little before my time, but isn't this the same thing said about Kennedy being beholden to the Pope?

Yawn.

But a candidate's religion is an issue. No atheists or agnostics need apply. And frankly, one of the scariest things about the "born-again" Christians is their ideas (if that's not too dignified a word for it) about Armageddon and/or the Rapture. Much as I prefer not to be on an airplane whose pilot believes in reincarnation, I'd rather have our government in the hands of someone who's primary focus is on this life on this planet. As for a Mormon in the White House: I'd be against it. Mormonism is a cult, and it's hard to take its believers seriously.

Hillary is a cult.

A Mormon believer is required by church doctrine (as dictated by the church's "living prophet") to "obey God's commands" over anything else. He Romney, like all 'temple Mormons,' made his secret vows using Masonic-derived handshakes, passwords, and symbolic death oaths that he promised in the temple never to reveal to the outside world" -- and that Romney also secretly vowed to devote his "time, talents" and more "to the building of the Mormon religion on earth."
Benson is the grandson of former Mormon leader Ezra Taft Benson.

Many candidates appear to worship money.

Ah, I love the smell of religious bigotry in the morning!

Hillary is a cult.

Please tell me that's not just a typo.

Offended by the accusation of bigotry, I looked it up. As a description ("intolerance"), it fits well, at least with respect to my attitude toward political office-seekers at the national level. Who could say that a candidate's fundamental beliefs don't matter?

Radical Cleric:" The Ad Huckabee Doesn't Want You To See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/radical-cleric-the-ad-_b_80342.html
Yup scared the Hell out of me.LOL
Sam Harris where are you?

Allan L. since you're against a Mormon in the White House, I assume you're also against a Mormon being a Senate majority leader, right?

Does the Senate actually do anything?

Allan L. not with the lib's in control.

Allan L. writes:
"Offended by the accusation of bigotry, I looked it up. As a description ("intolerance"), it fits well, at least with respect to my attitude toward political office-seekers at the national level."
---------

Glad to know that the shoe fits.

And I also appreciate your honesty on the subject. Most are ignorant as well as dishonest when admitting their own bigotry.

The US Constitution says that "no religious test shall every be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I think that is a wise provision, but that does not mean that voters do not, or should not, take into account a candidate's beliefs when casting their votes. Several candidates in recent years have pitched their campaigns, in significant measure, on appeals to voters who share their religious views; indeed, it appears that Mike Huckabee's most effective ads in Iowa were those that portrayed him as a man of [a certain kind of] faith and that appealed to voters who shared that faith.

Would you vote for a candidate who believes that the moon is made of green cheese? Or that the moon landings were staged by the government in the sands of New Mexico? Or that extraterrestrial beings communicate with him/her through messages transmitted to his/her dental fillings? Do such beliefs tell you something significant about a candidate, or are they all irrelevant?

But if you believe that they are relevant (or, at least, that a voter who takes them into account is not a "bigot"), then why is it irrelevant -- and indeed "bigotry" -- to take into account the fact that a candidate believes that dinosaurs walked the earth (and shared a boat ride, with Noah) with human beings? Or that a candidate believes that when astrophysicists speak of light traveling millions of light-years from a distant star, they are indulging in science fiction? Or that carbon dating is a myth? Or that geologists who say that the earth's continents were once joined together, and gradually moved apart over the course of millions of years, are simply liars? Or that in 1827, a 22-year old man found some golden plates in upstate New York, covered with indecipherable writing that only he could translate, and that Jesus appeared in the western hemisphere and converted thousands of people before Columbus sailed to the Americas?

If you would question the judgment of a candidate who believes that the moon landings were fabricatrions, why do you think it is inappropriate to question the judgment of a candidate who believes that the modern discoveries of astrophysicists and geologists are also fabrications?

Thank you, Charlie, and thank whom- or whatever endowed you with such eloquence and erudition. I was about to post that I really didn't think "religious bigotry" was anything especially shameful -- unlike racial or gender discrimination, which attaches consequences to attributes that don't relate to character and have no element of choice in them. But you've made the point ever so much better than I could have done.

Charlie Hinkle joins (and defends) Allan L. in his bigotry.

I am sure that they did feel the same about JFK when he ran for President.

If you can't respond to an argument on its merits, just sling mud! Way to go, Veritas! [Talk about irony in a name!!] Too ashamed to reveal your identity on line?

No mud is being slung. And most of us here are under various forms of anonymity, which is more the norm within the Internet blogs. But, of course, nobody is really anonymous here, now are we?

Your argument works the same against JFK as well, no?

So, am I mistaken that you did feel the same about JFK when he ran for President? Even if you may not have been of voting age...

"Charlie Hinkle joins (and defends) Allan L. in his bigotry."
--------

If that is what you are referring to about mud slinging, well then let me refer you to my previous comment complimenting Allan L.:

"And I also appreciate your honesty on the subject. Most are ignorant as well as dishonest when admitting their own bigotry."

Allan was both honest and precise. Both are rare when discussing bigotry, and I still do compliment him on that.

There are some religious tenets, embraced by candidates, that one can overlook as a voter, even if one doesn't agree with them; others may reveal character traits or conflicts of interest that are disqualifications for high public office.Public pronouncements by the Catholic Church in recent times, threatening public officeholders with excommunication for taking, for example, a position or action against outlawing abortion, provide a good example of a conflict of interest. If you were to ask me what I think of having a Roman Catholic majority on the Supreme Court, I would say "nothing good".

You sure it was Romney? Because the stuff coming out today about R** P*** is far worse, in my opinion. See, e.g., http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php

Veritas is absolutely correct. This is the exact same hogwash they said about JFK when he ran for Pres - that he be subject to the wims of the Vatican.

Last I heard, the Mormon Church is not exactly gay-friendly. But wasn't Mitt FOR gay marriage rights until this Presidential run? He's a 'flip-flopper' sure....but hardly a slave to the LDS.

...but that does not mean that voters do not, or should not, take into account a candidate's beliefs when casting their votes.

I think the distinction here is that you and Allan seem quick to infer individual "beliefs" based on your (probably cursory) investigations of the precepts of the organized religion to which they belong. However easy that makes it to dismiss or condemn the individual, it seems to lack a basic fairness. Is it really your position that all members of all religions accept and conform to all the teachings of those religions?

I think "prejudice" is a more accurate word here than "bigotry".

People have to be taken for what they do more than by what they say. We don't know what an individual's beliefs are. I hardly know what my own are. I therefore attach more importance to a person's membership in a sect or cult (an act) than to a profession of belief. That might constitute prejudice; if it does, I am comfortable with it.

I therefore attach more importance to a person's membership in a sect or cult (an act) than to a profession of belief.

That would be valid (except for the sect/cult dig) if everyone "joined" organized religions. I think it more likely that religious affiliation tends to be passive rather than active. If true, to impute a person's beliefs based on religious affiliation while discounting their profession of belief seems rather curious.

One or both will be self-serving, and that tells you something.