VegasRefugee wrote:Coggins7 wrote:Note: This is assuming that Romney would win the Presidency. Personally I think his chances are slim.
I also vote for Presidential oaths. Realistically Romney has to realize that he has to take his presidential oaths first. People (the vast vast majority of which are not Mormon) are voting for a President, not a preacher. I think at the end of the campaign he'll realize his constituency are all the Americans, not just the Mormons.
I find it absolutely incredible that Romney is going to go through the same three ring circus JFK went through forty years ago because of his Catholicism. What is not at all shocking is that almost all of this tempest in a teapot is coming from the secular Left, as is most of the renewed anti-semitism here and in Europe.
When will some of us start to grow up?
Comparing catholicism to Mormonism is laughable. Mormonism is an NRM started by a criminal. Christianity was an NRM started by a criminal 2000 years ago.
Mormonism is not catholicism and anyone who tries to make the comparrison is probably Mormon. Anyone else is uninformed or in the pocket of romneys camp.
One big difference is that Catholics don't make oaths in secret cermonies wearing robes, aprons, and baker's hats to sacrfice everything for the [Mormon] Church.
That said, I doubt seriously this silly oath even enters Romney's mind, and I doubt it enters many a good believer's mind. Only the real fanatic takes this that seriously, and Romney gives no evidence that he's a fanatic.
As for the comment that one's religious beliefs are irrlevant to fitness to serve as President, that's ridiculous on its face. Even Coggins/Plutarch would probably abstain from voting for some Evangelical with religiously inspired apocalyptic beliefs and who claims to take his marching orders directly from God, which whom he's all chummy. I don't trust a religious fanatic in public office, and neither, rightly, do many people, and I would not vote for one, and neither rightly would many people. But Romney is no religious fanatic.
I think more relevant for Romney, and a more valid criticism, is why he is a member of an institution that is both sexist and homophobic and until recently, racist, but which still has racist doctrines in its scriptures. Any other candidate who belonged to a secular organization with such policies would face serious questions, and I see no reason to excuse religious organizations from the same scrutiny. Just because, presumably, God says its ok to be sexist, homophobic, and racist, doesn't shield it from public scrutiny. I'd like to see the press grill Romney on these issues.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."