DiscussMormonism.com

No one called old Bush out for being part of the mad cult invented by the convicted and executed fraud Jesus (of a CAPITAL CRIME).....let alone how he might have shared them with others.

He would have, had Jesus lived less than two hundred years ago in America and had been convicted by our government. No question.

I don't think the fact that Mitt is LDS disqualifies him out of the gate for being a competent president, but it's a laugh how all the Mormons seem to think his religious ties which are very strong, including the wearing of special underware as a sign of his devotion, shouldn't at all be scrutinized first by the public as they try to ascertain his competency and objectives.

The Nehor wrote:Is it hard to find information on Mormons? There are those who want to know and will find out on their own, those who have a casual interest but not enough to do anything about it (they're irrelevant), and those who want him to to use it against him. I think the third category is the reason he doesn't.

What does that matter, Nehor? Am I here to argue the merits of their position? All I know is that they hold it, and I think Romney would ultimately be better off if he addressed some of the important questions rather than continue as he has.

Jason Bourne wrote:
the Book god is not great is a worthless rant full of distortions and part truths. Hitchens is an idiot. He does not serve the atheist view well.

What is the atheist view? I think I should be in on it.

Jason Bourne wrote:the Book god is not great is a worthless rant full of distortions and part truths. Hitchens is an idiot. He does not serve the atheist view well.

I agree that Hitchens is an abrasive atheist. I prefer Dennett and Dawkins to Harris and Hitchens. I wouldn't go so far as to call Hitchens an idiot, though. I'd like to know which parts of his book you consider to be distortions and part-truths. I didn't find the book to be worthless. I think Hitchens provides a nice counterbalance to the raving nutjobs from the religious right like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham.

Trevor wrote:Personally, I think many of these bones to pick over a candidate's religion are stupid. It especially infuriates me to hear people with idiotic Christian beliefs rip into Romney for having different theological ideas. Who cares whether your imaginary friend is three headed or three people who hang out? Give me a break.

Apparently one's religion is an issue for Mitt -- see link below for an article about Mitt's saying he would not put a Muslim in a high-ranking job in his administration.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/pol ... n_rom.html

"According to Ijaz, Romney said that based on the proportion of Muslims in the US population, a Cabinet post would not be "justified," though he could "imagine" Muslims serving in lower-level jobs in his administration."

I wonder what Romney would think of using the same logic to exclude him from the presidency.

silentkid wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote:the Book god is not great is a worthless rant full of distortions and part truths. Hitchens is an idiot. He does not serve the atheist view well.

I agree that Hitchens is an abrasive atheist. I prefer Dennett and Dawkins to Harris and Hitchens. I wouldn't go so far as to call Hitchens an idiot, though. I'd like to know which parts of his book you consider to be distortions and part-truths. I didn't find the book to be worthless. I think Hitchens provides a nice counterbalance to the raving nutjobs from the religious right like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham.

I think Dennett is incredibly polite and wants an audience beyond just atheists. I enjoy reading him because he approaches theists without the condescension.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Trevor wrote:Personally, I think many of these bones to pick over a candidate's religion are stupid. It especially infuriates me to hear people with idiotic Christian beliefs rip into Romney for having different theological ideas. Who cares whether your imaginary friend is three headed or three people who hang out? Give me a break.

Apparently one's religion is an issue for Mitt -- see link below for an article about Mitt's saying he would not put a Muslim in a high-ranking job in his administration.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/pol ... n_rom.html

He wasn't directly quoted in that article. It was an individual relating Romney's reply. It would be interesting if he did say that, but I'm uncomfortable with that reporting.

barrelomonkeys wrote:He wasn't directly quoted in that article. It was an individual relating Romney's reply. It would be interesting if he did say that, but I'm uncomfortable with that reporting.

Yeah, well, the article attributes at least three different views on the same issue to Romney. It must be accurate. ;-)

Trevor wrote:

The Nehor wrote:Is it hard to find information on Mormons? There are those who want to know and will find out on their own, those who have a casual interest but not enough to do anything about it (they're irrelevant), and those who want him to to use it against him. I think the third category is the reason he doesn't.

What does that matter, Nehor? Am I here to argue the merits of their position? All I know is that they hold it, and I think Romney would ultimately be better off if he addressed some of the important questions rather than continue as he has.

Answering questions will encourage more questions. He may satisfy a few but does the rest of the nation want a President that is barraged with tons of religious questions and takes the time to answer them.