Mister Scratch wrote:Romney is embarrassed, plain and simple. There is no reason why his beliefs should somehow be "off limits," nor is there any good reason why he should be afraid to answer the question of whether or not he thinks Jesus and Satan are brothers. Romney's beliefs should be open to all sorts of scrutiny, so that each individual voter can weigh for him or herself whether or not Romney is a viable candidate.
Sure
If every other candidate is subjected to the same scrutiny on their religous beliefs then fine. If not then nope.
As for embarrassed? I don't think so. Tired of being harangued more likely.
Mister Scratch wrote:Romney is embarrassed, plain and simple. There is no reason why his beliefs should somehow be "off limits," nor is there any good reason why he should be afraid to answer the question of whether or not he thinks Jesus and Satan are brothers. Romney's beliefs should be open to all sorts of scrutiny, so that each individual voter can weigh for him or herself whether or not Romney is a viable candidate.
Sure
If every other candidate is subjected to the same scrutiny on their religous beliefs then fine. If not then nope.
As for embarrassed? I don't think so. Tired of being harangued more likely.
That's no excuse for dissembling on an answer. Mitt Romney shot himself in the foot in Iowa by appearing to either misspeak about his religion or distance himself from it. The whole "crying foul" business when Huckabee asked out loud about Jesus and Satan being brothers was fairly disingenuous, and that includes the response on MADB.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Mister Scratch wrote:Romney is embarrassed, plain and simple. There is no reason why his beliefs should somehow be "off limits," nor is there any good reason why he should be afraid to answer the question of whether or not he thinks Jesus and Satan are brothers. Romney's beliefs should be open to all sorts of scrutiny, so that each individual voter can weigh for him or herself whether or not Romney is a viable candidate.
Sure
If every other candidate is subjected to the same scrutiny on their religous beliefs then fine. If not then nope.
This seems a pretty gross oversimplification. I mean, how would one quantify such a thing? "Same scrutiny"? How would we go about measuring that? Are all churches equally open and forthcoming about their doctrines, history, and finances? Do people have as many questions about other churches as they do about the LDS Church? The bottom line, in my view, is that all of this stuff should be fair game. Those who don't want certain questions to be asked only raise suspicion.
As for embarrassed? I don't think so. Tired of being harangued more likely.
What "harangue"? And come on: we all know how over-sensitive Mopologetic-types are.
But just to add to the little rabbit trail. The American electorate has NEVER voted on the basis of qualifications to govern. To demonstrate: quite a number of Iowa women voted for Hilary because "it's about time we had a woman president." Just any old woman, I guess. They would as happily have voted for Brittaany Spears if she had been on the ballot.
Any one who portrays themselves as having concerns about Romney's theology is fooling him/herself.
But just to add to the little rabbit trail. The American electorate has NEVER voted on the basis of qualifications to govern. To demonstrate: quite a number of Iowa women voted for Hilary because "it's about time we had a woman president." Just any old woman, I guess. They would as happily have voted for Brittaany Spears if she had been on the ballot.
Isn't your friend Julie over on MADB suggesting that Latter-day Saints should vote for Mitt precisely because "it's about time we had an LDS president?"
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
To demonstrate: quite a number of Iowa women voted for Hilary because "it's about time we had a woman president." Just any old woman, I guess. They would as happily have voted for Brittaany Spears if she had been on the ballot.
Yeah, Hillary Clinton, Brittany Spears, what's the difference.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
To demonstrate: quite a number of Iowa women voted for Hilary because "it's about time we had a woman president." Just any old woman, I guess. They would as happily have voted for Brittaany Spears if she had been on the ballot.
Yeah, Hillary Clinton, Brittany Spears, what's the difference.
Lol. While we're at it: "What does Hillary Clinton's gender have *ANYTHING* to do with her ability to govern? What does Britney Spears's wacked-out activities have *ANYTHING* to do with her ability to govern??? That's her PRIVATE LIFE! No one should be asking any questions about that!!!"