Comments about ‘Why fuss over religion?’

Sorry, mate, but I find that religionists and co-religionists have the least understanding of their own religions. The people who know most about religions (of any kind) are not necessarily the religionist-in-the-street but the man in the Ivory Tower who has actually studied it.

Very few Christians have actually read the Wholly Babble and very few have read while thinking. During my BYU days, I discovered that almost none of the students had read the Smith fantasy (including RMs and those who took the required BoM classes).

Sorry Charly, but Mormons have been making it a point to set themselves apart from the Christian mainstream for so long they forget that the same mainstream views them accordingly.

I, on the other hand, am a non mormon among mormons, and it is a big deal that Romney's a mormon. Not because mormonism is claiming to be middle of the road christianity personified, which punts my beliefs out into no man's land because I don't believe in Kolob or that there's archaeological evidence of places with egyptian names throughout the Americas.
No, for me it's a big deal because I see what a mormon city council or state legislature does, and I don't want any of that stuff at the federal level.

As an active Mormon, I must say that you either aren't that familiar with Mormanism, or you don't understand the larger context and history of Christianity. Mormons do, in fact, participate in "strange rituals," though without the horns, of course. And Mormon's do not have "ordinary Christian beliefs." That is the whole reason for the Restoration. That the rest of the Christian world perceives us as being outside the flow of traditional Christianity, shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.

Freedom of religion is good but after living in Utah for years I have found that many Mormons don't practice this belief as they believe they are the only true Church therefore they have condemed many others for their beliefs that is why religion does come into play. Mitt has already said he would not allow a Muslim in his cabinet, tell me that is not wrong

I'm a Mormon, and even I don't understand us sometimes!

Mitt never said he would not allow a Muslim in the cabinet. He said you don't need a Muslim to combat Jihad.

A wacko is a wacko be it christian or mormon. Look at what our christian president has done to our country for the last eight years. I would rather have someone with fairness and compassion and the intelligence to do the job and do not really care what he believes in as long as he treats everyone group fairly. Oh it would be nice if he was not bought and paid for by special interest groups such as big oil.

Just another example of reilgious hypocrisy. Romney says his religion shouldn't make any difference, then shows his own bigotry by saying he would not appoing a moslem to any office. Nobody would expect him to appoint a fanatical anti-american moslem terrorist. But to say "no moslem" also means no US citized whose family has been here for generations but who happens to embrace the moslem religion. If he is going to practice relibious bigotry, it is fair that he be the target of it.

I'll second the motion that I wouldn't want what the city council and local leaders have done in Utah at the federal level.

Where are the real Americans who are willing to go against the toxic authoritarianism in this country and throw some tea in the harbor?

Well, since we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and despots in honoring, sustaining, and upholding the law (without regard to whether the law is worthy of honor), I don't think the tea will be thrown into the Great Salt Lake anytime soon.

Well Roger, sounds like you have a good grasp of how authoritarianism works.
My guess is the powers that be can sense that the natives are growing restless and are doing some outlandish things to keep order.
But people are people and they will only put up with so much tyranny.

All this talk of "authoritarianism" is a bit silly.

Any good American would join with Jefferson in swearing eternal hostility to every form of tyranny. That said, any person with an ounce of sense recognizes that there needs to be at least *some* order -- ideally maintained by widespread, willing obedience to some common-sense, generally-accepted rules -- if we're to avoid the law of the jungle. (The mortgage markets could have used a bit more "authoritarianism" and a little less freewheeling anarchy over the past few years, for example.)

Most Americans wont vote for atheist. We're not whining.

I'd like to refer to Forster's original letter. He seems to understand neither the Constitution, or how it works in practice. Freedom of religion is not an issue here at all. No one is forced BY THE GOVERNMENT (which is what the Constitution deals with, after all) to practice, abstain or believe in any way. There is no LEGAL religious requirement for any elected office. But VOTERS appear to prefer candidates with religious beliefs that they are at least somewhat familiar or comfortable with. Accusations about a candidate's religious beliefs during a campaign have been common through our history.
So, yes, Romney is free to run for office, but has the burden of convincing voters besides those in Forster's Provo that his faith is not going to be a problem in his presidency. After all, less than 2% of Americans are LDS. Is it fair? Maybe not, but since the church is not shy about distinguishing itself from other denominations, Romney no doubt knew this would be a problem. If all this was already clear to Forster, it didn't show in his letter.

Having been raised LDS, I know what Mormons believe. I know Mormons don't have horns, and that their rituals aren't necessarily any stranger than other groups'.

I also know what most Mormons believe politically--and that's precisely the reason I will probably never vote for a Mormon.

Knowing a candidate's likely political beliefs based on his religion makes me an astute voter. Yes, we have freedom of religion here. But I also have the freedom to vote against anybody I choose.