Joe, I know many active and loving Christians who, for various reasons, such as their hospital jobs or the health of their elderly parents or children, do not attend church regularly. We practice our religion everyday in our lives, not just on Sundays.

Sorry Mr. Dirt but you seem to be a bit misinformed. President Obama has attended services as often as any other of our recent Presidents. Presidents generally choose not to attended "regular services" out of respect for the church members they would inconvenience with their security requirements. I have observed President Obama practicing his Christian faith on many occasions.

who cares he more important things to do...

I think you can rest assured Christina that Barack Obama is your brother in Christ.

The Koran dictates repeatedly that non-followers, infidels, must be exterminated. The Koran tells them to kill us. They take that shit seriously and we need to as well. Any orthodox Muslim, no matter how ensconced in the American way of life, has to do as his Mosque requires and killing Infidels is on the agenda. I have had American Muslims admit this to me.
I have no problem with Muslims except for their propensity to kill people of other religions. If we want to protect ourselves, we must withdraw our troops from all of the Middle East and tighten our borders to keep them out, all of them. The more we intrude on them, the more murderous they become. They have been killing each other for thousands of years, are nothing more than animals and need to be left to their own devices.
As for Obama, there is no question he plays both sides of that fence. Someone who has Muslim faith cannot be a "brother in Christ". If Obama is re-elected, we can kiss our beloved country good-bye. Is that how we want to reward all of the brave men and women who have fought for and died for our country? Do we just give our country away to outsiders?

Okay, I think that puts you squarely in the "does not matter" column. But again, Mormons don't claim to be Christians. Christians believe that salvation is achieved through faith in Christ alone. Mormons do not.

Grant, you hit the nail right on the head. Kudos!

Well Joe, then your experience has been much different than mine. Dr. Richard Land, of The Southern Baptist Convention also disagrees with you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljm9WeaePLE

In your reference to picking up a book and learning some truth. The the problem is what book are you referring?. The only real truth is found in the 1611 KJV Bible. The problem with the denominations other than Christian is they either add to or take away from the word of God. Rev. 22:18,19. You cannot add to or take away from God's and call yourself a christian.

William, I am under the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that King James himself added and took away from the bible to create the 1611 KJV Bible. It seems to me that to say the 1611 KJV Bible is the word of God is like saying King James himself, was God or a tool of God. It's hard to buy into that. Who is to say that King James wasn't just another jackass? And who are you to say that the 1611 KJV is the end all to Christianity? It could be that the 1611 KJV Bible is just an exceptionally good history book.
Either way, I think saying Romney isn't a Christian is 100% Grade A BS and anyone who says so ought to be ashamed of themselves. I think it is more important for our President to be an actual American. At best, Obama is only half American and that just doesn't cut it for me.

The first thing you learn about the Mormon church is they have a great PR machine. Regardless of what rosy picture they paint, they are not Christian in the traditional sense of the word. In their own words "traditional Christianity has wandered from the truth over the centuries". The Christian church has a long history and has evolved into many different denominations that share several core beliefs. The Mormon church is not part of this history and is not "just another denomination". I'm not saying this is good or bad but it is an important distinction to be made.

By the way, the Mormon church certainly believes THEY get to define others beliefs according to their own. Why do you think they're knocking on your door?

They may be reviewing the actions / fruits of works performed and coming to differing conclusions...

For the record, I am not an evangelical. When I go to church, which shamefully isn't often, I'm a live and let live Presbyterian. My arguments here are mostly for discussion.

Sorry to disgust you Grant but this is exactly why this needs a public airing. Based on my understanding of the Mormon faith and my firsthand experience with Mormons, it is MY fear that Romney is much MORE likely to insert his faith into our government. It's not that Mormons aren't good people, but their religion isn't in line with traditional Christianity and it is far too repressive for most non-Christians. If that's what you want, great! Caveat Emptor!

Never claimed to be an expert on world religions. I am however a professed Christian, not that I'm a particularly good one, and I do have some first hand experience with Mormonism. If worshiping a flying spaghetti monster gives you peace then more power to you but if you try to tell me that God has revealed to you that believing in flying spaghetti monsters is a requirement for my salvation, I'm going to disagree. I'm not trying to say Mormonism is right or wrong, but it is most definitely not a part of the traditional Christian church. I'm curious how those who have strongly held evangelical beliefs and who wish to vote for the more conservative candidate are dealing with this dilemma.

So, Brian is a professed Chirstian, although by his own words not a good one, and therefore he is CHRISTIAN. Mormons are professed Christians, and almost all that I have known were good ones, yet they are NOT CHRISTIANS. Exactly how does that work again? Mormons worship in a building they call temple rather than church and they read and study a different version of the bible than Presbyterians
. They also worship God and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Why are the first two things so much more important to being a Christian than the second two?

Hi Patty, the distinctions between Mormons and Christians are much more profound than the type of building they worship in. They believe the teachings of Christ include teachings from other books including "The Book of Mormon", "The Doctrine and Covenants", and "The Pearl of Great Price" that were revealed to their prophet and founder Joseph Smith by a holy angel named Moroni beginning on the night of September 21, 1823.

Brian writes
"They believe the teachings of Christ include teachings from other books including "The Book of Mormon", "The Doctrine and Covenants", and "The Pearl of Great Price" that were revealed to their prophet and founder Joseph Smith by a holy angel named Moroni beginning on the night of September 21, 1823."

And the Christian church is based on a "vision" some dude named Paul had about a guy who he never met ...So what? What makes one fairy tale better then the other?

That is indeed the secular definition of Christian.

Right, but Mormons don't follow the teachings of Christ. They add a bunch of stuff in there that is not a part of the traditional Christian belief system. If you read the link you posted through the eyes of someone who believes they are saved by grace through Christ, the differences hit you like a ton of bricks. We obviously disagree on this. While I'm sure they're out there, I don't personally know any Christians who believe "God Hates Fags".

Thank you for pulling me back off that ledge. I think I did mention I'm not a very GOOD Christian. I've actually done a poor job explaining myself. My personal beliefs are much closer to what you have so eloquently described. Pax.

So do you believe Mormons are Christians?

Whether I think they (or anyone) else is "Christian" is irrelevant. That kind of thing tends to devolve into arguments over who is "Christian enough." As a white, heterosexual male minister who is pro-choice, an ally of GLBTIQ persons, and with a more inclusive view of salvation, I am sure there are some who would not view me as "Christian." I know how that makes me feel, so I would rather go down that road with others.

I have done some research on the Mormon faith and do find it very different from my own understanding of the faith I practice. But then again, so do the people of Westboro Baptist Church and they call themselves "Christian." (And let me be clear, I am in NO WAY comparing Mormons to the idiots who follow Fred Phelps.) I do know that we often condemn things we do not understand and that countless Mormons are good, fine, compassionate, giving people.

Thank you for that answer.

Patrick's statement fits right in with my own feelings. I don't feel that any one religion is right and all the others wrong. Religions that believe that they are the only one that is right and all others wrong are where I do disagree, but only on the part where they think they're right vs all others wrong. Trying to enforce your religion on me or anyone else is where it goes wrong. I don't care what religion you are as long as you don't do that.

For the record I attend a Lutheran church that has an inclusive view of salvation as well.

I am confused by one thing about this....Didn't Jesus say something to the effect of the only way to Heaven was through him? John 14:6, I believe. So any faith that professes belief in the New Testament would kind of have to stand hard by this line, no?

Karsten,

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6, NRSV)

This text, about which you are speaking, as I understand it speaks not to the issue of salvation, but rather the intimacy of the relationship one can have with God, through the person of Jesus (as you see in the text, there is no mention of heaven or salvation, just "knowing" in a relational way). In other words, "if you want to see God's nature, live as I live, do as I do, pray as I pray, love as I love, welcome as I welcome, and there you shall come to understand God." As I said earlier, Jesus was trying to bring Judaism into a closer relationship with God. This is often mistakenly interpreted as a "salvation text." Also, we have to remember that these are words the Gospel writer John ATTRIBUTES to Jesus. There are no eyewitness accounts to the life and ministry of Jesus in the Bible (John's Gospel was probably written some 50-60 years after Jesus' death) and we must also remember that the Gospel writers, being human like you and me, often wrote with a particular agenda and message they wanted to get across. For John, that message was that through signs, people would come to the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. (John 20:30-31).

Honest question for you, Patrick. You say that Jesus, in John 14.6, is actually saying, "if you want to see God's nature, live as I live, do as I do, pray as I pray, love as I love, welcome as I welcome, and there you shall come to understand God." Then you go on to basically deny the historically orthodox understanding on the inspiration and authority of scripture.

My question is, on what basis do you claim to know, really know, how Jesus lived, acted, prayed, loved and welcomed?

Carter's "Born Again" Christianity was also a topic of much discussion.

BUT on the premise you have started here

Since the Kennedy – Romney parallel is a far more similar in nature, are you saying for the record you couldn’t / wouldn’t / didn’t vote for JFK? (Not sure of your age)

Because quite frankly, that’s how this discussion is coming across…

Ouch, smack down accepted. So then you consider Mormons to be Christian as well?

And for the record, no, I'm not gay.
I do however believe in the rights of every American and to have someone at the helm who's professed belief system/church funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into a hate campaign against certain groups of American citizens, it doesn't work for me.
That's about as Un-American as you can get in my book.
And all done in the name of his beloved religion.
No thank you. I think I'll stick with the crazy I already know best!

Thanks for weighing in Oscar. I'm still torn about this. On the one hand, I've never voted for or against someone based on their religion. On the other it's comforting to think that the person with their finger on "The Button" shares my core values.

Brian, you are on record on the Patch as being a staunchly anti-republican liberal, & you’ve made no secret of your contempt for all things republican (often deriding republican policies & anyone who would vote for an "idiot w/(R) behind their name"). That’s fine, that’s you’re right, & I’m not arguing that, but it’s disingenuous for you to act as if you are “torn about this”. Voting for Romney is not even a consideration for you, regardless of what his religious beliefs are. & if you just wanted to pick your personal bone w/Mormonism you could have done so w/o even mentioning Romney. Your purpose w/this opinion piece is to attempt to create doubt &/or dissention among potential Romney voters under the guise of a thoughtful discussion.

PS – It’s also a tad specious to say that “it’s comforting to think that the person with their finger on "The Button" shares my core values”. If this were such a troubling issue for you, why single Romney out? Is it that you feel Mormons have a predilection for Armageddon & are somehow more dangerous than the leaders in nuclear Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel & North Korea who also do not share your professed religious values?

It’s also disingenuous to act as if Romney’s faith has not been covered ad nauseam. This is Romney’s 2nd go-around—the Mormon issue was brought up during Romney’s first POTUS campaign, & has been discussed many times since then, including this election’s primaries, as he’s always been the presumptive nominee.

What exactly is it that you think should be vetted anyway? If you believe as you state that there should not be a religious test for office, & you perceive that Romney is not being subjected to a religious test, then where is no problem. You’ve gotten what you want, so why would you try to make it an issue if you think it should be a non-issue?

There is no question about Romney’s faith and if he practices his faith. So the question is not, like Obama, whether or not he is actually of a particular faith or if he is just using faith as a political prop, it is, like Kennedy, whether or not people are comfortable w/the religion & its practitioners. Questioning whether or not a Mormon can/should be POTUS is just as discriminatory as whether or not a woman or a minority can/should be POTUS. That's a delicate subject, & the reason the Mormon issue is not being explored any further than it has already (& certainly not to the degree that you want it to be) is that to take it further one risks being falsely labeled a bigot, or rightfully exposed as a one (whichever the case may be).

Sorry Chris, I can see where that might sound disingenuous. Let me clarify. I meant I am torn about the question, "Have we progressed to the point where religion is no longer an issue for those we choose to guide our nation?" I thought my feelings for Romney were obvious. I wouldn't vote for the man if he were running for dog catcher. Come to think of it the irony of that might be too good to pass up. Anyway, you get my point.

This isn't about my bone to pick with the Mormon church, that's actually kind of in the way here. It's mostly about the fact that the evangelical right is usually the most vocal about these sorts of issues and yet since Mitt locked up the nomination they've been silent as a tomb. As for the press, show me one in depth discussion about Romney's Mormonism.

A person's belief system is a rather important part of their character. At my age I straddle a generational line where these things mean more to some than others I think. If we are going to elect a man President I think we deserve to know what's in his heart because he will be making decisions that effect the entire world.

One of the things that attracted me most to Obama is the fact that he had dedicated much of his career to helping the poor improve their lot in life. As a Christian I recognized this as a very Christ like endeavor. The man obviously has a brilliant mind and could no doubt be making millions in annual compensation as a corporate CEO.

Romney on the other hand has spent most of his life making rich men richer, mostly himself. There's nothing wrong with that but it does speak to his personal values. Romney is a very wealthy man but it appears he has done little with his money other than give it to the Mormon Church which itself isn't exactly known for it's charitable works.

Brian, what are your core values? Do you love your neighbor as yourself? I do. Do your turn the other cheek? I do. Do you follow the 10 commandments as closely as possible? I do. Do you believe in kindness to all, charity, humility, grace, doing to harm to others? I do. Do you believe in a Creator? I do. Do you believe you're better than millions of others on this planet who don't believe exactly that way? I don't. I'm not a Christian.

We share many of the same values and I certainly don't think I'm better than you or anyone because of my beliefs. Well, maybe Grant but he's a special case. j/k

If you think I'm trying to claim some kind of moral superiority here then you are misinterpreting my purpose.

Actually Brian ,

You're attempting to claim Spiritual Superiority...Both religions are self professed "followers of Christ" you're just trying to claim that your Jesus is somehow better than their Jesus because you think your bugnutty guy that had a vision is somehow better than their bugnutty guy who had a vision..
Obviously a no holds barred Jesus on Jesus cage match is the only logical way to pick a winner...

I look forward to voting for the first candidate that has the balls to stand up and answer questions about his favorite invisible man with "My beliefs are my own and are none of your business"
The day that occurs our country will have begun to cure itself from the disease of religion it has been plagued with

Thanks for adding to the discussion Brian.

No problem. Thanks for the follow up.

I have spent my entire life along the journey of belief, faith, and engagement with the Holy and Sacred I know as God. I have come to and been nurtured in my faith and relationship with God through my relationship with Jesus. I am very clear today about what I believe and feel my eternity is in good shape. I am a student of scripture, knowing not only what it says, but its meaning (as I have come to understand it) based upon its historical context. Faith is not about "right belief" as much as it is about relationship and response. I also believe strongly in grace. Am I perfect? No. But the God I have come to know in Jesus is a welcoming and inclusive God and there is much condemnation expressed towards the arrogance in exclusivity of the Pharisees who think they "fully get it" when no one else does. I very much look forward to realizing my heavenly reward and joining you and Gandhi at the Grand Banquet Table. Thank you for your concern.

Spoken with a truly Christian spirit, Patrick. Amen.

Grant, while many of my fellow Christians would not agree, it is not, in my opinion, about the agreements or disagreements about the Holy Book (I agree there is disagreement and that the BOOKS often contradict one another and with good reason), but the Holy and Sacred story and Presence the collection points us towards. There is a big difference. The irony to me is that some create a false idol of Scripture - something clearly forbidden in the story. Funny, isn't it?

Wow. Grant, what she states is the case according to the New Testament. You know, that silly little bunch of writings that pertains to Jesus? The one that actually says everything that she said. So, technically, she IS right, the only way to God is through Jesus. Not through good works. Or just because you feel like you are due a better afterlife for whatever reason. It's not HER definition of Christian, it's the Bible's. Which, last I checked, was the ultimate authority on the subject. Unless, of course, you know something we don't.....

To be clear -- I'm not arguing that those particular leaders fought in the name of atheism, merely that religion isn't required for horrible human beings to act like horrible human beings.

sounds like your not giving respect to those who don't believe the same as you! typical of the religious followers...i say think what you want but don't push it on others!! Are you trying to start yet another war?Read your history books and you'll find religion is almost always the root of the problems...and whether you believe in religion or not should not determine whether you can run the country...how ridiculous!!!!!

Where did I say that I have no respect for atheists? I consider a great many things when I'm going to vote. Is the person a Conservative or a Liberal? What is their fiscal policy? Do they have a strong ethical history? Are they, for lack of a better term, a jerk? I look at the entirety of their platform and personality. If I feel that a person is going to be disrespectful and antagonistic to the 80% of people who are religious or spiritual in some manner or another, then that's going to be a red flag. It's a completely reasonable response -- people vote based on their conscience all the time, as is their right.

I might or might not vote for an atheist. I simply said I'd have to think about it, and be convinced that they were going to represent me (or my town, my region, my country, etc.) in a manner that I found appropriate. There is absolutely nothing "ridiculous" about it. I wouldn't vote for a liberal either, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the approximately half of the country who would.

you keep saying atheists! you sound like you are a labler! I doubt 80% of the people are religious in this day in age...many are followers or pretenders because they are scared to offend you!!! I was raised a catholic because my parents didn't want to offend there parents...I thought for myself and came to my own conclusions...i think more people should try thinking for themselves and stop following the crowd! We need a leader that knows business!! PS. I am by far a kinder person to my fellow human beings and animals than any religious person claims to be...I wish you well!

Yes, I can see that you're a regular bastion of tolerance, what with you insulting a large chunk of the population as being too afraid or too ignorant to think for themselves, as opposed to actually addressing the argument. And adding, "I wish you well" is a nice touch -- sort of like saying, "bless your heart" after you've finished trashing someone. You can keep your version of tolerance, thank you, as your words certainly don't bear out the actions that you claim. I will continue to vote my conscience, with or without regard to someone's religion, as I see fit.

wow that was rather rude...you don't have to be religious to have a voice.
I guess you don't understand me. Sorry if you took offense. It was okay for you to say that 80% of the people belive as you do...maybe that is insulting those that dont.
BTW, i really did mean that I wish you well. I don't say one thing and mean another.
I wish everyone could just be happy! Unfortunately it seems that too many people are trying to find faults with everyone else. Its a shame!

Thanks for the comment and the kind invitation. I've had many chats with Mormons over the years and have good friends within the Mormon community who I greatly admire, I just disagree completely with Mormon theology. One of the reasons this is so hard to talk about is because the last thing I want to do is offend good folks like you. But as you know, there are many significant differences between Mormon beliefs and say Methodists or Catholics.

So then for you politics comes before religion? By the way, Obama's been in office almost 4 years and freedom and liberty are intact. I think we're okay.

"looks like freedom and liberty will be a higher priority come November." - The Dish
Why do people always portray the president (usually of the opposing party, ironically) as a tyrant or dictator? President Obama, nor President Bush, took away the country's "freedom" or "liberty." It's amazing how many people act as if their party should be the only ones to hold political office, as if they represent the entire county or know what's best for the entire country. I do agree with you, The Dish, that the republicans' refusal to support their fellow Christian over a Morman, a religion many of them consider a cult (Liberty University, for example) does say a lot about the republican party, this election, and the political climate of this country. Yes, religion matters in politics. If it didn't, politicians wouldn't pronounce their devotion so strongly (Except, Mitt. He keeps his faith fairly quiet for the same reasons this blog was written.), republicans wouldn't paint Obama as a muslim, and people on this thread wouldn't express reservations about voting for an atheist. I think the only thing that may matter more to voters than a politician's religion is the one thing we aren't discussing on this thread. The one thing that makes Romney and his "cult" more palatable to conservatives than their fellow Christian alternative. The one thing that makes one candidate's foreign born father a non-issue, and the other's a reason to disqualify him. Hmmm... what could it be?

RE: "Yes, religion still matters...the conservative majority understands the importance of winning this election and refuses to be 'baited' on the issue of religion..."

This comment reinforces the previously mentioned double-standard. Many conservatives have no problem 'baiting' others on the issue of a candidate's religion when the candidate is with the other party. But when it comes to their own candidates, the subject is off limits.

Brian: Religion in general and my faith are two different things. But to answer your question, I refuse to take your liberal bait so you will not be getting your 'soundbite' from me.
Isley: Please enlighten us. What is "the one thing we aren't discussing on this thread"? At least Brian has the backbone to throw religion out there and debate it.

Since you won't answer the question, Iet me summarize your previous statement. You believe that the majority of conservative Christians want to win so bad that they are willing to sell out their own Christian faith to vote for someone that they believe is a member and leader in a religious cult. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The religion that someone brings to the table is not nearly as important to me as their moral character. Actions speak much louder than words in this case, at least for me.

President Obama met his father twice. When he was born and once when he was ten. I'd say that hardly qualifies as being raised by a Muslim. So you believe President Obama attended a Christian church for over twenty years all in an effort to "deceive for Allah?" Then he planned to become president and ruin the country? Wow. And what's this about him not being vetted? You do know he was in congress before running for president, right? You know they vet people, too, right? I'd say he is probably the most thoroughly vetted president we've ever had because of people constructing conspiracy theories like you just presented. And this is coming from a guy WHO DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM! What is it about President Obama that makes me people fear the worst? Hmmmm... What is it about him that makes people refuse to believe anything other than unsubstantiated fear mongering? Hmmm.... What is it about him that makes people say he not or may not be "one of us?" Hmmm...I wonder what it is?

RE: "We are at war with muslim countries...there is a place where muslims are told that they can deceive if it's for Allah sake..."

No. We're not at war with Muslim countries. We're at war WITHIN one Muslim country, fighting alongside Muslim allies to defeat radicals...radicals to their faith in much the same way that the KKK or David Koresh or Eric Rudolph are radicals to Christians.

And with one horribly misinformed comment (i.e., Muslims are told they can deceive), one tragically misinformed individual dismisses a beautiful faith, shared by millions of peaceful and decent people from around the world...a faith that, incidentally, shares it's foundation with Judaism and Christianity.

The problem with all of that Tammy is you hear all this stuff on TV or read it on your computer or hear it from Rush and you think, "Why this must be true because they're real American patriots just like me." But it's not and they're not. They're filling your head full of garbage so they can pick your pocket. I wish you could see that.

This is a bit off tack but...I suppose you could say Obama is Marxist/Socialist, but then he would be the worst Marxist/Socialist in the history of the world. Under his watch corporate profits are at an all time high, government spending is relatively flat, the private sector has added over 4,000,000 jobs, government has shed over 800,000 jobs, CEOs are paid like rock stars (better actually), the stock market is booming and the rich are making out like the bandits they are. You might say Obama sucks at this Socialism stuff.

Reagan was an actor. He spent most of his life in Hollywood.

NOT just Washington DC ...

Small correction, Obama was a US Senator for 3 years before being elected President, not 3 months.

You do realize Obama has cut your taxes several times since taking office don't you?

Sorry Harry, before you tune out...good luck with the Peachtree Corners HOA!

I get it.

Yes to your first question...no to it worked. Now awaiting for a pro-life/abortion debate. C'mon Brian...don't dissapoint me.

Steve, why is it that anytime someone makes a legitimate point or raises a legitimate question about your side, conservatives accuse them of trolling?

Maybe you're not as smart as you think...

http://midtown.patch.com/articles/talking-politics-at-work-not-so-free-speech-says-midtown-attorney

Talking Politics at Work: Not So ‘Free Speech’ Says Midtown Attorney
A recent study showed that 35 percent of bosses openly share their political views with employees. Another study by the AFL-CIO concluded that 8 percent of employees believe that it would be illegal for their employers to terminate them for engaging in political expression at work.
“In reality, that 8 percent of employees are wrong, and their bosses may be violating company policy too,” Stewart said in a news release.
So, how can so many employees hold such a wrong opinion about their speech rights?
“The answer is a lack of understanding about the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the protection of employee speech under the National Labor Relations Act,” she said.

Hey Grant guess what, my invisible friend loves you...hahaha.

Brian Crawford write
"Hey Grant guess what, my invisible friend loves you...hahaha."

Splendid...MY invisible friend is DELICIOUS!

Rebuttal: From another big name in Protestant churchdom came a sharp retort. "Dr. Peale and his associates … show blind prejudice," said Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr, vice chairman of New York's pro-Kennedy Liberal Party. And Dr. John C. Bennett, dean of Union Theological Seminary, joined Dr. Niebuhr, calling religious opposition to Kennedy "a kind of Protestant underground."

With unintentional timing, one more powerful Protestant voice was raised. The Presbyterian Outlook, the unofficial but accepted organ of 4 million members of that denomination, came out with a fervent editorial calling upon Americans to choose "the best available leader, whether he be, in this case, Quaker [Nixon's faith] or Roman Catholic."

Catholic John Kennedy himself reiterated his position more forcefully than ever. "The Constitution," he told a press conference in Burbank, "is very clear on the separation of church and state. I have been clear and precise in my commitments to that Constitution, not merely because I take the oath which is taken to God, but also because I believe that it represents the happiest arrangement for the organization of a society. Therefore I believe in that theory … just as strongly as Dr. Peale of anyone else."

I don't know R, I think the parallels to Kennedy are thin at best. The Democratic Party was not controlled by evangelicals at the time. The differences between Catholics and Protestants weren't as pronounced in America as they were in parts of Europe. I was too young to vote but I know my parents and most of their Protestant friends voted for Kennedy. They didn't view the Catholic church as a cult. I think the issue was much bigger in the press than with the average voter.This seems a bigger leap to me.

@ Brian
This just may show how much you may appear to “have in common” with those you oft accuse of being closed minded.

If you are brighter than JFK and the leaders of your OWN church, GOOD LUCK with that. It appears though, maybe some others are more progressive than you after all. ( or at least actually learn from history)
...

RE: "* Does not apply to Muslims"

Such religious bigotry is insulting, ignorant, and hateful. That somebody would proudly post such a "joke" is disappointing, to say the least.

Sharon, I'm afraid you have your hands full with this thread!

I think we should now move on to Intelligent Design ... in school ... LOL!

Who is "them"? All Muslims? Are you sure about that? How many do you know? There's no disagreement among Muslims about how to interpret the Qu'ran? If all Muslims think alike, the isn't it logical for "them" to take the position that all Christians think alike, and therefore we are all no better than the worst acts of the Irish Republican Army, the KKK, or the likes Eric Rudolph and David Koresh?

By the way, where in the Qur'an does it say that "we" are "infidels"? The worst thing to do with the Qur'an is seek confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her preconceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Qur'an whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. Some members of society have used the Bible and still use it to justify all kinds of heinous acts (including slavery, discrimination, and war).

And incidentally, don't many, if not most, Christians believe that all non-Christians will literally burn in hell for eternity, no matter how they lived their lives? In other words, don't Christians believe that all non-Christians are, by definition, infidels?

Let my try to clarify my position. For years the evangelical right has controlled our political agenda by using their faith as a cudgel to deny rights to homosexuals, subvert women's access to reproductive healthcare, and wage holy wars. They have done all of this in the name of Christ. They have insisted on a litmus test for our elected officials that includes all of this in addition to sharing their core Christian beliefs.

They are now faced with a candidate for President that they have publicly claimed is a non-Christian because of his Mormon faith. Many of them believe he is a member of a cult. What to do, what to do.

The Mormon church claims moral superiority over historical Christians (as well as everyone else) and that their church is the one true church. They claim they are Christian because they follow the teachings of Christ and yet they include teachings from texts that any other Christian would not view as sacred.

I am not claiming moral superiority over anyone.

Brian ...
Apparently you are new to "conservative hypocrisy".. Keep in mind these are the people who were willing to listen to Newt Gingrinch speak on "the sanctity of marriage" or to hear Santorum rail on against abortions in any case (unless it was HIS wife), and those that believe banning things and denying people rights is equivalent to more freedom
Welcome to Earth !
Now that Romneybot is "their guy" he will be anointed as the savior . Any concerns about his Mormon faith that these folks raised during the primary season will be hidden away quicker that Marcus Bachmann's true sexual orientation .
Of course you pulling a page out of their playbook remains inexcusable , a man's personal beliefs are his own and should remain above reproach.

Brian, as I see it you are now dividing Christians into groups, some of which are morally superior to others because they don't deny rights to homosexuals, subvert women's access to reproductive healthcare or wage holy wars. You see your form of Christianity as superior based on those criteria....Moderate Christians good, Evangelical Christians, not as good. Also, you say that Mormons claim there church as the one true church. Well, isn't that exactly what Christians do? You say that one cannot hope to achieve paradise except through Jesus Christ (i.e., the
Christian church) and that must mean that Christianity is the one true religion.

Christians do not view the Qu'ran or the Torah as sacred texts either, ergo Jews and Muslims are members of cults. I'm really sorry to say this, but you are claiming moral superiority and it's not only over Mormons but Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans and anyone else who doesn't accept your bible as their holy text.

Again, perhaps people are just trying to vote on political views and not on which Christian, and only a Christian, would make the best president.

Patty, nowhere in any of this discussion have I indicated I think my religious views are superior to anyone else's, including Mormons. If you can quote something I've said that is otherwise I'll be happy to correct it.

Love it, Grant. You're absolutely right.
I can't wait for the day that we can elect a non-theist president, America would be much better off. My grand-children will still be paying for Bush and Cheney's holy war, if they survive that long. And for those of you who support Obama, I challenge you to list 5 major acts of legislation in his last three years that have varied from Bush's policies.

1. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
2. The Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare if you like)
3. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
4, The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
5. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

There are others as well...

Not being much of a betting man here, but I think it will take until somewhere Nov 2012...

Are you aware that you can love a person but not their actions? My point was Obama will say or do anything for a vote.

Grant you are aware that the Bible teaches homosexuality is wrong do you not? Or are you one of those Christians that believes as long as you don't have to face any confrontation? So no Grant I do not believe it is possible to be in favor for gay rights and be a child of God.

Diana,
I'm aware that there is an Old Testament verse in Leviticus (amongst a great many others that are summarily ignored) that seems to condemn homosexuality . Of course I'm told that the Old Testament laws were "lifted " by JC and do not apply any longer (though I can also find Scripture to dispute that "theory ). So that leaves with the "opinion" of a non divine individual named Paul , who , if he even actually existed was possibly a self loathing homosexual himself and some highly subject nonsense about "sexual immorality" so , even from a Biblical standpoint one could present a valid argument against your religious bigotry.
Personally I dont believe a collection of ancient camel herder campfire stories are grounds for hatred, bigotry or judgement of anyone .
For the record I'm not "one of those Christians", in fact I'm not a Christian at all . I dont believe in a god that would give us the most awesome "toys" in the world and expect us not to enjoy them and share them

Diana are you aware that Jesus in all the Gospels never had a thing to say about gays? Male or female? And that saying you "love the sinner, hate the sin" is nothing more than using a Get Out Of Jail Free card for bigots and hate mongers who misinterpret then hide behind Scripture?
The Christ was Pro Love. And anyone saying anything else, anything less, and I do mean anything other than, is speaking falsely of Christ and not a true follower of his teachings.

So glad Patch could be of assistance here Brian. :)

Prior to the "Republican Revolution", the GOP had not held a majority in the House 4 decades. The GOP has only held the majority in the Senate approximately 3 decades out of the last 9. Additionally, the GOP has not held majorities in the majority of state legislatures in 5 decades, or a majority of gubernatorial posts in 2 decades. So in addition to saying that democrats are not religious, you are saying that they are completely incapable of influencing or setting policy...even when they are in complete charge. Thanks for the clarification...though none was really needed.

Sorry Chris, I couldn't follow any of that. Were you responding to the right post? There are many religious democrats, in fact many, many good Christian democrats. I think the Democratic party has proved over and over that they are the more competent party for governance of all The People. As you pointed out, Republicans have controlled much of our government for the last 30 years and look what a mess we're in. Now they want to muck up the states as much as they have the federal government.

Brian, of course you claim not to "follow any of that" b/c it hurts your "it's all the GOP's fault" narrative. It really is easy to follow though. You bash republicans wholesale & claim that the "evangelical arm of the Republican party (about 50% of them) which has controlled so much of our political agenda for so long". At first you didn't quantify what "so long" meant so I gave a general history lesson on the power split in this country over the last several decades…which shows that the democrats have largely been in charge at the state & federal level.

You later go on to specify that the GOP has been "controlled much of our government for the last 30 years", & claim that I point out this fact. I really don't know how you can make that stretch…or that you could think that true whether I said it or not. That just doesn't come close to being true.

At best for your argument things have been even over the last 30 years, but in actuality control is slightly tipped in favor of the dems over the last 30 years. & if you go back over the last 50 or 100 years, it's been overwhelmingly democrat. You see, if you look @ a breakdown of Congress & the presidency over the last 100 years, you'll notice a sea of blue, w/little bits of red strewn about (http://goo.gl/HGKFg). It's not even close.

You're a liberal who doesn't like republicans, fine, but don't pretend as if the democrats are our benevolent saviors. For every bad thing you could say about republicans (& most I'd probably agree w/you on), I could find an equal amount of bad things about democrats. Your assertion that the "mess we're in" is solely, or even largely, the GOP's fault is bogus. If we are in a mess, dems would be most to blame…unless, of course, you're saying that they were completely ineffectual when in power, allowing the minority party to control things, &/or that they made weak policies that the evil GOP could trash in just a few year's time.

Back to your "last 30 years" claim. That would take us back 15 congressional sessions to the time of the 97th Congress (well, 15+ including this most current session…112). Here's how things break down over those 15 sessions. Both parties are even @ 2 sessions a piece where either party controlled both houses, as well as the presidency, but the democrats have held that distinction most recently (last session). Democrats have had complete control of both houses of Congress for 6 sessions (including the last 2) to the republican's 5, & Congress has been split 5 sessions. Democrats have held the House (where all the laws start) 9 sessions to the GOP's 7. Both parties are even in control of the Senate, but the democrats have held the Senate since 2007. As for the presidency, the republicans do hold the edge there 10 to 6. It would seem that the split of power over the last 30 years has been somewhat even, though slightly favored in the democrats direction. & if you go back any further the balance tilts HEAVILY toward the blue team. & you're positing that the "religious right", a minority w/in a minority, has been driving our politics? Riiiiiiiight. You may want to come up w/another argument.

Over this 30 year timespan you may want to blame Reagan, but he had to deal w/a split congress, or a fully democrat congress, so they share any blame you may want to throw Reagan's way. You may want to praise Clinton, but he had to work w/a fully republican congress for most of his terms, so any praise you want to give Clinton, you must also give the GOP. & you may want to praise Obama, but he had complete control of Congress for his first 2 years & they couldn't even agree on, among other things, his signature "affordable" health care legislation. Even w/both houses of Congress & the presidency on lock, it took forever for them to pass what should have been a slam dunk. They were so ineffective that they had to blame the GOP…even though the GOP was powerless to stop anything the dems wanted to do @ the time. Now, you could, & probably will make an argument that "it's all Bush's fault", but you would be grossly oversimplifying the situation that caused the economy to tank, & ignoring previous democrat policies that helped the economy tank. There is enough blame to go around for everything to stain both parties. So, again, your "GOP messed everything up", & "democrats are the only people who can save us" message just doesn't work…not in the least.

As for the "religious right" & them having to shut up for decades b/c they are silent on Romney, give us all a break. Those in the "religious right" that have a problem w/Romney's faith are on record, & they've never made it a secret. They had their say in the primaries. Of course, you're ignoring the fact that not all in the "religious right" shunned Romney…he did come away w/a portion of that vote in the primaries. Those who had a problem w/Romney's faith singlehandedly kept a nobody like Santorum in the lead group for the GOP nomination for a long time, but in the end they lost. Romney was chosen as the party's nominee, & now party members are coalescing behind Romney. This is nothing new, & there is nothing wrong w/it. Much the same way that Hilary voters bashed Obama, but ultimately voted for him in the general election.

I'm glad that this thread ultimately devolved from the guise of a thoughtful discussion on religious prejudices into the open GOP bashing party it was meant to be. I thought the whole thing extremedy transparent, & that ultimately proved true. Discussions are so much better when they're honest. On to other things now...

Chris, thanks for that well thought out rebuttal. I will be the first to admit that sometimes I get a bit over zealous in my defense of Liberalism and disgust with the Republican agenda. Part of that stems from the fact that around these parts I'm a little drop of blue in a sea of red but much of it comes from the amount of misinformation that I'm bombarded with from my conservative friends and their constant portrayal of Liberals as Godless Socialists.. And I don't hate Republicans, just most of their policies. It's that whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing.

RE: "They're all the same...Neither party, nor its politicians are looking out for any of us..."

Independents and swing voters scare me the most. Anybody who can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans should, in my view, stay away from the voting booth.

Incidentally, primary voters should also be able to tell the differences among progressive Democrats (e.g., Sherrod Brown), moderate Democrats (e.g., President Obama), Blue Dog Democrats (e.g., David Scott), moderate Republicans (e.g. ???) and Tea Party Republicans (e.g., Jim DeMint). Again, if you you can't distinguish the differences between how your candidates will vote, govern, and impact your families lives, then I beg you, stay home on election day.

Chris, spoken like a true extremist. If you really think there is much of a difference between most candidates, regardless of party, then perhaps you should follow your own advice and steer clear of the voting booth. Also, don't pretend that the democrat party is chock full of diverse viewpoints...moderate democrats are an endangered species, & every last blue dog was replaced by a republican in 2010. Thanks for calling David Scott a blue dog though...I needed a good laugh today.

David Scott is and has always been a member of the Blue Dog Congressional Caucus, co-sponsored the Fair Tax, and has voted against numerous pieces of legislation supported by progressives and for numerous pieces of legislation supported by Republicans.

You have proven my point.

Chris, I'm a member of a gym, but I never go. In keeping w/the religious topic, many people are members of churches, but rarely go (unless to be seen, or on important occasions). Membership in any entity does not necessarily determine presence or adherence. As for your claims re: the FairTax, Scott does not support it (http://goo.gl/CCzt0), & he's on record in his last campaign slamming his opponent for her support of it (http://goo.gl/Xe1RC). But for the sake of argument, I'll concede you Scott. Still doesn't change the make up of the democrat party. Labeling the GOP extreme & not applying the same label to the dems either means that you aren't aware, or you're just as extreme & cannot notice it.

Chris L.,

Thanks for the correction on David Scott's position on the FairTax. I actually read the bill years ago and thought I had seen him listed among the co-sponsors. I apologize for the mistake.

Again, the point is that there are real and important difference between the parties and within the parties. The notion that all politicians are the same and none benefit the country seems to imply that it doesn't matter who we vote for. It does matter, and again, those who feel that way should either get informed or stay home on election day.

For the record, I'm not sure how the ability to identify Blue Dog Democrats, who actually exist (http://ross.house.gov/BlueDog/), but the inability to identify a moderate Republican in Congress (see article below) makes one extremist, but if you say so.

"It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel [, Dick Lugar] — are virtually extinct."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

What we really need is a three-party system so that the extremes don't win out and polarity isn't used to control us. However, our current voting system doesn't support that. There are about a dozen other voting systems intentionally designed to support a three-party system. They are listed on Wikipedia.

Thank you for sharing that Bill.

No you dont Bill . Brian says "Mormons don't follow the teachings of Christ." so obviously he knows more about your personal faith than you do .
He's special like that .

And well said at that.

Why is this even a discussion when trying to decide whom should be our POTUS?
It has never made any sense to me.

And your proof of Obama's Non-Faith is what, exactly Trish?
I'm so sick of the hate mongers with nothing better to do than rant on and on about
Obama's life..as if any one of us out here knows a bloody thing about it!
We know about unemployment..let's get to job creation and returning the jobs overseas to American soil. That sounds like energy better spent.
I agree that we should be taking care of our own backyard before we look to anyone else's.
But if you think that MR is in anyway going to help with making America a better place..one that all Americans can be proud of, you're sadly mistaken.
And that mistake could cost the rest of us the very things we hold dearly.
I'm not willing to vote in Mr. Magic Underware just because you read on the internet or in the National Enquirer that Obama doesn't love the Baby Jesus.
>>>The real Decline of Western Civilization: Politics and Religion! Together Again!