Replies

Do you know that in a country as civilized as England, the Roman Catholic daughter of Henry the VIII found the Reformed Christianity of her countrymen so vile that she had several hundred of them burned alive?

What relevance did that have to the election of John F. Kennedy? None.

As long as Romney's religion doesn't interfere with the oath he will take on January 20th 2013 to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, I don't see what the point of all this is.

I share religious beliefs with practically no one on FRee Republic, and I certainly don't share Romney's. That doesn't mean we can't have common cause to save the United States of America.

That is what this is coming down to, and all these irrelevant games are the work of The Enemy.

As long as Romney's religion doesn't interfere with the oath he will take on January 20th 2013 to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, I don't see what the point of all this is.

For eight years I had to put up with Liberal relatives of mine (ok, my wife's ... but still people I couldn't easily just walk away from) pushing the notion that George W. Bush was going to install an Evangelical Christian Theocracy through things like a White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. So, iow *yawn*. Annoying, but *yawn*.

Here's the thing about religion and the Presidency - an Administration can only go as far as the six Roman Catholics and three Jews on the Supreme Court (and to a lesser extent the 535 members of the two houses of Congress (Wikipedia shows them as 55% Protestant, 30% Roman Catholic, 8% Jewish and then 2.6% Mormon ... the rest being other religions) allow the President to go. Even given the fact that the Senate Democrat Leader is a Mormon too. Even given the possibility that a President Romney could appoint Mormons to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court (probably two, possibly three still isn't a majority)

Personally, I see the likelihood of BOTH Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg running out and buying "magic underwear" (I'm being facetious there) and signing up for a Mormon theocracy about as likely as either of them buying a box full of snakes (facetious there too) and up for an Evangelical Protestant one.

So unless someone can provide demonstrable evidence that Romney is going to govern with the intent of converting everyone to Mormonism (although I imagine that if he were to promise to start with Keith Ellison a LOT of people on FR would be VERY enthusiastic about the whole thing) this is a complete non-issue to me.

Do you know that in a country as civilized as England, the Roman Catholic daughter of Henry the VIII found the Reformed Christianity of her countrymen so vile that she had several hundred of them burned alive?

To be fair, the treacherous Mormon massacre of over 100 American men, women and children, after accepting their surrender on terms, took place a little more recently.

1857, not 1555.

Arguably on the direct instructions of Brigham Young.

The worst massacre of white Americans by white Americans in our history.

Personally, I don't find this disqualifying for Mitt. But it is perhaps relevant to recognize that in Mormon history the extreme fanaticism and resultant violence found in the history of most "Christian" denominations is a good deal more recent.

That is what this is coming down to, and all these irrelevant games are the work of The Enemy.

I'm sure that you mean the Other Enemy; RIGHT!!??