http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/sorensen.romney.qa/index.html

Well, the "praise" was only that Sorensen thought Romney gave a good speech, not that he agreed with even one word of it. I mean, if Bush gives a good speech I'm very willing to say so. That doesn't mean I'm exactly "praising" him or that I agree with anything he said.

I think Romney cooked up the religious speech for publicity. I honestly think the issue of his being Mormon is less important today than Kennedy's Catholicism was in 1960. Romney's bigger problems include his transparent flip-flopping for political expediency on such issues of abortion and gays in the military. Even John Kerry probably gets a headache listening to Romney speak.

Andrew

Bingo, Andrew.

Many Republicans made a huge stink of Kennedy's Catholicism, yet it hardly affected the job he did in the White House. In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter?

It really doesn't.
Except to a select group of hardcore Evangelicals primarily in the deep south.

And in the nicest way possible Huckabee seems to be exploiting that as much as possible.

Should be interesting to see how Romney fares in SC.

Well in the GRAND scheme of things, I would take a different look.

#1. Yes. It's not supposed to make a difference. We all know that. There's not supposed to be " a religious test." But there is one every day with candidates.

#2. When I was younger, I looked at Mormons at being particularly fervent. Not a fanatic. But very schooled on principles put forth wihtin their Book of Mormon. While I had theological differences with Mormonism, I truly admired that many of them walked the walk.

#3. In THIS day and age, when religions point to various prophecies being fulfilled ( I know, I know - they've been saying that for age. That's exactly my point ) I do not want someone in office this time around that is going to use The Book of Mormon OR The Bible to validate evey decision they make. Look at what we have now. We have a man who believes that God personally spoke to him and told him to invade Iraq. You don't think there is a likely scenario in which Romney would make a decision that is purely faith based? I do. And while the theological differences I have with Mormonism are perfectly fine within a church, when applied to a Government, I DEEPLY disagree with it. On just about every level and will say so.

#4. Let's take Mormonsim out of the picture altogetehr and look at Romney. Does he honestly give you that hope for change? He is THE slickest of the bunch. Lies. Doesn't answer questions. Avoids anything that might make him look bad - unless he is absolutely FORCED to address it...that is exactly the kind of shit I am tired of. No matter what the faith behind it is. Flip-flopping? I could care less. What will guide him in leading our country? What if he was asked to make a decision that would go against his faith, but would actually help the country. Which do you think he would pick? My experience is that Mormons don't pick government over their faith. Been to Utah? I haven't. Probably won't. But there are constant battles between Mormonsism and Federal Government there. To think that it's not an issue for National Leadership - well - I disagree. Someone will have to show me otherwise. All I have to go on are current climates and actual case studies. But by all means, convince me that it doesn't get applied and I'm all eyes.

Huckabee seems to be much more of a straight-shooter and more genuine than Romney - that is probably his biggest edge over Romney, although I admit Evangelicals are probably attracted to Huckabee because he shares their beliefs much more closely than Romney seems to.

I respect Huckabee - he seems like a good guy. But on one of those "who do you match up with?" polls, Huckabee was the ONLY candidate who scored ZERO in common with me! I didn't agree with him on one single issue, LOL! So I guess I couldn't vote for him!

As for Mormons, I have known plenty of them who don't "walk the walk." They may appear more dogmatic than members of other religions but they aren't really any less human than a Catholic or Protestant or a Jew or a Muslim, just as prone to being imperfect. Since I'm not a religious person anyway, what bothers me about Romney isn't his specific religion but how fervent he really is about it. Considering that he said he was pro-choice when first running for governor of Massachusetts, I'm guessing he's not the most devoted Mormon out there.

Andrew

Romney gave this speech because him being mormon is a BIG issue for both christians and non-christians alike. It's his one major negative attribute that could sink his chances. The mormon church is a well organized and well funded cult. People know this and people are wary. I'm not afraid to say that my impression of someone changes if I find out they are mormon. I know I'm not alone, because I've had this same conversation with a very devout Baptist co-worker who said he would never vote for a mormon, even though Romney's stance on most policy perfectly align with my co-worker. And if you think that someone's religion won't influence how they govern, think again. It defines them, especially mormons. I would like to see politicians check their religion at the door when they are elected as religion has NO place in government, period. I don't want to hear my president saying things like "god bless us", etc. Keep it in your church and your own private life with your family.

The thing that's going to sink him is there's enough of those evangelicals out there that know a flip-flopper when they see one and they see one. They aren't all slow-witted.

A whole bunch of them are not slow witted! Most I know are pretty sharp. Overall smarts is not the problem --swallowing too much dogma whole is.

They will pick up on that stuff as quick as a high school girl picks up on the trannie, trying to pass.

When you are brainswashed from early childhood, it can be pretty hard to overcome. They grow up knowing nothing other than what they've been forced fed.

Yep. Went through that process actually. Was a damn long purge!

Still pissed about it.

It's pretty brutal to leverage innocence like that. Too many of them are saved from themselves! Problem with that is it is a self lie at the root of things. Believing because it's it right for somebody is way different than believing out of ignorance, or fear.

If one does not take the time and understand that and really make a choice, it's all just false period. --false as in a self-lie, not the religion being false. We don't have the facts on that, which is exactly why making a reasoned choice is so damn important in the first place!

Those people with strong conviction and high degrees of tolerance for others are those who believe because it's the right thing for them. That's just and true for sure. It's a reasoned thing, true to their selves and it shows everywhere and in everything they do.

And that, by the way, is being a witness for Christ! People see that and want to know more. Sharing that is only good. Nothing wrong with any of it --healthy, human.

Those with conviction, but lacking tolerance, are practicing a lie. I believe they have not fully realized their own selves, and as a result, tend to externalize their faith to bolster weak conviction. That weak conviction comes from never really getting to a state where they are honest to themselves, might not even really know themselves, and so cannot apply the full potential of their will to the belief.

It's then a numbers game, trying to fill that void where true conviction would normally be. That's not being a witness at all! And it does not show in the same way. The lie can be seen by anybody, so covering that up takes a lot of time and energy.

This is why big numbers are important! It's not about winning the hearts and the minds, but really about safety in numbers, thus masking the lie easier.

It all works a lot like picking on people does. If one is with a group of people, that all do something mean, but it's accepted, then it's easier to just deny the problem and carry on.

On the other hand, if everybody is really free to express themselves, then doing that mean thing is quickly exposed for what it is. The chances of everybody having that wrong is really low. Talking about it, sorts it all out quickly.