Today's Poll: Does it matter that Mitt Romney is Mormon?

he won't win anyway!

Every time I read the answers to a poll similar to this, I cringe.
A candidate's religious preference should have no bearing on his/her right to run for office nor should it be a criteria for determining who is the better candidate.
I wonder if those who voted, "Yes. My religious beliefs conflict with his. I could never vote for a Mormon.", are the same people who chastise others about voting party over individual.

That whole flip flopping rino thing kind of gets in the way for me voting for him....

I think the framers of The Constitution were pretty clear when they included in Article IV "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." that they didn't intend for citizens to use it as a litmus test either.

Jeff, the framers of the Constitution could never have envisioned the right wing in America today. If you want a separation of church and state, and I don't believe you do, just separate them. I don't believe any of the religious fairy tales and most of the educated panderers running for office don't either, but they will lie their asses off for a vote from the basest of the base. Who would vote for a Athiest besides me? That scares me as much as it did Joan of Arc.

Church's and organized religions do not belong in any political campaigns or determining public policy just look at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel or less than a generation ago Ireland and a generation before Germany. Injecting religion poisons the political well robs the common man his voice as the fanatics hear dictates based on the voices they hear in their own heads. Romney's faith or lack there of is nobodies business but his just as mine or yours is.

Would you vote for a Jehovah's Witness? If he or she was smart and had the best interests of mankind in his or her heart, I certainly would. But if he or she said: "I am a Jehovah's Witness, here to save your soul", they better step back because I don't want to break a face when I slam the door.
I feel the same about all religionistas who think God called them to be ignorant, obnoxious assholes but I will forgive them when they are dead and I personally don't want Jesus forgiveness, or Spiderman's or the Easter Bunny's, although I'm sure they would forgive me if I joined the cult and gave them 10% of my earnings.
It finally rained in Central Texas today and I thank Motherfather Nature for the condensation despite our global weather pattern destruction bent. Namaste.

The religious beliefs of all eight of these candidate and the
current administration shouldn't matter since they all claim to
believe in the bible. What matters is their actions.

At the recent Republican debate, 7 out of 8 candidates (Ron Paul the
exception) supported torture. I wish the next question from the
moderator would have been "What would Jesus do"

Its also clear that 7 out 8 candidates (Ron Paul the exception) as
well as the current administration support killing innocent
Iranians, including a threat from Joe Biden that would include the use of
nuclear weapons against these people. Again, the question should be
asked "What would Jesus do".

The current president as well as 7 out of 8 of the republican
candidates (Ron Paul the exception) WILL increase the $123,900.00 debt
that each household is burdened with. Again, the question should be
asked "What would Jesus do".

I can go on and on, but clearly, though all the candidates claim to belong to religious sects
that follow the teachings of Jesus,unless one votes for Ron Paul,one is voting in enthusiastic favor of state sponsored violence, murder, and theft.

Terry, so much of what Ron Paul says is truth but who cares what their Grumpy old Grandpa says? They may love him but they'll never take him bar hopping with them on a Thursday Night, not even in November. Herman Cain is a party animal but I always get embarrassed when he pees in the corner, on Newt.

I think the framers of The Constitution were pretty clear when they included in Article IV "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." that they didn't intend for citizens to use it as a litmus test either.

I have to disagree with Jeff's statement above. I do agree that the framers of The Constitution were clear with Article IV. But in no way shap or form did they even imply an intent that citizens shouldn't use it as a test for their own. In fact the Declaration of Independance & The Constitution both support the freedoms of it's citizens to worship and speak whatever they wish to. To suggest otherwise would be to contradict the very idea of the freedoms they were establishing.

As for religion one must remember that all organized religions are defined by men therefore subject to imperfections. Most churches become bastions of mindlessness because people find it easier to listen than to think. Good and evil, right and wrong are obvious to even children. I respect leaders of the church who present the Word and ask you to think on it. Rather than getting loud and telling you what God is saying. And demanding that you submit. The whole premise of Christ is based on a betrayal, Remember it was the Jews who used the Roman system to have Christ crucified, not a really good start for beliefs in God huh? Christianity's biggest message is to love others as you do yourself, a very simple concept that can be grasped by even the simplest mind. If you hear a church tell you to hate someone, or to treat anyone or anything with a discriminatory or apathetic attitude then they arent really Christian or religious, they would be more like the cultists that some refer to believers as in here. The minute you turn away from someone because you feel them not worthy of your attentions, you turn away from Him.

Ok enough preaching :D

Kyle, perhaps I worded it wrong. The founders laid out in the Constitution the framework to avoid what they had escaped with the Church of England(government officials required to swear an oath to the church). By setting the standard of "no religious test" the example was to select representatives based on their qualifications, not their faith. It would have been a slippery slope not to set the groundwork to fall right back into a state religion. Certainly citizens are and should consider a persons faith or lack thereof in making their decisions, but not use it as the determining factor. I should have put "they didn't intend for citizens to use it as THE litmus test either, instead of "a litmus test" Maybe that clarifies what I said.
As for me, if two candidates are of equal position and qualification, and one is a Christian (not just in name only, but has a track record and lifestyle that supports the claim) and the other is a Mormon, Jew, Jehovah Witness, etc., I will vote for the Christian.
To this statement "As for religion one must remember that all organized religions are defined by men therefore subject to imperfections. Most churches become bastions of mindlessness because people find it easier to listen than to think." I could not agree more.

Maybe the strangest poll question ever!

I'm voting for Ron Paul regardless I can honestly say I think he is the only presidential candidate to actually read the constitution also he preaches Austrian Economics.

But Romney's religion should have nothing to do with his political standing. Why is he guilty by association? They did the same thing to Kennedy when he was running for his Presidential seat.

I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic. - JFK

"As for me, if two candidates are of equal position and qualification, and one is a Christian (not just in name only, but has a track record and lifestyle that supports the claim) and the other is a Mormon, Jew, Jehovah Witness, etc., I will vote for the Christian."

So the litmus test goes out the window if you have to choose one candidate's religion against another.
What happen to vote the qualifications?
Are you sure that the 'Christian' will always be the most qualified?

@Terry, Huntsman also expressed his opposition to the use of torture as a means of gathering information.

The question "What would Jesus do?" has little or nothing to do with legitimate debate of the issue of mixing politics and religion as would "What would Mohamad do?" or "What would Budha do?" or for that matter what would my dog do except that what ever any of the above do, don't do it on my front lawn.

Romney and Huntsman are Mormons and do not follow the Bible, they follow the teachings and priciples that come from the Book of Mormon written by Joseph Smith who came from the neighboring town of Palmyra NY.

Howard, I hate it when you make me think, please stop that. Because, I keep trying and nothing happens.

Bea, I said "if two candidates are of equal position and qualification" meaning if all things are equal(qualifications, positions, experience, policies,etc.) and the only distinctive is faith, I will vote for the Christian. What wasn't clear about that?

Ed, My point was that all naional level US politicians must profess belief in a Christan sect, all of which have among their basic tenets a peaceful "do unto others' philosophy. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a history of backing up his beliefs with policy.

I realize the poll question is meant to single out the Mormon religion as more cultish or bizarre than more widely practiced religions. In either case, as no candidate really abides by their religion's true beliefs, what difference does it make which religion they pretend to align themselves with?

Jeff wrote:
"Bea, I said "if two candidates are of equal position and qualification" meaning if all things are equal(qualifications, positions, experience, policies,etc.) and the only distinctive is faith, I will vote for the Christian. What wasn't clear about that?"

You were very clear. My questions is why would the Christian candidate, in your eyes, make the better candidate when all things are equal?

@ Terry, if the point you are trying to make is that on a national level all US politicians must profess belief in a "Christian sect" is BS as is the comment regarding Mormons and how they choose to believe. Whether or not any candidate actually believes in any religion or no religion at all is their own affair.

The ascertion that they are all pretending to believe is level of cynicism that does nothing other than invalidate the beliefs of any or all of the candidates, yours included. I may not agree with their professed belief sysytem or their political views but to accuse them all putting on an act for an audience, devoid of any real belief in what they profess has no place in civil debate and is clearly demonstrates why religion should not be brought into the debate.

To answer your question Bea, if all things are equal, and having to choose one, I would choose the candidate who I believe will make choices that reflect my core set of beliefs.

There is just something inherently un-American in choosing a candidate based on their self professed religious beliefs. A religious politician is an oxymoron. Most of these people will do or say anything to get elected. In my opinion those that profess their religion to sway a vote are the worst of the lot.

I agree Charlie, using religion to sway a vote is reprehensible:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-says-god-wants-to-se…

You don't have to convince me over that point. It's the only thing I just don't like about Obama the candidate. Regrettably after all the "Obama is a Muslum" crap, the man had no choice but, to play the religious card. Be rest assured, I voted for the man despite his professed relgious beliefs.

Sure it matters if he's a Moron...What?...oh..Mormon....never mind...

This question could have read, "Does it matter that Herman Cain is African-American?" Constitutionally speaking, race, color, creed, gender, etc. warrant no test to one's eligibility to vote or run for office. On the other hand... Any or all of these factors are weighed during the decision-making process of each and every voter. Should it matter? ...Well, that's a rhetorical question that alludes to the shadows and perfect chairs dancing in Plato's cave. Does it matter? Absolutely. There are people who will never cross party line. There are people who would never vote for a Catholic, and some who would never vote for a fundamentalist. There are people who would never vote for a candidate of a different race. Every voter harbors prejudices- given modern campaign lack of depth, prejudices may be all that's left for voters to draw on. ...Myopic debates, dumbed-down, Madison-Avenue-platforms and sound bites that play like Chinese restaurant fortune cookies.

Some churches manipulate political opinion; Bush's choice of John Ashcroft for Attorney General was invented by Coral Ridge Ministries, Ft. Lauderdale. Weighing religious affiliation does not necessarily violate an ethical taboo. The LDS has an official position on non-traditional marriages and gender issues, Many voters would feel compelled to question Romney's position on those issues vis-a-vis his affiliation with LDS. ...Just as voters need to consider Rick Perry's faith-driven-positions on women's health and education (intelligent design). If we had a candidate who was affiliated with Heaven's Gate, wouldn't one question his/her position on, say, the space program?

A significant portion of the nation feels church and state should be clearly separate. Another significant portion think its un-American to separate the two. Many churches are so deeply involved in politics one can't tell where the politics end and the gospel begins. The question begs an assumed neutrality on par with blind justice, but the preacher's shoes are parked under the candidate's bed!

C.M., you make a great point. Despite all the debates, campaigning, media coverage, etc., once we enter the voting booth there are no newspapers, tv, or internet. There is only the voter looking at the names through the filters of there beliefs, experience, upbringing, and sphere of influence.

I don't care if it was a Hispanic, gay, atheist woman with an 80's updo up there. If she was the best person for thew job I would support her like crazy regardless of who it pissed off. It just so happens that mine this year is Dr. Paul, and believe me as much as I deeply respect Obama's ability to oratate, and I do, he would not want to go into a head to head with that man. Grandpa, as an earlier writer put it, would blow him up!

Here is the latest example of Obama's ability to "oratate". It's not just the stammers and pauses, it's the fact that the "here in Asia" he is referring to is Hawaii! Maybe that is one of the 57 states he referred to...Hawasia

http://youtu.be/h9hPXHD4WH0

Jeff, it's kind of silly when both sides pick on people for dropping words. Tell you the truth, I actually only started to like Perry after began acting human in recent weeks. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with much that comes out of his mouth but, I now believe he is a decent person who would do his best for the country if elected. I don't get the same feeling from the flip flopper or Cain.

Charlie, that's funny, I don't recall anybody calling it "dropping words" when Bush did it. If we look back at old posts, will we find that same understanding for the likes of Sarah Palin? When a Republican does it they're idiots, rubes, uneducated, morons, etc., when Obama does it, he is simply dropping words.

Are you comparing Sara Palin with Rick Perry? I wouldn't. One is a reality star and an idiot. There is a difference between not having a clue of what your talking about and dropping a word. Cain doesn't have a clue, he doesn't drop words, he doesn't know what the words are in the first place, neither does Palin. How could you drop something, you can't grasp?

Obama, Paul, Perry, Gingrich and even the flip flopper, know the words.

I'm an athiest, but I still ask myself, "What would Jesus do?" I think what is written about Jesus is a pretty good guide for how to treat others. That's what I find so appaling about the GOP candidates. I don't see them as trying to "do unto others......"

I guess I am unfamiliar with what "dropping a word" means. You can make all the excuses for Obama you want but the unmistakable fact(backed up by countless examples on video) is that this guy is no better of a communicator, thinker, or leader than any of the others you mention. Take him off his teleprompter and he is a rank amateur.

Jeff, by the way, Hawaii isn't a part of the North American continent. It doesn't matter that its a part of the United States. It doesn't sit on the North American plate either. It sits in the middle of the pacific plate and is part of no continent. I guess officially it would rest on Oceania.

One things for sure, Hawaii is not a part North America. If Hawaian's want to say Asia, it's a matter of perspective. I learned that in science class. Thats where I also learned about evolution, dianasours and continental drift.

Jeff, so the president of the United States is just stupid?

Have you seen these Republicans speak without a teleprompter? They all stare down at a down at a piece of paper. That looks professional? Not to me...

"Jeff, so the president of the United States is just stupid?"... after 3 years the results speak for themselves.

He saved the auto industry, banking and our entire economy. Also Wallstreet reform, killed Osama, helped free Libya, fixed health care and many other things. I guess thats a matter of prospective too.

Oh, I forgot about his civil rights work. Eliminating "Don't ask, don't tell."

Since you were the only one to step up and define why you wanted 4 more years of Obama, I'll respond to each of the points you made in your post the other night.

You said:

I think health care is a human right (health care is a product/commodity, not a human right, taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves physically and financially, should be the responsibility of the church but they dropped the ball a long time ago) and sick people are not a burden to be disgarded (I agree and there are no Republican policies that counter that ideal) . I'm pro choice (I am pro life) and government should mind its own business. (I agree) Obama actually knows how to defeat terrorists and two bit dictators. (Obama has done nothing different than his predecessor except commit more troops. Quaddafi, Bin Laden and Hussein were eventuals anyway and not directly a result of any specific new military policy Obama instituted). Immigration is good (immigration is great, and we have a current and effective legal path to citizenship that hundreds of thousands of honest hard-working people from other countries choose and prosper under every year),. Obama saved our economy (I honestly almost spit out my teeth when I read that. 9% unemployment?, skyrocketing debt?, record forclosures?, downgrade in credit rating?, municipalities filing for bankruptcy?) and the auto industry, (the big three all went to Washington with their hands out, only Ford did not accept the bailout and was the first back to profitability and is still on the strongest financial footing. Makes one wonder if they all had been forced to make tough choices and streamline, could bailouts have been avoided, we’ll never know. GM has merely paid back it’s share by moving debt from elsewhere, essentially paying off one credit card with another) how about that one? The unemployed are not deadbeats, they just need a hand up (and now that hand is doling out free cash for up to two years, that is not a hand up, that is enabling) All kids deserve to have lunch in school (then they should bring one from home if they can’t afford one, I did) and a loan for college (and after getting a degree in some abstract limited employabililty career, they shouldn’t expect it to be forgiven and picked up by me). Executions should never be cheered (agreed). Gay soldiers deserve respect (agreed, all soldiers deserve our utmost respect regardless of distinctions, if you serve our country you get my respect). All Social Security needs is to be funded correctly.( and what is his solution?)

Jeff, I hope you enjoy four years with President Cain.
Did you hear that SNL fired their writers. The GOP candidates are writing their scripts for them.

No doubt, that in the Republican version of A Christmas Carol, Tiny Tim dies, the goose lives and Scrooge hides the money he saved in an off shore account.

Charlie you neglected to note, the three Christmas spirits are apprehended by agents of Homeland Security and sent to Guantanamo.

CM, I had went on and linked their candidates to the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future but, they have had so many "has been" candidates that free fallen in from the polls, I couldnt pick.

Bea, I don't plan on enjoying much about the next 4 years. If Obama is re-elected, we continue this nightmare we find ourselves in now. If (and this is a HUGE if) Herman Cain is elected, he will be absolutely slaughtered by the media, and the left...wait a minute they are the same thing. I posted previously posted that I would be proud to vote for Herman Cain. I think it would be a tremendous thing for our country to elect it's first black president. One who truly came from a poor upbringing and conquered obstacles to become a self-made American success. As for the rest of the GOP field. no one excites me. I'm afraid we will be faced once again with the proposition of a McCain/Palin caliber ticket...Yuk. My only desire at this point is that we can escape another 4 years of this failed experiment called Hope and Change.