Ben, I agree with you if I start taking a close look at what they believe, and some of the things they practice, privately; but, on "value" issues a lot of people are concerned about- building solid families, for example- and individual values, like being law abiding and leading productive lives, most Mormons would score high. Mitt Romney is a good example, I think, on all counts. For a majority of Democrats, the religious affiliation of a candidate would hardly matter, and many Republicans would agree- after all, voting together, they elected a Catholic more than 50 years ago. There is nothing in Mitt Romney's background to suggest anything other than good sense, and solid character, it seems to me. I personally think it's a mistake to establish a litmus test for a vote that the candidate be, as George W Bush was (and Santorum apparently is, though he is a Catholic), a practicing, evangelical Christian: in the end, good judgment, and knowledge and experience enough to qualify for this high office, are far more important. ____________________
rdubnpk I don't believe that Romney's Mormoism would have been an issue at all had he run as a Dem. Relgion is not the factor for Dems deciding pro or con for a candidate whereas it is the kiss of death if you are not a WASP as a Repub, it seems.
rdubnpk I respect your opinion but in the final analysis a woman's reproductive decisions should be left to that woman in a free society.
Nonsense, if anything left wingers are more critical of Mormonism and religion in general than the right. As for the WASP comment. The democratic party gets a partially black man elected and all of a sudden they claim the moral high ground. BS! IN the last 70 years there hasn't been a Dem president that wasn't a WASP, except Kennedy, who despite being a catholic pretty much out WASPed the WASPs.
rdubnpk I don't think so. I am a Demo (though not too proud of one considering the mess that Obama has added on to what W left) and I can assure you that is simply not the case. We elected a black man named Barack Hussein Obama................enough said.
Cant comment on that, as I have no clue about the stats. Regardless, in the end, it should be the womans decision to take. Id also like to think that schools are doing their job when it comes to educating the young and adventurous ones.
It's easy to forget the tragic results of botched abortions by unqualified people. Or worse yet, a woman attempting one on her own. There are, I think, very valid points on both sides of the issue. I do find it ironic that those most against abortions are often the first to support wars. As Ben pointed out, with all the birth control methods available to people, it is incredibly stupid the amount of unwanted pregnancy that exist. I support sex education at schools at the availability of condoms. Counting on abstinence is unrealistic and reckless.
None of this should matter in a presidential election. The president is not called upon to decide the relative merits of religious belief and practice: that is left to the individual, and the freedom that allows for this is guaranteed by the Constitution, itself, which every president swears to uphold. Those with strong religious convictions, especially those who harbor the view that God directs their decisions, as George W Bush did, are dangerous in the office, as they believe those decisions are God's very own and, therefore, unquestionably right, as well as irrevocable. Ever wonder why George W Bush had such a hard time admitting an erroneous decision made? To do so, for him, would have been to question the wisdom of the very Creator of the Universe, a thing unthinkable....
