joshbaumgartner

Well I do think that discussing or debating the doctrine itself would warrant another thread. However, I really am aiming to focus on it as it pertains to the issue of Romney's Mormonism and candidacy. I think the reason it is an issue is rooted in people's ideas about what Mormonism is.

I think the contradiction you mention really is a good point and is at the heart of what I asked earlier. I think it comes down to question of whether you believe in something being right or wrong, it predisposes you to outwardly act on that belief, not just in your own life, but upon others' as well. When beliefs are stated strongly, it can become easier to think that a person will attempt to project that belief upon others. However, I don't think that needs to be the case. It is with some people, it isn't with others.

I for one do not drink, but I do not support prohibition. I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I strive to keep the Sabbath, but I do not support blue laws. I abhor Nazism and racism, but I will not ban the right to have and share such views. I make choices in my own life in accordance with my beliefs, beliefs that in many areas are seen as quite conservative. However, I do not project those on others, and am tolerant of their right to chose and to act in accordance with their faith. If I can make such distinction, then I think it is reasonable to think a candidate can, and so I am very ready to listen to a candidate and review their record of service, instead of draw a judgment on their religious affiliation. I think if people are drawing incorrect conclusions about what you will do in office based on your religious affiliation, I think it is warranted to speak to the people about the matter and set the record straight. I think that therefore, it was warranted for Romney to make a speech about the matter; I was only disappointed that he did not do a good job in executing it.

I, like the aforementioned Smith, belief my faith to be true (it wouldn't be much of a faith if I didn't!) That de facto means that I believe other, different faiths to be "wrong" or "corrupt" or "flawed". But this does not mean that I in any way wish to limit the freedom for people to worship these other ways unmolested. Tolerance does not require that you accept what another says as true or even reasonable, it just means that you take no action to infringe on their right to hold and share those words.

If one assumes that a candidate for office must as a function of their religious affiliation seek the furtherance of the goals and enforcement of the doctrine of their religion, then would it not stand to reason that a candidate that was not religious would therefore work to infringe on the practice of religion and function of churches. Personally, I don't think either is reasonable to assume. Candidates are, by and large, functions of the forces that brought them to power, be it corporate dollars, populist demands, loyal bloc voting, what have you. One of those forces is personal desire, based on one's personal beliefs, but this is usually more than drowned out by other forces in the vast majority of candidates. I don't think Mitt Romney is an exception.