A prediction: Willard RMoney's weird religion is going to work against him in the election this fall.
And, heretical though this may sound, IMHO it damn well SHOULD!
I, for one, do NOT think that if someone has publically avowed "religious beliefs," it is wrong or improper to "hold those against them," in electoral politics, that is, to interrogate them about the possible consequences of those beliefs if:
1) They're running for any public OFFICE from which they'll exercise power, dispense justice, or create policy applicable to the general populous., andIt's not just Mormons. I think anyone who so much as mentions faith or belief in "gods" or other mythic creatures as among their "qualifications" for office is, prima facie, unqualified to lead, and should be automatically disqualified from leading, a sane, reality-based, secular state.
2) Those convictions seem evidently loony and irrational, and/or exclude or discriminate against non-cult members.
Further, as the matter is on the table, I strongly object to nominating, much less electing, a member of the Mormon--or ANY--clerical hierarchy to positions of secular authority, simply on the face of it.You wouldn't vote for some Catholic "Cardinal" to be the country's chief executive, would you? No, you wouldn't, because you'd (justifiedly) question their loyalties. Any candidate for office in the secular state who even implies their "FIRST" responsibility or their "highest loyalty" is to some amorphous, evanescent, imaginary "God" would seem to have DISQUALIFIED themselves from consideration. It's a clear conflict of interest. It's "god OR country." They're not remotely alike.
Let's remember: (and dare I say, "Unlike sexuality,") Religion IS a choice. People are ALL born "non-believers." They choose to be Catholic, or Mormon, or Jain, or whatever...They learn their superstitions. Later, perhaps, they ratify or abandon them, but they choose.
If you choose to believe in a returning, immortal crucified redeemer, or in shiny, blue Sparkle-ponies which descend from "heaven" to escort the "saints" to their "eternal home" in "the sky"--or that your Prophet read the words of an angel named Moroni inscribed on golden dinner plates from the planet Kolob--that's a conscious choice. NOBODY FORCES ANYBODY TO BELIEVE THAT.
Unless all the religious folks in the world are lying all the time and their faith does NOT have ANY impact on their behavior and conduct, if they say their faith WON'T influence their decisions, why mention it? If they say it will, they've got ulterior motives, so why vote for 'em?
A Note here: That the ancient Hebrew authors of the Abrahamic texts place "Jhwh"'s home in "Heaven" is NOT a significant variation on putting that home on the planet Kolob. All it signifies, frankly, is that the ancient Hebrews didn't have the word for "planet."
To me, the point is that if, upon reflection and confronted with contrary facts, someone who seeks to exercise national executive power refuses to admit that they are ruled by delusional superstitions (which are too fucking STOOOOPIT to repeat in public), THIS militates HEAVILY against their competence to lead ANYTHING other than a fucking Sunday School choir, much less the (still most powerful) nation on the "planet!"
Or izzat just me?
You tell me, hippies...Paz!@