@Brian Carlson....I am very much opposed to "religion tests". This nation was not founded on any one religion. I think the problem with most people is that they don't know or understand Mormonism. Their belief system is different than Pauline Christianity, but no less valid. We are fortunate that we do have a set of accepted secular morals and values. If there are questions, then they should be directed at the accepted secular values. If you wish to know if someone supports pregnancy termination, then you ask them. It doesn't matter what the philosophical foundation is for the belief, but the fact of whether or not they believe in allowing abortion or not. Almost any dividing issues can be addressed in this manner. Therefore, ask about secular moral questions and leave religious principles out of it.

That works. The Founding Fathers were not that far removed from the 100 Years War to not know how religion led to a bloodbath.

The UK (and every other country that is part of the commonwealth realm) has a head of state who is also the head of an entire religion, the Anglican Church of England. That religion is the official state religion of England (Scotland also has an official religion, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland), and the church even has its own representation in Parliament.

The combination of church and state does not automatically lead to some terrible result, as so many people seem to be supposing. Freedom of conscience can co-exist with government establishment of religion.

@Tom Kamenick...State sponsored religions have a long and sordid history. Because of that history and the possibility of religious persecution, the founding fathers had the wisdom to separate church and state. The vast majority of the founders were governed by the principles and philosophies of the "Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason". Religious beliefs, dogmas and doctrines do not easily lend themselves to the functioning of a state intended to remain in the secular sphere. Although most secular beliefs and principles are closely allied with commonly held religious beliefs and principles, religion is a poor guide in a heterogeneous society. It is often said that one man's religion is another man's poison. Therefore, your example of state religion is not a good or valid example.

@Brian Carlson....On the key issues concerning social conservatives, these fringe Christians have the right answers to satisfy the chief concerns of the social conservatives. They have essentially passed the social conservative litmus test. Fiscal conservatism is the pressing questions. I find that Santorum has created a campaign based strictly social issues and it is why he can't gain any traction with fiscal conservatives, which are currently supporting Romney. I think Romney's Mormonism will be much more of an issue during the general campaign. I foresee a campaign by the Democrats to run an undercurrent campaign focusing on Romney's Church and their unique religious beliefs.

@Lyle, I agree completely. That is why I think the media crowned Romney from the beginning. They haven't even gotten to his gr-grandfather yet. I have seen them try to brand him before about his ancestors.

But I wonder why are the Mormon's beliefs unique but other religions aren't. It isn't like no one knows about the Mormons, they didn't come out of nowhere. Their inner teachings emerge when politics are involved. Serious genealogy researchers depend highly on their records. Going to their Family Research Center/church is never an issue for any of us.

@mau...You do understand why they support genealogy don't you?

Mormons believe that there are ordinances (such as baptism) that are essential to be saved. And they seek out their ancestors for this purpose.

@mau...Those "ordinances" are quite complex. They believe that families are eternal and survive into the afterlife. Not only do they need to know their ancestors for proxy baptism to restore souls to the family, but also to trace the ancestry back to "Father Adam". Contingent with this is the fact that when a woman is married and sealed to her husband, she is no longer counted as a member of her family but the family of her sealed husband. Also, a woman may not pass through the veil of death without a man bringing her through. If she is married to a sealed husband and he proceeds her in death, then he will "pull her through". If she is unmarried, but worthy, then one of the deceased patriarchs will pull her through or Jesus himself. If a woman is married here on earth but is not sealed to her husband, then she will remain with her maiden family in the afterlife.

@Lyle, as Catholics we "pray for the souls of the faithful departed" so they get into heaven. Many sponsor a mass on the anniversary of their death for many many years. My husband and I were just talking about this the other day. Why do Catholics have to pay for these special intentions. It's like we're buying their way into heaven. And if we don't pay it doesn't happen.

@Brian Carlson....I couldn't agree with you more that we don't need a corporatist CEO. We need a visionary with the mind of a philosopher, the heart of a poet, the wisdom of a Solomon, and the patience of Job.

An occupy protestor with a PHD in cultural sciences?

@Steve...You're pretty cocky for someone so young. You get a little older you'll understand things aren't as simple as you think. One of the things you learn with age is how much you don't actually know. What Brian is stating has merit undeserving of your juvenile rhetoric.

@Kath...I beg to differ with you. Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but not Pauline Christianity. Both Pauline Christianity and Mormonism are based on mythological foundations, requiring belief in the mythological veracity of their foundations. Neither types of Christianity have independent evidence to suggest that one is more correct than the other. The major difference is that Pauline Christianity has been around close to two millennia and Mormonism less than two centuries.

Judaism and Islam have the same problem, in as much as they both are based on a mythological genesis. This doesn't change the authenticity of the movements, but it requires belief.

My very best friend who is a Mormon would beg to disagree with you. She considers herself a Christian and does not consider her religion to be non-mainstream. Nor do I.

BTW many Mormon's do not support Romney. In fact they consider him a turncoat and flip flopper. They support Ron Paul.

@mau...Your friend is quite correct in her belief. Just because her belief doesn't reflect the majority who call themselves Christian, it doesn't change her self definition, nor should it. If all Christianity were of the same belief, we would still have only the Holy Catholic Church.

@Lyle, I grew up believing only Catholics got into heaven. And if a baby did not get baptized before they died they stayed in Limbo. In fact if you go to St. Adalbert's Cemetery there is a section of unconsecrated ground along the fence by the rail road tracks where these babies are buried. Including my father-in-laws unnamed sister.

I also grew up believing all Angels had names and that they were these fluffy friendly beings who answered your prayers. Now I know you are to fear them as they are warriors of God. And you aren't to pray to them.

@mau...Your comment reminded me of an old joke about Mormon's unique belief system.

An angel of the Lord was giving a guided tour of heaven to a group of recently deceased clergy. It was a paradise and everything that they had all believed heaven to be was in fact an actuality. They came to an area that was enclosed by a high walled section. The angel motioned them to come close and with his finger to his lips indicating a whisper; in a whispered voice, "You have to be very quiet when passing this area. This is where the Mormons come and they think they are the only ones here."

Oh, ok. I thought Mormons considered themselves to be Christians.

It's kinda hard to determine if a presidential candidate is going to invade the Middle East because of his religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs), isn't it?

It's an unequivocal "no", as long he's a nod-and-a-wink member of some denomination, but in truth an ethical humanist atheist and not really a religious person.

A simple "yes" would have saved you a lot of typing.

@Taoist Crocodile and CowDung...Decisions must be based on secular conditions only. It is never acceptable to be motivated to action by some religious belief. We can see how a devout fundamentalist Christian, George W. Bush, resurrected a 1200 year old problem with creating a new "Crusade" in the guise of searching for the mythical weapons of mass destruction.

Would 'secular conditions' include the decision of an atheist president to invade the Middle East because the countries there aren't 'secular enough'?

It's pretty easy to place the 'it was motivated by religion' tag on the actions of a president that you disagree with and don't share a faith with. How about judging a person on their actions rather than trying to speculate about how their religion may have influenced their decisions?

Well, the Middle East thing was a hypothetical example, but it seems to have touched a nerve. The point I was making is that religious motivations are personal things, and shouldn't be acted on unless the action can be framed and justified in non-religious terms.

Whether or not GWB believed that he was doing Jesus' work (with all of that shock and awe bombing), the point is that he never used that religious reasoning to make the case. Rather, he used non-religious justifications, which people of different religions can discuss in a common language. I think that's how it should be.

My point is that its OK for a candidate to say, "this is my religion and these are my religious beliefs and these are the NON-religious justifications for my preferred policies."

It's also OK for a candidate to say "these are the non-religious justifications for my preferred policies, but my personal faith (or lack thereof) is nobody's damn business."

The problem that non-religious (or non-Christian) people have with openly religious politicians is that they often say (or have said) absurd things like "this is a Christian nation." When a politician makes those kinds of statements, has made those kind of statements in the past and fails to retract them while running for office, the he or she is crossing the line, in my humble opinion.

If you can't avoid acting on the basis of your religion alone, then you have no business leading a secular, pluralist government.

I would also add that if a voter can't support a politician without "vetting" his or her religious beliefs, then that voter, in effect, wants the US to be a theocracy. And if there's a more un-American concept than theocracy, I fail to see what it is.

Wait a minute...let me get this clearly. Its OK with you if a President invades the Middle East based on a privately held religious belief.... and in that case you dont need to know his reasoning... as long as he can also spin out a rationale that is secular? Wow. That is scary.

No, Brian, you misread me. I didn't say I was okay with the action itself, and I didn't say that a non-religious justification actually justifies it to me. My point is that it's acceptable political discourse to appeal to national interest or global security or human rights, but not to appeal to religious texts.

The fact that GWB gave non-religious justifications for his actions means that we can discuss the merits of those actions without coming to a faith-based impasse. This is as it should be.

Mau, if you are asking me... I dont think the injunction against killing is strange at all. Its one I have held dear all my adult life. I agree that the Ten Commandments are as clear about this as you say. I wish believers would take this law seriously. Many end round it by saying the word originally used meant murder... so, as long as killing is not murder, its ok. IMO, when you carpet bomb a country, be it Viet Nam, Iraq, a city like Dresden, etc., you are murdering people. There is no difference.

Not only have I been to a Pentecostal Church, I was temporarily, a long time ago, part of a Christian movement which was into the "gifts of the Holy Spirit," including speaking in tongues, healing, prophesy, etc. I was never in a denomination that literally believed in transmutation or transubstantiation or whatever that is with the bread and wine.

Yes...I have troubles with the coherence of being a Christian and a war hawk at the same time. I think that is a seriously skewed position.

@mau...Who are you directing this at and who are you quoting?

I'm writing this in general to all of us (including myself), who point the finger at others and judge them, without looking at ourselves first.

Mau, I am not pointing fingers. I am asking a question.

@Neil....I'll take this comment as serious as I did your reference to Harry Turtledove.

lol Amen

@Neil....You've gotten pretty tangential.

@Neil
Is there a chance you and Steve are the same person? Does including 4 letter words make a pray better in God's eyes?