So mormans, christians, roman catholic, muslim, and so on, and so on… do NOT have the “corner of the market” for truth… any truth.

These are purveyors of control, by means of guilt and shame and often enough, lies, deceit.

I’d vote for a pagen before I’d vote for another baptist or mormon. I could care less about the candidates PERSONAL faith – it should not affect their leadership nor influence it. Being POTUS isn’t about be “faithful” but about being American and doing what is best for ALL people of this country.

As to the topic and Religious Intolerence… even the Agnostic and Atheist are prejudiced against… here and abroad.

I say TAX RELIGIOUS GROUP – NO EXCEPTION.

So would I vote for a Scientologist? Sure, if s/he
were otherwise politically acceptable to me and not
notably loony.

Gosh, I don’t know, man. Our ancestors arriving on this planet on inter-stellar DC-10’s? All maladies in the world caused by alien spirits who’s cryogenically preserved bodies are buried under volcanoes? The entire record of human history a hoax perpetrated by the galactic emperor Xenu to fool us into complacency? If you were a good driver I might hire one to drive a limousine, but to run my country?

Then again, we do have a president who may actually believe in 6 day creation science, which I don’t think has anything to do with his failures as president, so who knows?

Rich: Excellent points, especially the somewhat
fuzzy distinction between a cult and a “legitimate”
religion.

I spent nearly three years living in St. Petersburg,
Fla., just down the road from Clearwater, which is
Scientology Central. So I got to see firsthand some of
the weirdness involved with them.

There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical of people
with odd beliefs. But to simply make a blanket
statement that you would never vote for anyone
who subscribes to a particular creed? That’s over the
line, IMO.

It comes down to policy vs. personal belief. Refuse to
vote for a Muslim who advocates sharia law? Sure.
Refuse to vote for any Muslims because the
concept of sharia exists? No. Find out what the
individual believes and vote on that basis, not a
generalized stereotype of an entire diverse religion.

So would I vote for a Scientologist? Sure, if s/he
were otherwise politically acceptable to me and not
notably loony.

There is one instance where voting based almost
entirely on a candidate’s religion is legitimate: when
that religion is a political force in its own right,
and there is legitimate worry that if believers take
control they will run things for the benefit of the
religion, not the community. Thus I fully understand
people in Clearwater voting against Scientologist
candidates, or people in Salt Lake City voting against
Mormons. In both cases, the religion is a strong local
political force, and outside the mainstream enough to
warrant worries about how they would handle power.

I also think people are not being honest about this issue. There are plenty of, shall we say, unusual religious beliefs that people would have a hard time looking past. I’m sure plenty of Americans couldn’t look past the sacrifice of animals that some religions require. How many Americans could vote for a muslim who wanted to insitute sharia? That is a full fledged religious belief that would elicit very negative reactions against it…so would all those people be bigots?

In the grand scheme of things Mormonism, as praticed today, is more a touch odd as opposed to outlandishly weird, and obviously it is mainstream enough for its members to attain high political office, even outside of Utah. But many Americans would find a member of the Society of Friends to be a little odd as well…though I doubt it would work against someone politically.

Then again the Quakers don’t have the historical baggage that the Mormons have.