Candidates that claim to base their decisions on their moral values frighten me - religion santifies some of the most immoral positions I have ever beheld - racism, sexism, homophobia to name a few.

God has nothing at all to do with running the country. God cannot guide decisions. That's what intelligence and the conscience are for.

This country was founded on separation of Church and State. Why this is not a drum beat in every single election to the point that any candidate talking about God isn't almost immediately dismissed out of hand as unfit for leading our secular republic is beyond me. The Christian right's success in forming an cohesive voting bloc has had far too much impact on the way candidates campaign. We've allowed fundies to move the conversation into an arena where the conversation doesn't even belong. I wish there was a candidate bold enough to say "My faith or lack of it is not an issue here, and I refuse to discuss this." Or, even better "I don't believe in God. Next question."

What, are we bound to a religion because we were "born" into it? How odd, Walter.

Willard has found being a Mormon useful in so many ways, not the least of which is that it kept him in France and safely away from being drafted into the Vietnam War.

So, in the author's opinion .... "the only permissible constitutional grounds for raising religious questions about a would-be Mormon president is the church's long history of prejudice against blacks."

What about the ongoing prejudice against women?

And yet all things work together for good. Romney is, in my estimation, a wrong number, and if his religion gets in the way of his political ambition, oh well. On the other hand (there's always another hand) this may also, in the long run, be what knocks Mike Huckabee out of the running, despite that small but vociferous group of Christian extremists who care about nothing else. The same people who put Romney in a bad light deliberately may well be the ones who, unwittingly, do the same thing to Huckabee, who is a very wrong number himself.

Of course, other than Ron Paul, who I am still trying to decipher, I don't think there is a right number in the Republican camp right now.

Funny how worked up we are about this, when the real concern ought to be which Democrat will best be able to lead the U.S. back to grace.

But few people actually feel that way. A black man, A woman, A Mormon all play to the dark bigotries we claim to ignore. Sorry but that's America.

it's a cult. Would you vote for a Scientologist? This whole thing is ridiculous - we have historical evidence of the crooks and frauds who invented this fake religion, so why go along and pretend that it's anything other than what it is?

Critics of the Church of the Latter Day Saints can easily point to passages in the Book of Mormon that seem bizarre and unfathomable to non-believers. But the same can be done with the Book of Revelation or Old Testament accounts of a "wrathful" God. Religious beliefs by their very nature are not subject to the same dispassionate analysis as healthcare plans.

The difference here is that the Book of Mormon was written only 180 years ago by some guy from Utah. There's historical records, personal accounts and knowledge of this time, all in English and not distorted and altered by almost 2000 years of history. To know all the church's beliefs and the story of its founding and then still believe in all of it is just dumb. I wouldn't want a Mormon president because actually buying into all of that shows a dangerous lack of logic, reasoning and critical thinking, all of which are qualities that I'd like a president to have.

So this man believes that a guy in Utah in 1830 was told by an angel that there were golden plates buried near his house that contained the word of God, and the central article of his faith is a book that was dictated by the guy while looking into a hat. Coincidentally, only 11 people claim to actually have seen these plates, because apparently artifacts placed on earth by God that would basically provide hard proof for the claims you're making really aren't a big enough deal to let the general public in on it.

You really want a man who believes all this to run the country?

Religious beliefs by their very nature are not subject to the same dispassionate analysis as healthcare plans.

Yes they are, especially when they are often flaunted or revealed next to such plans as tax reform, foreign policy, and healthcare plans. I'm not saying people should be thrown stones at, or run out of town due to religious beliefs, but this idea that a persons religious faith, when they use it as a stepping stone and platform in which to make their arguments on, is unassailable is bumpkis. If one established one world view as realpolitik, or Marxist, or something else, reasonable people would be in the right to question and parse out what you mean by that.

If Romney had taken the dignified constitutional stand and refused to mix religion with politics by saying words to the effect that "my religion is my own business", then I would agree that the piling on is out of line.

But that's not what happened, is it? Romney chose to jump into the whole religion quagmire, so it's definitely relevant. Just like a courtroom, if you bring it up, then the court gets to take it into consideration. If he doesn't like the consequences, he should have heeded the old adage about the better part of valor, and shut the hell up about what is, after all, an irrelevant subject.

Or should be. For an American president.

Bwaage's tirade that the Book of Mormon was "written in Utah" shows his ignorance of the Mormon religion. Joseph Smith's revelation (if that was what it was; I won't take sides) was in upstate New York. The group was persecuted and fled first to Illinois, where Mr. Smith was assassinated and finally to the Utah desert. Whether you are for or against the LDS your opinions would hold more weight if you were to get your facts straight.