If people insist that religion and government not be separated, it's a relevant question. They've all been wearing their faiths like badges of honor. If they display them, it's fair game to inquire about them.

And Mit should tell the truth. "Yes" that's what my faith tells me to believe. If he can't handle the truth about his faith, then why does he have it?

Had he first said, there is no religious test for government office and declined to mix the two, and stood pat, he'd be insulated from religious scrutiny.

But he didn't have the balls to support the constitution, opting instead to prostitute his religion as a qualification.

He can't have it both ways. If he uses it as a qualificati...

If people insist that religion and government not be separated, it's a relevant question. They've all been wearing their faiths like badges of honor. If they display them, it's fair game to inquire about them.

And Mit should tell the truth. "Yes" that's what my faith tells me to believe. If he can't handle the truth about his faith, then why does he have it?

Had he first said, there is no religious test for government office and declined to mix the two, and stood pat, he'd be insulated from religious scrutiny.

But he didn't have the balls to support the constitution, opting instead to prostitute his religion as a qualification.

He can't have it both ways. If he uses it as a qualification, which he has, then he should answer the question and be proud of it. Let people know who he is!

Ahhh, but something tells me he's afraid of the results! Welcome to America, Mit. Religious bigotry is strong and doing well.

He should have taken the high road and said, "I am a Mormon; it has nothing to do with public office. My qualifications I lay bare for all to see, but my religion remains between God and me. Thank you for respecting that."

"Next question!"

Though I agree the Dems aren't put under equal religious scrutiny, it's because the majority of their potential constituents aren't nearly as fanatical over the issue.

Who cares if Hillary is a Catholic, or Obama a Baptist or whatever; it's what good are they going to do for the country!

The more bigoted a person on issues of faith, the greater the importance the religion of the candidate becomes. Look what happened to Mitt. His own "religious" constituency can't accept him "because" of his religion!

However, don't forget, the top Dems opened the debates with a forum hosted by the Sojourners in which they were grilled on questions of faith as it pertained t...

Though I agree the Dems aren't put under equal religious scrutiny, it's because the majority of their potential constituents aren't nearly as fanatical over the issue.

Who cares if Hillary is a Catholic, or Obama a Baptist or whatever; it's what good are they going to do for the country!

The more bigoted a person on issues of faith, the greater the importance the religion of the candidate becomes. Look what happened to Mitt. His own "religious" constituency can't accept him "because" of his religion!

However, don't forget, the top Dems opened the debates with a forum hosted by the Sojourners in which they were grilled on questions of faith as it pertained to their candidacy.

Public television broadcast the event. It was nationwide.

---

The three top polling Democratic presidential candidates – Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards – took part in an unusual forum in Washington June 4: a forum to answer questions about faith and morality. The forum was set up by Sojourners, a national group devoted to a "biblical call to social justice."

---