Quote from: iCEBREAKER on April 08, 2013, 09:59:39 PM

My grandfather converted to LDS late in his life.

So in other words, someone of whom you share relation belonged to X-religion, and thus, you're biased. And no, I hate no religion; you're putting words in my mouth, and I'd appreciate you not do that. I do, however, understand religion, and I understand what it is used for, and how politicians use it to their advantage. Mormonism just happens to have a soft spot in my heart for having the silliest conception of all common religion (and say what you will, 14,000,000+ mormons is not a small religion. In comparison? Sure. Compared to the "religion" of me? Well!--how could 14 million Mormons be wrong to my 1-member religion?)

And what makes you so sure I have a "particular denomination"? I take offence to that. Unlike those with "denominations", I prefer to ask my own questions and get my own answers. This is what religion doesn't teach you. But that's the tragedy of religion; if one were trained to think, as opposed to sponge, religion would cease to be. There is no religion that will train you to be an individual. There is only the religion, and what you can do for the religion (under the guise of helping yourself, too--but if you could help yourself, what good is religion?) Having been raised under such circumstances, I simply hope you'll either know what I'm saying, or trust I know what I'm talking about.

For example: Bill is a Christian. Jane isn't; Jane isn't anything. So what is Jane? I guess she's just Jane. And Bill? Well, Bill's a Christian.

Now: because Bill is a Christian, we expect Bill to do Christian-like things. Because that's what Bill subscribed to, and it shouldn't be over our heads to expect him to understand the word of Christ yadda yadda. Jane? Who fuckin knows, I guess you'll have to get to know her. Since Jane's an individual, and has no such title (and by that, I mean, to those non-religious; any Theist will name anyone who is not a Theist an Atheist, as Theists love their titles and -isms) we can safely assume that she either knows better, or has yet to be converted. To the religious, it must always be the latter--else, the religious individual is having second thoughts, which is, of course, preferable, signifying someone who stopped simply listening and spent some good, quality time thinking (and if it goes well, it always ends up with a discarding of said religion, if not all religion.) To the non-religious, it can very well be both: and that's the difference between the two.

I really don't care if Romney was Mormon, Catholic, Jew, Islamic, or Hindu. Because he subscribes to another man's logic (and again, I refer to the conception of Mormonism as the real killer here,) this says enough about his ability to lead.

And before you ask: no, I don't like Obama, either. They're both completely terrible. Say; did you know there's more than two candidates in every election? And yet nobody can name the others (except for R. Paul.) Why do you believe this is? And why do both candidates always subscribe to the stupidity of the left, or the stupidity of the right? And why is it--if we're to put the above to practice, about religion and being apart of something greater--always, always, always, those who are left, or those who are right, are religious?