Cliff, for some reason you seem to think that I have backed away from my original “undress religion,” statement. I have always upheld that religion is an integral part of who I am. I will state again, a person cannot simply turn religion off and on when they go into the voting booth. Here let me help you out. I also said in an essay titled, “Christians Should Just Shut Up?” at KVNU For the People the following:

Cliff Lyon’s statements against religion, while hate filled and loaded with personal attacks against me, do bring up a valid question. What role should religion have in forming public opinion? During the primaries, many here in Utah were arguing against the religious right for opposing Mitt Romney simply because he was Mormon. During this debate, I argued that supporting Romney because of his religion was no different because ultimately it led to opposing someone else because of their religious views. Regardless, I took the stance that it is perfectly legitimate to stand behind or oppose someone based on religion but dissuaded people from doing so without having a true understanding of their opponent religious views. To oppose someone simply based on religion without a broader understanding of their religious views and how they might affect their elected office nothing more than bigotry. Therefore I concluded that to make a judgment against Mitt Romney simply because of hearsay or conjecture surrounding his religious beliefs is completely inappropriate. I also would argue that few of us would be against opposing most any person for simply belonging to a radical religious sect like the Taliban or a Neo-Nazi religious group. If this is the case it is certainly appropriate for us to use a person’s religious affiliation as a window into the person’s core beliefs. While it may not always be the most accurate way of judging a persons character it is no less accurate than watching an endless number of speeches crafted by high paid speech writers and marketing teams.

and

“While I disagree with clergy preaching politics from the pulpit the way that Obama’s now ex-pastor does, I will certainly argue that it is their right to do so. I would only hope that people of all faiths understand that attempting to establish purely religious doctrine as law, whether it be; school prayer, the ten commandments in court houses and even abortion will only lead to other laws infringing on your ability to freely worship and may ultimately lead to a negative view of your faith. This can be illustrated by Utah’s liquor laws, where the far majority of non-Mormons feel religiously discriminated against.”

I would invite you Lynette to go read each of the posts and see for yourself that I have been completely consistent. Lynette, Cliff has successfully deceived you about my stance on this issue in an attempt to call me a hypocrite. It has been a long standing practice of his since he first sought to Libel me here. Understand that this is once again an attempt by Cliff to take out of context anything he can find to discredit me and distract from the discussion. I will also still stand by my assertion that even a person who believes that life begins in the womb can also hold secular beliefs about the beginning of human life that/he or she applies to their political stance. Obama does it everyday, a fact that Cliff has refused to address.

To your question about compulsory… Yes, I believe that we cannot ignore if we are going to be informed, a candidates religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs could do the country harm. I should note that Cliff has centered the lion share of his argument around criticizing my religious beliefs because he fears that they may led to an end for Roe v. Wade. In this case, Cliff, certainly views my religious beliefs (wrongfully I must add) as a threat to the country.

Gee.. Cliff my warrior brother… did you put this together before heading off to Church as noted in your previous post on the last topic about me? Which Church do you attend by the way Cliff? Maybe you should invite the clergy to participate in this discussion.

Richard:

Sorry, but I got no further than the first sentence of your KVNU passage – you accused a liberal of being hated-filled. When a right-winger resorts to the “hate” word in responding to liberal thought, he immediately exposes himself as having little to add to the debate.

I look forward to your next comment.