Vigilans wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Kennedy and the Catholic Church are not Romney and the LDS though. The LDS is a powerful, wealthy and influential lobby that has shown itself willing to assert its interests in even places without sizable Mormon populations
Of course, the Catholic Church isn't like that,
at all.
EDIT: I count attempting to convert whole continents as asserting onself in a place without a sizable population that follow your beliefs.
I did not say they are not/were not like that, but in this context, the Catholic Church of the 1960s is not of the same power and influence as the modern LDS Movement on US politics. The same goes for Fundamentalist Christians/Baptists. I would be afraid if any of these people were in charge. And the passage I have quoted twice in this thread should be enough to show why Romney cannot be trusted to give the beliefs of others fair consideration.
I think living in a theocratic Catholic country (like the ones that existed in Europe in the 60s) would be as bad as living in a country run by fundamentalist Christians or Mormons. I've been a devout Catholic and I know the Church has many beliefs that are just as crazy and destructive as anything in Mormonism. It's just that the Catholic Church has a longer history and therefore seems more legitimate.
The situation with Romney's faith
is similar to Kennedy (although the politics aren't similar) because in the US, you have constitutional separation of Church and State, which doesn't exist in many parts of Europe. That's why you've had religious dictatorships here, but not there. Thankfully, Western Europe is a lot more secular now, even countries like Portugal and Ireland. Romney would HAVE to give the beliefs of others consideration, whether he likes it or not.
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.