In your example, Romney's beliefs about marijuana matter because he wants to base policy on them. His beliefs about caffeine don't matter, since he's not trying to codify them into law. It's the actions, not the thoughts.

If Romney said he really admires the nazis would that be irrelevant since he has no policy plans to exterminate jews or invade Poland?

The idea that belief can be separated from policy makes no sense. Electing a president is not merely a comparison of position papers. It involves a sense of who a person is and what their priorities are and what they are likely to do in unforeseen circumstances.

Wat if Romney gave a speech saying he has no personal emotional reaction to the idea of arctic animals dying. Would that be personal attitude be relevant to assessing the man in terms of climate change and energy policy?

How about a candidate saying that all Muslims will go to hell? That might not be the identifiable basis for a specific policy, but how could we say that is irrelevant to the candidate's foreign policy views?

Is it relevant that Obama loves his kids? It certainly seems to be considered relevant in our political discourse.

What if he was a real bastard to his kids? Would that be off limits unless he was proposing legislation that everyone must be mean to their kids?

Obama and Romney have both cited their belief in God as a positive personal trait. How can something being cited by the candidate as a qualification for office be beyond examination?

Are you saying that Nevada shouldn't reelect Harry Reid because he is also a Mormon?

When I write an OP saying no Mormon should be elected to anything your comment would be germane.

All the OP says is that it is perfectly reasonable to examine what candidates for office believe about the world, and about morals and values.

To say that some beliefs are relevant and other beliefs are off limits is senseless.

It is reasonable to talk about what Reid does or does not believe. Anything he believes.

It is reasonable to examine what candidates for office believe.

That doesn't mean one is required to draw any conclusion from that belief. I am perfectly capable of supporting Harry Reid and condemning Mitt Romney so being a Morman is not definitive, in my view.

But that doesn't mean it is presumptively irrelevant to who someone is.

I took your original post to say that Romney found alcohol and caffeine to be "immoral" so even if he never tried to ban it, we should still take his beliefs into consideration (which I somewhat agree with). So my question was, if Romney, via his religion, though alcohol and caffeine were immoral, wouldn't Harry Reid have the same views, and shouldn't we also take his beliefs into consideration?

Sorry if I misunderstood. But what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

It's an addictive stimulant. (I'm hooked.)

But when someone holds a view, however derived, it ought to be okay to talk about it. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad... but why should any belief be off limits?

People cite Kennedy a lot in this context, as if it was outright bigotry to think that Kennedy might put his religion ahead of his country. But it was not bigotry. There are many Catholics who would take direction from the Pope in some matters. Kennedy's speech said what people needed to hear, which is that he was a moderate Catholic. If he was a perfect Catholic then he would have been taking some orders from the Pope, particularly on any policy matter with a clear moral dimension, because the Pope is doctrinally infallible on matters of faith and morality.

It cannot be bigotry to ask and examine. Could JFK deviate from church positions? It's a fair question, and he answered it.

In saying that Kennedy set the USA above the Vatican he was defining the limits of his religious views, and that definition was germane to running for office. Not all Catholics feel that way.

To say that belief is relevant unless derived from religion, in which case it is beyond examination, makes no sense.

A lot of Catholics voted for Kennedy because he was Catholic. I don't consider them wicked for having done so. They felt that his values were in line with theirs' A lot of non-Catholics voted against Kennedy because he was Catholic. I do not consider that necessarily all bigotry... if they think their religion is central to their vales then why not vote for someone whose values they feel are closer to their own?

Religion is a significant part of who a religious person is... for good or ill.

I am an atheist and if I ran for office that would not be off limits. I would expect to be questioned about my beliefs. Why not? My beliefs would be relevant to who I am, what I value, how I think.

Now, a lot of people would vote against me simply because I do not believe in God. Is that their right? Yes.

We had a secretary of the interior in the 1980s who felt that conservation wasn't important because Jesus was coming back soon.

He did not state that overtly in policy. But it was his personal religious belief, and I felt that it was not off-limits. If he had believed that an asteroid would strike Earth soon that would surely be relevant to his fitness to be Interior Secretary.

It is as if we have a tacit agreement that nobody actually believes their religion and religion is just a cultural/ethnic marker.

But some people do believe things, and no belief about the world should be off limits.

So it would be up to that state's voters. And they might consider his being a Mormon a positive for all we know.

Or they may have decided he votes on each issue as it is without being over influenced by his religious beliefs. I.E. there is a bill to make caffeine illegal, does he oppose it because the government should not have such a law, even though he thinks it wrong himself?

Personally I think the Mormons overdo it on the caffeine thing, and they may realize they are in a minority there.

Democrats get thrashed for their beliefs no matter what.

.. the issue of MJ to dictate whether I vote or not.

Yes, I would very much like MJ to be legalized, and
of course I am horrified and appalled at the DOJ's
policies on going after clinics...

... but there's too much at stake in this election
to let that keep me from voting for Obama.

Let's fight that battle AFTER the election!

Forward!

then MJ would be no reason to vote against Obama.

Romney is even more of an MJ prohibitionist.

It's the high ground, imo. We didn't like it when they pulled all that shit about Obama and his pastor, and I don't think turn around is fair play.

There is plenty of discussion about Romney's religion and how it might impact his ability to lead all over the media. I'm not sure that it has been deemed verboten anywhere except within the Obama campaign.

Merely that it is not off limits in national discussion. That doesn't mean it must be discussed by the Obama campaign. Far from it.

In the case in the OP about Romney and marijuana, I feel that the journalist could have mentioned, merely as background, that Romney is a church official in a church that takes a very hard line on a wide range of substances.

It doesn't make him an unfit candidate. And it cannot be religious bigotry to merely mention religion.

It is just about what a candidate believes.

Merely that discussing a candidate's beliefs about the world and man and morality is normal political discourse, wherever those beliefs come from.

That's all.

It is really insulting to the faithful to say that their faith is so trivial that we can understand their values while ignoring it.

You mention a deity on the stump, said deity is now fair game.

And if your beliefs may compromise your ability to govern, voters should be able to ask tough questions about your intentions. Candidates should not be influenced by any outside institutions, organizations, entities or foreign governments. They are elected to represent the will of the people and the best interests of the nation first. Just as I expect a candidate to avoid undue influence by Wall Street money or any foreign nation's interests, I expect a candidate to view his church the same way.

and may be used to stay awake on long drives for example.

The original ban was on "hot drinks" so the caffeine thing has gone through a lot of interpretation. Everyone knew that "hot drinks" referred to coffee and tea, but it doesn't say so.

Similar to the caffeine for driving thing, Mormons are also supposed to be vegetarian. Meat is barred except in time of famine when you have to eat the horses and cows.

This has been largely ignored by modern Mormons, but it is on the same level as the bar on alcohol.

Superstitious people are often deadly.

when they rant on about the End of the World - how do we know that will not influence their Middle Eastern policy?

So yes I think the whole White horse thing should be considered - admittedly Mittens is smart enough (imagine that) to refudiate it - but we may want to look for signs he is lying for the Lord.

Reagan's Interior Secretary said in an interview that conservation is over-rated because Jesus is coming back soon.

It would be reasonable to grill someone about such views in their confirmation hearing, IMO.

We may be a religious country, but IMO it is more of a generalized, deistic sort of belief in God - only a minority are fundamentalist, literalists who really think this way - it's their excuse for ignoring every environmental issue. Well those who don't think like that and want a future for their children may want things done on environmental issues. Just because they want to believe there is no future and do whatever they want regardless of the effect on future generations - selfishness, if you ask me. As long as it last for MY lifetime, who cares about anyone else?