Romney rejects using the Rev. Jeremiah Wright against Obama, saying we need to focus on the economy: yay or nay?

I don't think you've given a fair picture of what Romney did in the incident which you cite. As the LA Times article said, the interview with Sean Hanritty from which you've lifted the quote was part of an effort on Romney's part to dissuade anti-Obama forces from turning the election into a fight over sound bites sliming each candidate with misrepresentations about their religion into a contest offering more a substantive presentation of the differences between the candidates. Romney's reference to Obama's relationship with Wright wasn't so much a condemnation of that relationship as it was a statement that Romney was by no means convinced that references to Wright meaningfully related to Obama's candidacy. It wasn't Romney's place to opine as to how much Obama listened to Wright, which would have been a continuation of the "gotcha" type of discussion, rather, Romney said that his perception of Obama was that Obama is a secularist, and that that enforced type of secularism - the kind that Liberals so stridently push here on SH - is something that he, Romney, is against. That's a very legitimate point, IMHO.

In other words, your comment "I'm not sure which is worse either ..." is exactly on point, but not in the snarky way you meant it. Romney is saying that, if Obama wants to continue to toe dance around exactly what the relationship between him and Wright was, he's welcome to do so, but Romney believes that what Obama stands for is secularism, and he wants it clearly understood that he feels differently about that than Obama. You think that's unfair? I don't think so. I think that's exactly what you think the case is. Why can't you accept that openly and let voters decide whose approach they're more comfortable with?

AS for the rest of your claptrap about Mormonism, go kick around SH for a half hour or so and find some stuff about Obama being a Communist Revolutionary. Your reaction to that should pretty fully inform you as to the reaction most rational people will have to your Joseph Smith/Brigham Young presentation. If you still want to continue with it, though, feel free, we're on opposite sides of the fence and I'm sufficiently confident in the fair mindedness of the electorate that you'll be offending many more people than you'll be convincing.

Are you really interested in further discussion?

It really doesn't seem so. What in our discussion serves as a basis for you to suggest that I am "not not a bigot"?

My use of the term "anti-Mormon claptrap" refers to your reference to what, I assume, is mostly historical material pertaining to the Mormon Church circa 1830-1890 by the term "whacked-out behavior". You seem to have expanded that reference, albeit not improved upon it, in your exchanges with other people in this thread. Your references are strikingly pejorative and one-sided. They are not, however, untrue, and, if you can find one word I said suggesting that they were, show me; else let your argumentative posture as to the factual accuracy of your cited factoids sit there as demonstrative of the truly puerile mode of discussion you seem to relish.

As for your invitation for further discussion, where did I suggest that President Obama was "defined by the actions of Reverend Wright"? I would interpret what I said as being pretty much the opposite. If i haven't conveyed the idea that I think - and I think Mitt Romney thinks - that Barack Obama is essentially a secular person, I apologize, for it certainly was my intention to do so.

I invited you to discuss the term "whitewash" in the context of Romney/Obama; you seem not to want to do so; that's fine, I think we both really have said our piece in that regard. You have expressed an interest in comparing certain events in Mormon history with Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright; I'd just as soon not. Although you're entitled to your characterization of 19th Century Mormonism, I find your characterization ridiculously biased, which would be reason enough not to take up your discussion, but, also, I find the events of over 150 years ago, all of whose participants are long dead and buried, not particularly relevant - even as a point of comparison - to the relationship between two men which existed in its entirety during my adult lifetime. But even that is not the reason to discuss what you want to discuss. Romney seemingly wants to remove the discussion of which candidate loves his church more from partisan discussions; he'd rather discuss the issue of the degree of religious activity that can be permitted in governmental activities. I think that's praiseworthy, since I really think that is an issue people rightfully care about. But you don't really want to seem to talk about that either. So, as I said at the outset, I really see little point in further conversation, any questions I may have stated in passing above notwithstanding.

Of Reverend Wright, you said:. "That man is so racist and hateful but you people chose to ignore it and give Obama a pass on it."

Ok then, let's not give Obama a pass on it. And by the same token, let's not give Romney a pass on his religious affiliation either.

Since you obviously believe that Obama should be held accountable for the actions of his Church's leaders, then Romney should be held accountable for the actions of his Church's leadership as well.

No, I don't have to stick to the 19th century to find all kinds of questionable church practices within the LDS faith. And it looks to me that Romney's character has been greatly influenced by his Church.

Mitt the Carp's propensity for flip-flopping, for example, is startlingly apparent in what LDS leadership refers to as "revelation."

Polygamy was in, until it was "revealed" by God that polygamy was out. Of course, the many Mormon sub-cults would disagree on that one. Racism was in as well, until it was revealed by God to Church patriarchs that racism is out. And that was as recent as 1978, wasn't it?

Apparently Saint Romney thinks of himself as being quite godlike in all his flip-flopping.

My God, by the way, does NOT emulate a dying carp.

And then there is the Mormon propensity for covering up and denying embarrassing facts . . . . Which of course is extremely consistent with Republican standard operating procedure. I find the Mark Hoffman “White Salamander” incident extremely apropos as well as fascinating.

Mark Hoffman forged a document that was extremely embarrassing to the LDS Church. That document was believed by LDS leadership to be authentic, and their response was to do what? They paid big bucks and bought it from the forger to keep it out of circulation. (And then things kind of blew up in their faces, but that's another story.)

Is this the sort of forthrightness we can expect from Saint Romney when or if he becomes President?

I agree with you Cap, we certainly should not give our leaders "a pass" on their religious affiliations.