Biden Campaign Responds to Reports He's Dropping Out
Was This the Cringiest Moment During Biden's Disastrous BET Interview?
From the Top Rope, Obama Bodyslams Biden's 2024 Chances to Dem Allies
Biden Faces More Than Bad Polling and a Total Dem Rebellion. His Campaign...
Was This the Most Shameful Liberal Media Moment From the Republican Convention?
Whistleblowers Reveal What Secret Service Said During Briefings Before Trump Assassination...
Jasmine Crockett Really Posted This After Trump Was Nearly Assassinated
The Reason Why This Fraternity Is Receiving Backlash Will Shock You
Here's What the President's Physician Has to Say About Biden Testing Positive for...
Yet Another Poll on Swing States Spells Catastrophic News for Biden
Here’s What Trump’s Family, Republican Lawmakers Said About His Injury From the Assasinati...
The Significance of Nikki Haley's RNC Speech
Reflections on the 30th Anniversary of the AIMA Bombing
Here’s What Joe Scarborough Now Says About Biden Staying in the Race
Is This It for Biden? New Report Hints at When the President Will...

Re: Hugh's Column

I just read Hugh's Human Events column, and found myself generally agreeing with him.  Specifically, I agree that condoning an attack on one religion opens the door to an attack on all religion.  However, for the sake of argument, I wanted to make three points that, in my estimation, weren't given the attention they deserve (maybe they will be in the book?):


1.  While Jacob Weisberg's column stepped over the line, it is certainly possible for an unbiased political analyst to predict that "the voters" won't accept a Mormon President.  For example, one might argue that South Carolina voters will reject Romney.  Making this argument doesn't make a political prognosticator a bigot any more than predicting Geraldine Ferarro would lose her debate to George H.W. Bush would make one a misogynist.  While predictions may or may not come true, predictions should be philosophically neutral. 

2.  When an American steps into the voting booth, he or she can (and will) cast their ballot based on any criteria they choose.  Some decisions are made wisely.  A voter , for example, might decide to vote on candidate A because she has more experience than candidate B.  But some votes are cast for ridiculous reasons, too (a  voter, for example, might vote for Mitt Romney merely because he is "handsome").  My point is that voters have the right to vote for -- or against a candidate -- for any reason they choose (even if it is a reason that you and I might find unsettling).


3.  Generally speaking, a persons' theology -- if they are devout -- will naturally influence their political philosophy.   And most conservatives would agree that a candidate's political philosophy is the primary criteria for which voters should judge them.  Now, it just so happens that the Mormon religion tends to (in my estimation, at least) lead one to adopt a conservative political philosophy.  But not all religions are the same.  So my question is: Is it always wrong for the voters to consider religion when deciding for whom to vote?  Isn't that just one of many factors that an educated voter would consider?

Again, I generally agree with Hugh's column, but raise these points for the sake of argument and discussion ...



Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos