General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: We Should Lay off Using Romney's Mormon Beliefs as a Criticism [View all]daaron
(763 posts)What's more, it seems to me that the OP's proposed "Hands off the candidate's religion" rule is flagrantly violated by the RW, who would see it as weakness. If this is the "take the high road" argument, I would propose that the issue is even more nuanced than the OP has proposed.
That is, it's too binary to say "Stick to the issues," or "The candidate's religion is out of bounds." The generalization of at least one necessary exception would be the candidate (and there are many examples on both sides of the aisle) who actively inserts their religion into public policy and political campaigns. These exceptions choose to force their religion to be an issue in the campaign in order to either pander to their constituency, bait their opponent, etc.
Marriage equality has brought all the haters out of the back woods, and petite theocrats nationwide are on the war-path and utilizing a truly dizzying array of tactics, both legal and otherwise, in this their last-ditch effort to make Earth miserable enough to lure Jesus back. If you ask me, progressive candidates and their supporters should be operating along parallel trajectories to countermand each inroad against the wall of separation, and making every effort to fully analyze each situation to find the most effective methods to preserve that wall.
Outliers are illustrative: James Inhofe. His climate denialism is dangerous and endangering us all, yet he consistently states that climate change is a hoax because the Bible says so, and that is what he prefers to base public policy on...
I think the OP is going to find it incredibly difficult to get more strident non-believers on board with a campaign that finds ridiculing climate change deniers as "flat-earthers" more insulting than climate change denialism.