Big surprise that an opportunistic schmuck would have this exchange:
Voter: "You, sir, are a pretender. You don't know the Lord. You are a Mormon."(BOOS)Romney: (Chuckling) "Let me, uh, let me offer just a thought. And that is, uh, one of the great things about this great land, is we have people of different faiths and different persuasions. And uh, I'm convinced that the nation, that the nation does need, the nation does need to have people of different faiths but we need to have a person of faith lead the country."
I like the open religious intolerance here. It just provides one more little piece of evidence that these sectarian debates are really debates about so much fantasy. Imagine a Muslim in America saying, "You, sir, are a pretender. You don't know Allah. You are a Mormon." That would show the patent intolerance and incompatibility of religion in good government. Instead we have Romney trying to create a feeling of inter-faith dialog and ecumenicism. Good luck on that.
But it's also nice to see that when confronted with intolerance, he just tries to slide the intolerance onto another group - atheists - by saying that "we need to have a person of faith lead the country." I suppose that if the majority of believers "need to have" a believer lead the country then they can vote that way. But I see no reason that a candidate is more qualified because he believes in some sky god and his son acting on Earth, much less visiting North America. Why should we nominate someone who thinks - no matter the evidence - that a lost tribe of Israel traveled across the Atlantic Ocean (before open-ocean-going vessels were invented by the Vikings) and populated the continent? He apparently believes this because his faith demands it but there isn't a shred of evidence for it and all of the evidence of America's indigenous population says that it came from its west via East Asia. So we're supposed to believe that a wish-thinker and evidence-ignorer is more suitable as a president? Me thinks not.
The point, though, is that Romney is intolerant of non-belief. As part of the majority of believers, it's convenient for him to disparage non-belief. That's not surprising though, because it calls into question some foundational stuff for him and so he can ally with other believers. Hey. At least they all believe in nonsense right?
But of course, when the table is turned on him and mainline Protestant, Catholic, or fundies ask, "Would Jesus vote for Mitt Romney?" he is going to get very upset and cry intolerance and bigotry. It's inconvenient for him to be criticized for the content of his belief when he is in a minority within the majority - a majority built on senseless tribal divisions about the outmoded beliefs of bronze age shepherds and their iron age descendants.
I am intolerant, but I'm no bigot. I don't accept any of this claptrap but your actions define the quality of your character. Romney is not consistent and neither are the rest of these theists trying to be twenty angels dancing on the head of a pin. Romney, like Giuliani and Clinton (Hillary that is), are opportunistic swindlers out to line their own pockets and that's what keeps them off my voting card. Their theism is just so much baggage I'd prefer to eliminate with Occam's Razor. I wish they would too.