And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under Canada

So yesterday Romney, the dog-torturing Mormon, took his shot at a JFK moment.

I was expecting him to be evasive about the kookier side of Mormonism, and he did not disappoint on that count. He said, no doubt in response to those people who have been asking him “You think Jesus actually lived in America? WTF, dude?” that he does not want to be subjected to a “religious test,” and that “no candidate should be the spokesman for his faith.”

Especially if your faith is…ah…how shall we say…oh, yeah. Crazy.

Okay, okay, I’m not saying he shouldn’t be free to practice his religion. He absolutely should be, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. And he’s right to point out that religious freedom is without a doubt one of the greatest things about this country.

However.

I am free to evaluate and judge the mental acumen of anyone running for public office. And of course I have made peace with the fact that every four years I have to vote for a world leader who believes that, if you screw up this world, you get a second chance in the next. But you know what I cannot make peace with? Anyone who believes that a woman cannot enter that next world without a man. It’s like the Mormons think that heaven is some kind of nightclub, and without that man on the inside to tell St. Peter that you’re cool, a woman would have to stand behind the velvet rope for all eternity.

So why should I respect a religion that regards me as the Tara Reid of the afterlife?

Maybe the Mittmeister has some answers:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Oh, really?

Freedom requires religion? Why not just buy the founding fathers some skeleton-sized rotisseries, Mittski, so that they can spin in their graves unencumbered?

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter -- on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

Because if you’re not religious, you have no convictions, or if you do, they don’t count. Not because they’re not the same convictions that religious people have, but because YOU’RE not religious. The problem is you, get it?

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.

Okay, so he’s doing good so far with this argument, but I sense a bomb about to explode…

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Jesus Christ on a crutch, Mitt, WHO THE FUCK IS “THEY”?

Talk about a fucking time bomb. Kids, you have just glimpsed the future - if Romney becomes the nominee, and, “God” forbid, president. You have just gazed into the crystal ball and seen 8 more years of crazy, Jesus-infused paranoia, and fear, and politics that must divide in order to succeed. I’m not one easily given to phrases like “mark my words,” but MARK MY FUCKING WORDS.

And in case you’re not yet convinced, kids:

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.

Well, I’m sure everyone who has fought to maintain religious freedom in this country really appreciates you reducing their arguments to nativity scenes and menorahs on the court house lawn. Way to take the high road, Mittski.

Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from "the God who gave us liberty."

Our constitution rests on a foundation of faith? Really? Because the constitution says, and (unlike you) I quote: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Seems pretty clear cut to me, Mittens. But perhaps my mind has been clouded by rational, non-magical thinking. In any event, I’ll give you the last word:

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.

Okay, I take it back. I get the last word. Look, Mittenator, you can believe that liberty springs from the head of Zeus, or is sprinkled upon us by an omniscient Tom Cruise in a tu-tu for all I care. But don’t play word games with me and hint that those who are not religious believe that liberty is an “indulgence of government.” Believe it or not, you fucking hypocritical piece of shit, an oath is a serious thing to me, and the one overriding purpose of our government is to keep our people free, and the most serious oath in this world or the next is the oath that a public servant takes to dedicate themselves to upholding the purpose of this government.

Something tells me you are not the man for that job.