They can illustrate it however they like, but it doesn’t play well with people like myself.  It comes off as unserious, partisan gotcha nonsense trying to pit one group against another.  Maybe that plays well to the base, but that’s about it.  I haven’t gotten the impression that anybody outside of the core left-wing (who you don’t need to win over anyway) was all that impressed. 

Romney is himself a bishop (at least — he may hold higher position). I don’t know if that modifies his annual requirements.

I didn’t say they weren’t indicative of a conflict of interest and examples that the man is exorbitantly wealthy and may be better served doing something else besides being President; all I’m saying is that going off on a tangent on specific things like beach houses and Swiss accounts at the expense of having a debate over what a sound, fiscally-responsible tax code undermines the discussion.…and, in a subtle way, promotes the politics of envy.  Look, we know Romney is absurdly rich and all that entails.  Rather than make light of it, just put forth your plan and why it would be good for the country and shut up about the trivial details. 

I saw that.…and the comments from Paul Ryan.  Very self-serving, holier-than-thou, and unproductive.  That’s precisely the pompous “look at me” attitude that Christ preached against.  He told the Phariseesnot to go out and “pray loudly in the streets” and put on such a ridiculous display of their faith.  Congressman Ryan and others would do well to take a second look at that passage. 

“And when was the last time an avowed atheist was elected to any office higher than dog-catcher?”

Pete Stark?  Although outside of him, it’s admittedly thin. 

“Since religion cannot be kept out of politics, perhaps the best we can hope for is to keep politics out of religion — and even that seems a stretch, these days.”

Whatever works, because mixing the two does both a disservice. 

And when was the last time an avowed atheist was elected to any office higher than dog-catcher?

Since religion cannot be kept out of politics, perhaps the best we can hope for is to keep politics out of religion — and even that seems a stretch, these days.

Going off on semi-neurotic rants about “beach houses in the Caymans” and “bank accounts in Switzerland” and make specific references to individual wealth metrics. That’s not necessary to debate tax policy.

Goes to motive, your honor. The point here is that Romney has a vested interest in supporting tax policy that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. By itself, it’s not enough to “convict”, but when coupled with the evidence that he supports a tax policy that would reduce his tax rate to under one percent, and claims that the tax policy change would be revenue-neutral…it paints a picture.

The certainty is that it’s always spun to look favorable for liberals and unfavorable for conservatives.

I believe there are some who would do that. I’m not among them.

No, that’s not really what my argument is.  I actually fall mostly in line with the progressive stance on this; that being that religion — and religious talk — should be kept out of politics, regardless of what you believe.