Well, since this thread sits atop the Romney "Freedom requires religion" thread, you must be thinking that this would make good fodder for a flame. Both topics touch on religion, to a greater and lesser degree. There are significant and fundamental (no pun intended) differences, though. Different purposes, statements of religion in public policy in one and the lack thereof in the other, different audiences, in one the star is a stuffed-suit-stiff, the other a charismatic figure who inspires some overblown messianic rhetoric...

What's your take on it? A post consisting only of a link, on Flame, in context, sounds like bait on a hook. What's the hook? I'm not gonna bite blindly.