Replies

“Frankly, Mitt Romney agrees with him. He called moral conservatives “forces of intolerance” this past week, and used the opportunity to equate “sexual orientation” with race or ethnicity.” I guess when bishop Romney becomes a god, and creates his own planet and human beings to inhabit it, it will be full of bath houses and steam rooms and little boys will only be allowed to wear chaps until the age of 13. I never knew magic underwear came in code pink.

There you go, religious bigotry right there posted on FR by AnTiw1 today in another thread. And that is by no means the first time I have seen such on this website.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying “religious bigotry” doesn’t occur here. I’ve only said I haven’t seen it wrt Mormonism (until now when you pointed it out).

However, I still stand with my original point(s). If I may put it in more blunt terms: As a Catholic, I’ve had it happen to me (my Faith) too. I’ve decided to just suck it up.

To my Mormon FRiends, welcome to the “party”. Move on, post all the pro-Romney threads you wish (given this new truce), just be prepared to suck it up when it comes to the anti-Mormonism you KNOW will be coming. After all, IMO, it’s quite simple to shrug such stuff off, all you need to reply is (if anything) : I didn’t know we were talking about Mormonism; I thought we were talking about politics and a candidate for President.

Believe me, it won’t shut up such religious detraction (you’re going to HAVE to give the “last word” to them), but those lurkers who are reasonable will see who truly wins that “argument”. Trust me.

One more thing:

My mother, who is the wisest woman on earth of course (hehe) has given me one piece of advice that I think is relevant here: You can't control how other people feel and/or behave, but you CAN control how YOU act.

Is it hard to suck up constant criticsm if not outright bigotry against the faith you love (whatever that is?) Of course it is. Is one's natural reaction to be hurt by such? Again, of course. But as Lazamataz pointed out on his "Good Riddence" thread a few days ago: "You are not your emotions. It’s a fact you have emotions, but your emotions are not facts. " Wise advice.

I would say, "Your emotions are part of you, but you are not defined by your emotions". That's a tough pill to swallow sometimes, but it's vital to always try to live by it, or we all fall into the same trap of liberalism: Governed by our emotions, instead of using them to our advantage.