[BlueDragon]

Do you read what you write, seriously? Jews don’t recruit, and to label threads as promotional is plain ignorant.

You object to the term. Promote and proselytize are tow different words, with different meanings. For lack of a better word or term I used "promote" but I also used explanatory. Perhaps try reading more carefully, and try to consider what it is I'm trying to say? And if you're going to bitch about my words, do the courtesy of citing them in your comment, such as I do yours.

And quite frankly, this is not a good place for Jews to discuss Judaism itself. It is a good place to discuss conservatism and the reasons why Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Baptists, etc. belong in the conservative movement.

No argument here to the above.

If you want to feed the stereotype, then keep on trucking with the anti-whatever religion it is this month posts.

Feed the stereotype? Why, the secular folks have you on the run, don't they? Ah, but who's fears are you really expressing here? Much of them truly are yours. Send others, or that which you most frequently heard discussed in your recent political activism, by freepmail if you wish to avoid open airing of that. I would like to know or have a sampling of what one Jew tells another, when outsiders are not listening. Perhaps I could better alleviate their fears, for some of it. Even though I wasn't born with the built-in secret decoder ring.

Now as far as the "anti-whatever religion it is of the month" business. you are quite full of crap. We don't "move on to the next target". It's more like we keep arguing much of the same info, traveling over the same ground, time and time again. For moving targets, check the threads which are not focused on religious topics.

The fact that a candidate for President had to downplay his own faith in order to pander to his party’s base is abhorrent

Perhaps. But it's not my problem that Mormonism is embarrassing. I voted for Mitt even though I said on this forum I wouldn't. Saying I wouldn't because my vote wouldn't matter in the presidential, this time around, due to where I live. I was correct, in spades. Now the rest of your paragraph I've snipped from [above] has some real information. Some opinion, but not that which should be ignored. But you are wearing me out with the extraneous exaggerations I've been addressing.

We collectively failed to stop Obama and Reid. So let’s keep continuing what we did before and trash other’s religions, fighting among ourselves, blaming everyone but ourselves, call each other RINOs or whatever... All while the Marxists in control proceed to destroy everything we hold dear.

You are among a vanishingly small minority of analysts which feature so prominently "religion" linking it subtly with infighting, as a major cause of the candidate few were much enthused about in the first place, regardless of religion. Although he did present himself better towards the end.

So vanishingly small, that other than on these pages, when it's coupled with other complaint concerning direct, at times harsh criticism of religious tenets of one religion, by adherents of others, I've scarcely heard mention.

Fantastic strategy. Let me know when conservatives wake up and realize we need to push actual conservatism and not this divisive tripe.

1st Amendment. Freedom of the press, prohibition against the free exercise of religion. Including both, first each separately, then the two combined, is that which you seek to have surrendered. Don't ask for much, do you?