Replies

FIRST: I apologize to all. I read "all articles", and once again I totally missed that this was a RELIGION thread. I apologize for that, and if removing ALL my comments is appropriate because of that, I'm fine with that. I assumed this was a political thread, because the article was clearly political.

Jim Robinson: Yes, Park Romney is an ex-mormon, and he is being used to attack Romney (kind of). But he is also called a spokesman for the Gay pride movement in Utah.

If you read the article, Milbank links to a page Mitt Romney’s Cousin Speaks Out On Gay Rights And Marriage with a podcast in which Park defends the homosexual lifestyle and attacks the mormon church for saying that LBGT people aren't born that way and are sinful and need to repent. Park Romney attacks the mormon church for not supporting the LGBT agenda.

I believe we SUPORT opposition to the LGBT agenda here at FR. I believe we would normally oppose and not speak well of a person who advocated for the homosexual agenda.

I feel like I'm being attacked because I didn't praise Park Romney and embrace his comments -- As Ansel12 said: "an ex-mormon has been hurt by Romney's cult, the man is speaking out against that cult."

But Park Romney was at an LBGT rally against the mormon church, Here is my poorly done quick transcript of Park's comments in the referenced podcast, speaking of LGBT people, where he attacks not just mormons, but all religions which oppose gay rights:

"There's a lot in the book that is relevant to the gay right's issues ... There are paradigms in religion .. that have us seeing and judging in ways that we don't see we are judging ... I appreciate the blindness [about LBGT issues\ because I was blind. ... I've been on the hard end of that road as an apostate. Once judged as evil, and then treated dismissively thereafter, that's a hard road [talking about LBGT people being judged]. "That's what was offensive about Packer's remarks ... the difficulty that I struggle with is that to love someone is to understand the reality of what they are ... I don't think love is legitimately claimed by those who choose not to see and accept the reality of what people really are [gay], and want to paint their own caractature of it." That's why I was ashamed of sitting on the side of the gay issues."

I ask: was I supposed to embrace an apologist for the gay agenda, because he also is an ex-mormon being used to attack Mitt Romney? I can feel bad for the guy being raised in a cult, and maybe that has warped his world view, but do I have to accept his attacks on churches for opposing the LBGT lifestyle, just because he is attacking the mormons specifically, and being used to attack Romney?

OK, to my comment: my comment did not deal in any way with mormonism, or Park. It was also political, and didn't belong therefore in a religion forum.

The article is a Washington Post article from Dana Milbank, a known leftie who loves to attack conservatives. So even though this time he took an indirect shot at Romney, his article, which I have now read, isn't written as an attack on Romney. To the extent you can make sense out of what Dana has written, it is an attempt to defend Obama from attacks related to his illegal immigrant relatives.

I saw Milbank's name, read the 1st sentence (before clicking on the article), clicked but missed the "religion" label, and figured Dana was going to make fun of a crazy cousin. I used three examples I KNEW conservatives would agree with me about to illustrate the problem with attacking people for their relatives. I apparently did so poorly.

Reagan was the first person I was able to vote for, and I did so proudly. Nobody should think I was really saying we shouldn't have voted for Ronald Reagan because he had Ronnie Reagan as a son. That was the point I made. My comment about Newt mentioned his ex-wife, whose attack was UNIVERSALLY condemned here. And I mentioned the attack on Santorum through his wife, which I condemned in the threads.

I apologize for not being more obvious, but I hope this clears up the confusion -- I was NOT attacking Ronald Reagan for ronnie, or Herman Cain for his wife, or Newt Gingrich for his ex-wife, or Santorum for his wife's ex-boyfriend. I'm sorry that another freeper believes that was my intent, but it wasn't.

I apologized already and apologize to you directly now for the fact that my comment could be seen as defending Romney. I don't think Dana Milbank attacking Mitt Romney for what Milbank calls a "wacky relative" is a particularly effective attack, and I am on record on principle as opposing guilt-by-association arguments, but because it IS Mitt Romney, I should have made it clear that my comments weren't specific to the case.

Since this is a religion thread, I'll refrain from discussing the political aspect of the article, except to note that in the end, the point of the article wasn't to attack Romney, but to defend Obama, Here's the relevant part of the article:

The Obamas have continued the tradition. When Onyango Obama was charged with drunk driving outside Boston last year, it became national news, even though the president had no contact with his “lost” Uncle Omar.

Here is Dana's real goal; to innoculate Obama of any responsibility for allowing his illegal uncle to stay in the country.

Among those calling publicly for the man’s deportation: Mitt Romney. Likewise, Zeituni Onyango’s immigration case — unknown to her nephew Barack — became big news days before his election in 2008.

Again, Dana is defending Obama, this time for his other illegal alien relative.

Clearly, I screwed up because this was a religion thread, and therefore had nothing to do with the point of the article.