Replies

(That's what I thought...not much depth given to your initial comments on this...why should I expect more to your latter ones???)

I'm not bothering with real answers to your posts anymore on this thread because I started with a very simple idea and you have gone off the deep end each time, ballooning your posts into a freaking novel with a bunch of the very same useless denominational crap that I just got done saying had no useful business on a political forum.

In other words, if you are going to continually fail to understand a simple point, I am going to stop trying to make that point to you.

I started with a very simple idea and you have gone off the deep end each time, ballooning your posts into a freaking novel...if you are going to continually fail to understand a simple point, I am going to stop trying to make that point to you.

Well, allow me to temporarily put "Mormonism" aside to address your "very simple ideas," as you put it (and I agree, they are "simple").

Here, as best as I can sum up, was your simplified idea(s) -- so that you know I am indeed trying to hear out your basic points:
...whatever only serves to divide us at a time when we all need to be as united as possible...
What ends up happening here, though, is that we get different factions of people who all hate the leftism infecting our country, but instead of being united in the fight against that, they are at each others' throats over whose religion is the perfect one

What's wrong with these statements?
(1) You superimpose your own motives onto ours -- as if our "goal" was simply to erect "the perfect religion" and dismiss others as imperfect.
(2) You make the mistake Reaganaut pointed out earlier. As she said, unlike some people, we have the ability to multi-task. You make the same mistake that the John Birchers made with communism -- whereby they presented the Communists as the only ones who were declaring war on them. (Sorry, but many others had opened up fronts on us besides the communists; just like I hate to break it to you, but many others besides the leftists have opened up fronts on us).

And you also said:
...Ol' Jim allows that, presumably because the Judeo-Christian belief system is a huge part of American conservatism...

Yes. Now, in light of what you also just said -- that some of the commentary you've seen is part of a bunch of the very same useless denominational crap that I just got done saying had no useful business on a political forum -- tell me again how this statement fits with what you said earlier about how "the Judeo-Christian belief system is a huge part of American conservatism...?"

Are you saying to us thereby, "Yes, you're a huge part of the big tent -- but we just want your section of the Big Tent to say a few 'Amens!' to our political agenda & otherwise be silent" -- to quote you ("no useful business on a political forum") ... 'cause you know, you're not exactly "scoring points" with this vision of the conservative big tent.

...instead of being united in the fight against that, they are at each others' throats over whose religion is the perfect one

Oh, and thirdly:
Can you tell me why YOU "getting" at OUR throats over our religious vision being integrated with our political vision is apparently A-OK for YOU to do...
...but if some of US take umbrage over how others have merged their religious vision with their political vision...
...(I mean, what? You haven't seen all the Mormon "White Horse prophesy" threads about how the Lds will rise up & save our constitution?)...
...then what we say is relegated by YOU as "useless crap" deserving of "no useful business"???

Isn't that a wee bit on the inconsistent side? (I mean, if we're all just supposed to be 100% tolerant of every religious belief out there...well, at least if it's adhered to by a block of so-called "conservatives"...then doesn't that imply that YOU are suppose to be tolerant of OUR religious vantage points, too? Or have you joined the leftist doctrine of "tolerance for thee but not for me?" crowd without even knowing you're an effective proselyte of it???)

Wanna explain why your irreligious vantage point on the dynamics of faith & politics somehow holds some kind of "trump card" posture over other positions?

Did you ever notice with Anne Coulter's book Godless how she carefully showed that -- despite all claims to the contrary -- even atheistic liberals wind up being zealously religious in their worldview? You see, even a supposedly "non-religious" claim that faith & politics should generally be separated is in and of itself a decidedly "faith-based, religious" worldview -- based upon whatever authority you claim as your guiding light.

So I'm interested in knowing what authority you appeal to in stating your position to be one that garners respect?