| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/13/2007 11:50:58 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
Discussion continued here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939278/posts |
Posted on 12/12/2007 6:27:59 PM PST by jveritas
Dear FRiends
It really pains me to see some of those vicious anti-Mormons attacks we see on Free Republic disguised under the “freedom of speech. Attacking people based on their Mormon faith is really disgusting and it is an insult to this great forum. People who do not like Governor Mitt Romney based on his positions are free to express their opinion as such, but people who attack him because he is a Mormom should be ashamed of themselves and must not be allowed to do so.
I greatly hope that Free Republic members and moderators will get together and help in stopping this anti-Mormon vitriol, this great Free Republic must not be tainted by these shameless acts.
Do you really want to discuss the persecution of the mormons in Missouri?
If so, lets start at the beginning with the Mormons moving into Jackson county. The Mormons were largely from the North East, and were opposed to slavery. The people of Missouri supported slavery. The people of Jackson County quickly decided that they didn’t like mormons, and proceeded to drive them out of the county, burning their homes, killing their livestock, etc.
The Mormons petitioned the governor of the state for redress to which he replied that he had no power to protect them.
The Mormons left Jackson County for Clay County, where they remained until they were compelled to leave. After Clay County, they moved to Far West in Caldwell County. After some time in Caldwell County, the citizens of Missouri decided that they still didn’t like the Mormons, and organized to drive them out of the state for good.
In support of this effort, two apostate mormons signed affidavits asserting the existence of a secrete Band of Mormons that were planing on razing America. This group, however, was not supported by the LDS church, and its leader was excommunicated as soon as his secret group was discovered by church leadership.
As tensions built, rumors were spread of Mormons destroying property throughout Davies County. The Missouri milita was called out to prevent civil war. Upon traveling to the area, it was the opinion of the militia’s leader, General Parks, that the Mormons were peaceful and law-abiding and were not guilty of the claimed offenses.
Later, after seeing the destruction of the home of Don Carlos Smith, General Parks ordered Colonel Lyman Wight (an officer in the Missouri milita) to suppress mob violence. Under this authority, Lyman Wight and David W. Patten led men of the Missouri militia to disperse mobs formed against the mormons at the battle of Crooked river.
Now, since every man in Missouri presumably belonged to the milita, you could honestly state that Wight and Patten attacked men who belonged to the militia and were illegally gathered. But, at the end of the day, Wight and Patten acted with the authority of the state of Missouri, and thus they were the Missouri militia.
So, Davies County was not razed as you claim. Nor could the mormons have ambushed the Missouri militia at the Battle of Crooked river because they were the Missouri militia and they did not ambush themselves.
The only half-assed history that I am seeing here is what you have written.
I am sickened by the religious attacks on Mormons by certain Freepers, most of them alleged “Evangelicals”. How they can consider themselves religious while spewing such religious hatred is beyond me. I’m so tired of religions battling it out amongst each other. Too bad churches can’t weed out the bad seed amongst them who use their religion as a club rather than as outreach to others. A sad phenomena, only too evident on the threads that pick up the worst of the religion bashers, particularly those attacking the Mormons. Small people with small and nasty agendas.
[I’d rather vote for a Mormon who’s had one marriage and stood by his wife who happens to have multiple sclerosis, than say, support someone who’s been married three times and deserted their wife when she had cancer (hint - Newt Gingrich). My point is, a portion of the vetting process should be how the candidates have conducted their lives. (And yes, I know Gingrich is not a candidate).]
And that is quite a rational position I agree with. Now while it is true that anti-Mormons MAY be troglodytes, many of us have quite long first hand experiences that are different from the common Freeper and give us our own perspective on the problems Mormonism might well bring to the presidency. For example, my experience comes from knowing some of the backroom Mormon mafia in Nevada running from Harry Reid through Dario Herrera and many others. While it is easy to call someone like me a bigot, the other disturbing notion is that I may actually know what I am talking about.
I just wonder if it is wise to snuff out the canaries in the mine because they sing too loudly.
I do not think religious attacks are worthy of discussion when debating political issues, there are other threads that can discuss such religious issues.
[You are simply fanning the hatred for perverse reasons of your own.]
You posted a tenth of the history completely out of context in order to incite hatred. I simply corrected your misinformation.
How dare you shrink the Romney bigotry bludgeon! Don’t you realize that he needs the rancor to cover his liberal past? Don’t you realize what a mess iah he is for libservatism, that great comjunction of liberal do and conservative speak? Shame on you, you anti-dentite, er, I mean anti-anti-bigot.
[Women practice that in ‘titty bars’ don’t they?...]
I have, ahem, heard that that sometimes happens here in Vegas, though, ahem, ahem, it is just a rumor.
[Oh my, you have been around! Is there a May Pole religion?]
If there isn’t, there should be!
A post clearly worthy of posting on the DU and swiftly ignored.
If it's political bigotry to say that I'd never vote for a Muslim, so be it. And I see a big difference between serving a Muslim a cup of coffee and offering up the head office of our country to a Muslim. So after you answer of course there is a difference in that scenerio, then I ask why is there a difference for those that would not vote for a Mormon?
Your “history” is like the “Palestinian history” of Israel.
Naked wimmen too? I'm in!
Now Huckabee has been ridiculed by freepers as well as the MSM because he believes in a literal creation of the universe. People brand him as a fool and a kook because of his beliefs on the creation and the book of Genesis, but nobody is allowed to question Romney on whether or not he believes that Jesus was Satan's spirit brother in the pre-mortal life. To even ask the question is to be branded a bigot and to suggest that someone really ought to answer the question is to be branded an Anti-Mormon Jihadist.
The manner in which the LDS posters have responded to simple questions about their faith and questions about Romney have, quite frankly, made me a bit nervous about supporting him in the General Election.
I'd like to see what Romney would say if someone were to ask him if he would be willing to appoint an EX-Mormon to some position of authority in his aministration. I suspect that question would be met with the same kind of stonewalling and whining that we see with Huckabee's question.
There is a double standard. Everyone's religious beliefs are fair game except Romney's. Many of us touted Bush because we believed he was a Born Again Christian. He has taken a lot of heat from the mainstream media about his prayer and bible meetings in the white house. The religion of a candidate has always been fair game in the political realm. To give Romney a pass because his religion is unique or bizarre is blatant hypocrisy. It is an issue and we all need to deal with it.
see post 404
[Free Republic cannot continue to exist if boat owners are going to be trashed like this. Many fine people own boats.]
That boat won’t float! Put a cork in it!
(signed, nasty anti-boat bigot)
We already have a rule maker here and I doubt that he makes them by polls.
“Attacking people based on their Mormon faith is really disgusting and it is an insult to this great forum.”
Attacking people based on any choice of faith used to be wrong.
We have seen that get thrown away because politicians want to use it on each other.
Funny, they claim ‘separation of church and state’ is in the constitution (which it isn’t) and yet want to mix the two during a debate.
It used to be that one discussed politics, what they did or didn’t like about the candidates, but one never divulged or tried to pin others down on their ‘vote’.
That was between you, your spouse, and the election box.
We have seen that get thrown away, as the enemy of freedom decided it needed to monitor and control the vote, in order to achieve it’s goals.
Polls really only have one true purpose.
What about it?
Liar.
[The Mormons were largely from the North East, and were opposed to slavery. ]
From Mitt Romney’s great-great-grandad, Parley Pratt:
Fourthly, concerning free negroes and mulattoes.—Do not the laws of Missouri provide abundantly for the removal from the state of all free negroes and mulattoes? (except certain privileged ones;) and also for the punishment of those who introduce or harbor them? The statement concerning our invitation to them to become Mormons, and remove to this state, and settle among us, is a wicked fabrication, as no such thing was ever published in the Star, or anywhere else, by our people, nor anything in the shadow of it; and we challenge the people of Jackson, or any other people, to produce such a publication from us.
In fact, one half dozen negroes or mulattoes, never have belonged to our society, in any part of the world, from its first organization to this day, 1839.
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/PPratt-pers.html
Uh...not sure where you're heading down that road. I'm actually a Deist.
Deism is not an organized religion. Nor is it a cult.
LDS is a cult. That's the difference.
Of course, if I were running for President, the fact that I'm a Deist would certainly be an issue to take into account when determining who to vote for.
If a candidate believes in snake handling, voodoo, Xenu, mass suicide, tree worship, or in golden tablets found by a treasure-hunting polygamist, these are relevant to determining the mental fitness to be president.
In my view (yours may vary), Romney is unfit to be President for two reasons: (1) he's a RINO; and (2) he's a cult member.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.