I regard the claims of Mormonism as theological. Didn't you claim to eschew theological discussion on political threads a few posts back?
Henceforth, you and your co-FR-theologians shall be known as the FR Flying Inmans, because in a secular setting you make a big fuss out of religion, and are a threat to hijack.
So you don’t believe the DNC will exploit the heresies in Mormonism or the false prophecies by the founder of Mormonism, or that the effort to expose the heresies will fail?
?
Henceforth, you and your co-FR-theologians shall be known as the FR Flying Inmans, because in a secular setting you make a big fuss out of religion, and are a threat to hijack.
He's talking about the "flyimg imams"...looks pretty close to describing us as terrorist wannabes....this name calling is really getting ridiculous.
In today's Washington Times Audrey Hudson reviews the behavior of the flying imams: "How the imams terrorized an airliner."
The removal of six Muslim clerics from a US Airways flight from the Twin Cities set off a nationwide uproar, and the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties said it will review the incident.
Bloggers and talk radio buzzed about the need to be vigilant against potential terrorists
“Henceforth, you and your co-FR-theologians shall be known as the FR Flying Imams, because in a secular setting you make a big fuss out of religion, and are a threat to hijack.”
So, to be clear, Mormons who start threads promoting Bishop Mitt as the perfect secular being are okay, but non-Mormons who point out that a Mormon Bishop running for President is unlikely to be secular, are FR-Theologians, but atheists who promote secularists like, perhaps, Giulani are ok, though atheistic secularism is an anti-religion and therefore a religion.
Otay, that makes a whole lot of sense.
I suggest you read the secular Nauvoo Expositor, which when it got too near the truth about Joseph Smith being a tin-pot general, was shut down and destroyed to keep hidden his misuse of the local government. That ought to be a model for you, how to censure free expression by claiming religious figures who are in government are off limits to a full blown discussion of the impact of their deeds.
And then perhaps you can come to Vegas where I live and help shut up the press about one Dario Herrera, who was converted to Mormonism by Harry Reid and turned into his political protege in the 2002 run for congress. Now then Councilman Dario it turns out was taking bribes from an assortment of people, working a no-show PR position for HUD, but most explicitly getting free lapdances and money from one Mike Galardi, titty bar owner extraordinaire. The end fallout was the G-Sting scandal which sent a bunch of people to jail, and should have sent more, including likely Harry Reid (through a complex line of scandal plagued land deals involving Dario, Erin Kenny, et. al.).
There is much more dirt to this that I don’t have time to rehears.
However, I just want to point out that some of the arguments used to keep Dirty Harry out of the slammer revolve around his being a clean Mormon and how it would be bigoted to assail him or his saintly lapdancin lapdog/Mormon convert Dario Herrera for their complicity in outright corruption. And of course their connection to real mafioso mayor Oscar Goodman have also been hushed up.
So when people like you claim we should be called the “FR Flying Imams”, I will accept that as as a moniker as long as you are willing to accept a similarly disparaging title, something like the “FR Flipping Idiots”.
Of course that is just a suggestion. I’d rather not try and insult you the way you are insulting us by comparing us to some crazy Muslims who would love to slit American throats. I’m sure that was just an ill thought comment. Wasn’t it??