Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yes, Romney needs to answer questions about his religion
Salt Lake Tribune ^ | August 7, 2007 | Dick Polman

Posted on 08/08/2007 8:00:00 AM PDT by greyfoxx39

Mitt Romney's own Republican Party has made religion fair game, and Romney will be asked how his faith would affect his policies.

-SNIP-

But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008, rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity. This is particularly true in the Republican camp, where religion and politics are now routinely intertwined; indeed, candidate George W. Bush upped the ante in 2000, when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, ''because he changed my life.''

So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's ''one true church.'' He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that ''I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs.''

But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.

Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping ''the church of the devil.'' Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.

Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.

-SNIP-

Some questions do seem appropriate. First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on ''faith-promoting'' information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, ''Some things that are true are not very useful.'' Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?

Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of ''a quintessentially American faith'' (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called ''American exceptionalism,'' the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?

-SNIP-

What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: election; issues; ldschurch; mormon; politician; romne; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,121-1,135 next last
To: Spiff
. You would certainly agree if it was your specific religious faith that was being constantly belittled and assaulted.

Go ahead, I am a non-denominational, evangelical Christian....have at it. Tell me I don't have the fullness of the Gospel, tell me that Christianity was removed from the earth by a great apostasy and was restored in 1820 by a young man named Joseph Smith. Now call me a bigot when I say you are wrong.

If you don't like Mitt Romney because he's not conservative enough for you or you don't think he's honest or something. Fine. Discuss it. But if you're going to use every mention of Romney to continue your own personal war against the Mormon Church (you've discussed your LDS past a number of times) is that really appropriate for News/Activism threads or a conservative political forum?

I don't like Romney because of his spurious religious beliefs....plain and simple. Oh yeah, and because he isn't conservative enough for my liking. And the fact that he cannot garner the support of other non-denominational, evangelical Christians that I know.

Now, call me a hate-filled bigot, and see how many converts to Romney you get from other Christians "hate-filled, bigots" like me. :-D

181 posted on 08/08/2007 4:38:44 PM PDT by colorcountry (Silence isn't always golden.....Sometimes it's just yellow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: fproy2222

greyfoxx and I are former Mormons. We know what the “standards” are.


182 posted on 08/08/2007 4:40:33 PM PDT by colorcountry (Silence isn't always golden.....Sometimes it's just yellow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: TChris
We are a very religious country if compared to some countries in Europe. We apply a certain ‘religious’ test. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. What are the odds of an atheist winning? Nil.

The odds of a Muslim or a Scientologist or a Jehovah’s Witness being elected President are as of now, practically nil. Sorry, but I just don’t have a problem with that. If nothing else it says we are not yet a purely secular society. Muslims, etc. can’t be prohibited from running but they just won’t win.

Mitt cannot win against Hillary. You haven’t seen anything yet. She was on TV recently talking about her faith. If Mitt is the nominee that will be her favorite subject.

I want to win in 08. Mitt isn’t a good enough candidate to put up against her, conservatives won’t be out there fighting for him.

183 posted on 08/08/2007 4:40:39 PM PDT by JRochelle (WalMart's 'Great Value' brand to be renamed, to be called the 'Great Wall' brand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Weeedley

And early Christians very much believed in healing by placing one’s hands on one another. Or believed that by eating the image of the saint that they might be blessed with that saint’s virtues. Is this stranger than a seer stone? Maybe not...

Early Protestants believed that they could issue in the Apocalypse by attacking the “false” church in Rome.

I really don’t see your point here.


184 posted on 08/08/2007 4:42:43 PM PDT by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
Now call me a bigot when I say you are wrong.

You can say the Mormon church is wrong, in the appropriate forum, and not be a bigot. Obviously. But it is how you say it and how you treat other people and their deeply held religious beliefs that don't agree with yours that may meet the definition of bigot. Jumping into thread after thread about Mitt Romney's candidacy and political positions and trashing the Mormon Church, mocking religious beliefs and denigrating religious leaders, certainly qualifies as bigoted behavior.

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you".

185 posted on 08/08/2007 4:46:57 PM PDT by Spiff ("I'm Mormon!" <---- The Free Republic version of a "Kick Me" sign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

>>>Christians do not get angry or have any self consciousness about speaking on our religion. <<<

We most certainly do get angry. I frankly remember quite a few hornets’ nest of angry Christians when Judge Roberts and Alito were questioned about whether their Christian faith would interfere with Roe v. Wade and their ability to fairly judge cases before the court. The media played right along, of course.

And I have a feeling that you’d become a bit angered if you were constantly told that your faith wasn’t really Christian. I bring up the analogy again: Catholics have every right to call Protestants (including non-denominationists) a bunch of heretics who aren’t following Christ’s Church he established on Earth through Peter. Instead, they’ve let arrogance lead them to believe that they are above the Church God created for man as Christ rose into Heaven.

If you heard that enough, I’m pretty confident you’d get a little peaved. Just sayin...


186 posted on 08/08/2007 4:50:49 PM PDT by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Spiff; Colofornian; colorcountry
"Do unto others as you would have them do to you".

Funniest post of the day by Spiff who treated us to the following: "

Your posting history and constant harassment of and attacks on conservative FReepers who are also Mormons marks you as a religious bigot and a troll. You are the poster boy for the religiously intolerant anti-Mormons that pollute this forum. This kind of behavior is inappropriate for a political forum or any other forum except a hard core anti-Mormon bash forum which has lost all sense of tolerance and Christian charity.

Spiff, didn't I see where you said you are Canadian?

187 posted on 08/08/2007 4:59:00 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (I think all legal Americans should get 5 votes apiece to make up for the "new" voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote

FC,

You are not making any sense. On one hand Mormons are the scum of the Earth, then in the same breath you say you personally know many outstanding Mormons. That it is not consistent reasoning. If you are making the case that Mormonism breeds evil people then demonstrate it consistently.

When you present mixed results as evidence, you are not making your case at all, but rather you are show that first, Mormons are just as human as anyone else (totally agree with that assesment) and second, your lack of judgement toward those of the Mormon faith.

This reasoning echoes prejudgice of the past. For instance during the 1960’s there where people who mindlessly ignored the good found in those fighting for civil rights, but rather blindly focused on the bad behavior found with a small minority of that group as the defining rule.

By the way, I was proud that George Romney had the judgement to be a leader in the civil rights movement. Sadly this judgement was sadly lacking in many of the other Government officials. While you would disagree with George Romney’s theology and probably hold the theology of those other officials as an indicator of being able to think straight, George Romney clearly had the better understanding and policy position.

So you may ask yourself. A Mormon in the 1960’s was thinking straighter than most other politicians. Doesn’t that just blow a hole in you rationality reasoning? Most people who appreciate the value of civil rights would agree with me.


188 posted on 08/08/2007 4:59:14 PM PDT by nowandlater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Spiff; Jim Robinson

Sounds like you are a moderator, or want to be.

Earth to Spiff. Nobody died and made you arbiter of what is a bigot and what is not.

I won’t vote for Mitt specifically because he is Mormon. That is a political statement as much as it is a religious statement.

The exchange of ideas is a much valued (some would say sacred) conservative principle. Many conservatives are just as disturbed at your name-calling, attribution of motive, and attempt to shut down discourse, as you are about my opinions being broadcast on this forum.

I don’t think it is a good idea for you to call for speech to be shut down. Especially not on Free Republic.

It would be much more beneficial to simply debate the validity of our claims that cry, “hate,” “bigot,” “mocker.”

I have just as much “right” to my opinion as you do yours. Thank you Jim Robinson for giving us a forum on which to debate the strengths of our position, while protecting us from name-calling and slander.


189 posted on 08/08/2007 4:59:43 PM PDT by colorcountry (Silence isn't always golden.....Sometimes it's just yellow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

Mitt Romney would very soundly defeat Hillary. Just listening to the man talk should prove as much. Not only is he far more articulate than Hillary Clinton, he’s also far better at setting his arguments into a logical format with data to back up his points and also conjuring up ideal images. Hillary has to scream to show emotion. Romney can build it naturally. See his “What’s wrong with America” question in the first debate.

Romney also has a way of hitting the nail on the head when it comes to criticism. He doesn’t sound mean-spirited, but he gets his point across. Re: his attacks on the policies of Reid, Pelosi, Obama, and Ron Paul.


190 posted on 08/08/2007 5:00:03 PM PDT by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: CheyennePress
Romney also has a way of hitting the nail on the head

Not only is he far more articulate than Hillary Clinton, he’s also far better at setting his arguments into a logical format with data to back up his points and also conjuring up ideal images.

You mean like this...?"I'm not running as a mormon!!"

Or this, "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

191 posted on 08/08/2007 5:11:13 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (I think all legal Americans should get 5 votes apiece to make up for the "new" voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Shouldn't we avoid divisiveness and focus on our similarities and common conservative goals despite our religious differences and work together to support conservative causes and candidates?

I ventured a response to similarly stated issues in an earlier post, when I wrote in post #130: ...as you aptly point out, FREEPERS need to weigh the pros and cons of the benefits of focusing on these areas because, like you say, we share a fair number of socio-political values. I do like the way you put that question, 'Is there an overriding goal to support conservative candidates and causes?' because I do think it fits in the original purposes of the founders of this forum."

So, I think here you raise fair and representative questions that certainly need further dialogue--a conversation that goes beyond you & me since so many FREEPERS participate in these type of forums. (I stated that in #130, and I reiterate that here).

The response I got was a diatribe aimed at the messenger in your second-to-last post. (That diatribe was s'posed to be a "mending" type of anti-divisiveness statement?)

Or do you desire, as your posting history demonstrates, to continue to foment divisiveness among conservatives...

Imagine, if you will, removing the entire Mormon vs. non-Morman matter for a moment. Imagine you going into any given thread, let's say a Fred vs. Mitt thread, or a Rudy vs. John M. thread, or a Duncan vs. Fred thread, or a free-for-all thread, and you made this same statement to a poster: "Or do you desire, as your posting history demonstrates, to continue to forment divisiveness among conservatives..." Now, if you made such a statement post primaries, it would be fully understandable. But to make such a statement now assumes unity where the unity is not yet solidly concrete (the concrete is repoured every election cycle). In each cycle, you have folks--say a Fredhead who posts an anti-Mitt or an anti-Rudy post; or you have a lesser known candidate who points out the "less pure" position of a more major candidate. Divisiveness, to some degree at this stage of an election, is inherent in the process. It's almost like you haven't even lurked at other threads to see what kind of no-holds barred marauding goes on between candidates' supporters. I mean do you really accuse all these FREEPER posters who diss another conservative candidate as those "who foment divisiveness among conservatives?"

If anyone else believes that Free Republic is no place for religious wars...please pipe in here.

Conflict and friction is inevitable not only between personalities but high-interest areas like religion and politics. I'm sure I could raise a similar challenge, "If anyone else believes that, say, religious places of worship, prayer and teaching is no place for religious wars...please pipe in here."

But do you know who would be the first historical character to critique me? It would be Dr. Luke, the disciple-apostle of Jesus, along with the apostle Paul and his fellow associate Apollos. Luke wrote about Paul's and Apollos' tendency to go to the Synagogue upon entering a new town:

"As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. 'This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,' he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob, and started a riot in the city." (Acts 17:2-5)

"Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos...had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately...He began to speak boldly in the synagogue...he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ." (Acts 18:24-26, 28)

So what if all kinds of FREEPER folks "piped in" and said, "Yeah, C, we agree, the sanctity of a worship/prayer center should be protected...we don't want outside protagonists coming in and talking, debating, refuting, explaining, reasoning about a topic (in the cases above, Jesus) that doesn't 'belong' in a synagogue, of all places. I mean, gee golly whiz, how sensitive is that to Jews? You're gonna drive away Jews so that they're not religious at all."

But Luke, Paul, and Apollos would prove us all wrong. Are we willing to be Biblical on this, or is "religion" so sacred that it gets in the way of us following in the footsteps of our early apostles?

Look, if the above scenarios took place in Jewish synagogues, what can you expect of fervent, vigorous Christians when we're talking about an open forum where no clean divide exists between faith, character, and the public square?

What exactly is your agenda on this political forum dedicated to supporting conservative causes and candidates...

Well, I just stated it above. My "models" for what I say are folks like Paul & Apollos. If you condemn me, then condemn them, too. (Please be consistent--a topic you neatly avoided upon my challenge of my last post).

...hate-filled screeds

In the Acts 17 account I mentioned above, the Jews who were "jealous" of Paul's persuasiveness didn't like him, either. If you could see my heart, it is not hate-filled. (If LDS were not of such great & inestimable worth to our God, I wouldn't waste my time here). The opposite of love is not hate; it's apathy. The worst thing the Christian community could ever do is to say by words & deeds, "We don't care about you Mormons, spiritually. We just continue to covet your votes. Tell you what: Since we're the 800-pound guerilla, we'll make a political appeasement of compromise: We won't say one negative word about your faith as long as that buys off your votes for our evangelical-appointed candidate."

You referred to me as a "zealot" earlier, but I'm sure that the above type of language would have been quite pleasing to the zealots of Jesus' day...those so zealous for political power that they would have ignored Jesus' instruction to be salt & light & leaven wherever we're placed...including the political arena. Our role is not to be political power gatekeepers; our role is to spiritually and physically preserve that which is rotten in Denmark--or wherever we're placed.

Is it your desire to drive the Mormons out of Free Republic and the conservative movement...?

Was it Paul and Apollos' desire to drive Jews out of the synagogue in Acts 17 & 18? Yes & no. "No" in that it wasn't the motivation at all. The synagogue was not the real target at all. The synagogue was simply a place where religious folks convened. It was a place where all who gathered agree on the authority of Scripture. I know when I talk to LDS they have a firm commitment to the authority of Scripture, and I know these forums are where religious folks meet.

Now admittedly, in answering the above statement, I do have to say there's a "Yes" side in that if the synagogue interfered with people coming to know Jesus, then anything standing in the way of a relationship with Jesus is idolatry and counterproductive to eternal life (John 17:3).

So, do I welcome LDS in the conservative movement? Indeed I do! But if they expect me to be less evangelistic than the missionaries they fund & cheer & host, then said individuals are being hypocrites who express a "It's OK for us to be zealously going door to door to invade homes that were not constructed for 'hate-filled screeds' and 'pet religious' confrontations, but it's NOT OK for you." To use your own exact words (again), w/just altering a few words, 'I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the purpose of a' home 'was pretty clearly defined.' I mean, since when are doorsteps, front porches, and living rooms places for LDS missionaries to foment religious divisiveness?"

Well, I see not only did you NOT address my challenge of your inconsistency from my last post, you actually repeated your inconsistencies. Tell you what: re-post a letter to LDS HQ where you've written them--advising them to recall most of the missionaries (at least the ones at visitors centers & tourist destinations & the door-to-door bell-ringers) because we all know that visitors centers & tourist destinations & homes are no place to foment religious divisiveness. You do that & I'll give it a moment's thought to reconsider "mending" my ways. Until then, I'm at least glad you're willing to share what's on your mind. I would rather you have a "cold" response to me than a lukewarm one, because it shows you care.

(Now, are ya gonna address my challenges from this & my last post?) To put it concisely:

Is it, or is it not hypocritical, to fund a movement where (a) LDS missionaries present indoctrination lessons in places that were not built for that purpose; yet (b) out of the other side of your mouth, to say that Evangelical "missionaries" (for lack of a better word) presenting messages in open forums where politics is the primary thrust (where admittedly "politics" has multiple dimensions) are distorting the original purposes of those forums?

Until any LDS (not just you) who has complained about some of the higher-ground wrangling in these threads addresses this question with a solid answer (a question, I might add, prompted by the activities of hundreds of thousands!!!), they have no business complaining about a handful of FREEPERS.

My final challenge to you is "Look. God loves you so much that I took time to address you multiple times point by point. (Now, could I have the courtesy where you actually address my questions point by point? Or do you, when you play tennis, only serve and never return vollies played back your way?)"

192 posted on 08/08/2007 5:11:14 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: CheyennePress
I guess that shows how two people of sound mind can see the same thing and yet get a very different impression.

When I listen to Romney speaking, I always wonder, does he really mean it? What does he really believe and is he gonna come up with something different tomorrow?

193 posted on 08/08/2007 5:14:52 PM PDT by JRochelle (WalMart's 'Great Value' brand to be renamed, to be called the 'Great Wall' brand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Rameumptom

The trouble with going to Mormons for an understanding of their religion history and doctrine is that the Mormons themselves generally don’t know their own history. And when they do know it they’ll often hide it.

If someone wants to really understand the Mormon religion then I think they should go read the sermons of all 15 Mormon church presidents. They could also go read the sermons of the other men who served in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and/or First Presidency. I’ve read thousands of their sermons and dozens of biography books on these men. Their writings, sermons and actions are the foundation of Mormonism philosophy.

The strongest argument against Mormonism is that many apologists will call certain sermons of these men “anti-Mormon” because the ideas of these historical sermons don’t mesh well with mainstream thinking in 21st century America. One example of this is when church president Brigham Young taught that the law of God will always be that anyone who participates in interracial marriage would be punished with death on the spot. Since then no Mormon apostle has declared that Brigham Young was wrong in saying that this will always be God’s law. That’s why the church leaders continued to state that they oppose interracial marriage after the priesthood ban on blacks was lifted in 1978.


194 posted on 08/08/2007 5:16:38 PM PDT by Degaston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
“Constantly trashing a mainstream American religious faith”

Mainstream? Not yet.

Recently we traveled out west and drove thu Utah. During a stop at a grocery store I saw the coffee next to the cleaning supplies.

Upon coming home I told my sister-in-law that. She looked at me dumbfounded. She then said “You mean to tell my they cannot drink coffee and yet they can have more than one wife?”

LOL. She is Lutheran. I did set her straight in how only a few mormons sects have the multiple wife thing.

195 posted on 08/08/2007 5:20:40 PM PDT by JRochelle (WalMart's 'Great Value' brand to be renamed, to be called the 'Great Wall' brand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Tell you what, can you put together a post that doesn't rest upon name-calling tactics? [Me]

Can you?[You]

I reviewed my post #166 to you for labels I sent your way. Let's see, I referred to you as a self-appointed thread policeman and a street cop. Now if "policeman" or "cop" are offensive terms to you, let me know. (I'm not sure my police buddies would find that humorous. I mean, I always thought LDS were quite high on "authority" and authority figures and saw that as a praiseworthy focus and not derisive in any way. But certainly I concede I didn't exactly have a complimentary tone to usage...but all in all, quite mild compared to all those "love your neighbor" slurs you sent my way.

In my last post, before you responded, "Can you?" I did chide you for being hypocritical. (But we're all inconsistent & hypocritical on something--it's an ailment we all share...the true test is that when we're challenged on it, are we humble enough to 'fess up or is that too prideful to admit for a future god?)

196 posted on 08/08/2007 5:22:59 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

>>>You mean like this...?”I’m not running as a mormon!!” “I’m not running as a mormon!!”<<<

Sounds reasonable to me.

But GreyFoxx, let’s be honest. Anyone who brings two individual sentences to try to make a case that someone isn’t articulate isn’t putting much effort into it. You’re acting like a boob, and you know it.

Tell you what. Show me another candidate who can address why tort reform is important from an economic and medical perspective and why tort reform is especially important in our country. I’ve seen Thompson try and fall far short of Romney, and he’s a former lawyer.

Or show me a candidate delivering a foreign policy speech like the following:

http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=38225

Duncan Hunter is the only one I’ve seen who might come close.


197 posted on 08/08/2007 5:43:06 PM PDT by CheyennePress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I don’t need St. Peter. I don’t need reformation. I don’t need Billy Graham. All I need is the Bible itself. That this simple concept eludes you is very interesting.


198 posted on 08/08/2007 5:55:36 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all.--William Goldman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; Jim Robinson
Your strawmen are moronic. Your 6 months of continuous relgious bigotry towards Mormons is loathsome. And your posts are lengthy, boring, and generally not worth the time to slog through them.

This is Jim Robinson's forum. It's like his house and we're all guests allowed in to discuss political issues (along with a little small talk) as long as we're supporting his overriding conservative goals. Your behavior is like interjecting yourself into every political discussion of Mitt Romney to loudly and obnoxiously denounce Mormons, the Mormon Church, that "grifter" "Joe" Smith, "magic underwear" - not caring which of Jim's guests and friends that you offend or what lamps and knick knacks you knock to the floor as you flail your arms about, stomp your feet, and rant red-faced about those "damned" Mormons.

I have found in my political activism and my involvement with the Republican Party and various campaigns, that I can get along with reasonable people with whom we share common conservative goals. We know each others' religious backgrounds and we have disagreements on those matters, but we remain civil and focus on our similarities and common ground in order to work towards our common goals. You, on the other hand, and those on the forum like you can't seem to handle themselves civilly and selfishly ignore the purpose of this website to carry out your religious war against the Mormons. Your posting history, especially the last 6 months which is made up of constant anti-Mormon posts (except for 2 one sentence posts on other topics) is testament to this. (I urge those reading this to review Colofornian's posting history to see for themselves.)

You and others like you are doing all you can to make Mormons feel very unwelcome on this forum. Let's ask the big guy if that is a permissable activity, especially in News/Activism threads, or if there is some guidance that he can offer concerning civility, especially as it relates to religious matters, in support of our common conservative goals.

199 posted on 08/08/2007 6:00:39 PM PDT by Spiff ("I'm Mormon!" <---- The Free Republic version of a "Kick Me" sign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: CheyennePress

don’t call me a boob


200 posted on 08/08/2007 6:02:08 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (I think all legal Americans should get 5 votes apiece to make up for the "new" voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 1,121-1,135 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson