Replies

Jesus was very hard on the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of being children of the Devil for their lying ways. The Pharisees also accused Jesus of many heinous things, in particular being a liar. Problem was that factually, Jesus had the better case. For example, why they never proved a lie in Jesus, they demonstrated their own propensity for lying by throwing together that kangaroo court, complete with hastily assembled false witnesses, running a malicious prosecution to get a false conviction. So from your point of view, is there a moral equivalency between Jesus and the Pharisees? Or was one right and the other wrong?

I only ask because your whole argument seems based on the principle of moral equivalency between any two religions. Not that I know anything about where you actually stand. I don’t. But I do know (or I should say believe) that this moral equivalency approach is mainly postmodern hokum designed to attack the belief in truth itself, i.e., the notion that some things are true and the opposite of those things are false. Aristotle’s great gift to logic, the principle of non-contradiction, is a great obstacle to the left’s demographic strategy of eternally warring micro-factions, and it is fought with vigor, and not the least weapon in that fight is the idea that all belief systems are created equal, when in fact they are not.

True, all humans come gifted by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, but their beliefs are subject to peer review and criticism, and voting is a great mechanism for doing just that. For example, Marxism is a discredited belief system, entailing what amounts to religious adherence to a particular view of how the world works, and Obama and company will, hopefully, be roundly critiqued this fall for their bizarre utopian fantasies.

So my question to you is this: Is there a moral equivalency there? Are free markets and Marxist totalitarian/utopian impulses equally defensible? No? Then why not be free to compare any other pair of contrasting, mutually exclusive ideas? Why not be free to express our own beliefs about those ideas at the voting booth? Is your definition of bigotry really so broad it encompasses the free exercise of critical thinking skills?

So my question to you is this: Is there a moral equivalency there?

Hard question. I can't judge whether or not there is "moral equivalency" for others but I believe(for me)my faith in the Blood that was shed at Calvary for my sins is greater, has withstood thousands of years, good times and bad. It has lifted me up when I was down and tempered me in times of temptation. I know I am a weak vessel, unworthy of the sacrifice but still I tried to follow His Way.

This is as far I was will comment as my faith is personal, not for public consumption.

Why not be free to express our own beliefs about those ideas at the voting booth? Is your definition of bigotry really so broad it encompasses the free exercise of critical thinking skills?

One can vote as one likes. Nobody knows how one votes for a candidate once the the voting booth's curtains closes .

But as I have said before there are many reasons why(as an conservative) one would choose not to cast a ballot in his favor.(His flip-flopping stances on abortion, gun control, taxes, homosexuality and same sex marriages)

Some are actually against Mormon teaching as I understand them.

Unless there is some super secret plan for Mormons to take over the government and make everyone Mormons at gunpoint, voting against him just because of his religion is in fact, the classic definition of bigotry.

Just as there people on the Left who won't vote him, or any Baptist, Methodist or any other true believing Christians, just because of anti-Christian bigotry.