Replies

“Oh yeah, this is going to get nasty.

Only if the moderators allow posts like the ones you placed on this thread.”

In other words, you are a big crybaby who can only get his way by restricting speech. I’m impressed, you aren’t saying I said anything inaccurate, only that discussing the inconvenient problems of Mormon theology are hurting your candidate.

I’m one of the ones who went out on the limb to divulge Harry reids connections to the Mafia and his land deals here in Las Vegas. Much of what Harry gets away with is also due to the silencing of opposition to discussions of how his faith conflicts with his sordid associations.

So, I want to thank you for pointing out how you wish to surpress candid speach in order to promote your candidate.

Yes, please advise the moderator, and may your stay on Kolob bring you a nice tan.

By the way, the only way my posts could raise hackles so much is if what I say about Mormonism was 1) demonstrably utterly false OR 2) demonstrably and utterly true.

I go frequently to source materials on the history of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, so dismissing my views is pretty hard to do - I can provide source materials and statements from Mormons and former Mormons.

So, moderator, if the truth is to be banned, it will certainly be a sad day.

In other words, you are a big crybaby who can only get his way by restricting speech. I’m impressed, you aren’t saying I said anything inaccurate, only that discussing the inconvenient problems of Mormon theology are hurting your candidate.

It is not restricting speech to consider political threads to be different than religious threads.

This is clearly nothing but a political thread, it is about Romney's surge in the polls. Nothing in the article mentioned his Mormonism.

You have turned it into a theological thread.

Major denominational news, like Episcopalians with sodomite bishops or major announcements by the pope affirming particular doctrinal emphasis as it relates to public policy, are legitimate enough as news or political threads here. They always have been but within limits, not to promote or run down any denomination. Generally, they are best as news/political threads when they have a political impact (e.g. a pope reaffirming his church's teachings on abortion or sodomy marriage, how he expects his followers to vote, the kinds of policy he expects political leaders who belong to his church to adhere to).

But what you are doing is taking a political thread and turning it into a theological thread. Religious wars and evolution/creationist debate belong in the Smoky Backroom. That's how it's been for at least five years.

I’m one of the ones who went out on the limb to divulge Harry reids connections to the Mafia and his land deals here in Las Vegas. Much of what Harry gets away with is also due to the silencing of opposition to discussions of how his faith conflicts with his sordid associations.

He is a corrupt Dim. Nothing unusual. It's more unusual for a Dim party boss to not be corrupt. He does not get criticized because the press is biased and would say nothing about any Dim, their allies. Look at the Kennedys, Barney Frank, the Xlintons and how much the libmedia never mentions about them. Any FReeper knows (or should know) this by heart. But if Orrin Hatch, a Republican, was even one-tenth as corrupt as Harry Reid, the media and the Dims would be going insane over it, probably demanding the death penalty but only after extensive and cruel torture at Gitmo to determine if Karl Rove was somehow involved. But that has to do with being the libmedia and being Republicans and Democrats. It has nothing to do with Mormonism that I can see.

So, I want to thank you for pointing out how you wish to surpress candid speach in order to promote your candidate.

I am not asking anyone to suppress your free speech. I'm asking that political threads be political and religious threads be in the Backroom with the blogs and the vanities and the all the rest of the non-political, non-news threads. Politics and religion just don't mix well. And FR is a political forum.

If you think Romney's too liberal (and he may well be), then go after him on that basis. Plenty to find there to complain about, but less than there is on Giuliani. And Romney is clearly remaking himself for a national run. This is actually not unusual in either party.

When a governor (or a leftwing mayor) campaigns for the nomination of their party, they campaign for the support of the party's most active members, the membership base. In both parties, support and the nomination will almost certainly go to the candidate who represents the party base of their party best while attracting substantial numbers of independents and crossover voters. While the record of every candidate is fair game to be examined along with their personal character and background, they do have opportunity to embrace their party's base, its platform and issues. Romney has that opportunity now. If he fails, then we should oppose him and look elsewhere. But it would be regrettable given his optimism and pro-growth, smaller-government agenda. We should be looking for conservative candidates who will commit to the broad conservative agenda, not imposing religious litmus tests.

To give an example, I oppose Giuliani. But I don't need to attack Catholicism to do it. Of course, he's not even a Catholic in good standing as far as I can tell. But I don't start bashing Roman Catholic doctrine (which is an occasional hobby of mine) just to get at Giuliani. And the fact that I relish catching Mormon missionaries knocking on the doors of friends or family so I can have a nice long sciptural discussion with those Mormon young people has nothing to do with it (you know, that discussion that ends with the older one tugging the younger missionary away?). I assure you, I do have pretty impeccable anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic Backroom credentials here.

Maybe Romney will prove too liberal as well, just like the leftwing mayor. More likely, he could prove to be to lukewarm, neither liberal nor conservative enough to catch fire. But I do notice he is getting bolder and doing well, like denouncing McStain-Feingold and Pelosi's pilgrimage to kneel at the feet of the terrorist Syrian regime recently. So I don't think we can or should say he is too liberal just yet. He has a window of opportunity here to establish a commitment to conservatives on a broad front, especially before Thompson announces. But if Romney will not commit to us, then we should not take him seriously. And being just a little better or more ambiguous than Giuliani is not enough to receive warm conservative support.

Yes, please advise the moderator, and may your stay on Kolob bring you a nice tan.

I take Mormonism about as seriously as I do Battlestar Galactica. Or is Mitt Romney (a.k.a. the Evil Mormon Supergenius) also responsible for the revival of the only Mormon space-opera ever produced for network television?