They Shoot Mormons, Don't They? Religious Bigotry, alive and well today

Saundra Duffy

[GrandEagle]

It has happened. Clinton was elected because he wore briefs.

Evidently not nearly as often as he should have. :)

[Colofornian]

Oh, their track record would include personal things, such as do they sacrifice chickens during their religious ceremonies. But merely being an atheist, a satanist or a Wiccan wouldn't cause me to not vote for that person. It would be what they do with that belief that counts.

Now we're getting somewhere, and shows that folks are a little closer toward common ground than you think.

It seems to me you are saying, "Would I NOT vote for someone ONLY because they are a Satanist, Wicca, Muslim, Mormon, etc." Your answer is "no."

But does in fact what a person practices religiously enter into consideration along with their position on the issues and track record? Apparently your answer is "yes."

People are more than the religious label they wear, so yes, people should be evaluated wholistically. All I've been trying to do is to test the people who indicate that Mormonism or any religious practitioner should be "NO" issue whatsoever.

Once we agree that it's least it's part of the entire package (the common ground that I was talking about) then the only thing on which we have divergence is exactly how much weight does each voter attach to that consideration vs. other considerations. And that, I believe, belongs to the category of individual voter discretion.

[GrandEagle]

Can we stop with this "antimormon" labeling?
I believe that was the point of my posts.
Maybe I failed to make my point - I sometimes do that.

[FastCoyote]

"Earlier, I stated that some high-powered ministries have publicly condemned Mormons: Shirley and James Dobson, the Southern Baptist Convention, Pat Robertson, and Dr. D. James Kennedy – just to name a few. There are hoards of others. Sunday after Sunday, preachers, evangelists, reverends and ministers from all Christian denominations pound the pulpit with anti-Mormon rhetoric."

Well Saundra, considering Joseph Smith built your entire false religion on the premise that all other Christians are gentile apostates, what did you expect? Your arguments are as phony as a three dollar bill from the Kirtland Bank, signed by Joseph Smith's good name:

Perhaps if Joseph Smith was run out of Illinois for that swindle, rather than just religious intolerance. While Mitt Romney may be as nice a neighbor as you can get, if you make him a presidential candidate do you sincerely believe no one is going to look into the religious beliefs and history of a group that is younger than our Constitution?

And do you seriously believe all your secret Temple handshakes, and names, and Celestial marriage, and magic underwear, and Jews as American Indians, and God living with his wife on a planet near Kolob, and crystal gazing, and polytheism, and . . . . are not going to be open to debate? And please get off calling people bigots, unless you want to be called a cultist.

[bedolido]

I am old enough to remember the stories of fear and mistrust because John F. Kennedy was a Catholic (the first Catholic President).

You heard similar complaints and accusations. I vote based upon the following:

Issues.
Integrity.
Intelligence (and the wisdom to use it).

I will not vote for a liberal, Muslim or an ex-president’s wife.

[FastCoyote]

“Anyone who wouldn’t vote for someone just because they are a Mormon is a loon.”

You are sooooo right.

“Anyone who wouldn’t vote for someone just because they are a MUSLIM JIHADI is a loon.”

“Anyone who wouldn’t vote for someone just because they are a SANTERIAN CHOPPING OFF CHICKEN HEADS is a loon.”

“Anyone who wouldn’t vote for someone just because they are a SCIENTOLOGIST CRAZY AS TOM CRUISE is a loon.”

“Anyone who wouldn’t vote for someone just because they are a SATANIST is a loon.”

“Anyone who wouldn’t vote for someone just because they are a BHUDDIST ANTI WAR ABSOLUTIST is a loon.”

“Anyone who wouldn’t vote for someone just because they are a MADONNA KABALIST is a loon.”

Thank God religion means nothing in a Presidential candidate. That way moral views can also be as ephemeral as the mist. Everyone’s an atheist now.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

But that isn’t being “nice”. We’re supposed to only be “fair” and never allow any other decision-making processes to enter into our thinking.

Everyone keeps talking about the length of Romney’s marriage. The Clintons have been married for 31 years. Does that make a good argument to vote for Hillary?

Why is it wrong to chose aspects of Romney’s life and study them closely when trying to determine who he is? One of those aspects would certainly be the LDS. Another would be his marriage and fidelity.

How can most voters, who are reliant on the MSM, learn about candidates unless everyone has open discussion? Surely a place as well known as FR would be ideal for discussing these issues.

[MHGinTN]

You have exposed the most important point for this thread, IMHO: "I worked with an elderly lady who told me that the only time she ever voted was in 1960 ... She only voted so she could vote against JFK."

I'm 61. I was living next to my grandparent's when Kennedy was running for president. My Grandfather made a special visit to the polls to be sure and not allow Kennedy to be elected President. Was he prejudiced against Kennedy or Catholics? Catholics of course, because my Grandfather was a democrat but he was a deist who feared a man who would follow the dictates of Rome!

That current of prejudicial wrangle is still in our nation, especially when comparison of Christian and non-Christian religions are in question ... and the Rodham-rodent goon squad, aided gleefully by the mainstream media who care not a whit if they destroy the national unity needed to fight a war agaisnt an extremely dangerous enemy, THAT squad will exploit and massacre Romney support to such a degree that conservative voter turnout will drop and usher in a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a rodent in the White House when the general election comes around. The primary goal of the democrats, in fomenting religious clamor, is to suppress conservative voter turnout or divide it to expose what media will call bigotry because the media has no God but liberal empowerment.

The real issue with a Romney candidacy is not whether Mormonism is a Christian sect or not (I am certain it is not, but that is not the real issue), it is how easily the Rodham-rodent's goons can exploit and divide using the contrast that is easy to point out. And the mere contrasts create a wrangle that alienates conservatives from each other, as debates with Mormon Apologists have revealed on numerous recent threads. The condescension and ridicule, deceit and manipulation of scriptures by those feeling righteous indignation at being challenged on thier religious beliefs has been a sight to behold at FR of late ... and I've been right in the middle of it, giving and receiving while perhaps thousands of readers have been turned off and abandoned the threads. This will happen with voting, too!

Romney is as dangerous to conservatism in America as Rudy Giuliani is ... one because he is an easy target to generate division and appears too malleable, the other because he is not even remotely a conservative and is proud of it and tells conservatives to 'get over yourselves'!

And the article that generated this thread, while fairly well written, is precisely the sort of 'negatives generator' that the DNC goon squad loves to exploit. Just look at how easily negatives have exploded into view, if anyone doubts it.

[MEGoody]

But does in fact what a person practices religiously enter into consideration along with their position on the issues and track record? Apparently your answer is "yes."

If Mormons were required to sacrifice one new born baby a month, and if Mitt practiced that, yes, that would be an issue. Not the same as me disagreeing with him over the BOM. He and I can disagree on that, but that doesn't mean it would impact my vote. The things that I look for is what positions a person takes and how the individual expresses their views.

And that, I believe, belongs to the category of individual voter discretion.

Absolutely. I can't stop someone from voting for or against Mitt just because he is a Mormon. But if that's all they base their vote on, they are looney.

[Colofornian]

Oh, good grief. I guess you stand squarely in the basher camp.

Have you visited (or heard of) southwest Utah/Northern AZ border area? Colorado City? Hildale, Utah? Short Creek? Or how about certain small communities in British Columbia or Mexico or a small new start-up in Texas--all where polygamous communities reside, and all who would tell you they are followers of the Book of Mormon.

Some of these folks even live in other parts of Utah and other states, though living covertly as polygamous families.

So, I because I point out "reality" I am a basher? Because you assume none of the U.S. residents would run for higher public office, they're "invisible" and should remain that way?

[Boston Blackie]

Urban Myth....

Your own source states...Newspaper ads for women sometimes did include NINA, but Irish women nevertheless dominated the market for domestics because they provided a reliable supply of an essential service.

Newspaper ads for men with NINA were exceedingly rare.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

” Your own source states...Newspaper ads for women sometimes did include NINA, but Irish women nevertheless dominated the market for domestics because they provided a reliable supply of an essential service.”

For women it was mostly religious - Protestants not wanting to hire Catholic nannies.

[colorcountry]

We have had judges disbarred, and law officials fired in Utah THIS YEAR for holding public office while plurally married.

In Utah, we are accustomed to polygamists running for office...it really isn’t a far stretch of the imagination as you might assume.

[greyfoxx39]

It always strikes me that the LDS general authorities and LDS grass roots can be so vigorous to distance themselves from fundamental LDS polygamists in the Southern part of Utah/No AZ--all over (a) polygamy; and (b) which prophet to follow...

...But Christians from historic traditions are supposed to look the other way when deeper and more significant differences are identified between us and LDS.

Yet another inconsistency that shows a lack of intellectual integrity.

That is a telling point. Any questioning of mormon theology, even when buttressed by sources from mormon literature and their own Book of Mormon is immediately attacked as "mormon bashing" or "anti-mormon". Smacks of the methods of the left.

I just don't think that casting the mormons as a "threatened minority" in today's climate is going to fly, there is a shortage of "authentic minorities" in the mormon church in this country. (Most of the minorities being converted to mormonism are in other countries.)

[greyfoxx39]

Where did the author of the thread go? This seems strange.

Shift change?

[colorado tanker]

You know as well as I do those Colorado City polygamists are a tiny minority and are not accepted by the mainstream LDS churches. The threat of polygamy being established in the U.S. is much greater from the gay rights and polyamory people than those nutburgers.

So, since Jim Jones professed to be a Christian, are you going to refuse to vote for Christian candidates?

[Boston Blackie]

Your source admitted NINA existed and then said it was a myth. Sounds like a candidate for political office.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“Your source admitted NINA existed and then said it was a myth. Sounds like a candidate for political office.”

Reading comprehension isn’t your strong point, I see.

[FastCoyote]

[Saundra, I was a non-Mormon raised in a 90% Mormon community. I was the only non-Mormon in my elementary school. I know first hand what bigotry is — and I wasn’t the bigot.

The persecution I experienced caused me to study in great detail the history, people, behavior and beliefs of an organization — calling itself a “church” — that could seemingly happily inflict so much pain. This will be my only post on this topic, but:

I would never vote for a Mormon Presidential candidate. I know far too much about the organization, its methods and aims to ever entrust a Mormon with that kind of power. Your Catholic analogy doesn’t hold Holy water. Mormons are a very different kind of phenomenon, as America will learn if it makes what I consider the mistake of electing Romney.]

Well said Bernard. Unless you live near Mormon’s and have seen how they absolutely crush the lives of dissenters, you just don’t understand what a danger Romney is. It isn’t Romney himself, it is the clan and doctrines that comes with him as night follows day.

I got axe handled a number of times by crooked Mormon business partners and two girl friends before I did like you, studied up on the religion to protect myself. Most of the people who are looking the other way on this thread only know a couple Mormon neighbors who have clean homes and nice kids, they haven’t seen the underbelly. Harry Reid is one example, but not the only one I’ve come across.

Mormon bigotry is every bit as intense as anything on the opposite side.

[Colofornian]

If Mormons were required to sacrifice one new born baby a month, and if Mitt practiced that, yes, that would be an issue. Not the same as me disagreeing with him over the BOM. He and I can disagree on that, but that doesn't mean it would impact my vote. The things that I look for is what positions a person takes and how the individual expresses their views.

Well, now you're backtracking just a bit, and trying to qualify your previous statement. Apparently only that which is the most extreme of extreme religious views would serve as a consideration for you? [To emphasize, I'm not "picking" on you re: whatever your personal voting choices would be. I'm only responding to the fact that you indicated that those who take Mormonism into strong or complete consideration are "loonie." So you're the one who now has to defend that position. You are now openly commenting on what the personal voting choices of others are.]

Also, I don't know if this is your intent, but you are now implying that nothing in Mormonism is extreme. Is that what you are saying? [You basically are setting a "standard" where you claim to be able to limit what is "extreme" about LDS beliefs--and what isn't.]

So, without me even reaching in to some "fringe" LDS belief of the past, let me ask you: If Mitt is a mainstream Mormon, that means he thinks every Evangelical/Protestant/Catholic voter is an actual apostate from the faith. First of all, why isn't that an "extreme" viewpoint to you? (to know that the one you're voting--or may be voting for) is mumbling behind your back that you're an apostate with creeds full of abominations)?

Secondly my curiosity cannot be contained: why would that inspire us folks to vote for him? Can someone please explain why the fact that Mitt (if he's a faithful Mormon) believes that Hugh Hewitt is an apostate, why is Hugh so motivated to write a book targeting other Evangelicals to vote for him?

Can anyone explain that to me?