Posted on 10/29/2007 8:28:33 AM PDT by Invisigoth
The Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Mormons and a few other faiths have three things in common – they believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He died and was resurrected for our sins.
So what’s the problem?
The political pundits continue to try and make Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs a big issue as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. Different denominations of Christianity are just that – different denominations – which means different worship practices of the same fundamental Christian beliefs.
Some people have commented that they cannot support Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. When they are pressed to explain why that is objectionable, they stutter. Still others are skeptical of Mitt Romney based solely on hearsay or lack of knowledge about Mormons.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
No blessings from you tonight, eh?
Bless you!
Better?
:-)
Whatever you say. The original post where you openly manifested your willingness to discriminate against the Mormon speaks for itself. COLD HARD FACT, SISTER.
I agree. He would be ashamed of: (1) your “lying for the Lord;” and (2) your anti-Mormon rants.
P.S. I suggest before you challenge my legal education, that you have a firm understanding of whatever legal principle you intend to assert.
I recall that thread ... the conflict where CUH attacked you so haughtily was generated when you said you have a right to not vote for a particular candidate based upon his or her religious beliefs, especially since you are in private in a voting booth. The Romney/Mormonism attack mongrel twisted the initial into an argument over your method of discernment when interviewing someone for a job. I think the perp has suckered you into the same diversion, so just ignore the mouth foaming lawyer.
Continuing your pharisaical conduct, Caiph . . .er, MHG?
How you tonight, Shylock?
You must be a 15 watt now!
I guess I should be flattered except you muffed your comeback line. I am not a shylock. You need to read up on your Shakespeare. Shylock was a character in the Merchant of Venice. However, rather than being a lawyer, Shylock was a moneylender who charged usurious rates of interest. In the modern vernacular, he was a loan shark. Hence, the word shylock in a dictionary is defined as a ruthless moneylender or loan shark.
I’m sure you meant to be really witty with your comeback line by calling me Shyster which is defined in the dictionary as an unethical or unscrupulous lawyer. But, of course, that would have fallen flat as well because I am neither unethical or unscrupulous. I think those adjectives are better used to describe the “flying inman” posse, don’t you?
I tend to define a Shylock as a ruthless, haughty person of low character. You can use the WS designation as far as you care to take it ... I have no idea whether you lend money as usurious rates.
“Do you care to address to higher than average suicide rate among Mormons or the higher than average anti-depressant usage among Mormons?”
I’m familiar with the study you critics use as a basis for claiming Mormons use anti-depressant more than the average. It doesn’t actually conclude what you assert.
The study was done by a health insurance company, they only looked at their customers and noted their customers in Utah used certain prescriptions at a higher rate than their customers in other states.
I’ve studied statistics at the university level, and how critics use this study is such a blatant example of how to lie with statistics that a first year student should have no trouble spotting how invalid the media’s conclusions are.
First, they did not sample the general population, they only looked at their own customers. The products they offered would greatly impact who their customer base would be, for example, if priced high, their customers would tend to wealthier than average, if they did not offer a competitive discount for non-smokers, their customer base would have more smokers than the general population etc. etc. On this fact alone it is invalid to conclude that the study’s results for Utah has any relation to actual rates in the general population of the state. Likewise, the results of other states and the national averages from the study have no bearing on the actual state or national averages.
Second, the study did not identify the religion of their customers. There is no way to tell if any particular faith is over or under represented compared to the general population or even just their own customer base, so there is no justification to extrapolate the results as indicating anything about Mormons or any other faith.
Third, several medication used to treat depression are also used to treat other medical conditions and the study gathered no data on WHY those prescriptions were given. It is therefore invalid to assert that the high use of certain drugs indicates a high occurrence of depression.
To be fair, the LA Times (known for it’s bias against the LDS) reported the study in a very biased and misleading way, leading it readers to make all this invalid conclusions and burying the facts that discredit their claims towards the end of the article. Critics, if they want to be honest critics, should not be so quick to jump on drive-by media stories just because they like what they say.
I am not aware of any credible studies that establish a significantly higher rate of suicide among active Mormons, but feel free to present your evidence for examination. Even if such a study exists, it still wouldn’t establish a cause/effect relationship. Very little is really known about what causes mental illness, there could be genetic factors at play, environmental, and many other factors that a statistical survey would not be able to take into account.
You ought to just man up to blowing the comeback line. Denial is not a river in Egypt, Caiaph . . . er, MHG. And again, thank you for the imitation. It shows you either really care or just lack creativity for your own snappy comeback. I'll let the readers decide which it is.
Shylock is capitalized, usually. But in your case, I can see why you failed to do it ... projectionists are usually blind to their own condition.
It is simply amazing how consistently wrong you are—on so many, many levels, Caiaph . . .er, MHG.
Is poor spellin funny?
And another RINO is another RINO! Morman has nothing to do with it. Immigration will be the downfall of Mitt, Rudy, McCain and Huckabee. Watch and see!
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.