Unfortunately, Jim, I believe it was the recent primaries and the wide latitude anti-Romney posters were given here on FR in their wild-eyed, over the top, baseless accusations towards not just the candidate but his religion as well. As a result, some who opposed Romney specifically for his religion, saw that latitude as an implicit endorsement of their views. Primaries are a rough and tumble, often confusing time, politically speaking, and there are those who use that confusion to spread their views that otherwise wouldn’t be socially acceptable during any other time. Opposing someone based on their religion is simply not acceptable in most cases in the eyes of most Americans and those who do so can’t openly admit to this so, they use a cover story like the “He’s a liberal” rant as a trojan horse for their own views. My two cents, for what its worth.
Being a Fred supporter, I was never on any Romney thread. I had never heard of the FLDS prior to the raid in April but became interested in their story. As a result, I find myself in the middle of what seems to be an LDS vs. ? war.
I have been accused of being anti-mormon and of "bashing" their religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm from the east coast. I have never met a Mormon and my knowledge about them is very limited. The rumors I have heard are: they stock food, have a great choir, and they were the marrying kind. They seem to be a wholesome, family oriented group with some quirky ideas.
But then I tried to post a thread about the videos the LDS have recently added to their website: LDS Church publishes more clarification on polygamy stance. It was pulled immediately, before any comments, for trolling.
Yet Saundra Duffy's Church Seeks to Address Public Confusion Over Texas Polygamy Group, an almost identical article still stands.
Can someone tell me what's going on? It sure seems like favoritism to me and it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
Also, and this is just a personal observation, there seems to be a lot of whiners and whingers within a certain group who hit the abuse button just a bit too much. Sort of reminds me of the rioting Muslims, almost anything and everything is an offense.
Take a look in Breaking News.
WaPo After Free Republic Again, Now Over Barack-is-a-Muslim Email
Or how about a topic search?
Link
I think you will find that many posters had little issue with Mitt's religion, mainly because his issues for Conservatives were more than enough. Indeed it was not until after he dropped that I became interested in the issues of his faith, mainly due to the hypocritical nature of some of his adherents here. I never once in any debate addressed it before he dropped out. His stances were easy enough prey...
Spare me, send me your paypal address and I'll forward that two cents...
Reaganesqe,
My 2 cents to you...
I believe Romney is a moderate to liberal, who knew
that to be Prez he needed to move to the right. He even
hired consultants to help him do it. This would have been
completely unnecessary, if he was a conservative.
I also said forthrightly that I was uncomfortable in
voting for a moromon for Prez. So was a huge swath of
the United States, according to many polls.
Some could, I couldn’t. I wasn’t willing to violate my
conscience. I didn’t oppose him because of his religion.
I couldn’t vote for him because of my own.
Fortunately, his liberalism made that decision unnecessary -
and the fact he dropped out before my state had a primary...
In my experience, FReepers who defended mormonism brought
much of the more intense criticisms upon themselves by the
way they responded.
And of course, even though I disagree with you over the
issue of mormonism, I like you as a FReeper.
ampu
He’s dead Jim. You grab his wallet I’ll grab his tricorder.
Problem is, his true record was recorded on film. He couldn’t lie his way out of it.
[As a result, some who opposed Romney specifically for his religion, saw that latitude as an implicit endorsement of their views. Primaries are a rough and tumble, often confusing time, politically speaking, and there are those who use that confusion to spread their views that otherwise wouldn’t be socially acceptable during any other time. Opposing someone based on their religion is simply not acceptable in most cases in the eyes of most Americans and those who do so can’t openly admit to this so, they use a cover story like the “He’s a liberal” rant as a trojan horse for their own views. My two cents, for what its worth.]
Thank God (that would be me) that it is “socially unacceptable” to oppose someone on the basis of their religion (FastCoyoteism - it is all about me me me 24/7).
Now, if you can’t logically defend your position without bowing down to my obviously superior religion (by the way, I’m running for President of the Universe), what makes you think anyone else should listen to your illogic?
FreeRepublic! Unless you are socially unacceptable??? Now there’s a motto!
I wonder if this still applies?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2035699/posts?page=602#602
To: Reaganesque
Whatever pal. He ran and governed as a big government abortionist liberal. I don’t give a squat about his religion.
If you don’t like the way I run FR, why don’t you just take a freaking hike.
603 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 5:12:07 PM by Jim Robinson
The trojan horse was Romney trying to pose as a conservative.