"The Mormons have been pushed as far as they’re gonna go. Look at their cities. They’re fortresses." ------------------------------------------------------------
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/07/2008 11:35:59 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Enough already. |
Posted on 12/03/2008 8:59:31 AM PST by Publius804
An Ugly Attack on Mormons
The easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.
By Jonah Goldberg
Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife’s purse and then the man’s wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter’s piggy bank and pinch every penny. “We need it for the Wall Street bailout!” they exclaim.
No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?
No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. “Hi, we’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!” says the blond one with a toothy smile. “We’re here to take away your rights.” The Mormon zealots yank the couple’s wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.
As the thugs leave, one says to the other, “That was too easy.” His smirking comrade replies, “Yeah, what should we ban next?” The voice-over implores viewers: “Say no to a church taking over your government.”
Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.
The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on Election Day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.
What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
Nope.
The Los Angeles Times, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial lamenting that the “hard-hitting commercial” was too little, too late.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Ha!!
>>Strong disagreement is not hate.<<
I hate that!
*shuffle-shuffle*
Ah, here it is.
Memorandum
... blah, blah, blah...
... henceforth the deity hallucinated by above mentioned Mr. Smith shall be designated "FSM". 
Then stay on topic and do not rise to the challenge.
What!?!?!
They were HIDDEN?
I'll have to do better!
Be very careful using Wikipedia for information on anything really important or controversial. And ALL truly important subjects are controversial.
And yet... you soldier on.
I’m not debating if it’s right or wrong, I’m telling you what you should expect if you post in a public forum. FR Mods will decide if it’s right or wrong.
I agree with your assessment.
Delphi - I have never persecuted anyone on FR, nor have I identified myself as a "persecutor."
What exactly is your definition of persecution? Do you really liken this discussion of doctrine as "persecution?" This is persecution!
Do you think anyone on FR is immune to comments regarding morals, intent parentage, intelligence etc. not just questioned, but been called a liar about what I believe, damned to hell, called a demon from the pit and been condemned in every way imaginable.
I certainly have been on the receiving end of such comments by some of your own brethren and sisters. I am not so weak that I call it persecution.
>>Actually, if one puts their views on a forum they should, in fact, expect debate<<
Debate about the subject matter, cool.
Debate about religious dogma, no way.
Like I said, no one asks the Jewish FReepers to defend their beliefs when they post something non-dogmatic. Why should anyone have to debate dogma on a non-dogmatic thread?
It’s crass.
If I post a thread on why communion is not communion is a Protestant church, I better be ready to debate dogma because that is what I have invited.
If I post that three first communicants were run over by a car at a parish, why is that an invitation to debate dogma?
This is an actual example. A Catholic FReeper posted an article on glass walls being installed in confessionals. The second post was slamming the dogma of confession.
Come on.
The word hate is so overused today.
>>Elsie, you do know that the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches were not without reproach on this subject.<<
I’ll agree with that. All church organizations I know of have proverbial blood on their hands.
My best friend wrote a truly fascinating book on church. It is called “And No Religion, Too - Thoughts on the Spectator Church”. Very interesting perspective on the church in america.
The best way to handle that (in my opinion) if you think it’s inappropriate, is to ignore it.
>>Then stay on topic and do not rise to the challenge.<<
Then don’t shut down the thread with boxed spam to encourage the debate.
It’s bullying tactics. Pick, pick, pick. Then scream when you’re punched.
>>The best way to handle that (in my opinion) if you think it’s inappropriate, is to ignore it.<<
Take the religion out of it and make it conservative/liberal.
Now ignore it. Not so easy, huh?
If you don’t want to debate it, it should be easy to ignore. I often ignore posts I don’t care to debate, even if it means the other poster gets the last word.
And with that, when a group of gays walk into your church, disrupting your service or the get together after, you should just ignore it. Right?
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.