Is this the forum to bash the heads in of fellow conservatives, or a place for us ALL to come together for the common good of the cause? If you feel you're doing the latter, you're sadly mistaken & indeed falling into Alinsky’s trap.
I don't believe I have ever seen you or many of the rest of the cabal consistently lock arms w/ us here towards the cause of conservatism. Instead, you have done nothing but try & tear down those incredibly important alliances. If you feel the need to satisfy yourself by tearing down LDS, perhaps you could do it where it doesn't affect the conservative cause & stopping socialism & the other evils we now face.
Pardon the quick interject, but I think this strays from the whole issue that started this, namely a disgruntled antifreeper decides to come back into FR and troll around and see what gets stirred up (against FR stated rules as enumerated by the RM at the time). After being put into his place, that antifreeper decided to try to convince lds freepers not to support FR as well as engage in McCarthy tactics. Had this instigator minded his business, we'd be freeping as usual. However, this antifreeper decided to inject the religion aspect into matters (because he was a disgruntled romney supporter). So the issue posed by this entire thread is an attack by an antifreeper on the basis of mormonism. So lets not forget where this thread got started and why.
Tell Illbay that I said "hi".
Well, then, you haven't seen all of my many "pro" comments about what the LDS have done to defend marriage of late. Not just Prop 8...but also the previous defend marriage proposition on the ballot in CA numerous years before. [Which I've previously mentioned on posts, plural] Many people don't realize that LDS also was financially & man-power wise involved in protecting marriage in CA then.
Several times, I've written "kudos" to the LDS church for defending marriage in CA.
But CA is just one state. I frankly think that LDS officials who also serve as Utah-based law enforcement in the polygamy realm have done a terrible job of defending monogamy there. Cultural realities + truth means that we come together with CA Mormons to defend monogamy. But cultural realities + truth means that we distance ourselves from LDS officials who have been in a position to rescue "child brides" from the Utah polygamists -- and crack down on welfare fraud, etc. -- but haven't.
These things cut both ways. Can we not agree on that?
The same is true with other cultural issues. Most Mormons morally oppose porn. Perhaps I've haven't given enough "kudos" to LDS for that (so if you want to chide me for that, I'll take your correction). But again, it cuts both ways. Because if you are going to chide me for not recognizing Lds mindset opposition to porn, then you'll need to be consistent and immediately call up Marriott hotel and ask them to stop being part of the porn industry. Or you'll need to contact LDS Church, Inc., and ask why Bill Marriott, though he's been an exec in this porn industry, has two hierarchical positions in the LDS church.
LDS are also attitudinally pro-life, and Utah has had a low abortion rate. I've pointed out on previous posts this attitude -- and I've neglected to mention Utah's low abortion rate. But frankly, I seriously disagree with LDS' abortion policy -- which defines abortionists as "competent medical counsel" and says abortions are A-OK if a person prays about and God personally reveals it to LDS to have the abortion. That makes God out to be a de-facto premeditated accomplice to baby murder. And it's outrageous that LDS general authorities slough off their free agency and say, "Well, God gave a personal revelation for this baby to be dismembered."
The bottom line here:
Old-timers used to use a certain phrase. It was "sin in the camp." Before a church could make an impact on a culture, it often had to deal with the "sin in the camp." Just as that's true in the church, 'tis also true in political camps and socio-political alliances.
(As Peter said, judgment begins in the household of God)
You're missing the point my good FRiend. The question is not about whether religious differences should be debated, but whether this, a conservative website & quasi think-tank, is the forum for these issues...If you feel the need to satisfy yourself by tearing down LDS, perhaps you could do it where it doesn't affect the conservative cause & stopping socialism & the other evils we now face.
And you're missing the point. Part of our culture's problem is that it wants to draw this hermetically sealed line as to what is "religion" and what is "secular." Is your god only lord of your "religious" life, Reno? Does God exercise sovereignty/control in arenas beyond that?
Imagine for a moment that your argument you just made "sticks" -- but imagine a slightly different venue:
Imagine you've just made a lobbying effort to a Nevada legislator that legal prostitution should be discontinued because it exploits women. Or you've just approached the same legislator and made an argument about some pro-life legislation on the basis that our long-standing ethic in this country is one that embraces the sanctity of life. Now imagine this legislator quoting your words back to you in response:
The question Reno is not about whether religious differences about prostitution and abortion should be debated, but whether this, a body of legislators who are informed by think tanks and quasi think-tanks, is the forum for your perspectives to be presented. [I mean, after all, Reno, we know quite well that opposition to porn and abortion are rooted in faith-based notions -- so we're going to keep them there]
*****************
Perhaps you should direct this post to Jim Robinson. Not only is this his site, he is the author of this thread.