Replies

By the way, why don’t you start a committee of Inquisition to examine candidates and make certain they fulfill your personal standards of religious acceptability.

Since temple Mormons believe they are divine -- "gods in embryo" is a fave term of their leaders -- I didn't know that simply not wanting to vote for someone who considers themselves "divine" = an "Inquisition" of "personal standards."

What is galling is the two-facedness of so many: If Hillary Clinton had claimed in the '08 election that she was a god; or if Obama had come right out & said, "I'm the next Messiah." Do you think FReepers would had let those comments go?

Yes? Do I have a yes or no out of you on that?

Well, since it's a rhetorical Q, anyway, allow me to answer as I would see 98% of FREEPERS: The answer is "no" -- 98% to 100% of FREEPERS would NOT let such comments go...even though they ranged into the "religious" realm.

Now, here we've getting pulpit sermons from you & others telling us, "Thou shalt not consider character as it is informed by their religion" -- yet if Obama came right out & used the word "Messiah" FREEPERS would suddenly be discussing a LOT about Obama's religion.

In fact, let's actually move it from the hypothetical to the actual.

Just about daily on FR, I see some reference to Obama's ties to Islam. No proof, mind you. Just religious innuendo. Day after day. It's great if people want to mention it; (it'd be greater if they could actually put up quotes & links that more directly ties him to Islam).

But you know what? Somehow the ad hoc "Committee to Hermetically Seal Religion from Politics" -- of which you are an apparent "member" in good standing -- doesn't mount your pulpit to point fingers @ such posters with your "Thou shalt not discuss Obama's Religious Ties" sermons.

In fact, we didn't see you or your fellow committee members give the sermons in '08 when Jeremiah Wright was all the rage on FR? Why not?

Doesn't this sound like rampant two-faced hypocrisy to you? What? You only defend Romney? Huntsman? But when the same "principle" applies to other candidates, you're mum? How inconsistent is that?

You’ve distorted or misunderstood what I said as well as attributing things to me I didn’t say. I never explicitly or implicitly said that moral character wasn’t important.

Well, welcome to our world, where we believe others have distorted our comments as well. We couldn't even begin to count how many times people have pulled out their secret "motivation judging" machine & claimed our referencing of Romney & Huntsman's religion is motivated by some deep dark problem we have.

And in my case, why? My Mormon relatives & friends are worth loving. And that includes loving them with the truth.

When I turn that "truth" worldview and apply it toward political candidates, I've simply realize a voter CANNOT cut up "character" as if it was 1/8th clean-living, 1/8th integrity, 1/8th disciplines, 1/8th habits & customs, 1/8th keeping your promises, 1/8th religion, 1/8th family, and 1/8th something else. It doesn't work that way!

Character intersects and overlaps all of our lives. And a character that's been deeply informed by a cult effects...
...discernment...
...a person's potential gullibility (vulnerability to deception) on other issues...
...a person's level of pride, which is a character issue.
...things beyond character like identity worldviews of the people a POTUS is suppose to represent!

So when you say your words have been distorted, try wearing my wardrobe. The secular & religious FREEPER compartmentalizers come thru these threads & consistently preach "thou shalt keep religion & politics separate" as if that was the personal John 3:16 of their lives that they'd like to impose on others!

Most of the time it's NOT worded like, "Well, religion's not an issue for me, but you as a voter do what you like." Most of the time they act deeply offended that we've had to gall to weigh character issues -- including religious-based character issues.

It's like they are almost threatened by the concept that if they can't "tame" religion by keeping it in a proper corner, well, why who knows where it will wind up?

And so their personal blinders in life is to go around and say, "this is sacred; this is secular; never the twain shall meet."

Well, to a Christian who actually reads & believes the Bible, this is pure heresy. Jesus is not just Lord of our Sunday Schools. He is Lord of life.

Either He is Lord of all of our life; or He ain't Lord at all!

Oh, and btw, I encourage all for people to pick up Tricia Erickson's new book: "Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church Versus The Office Of The Presidency of the United States of America."

Erickson was recently interviewed on CNN. She closed out the interview by emphasizing what I have similarly said re: the need for a discerning POTUS:

...when it comes to placing a candidate in the highest office in the land, we need to place a stable and discerning president in office. If a candidate believes in proven lies and practices cult-like doctrine, how can the American people hold confidence in him/her as the leader of the free world? This may be the most important Presidential election in our history. We can’t afford to get it wrong.
Source: Tricia Erickson: 'An indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President'

It's an unfortunate thing if some FREEPERS think a POTUS is merely a paper-pushing administrator in which discernment is somehow a non-issue upon which to evaluate them!