Posted on 10/20/2011 7:24:57 AM PDT by Colofornian
At an appearance at George Washington University...Bill Maher bounded into territory that the news media have been gingerly tiptoeing around.
Magic underwear. Baptizing dead people. Celestial marriages. Private planets. Racism. Polygamy.
“By any standard, Mormonism is more ridiculous than any other religion”...“It’s...founded on the idea of polygamy. They call it The Principle. That sounds like The Prime Directive in ‘Star Trek.’ ”
He said he expects the Romney crowd...to once more “gloss over the differences between Christians and Mormons.”
SNIP
Another famous nonbeliever, Christopher Hitchens, wrote in Slate...about “the weird and sinister belief system of the LDS”...
Aside from Joseph Smith, whom Hitchens calls “a fraud and conjurer well known to the authorities in upstate New York,” the writer also wonders about the Mormon practice of amassing archives of the dead...to “retrospectively ‘baptize’ everybody as a convert.”
Hitchens noted that they “got hold of a list of those put to death by the Nazis’ Final Solution” and “began making these massacred Jews into honorary LDS members as well.” He called it “a crass attempt at mass identity theft from the deceased.”
The Mormons even baptized Anne Frank.
It took Ernest Michel, then chairman of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, three years to get Mormons to agree to stop proxy-baptizing Holocaust victims.
SNIP
Kent Jackson, the associate dean of religion at Brigham Young University, says that while Mormons are Christians, “Mormonism is not part of the Christian family tree.”
It probably won’t comfort skeptical evangelicals and Catholics to know that Mormons think that while other Christians merely “have a portion of the truth, what God revealed to Joseph Smith is the fullness of the truth,” as Jackson says...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If you are a teacher and a non-Mormon, working under a Mormon school district, better watch out. As you say, things are not as they seem on the surface.
(Yeah, right. Dennis Kucinich was a Democratic 2008 POTUS candidate with significant New Age leanings...So anybody questioning his New Age theology was engaging in "bigotry," eh? Why don't you just become an apologist for all the New Age democrats and other cultic GOP candidates, eh?)
You still don’t know what his beliefs are...
(Oh sure, the Mormon church just allows "just anybody" to become a bishop, Mormon Missionary, Missionary Zone Leader, assistant to Mission President, and Stake President)
And what you are calling for is unconstitutional.
Your constitional ignorance slip is showing.
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You seem to confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
You don't seem to be a very tolerant person of others whose religious viewpoints are distinct from yours.
Doesn't that by definition make you a "bigot" of our religious views?
Tell ya what...if you want to market that "hate-meter" internal judgment machine, let me know.
What do you use? A special "seer" rock like Joseph Smith? A Magic 8-ball?
Just amazing how you can judge perfect strangers' inner motivations from such a distance!
(Oh, and btw, if disagreement = "hate" -- then by your own definition, your disagreement with others on this thread = yes, that's right...your own judgment machines snags you)
Well, for one thing, Mitt tried to "out-abort" Kennedy:
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) |
| 1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 | (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood... (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts |
Not sure why you're here defending pro-abortion Mitt.
And what you are calling for is unconstitutional.
And what you said here is moronic.
Why do so many Rep candidates have to state a position on abortion to satisfy us voters?
A politicized moral issue founded in the religious belief that thou shall not kill.
One that affects who they nominate to the USSC.
So yes, a candidate’s religion does affect their view.
Romney’s religion believes that if a woman prays about it or if one of their lay leaders pray about it, they can get an answer as to whether or not the baby gets aborted.
Do you agree with that position?
What a very ignorant statement. The first amendment applies restrictions on what the GOVERNMENT can do to promote a certain religion. The first amendment has no restrictions on what individual citizens can say, think, etc.
In fact, you have it backwards. The first admendment protects the free speech of individual freepers, such as what has been stated on this thread.
I wonder if Beck and his fellow mormons approve of other mormons deliberately lying and misrepresenting Christian Seder events?
Remaining ignorant out of choice is not an attribute.
You bigot.
Yet, you’ve offered no proof other than your baseless accusations.
A swing and a miss from another ignorant liberal posing as a FReeper.
“All that hate is going to eat you up. Let it go.”
Your hatred of FReepers posting comments critical of MormonISM is going to eat you up. Let it go.
Show me where I made any such assertion - just once.
post 13
No “they” went after mormons because mormons had a giant PR campaign claiming credit.
Pretty sure on a religion forum you can talk about religion, if you don’t want to talk about a candidate’s belief system you should stay off the religion forum.
The First Amendment, which prevents a state run religion.
Once again; HOW is it being defied?
You want or believe that we have state run Christianity... <--- your assumption here is wrong.
Show me the exact words, because I don’t see it. Maybe you are just feeling guilty for something you’ve posted.
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.