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 ...
Tell us, what do you? Try to cover your eyes & ears, so that you keep from reading quotes like what I mention below?
When you look at this pro-Mitt article, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929161/posts, note this quote from Mitt:
"I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good, but that I don't really believe it and I don't try to follow it. That's not going to happen. I'm proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings."
You keep saying (in different associated ways) that we're somehow supposed to be ignoramos agnostics re: what Romney believes. That nobody knows and nobody can know.
Yet we have Romney already on record saying the above.
Which means your statements are ludicrous, assenine, and moronic. It's time to back off your claims to "no one knows." Mitt took off the "shroud of mystery" you're attempting to fog up long ago.
Apparently you’re not old enough or educated enough to know the difference in personal choice in the privacy of the voting booth and a law written to establish limits on behavior? If you are still in public schools, I can undersatand your limitations, and you have my sympathy. But don’t remain ignorant just because you’ve grown comfortable with it.”
I’m sorry you’re too much of a moron to see what you’ve said in this thread. You’ve done nothing but talk about what Mitt believes and prays about in a public form. There is nothing personal about posting this on a public message board. If it’s personal, then why are you on a message board attempting to convince people to not vote for Romney based on his religion? It seems you’d like a state run Christian government. You are a bigot, and you’re too dumb to understand that their are more important issues than Mitt’s Mormonism, which had no affect on his tenure as governor of Massachusetts that should disqualify him from being president.
“I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good, but that I don’t really believe it and I don’t try to follow it. That’s not going to happen. I’m proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings.”
No president should have to remove himself from his religion to be president. That’s why I said you’re advocating a state run Christian religion, and you don’t believe in the First Amendment if you want someone to run for president and not practice his religion.
ALL: Who do you believe? Politics4US? Or Mitt below?
When you look at this pro-Mitt article, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929161/posts, note this quote from Mitt:
"I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good, but that I don't really believe it and I don't try to follow it. That's not going to happen. I'm proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings."
Why am I put in mind of restornu with this ‘stuck in an ignorance rut’ posting of politics4U? It is as if there is a familiar pathology at work here!
“I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good, but that I don’t really believe it and I don’t try to follow it. That’s not going to happen. I’m proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings.”
It doesn’t mean they all Mormons have the same beliefs.
Actually, it's the reverse of that last line of yours...because if applied broad enough, you would seemingly invite some Islamic office-holders to integrate "jihad" or sharia law into their office-holding role...And in that sense, you would be advocating a state-run religion of Islam!
How ironic of you to juxtaposition those two statements of yours back to back!
I mean how far do you apply the first line of yours above to leaders of state around the world: No president should have to remove himself from his religion to be president.
Are you telling us that Islamic leaders shouldn't have to "remove" themselves from Muslim teachings on "jihad?" or sharia law? Really? (That's interesting). Doesn't a state leader or office-holder who doesn't remove "jihad" or say, sharia law, wouldn't they then be "guilty" of advocating a state-run religion in favor of Islam?
Which of those two lines are you going to stick with? Because you're going to have to toss one of them under the bus!
Another example: Are you telling us that if the Mormon church re-instituted polygamy tomorrow [it was illegal in the 19th century when they practiced it], that you would stick to "No president should have to remove himself from his religion to be president?"
Are you aware of one of the first Mormon Congressmen, B.H. Roberts, who was voted into office to represent Utah in 1898? You see, Mormonism began backing off polygamy in 1890; yet Roberts took his third simultaneous wife around 1893. That became a problem to the GOP and others.
In 1856, the fledgling GOP said they would take on the "twin relics of barbarism" -- polygamy and slavery. [You wouldn't be for those things would you?]. So grassroots America collected 7 million signatures on 28 banners and took it to Congress -- all so that B.H. Roberts could not practice his polygamous religious beliefs while serving as a member of Congress.
And you know what? Congress agreed. They sent Roberts home.
So you're going to sit here from your 2nd-guessing armchair and judge both that Congress + the 7 million late 19th century Americans who "judged" Roberts as incompetent to hold off because of his religious beliefs? Really?
Who do you think you are to openly judge millions and millions of solid grassroots America from that period?
All because they don't fit into your supposedly "pristine" religio-political boundaries you think apply.
Oh boy!
That's kinda like taking your boxer pup to the vet to get his tail docked; and the vet recommends taking it off a joint at a time every couple of months so it won't hurt as much.
I do NOT want to die of a thousand paper cuts!
Lop off my head and get it OVER with!
Sorry; but the MORMONs have ATTACKED all of Christendom.
Pointing out heresy is one of the things CHTRISTIANs are commanded to do.
If we get called BIGOTs by the unknowing; we'll just have to educate them.
Why keep repeating this?
It ain't gonna come true with repetiton.
Oh??
Oh?
And yet YOU seem to know what I believe?
AMAZING!
Bigoted Morons, Inc. meet here every Tuesday
“To Bigotry No Sanction, to Persecution No Assistance”. George Washington
“Actually, it’s the reverse of that last line of yours...because if applied broad enough, you would seemingly invite some Islamic office-holders to integrate “jihad” or sharia law into their office-holding role...And in that sense, you would be advocating a state-run religion of Islam!?”
Mitt Romney has already been governor of Mass. without governing as a Mormon. If a politician advocated Sharia Law, they couldn’t be president, since Sharia Law would overrule the constitution. That doesn’t mean a Muslim can’t be president. Also, Sharia Law violates the First Amendment.
“Are you telling us that Islamic leaders shouldn’t have to “remove” themselves from Muslim teachings on “jihad?” or sharia law? Really? (That’s interesting). Doesn’t a state leader or office-holder who doesn’t remove “jihad” or say, sharia law, wouldn’t they then be “guilty” of advocating a state-run religion in favor of Islam?”
As I said, if they are calling for something that overrides the Constitution then they can’t be president. If they are simply practicing their religion, then no they shouldn’t have to remove themselves from their religion. And Romney never advocated polygamy.
When your only tool is a hammer; everything looks like a nail.
The fact that you don’t know exactly what he believes...
Oh?
And yet YOU seem to know what I believe?
AMAZING!”
Yes, because you’re trying to prevent a person from being president, because of his religion.
I can’t believe how wrong and ignorant you are. You really are embarrasing yourself on this thread.
I never said I want a state run Christian government. I don’t want the federal government to establish a particular denomination of preference. Therefore, your premise is 100% false.
It’s totally within my 1st ammendment rights to evaluate everything about a particular candidate, including his religious beliefs.
It’s within everyone’s right to use whatever criteria they want to judge a candidate. It’s only against the constitution if the government were to block a candidate from appearing on the ballot because of his religion.
I’m not the bigot, you are. It’s un-American to not want someone who isn’t Christian to be president. You are discouraging people from voting for Romney, because of his religion.
Don't say things like that politics; it just makes you sound stupid. In fact, don't talk at all. It just makes you sound stupid. Thinking isn't your strong point, is it?
Are you going to advocate that a jihadi moslem be allowed to run for president and NOT evaluate his religious beliefs? So spare us the self-righteousness of everyone being a bigot except for your self. A person's religious beliefs are a valid criterion to use to evaluated a candidate's qualifications for office by individual voters.
It is no more un-American to advocate on the basis of religion than it is to advocate on the basis of abortion rights for instance. It is not un-american to oppose a pro-abortion candidate.
You don't like that critera - thats YOUR choice - but it is un-american as well as un FR to insist that you "CHOICE" is the only correct one.
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.