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 ...
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.”
I already answered that you moron. Read below, where I wrote, “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.”
“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. “
Yes it is different, because Religion is protected by the Constitution.
“Religion is protected by the Constitution.” LOL, you really need to explain what you mean with that one, so we can help you with your mistaken concepts.
You may not be a bigot, but you are stupid. You insisted it’s against the constitution for individuals to evaluate candidates based upon their religious beliefs.
Now, that you’ve been proven wrong, you’ve switched tactics to say it’s “un-American” to use religion as a criteria for selection.
You apparently don’t know the first thing about what being an American is, so please stop reveailing your ignorance and stupidity on this thread.
I see you are having delusions of competence.
“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.”
What happened, did romney quit mormonism during that period? NO, but many principles of mormonsim governed his decisions without open advocation of mormonism.
Depending upon the president - laws tend to be selectively enforced or ignored - 0bama and holder have done it a lot. Fact is a moslem president WOULD be inclined to support Sharia - by the very nature of the belief system he holds. So come on and get your head out of a hole in the ground.
Yes it is different, because Religion is protected by the Constitution.
Yet the same constitution does NOT prohibit the individual citizens from using what ever criteria for judging the worthiness of a candidate to hold office - in fact the constitution PROTECTS that right.
BTW, currently abortion has constitutional protection as well - again, are you going to call a person un-american who opposes abortion? Sorry politics, you are flaming out. Spare us your lame version of political correctness saved for the inhabitants of DU.
You may not be a bigot, but you are stupid. You insisted it’s against the constitution for individuals to evaluate candidates based upon their religious beliefs.
Now, that you’ve been proven wrong, you’ve switched tactics to say it’s “un-American” to use religion as a criteria for selection.
You apparently don’t know the first thing about what being an American is, so please stop reveailing your ignorance and stupidity on this thread.”
I never said that. I said that what you are advocating is un-American and would be unconstitutional. If I said to someone, “you shouldn’t allow blacks into your store,” I may not be saying that the law should be changed, but what I am advocating violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and would be against the law. You are promoting bigotry, and are un-American.
#1 Romney is beholden to whatever his "prophet" might change his mind on.
#2 Joseph Smithdid advocate polygamy (Romney is his disciple). And the year Smith died, he also declared himself a candidate for POTUS.
Are you telling us that Joseph Smith, had he not died in a gun battle exchange where he went down firing, could not have been POTUS because of his polygamy religious beliefs?
So which is it? A POTUS candidate like Smith would not have had to remove his religious belief such as polygamy? Or, could a person committing bigamy have been POTUS?
If a politician advocated Sharia Law, they couldn’t be president, since Sharia Law would overrule the constitution.
Abortion overrides the constitutional inalieble right to life. (That hasn't stopped POTUS candidates before -- now has it?)
On top of that, since when does sheer First Amendment advocacy of something = doing some unconstitutional that pre-empts you from being a POTUS? Can't a POTUS be a theoretical advocate -- exercising First Amendment rights -- without doing something "unconstitutional?"
Godzilla's right. The more you open your mouth, the more stupidity escapes. (You might want to post a guard or two on that keyboard of yours)
“Religion is protected by the Constitution.” LOL, you really need to explain what you mean with that one, so we can help you with your mistaken concepts.”
The First Amendment.
Resty, you need to give it a rest now. You’ve already exposed too much Milt worship, and you grasp of the Constitution and what law is and is not is identifying you as clueless. Go take your nap now. Maybe when you wake up a clue will pop into your head! We can always hope for your deliverance from ignorance.
What happened, did romney quit mormonism during that period? NO, but many principles of mormonsim governed his decisions without open advocation of mormonism.”
You are advocating a state run religion, which is unconstitutional. Romney didn’t have to quit his religion, and the people were not affected by him being a Mormon in Mass.
“Depending upon the president - laws tend to be selectively enforced or ignored - 0bama and holder have done it a lot. Fact is a moslem president WOULD be inclined to support Sharia - by the very nature of the belief system he holds. So come on and get your head out of a hole in the ground.”
We are talking about what a candidate advocates before being elected, and not all Muslims advocate Sharia law in America.
Yes it is different, because Religion is protected by the Constitution.
“Yet the same constitution does NOT prohibit the individual citizens from using what ever criteria for judging the worthiness of a candidate to hold office - in fact the constitution PROTECTS that right.
“BTW, currently abortion has constitutional protection as well - again, are you going to call a person un-american who opposes abortion? Sorry politics, you are flaming out. Spare us your lame version of political correctness saved for the inhabitants of DU.”
But we know there is no right to an abortion in the constitution. You compared evaluating a candidate’s views on abortion to their views on religion, and religion is clearly stated in the constitution, something you don’t value very much, bigot.
Resty, you need to give it a rest now. You’ve already exposed too much Milt worship, and you grasp of the Constitution and what law is and is not is identifying you as clueless. Go take your nap now. Maybe when you wake up a clue will pop into your head! We can always hope for your deliverance from ignorance.”
I am not a Mormon, and I am not voting for Romney. I’m just challenging your bigotry.
Sorry, but you are to stupid to show me how Mitt governed as a Mormon. And you are stupid to see that not all Mormons have the same beliefs.
“So which is it? A POTUS candidate like Smith would not have had to remove his religious belief such as polygamy? Or, could a person committing bigamy have been POTUS?”
A polygamist couldn’t be president, but someone who believes in polygamy could be president, because they are not advocating it for others. Those who favor Sharia Law are advocating it for society. You seem to favor a religious litmus test, but we are not a state run Christian nation.
“Abortion overrides the constitutional inalieble right to life. (That hasn’t stopped POTUS candidates before — now has it?)”
Those presidents had no choice in enforcing that Supreme Ct. ruling. The rest of your response is written horribly.
IT IS NOT UNCONSTUTIONTIAL FOR A PERSON TO USE RELIGION WHEN CHOSING WHO TO VOTE FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please get that through your thick skull!
You must be the slowest person I’ve encountered on FR.
Oh my, so you’re delusional, too? Scary you are. And if you’re not an LDS adherent, you’re not Resty, either. So how is it that you have channeled her so well? ... Oh! I think I get it now ... Halloween is approaching!
I’m not infringing on anyone’s right when I choose to vote for someone or not! I can use whatever criteria I want to make my selection - That is NOT against the constitution.
Making my personal voting choice is nothing like preventing someone else from visiting a store. Your comparison is completely irrelevant.
IT IS NOT UNCONSTUTIONTIAL FOR A PERSON TO USE RELIGION WHEN CHOSING WHO TO VOTE FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please get that through your thick skull!
You must be the slowest person I’ve encountered on FR.”
I’ve already responded to you on that. You’re to stupid to understand what I said.It’s un-American, and is already against the law to prevent someone from being president for that reason. If the best you can do is tell me that you are voicing something that would be unconstitutional, but you voicing it isn’t unconstitutional, then you’re un-American and a bigot.
Oh my, so you’re delusional, too? Scary you are. And if you’re not an LDS adherent, you’re not Resty, either. So how is it that you have channeled her so well? ... Oh! I think I get it now ... Halloween is approaching!”
No, I’m not a bigot like you.
I’m not infringing on anyone’s right when I choose to vote for someone or not! I can use whatever criteria I want to make my selection - That is NOT against the constitution.
Making my personal voting choice is nothing like preventing someone else from visiting a store. Your comparison is completely irrelevant.”
You are on a public forum, trying to convince people to not vote for Romney based on his religion. What you are saying goes against the Constitution, and you must not like the Constitution. My comparison is accurate with the store, because me telling someone not to let blacks shop at their store may not be against the law, but what I’m advocating is against the law.
MORON!
You haven’t proven any violations of the 1st admendment - you stupid, ignorant person. For the millionth time - the 1st admendment forbids the GOVERNMENT from promoting a specific religion.
I’m NOT the GOVERNMENT you moron! I can disagree with anyone’s religion anytime I want to - moron.
Get off of Free Republic, since you obviously don’t understand freedom and the constitution.
Are your replies always this stupid, or are you making a special effort today?
You must have slept through that portion of your civics class. Tell me where I expressly wanted the gov't to LEGISLATE the creation of a state run religion. . . . . .(crickets).
I have advocated the RIGHTS of FREE CITIZENS to use what ever standards THEY deem suitable for evaluating a candidate for office. THAT is still allowed under the CONSTITUTION - as long as thought-police like yourself are held at bay.
We are talking about what a candidate advocates before being elected, and not all Muslims advocate Sharia law in America.
The moslem answer would be "How can you call yourself a believer and “detach” yourself from Shariah (Allah’s Law)? Do you prefer the rule of men to the rule of the Divine? Do you not know the verse where your Lord has told that anyone who rules by other than His Law is a disbeliever?" (from a moslem) Further you must be ignorant about Dearborn MI eh?
But we know there is no right to an abortion in the constitution.
Excuse me - but that is not what the Supreme Courts say - whether we believe it or not - it bears the force of law in the land.
You compared evaluating a candidate’s views on abortion to their views on religion, and religion is clearly stated in the constitution, something you don’t value very much, bigot.
Ooooooooh the bigot card is played again - pretty much evidence that you haven't a clue. romney can practice his mormonism ALL HE WANTS - thats protected under the constitution. I can use his religious beliefs to evaluate his qualification for president ALL I WANT and that is protected by the SAME CONSTITUTION.
It seems our little friend here can only rely upon calling people bigots to stigmatize people that pose irrefutably good arguments as to why the constitution preserves our right to evalate candidates for office by any standard we deem correct. Perhaps he'll pull out that same constitution and really read it some day and leave the thought police to other leftists at DU.
“You are on a public forum, trying to convince people to not vote for Romney based on his religion. What you are saying goes against the Constitution”
No it doesn’t! I have the freedom of speech! I haven’t prevented anyone from doing whatever they won’t to do. You apparently want to stop my free speech, which is un-American.
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.