Replies

I said mormonism is founded on anti-Christian doctrine. You deny that apparently.

I deny nothing but those who would deny the right of free exercise of one's chosen faith as long as it doesn't use violence.

Whatever doctrines Mormons, Jews, Baptists, Catholics their conscience allows isn't my business unless they try to force it upon me and others.

As for this "whore of Babylon" business. The pope thought of Martin Luther(the original one)was the Anti-Christ and Luther in turn, spoke of the pope as the Anti-Christ as well. So nobodies hands are clean in this "Mine faith is closer to God than thys". So please stop reciting tiresome doctrine to me. I'd say this to preachy Mormons as well. It has inspires no effect but the urge to skip the "cut and paste" lectures.

Jesus was very hard on the Pharisees, accusing them of hypocrisy and of being children of the Devil for their lying ways. The Pharisees also accused Jesus of many heinous things, in particular being a liar. Problem was that factually, Jesus had the better case. For example, why they never proved a lie in Jesus, they demonstrated their own propensity for lying by throwing together that kangaroo court, complete with hastily assembled false witnesses, running a malicious prosecution to get a false conviction. So from your point of view, is there a moral equivalency between Jesus and the Pharisees? Or was one right and the other wrong?

I only ask because your whole argument seems based on the principle of moral equivalency between any two religions. Not that I know anything about where you actually stand. I don’t. But I do know (or I should say believe) that this moral equivalency approach is mainly postmodern hokum designed to attack the belief in truth itself, i.e., the notion that some things are true and the opposite of those things are false. Aristotle’s great gift to logic, the principle of non-contradiction, is a great obstacle to the left’s demographic strategy of eternally warring micro-factions, and it is fought with vigor, and not the least weapon in that fight is the idea that all belief systems are created equal, when in fact they are not.

True, all humans come gifted by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, but their beliefs are subject to peer review and criticism, and voting is a great mechanism for doing just that. For example, Marxism is a discredited belief system, entailing what amounts to religious adherence to a particular view of how the world works, and Obama and company will, hopefully, be roundly critiqued this fall for their bizarre utopian fantasies.

So my question to you is this: Is there a moral equivalency there? Are free markets and Marxist totalitarian/utopian impulses equally defensible? No? Then why not be free to compare any other pair of contrasting, mutually exclusive ideas? Why not be free to express our own beliefs about those ideas at the voting booth? Is your definition of bigotry really so broad it encompasses the free exercise of critical thinking skills?