It is still spam and belongs under the religious threads.
Thanks for the admission since you had the other one pulled.
Posted on 08/09/2012 5:40:19 PM PDT by Colofornian
WASHINGTON — Concerning Mormons and Republicans, history offers a large helping of irony. In 1843, an Army officer named John C. Fremont led a geographical expedition of 39 men more than 1,700 miles to the shores of the Great Salt Lake. His report on the journey inspired hounded Mormons to mount their wagons and resettle in the Great Basin.
Thirteen years later in Philadelphia, Fremont became the first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, which adopted a platform opposing the "twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery." The slogan, and the anti-Mormon sentiment behind it, caught on. A Republican rally in Indianapolis, reportedly attended by 60,000 people, included an ox-drawn parade wagon depicting Brigham Young along with six wives dressed in hoop skirts, each with a little Brigham in her arms.
...In the typology of sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell, Mormons remain a rejected "out-group," unlike accepted "in-groups" such as Catholics and Jews. Large majorities of Americans perceive Mormonism as "very different" from their own religious beliefs.
But in this case, the counsel of religious reticence is wrong. Romney should not be afraid to highlight his faith.
SNIP
Questions remain about the role of Mormonism in depressing evangelical political enthusiasm. Some religious conservatives are concerned that a Romney presidency would provide theological legitimacy for a rival, proselytizing faith. But it is unclear how silence from Romney on religion would mitigate this fear. And a portion of the evangelical enthusiasm gap is explainable for another reason entirely: the suspicions of social conservatives about the authenticity of Romney's social conservatism.
SNIP
This does not mean Romney should quote from the Book of Jarom in his convention speech...
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
Allow me to give both a Mormon historical primer on this subject -- as well as clue you in a bit on how Mormon socio-political dictates can come at a whim @ the hand of an 88 yo (or guy in his 90s) edict.
Let's start with the history portion:
We know...
...Mormon founder Joseph Smith was running for POTUS the year he died -- that he had actually declared himself "King" and was mayor of a city (Nauvoo, IL) that was even bigger than Chicago at the time...and Smith was also the head of a large militia force...
...That Smith's ensuing "prophet," Brigham Young, was not only prophet but territorial governor who interfered in bringing Mormons to justice (i.e. Mountain Meadows Massacre).
...that 3rd "prophet" John Taylor eventually hated "the United Order" -- socialist/communist communities that his previous "prophets" put into place in communities like Orderville, Kanab, Brigham City, St. George, Bunkerville, Nevada, etc...they had 200 such communistic communities planned...but became extinct by 1900.
...Lorenzo Snow, the 5th Mormon "prophet" 1898-1901, had even run one of these communist cities (the one in Brigham City, Utah).
You can see the communistic bent rife thru the earlier Lds leaders. (Please also consult row #1 -- right three columns -- of chart in post #16 ... one quote which a Mormon writer even acknowledged it all as "communism" -- and how it inspired Russian communism)
As I said, Lorenzo Snow -- the guy who coined the famous Lds phrase that God was once a man, and men could become gods -- before becoming an Lds "prophet" in 1898, founded the United Order community of Brigham City.
A Utopian author (Bellamy) then visited Brigham City in 1886. That all reinforced Bellamy's ideas in his book.
Lenin got ahold of Bellamy's book; and further injected utopian Marxism into Soviet Russia.
In the interim (back in Utah), this ballad crops up about Orderville after it appears that one of the sons of the Lds presiding elder of that town (Alvin Heaton), murders a pregnant girl (Mary Steavens) he refused to marry in 1890. Apparently, he was convicted & sent to prison. (see Givens, p. 190, in book cited in post #16)
(So much for Mormon "Utopia")
…Joseph Smith’s original idea of his Mormon communistic "United Order" -- was something he falsely prophesied would be everlasting (You can see this STILL on the Mormon "scripture" books ... Doctrine & Covenants 82:20; 104:1)
Since this communistic "united order" was prophesied by Smith to be "everlasting," any given Lds "prophet" can bring them back anytime...In fact, if they don't, that would just prove Joseph Smith was a false prophet...so I think given the choice, they'd prefer bringing communism back.
Do you honestly believe that Romney is the one to do that?
If you think he’s wack, just wait ‘till Elsie shows up on this thread. Compared to “her”, Colofornian is Marcus Aurelius.
I have seen some really freaky posters on FR over the years, but I have to tell you, I think you win the prize for biggest lunatic. Seriously, you are scary. I fully expect to one day turn on the news and see you on it. Have you looked at your own past posts? Maybe if you did, you would see how really crazy you are. I don’t know whether to fear you or feel sorry for you.
You are a bigot, you have obsessive compulsive disorder, you are filled with hate and rage. I imagine you have no friends and everyone that knows you calls you the crazy kook.
Just take a stroll back through your past posting history. You don’t just hate Mitt Romney, you HATE HATE HATE HATE Mormons and you are absolutely obsessed with them for some reason. The question is why. If I was a Mormon, I would be very afraid of you and probably report you as someone to keep an eye on.
Look at your past posts, maybe it will help you realize that you really do need some help.
Colofornian, bashing Mormons for at least 6 years. I didn’t go back past 2006. You are scary, really scary. I forwarded your posting history to several people and they were all just in shock. I was ashamed to even let them know I frequent this site.
2009
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:colofornian/index?more=61990644
2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:colofornian/index?more=51990644
2006
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:colofornian/index?more=41990644
I guess Colofornian was a little worried that he or she might get a knock on their door from some govt. agency. When you post that much hate filled crazy stuff, people start watching you,wondering if you are dangerous. The internet it watched by many people, you can’t get too crazy without getting on watch lists and I am willing to bet, Colofornian is on them.
| THOU SHALT & THOU SHALT NOT RULES OF DISPARAGERS & DISRUPTORS [What Poster is Really Saying] | Repackaged Framing by DPs to Hide REAL message... | Basic problem, approach, and/or sin that disparaging posters need to address/reprent of... | Basic problem, approach, and/or sin that disparaging posters need to address/reprent of... | If disparaging posters were consistent, we would see them... |
| RULE #1: THOU SHALT SHOOT THINE DIGITAL MESSENGERS [Thou shalt redirect our misdirected provocation prompted by scandals, criminal behavior, and whacky beliefs and push them onto (read punish) perceived whistleblowers and once/twice-removed sources passing who dare pass info on] | Indignant that a negative headline & article deemed "offensive" would even see the FR light of day as they tend to object to some perceived 'guilt-by-association' residue | (a) Misdirected provocation; (b) misplaced accountability; (c) preference that negative presentation of info "be swept under the rug than shine a light on a dark corner" mentality might accompany this; | (d) double-standard (hypocritical) response -- as if a second or third-generational source deserves a few verbal slaps while either the source of the scandal or the publishing source gets a free pass | (a) Give similar direct feedback to the original source -- or have basic discernment that the problem is with the original source...whether it's the original publishing source OR the source of the actions that caused the negative news to begin with...for example...a criminal...or some promulator of a whacky belief; (b) Be upset with the original scandal instigators. But we rarely do. This is tantamount to people becoming more upset with pictures of aborted babies being shown in public -- than with the industry and the actions that dismember such pre-borns to begin with! In this way, Mormons should realize -- per the Book of Mormon (Alma 4:10), that the "issue" isn't with second-hand or third-hand "messengers" posting threads on FR...Per Alma 4:10, the "wickedness of church is a stumbling block to those who do not belong to the church." |
| RULE #2: THOU SHALT FOLLOW MY PERFECT SPIRITUAL VISION & REMOVE THINE BEAMS & LOGS IN THINE OWN EYE | Tries to come across as Pseudo-'Biblical': Thou shalt take thy beam/log out from thine own eye. [The 'Thou Shalt Not' version of this is: "Thou shalt not judge."] | (a) Assumes, any "beams" in their own eyes have been removed, allowing them to have the perfect spiritual vision to castigate other posters. Having supposedly assessed the situation with this perfect spiritual vision, "obviously" the ones being disparaged need to join their "perfect vision club" so that all posters can be on the same "page"; (b) This is self-refuting: If a person cannot 'judge' someone else, then what business is it for a DP to come in and 'judge' another poster? | (c) Epic failure re" lack of Biblical understanding re: how we as Christians can righteously judge, having the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2) -- and that this is simply called "discernment"...(d) This also becomes quite "rich" if the message is NOT to "judge" -- all as they engage in #3...judging others' inward motives, temperaments and dispositions! | Well, under (c) above -- if such discernment ("judgment") wasn't exercised, EVERYTHING in the world would be tolerated and even parents would have no basis for passing on moral direction to their children! Even commenting negatively on a couple living together as counsel for their own kids would be dismissed as "judgmental" |
| RULE #3: THOU INNER MOTIVATIONS, TEMPERAMENTS, AND DISPOSITIONS SHALL BE PSYCHO-ANALYZED BY COMPLETE STRANGERS! (SELF-APPOINTED 'DR.' ME!) | (Assumes accusatory posture, often stereotyping & may engage in spiritual or moral one-upsmanship) | (a) JUDGING (going extremely beyond scope of available info to them): Here, DPs go beyond judging external fruit, beginning to harshly judge inward motivations, temperaments and dispositions of complete strangers. They either psycho-analyze or use Magic 8-balls or urims & thummims or some unknown basis for accomplishing this. And they are unapologetic about offering their uninvited lay psychology services! 1 Samuel 16:7 in the Old Testament says that ONLY God knows the inner man; that men look only upon the OUTER aspects of others...Such disparaging posters thus assume the sovereign and omniscient role of God to make such slanderous judgments | (b) If the poster targeted by a DP is ex-Lds, all manner of assumptions as to why the Mormon left are usually superimposed upon the poster's personal history | ...to react the same way to other similar online discussions. Surprisingly, these are the same posters who claim nobody could possibly know the status of any individual's relationship with God (heaven vs. hell is usually context of such discussion)...if these people are so "hands-off" here in assessing others' spirituality, why is the supposedly near-complete psychosis of others right at their beck and call for them to gossip at will? |
| RULE #4: THOU SHALT NOT SPIRITUALLY WARN OTHERS OR CONFRONT THEM (Yes, I know others -- including Lds missionaries & Lds lay people are accorded this freedom...but sorry, this religious liberty is not to be exercised on this forum minus my frown) | (DP may object to the forum/venue this is being done; | In a word, "hypocrisy" and self-refuting: DPs have no qualms about confronting YOU re: supposedly "objectionable" religious convictions...or no qualms about warning YOU re: expressing those convictions! What's conveyed is "I have a set-straight 'license' & I'm setting you straight; so please stop trying to set others straight or I'll have to keep returning to these threads in order to try to set you straight!" | (b) If Lds & their allies want people to respect the motivations of Lds missionaries, & respect their freedom to "warn" as they not only see fit but as they interpret your sacred "scriptures," then please exchange the same common courtesy and honor/respect posters' rights to spiritually warn as led by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Why begrudge us the same freedom extended to Lds missionaries?) What is supposedly good "medicine" for you is NOT dosage that is to be applied to, say, Lds missionaries who engage in some kind of "ministry" of warning others! For example, Mormons may cite D&C 101:63 about "wisdom...concerning all the churches" to be shown "inasmuch as they are willing to be guided in a right and proper way for their salvation" Or Mormon leaders like 10th "prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith might in an Lds church published book (Answers to Gospel Questions) may outline key mandates of an Lds missionary. In both volumes 1 and 4, Joseph Fielding Smith cited the same D&C passage: 88:81-82: "Behold, I sent you out to testify and WARN the people, and it becometh every man who hath been WARNED to WARN his neighbor. Therefore, they are left without excuse, and their sins are upon their own heads." Joseph Fielding Smith then, after citing these verses in volumes 1 and 4, mentioned the following: "This commission to go forth which was given in the beginning is still in force and binding on every missionary who goes forth today to declare the gospel of salvation in the world." (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. I, p. 134, 1957/1979) And: "...there are certain commandments missionaries should remember...they are sent not only to preach and bear testimony and bring people to repentance...but to WARN ALL men..." (Vol. 4, p. 55 1963/1979) | ...wage some kind of crusade vs. 52,000 Lds missionaries & Lds.org for its slanderous accusations of Christians and worldwide Christianity |
| RULE #5: 'I CAN BASH YOU & ATTACK YOU FOR ANY PERCEIVED 'BASHING' & 'ATTACKING' OF OTHERS; SIMPLY PUT, OTHERS ARE 'OFF-LIMITS'...WHEREAS YOU ARE FAIR GAME!' | Thou Shalt Not Bash or Attack. ['Thou Shalt Version': Thou Shalt speak respectfully to others -- oft' coupled w/basic accusations of being "hateful" or "haters," animosity or hostility..."And if you dare expose and challenge false teachings, then I as a DP critic will try to challenge and expose you -- all for you exposing and challenging others!"] | (a) Hypocrisy -- double-standards/two-faced; (b) Multi-cultural indoctrination or victim persecution complex: Basic failure to distinguish/discern between others tackling worldviews/beliefs/convictions/ISMs vs. 'slam' against identity of people embracing these worldviews, beliefs & convictions...they mistake negative presentations of 'content' with 'context'. For example, one speaking quite negatively of the homosexual lifestyle doesn't automatically "hate" his homosexual neighbor. (I'm afraid too many who believe that have bought into to Homosexuality 101 as taught in some of American's corporations and college campuses). | (c) When DPs pull out the labels of "hateful," "haters," "hate-mongering," "animosity" and "hostility" they often confuse these with efforts to contend for the Christian faith, refute false teachings, warn vs. heresies, etc. (d) Overall, they usually misdiagnose exchanges within a thread, showing lack of environmental dynamics' discernment. Sometimes, some DP engage in projecting -- where they take past/current conflicts within their own lives and read them into scenarios of open disagreement expressed by others. (e) When Mormons speak evil of posters, they are disobeying a Joseph Smith commandment: "thou shalt not speak evil of thy neighbor" (D&C 42:27) | ...Perceive ALL negative comments as "bashing" or "attacking" -- & therefore, they would ne'er speak negatively about anybody or anything! Example from Mormonism: Do Lds posters who 'see' 'bashing' going on equally condemn Lds 'prophets' and 'apostles' who based Christians? If not, they often have tried turning an open forum like FR into a 'one-way street.' What's "interesting" is that it then seems that Lds think it's perfectly 'OK' to have a Presidential candidate who sustains bashers of Christians and Christianity, yet if any word is lifted up that dares question the Lds industry of bashing Christians, look out! |
| RULE #6: 'TOLERANCE FOR ME; BUT NOT FOR THEE' (Or to put it another way: "I have a license to be intolerant toward your religious convictions and expressions -- all as I chew you out for exercising your right to express your own religious convictions!" And what are common in these expressions? Simply that we don't cuddle up to religious falsehoods, deceptions, and other aspects that the Bible warns us not to "tolerate" as counterfeit Christianity | Thou Shalt Not Be Intolerant or a 'Bigot' ['Thou Shalt' version of this is: "This country was founded on religious liberty" -- implying some protection from all critiques accompanied such liberty...or 'Thou Shalt be civil' -- but usually redefined in a multi-cultural way...meaning full acceptance of all religious tenets] | (a) Hypocrisy -- double-standards/two-faced; (b) Hauling out the "B" word is a common debate tactic and a common liberal tactic; Once you quickly assign stereotyped labels, you shut down discussion & just write them off because you've already "labeled" "their kind" -- and hence you don't have to discover anything specifically distinct about any given individual; | (c) Although patience IS a virtue -- as well as a certain level of civility, respect and giving honor; but not all lifestyles and worldviews are to be respected -- and thus, Biblically speaking, tolerance is NOT usually presented as a virtue | ...address some extremely negative Mormon poor portrayals of the Christian church? (Or is "tolerance" and "Religious liberty" a one-way street for Mormons?) ...The day I start seeing online "bigot patrols" start trying to wield across-the-board accountability (vs. Lds, Inc.) is the day I'll perk up to somebody who's choosing to act in a consistent manner. I think we all prefer consistency vs. double-minded, double-standard, hypocritical actions and words. |
| RULE #7: THOU SHALT SHOTGUN-BLAST GENERIC BROADSIDES WITH VAGUE SLAMS & BASHES AGAINST MULTIPLE POSTERS | (Often, allies of cultists attempting a defense of them will provide a bad illustration is given meant as some sort of "parallel" scenario and therefore expect somehow that the exposition of a cult and its beliefs should be bypassed accordingly) | Disparaging posters tend to cast a broad net with references to anonymous posters on a thread (use of "some" and "Any," etc.)...As FR poster Elsie stated: Such use of "VAGUE references that avoid the INDIVIDUAL nomenclature" allows disparaging posters to impugn with safety." 'Tis no accountability for their "corporate pool" accusations because they can't be pinned down exactly who they're critiquing | Are vague accusations all DPs can do? Didn't DP parents ever teach them that if they're going to criticize to be specific? | ...to parent the same way...For example...any time a child does something worthy of discipline, a DP could discipline them minus telling them what they are being disciplined for! |
| RULE #8: THOU SHALT NOT ROCK THY POLITICAL BOAT OF COALESCING LOOSE-KNIT CONSERVATIVE POPULATION SEGMENTS | Some DPs suggest that certain conservative sub-groups -- Lds, for example -- will be "scared away" if the religious differences are highlighted or over-concentrated upon (one-way street). Wow! How "cuddly" we are supposedly here...should we commence signing Kum-bay-yah? (An appeal is usually made to socio-political conservative nature of a particular group's beliefs -- for example, Mormons -- currently under the microscope) | (a) So, if being "unity-conscientious" = typical accusations we see vs. skeptics about taking unity too far, no thanks. If these "unity advocates" were really "unity ambassadors," I think we'd find more winsome words elsewhere. | (b) The MAIN implication is that those who point out problematic beliefs of groups like Mormons are somehow being "divisive." The length of time -- and the intensity -- at which Mormons have been divisive toward Christians by taking a socio-political "scorched earth" approach to burying worldwide Christianity is all but neglected. | (a) ... were they so concerned about "conservative unity," DPs would highly "encourage" leadership of the Mormon church to ease up on calling us Christians "apostates" (I mean, how is that different than Muslims calling us Christians "infidels?") (b) When will DPs address Lds "scripture"--the most popular Mormon scripture of all--that says the Christians professors of faith are 100% "corrupt?" (including all Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox) (c) When will DPs address that same Lds "scripture" -- that says 100% of Christians creeds are an "abomination" to the Mormon god? (Pull up online "Joseph Smith - History" in the "Pearl of Great Price" and read vv. 18-20 for yourself) Mormons call us as being part of the Church of the devil (1 Nephi 14:9-10, Book of Mormon). Mormons imply we're part of false & dead church (Doctrine & Covenants 1:30) What? DPs don't think these accusations by Mormons somehow "disrupt" this pretense -- this false front -- of "unity" they want to somehow preserve? It's Mormon allies like these that always seem to want engage in a one-way street: They want to address a few FReepers -- as if we were capable of disrupting "unity"; but they don't seemingly want to address the 52,000 Lds missionaries out and about who don't let a week -- and often each day -- go by without talking about the so-called universal "apostasy" and "restoration." That doesn't bother them? (If not, why not?) Or, somehow, what? They don't mind all those quoted references above being put online and in print worldwide in hundreds of languages?...yet they're concerned about a few English-only posters who can't hold a candle to the publishing power of Lds, Inc.? |
| RULE #9: THOU SHALT NOT CONFUSE MY LIMITED CONCENTRATION -- MY ABILITY TO ONLY HANDLE ONE ISSUE AT A TIME [Overchallenged due to socio-political A.D.D when confronted with the suggestion that we citizens should be multi-tasking re: our concerns...'Thou Shalt' version of this is: 'Thou Shalt K.I.S.S. -- Keep It Simple Stupid -- for me by simplifying one target at a time...I can't juggle more than one concern" | (This is a common objection where posters impose the idea that we should ONLY be focusing on Islam; or ONLY be focusing on liberals & socialists; or ONLY be focusing on Obama; etc. I understand their concern about distractions and diluted levels of concentration, but we've ALWAYS been a nation of multi-taskers!) | Simply put, these posters can't multi-task...this is usually an appeal from what I reference as 'A.D.D.' type of posters | Essentially, this tends to reveal a either a lack of acknowledgement about hell's realities -- or a sort of universalism where little urgency exists to reach those in new religions and the cults | ...--had they been alive in 1942, any DP-like Americans would have only been involved in fighting the Japanese and not the Germans. Why? They just don't know how to multi-task! |
| RULE #10: THOU SHALT KEEP 'RELIGION' HERMETICALLY SEALED FROM ALL THINGS POLITICAL [Having likely gutted out faith as having relevance for their own public life, of course they would likewise narrow a candidate's character as not being informed by religion, other-worldly worldviews, social views of faith-life, etc.] | One appeal: "FR is a 'political' Web site" (implying religious considerations are irrelevant); Or, if a Mormon had true conservative political credentials, who cares their level of discernment in the most important area of their life? | Are DPs calling to keep "religion" hermetically sealed so that 0% of it bleeds over into the public square? Isn't our life to be integrated vs. compartmentalized? Some would like to keep "religion" hermetically sealed from "politics"...and ne'er the 'twain shall meet. Yet the extremely liberal Washington Post poured its worldview into a Dec. 2011 headline -- calling "religion" an "ugly head"...meaning it believes "religion" needs to bury their head and keep it buried. Imagine that. The very liberal Washington Post and the small-but-focused chorus of "let's-keep-religion-out-of-analyzing Romney" voices we hear around FR all arrive at the same conclusion: Religion doesn't belong in the Public Square. I guess this group of FRs could show their "high-five" agreement with the Post and contact them to thank them for reinforcing their worldview. | One of our ethical problems in our nation is that some want to make leadership only about policies and administrative know-how, We need to elevate character considerations to be inclusive of traits such as vulnerability to deception. Simply put, a POTUS goes beyond administrative duties. Discernment is a very important character trait...and yet that's not commonly referenced as a POTUS duty. | ...active on FR telling other FREEPERs to keep from delving into Rev. Jeremiah Wright stories during the '08 Obama campaign; or they would have been all over Mitt Romney in '07 when he told the Christian Science Monitor that he would not place a Muslim on his Cabinet...the "hermetically sealed" advocates would have been vying for the political coverage in '07-'08 to keep away from that religious focus...no such traces can be found of this angle on FR |
| RULE #11: THOU SHALT 'OUTNICE' JESUS, THE APOSTLE PAUL, JOHN THE BAPTIST, AND THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS! | These posters attempt to serve as THE 'brand managers' for the reputation of Jesus Christ, claiming to have THE exclusive scoop on how Christ comprehensively treated everybody. They claim, "This is not Christ's way of treating others" or "We need to reflect Christ's love" -- insinuating Jesus or other Biblical characters never engaged in what might be labeled "tough love" | (a) This is self-refuting: If they want us nicer than Jesus, etc...why aren't they 'outnicing' Jesus toward us? (b) The most basic problem is a neglect of Biblical recognition of various leaders' treatment of legalistic Pharisees and false disciple-mongers...By extension, by condemning contemporary tough love approaches, they wind up condemning similar actions coming from Biblical characters | (b) Lack of basic Biblical discernment to how Jesus, the apostle Paul, Apollos and others differentiated between legalistic Jews (the Pharisees) and pagan polytheists and people mired in sin; This can be summed up as: Failure to understand the Biblical concept of comforting the afflicted; and "afflicting the comfortable"; This also places weight on only one side of the New Testament -- speaking the truth in love, while neglecting 1 Cor. 13:6: "Love rejoices in the truth." Forthrightness, honesty, warning, rebuking, being a truth-teller are all positive qualities in the Bible which DPs often tred upon minus realizing it. | ...to emulate Jesus (Matt. 23; John 8; etc.) the apostle Paul (Acts 20:29-31); Acts 19:8; 2 Cor. 10:3-5; Titus 1:9-10; Acts 17:2-4; 18:4; John the Baptist (Luke 3:19-20), Apollos (Acts 18:28) and other Biblical leaders... |
I looked you up to ask where the other thread moved to and see your comment. They just pulled an entire 500 post thread? Are anyone’s comments archived or is the whole thing “poof” as if it never happened?
So you are basing your view of Mormonism on a couple of people who are nice.
wow, How enlightened of you.
Why not learn about it before you defend it, just saying.
"Bigot" is etymologically tied to "Beguines."
It was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood, with the meaning of attaching "excessive devotion" to this sisterhood...(yeah, the devoted do get slapped around a bit).
So, “bigot” in its original usage was tied to perceived intolerance. (I don’t know if the Beguines were actually intolerant or not). The Beguines were probably at least perceived as practicing "spiritual one-upsmanship"--and others didn't like it--they felt looked down upon. Perhaps they felt scorned because such sisterhoods tended to isolate themselves more and because of that, the Beguines perhaps were perceived as being spiritually snooty ("we don't like how excessively devoted they are").
But to wind this back to what I said. "Bigot" is originally tied to "excessive devotion." I suppose it's possible that the Beguines were indeed "excessively devoted." (It's also just as possible that the other Catholics' perception was largely wrong...but once a reputation develops...). But let's just say they were excessively devoted.
The ad-hominem label-slinging is all some posters have...they simply weren't equipped to ever discuss content...so name-slinging it is...
But for those who wish to insist on a contemporary usage of that term -- that "bigot" means "intolerant" -- then you need to answer a simple question once raised by FREEPER Osage Orange:
* Aren't some posters showing religious intolerance toward us?
* On what grounds is their "intolerance" so "allowable" [and therefore elitist], whereas anyone else's perceived "intolerance" is called into question?
It never happened. Now they can spread their hate all over again. I wish it was still up. I don’t mind the insults. Don’t like the cussing, but I have literally been everywhere and grown a thick skin. Sad. It is all gone now.
You betcha! I'm on a GOD/family/country site and NOT a godless site.
Kooky? That... is an understatement... a HUGE understatement. I think that dude escaped from the nut house.
KENNEDY was not godless! How telling the DIFFERENCE isn't obvious to you.
PSYCHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!That is spamming!! Seek help!
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.