Posted on 02/04/2012 6:53:17 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“Suuurrrre.”
So that’s it. You think I’m Mormon, and that is particularly abhorrent to you that I’m also taking you to school on the Constitution.
Don’t worry, you’re wrong on the Constitution and have been corrected by a Constitution-loving Protestant. I hope that makes the bitter pill easier to swallow.
I hope you can see that an American who loves the Constitution would rail against your unconstitutional views.
“Sorry honey, you are going to have to show me where the poster says mormons should be prohibited from running. My post #404 shows nothing of the sort.”
This post says Radical Muslims. But it applies to the point which is religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.
Mormons, Muslims, and everyone else is protected under the 1st Amendment - but you knew that already.
Ok, sweetie. Show me one post I have ever made that is anti-Constitutional. Just one.
“Seems our engineer should stick to that, since it is apparent there is a gross lack of understanding what the constitution actually states as well as its application.”
Read the previous posts. You’re mistaken.
So school is in session, not so much for you since you are far smarter than the rest of us, but for those most interested in how all this Constitution and law stuff really works.
I will use my friend Reaganaut as an example if she does not mind.
Reaganaut is an American Citizen as well as a citizen of her local state and town. As an INDIVIDUAL she is free to practice any religion she chooses and no other individual, organization or government can infringe on that right in any fashion. She is also, as an INDIVIDUAL, free to support a person (or be against same) based on ANY criteria she chooses, be it religion, hair color, shoe size, favorite movie or any one of thousands such reasons.
HOWEVER, let us say the Reaganaut the individual serves on a board, commission or what have you that determines eligibility to be on a ballot for public office. The ONLY criteria she and her fellow members can use are those SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution and other laws of the land. Normally these focus on age and residency. Therefore she nor anyone else can remove or block a person from said ballot based on religion, hair color, shoe size, favorite movie or any one of thousands such reasons.
Now to the reverse. In accusing one of being “un American” for choosing to practice their God given Constitutional right to choose for public office FOR THEMSELVES an individual based on any criteria they desire you essentially are doing unto them what you accuse them of, namely acting un-American. Yes they can even say that they feel the person IS UNQUALIFIED for office based on religion, shoe size what have you. What they CANNOT do is in anyway prevent their fellow citizens from being given such a choice to make for themselves by denying said candidate from being on the ballot. Doing such denies their freedom of religion and moral conscience ether by direct action or implied wrong doing for the purposes of “shaming” them into some perceived line to toe.
A further point. No individual on this board, and more specifically in the so called “Inman” group that works towards exposing the very real issues and perils of Mormonism has EVER seriously advocated preventing any LDS member from practicing their faith, period. None would jail them, tie them up, destroy their places of worship or do anything to impede their religious freedom, an argument falsely used against them with sad regularity when they are are accused of same or worse.
Indeed in attempting to silence such individuals either directly, by coercion or by social embarrassment, individuals whose religion requires them to defend their faith, point our heresies and false teachings and save souls via any one of a number of methods their rights to practice their religion is being infringed. As long as they simply point out facts and engage in debate about the religion they take issue with and in no way impede the practitioners of said religion from going about their business beyond such debate they are behaving well with in the confines of our Constitution.
For those who are interested in knowing how things really work I hope this has proven informative.
For the rest, c’est la vie
That's good!
But; the statements WERE made by the LEADERSHIP of MORMONism.
I have NEVER seen any 'non-crazy talk' from subsequent 'leaders' of that church that repudiated these words.
One can ONLY 'assume' that MORMONism has EMBRACED these sentiments, since they have NOT been 'officially' denounced.
I'm glad to see that YOU have rejected them.
That's good!
But; the statements WERE made by the LEADERSHIP of MORMONism.
I have NEVER seen any 'non-crazy talk' from subsequent 'leaders' of that church that repudiated these words.
One can ONLY 'assume' that MORMONism has EMBRACED these sentiments, since they have NOT been 'officially' denounced.
I'm glad to see that YOU have rejected them.
That's true.
It IS a different question. You and the others have beaten the initial question so badly that it is nearly unrecognizable.
It's a NEW question; asked of a non-MORMON.
I shall reiterate:
Do you accept those statesments as being a truthful representation of the situation that MORMON leaders found around them; or not?
No; you are NOT forgiven for such a lack of a desire to collect a LOT more information before you make decisions.
Impossible?
Please...
“I have looked over the thread and find that you indeed are defining how individuals can vote or determine FOR THEMSELVES”
But you decline to cite examples because you and your friends are full of it.
Cite examples in context. You won’t find them. My position has been that you and your friends have been trying to define “Approved Religions” of which you exclude at least Muslims and Mormons - probably others, but I don’t know - the existence of even ONE has no Constitutional basis. #404 and many other places in the thread show this error in thinking.
You’re the ones that are trying to determine which candidates are even allowed to run for office/hold office. I called you out and you guys have been apoplectic, as bullies often are, when faced with a metaphorical sock in the face.
So go back to your nasty little huddle, study the Constitution, and be consistent from here on out, will you, please?
It’s all in the 1st Amendment. It was so important to our founding fathers that they put it there first. The reason is obvious - people like you guys who hate one religion or another and don’t want adherents to participate in our democracy like every other American has the right to do by running for office.
A couple of you have all ready stepped away from this gaggle nonsense. The rest of you should too by affirming the 1st Amendment. I absolutely and resolutely support the right of Mormon (or any other religion) candidates to run for office. I don’t care what crazy religious beliefs they may have - I support their right to run for office, and/or vote any way they wish, for whatever reason.
When you, the gaggle, vote as individuals - pull the lever for whomever you want for whatever reason you wish.
“That’s true.”
Great. That’s why I ignored your post. Nothing personal, it was just off-topic.
So, when a candidate gets over 90% of a certain religion (his own) voting for him in a state that that religion makes up 57% of the population; what can one infer from that data?
You’ve been ACCUSED;
so DEFEND thyself!
Don’t MAKE me have to show any evidence!!
Hold this thought.
TITLE:Mitt's Mormon Army: How It Works
Do you REALLY want to go there?Shall I start a BRAND new thread, with JUST that question, just so you will not be FORCED into deviating from your linear thinking?
“No; you are NOT forgiven for such a lack of a desire to collect a LOT more information before you make decisions.”
You’re uncommonly stubborn in your off-topic diversions.
How about this for agreement: I am not in a million years voting for Mitt Romney - and my reasons do not need to go beyond the purely political.
I don’t have to read your post to know I’m not Mormon, nor do I wish to ever be. I support their right, under the 1st Amendment, to run for office, vote and even spread their religion as they lawfully wish to do without interference. That’s the American way.
O...
K...
...because you and your friends are full of it.
“Do you REALLY want to go there?”
Yes. I was addressing a different issue that evolved from the discussion on the thread. That happens sometimes. You want to discuss Mormonism - which is fine, I just decline to participate because I’m not interested in that. As I said, nothing personal.
“Nothing personal, it was just off-topic.”
That was my post to you - specifically. It is as true now as it was when I posted it.
“...because you and your friends are full of it.”
That was a different post (to someone else) - I most certainly was responding - even attacking the views of individuals/groups who were attacking me - personally on this thread. Fair game both ways.
Are you really selectively quoting things from different posts out of context? Please, that should be beneath you.
“Don’t MAKE me have to show any evidence!!”
You’ll probably need to help. These folks are not very cerebral - They’ve been caught on the outside of the Constitution and are tap-dancing trying to argue a statement I never made.
But really, make sure you you don’t make stuff up by combining partial snippets of different threads like you did in your previous post to me - as I said, it’s really beneath you, and I think upon reflection you’d agree it’s fundamentally dishonest.
I’d accept your apology if you’d give it.
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.