Posted on 05/27/2012 9:35:33 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
The irony we see on these threads from the self-appointed "Bigot patrol" (a loose-knit term I've applied to other posters) is that they tend to show themselves when they are rather offended -- intolerant if you will -- about certain religious comments.
Does that apply to you?
Are you intolerant of certain religious comments made within this thread?
If so, how is your intolerance to be differentiated from what you deem as religious "bigotry?"
You see, from my perspective about these religious debates, is that those who accuse others of religious tolerance -- all while being religiously intolerant of others' religious comments -- makes it all appear to be rather self-refuting.
“...Romney is an outlier....” - only if you choose to warp the meaning.
“Reading my mind” is against the rules here - shame, shame.
I didn’t realize that asking a very simple, very easy question was so fraught with deeper meaning - I asked the question because I was interested in the answer; or, at least, I thought I did. Maybe a visit to the shrink is in order.
In the Old Testament, God instructed Hosea to marry a prostitute (Gomer) who kept her "cottage industry" going post-marriage. Just because that's in the Bible, and God even sanctioned it in this case, you're not going to suggest that this is a viable "social institution" worth propping up for society, are you?
Did he [Martin Luther] not see devils?
(And this offends your modern sensibilities? Oh. We see)
Did he not lead a revolt against the one true Church and the followers of St. Peter, upon who Christ built his Church?
And were not some of the Popes' actions in medievel and later times' worth revolting against? (Or are you willing to go on record defending all of those things done in the name of the church???)
Oh, and btw, "the church" has ALWAYS been flesh and blood, not brick and mortar; an organism, not an "organization" or institution. The very Greek word for "church" -- ecclesia -- means "called-out ones." Ones = certain PEOPLE -- who are the God-built temple of the Holy Spirit.
No...it's historically factual that (R) POTUS candidates have been quite numerically distant from (D) POTUS candidates in given states.
Secondly, poll-wise, that historically factual data has been reinforced as not changing in this 2012 race.
So you're now claiming that Romney isn't numerically distant in all/most/many of these states? Really? And even if we can't agree upon which states are in that category, you've already conceded OR & CA to Obama.
That concession can only be done with an obvious realization that Romney has far too much ground to make up in those states. Hence, Romney is numerically distant -- and has ZERO chance of winning those states.
Wow. Best response I’ve ever seen from a Goode supporter. Very well thought out, coherent, and reasonable. Great post.
“The irony we see on these threads from the self-appointed “Bigot patrol” (a loose-knit term I’ve applied to other posters) is that they tend to show themselves when they are rather offended — intolerant if you will — about certain religious comments.
“Does that apply to you?
“Are you intolerant of certain religious comments made within this thread?
“If so, how is your intolerance to be differentiated from what you deem as religious “bigotry?””
Williams - you see how the question mark works? Is there any doubt that you and I are being accused of bigotry by innuendo?
I find the leading sentence, “The irony we see on these threads from the self-appointed...” to be EXTREMELY ironic and informative.
Colofornian - in the world I come from, the clealy displayed hatred of Mormon”ISM” (quaint, that affectation) is openly, plainly and honestly called “bigotry”, and where I come from, honest men are not afraid of honest words.
I am not a Hindu, nor Muslim, nor Morman, nor Catholic - BUT I can spot anti-any-of-those bigotry a mile away.
IOW, you concede that you are "bigoted" intolerant of my religious views vs. cults.
Well, fine. Be intolerant vs. my views; I will continue to object to certain worldviews.
Lest you think I am suddenly making up my convictions-on-the-fly to address personally you and/or Williams, allow me to quote from a post from Nov. 1, 2011...excerpt below the **********:
*************************
All "bigoted" means = intolerant
All "cannot stand" = intolerant
So you are intolerant of Mitt Romney based upon his stances
Now here's the interesting part. Mormons are my relatives. Highly valuable people. Worth the love.
Yet, for a reason, you have "personalized" what you can not stand -- personalized it in a person (Mitt Romney).
Me? I get along with the Mormons in my life. They are worth the love exchanged. I make a distinction 'tween the "ISM" and the person, much the same way many will treat the homosexual well and yet vehemently oppose the homosexual agenda.
You've bought into the liberal, homosexual activist worldview that if you oppose the agenda, you oppose the person, and are therefore guilty of bigotry. (You can thank the MSM and your liberal campus educators for such a perspective gleaned from them)
According to your perspective -- if you were to embrace any modicum of consistency, that is, the Christian and conservative elements in society should shut down any and all opposition to homosexual activist demands because that, too, is deemed as "bigotry."
Here's the fact: Everybody is tolerant and everybody is intolerant of something. Everybody draws the line somewhere on what they won't oppose. But opposition in and of itself does not = "hate" (I get the feeling some people grew up in homes of conflict and project any disagreement as hate-filled)
Yet you are bigoted toward religious views (like mine) because you draw the line at some point. It shows you are intolerant of some things. I say, "Well, good for you. Everybody's intolerant of some things. And some people are tolerant of false teachers, deception, and counterfeiters." (That's just the way things run)
But bottom line, "tolerance" is not touted as any great virtue in the Bible. Why? Because it's so dependent upon what is being discussed! It actually falls more into the licentious camp.
******************************
Upon posting the above, poster Eternal Vigilance posted:
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G.K. Chesterton
Also, back in May 2010 a FR poster wrote, "I now understand that Colofornian is an anti-Mormon bigot."
Osage Orange responded: "Oh...well that's original. So does that make you an anti-anti-mormon bigot? I guess it does, eh?"
So...Giles...are you an anti-anti-MormonISM bigot?
In that same thread, I responded to the original poster the excerpt below:
*************************
In light of the origin of the word "bigot" I find all this a bit ironic. Originally, the word “bigot” was developed in a Catholic context & wasn't originally aimed at anyone outside of a historic Christian (Catholic) context.
"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, you’re right...in one way in that “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. If that's the name-slinging you wish to engage in...I'll just claim a historical context.
But if you want to insist on a contemporary usage of that term -- that "bigot" means "intolerant" -- then you need to answer Osage Orange's Q. Because aren't you showing religious intolerance toward us? On what grounds is your "intolerance" so "allowable" and therefore elitist, whereas anyone else's perceived "intolerance" is called into question?
STOP with insisting that I havee “conceded OR & CA” in order to make a further point. You can repeat that rubbish as long as you like, and it doesn’t make it true. The first time I said there wss a sliver of a chance in OR - you rushed to call that a concession. I then very clearly inforrmed you that I don’t concede OR, that I consider it less likely than WA, and you persist in YOUR characterization of what I meant (something against the RF club rules, I thought). Make your arguments honestly.
Outlier - A value far from most others in a set of data.
California 2008 election results:
1) 61.0% - Obama
2) 37.0% - McCain
3) 2.0% - everybody else
Any statistician or mathematician will easily identify #3 as the outliers (that’s where Goode will be in 2012) To call 37% an outlier is warping the meaning. HISTORY has nothing to do with outliers. The same data point can be in the same position over centuries, but simply because it “never has a chance” of exceeding the higher data point does not make it an outlier. No statistician will ignore a result of 37%. Quick clue - when “everybody else” is either lumped together in a 2% slice or not mentioned - BINGO! They are statistical outliers!
This is now so far off topic it is mere silliness.
Recognizing a bigoted statement, action or opinion does not make one a bigot, and it is absurd to claim that it does.
The repeated actions on this board of posting an anti-ISM screed, waiting for folks to respond, then pouncing 2, 3, 4 at a time - sometimes calling in others to witness the feeding frenzy - for something as benign as commenting in a way that does not loudly declare that one is ANTI_ISM!!! - that practice on this forum has lead many “visitors” to quickly discern a bigotry (btw - much that is true is not original, so the “that’s original, are you an anti-anti...” response is a complete non sequitur.
I am not the lone observer of this practice. The interesting irony is that you have created an insular orthodoxy around hating a specific insular orthodoxy - and woe betide the unwitting “wanderer” who dares ventures here without promptly displaying their hatred for the ISM. Similar to news items about folks wandering into the “wrong” neighborhood. Just wondering - would the person who commenting on the bigotry of those who killed the carload of folks “not from around here” be rightly considered a bigot himself?
#1...McCAIN NEVER had a chance in CA...
#2...If a football team knows they never have a chance vs. another team -- and winds up losing 61-37...there's no consolation in that just because they can point to another team that lost to them 61-2.
Runner-up roles count only in horse-racing.
Sure it does. It says a LOT about you and your willingness to "tolerate" falsehoods...counterfeits...and cults.
And when this is integrated politically, it tells us that people who tend to hold these convictions also think it would be "bigoted" to consider the jihadist worldviews of a Muslim candidate...
Or it would be "bigoted" to consider the other-worldly worldviews of a Scientologist candidate...[Where this weighs in is a "character" issue -- a candidate's gullibility to deception...which applies not only to the religious realm but also foreign policy, etc...Discernment of a candidate is a character issue oft' forgotten in people who think of formal "job descriptions"...Yet you want to reduce this all to mere "bigotry" -- as if ONLY the worldview of the evaluative voter matters and ne'er the worldview of the candidate under consideration...how ludicrous]
I can just see the day...the year is 2024...a Satanist candidate runs for POTUS...and you rush in to threads to lecture and scold posters for highlighting the Satanic beliefs of that candidate...I suppose you would be consistent in calling them "bigots," too, eh?
Or why even bother with hypotheticals? There's been COUNTLESS threads on FR highlighting both the supposed closet Muslim views of Obama...along with his ties to Jeremiah Wright.
I supposed you've displayed your convictions in those threads, too, eh? Have you gone in there and accused others of being "bigots" vs. Islam? No? Why how convenient?
And if not, then how religiously dual-faced and hypocritical.
If you're speaking out of religious conviction here in your ongoing tirade vs. perceived "bigotry," then you've got a LOT of work to do on other threads...Better get your lecture tour in order.
Otherwise, I openly challenge and question you on your lack of consistency...which has already been well-displayed by your open resistance to applying your Virgil Goode win (say the state of CA) vs. the same Q as applied to Mitt Romney (can he win the state of CA?).
(Yes...we noted your 7 Q marks in post #204 alone...you jumped right out of the starting block on this thread w/em...)
I thought you wuzn't gonna whine?
You can make a valid point without making erroneous assumptions about people, or being needlessly abrasive.
Next thing ya know; we'll be getting a lecture on posting without lecturing...
What's so dang hard to understand??
All non-FIs are allowed to whine as long as they pose their whines as a lecture.
Willy and you can ALSO denegrate if you wish; just follow the RULES.
Even though they ARE pesky and limit our sometimes peppery vocabulary.
1/3
Actually, part of what's being addressed here is your own religious worldviews 100% apart from whatever you believe or don't believe about Mormonism.
For example, your very Qs in post #204 imply -- and perhaps you could clarify them -- but they imply that you "compartmentalize" "religion" from "politics."
I don't embrace that silliness. People integrate their other-worldly worldviews into all areas of life.
What Qs in post #204 am I referencing?
These: ...is there concern from the antiMormonISM crowd here that if Romney is elected president that his belief in MormonISM will have some terrible effect on our country (worse than that of a second Obama presidency)? If so, what is that fear, what is the damage that you perceive Romney will visit upon the US? ... Do you believe Romney is as evil a choice as Obama, or worse? If so, why? Is it related to his belief in the LDS teachings??
***********
...woe betide the unwitting “wanderer” who dares ventures here without promptly displaying their hatred for the ISM
Well, first of all, since I believe you have some Biblical moorings in your life, please show us from the Bible where we as Christians are ever called to be "neutral" toward falsehoods?
2 Cor. 10:3-5 and Jude 3 and Titus 1:9 are enough verses for me where Paul, etc. said there is a "battleground" mentality Christians are to have vs. all that elevates itself "against the knowledge of God": 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:5)
You seemed to have a rather feeble approach to approaching falsehoods...as evidenced by what you said in post #204: ...this is a discussion of ISM - I got that. I don’t believe in it, don’t defend it, never have
Don't overwhelm us if you ever applied this same lack of passion to...say, Obama, Dems, liberals, or pro-aborts!
Well; I sure am!!
And most of them are statements that have been made by MORMONs that I have posted!
Wow - your leaps in logic are astounding, I am surprised they are not crippling.
I’ll just leave it at this - you infer and assume things about me that are wholly without foundation or merit - regardless of whatever rationalization you may offer henceforth.
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.