Mitt Romney said No to an Apostle

[Marcus]

The point is, it is not acceptable to force those who don't believe in your type of deity to live by what you say are your deity's rules.

Why are you making a point that many of us don’t take issue with? Who is your audience?

Regards,
MG

You excerpted my post and took out the part which answered your question exactly, which point about 4 other posters also made to you. Why play these games?

As is often the case we come to an impasse created by differing views concerning Christ. Is he or isn’t he who Christians proclaim him to be...

You are completely missing the point. It is irrelevant what type of deity YOU or anyone else believes in, or does not believe in.

The point is, it is not acceptable to force those who don't believe in your type of deity to live by what you say are your deity's rules.

...No rocket science there...

One would think.

[Marcus]

...And it goes both ways. Secular beliefs and restrictions and/or mandates should not be forced on religious folks....

No, it doesn't. But others already explained it quite well, so i'll just quote them:

The idea that secular rules are forced on religious folk is interesting. It does happen that religious organizations are required to follow the same rules as everyone else. I don’t often see religious people being FORCED to violate their religion, except that they perceive their religion as exempting them from following society’s general rules.

For example, the idea that a religious person would complain about the taxes they pay being used to fund things they don’t agree with. In my view, that’s just tough. Religion is not a “get out of society’s common burdens” card. We all object to something or other the government does. Religion would become a dodge if it were about avoiding those burdens. Some think it does entitle one to those exemptions.

Government is the secular realm, one that all citizens partake in without special exemptions or unique privileges for one group.

[MG 2.0]

Why are you making a point that many of us don’t take issue with? Who is your audience?

Regards,
MG

You excerpted my post and took out the part which answered your question exactly, which point about 4 other posters also made to you. Why play these games?

You are completely missing the point. It is irrelevant what type of deity YOU or anyone else believes in, or does not believe in.

The point is, it is not acceptable to force those who don't believe in your type of deity to live by what you say are your deity's rules.


One would think.

In my answer to Kishkumen I said, “Secular beliefs and restrictions and/or mandates should not be forced on religious folks.”

And visa versa.

It is up to the politicians to negotiate and find the middle ground where all parties can coexist in peace. I am happy to leave that to those that make those decisions. What other choice is there?

For my part all I can do is vote for those that hold similar values to my own. And you have that same right and opportunity.

I’m not sure what the point is that you’re wanting to argue about.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The idea that secular rules are forced on religious folk is interesting. It does happen that religious organizations are required to follow the same rules as everyone else. I don’t often see religious people being FORCED to violate their religion, except that they perceive their religion as exempting them from following society’s general rules.

For example, the idea that a religious person would complain about the taxes they pay being used to fund things they don’t agree with. In my view, that’s just tough. Religion is not a “get out of society’s common burdens” card. We all object to something or other the government does. Religion would become a dodge if it were about avoiding those burdens. Some think it does entitle one to those exemptions.

Government is the secular realm, one that all citizens partake in without special exemptions or unique privileges for one group.

Society’s ‘common burdens’ are in the eye of the beholder. As I said to Marcus we are able to vote in or vote out those folks that have common values to our own. They then decide what those common burdens are. We then are obligated to follow the law of the land.

In the meantime, if there are ‘common burdens’ that one doesn’t agree with as there have been in recent years we have the courts to intervene and make decisions. Again, we the people are able to have an impact on who inhabits those judicial positions through our vote for those who appoint those judges.

You and I and everyone else has equal opportunity to vote for those that support our values and will then hopefully appoint judges, prosecutors, and others that support our values.

In that sense we’re all on an equal playing field. We then play by the rules of the game as the referees call the shots.

The problem is when different parties want to circumvent the process and force their values one way or the other through intimidation or other means to get their way without following the paths mandated through the Constitution.

Social media or special interest groups should not be the final arbitrators. Unfortunately, I think there are those that would have that be the case.

We may disagree on certain moral values and how they should or shouldn’t be approached at the local and federal level. Fortunately we still have a system by which we can work things out to the benefit of all. There are those that would have that system disappear.

This would be my fear.

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

Society’s ‘common burdens’ are in the eye of the beholder. As I said to Marcus we are able to vote in or vote out those folks that have common values to our own. They then decide what those common burdens are. We then are obligated to follow the law of the land.

Except that one party no longer seems to believe in elections, and it is no coincidence that this is the party the fanatics have hitched their wagon to.

In the meantime, if there are ‘common burdens’ that one doesn’t agree with as there have been in recent years we have the courts to intervene and make decisions. Again, we the people are able to have an impact on who inhabits those judicial positions through our vote for those who appoint those judges.

Yes, by breaking with tradition, one party managed to stack the court with religious fanatics to give their fellow religious fanatics what they want.

You and I and everyone else has equal opportunity to vote for those that support our values and will then hopefully appoint judges, prosecutors, and others that support our values.

Except that the party engaged in undemocratic efforts to block people from voting and gerrymander them out of effective voting power wants to make sure that the playing field is skewed in favor of minority rule.

In that sense we’re all on an equal playing field. We then play by the rules of the game as the referees call the shots.

Nope. It's almost too late to hope that there is any chance of keeping us out of a tyranny. The playing field has been terribly skewed in favor of religious fanatics.

The problem is when different parties want to circumvent the process and force their values one way or the other through intimidation or other means to get their way without following the paths mandated through the Constitution.

Exactly. That is precisely what the GOP has done with the support of its religious fanatic supporters. To see how the highest court in the land is abused by being in the pocket of billionaires and stacked with religious fanatics. It is terrifying, but that is where we are. When you can't even count on most Republicans in office to admit that Joe Biden won the last presidential election, as all of the evidence clearly indicates, you are in deep doodoo.

Mind you, I am fine with religion. I am not hostile to it. I am hostile toward religious fanaticism and abusing the system to lord it over others and tilt the law strongly in their favor.

[MG 2.0]

Society’s ‘common burdens’ are in the eye of the beholder. As I said to Marcus we are able to vote in or vote out those folks that have common values to our own. They then decide what those common burdens are. We then are obligated to follow the law of the land.

Except that one party no longer seems to believe in elections, and it is no coincidence that this is the party the fanatics have hitched their wagon to.

In the meantime, if there are ‘common burdens’ that one doesn’t agree with as there have been in recent years we have the courts to intervene and make decisions. Again, we the people are able to have an impact on who inhabits those judicial positions through our vote for those who appoint those judges.

Yes, by breaking with tradition, one party managed to stack the court with religious fanatics to give their fellow religious fanatics what they want.

You and I and everyone else has equal opportunity to vote for those that support our values and will then hopefully appoint judges, prosecutors, and others that support our values.

Except that the party engaged in undemocratic efforts to block people from voting and gerrymander them out of effective voting power wants to make sure that the playing field is skewed in favor of minority rule.

In that sense we’re all on an equal playing field. We then play by the rules of the game as the referees call the shots.

Nope. It's almost too late to hope that there is any chance of keeping us out of a tyranny. The playing field has been terribly skewed in favor of religious fanatics.

The problem is when different parties want to circumvent the process and force their values one way or the other through intimidation or other means to get their way without following the paths mandated through the Constitution.

Exactly. That is precisely what the GOP has done with the support of its religious fanatic supporters. To see how the highest court in the land is abused by being in the pocket of billionaires and stacked with religious fanatics. It is terrifying, but that is where we are. When you can't even count on most Republicans in office to admit that Joe Biden won the last presidential election, as all of the evidence clearly indicates, you are in deep doodoo.

Mind you, I am fine with religion. I am not hostile to it. I am hostile toward religious fanaticism and abusing the system to lord it over others and tilt the law strongly in their favor.

Looks like we’re in it for the long haul. I hope there isn’t a civil war a brewin’.

Remember the old Beatles’ song? All You Need Is Love. That seems to be in shorter and shorter supply.

Different factions/parties throwing basically the same criticisms at each other.

Will it ever end?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Different factions/parties throwing basically the same criticisms at each other.

Did you see this Kishkumen? When will it end? Just as you are criticizing Donald Trump and company for trying to steal the election, Donald Trump and his supporters, including MG, are accusing "the left" of trying to steal the election.

Can't we agree to disagree and just get along?

[mcjathan]

Different factions/parties throwing basically the same criticisms at each other.

[I Have Questions]

I think the anecdote also spotlights how Apostles seek to get others to do their dirty work so that they, the Apostles, can retain plausible deniability.

That's the first thing that jumped out at me, too. With all the church's resources, why didn't he just do it himself?

Plausible deniability if it blows up? I wonder just how many times the Apostles have operated on a wink and a nudge basis to get members to do their dirty work for them? I'm guessing members would be very disappointed if they knew how the Apostles operated and behaved day to day when not in front of a congregation or on a photo op...

[MG 2.0]

MG: Different factions/parties throwing basically the same criticisms at each other.

Did you see this Kishkumen? When will it end? Just as you are criticizing Donald Trump and company for trying to steal the election, Donald Trump and his supporters, including MG, are accusing "the left" of trying to steal the election.

Can't we agree to disagree and just get along?

It doesn’t seem to be going that direction. By the way, I’m more of an Independent in my political views. I voted for Mitt Romney and would vote for him again in a heartbeat if he was up against Trump. Sadly, the American people have made their choices and here we are in a very unstable society and position in the world.

And barbs will continue to be thrown by the left and the right without reconciliation being an option. Although there are many that would have it otherwise. Agents of compromise. Their voices are being drowned out by strident voices on both sides of the political spectrum.

As long as we have polarizing voices such as gadianton’s it is going to be very difficult to come together.

Regards,
MG