Jason Bourne wrote:What are you talking about? That *is* the substantiation, my friend!
One item and of course since it is negative it is all the substantiation you need. How predictable.
Jason, my boy: this, coupled with the Church's rather unpleasant history of meddling in politics is plenty of "substantiation."
And, moreover, you yourself pointed out that the Brethren have a history of meddling in politics.
I pointed out a history many years ago.
The ERA is hardly "many years ago." Nor is the Church even-more-recent messing with the politics of gay rights.
The more recent history were not necessarily political issues. Nor were they what you term meddling. Are you for restricting the LDS Church's right to speak out and work against moral issues?
No, I'm not, but that's obviously not what we're talking about here. It is one thing to say, "We, as the leaders of this Church, oppose abortion." It is quite another for them to order the rank-and-file out to do lobbying work. And it is REALLY quite another thing for them to totally flip-flop for political expediency.
Finally, it is not a "smear" if it is true, now is it?
Please show me where you have confirmed it is true?
Where have you confirmed it is a lie? Unlike you, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. Sis. Dushku's remarks, coupled with the Church's rather well-known history of meddling in politics, is a whole heck of a lot more evidence in favor of my view than yours. Honestly, Jason, what evidence do you have, other than your apparent "intuiting" that there is something "suspicious" about her story?
The above interview certainly seems to suggest that this is a (rather frightening) possibility.
Does it? One interview and you have convicted Romney and the Church of the worst motives and then you pretend you are not smearing. Come on Scratch.
It is not just the "one interview." It is the Church's whole history of finagling in politics. I'm not sure what "worst motives" you are imagining. And: no smear here; just the facts.
Well, given the accounts of Hinckley & et. al.'s doings in the ERA affair, I think that "sneaky" is quite an apt descriptor.
Oh I see. Since YOU think it was sneaky it is an ok description and thus not a smear. How convenient for you.
How would you prefer to characterize Pres. Hinckley's behavior, Jason? I'm all ears. Please enlighten me.
Further, we know full well that Mormon leaders have flip-flopped on politics, or endorsed positions and people which ran contrary to doctrine.
Show me three example in the past 60 years.
1. ETB's support of John Birch stuff.
2. Various of the Brethren's sympathy with the Civil Rights Movement
3. Mark E. Petersen's continued support of the "Mark of Cain" doctrine post-ban-lifting
So, once more: it is not a "smear" if it is true.
Sorry. It is is smear when you put your own spin on it and make it look bad.
What "spin" have I put on it, Jason? I've said that I find the Church's meddling in this instance to be disturbing. You've said yourself that you think the Church ought not to be engaging in this kind of stuff, right?
And, the only way this Romney tidbit cannot be true is if Sis. Dushku is a liar. That's a pretty stiff charge you're leveling at her, Jason. In fact, since you cannot prove it is true, I reckon that it is a smear. ;
No more smear then you spinning it not knowing if it is true.
In all seriousness, why do you think she would lie? Really, what is the likelihood of that? Not very much, in my view. The bottom line is that there is really nothing to support your position other than the highly uncharitable stance of labeling Prof. Dushku a liar. My position has the advantage of many historical examples of the Church behaving badly in the realm of politics. If you have any real evidence on your side, Jason, I'd love to see it.