Hoops wrote:
But this little game of yours is tiresome... the list of questions to sniff out any potential - real or imagined - religious persecution.
Hoops wrote:DrW wrote:I come from a long line of Mormons, many of whom were right of the John Birch Society, and have much to atone for on this Earth in terms of the political sins of my fathers.
If you had lived overseas during the Bush administration as I did, and seen firsthand how the attitude towards America and Americans suffered, even among our allies and "friends", under the arrogant idiocy of that man and his administration, you would not say that my statements were ridiculous.
It could take this country and many parts of the world 20 years to recover for what GWB and the Republicans did during his administration. If you had the slightest inkling of the damage done -- well enough said.
Nope, no "garden variety" liberal here. If someone like you knew how liberal I really am relative to most Mormons and Evangelicals, and the kinds of things I do to make amends and to try and bring balance into the world for the political wrongs that religion and my forbearers have committed, they would probably not sleep well tonight.
For a non-liberal, you sure trot that same old tired liberal lines. Your response here being typical. "Liberals are just so much more nuanced and cosmopolitan in there thinking." "I know more than you, so you're opinion is invalid." So, of course, you must be right.
Frankly, I DO say your statements are ridiculous, ridiculously wrong, including the one above. And you DON'T know more than me. That is just your reflexive, default position because liberalism is oh so well-thought out. When, in fact, liberalism is the height of emotionalism - see your comments above. GWB's policies must be wrong because Europeans were mad at us. Not because they were demonstrably wrong. If you want to discuss how they were wrong, fine, but it would seem that your position is that they were wrong simply because they were his. Like any other non-liberal. Kinda like the views of any religious person.
Not sure what the difference is. Degrees of pomposity is still pomposity.If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I do not claim to be a "non liberal". I claim not to be a "garden variety" liberal, whereafter I state that I am very (perhaps extremely) liberal as compared to most Mormons and Evangelicals. Did you miss that?
It's a natural and not terribly revealing error. Most Westerners would assume that you were working in anaother Western country. Which would probably be in Europe, though not exxclusively of course. But.... so what? Who cares where you lived? I certainly don't. And what difference does it make?Given your response above, including the fact that you assumed (incorrectly) that "living overseas" meant living in Europe, I am going to assume that your reading comprehension skills when it comes to politics and world events is no better than those you demonstrate when it comes to message boards.
Yeah, right. Your worried about my embarassment. Liberals are so interesting.Accordingly, out of kindness and deference to you, I suggest we terminate this exchange before you cause yourself any additional embarrassment.
MCB wrote:As I have said before, the religious right is almost as wrong as the Mormon right. The Christian right in the United States is a natural result of the fundamentalism that also spawned the Mormon right. They have no right to condemn Mormonism for its flawed theology.
Thus says the centrist independent Catholic. Can we look at the fundamentalist political platform and compare it with the Sermon on the Mount, and other New Testament teachings on social justice?
Sheesh, they are all nuts.
Hoops wrote:MCB wrote:As I have said before, the religious right is almost as wrong as the Mormon right. The Christian right in the United States is a natural result of the fundamentalism that also spawned the Mormon right. They have no right to condemn Mormonism for its flawed theology.
Thus says the centrist independent Catholic. Can we look at the fundamentalist political platform and compare it with the Sermon on the Mount, and other New Testament teachings on social justice?
Sheesh, they are all nuts.
Bull.
Fair enough. I'll assume you allow the same freedom for religionists to require a strong belief from their candidates.I'm unhappy with any candidate that professes a strong belief in any religion.
One could make the same argument of atheists.The thought that a President's decision making would have a presupposed bias
If they're religious now, one would assume that they've continued to be taught as adults.based on childhood teachings scares me a little.
Quite true.The world is a volatile, ever changing place. It takes quick wits and unbiased thought to deal with that successfully
There's all kinds of questionable dogma out there. Conservatism and liberalism are two that I can think of. I don't think you'll find any candidate who can satisfy this.Someone who's decisions will be influenced by questionable dogma is not really up to the job.
Any candidate that claims strong religious views is either a liar or a fool. Neither of the two would make a good President.