On Dec 8, 3:13 pm, Boston Blackie (You've got to be freakin' kidding
me, HE'S the NRA?)
mail.com> wrote:> On 2007-12-08 15:05:03 -0600, "Olin"
comcast.net> said:
>
>
>
>
>>>> On Dec 8, 12:10 pm, "Olin"
comcast.net> wrote:>>>> "maxo"
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>>> On Dec 8, 10:09 am, Boston Blackie (You've got to be freakin' kidding
>>>>> me, HE'S the NRA?)
mail.com> wrote:>>>>>> {The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific
>>>>>> declarations of religious belief (like Mr. Romney saying he believes
>>>>>> Jesus was the son of God)
>
>>>>> He also believes that Native Americans are a Jewish tribe, despite no
>>>>> archaeological or DNA evidence. Mormonism is pure cult--because it's
>>>>> so easily torn down as a construct of the 2nd Great Awakening.
>>>>> However, the only thing that separates cult from religion in my
>>>>> opinion is obfuscation--something which erosion and a couple thousand
>>>>> years are good at.
>
>>>> Frankly, I've never cared what religion my president was, or even if
>>>> he/she
>>>> had one. It would be totally and completely irrelevant, had the founding
>>>> fathers not, wisely I still believe, decided to address it in the
>>>> constitution by openly declaring that such a test would NOT be required.
>
>>>> John Kennedy faced that question, as a Catholic, and opted for a speech
>>>> that
>>>> de-emphasized his religion and the influence it would have over his
>>>> presidency. In trying to emulate him, Romney rather clearly declared that
>>>> there could be no freedom without religion.
>
>>> That was the shocker, no doubt. Especially when the religion he
>>> embraces is clearly a cult that has an odious history. No, the
>>> government can't make a test for religion, but there is one at the
>>> voting lever, one that virtually excludes the non-religious from
>>> political office on one hand, and should have dismissed zealots like
>>> Bush on the other. I really believed the latter to be true in 2001.
>
>> Agreed. And while I know and respect many Mormons, it's not only its distant
>> past that's rather odious. A goodly bit of its recent history doesn't pass
>> the smell test either.
>
>>>> Pretty startling, really. If I choose to be overtly religious, that's my
>>>> business. If YOU choose that I be overtly religious (or vice versa)
>>>> that's
>>>> an entirely different matter.
>
>>> Yup. I couldn't care less if you want to eat the transmogrified
>>> crunchy flesh of your magical Space Jew on the weekends, as long as
>>> you don't bring such nonsense into the public market place of ideas
>>> when you're a political candidate.
>
>> Religion and politics simply have no business mixing. And, that's as much,
>> if not more, for the protection of religion than politics.
>
>>>> The in-fighting among the various denominations is pretty clear and
>>>> obvious.
>>>> They're all about as ecumenical as a coyote and a rabbit. And, there's
>>>> really not much difference in a Baptist denouncing a Mormon and a Sunni
>>>> denouncing (and shooting for good measure) a Shiite.
>
>>>> What's next? Snake handling in the White House?
>
>>> Speaking in thongs!
>
>> At least that has the potential for being entertaining.
>
> Yeahbut I bet that once the thong is gone, the malady lingers on.
