To hate Jews is to hate God

by Greatest I am Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

To hate Jews is to hate God.

If you believe in the sacrifice of Jesus, then you must believe that God planned for it and set the conditions even before the earth was formed. If as most believe, the Jews were the cause of the sacrifice, then one must believe that God put the notion and desire to kill Jesus in the Jewish hearts. Jews then were God’s tools in carrying out God’s plan. Jews then should be venerated just as Jesus is because Jesus and Jews were required and caused by God to participate in the sacrifice. They were all doing God’s will and not their own.

Jesus was a Jew and to hate Jews means that Jesus is also hated. The church has historically persecuted Jews and only repented for their actions in 2011 with the pope acknowledging that not all Jews should be hated. Just those directly involved in the sacrifice of Jesus. Ignoring of course that they were charged directly by God to be and do what God wanted.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jews-not-responsible-for-death-of-christ-pope-says-49267/

Why then have Christians historically hated Jews, and by inference, hate the Jew part of God/Jesus the Jew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

The weird twist to this history is that the Christian right who hates Jews the most, is now the ones pushing for funding of the Jewish homeland to fulfill prophesy.

Most Jews do not believe that Jesus was the messiah. Is the Christian right just funding Jews to help drive them to destruction at the hands of God?

Jews tend not to read the O. T. the way Christians do. Are Christian interpretations of Jewish text superior or inferior to the Jewish interpretation of their own myths?

Regards
DL

by polyglide Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:05 pm

I have no concern with anything prior to the birth of Jesus, there are many seemingly disturbing issues prior to the birth of Jesus which need explaining in terms of a loving God, as I was not around at the time I do not know or understand the relevance, nor do you, nor am I concerned about explaining something that is of no revelance to my faith, which is based solely on the promise made by God through Jesus.

Everything else is of no importance.

by snowyflake Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:48 pm

as I was not around at the time I do not know or understand the relevance,

You weren't around at the time of Jesus either.....just so you know Smile

by Guest Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:52 pm

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:27 pm

polyglide wrote:I have no concern with anything prior to the birth of Jesus .....

Everything else is of no importance.

That's the Old Testament consigned to the pulp mill then.

by snowyflake Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:04 pm

Snowy, for your consideration: As the noun “Christian” refers to a person that knows and heeds Jesus’ commands and teachings, one who seeks understanding of “Christian” needs to focus upon understanding the commandments and teachings that a person must, of their own free will, follow to the best of her/his ability in order to be accurately identified as a “Christian.”

Rock, it's all down to interpretation. The Catholics, Methodist, Baptists, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Amish, Mennonite, Mormon, Pentecostalists, Presbyterian, Protestants, Evangelical, Lutheran, Orthodox, Reformed, Anglican, Brethren, Jehovah's Witness, Church of God etc etc etc. all believe they are following the true path of Christ.

Even your definition of Christian is not agreed upon by all Christians and I think even you know this. So what says you are right and all the other Christians and their beliefs are wrong?

Love your enemies, Rock... I couldn't and wouldn't love anyone who murdered my friend. It's not human nature and it's not a natural or normal response.

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:28 pm

Such a glib topic-heading can only invite a superficial response.

by snowyflake Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:56 pm

Such a glib topic-heading can only invite a superficial response.

Glibly said Ow.

by Guest Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:22 am

by Shirina Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:10 am

The first video was pretty interesting until the last 10 minutes - at which point former Mormons started preaching Christianity. Then it became a case of "My made-up story is better than your made-up story."

Once I realized what was going on, I was disappointed, because it means I can't necessarily trust what the video says. It's essentially Christianity bashing Mormonism which would be like watching a documentary on Chevrolet that was produced by Ford. Or a documentary on Obama produced by Romney. I can't trust the bias.

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:45 am

The hidden agenda within most religious writings is Thought Control.

As long as people are aware of that, it's unlikely to cause them damage.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:59 am

Well, we are missing the point somewhat. Religious beliefs are whatever people interpret their ancient and new testaments to be. There are millions of religions around the world claiming divine 'truth'. If there were one God why make it so ambiguous? It's a nonsense.

Thought Control is an underlying theme of all religions and I doubt very much people are aware of it. It's just another name for the Church of Wishful Thinking.

I tried watching the film, Rock, but to be honest I was bored in the first few minutes. I've seen anti-mormon, anti-jewish, anti-jehovah's witness, anti-catholic diatribes before. It's just one Christian religion bashing another Christian religion and they all bash anything that is non-Christian.

Hi Shirina. Your posts are fantastic btw. Usual top notch stuff. Glad to see you here. Hope you are taking care of yourself. Snowy Smile

by Guest Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:43 pm

by Guest Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:45 pm

by snowyflake Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Hi Rock. Expositing is just a fancy word for bashing. I've seen similar videos about evangelical christians and Islam and Judaism. All religions think they've got the inside track on the 'truth'. The truth is none of them do. Not one. If there was a 'truth' it would be evident because it would be real and true. But not one religion can claim absolute truth. That is a fact. Therefore, it only stands to reason that it's a load of nonsense.

Invisible spirits do not exist, Rock. I've never seen, felt, heard or smelt one and most of the people I know haven't either. Anyone who says they have is usually just hoping for something other than this life. I happen to love this life and when I die, I hope family and friends remember me fondly. That is more than some people get. Smile

Take care, Rock.

by Guest Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:31 pm

by snowyflake Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:47 am

Hi Rock, I should have mentioned that I do understand Mormonism so do not worry that I have closed my mind. To me it was just more of the same. To me, it's a religion with no basis like all religions. To me, just because millions of people believe in a thing does not make it fact, true, or real.

I am interested in hard facts or ideas supported by hard evidence. So far, the debate on the evidence for the existence of God rages on. There is no proof of his existence. There isn't even any evidence for his existence. All we have are ancient texts which are not evidence any more than Harry Potter will be evidence in 2000 years time.

Why do humans as a species need faith in an invisible, unknowable, uncaring God or his executed son? The truth is we don't. And I would also suggest, as does Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, that it poisons reason and rational thought. Humans can live moral, productive, decent and worthwhile existences without it and I daresay we would be better off without it.

I would not want to make you sad, my friend. We just have different points of view.

by Shirina Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:50 pm

You are one of the majority group of liberal and conservative voters that were not alarmed at how close the United States of America came to beginning a process that, according to the blood oath sworn by Temple Mormons, is designed to ultimately transform the US into a theocracy ruled from Salt Lake City.

Are you kidding? I didn't threaten to renounce my US citizenship for no reason. I didn't get into the Mormon aspect of Romney's bid for the presidency in the thread I started about my citizenship, but I should have. However, as an atheist/agnostic (the two terms are not mutually exclusive), I see ALL religion as a threat to my freedom. Not in some vague, general way, but specifically MY freedom and for very specific reasons. I see the Catholic Church, Mormonism, radical Islam, and Christian evangalism/fundamentalism as all equally dangerous in their own unique ways. All seek world domination and all seek to put me and those like me under their thumb. As such, all of these religions are simply different heads attached to the same dragon.

If you think that is not so, I would invite you to listen to a radio show out of Austin, Texas (your home state) called The Atheist Experience. It is a public access television show that is mostly about letting the audience call in and discuss atheism and argue for or against religion. However, the relevance here is the vast numbers of atheists who call in expressing how they cannot openly admit to being atheist without fearing for their jobs, being ostracized from their family and friends, being bullied at school - gee, does that sound at all familiar? Yeah ... it kind of has a Mormon-ish ring to it, doesn't it. And that's just the atheists who call into the show. How many thousands (millions?) of atheists out there quietly pretend to be a Christian and say nothing? Even pastors, preachers, and church leaders have expressed how they stopped believing years ago but still put on a good show behind the podium because they would lose everything if they resigned and admitted their atheism. Like I said, different head, same dragon.

That's why I could only shake my head when a Christian video accused Mormonism of seeking world domination, being financially powerful, and exacting harsh social penalties for apostacy. It's like trying to argue that "our theocratic fascism is better than their theocratic fascism." I wouldn't want Romney in office for the same reason I wouldn't want religious crackpots like Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, or Huckabee in power, either. Yeah, it's easier to point fingers at Mormonism and ticking off their cultish ways because they have a much smaller membership than Christian evangelism/fundamentalism and their beliefs are far less mainstream. However, whether the hand on my shoulder is forcing me to kneel to Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, or Muhammad, the result is the same - I'm on my knees.

Don't get me wrong, though, Rock. I did appreciate the videos and watched them all. I don't like the Cult of Mormonism any more than you do, and you're very correct in being concerned about their power and influence. Yet if you're like me, and you're on the outside looking in at ALL religions, you would see that they're all essentially the same. Romney's batshit crazy religion is no more and no less batshit crazy than Santorum's religion or Rick Perry's religion. Remember that Rick Perry actively affiliated himself with a known hate group - the American Family Association. Wait, did I just say family association? Why yes, I did! Strange, isn't it, how the right-wing Christians constantly preach about family values just like a certain cult based in Salt Lake City ... (the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the American Family Association as an official hate group and discusses them HERE)

Having said all of that, however, I will say one more thing. I can appreciate your own personal hatred of Mormonism due to the racist component embedded in their religious doctrine. For that reason, I can certainly understand why you see Mormonism as considerably worse than Christian evangelism/fundamentalism, and that is an argument I can't (and won't even try) to refute.

by Shirina Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:57 pm

Hi Shirina. Your posts are fantastic btw. Usual top notch stuff. Glad to see you here. Hope you are taking care of yourself. Snowy

Thanks, Snowy. Smile

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:46 am

The Mormon Plan for America and
The Rise of Mitt Romney

Ed Decker
February 14, 2007

… I was prompted to study out both the public and the LDS insider position on government, the constitution…

When George Romney, Mitt's father, made his aborted run for President in 1968, there was a lot in internal LDS talk about the last days prophecies that the US constitution would hang by a thread to be saved by the elders of the LDS church.

This pure form of theocratic, prophet led government would prepare the way for the ushering in of the millennium… when Jesus would return to earth, sit in his temple in Missouri to reign over the earth…

… An LDS prophet ruling over a theocratic government…

That Theocracy would come into existence when the US Constitution would hang by a thread and the Mormon elders would be there to save it and the country and thereby usher in The Kingdom of God, the prophesied Mormon theocracy.

[The LDS Washington D.C. Temple’s]… large room on the upper floor… was set to house a presiding governing body.

Mitt Romney is a Temple Mormon, a High Priest, and… has sworn blood oaths of sacrifice, obedience and consecration to the church and the "Kingdom of God."

… high level Temple Mormons clearly know that this Mormon "Kingdom of God" is, in reality, a Mormon one-world government, a theocracy, soon coming to America, that will be run by the strong arm of the Mormon Brethren, headed up by the only true prophet of God on earth.

Much more: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=6317

by tlttf Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:57 am

Shirina, as always your posts are excellent and articulate, unfortunately for you some simply come back with quotes and videos made by others, not one original thought goes into them yet some (on here) seem to assume that because a video has been recorded it must be the truth. Strange world we live in?

by snowyflake Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:24 pm

Hey tlttf, we all have as much right to write as much or as little as we like and we also have the freedom to read as much or as little as we like. The last time I looked America and the UK were free countries where freedom of expression is a constitutional and basic human right.

ok? Smile

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:01 pm

by methought Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:42 pm

I haven't read all the comments on this thread to date - just the heading - which had me puzzled. 'To hate Jews is to hate God'. Is this an assertion that Jews are the same as God?

Pick your target - polarise it - and then go for the outcome you desire by demonising the opposition.

The current British government has learned a lot from such a wise wu master.

Not only do I dislike Mormonism, I fear for my country’s democracy as average Americans allow themselves to remain blind to the threat posed by event such as the five plus year program to place Mitt Romney in the world’s most powerful position. Brits, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and anyone else who cherishes real democracy are also at risk of losing those democracies should the Mormon plan ever reach fruition.

The planned campaign tactics are however at large in the media propaganda that divides and rules across all domains.

The single most powerful tool used by high level Temple Mormons to control regular Mormons is the temple pass card (my term), called by Mormons the “temple recommend.” Without it, Mormons cannot enter the temple, and are thus in effect “second-class Mormons.”

The religious right in America has this 'You're either with me or you're against me' approach of exclusivity rather than inclusivity, that makes people selfish in intent rather than democratic in outlook.

Nicely put though, Rock.

by Guest Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:23 am

by Guest Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:07 am

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:11 pm

The Freedom to post garbage is undoubtedly enshrined somewhere or other.

by polyglide Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:47 pm

The thread is about hate.

For anyone to hate causes the person who hates more harm than the reciprient and is only indicative of negative thought which should be aimed at changing the cause of concern in a loving manner.

This does not mean you have to condone anything which you feel to be wrong, on the other hand it could be you that is wrong.

by snowyflake Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:34 pm

Welcome to the Olympic Mental Gymnastics and Acrobatics of Christian Logic event.

Smile

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:51 am

More on “hiding in plain sight”, my comparison of Romney “hiding in plain sight’ for high level Temple Mormons’ purposes from 2007 through 2012 and Dixiecrats (“Dixie rats”) “hiding in plain sight” since 1968.

RockOnBrother wrote:
When that which is not hides amongst those that are, danger often is not far off. There’s a bit of history which I’ve posted more than once Cutting Edge that has sailed over the heads of many who have commented upon other items in the same message while ignoring this all important item. Prior to passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Dixiecrats (“Dixie rats”) had a firm power based within the Democratic Party. These Dixie rats began jumping ship at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 because the traditional Mississippi lily white delegation of racist bigots was unseated and replaced by a delegation of We the actual flippin’ People of Mississippi, damnit, Black, White, and mad as hell.

So the Dixie rats jumped ship “like the rats they wuz” and took their hateful racist bigotry with them. Many turned up in the American Independent Party, under whose banner George Wallace ran for president in 1972. Some idiot tried to assassinate Wallace, putting him in a wheelchair for life, but, ironically, saving his life, his zoe. Wallace ultimately was re-elected Alabama Governor and served all the people, Black, White, and whoever else was there, in such an exemplary fashion that a man who marched in Selma and other places, a man who suffered baton beatings by Alabama state troopers whole seeking justice, told me personally that George Wallace in his second coming was the finest Alabama governor that he had ever witnessed.

With George Wallace coming to his senses and regaining his humanity, the American Independent Party faded away and the Dixie rats, still needing a ship to infest, swept themselves aboard Richard Milhous “Tricky Dick” Nixon’s SS Silent White Majority, tainting the heritage of the party (Republican) that supported freed Black Americans full political participation in post-Civil War America. The Dixie rats have been hiding out amongst real Republicans ever since.

Electoral College results for key presidential elections show Democratic-Republican votes shifts.

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses… Under the following conditions: Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws. No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.” Wikipedia’s Creative Commons Deed states “You are free: to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work… Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).” Full texts of Terms of Use and Creative Commons Deed available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

[Presidential election, during Reconstruction, 1872:]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/ElectoralCollege1872.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege1872.svg.png

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Grant/Wilson, blue denotes those won by Greeley, yellow denotes those won by Hendricks, and the various shades of green denote those won by Brown, Jenkins and Davis; this reflects the posthumous scattering of Greeley's electoral votes. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
Commons is a freely licensed media file repository.

[Presidential election, after “deconstruction” of Reconstruction, 1876:]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/ElectoralCollege1876.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege1876.svg.png

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Hayes/Wheeler, Blue denotes those won by Tilden/Hendricks. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
Commons is a freely licensed media file repository.

[Presidential election, Eisenhower first term (war hero), 1952:]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/ElectoralCollege1952.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege1952.svg.png

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Eisenhower/Nixon, Blue denotes those won by Stevenson/Sparkman. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
Commons is a freely licensed media file repository.

[Presidential election, just a few months after the Dixiecrats (“Dixie rats”) jumped ship at the 1968 Democratic Convention, 1968:]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/ElectoralCollege1968.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege1968.svg.png

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Nixon/Agnew, Blue denotes those won by Humphrey/Muskie. Orange denotes states won by Wallace/LeMay, as well as a faithless elector from North Carolina who cast his electoral vote for Wallace/LeMay instead of Nixon/Agnew. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
Commons is a freely licensed media file repository.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

This is a human-readable summary of the Terms of Use.

Disclaimer: This summary is not a part of the Terms of Use and is not a legal document. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the full terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the legal language of our Terms of Use.

Part of our mission is to:

● Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain.
● Disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge.

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.
● Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.

Under the following conditions:

● Responsibility — You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
● Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.
● Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws.
● No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
● Terms of Use and Policies — You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.

With the understanding that:

● You License Freely Your Contributions — you generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain).
● No Professional Advice — the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

● to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
● to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

● Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
● Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons Deed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

by snowyflake Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:18 am

Is this a valid fear in America? That the mormons will take over the government? How many Mormons are there? Frankly, I'd be more worried about fundamentalist or evangelical christians getting into the White House. Can't you guys vote in a reasonable, rational thinking Atheist? Or at least someone who is not swayed by belief in improbable things?

by polyglide Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:28 pm

You mean improbable like evolution and natural selection.

by snowyflake Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:33 pm

You mean improbable like evolution and natural selection.

When you have your degree in any scientific subject then you could argue this point sensibly. Anything else just makes you look silly.

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:05 pm

I don’t believe that Americans fear being taken over by Mormonism. A widely varying swath of people I know voted one way or the other in November 2012 without seeming to care one way or another about what Decker, referencing Mormon doctrine, calls the Mormon Plan for America.

That’s what scares me. Many Black voters were focused on Romney’s “forty-seven percent-ism” in their opposition, while many White voters were focused on Romney’s “Christian-ism” in their support (got to the link provided by Shirina above). And Snowy, among the people with whom I regularly interact, most have at least one college (university to you) degree.

Among all these folks, only two refused to vote for Romney because of their knowledge of Mormonism. One is a retired electrical engineer, one is a musician with a degree in political science, both are White (upper case intentional), and neither voted for Obama.

My immediate fear was assuaged by Romney’s convincing defeat, and I am encouraged by signs that some Republicans “get it” and are attempting to move the Republican Party back to its roots. If you’ve looked at the electoral maps, notice the Republican pervasiveness in the immediate post-civil war era. Snowy, there were a number of freshly-minted US citizens, ex-slaves, who were elected to various offices during these Reconstruction years. All were Republicans; that was the party of Black liberation.

In my time, which is your time plus about ten years, there has been no mainstream political party of Black liberation. Prior to the infiltration of ex-Dixiecrats that remained Dixie rats in their new home, the Party of Lincoln had long ago slipped away from its nascent radicalism. Meanwhile, even after the Dixie rats got the boot, the Democratic Party never accorded Black Democrats adult status.

Why was Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm never taken seriously by post-Dixie-rat-exodus white (lower case intentional) Democrats as a presidential candidate in 1972? Why was Barbara Charline Jordan never considered at all by post-Dixie-rat-exodus white (lower case intentional) Democrats as a presidential candidate in 1976? Why did a significant portion of Oprah Winfrey’s white (lower case intentional) female “liberal” fan base “go postal”, figuratively speaking, when, during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Oprah endorsed United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. rather than Hillary Rodham Clinton, “the first legitimate female candidate”, in the words of one Oprah white female “liberal” denigrator? Click the links for Wiki articles about Ms. Chisholm and Ms. Jordan, both of whom were elected to posts as United States Representatives (“Congresswomen”) at a time that Black candidates faced difficulty getting elected to be your dogcatcher.

And lest we by chance believe that white (lci) Democrats have grown beyond this covert propensity for looking at Black folks as non-adults, the recent United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Elizabeth Rice debacle should come as an eye-opener…

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Susan_Rice%2C_official_State_Dept_photo_portrait%2C_2009.jpg

27th United States Ambassador to the United Nations

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
Commons is a freely licensed media file repository.

… as the US Senate has sole responsibility for giving consent to US Presidents’ cabinet appointments, and the current US Senate is solidly Democrat (53 Democrats, 2 Independents, 45 Republicans). Seems that Democrats still have a hard time recognizing and supporting Black women.

Barbara Jordan 101:

Barbara Jordan on Impeachment, July 25, 1974
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/CDcYiyF5eLc

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 1
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/Bg7gLIx__-k

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 2
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/2YvxjfoOJLw

Romney has already started to “fade away”, and in my mind that’s a good thing. But I do not believe that high level Temple Mormons have abandoned their quest to replace my democracy with a Salt Lake City “prophet”-and-“apostles”-directed theocracy. Will American USV voters fail to recognize the next high level Temple Mormon in “Christian” clothing that the “prophet” and “apostles” maneuver into position as a presidential candidate?

I’ve not known of a “fundamentalist” or “evangelical” candidate that (a) has sworn a blood oath to in effect eradicate the US Constitution, or (b) conducts her/his most important business in deep secrecy. I’ve been in various “church buildings” of all types and have always had full access to all proceedings therein, even when Roman Catholics take communion. Good luck as a non-Mormon, or a non-temple-pass-card-carrying-Mormon, trying to gain access to a Mormon temple.

The Sovereign State of California, home of the world’s eighth largest economy, has had at least three Catholic governors, Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Roman Catholics, and George Deukmejian, an Eastern Orthodox Catholic. Neither of them during their tenures attempted to turn the reins of power over to a Pope or an Archbishop.

I’m unsure as to whether atheism is rational, given the fact that atheists assert that there is no omniscient being without being omniscient themselves. Perhaps you are referring to agnosticism, wherein those that are truly agnostic assert nothing whatsoever except “I don’t know.” That's my stance insofar as you and the rest of the world is concerned. I know, and since my knowledge is personal, accessible only to me, I cannot know for you. That’s just an aside.

The real “test”, in my mind, is whether a potential candidate has an ironclad commitment to government under God; all men gender inclusive are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (including the unalienable right to not believe in the Creator), and governments are instituted among men gender inclusive to secure these unalienable rights unto all men gender inclusive. Pat Brown, Jerry Brown, George Deukmejian, John Kennedy, and other Catholic chief executives unknown to me, used the powers entrusted to them to do just that, so I am not automatically distrustful of those whose beliefs do not mirror my on.

I remain thoroughly distrustful of high level Temple Mormons. One more item for your consideration, a letter sent to presidential candidate George Romney by a high level Temple Mormon during his bid for the Republican nomination. in 1964.

A letter that George Romney received in 1964 (when Romney was governor of Michigan) from a Mormon apostle named Delbert L. Stapley.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

by snowyflake Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:30 am

Well thank you for that Rock. I would never have thought the Osmonds were racists. They must have had kittens sitting next to the Jackson 5 at the Grammy's.

Reading the mormon website and all the gobbledy gook of Cain being the father of black people convinces me more than ever that all these myths are just stories designed to frighten the uneducated, gullible and deluded. That is their belief and who are you to say they are wrong? It's just your mythology against their mythology.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:31 pm

snowyflake wrote:
I would never have thought the Osmonds were racists.

I don’t know that the Osmond’s that we know about are racists. The dichotomy between regular Mormons, a substantial number and percentage of whom, I’ve been told, have never been allowed within a temple, and high level Temple Mormons, such as High Priest Temple Mormon Mitt Romney, who disapproved (perhaps in a pleasant, conciliatory tone of voice) Black Mormons’ temple pas cards as a matter of course, as standard operating policy, until his highness the most holy Mormon prophet decided that God had finally decided to let us nappy-headed pick-a-ninnies into heaven as something other than white folks’ eternal servants, has puzzled me for decades. On a personal level, every Mormon with whom I’ve interacted has been courteous, even though some have been vaguely distant.

by Shirina Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:13 pm

Back to your questions, I’ve not known of a “fundamentalist” or “evangelical” candidate that (a) has sworn a blood oath to in effect eradicate the US Constitution, or (b) conducts her/his most important business in deep secrecy.

See the Dominionists with which Mike Huckabee is at least loosely affiliated. They believe in a total re-write of the US Constitution to bring it in line with Old Testament law. Every now and again, you see a Dominionist break the surface into public view such as the politican from Georgia who said it should be legal to kill our own children if they disobey their parents. (See my post in my blog section concerning ridiculous things conservatives have advocated), but by and large, they conduct their affairs secretly just as the Mormons do. I bring up Mike Huckabee only because, in a nationwide poll of Republicans, Mike Huckabee scored higher than Romney, Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry for who they had wanted to see nominated in 2012.

The thing that must be remembered about the Christian evangelical/fundamentalist crowd is that they are openly fascistic and yet still maintain a very threatening number of supporters both in the electorate and in public office.

Few things in American life are more chilling than this:

To hate Jews is to hate God - Page 5 Harry-potter-book-burning

To hate Jews is to hate God - Page 5 Harry-potter-book-burning

To hate Jews is to hate God - Page 5 96304_m

The top picture shows Christian evangelicals burning books. The bottom shows Nazis burning books. The only difference between them is the type of cross that each one uses as a symbol.

even when Roman Catholics take communion. Good luck as a non-Mormon, or a non-temple-pass-card-carrying-Mormon, trying to gain access to a Mormon temple.

The Catholics really aren't much better. How many secrets do you suppose are being guarded behind the walls of the Vatican? And who, exactly, votes for the Pope? Catholicism is directly responsible for the spread of HIV in Africa, they refuse to give legal prescriptions to customers in pharmacies all across America, they protect pedophiles, they aided the escape of Nazi war criminals (See "The Rat Line"), and even told American nuns that they were spending too much time on charitable good works and not enough time hating on the gays.

Religion in all of its various flavors - from Protestantism to Catholicism to Islam - is inherently fascistic, oppressive, and anti-freedom. ANY presidential candidate that is overtly religious causes red flags to appear on my radar. It is well that you brought out Mormonism as yet another religious institution to be feared, but it IS, after all, only "yet another" ... because they are ALL to be feared and mistrusted. Mormonism, along with the Jehovah's Witnesses, are probably the least understood of all "mainstream" religious beliefs and exposing Mormonism for what it is definitely needs to be done. But that only means that Mormonism is taking its place next to all the rest of the religions which believe the world would be a better place if everyone bent a knee to their particular gods, laws, and beliefs.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:35 pm

If Dominionists are anti-US Constitution, then they place themselves in the same league as the Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-day Scammers and Scammed. I personally have no tolerance for anyone who wishes to destroy my Constitution, which I have sworn an irreversible oath to protect and defend.

I voted against Ronald Reagan twice; had I been there, between the Black man that tackled Hinckley and me, there might not have been enough of the would-be-assassin and would be Constitution destroyer for the Secret Service to have taken into custody. As it was, I came damned near to striking the TV screen trying to get my hands on that madman from across the country.

I’ll study Dominionism as I have Mormonism.

There are two types of Roman Catholics, Vatican and the rest. I’ve been “deep in the bowels” of several Roman Catholic cathedrals, pretty much unescorted, and there was nothing shielded from my non-Catholic view. I cannot and will not compare non-Vatican Roman Catholic “secrecy”, which I’ve not seen, and Mormon Temple secrecy, which to me is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt unto a moral certainty. You ought to talk to a few Los Angeles Catholics who have heard former Archbishop Roger Cardinal Mahoney’s name “drug out in the open” for all to see. You’ll never see that happen with Mormonism.

Book burners are not Christians; they’re definitely book-burners, and most likely fascists. Nazis called themselves Aryans, and that’s also a lie, because there is in fact no such thing as an Aryan.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:44 pm

Dominion Theology is a grouping of theological systems with the common belief that the law of God, as codified in the Bible, should exclusively govern society, to the exclusion of secular law, a view also known as theonomy. The most prominent modern formulation of Dominion Theology is Christian Reconstructionism, founded by R. J. Rushdoony in the 1970s. Reconstructionists themselves use the word dominionism to refer to their belief that Christians alone should control civil government, conducting it according to Biblical law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism#Dominion_Theology

This is not Christian; conversely, this is contrary to Jesus’ teachings.

by snowyflake Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:00 pm

I believe, you Rock, are a Christian. But I also believe there are many Christians who think you are not based solely on their own beliefs of what the scriptures say. It's down to interpretation of what the bible says. You think you have the inside track on belief but those less educated but no less believing think they are right.

This is where 'belief' falls down and falls apart and sadly falls so short.

by polyglide Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:47 am

You have no idea what my qualifications are, however, you only have to look at those qualified in politics to see that they are of little value compared with common sense, which you are sadly lacking, the same applies to some scientists whose theories are based on speculation and supposition, I base my ideas on what I can actually see, all the animal life, the vegitation the probabilities involved and I have yet to see any other plausible explanation for them than instant creation.

I have asked for an explanation of natural selection.

Where did all the alternatives come from, from which those involved decided to select.

I have asked for a step by step explanation how the acorn evolved to produce an oak tree and examples of the seeds discarded and the resulting trees of those discarded.

There is no answer because it is nonsense.

My opinion is based on what I can actually see and prove beyond reasonable doubt, along with my steadfast belief in God.

by Shirina Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 pm

I base my ideas on what I can actually see

Really? So you're seeing gods, now, are you? I can only assume, also, that you were there when the universe was "instantly created," walked side by side with Adam and Eve, attended Methuselah's funeral, witnessed the Seven Plagues of Egypt, crossed the Red Sea with Moses and climbed Mount Sinai with him - watching as God carved out the 10 Commandments. You wandered the desert for 40 years eating mana while following a pillar of fire, you kept Jonah company inside the "big fish" for three days, watched the construction of the Tower of Babel, and inspected Solomon's work as his temple was built. You were there as Mary gave birth to Jesus. Perhaps you were one of the people renting a room at the inn, forcing Jesus to be born in a manger, eh, Polyglide? You traveled with the three wise men to give Jesus gifts of myrrh, frankincense, and gold. You witnessed Jesus walk on water, attended the Sermon on the Mount, and personally saw Jesus heal the sick with miracles. You must have been the 13th apostle just off the edge of the picture in Da Vinci's famous Last Supper painting (just where is the Holy Grail, by the way?). You were present when Judas received his silver in exchange for betraying Jesus, you were in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus almost ran away from his own destiny. You knelt before the cross on Calvary Hill as Jesus was crucified then you stood outside of his tomb and saw the door slide away, a resurrected Jesus ascending to Heaven.

If you base your ideas on what you can actually see, then I must assume you have seen all of this and more. Just how old are you, anyway? I'm betting you don't look a day over 3,000 years. At any rate, going by what can be seen, tested, verified, and reproduced is what science does - and religion is NOT science. You base your ideas on FAITH, not occular verification. If what you say is true, then looking at the Bible, all you would see is a book, not The Truth and certainly not gods.

and I have yet to see any other plausible explanation for them than instant creation.

That's why we call them blinders - take them off.

I have asked for an explanation of natural selection.

I have also told you several times that a message board is a poor place to get those answers. Science is not for the simple-minded. It takes real work to truly understand it which is why, I am more than certain, religion appeals to a lot of people as an alternative explanation. Most people here consider me to be fairly intelligent yet even I struggle with the higher echelons of science at times. I'm no Einstein or Hawking. Yet it is a struggle worth engaging in because I find science to be far more enlightening than a benighted little book that occasionally offers up a pearl of wisdom that is actually worth believing in. If you TRULY want the answers you keep asking us for, then it's high time that you begin your own struggle with science. I am not, nor have I ever been, a science teacher. Pick up a book on evolution, genetics, or the Big Bang and read it. I mean a real book on those subjects, not a creationists website or a rag written by a Christian apologist. Even if you don't come away from it doubting your own creation myths, at least you'll be able to debate the topic in an informed way. No more talk about elephants with three trunks or giraffes with three legs. Good luck.

by Sponsored content