This is what Romney is facing from the extreme religious right...

Jun 2011
27,485
7,962
N/A
...if he gets nominated.

[video=youtube;-R0GYhsX-o8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-R0GYhsX-o8#![/video]


Transcript:

"My argument all along has been that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion.

One evidence that [the Founding Fathers] were not dealing ... they weren't even intending to deal with non-Christian religions is what they did with Mormonism in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Mormonism - they call themselves by the name of Christ, but it is not an orthodox Christian network of churches, it just is not. Mormonism is not an orthodox Christian faith. It just is not. They have a different Gospel, they have a completely different definition of who Christ is and so forth, I mean, the list could be multiplied endlessly.

And it was very clear that the Founding Fathers did not intend to preserve automatically religious liberty for non-Christian faiths, so when Mormonism came along, they practiced polygamy, they believed in polygamy, just like Muslims do today. It was a part of their revealed religion. God had commanded Joseph Smith to have multiple wives and commanded Joseph Smith to go tell your wife Emma, look you gotta make room, I want my son Joseph to be able to have as many wives as he wants so you're just going to have to accept it. So God is telling Emma through Joseph Smith, look you're just going to have to live with this deal. So multiple wives in the Mormon Church until 1890 when the Mormon Church told their folks to obey the law.

The Mormon Church, by the way, has never denounced the practice of polygamy. It has not. What it did in 1890, if you go back to the Doctrines and Covenants, what the Mormon Church did is they advised - it wasn't even an order - they advised the members of the LDS Church to obey the law which said one man, one woman, period. So my guess is that if those that are trying to legalize polygamy, and they are working on it right now ... [Fischer cites court case pushing for recognition of polygamy and says it the same as using courts to push for gay marriage] ... If there is some activist court that says you have to recognize polygamous marriages in your state, you're going to start seeing the LDS church, I believe go back to the exercise of polygamy. If it's legal, because all they told their folks is obey the law, if the law says you can have multiple wives, I believe the LDS Church will be out in the front of the pack.
I mean, not everybody in the LDS Church is going to do it any more than all the members of the LDS Church ever did it. It was a minority even in Joseph Smith's day - I mean, Brigham Young set some kind of world record for number of wives, I mean he was up there in Muhammad territory frankly. But most Mormons didn't do it, it was just a small percentage that had the resources to be able to do it. But I think it will come back, it will come back pretty vigorously in the Mormon Church, again, because all the church fathers said in 1890, just obey the law. Well, if the law says you can have multiple wives, they'll be back."

Transcript source. Almost perfectly transcripted aside from the word "make" (here in bold and green)

--------------------------------------------------

This is what the christian right is saying about Mormonism. And Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

And notice his interpretation of the 1st amendment: only for Christians.

(chuckle, chuckle...)

If Romney gets the nomination, you can expect a whisper campaign of this type to go on in right wing Christian circles, no doubt about it, for it is already going on openly now.
 
Last edited:

anonymous

Former Staff
Jun 2008
10,578
2,873
Passing Through
Your posting of this gives this ass clown more attention than he deserves. To me, your are being just as divisive as he by making a claim about Christians on the right as he is about the 1st amendment.
 
Jun 2011
27,485
7,962
N/A
Your posting of this gives this ass clown more attention than he deserves. To me, your are being just as divisive as he by making a claim about Christians on the right as he is about the 1st amendment.
And to me, it appears you are stalking me all over this forum. Are you a stalker?

I did not call Bryan Fisher an ass clown. You did.

I do think it is just as inapproriate for you to use this term for him as you have done more than once with the President, but it is your right to express yourself in this way if you wish.

And you wish to call me divisive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EnigmaO01

anonymous

Former Staff
Jun 2008
10,578
2,873
Passing Through
And to me, it appears you are stalking me all over this forum. Are you a stalker?

I did not call Bryan Fisher an ass clown. You did.

I do think it is just as inapproriate for you to use this term for him as you have done more than once with the President, but it is your right to express yourself in this way if you wish.

And you wish to call me divisive?
Paleese, stalking? So, if someone responds to your post repeatedly to you that is considered stalking?
 
Jun 2011
27,485
7,962
N/A
Paleese, stalking? So, if someone responds to your post repeatedly to you that is considered stalking?
No, but appearing on many of my threads all at once, and over and over and over again, gee, that sure looks like stalking to me.

Either that, or you find my threads so incredibly interesting, you just gotta come back for more, eh?
 

anonymous

Former Staff
Jun 2008
10,578
2,873
Passing Through
No, but appearing on many of my threads all at once, and over and over and over again, gee, that sure looks like stalking to me.

Either that, or you find my threads so incredibly interesting, you just gotta come back for more, eh?
Well, I do find some of your threads interesting and yes, sometimes the are quite incredible.
 

anonymous

Former Staff
Jun 2008
10,578
2,873
Passing Through
Well then, I will take that as a compliment and hope that we will learn to communicate a little better with each other with time.
Well I'm glad you consider it a complement and to a certain extent it was. I have never had a problem communicating with you but sometimes I think you take things to personally. Obviously, you are a well educated, loving,caring person who is concerned a great deal about the welfare of our great nation.
 
Jun 2011
27,485
7,962
N/A
Well I'm glad you consider it a complement and to a certain extent it was. I have never had a problem communicating with you but sometimes I think you take things to personally. Obviously, you are a well educated, loving,caring person who is concerned a great deal about the welfare of our great nation.
And I had similar thoughts about you.

BTW, I do think it is interesting to note that I made no comments about George Romney himself and his "brainwashing" comments, for actually, Romney WAS RIGHT, I think. But it cost him a nomination. Romney was an extremely articulate man (as is his son) and really looked the part as well - but the "brainwashing" thing just killed his chances. Nixon jumped like a bee on honey on that one, and at lightning speed to boot.