There is so much happening right now. We will allow some leeway in political posts insofar as they pertain to religion. If this gets out of hand, we will stop again. This is tough and is difficult to be objective for our admins and we can never please everyone. No bashing for political views - we do not allow preaching, religious or political.

These are strange times. As a group we seem to help one another with topics that are bit off from Mormonism. Let's give it a try.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2017 10:40AM by Eric K.

Thanks, Eric. So-called moral values are being used to justify political positions nowadays. And I suppose the reverse is happening as well.

There's a lot at stake, and exMormons have a lot to lose if the law of the land sways toward religion. I appreciate your efforts to prevent this forum from degrading into political diatribe. That's a value I can respect.

--Don

I am an atheist exmormon. In what way(s) would I lose?

I wonder if that's an American thing. Both sides used the Bible heavily to support the Civil War, then the recovery which gave rise to the Bible Belt, then whatever else to the present day. God telling the Prez to invade Iraq - Jeeezus. Religion and politics, messy business in the USA.

I think the mods are being practical. They know from experience what works and what doesn't.

I had a favourite little shop I frequented for Christmas and other gifts. They always had something perfect for my sister, who is difficult to buy for. Unexpectedly one day the owner/saleslady started spewing an outright racist/isolationist diatribe merely because I mentioned that I was buying a trinket for a newcomer to Canada who had moved into my neighbourhood. She didn't have anything personal or pretty and I wanted to brighten up her day and spoil her a little, woman to woman.

The shop lady was so out of line in her extremist views (in my opinion, obviously) and so distasteful that I dropped what I was going to buy and didn't even try to reason with her or engage in a reasonable dialogue. I will never return and I used to be a regular customer, happy to find plenty of unique gifts there. I would suggest that it's a poor sales technique to express political or extremist viewpoints to customers in your shop. If she had never said what she did I wouldn't know how she felt and would have not become so uncomfortable with her attitude that I don't want to support her by buying from her. Maybe now that's me being extremist but it's my only form of protest with her and so I'm taking it. Then my mom's butcher, in the shop right next door, did the same thing! (Not as extreme). These shopkeepers should maybe take a course in how to treat your customers and maintain/increase your business. It would not include making political or religious statements. I go shopping for need and fun and not to get all upset about somebody's extremism. Of course, there will be disagreement on vital issues but some positions I just can't abide. I'm not doing my own little boycott merely because I don't agree but due to the extremist nature of the remarks. They likely won't miss me but that's not the point.

Likewise, I don't really want to know the political leanings of a fellow poster. I'd rather discuss the crux of an issue on its merits, not on labels or who you vote for. Your view on every hot topic in that sphere is hopefully not based solely on party politics but more on the underlying issues themselves.

Maybe a good rule of thumb is to avoid platant partisan politics.

And no fighting!

True enough that pretty much everything can relate to Mormonism. It can be very instructive to ex-members, newbie and veteran, to see a wide range of opinions, especially those we may have been shielded from before. I mentioned recently that I have learned a lot from RfM atheists and I appreciate that they could exchange views and info with me in a civil manner. Living in my bubble of religion as I did I may never have talked to an atheist about religious beliefs and rejection of same. Fortunately, I worked with people from all different backgrounds and beliefs and so was never completely isolated from varying viewpoints.

It's all about getting out of the bubbles, and being civil in discourse with fellow travellers. I hope we can do that. I appreciate the opportunity.

So, does this mean we can talk about the White Horse Prophecy now? I remember that came up last time a Mormon held high office. We don't have to talk about the office but the idea, originating from JS I believe, is an interesting one. Who knows what nugget will spark someone's brain into seeing things in a whole new way. A condition to be welcomed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2017 10:35PM by Nightingale.

Appreciate the move toward more freedom to have limited political discussion. I view problems contained in Mormonism or religion generally as quite similar to those found in politics. Perhaps we can take some of what we have learned from the follies we've discovered in religion and applly it to our political understanding.

This may present some challenges as we don't share as much common ground in our political opinions as we do in church matters. This may require us to develop a greater level of civility and sometimes restraint that should be a part of this boards discussions anyway.

My opinion is that when you have a bully in the sandbox you remove the bully, not kick everyone out of the sandbox. I personally am not bothered by the bullies in the least but I know that many are. I have tried to honor the no politics policy by not bringing up political discussion but do jump in to the discussion when I feel it is heading that way anyway as I am very political.

I would like to end my comments by making a few comparisons between religion and politics that runs very deep and troubles me a lot. The leaders of both establish and maintain their influence and control over their subjects by creating and maintaining a false naritive which depends on decietful practices and an inherent lack of transparency. We have decietful lying leaders in both cases.

Most of us here can recognize this as it pertains to the Mormon church but may not understand how this applies to and is practiced in government.

Also, neither one is capable of nor should be relyied upon for ones support. Both are infact, dependant upon their subjects and a type of fraud for their support.

Felix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...greater level of civility and sometimes
> restraint that should be a part of this boards
> discussions anyway.

Why "should" that be part of this board's discussions?
Not criticizing you, I genuinely want to know why you think that "should" be the case.

I honestly don't think it "should" be the case. And I'll tell you why: because bare, unvarnished, honest truth can and does jolt people out of their complacency of belief, of going along, of not thinking. I think this board has darn near an ideal "threshold" in that regard.

What's your "why?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V77FiHk37Yg

:-)

Guess political islam is verboten.

Eta: pay your jizya. :( silence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 01:24AM by Cpete.

In mormonism, all roads of thought eventually (if not sooner) lead back to the conclusion that the mormon church is true. That sick mindset hurts people. Everyone here on this board knows that, because that's why we're here.

For months now, I've suggested on this board that the muslim community suffers the same affliction in some cases, and that instead of relatively less harmful actions typical of mormonism (gaslighting, lying for the lord, milk before the meat, shunning, etc...), sometimes people are murdered for their apostacy or their sacreligious expressions because of muslim beliefs held by others. Those posts are relevant to any religious or political discussions, but tend to be judged as politically incorrect. So they have tended in the past to get promptly deleted here. Hopefully this new policy to tolerate political discussions can change that. More people are killed in the name of religion than anything else. I have yet to hear of someone saying "..Eloheim is great", as they are in the act of commiting murders.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 02:08AM by azsteve.

"Guess political islam is verboten.

"Eta: pay your jizya. :( silence."

I did find it interesting that Eric's OP stated:

"We will allow some leeway in political posts insofar as they pertain to religion."

I replied to a post that mentioned President Bush saying that God told him to invade Iraq by stating the historical fact that Allah told Mohammed to invade every other nation and force the inhabitants to convert to Islam or pay the "jizya" tribute or be killed. It looks like my post has been deleted. So I guess that my post didn't pass the "some leeway" standard.

I'll second that!

I agree, i'm voting for Thor!

All you people who are opposed to raiding and pillaging are snowflakes!

Vikings are politically and culturally opposed to the Word of Wisdumb. We drink ale from horns and bash them on tables. Our family home evening consists of showing axes at women tied to boards in order to chop their pigtails.

But i favour banning the Romans from coming further north!

IN ~ on politikal thred ~

ziller in 2020!

A couple sideways observations from down here south of the Ecuator:

* The ability of citizens of the United States to criticize their leaders is the envy of a lot of folks throughout the world. Others, I've found, have not only laws preventing such criticism but deep cultural norms that regard "Question Authority" with abhorrence. Thus I believe that using this valuable tool is an honor and not to be done lightly. Stuff like respect, tolerance, patience, and reason are important. Claims with good supporting evidence rather than mere opinion honor the process, IMO.

* I've found I'm much more tolerant since I moved out of the U.S. The U.S. has become radioactive, in terms of the political climate. Down here things have cooled off immensely. It's a pleasant change. The last time I was back in the States (over a year ago) I noticed the vitriol, anger, intolerance, and arrogance almost the moment I got off the plane, and it built from there.

* I tend to agree with csuprovograd and will likely stay mostly uninvolved because for me the emotional costs outweight the benefits. However, I will say that I still love y'all regardless of your political persuasions and would be thrilled to waste an hour or more in a coffeehouse or bar with any of you talking about stuff more important than politics--i.e., the NBA, the proper way to grind coffee beans, women's rear ends, etc.

Regarding being more tolerant since leaving your home country, getbusylivin:

I think the experience of a being a long-term foreigner, rather than a tourist, is humbling and necessarily changes one's point of view on many things. That's certainly my experience and seems logical to me. Every country has its "national myths" and, once outside the bubble, many of them don't stand up to scrutiny.

Tom in Paris
(33 years a foreigner... and still loving it!)

So, it's safe to talk about HRH Mitt Romney, the White Horse Prince?


Sadly, Little Lord Mittleroy is no longer relevant.

There are some of us who are exmos that strongly support the USA President's efforts to make America great again. It was a very easy decision to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. I'm not going to try to push my beliefs on others. I long ago gave that type of lifestyle up when I gave up Mormonism.

Trump was the first presidential candidate I ever remember supporting Gay marriage long before Kerry, Obama, or any of the rest when he was running in 1999. For those of us who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals he's a dream President to have, maybe, as the rest of the candidates and office holders we've had for that office since Ross Perot have disgusted me. Nevertheless I don't agree with all that Trump does and have no issue criticizing him when he f***s up. Furthermore, I'm aware that he's going to have to make some compromises with the Religious Right as he needs their votes to get anything through Congress since he is now a Republican again and that's how party politics and DC works :( I well remember his 1999-2000 run and I strongly doubt he's a religious right nutcase now and that he's really just playing politics. The proof will be in how the Court rules on various issues in the future.

Anyone with a calculator and willingness to look at the math can see that all takes is for long-term US treasury interest rates to get back to normal to where the costs of debt service will exceed federal revenues and then we are f****ed bigtime as a country and all the squabbling that the Dems/GOP do over issues right now will seem like people squabbling over the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic. If every dime of revenue has to go towards debt interest then we will see hyperinflation like the Germans had in the 1920's and then who knows what would happen then. Thus I'm not going to jump on some bandwagon of opposing him just because some people decide to push some agenda. I'm going to look at all the facts open-mindedly and hope all will hold him accountable to keep his oath of office and he/everyone needs all the luck possible for us to avoid financial catastrophe. Anyone can see that Trump is going to be President until at least Jan 20, 2021 so if you want our next President to have anything decent left of a federal financial balance sheet to support whatever type of government and economy you want 2021 onward then its best that we survive the next few years.

I understand well that plenty of exmos disagree with me. And hopefully we are all over the black-white thinking where we can understand and accept that there is a diversity of opinions out there. Good luck to President Trump for the sake of the world and the USA.

My spouse could die if we lose our health care. Many Republicans could too. I hope they're prepared.

Trump does not care about Americans. A white supremacist is now head of our national security. The 15th amendment is being openly floured.
For the first time, I'm ashamed to be a citizen here.

"For the first time, I'm ashamed to be a citizen here."

Have you considered emigrating to say, Syria or Yemen?

You wrote: "My spouse could die if we lose our health care."

My response: "I am so sorry that you are facing this risk. I sincerely hope they don't screw things up for you. My primary point on fiscal matters is that I see a risk that could suddenly cause 100M+ people direly dependent on the system to suddenly be cut off if we go over the fiscal cliff. I'd prefer to be able to bear testimony with every fibre of my being and beyond any shadow of a doubt that the US government will stay financially capable of keeping its promises to everyone now and generations to come. But as a scientist I believe that the laws of mathematics must be respected because in the end its math, not the fiscal madness of the past 4 decades, that is going to win :("

Eric wrote: "Sigh... This is NOT what I was hoping for! Let's keep it to religion oriented politics"

My response: "Sorry Eric. I shall do so and apologize for bringing in other political-related topics. Having some better guidelines on this will be helpful. We don't need to have anyone trying to use politics to spread religion, particularly the one headquartered in SLC."

If Medicare is cut out from under us, I won't be around for very long. And no, I'm not exaggerating.

The same is true of my DH. We are seniors, with the normal frailties of aging. We have paid our dues and our taxes. We receive the pensions we worked for. But if the current administration undercuts any of that, I don't know what we will do.

If the Orange One is impeached, we will be stuck with Pence, and from what I've read, he is even worse.

It's almost scary enough to drive me back to religion. . .

Thank you, Eric, for opening things up so I can cry on your collective shoulders. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.

Sigh... This is NOT what I was hoping for! Let's keep it to religion oriented politics, otherwise this is not going to work. We can go to thousands of sites for political debate. This will get us off track.

Perhaps more specific guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable would help.

I Think your implicit description of Trump as a fiscal conservative/social liberal is wide of the mark. On the social side, his promise to install a supreme court justice that is opposed to a woman's right to choose is not at all liberal. Nor is his decision to ban what is either, depending on his mood, a religion, a group of ethnicities, or seven nationalities from entry into the United States solely on the basis of those characteristics. And building a wall? What more racist and ineffectual gesture can the United States devise than that?

The suggestion that Trump is a fiscal conservative is even more questionable. Fiscal conservatives usually want to expand the tax base so that revenues expand, yet he has already killed TPP at a cost of $4.4 billion per annum to the US economy; and threatens to do the same with regard to intra-American trade. Meanwhile, he has called for a massive program of fiscal spending combined with tax cuts. On what celestial orb does increased spending plus decreased taxes have a positive effect on the government budget deficit and the national debt?

When the Fed pointed out that with the economy already running at a reasonable pace stimulus of the sort he envisages will cause overheating and higher inflation--precisely what a (perfectly respectable) deficit hawk like you presumably opposes--Trump's reaction was an assault on the monetary authorities. Why? Because he wants faster GDP growth and more inflation and hence objects to any tightening of monetary policy. This is not so much Germany's attempt to ruin its own credit to force a change in reparations in hyperinflationary 1923-1925 as a more Peronist attempt to generate jobs at the cost of the nation's future.

The truth is that Trump is best described not as a liberal or a conservative but as a populist. We've seen the pattern before: William Jennings Bryant in the US, Mussolini in 1920s Europe, Peron and other Latin American dictators in subsequent decades. It is not policy that matters to such people but rather embodying popular rage and presenting public spectacle. That is why Trump's transformation from a Clinton-supporting liberal democrat to a reactionary Republican should not be surprising. He is playing the oldest card in the decade: appealing to people's emotions.

But make no mistake: he is neither a social liberal nor a fiscal conservative. That is why Peter Thiel, the conservative gay billionaire who spoke at Trump's convention, has quietly obtained citizenship and large tracts of land in New Zealand.

"The truth is that Trump is best described not as a liberal or a conservative but as a populist."

He is best described as a political pugilist and bombast. I'm not certain (too early to tell) if the man has a conventional political orientation at all. Basically, it's all Donald all the time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2017 08:56PM by 3X.

I think you just stumbled on the definition of a populist. No political ideology, just highly personalized opportunism usually served by some sort of charismatic but malleable personality traits.

This is seriously an old pattern in politics. I think looking at Trump as a representative of the species helps us see where he is coming from and where he might go. Trying to understand him in terms of liberalism or conservatism or political principle isn't going to shed much light on what we are experiencing.

The country has seen this before and will see it again. Huey Long, Joe McCarthy. . . Constitutions are meant to prevent this sort of thing; the burden of ensuring that ours survives falls on us.

He's a Hitlerian. An aspiring dictator.

I was wondering how many posts before we got Reductio ad Hitlerum.

I actually think ignoring that makes you willfully blind. And I did say aspiring :) Sorry, he's already breaking the Constitution and disrupting lives. Ignore it at your own peril, but I'd prefer not to live in a police state, thanks. Spend more time reading about the history of the rise of fascism. You'll get chills.

I'm more worried about his team than him, though. He's a puppet.

Not yet.

I've thought about this a lot. Mussolini was a cynical opportunist who moved from the left to the right and then established his own tin-pot dictatorship. Hitler started out as a murderous, genocidal megalomaniac. He was a different animal than Mussolini or Long or McCarthy or Peron or any of the other famous poulists.

Trump is not a Hitler wannabe. He might become that, but today really is 1920s stuff and not 1930s.

The Hitler danger resides, I think, in the interplay between what is happening in the US and what is happening elsewhere in the world. There are proto-Hitlers in Hungary and Poland and in the fringes in some of the western European countries. These movements play off of one another. I worry more about political trends leading to a seriously evil regime in parts of Eastern Europe or Russia than in the US.

Trump is a petty thug, but the US has a strong constitution and a strong participatory democracy. That is probably enough to contain a would-be Mussolini. I think we are more likely to see a Hitler arise, if he does, in some of the other countries that are suffering the same waves of economic dysfunction, popular anger, and xenophobia.

I disagree that we have a strong participatory democracy, we don't fit any aspect of that definition. Your characterization of Hitler's rise is misleading. However, I agree-- "Hitlerian" is a flippant way to say "he'd dearly love that amount of power." Based on his initial actions and his blatant willingness to break the law with the Muslim ban, I do believe he'll try.

Why is my characterization of Hitler's rise misleading?

Hitler began with rhetoric and less immediately, urgently cruel bans like the one we saw this past week, not genocide.

However, I don't think Trump himself is "a Hitler." I doubt he's bright enough to make these decisions himself. The administration as a whole, on the other hand...

Hitler's genocidal intentions were present in 1923, long before he took power. So too was his determination to overthrow the international order. Trump has expressed no such sentiment.'

Within a year of taking power Hitler had already started killing opponents and was well on his way to organizing the Night of the Long Knives. He was also already thinking of eliminating the Jews from Germany and even sent Eichmann to Israel to explore the possibility of a semi-peaceful relocation. Trump has no such long-standing racist programs.

What differentiated Hitler from Mussolini and the populists was that he had an ideology and national strategy from the start. The lesser tyrants (excepting Stalin, et al.) had no overarching vision of that sort. Trump is more like Mussolini; he has no grand vision but rather has altered his vision over the decades with remarkable rapidity.

And also, what is wrong with my definition of a strong participatory democracy?

Well, first of all, by definition we do not have a participatory democracy or strive towards it. We have a representative democracy. Secondly and less straightforwardly, I don't believe the electoral college, our restrictive voting laws historically tied to racism, and our problems with police violence and mass incarceration allow us to claim that title.

Well, "participatory democracy" does not mean "pure democracy." It refers to a constitutional system that enjoys general support from its subjects who vote at a high level and use their rights to defend their democracy.

So yes, you are right that we have a representative democratic republic. It is also an exceedingly healthy one. The vices you describe are real and substantial but they do not vitiate the degree of support that people have for the democratic system, which is higher than in almost any other democracy.

Having said that, I do agree with the Economist Intelligence Unit's recent decision to downgrade the US democracy to "flawed" status based on the erosion of public confidence in governmental and political institutions. That report also stated clearly that the decline in the health of the US system antedates Trump by many years; it has been occurring gradually over the course of several administrations and Congresses. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons that a populist demagogue could become president.

We might have a democracy in the very broad sense. On issues that aren't cut and dried, I suspect we don't. If you can fool half the people half the time, it's a tyranny run by those who control the message. That's where religion fits in so well. It trains people how to let themselves be told what to think. In the US, God is still used to justify projection of force, and that is still considered normal. It's as if sock puppet God drives foreign policy.

Whether a country is a democracy or not is independent of the wisdom of the choices it makes.

If people participate in governmental formation and, indirectly, policy, the state is a democracy. If there are formal rules for such processes and those are adhered to, the polity is a constitutional democracy. If the democratic process occurs indirectly, through republican institutions, it is a democratic republic. That is true of any government irrespective of what policy choices it makes.

I agree, however, that religion (or ideology of any sort) has a major effect on a political system--perhaps democracies somewhat more than most others. Authoritarian religions like Mormonism definitely predispose people to accept orders from demagogic leaders, as do fervent evangelical religions. Obviously that describes the US reasonably well. Other countries also have their ideological blinders, and which handicap is more debilitating probably depends on the nature of the challenges that each society faces at any given time.

Eric said:

"We will allow some leeway in political posts insofar as they pertain to religion. If this gets out of hand, we will stop again."

The easiest way to test the no politics rule is as follows: (1) Is it partisan politics (on one side and against another) and (2) Does it mention current political leaders - especially along with comments on political policy.

If so, your post will be deleted.

The reasons for the no politics rule are: (1) Political discussion is far off the stated main purpose of RfM, to help questioning Mormons and new ex-members by providing information and support and (2) In our experience, partisan discussions quickly get argumentative, which goes against the no fighting rule, and enmities between posters can quickly spring up. None of those conditions help readers and posters wrt questions about Mormonism and support as they potentially transition from it.

If your post pertains to ideas and questions and comments in general, with wide-ranging application, AND you directly relate them to Mormonism, it will likely fit within the new (experimental) guidelines about allowing limited discussion of politics, as it relates to Mormonism. If you are discussing current politicians or those in the recent past or current administrations your post is likely going to be deleted for being off topic and too political.

Eg: Discussion of Mitt Romney's candidacy - likely too political (especially in the midst of that election season). If Romney's run raised the Mormon "White Horse Prophecy", that would likely be OK to discuss (now) as long as it does not stray into partisan political remarks. Eg: Relating it to JS would be considered now to be on topic (Mormon history, so directly related to discussion of Mormonism).

The best way to try and observe board rules and preserve your post so you don't get deleted is to avoid the partisanism AND relate your comments to Mormonism/religion.

If posters can't help but bring in divisive politics in their remarks Eric will likely have no choice but to scale back this experiment or stop it immediately. Otherwise, it's just too much work for the mods and creates a negative atmosphere on the board.

Thanks for your efforts to observe these guidelines.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2017 09:19PM by Maude.

A major motivation in my coming to RFM (12 years ago) was to contest the suitability of Mr. Romney as a Presidential candidate. (I took the fight all over the Web). He is now (we hope) ancient history. Twelve years of political "web activism" has exhausted my appetite for such, and my brief summation of our current President, above in this thread, is pretty much all I have to say on the matter.

In the future, my posts will be restricted to bizarro religious sects - notably those headquartered in Utah.

. . . announced by Eric. Posters need to act like careful, conscious and self-aware grown-ups here; if they don't exercise some maturity and self-control, they could see Admin quickly pull the reins on this experiment because board participants haven't earned it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 02:47AM by steve benson.

Well that experiment blew up fast.

I was thinking more on the lines of Pandora's Box......

but blowing up fast is good too....

Just going to sit back and enjoy my brew tonight reading these!

The mods may decide that I'm going too far. I'll accept their judgment.

I'm not sure if we can discuss religious freedoms and other such topics without reference to the tectonic shifts occurring in US politics. People and parties are critical to all of this.

That is my opinion. If the mods want, they can pull my posts and I'll try to avoid politics in general.

I do, however, believe that we are at a crossroads and that it will be extremely difficult to have a meaningful conversation about these issues without addressing the bigger picture.

i hate politics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well that experiment blew up fast.

Kerr-blaam!... never did we endure a thread so bloated with inane psuedopoliticobabble in recent memory. A couple good throws from balanced brains crept in.

Sigh... maybe give it some time.

Nice to see you step in with your usual insight and temperance.

i hate politics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well that experiment blew up fast.

I don't think anything blew up. Just some good people sharing their political perspectives. That isn't a bad thing even when I don't agree with everything said. Politics is a very confusing and complex topic. This is why it is so dificult for people to find common ground in it. The important thing is to create an environment where people can say what they think without fear of being attacked. It's ok to dissagree and challenge anothers views so long as their is a tone of respect throughout. Often you end the discussion agreeing to disagree and thats ok by me.

i hate politics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well that experiment blew up fast.


Well, we're 3 minutes out of the box, and the main argument seems to be whether the POTUS is worse than Hitler or simply just as bad.

I say we maintain the ban but grant special dispensation to Benson since he's perhaps the only true political professional in our midst. Give him free reign to say whatever he wants politically. The rest of us can chime in with kudos or raspberries as we see fit up to the 60 reply limit. If Benson is ever captured or chooses to relinquish his crown, we'll enlist one of the Huntsman kids to take his place.

. . . in order to weed out overt politicking and to only post them in the first place if they are demonstrably related to religious issues brought up by the critics to attack me or my political positions.

I am not interested, frankly, in debating in this forum non-religious issues that are not contextually related to theology in general and Mormonism in particular.

You come to this forum condemning me as a "viper" in the holy-molely name of your thorny/crowned genuine Jeeeeeeeezus, trying to transform this forum into your own brand of a fast-and-testimony tent revival..

(And don't try to paddle the silly notion that I preach the gospel of atheism. Atheism is not a belief system; it is a lack of belief).

Vipe away, Tall Tales, Short Fuse. Now is the great day of your Jumpin' JC Hour of Power. :-)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 04:30AM by steve benson.

Why bother discussing politics. No one gives an inch and when facing opposition, they only dig in and develop stronger opposition.


Waste of effort.

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why bother discussing politics. No one gives an
> inch and when facing opposition, they only dig in
> and develop stronger opposition.
>
>
> Waste of effort.

FINALLY! a sane post!

...............thank you!

Which is why I really feel like it's not going to work here... Personally, I feel like there's enough baggage when talking about religion... As seen above, people are having a difficult time keeping it to a "politics as applied to religion" based conversation... Didn't we see that plenty of time with some of Steve Benson's cartoon posts?

. . . since it is THE calamitous connection which is deliberately stitched and pompously peddled by religious fanatics who are constantly mixing church and state in their extremist responses to my cartoons. It's not a rational approach; that's why it's religious.

That's also why, in my opinion, those posts have generally survived Admin deletion--because they have quoted, word for word, bullying b.s. In the form of religious abuse that is fanatically framed to push political agendas in the name of gods of choice.

Mormonism and its unholy hydra-headed cousins are fair game for calling out.

Eric has done the right thing. Let the exposure roll.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 02:17AM by steve benson.

No one ever agrees. Stop the presses on that one. :-)

What Eric is now allowing here is expanded discussion of the mixing of religion into politics. In so doing, he has requested that, whenever possible, posters provide a tie into Mormonism, since recovery from the LDS Cult is the stated purpose of this forum.

And, by the way, this is my personal interpretation of what's going on here. I am not, contrary to false assertions made here from time to time, a member of Admin; nor did Eric give me any kind of heads-up on this significant policy change since, being non-Admin, I wasn't entitled to it.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 04:33AM by steve benson.

The toxic mix of political nationalism and God-juiced opportunism is an abuse of religion that is too often designed by charlatans and thieves to promote political gain through gaming "god."

The Mormon Church has been historically up to its noxious neck in this kind of dangerous and unconstitutional brew. So, too, have other religious sects bent on bolstering their bottom line..

I agree with you that it is important to emohasize the role of rabid religion in these poisonous partnerships which lead to the kind of ecclesiastical excesses we see in Mormonism and other for-profit faiths that shamelessly spit-shine godly fantasy in a lustful quest for greed-goosed fortune.

It is an RfM policy change that, frankly, I think was long overdue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 02:20AM by steve benson.

I agree with Steve Benson's view on this one post. But somehow, I don't think that he will be using this new found freedon to encourage us to Make America Great Again. If Donald Trump were to cure world hunger, bring a lasting peace to the middle east, and talk Thomas Monson in to apologize to the world for running a religious ponzi scheme, it would all never be good enough. It has to be done through liberal means and to the fullment of a liberal world view before anything counts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 02:29AM by azsteve.

... and you'll be OK.

Already and unfortunately, however, you're abusing the trust Eric has placed in you and everyone else here by using your newly-afforded freedom to attack liberals in a patently political manner. I would say the same thing if you were attacking conservatives.

You appear not to be ready for the big leagues. Keep it up and I suspect that either (a) you'll be deleted; or (b) you'll help get this worthy experiment strangled in its crib.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 03:12AM by steve benson.

"It is an RfM policy change that, frankly, I think was long overdue."

Agreed. Steve, do you think that this new policy will inspire you to share some cartoons on RFM which make fun of Mohammed? Kinda like the Charlie Hebdo guys in Paris did? And kinda like that "draw Mohammed" contest in Texas?

How is this for a connection?

Fear.

Real or imagined, the current political bent toward pleasing the majority of religious people to gain their favor terrifies me.

The possibility of a very conservative, bible-based SC, for whom the "rights" of the many supercede the rights of individuals, nauseates me.

I care very much if our leaders behave like the Q, setting phony moral dictates which become the law of the land. Most everyone on this board has suffered from religious rule.

I don't put much stock in either side of the aisle in doing what is best to "preserve, protect and defend" The Constiution or this nation. I'm guessing, of course, but I don't think that 70,000? pages of tax code designed to protect the lawmakers' wealth is what the founders had in mind. It's very "Q" behavior, IMHO.

Our leaders, religious and political, and collectively, best defend their own selfish interests. Even someone like Lincoln is quoted as saying that if he could preserve both slavery and the nation, he would do so. Those words are hard to forget, but many have never read or heard them, and for others, they ignore them.

I think words matter. When I read or hear the words of our CIC, I fear. Those similar to him have much less to fear. That he reacts so quickly, so rashly, with so little thought as to how he is governed by emotion, seems to be a faith he has in only himself. A cult of one.

I can't predict what his leadership will bring, but I know this taste of fear, and thought it a thing of my past.

unmet wrote "Even someone like Lincoln is quoted as saying that if he could preserve both slavery and the nation, he would do so."

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Lincoln said that he would preserve slavery if it were necessary to do so in order to preserve the nation--i.e., the nation's survival was more important than ending slavery. Slavery's fate was a means to an end.

You also wrote "I know this taste of fear, and thought it a thing of my past." I couldn't agree with you more.

Yes, Lincoln was a wise liar. He and his family were among the earliest opponents of slavery. He signed on to the Republican abolitionist agenda early and sincerely.

When he approached the presidency he changed his tune, he began to say that he would preserve slavery if necessary to keep the union together. That position was necessary to win the presidency and to preserve the country's union. But he continued to strategize with his aides and others about how to eliminate slavery. That was goal no. 2, one that frankly could not be achieved if the South seceded.

The war was fought to preserve the union both on its own grounds and because Lincoln wanted to end slavery. There was a point at which he could have won the war and ended the slaughter by negotiating an early end with the Confederacy, but that enemy remained strong enough to insist on a continuation of slavery as a precondition. What did Lincoln do? He ordered his generals to continue the bloodshed for several more weeks, weakening the South to the point that it could no longer resist. It was at that point, having paid an additional cost in blood, that he adopted the abolition formally.

What I am saying is that Lincoln was a superb politician, as capable as any great leader of misguidance and dishonesty and even trading blood for progress. HE was always bent on abolition but he knew he didn't have the power to achieve that before becoming president, nor before having basically crushed the Confederacy. So he mislead a majority of people about his real intentions until the very end even as his wisest advisors (Seward in particular) saw exactly what he was doing.

Thank whatever gods may be for skillful and deceptive leaders who have the right objectives at heart.

Well, he did his job. He brought the south into submission to the northern industrial power structure. No more of this independent import business. For that, he earned the most glowing mythology a guy could ever want.

Brigham Young surely shared your view. He was ecstatic about the Civil War and wanted the South to succeed so that a weakened North could not fight "those two relics of barbarism," slavery and polygamy. That's why Young thought Lincoln was a tool of the Devil, a position he stated from the pulpit in GC and on multiple occasions in the Deseret News.

For my money, eliminating slavery was a good thing. Eliminating a southern economy that benefited an entrenched elite at the expense of a race was a good thing. Preventing the emergence of a second power center in North America, one with divergent interests that would lead to frequent wars with the US, likewise a good thing.

If he were as unidimensional a tool of industrial interests as you suggest, he had no reason to prolong the war in order to eliminate slavery. That was entirely unnecessary to the task you ascribe to him and indicates why your characterization is inaccurate.

I just love the big three...........religion, politics, and multi level marketing systems.

In Utah, there is no separation between Mormonism and politics. Especially for the next 5 weeks while the 85% LDS Legislature is in session. The church sponsors or nixes bills. Mormon politicians follow the leaders of the church, making politics about mormonism. From alcohol laws to abortion, to porn, to sex ed bills, in Utah, its about the church first.

I agree that this is a good thing, although I think a separate section for it would be beneficial. JM $0.02 worth.

RB

I'm in favor of a Colliseum section where trolls can come to battle it out with lions. The cats get bored sometimes.

I have been thinking of you lately, Eric K, wondering if you have had a deluge of political posts for RFM. I guess you have. Sorry about that.

My psychiatrist says his patients have never called him more, in his entire history of practice! He's a history buff, and a very intelligent psychiatrist, and he seems to be coming unglued. Up until lately, he's been an expert at not divulging a personal, religious, moral, or political opinion--but he's beginning to crack.

I think it goes better for me on RFM, and at work, and even with friends, to keep certain opinions to myself. After all, I might change my mind.

Except for Mormonism, that is, which I will always think of as evil. Thank you for RFM. Sometimes you just have to vent.

Not political: I liked Hilary Clinton's speech about America pulling together.... I wonder if someone could post a like to that. America is America.

I like the idea of a separate section for political posts.