Posted on 07/29/2007 3:23:40 AM PDT by restornu
There has been a lot talk about the LDS on the News/Activism forum for several months now, so you are invited to come and investigate & listening for yourselves!
Mitt Romney on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s 700 Club
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTBqnZ7SLn4&NR=1
j/k
My bad! ;-)
I’m sorry, but any church, business or organization which uses the bogus, made-up and completely ungrammatical term “meetinghouses” is trying way too hard to be “trendy” and must be approached with that in mind.
Be of Good Cheer!
I beleive the term meetinghouses was used in the 1800’s and also in Europe not sure but it is not new!
Meetinghouse
Reserving “church” to designate a covenanted ecclesiastical society, New England Puritans used “meetinghouse” to denote the assembly place used for church services, town meetings, and other public gatherings. Church membership was restricted, but attendance at church services was mandatory. Services included baptisms, sermons, prayers, psalm singing, and funerals for notable persons. Typically a white frame structure, the early square meetinghouse, with a central tower, gave way to an oblong style with an end tower topped by a spire. The pulpit dominated the simple but dignified interior. In much of New England, taxes as well as pew receipts supported the meetinghouses’ religious activities. In late colonial times the meetinghouse became a center of revolutionary activities.
I have a hunch there was originally a space between the words.
“Meetinghouse” is the sort of word PC marketers come up with so their clients sound streamlined and cutting-edge.
All it indicates, mostly, is that yet another church hired yet another PC liberal marketing firm to make them seem cool. Check out the Lutherans if you want to see it taken to a ridiculous extreme.
This is not about recruitment there has been enough hearsay so this is an invitation to hear what the source has to say!
Maybe we should have a list of what religions/denominations can and can’t be bashed here. Here’s the vibe I get.
FReeperitically correct (bashing not allowed):
Baptists
Methodists
Lutherans
Presbyterians
Calvinists
Orthodox Jews
FReeperitically incorrect (bashing allowed):
Episcopals
Mormons
Catholics
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Muslims
Agnostics
Atheists
Hindus
Buddhists
Reform and Conservative Jews
Aren’t double standards grand?
It’s sickening, the hypocrisy and double standards regarding religion here. I don’t think Romney would make that good of a president, but anyone who pisses bigots off can’t be all bad.
Hearsay?!
I remember just a few of years ago (about 2003) people on FR were simply posting links to the history of Mormonism (without any editorial spin) and the LDS crowd went ballistic. They pinged the Mods on the forum to have them pulled - and they were.
The censorship got so heated that Jim Robinson posted a comment that all religious "bashing" had to stop. It led to a very long thread, and many Freepers thought this would be the end of debate on the site.
It was the Mormons who had acted heavy handedly, and worked feverishly to get some members banned for speaking out against the LDS.
And don't tell me it didn't happen either. I was on those threads. I saw the posts deleted. So please spare me your "victim" speech conserveababe.
Thats true. I agree that your on to something here.
Hi CSB its been a long time hope all has improved for you!
Interesting list of who is in and who is out when it comes to religious freedom.
Thanks!
Victim? I’m just stating the facts. But you don’t want to admit that the emperor has no clothes.
And why don’t you spare me your guilt-by-association tripe. I don’t know about the events/religion debates of 2003, because I wasn’t even here then. Don’t blame me.
For the record, I’m Catholic, not Mormon. But I hate religious bigotry of all kinds.
Well ask JR yourself and you will find that is not true for both sides got wacked.
and I am still friends with some of the banned Calvinist we talk on other sites and email each other so things are nor always what they seem to be!
Define "religious bigotry?"
So, if I say something about Mohammad that isn't favorable, I am a "religious bigot?"
It sounds like you are forming an alliance with the LDS church as a Catholic because you got angry with some posters challenging things the Catholic church teaches.
Also, don't publish lists of what religions/denominations can and can’t be bashed here and then launch on me when I tell you that you are not correct or consistent in that statement with a "don't blame me" post. The fact is the LDS threads have a history of being heavy handed and punitive, to include Freep "hate mail." So your entire post #11 is incorrect.
Read your own post. It sounds like you’re the one who wants to be a victim. Oh, the oppression from those mean, mean Mormons! Why don’t you call Jesse Jackson? He’s a “religious” man who’d be more your type.
If you say something bad about Mohammad, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as it's true (and there are a lot of true bad things about Mohammad). But if you paint all people of a religion with the same broad brush, and put collective guilt on people for the actions of individuals, that's bigotry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.