Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe in our Constitution and the right of people to exercise their right of the free exercise of religion. I don't know what religion you are nor do I care. Your obsessive hatred of the LDS is not what this country is all about. I will reiterate that I view the LDS as a force for good in this world.
As far as incorporation is concerned, you don't seem to understand the legal reasons for doing so. Many religions have done the same thing, including Catholics.
A History of the Legal Incorporation of Catholic Church Property in the United States (1784-1932)
ELSIE can do as he pleases, and all you can do is whine about someone hating you.
Too bad that your chosen religion is so lame and weak.
While...
I will reiterate that I view MORMONism as a force for EVIL in the next.
Then I guess you'll be the FIRST on FR to either affirm or repudiate the QUOTED statements made by MORMON leadership in post #53.
Kabar, could you possibly stay "on the level" here instead of engaging in personal religious attacks vs. Elsie?
Why is it you hypocritically defend Mormon religious expression, but not Elsie's religious expression? Why is one sanctioned by you -- and the First Amendment -- but apparently Elsie's religious comments are to be shut up as accused-by-you "obsessive hatred?"
Do you always go around and judge and psycho-analyze the inward motivations of complete strangers?
Why can't we do what you do -- and claim that your religious attacks upon Elsie are based upon your obsessive hatred of Elsie or his religious views? Would that be a fair conclusion for us to draw -- when we don't know much about you?
Do you realize that some people have consistently posted online concerns about the homosexual agenda?
Do you reallize some of them have loved ones who are homosexuals?
Does it = if somebody consistently speaks out vs. the homosexual agenda that they automatically have an "obsessive hatred" vs. homosexuals? (In case, you couldn't discern the answer from the possible liberal education you've had, the answer to that Q is "no")
Why then do you engage in similar liberal tactics of slander?
Can we not distinguish loving the person -- be it the homosexual or loved ones like my Lds relatives -- and the ideological or theological or worldviews they embrace?
Do we have to have kum-bah-yah sessions ordered by you for all minority religious views?
Do you make the online circuit and fend off all critiques vs. Scientology, or Hare Krishna, or radical jihadist Islam? If not, Why not? Are those religious expressions entitled to your same Amendment-based arguments of defense?
If not, why have you singled out Mormonism as the base of your defense?
Have you attended public schools & a public college that has taught you this post-modernist liberal multi-culturalism? (That all beliefs are equal and deserve some kind of equal treatment as "truth"...EXCEPT, OF COURSE, those religious views that happen to critique some of those views as falsehoods?)
That's why you have refuted yourself in your own post. We don't know whether to believe your keyboard promotion of the First Amendment, and religious tolerance -- or your verbal-condemnation practice of disrespecting Elsie's practice of the First Amendment and Elsie's practice of religious ideation expression.
So ANSWER: If you preach tolerance, why are you so intolerant of Elsie?
If tolerance is the bottom line, then you should be practicing tolerance toward Elsie's religious views and exercise of the First Amendment.
But you don't.
That makes you a certified, genuine dual-faced religious hypocrite...And of all the people Jesus roundly & soundly condemned most...'twas religious hypocrites.
“I believe in our Constitution and the right of people to exercise their right of the free exercise of religion”
Do you? What if my religion makes it a sin for me to remain silent while some false teacher expounds a lie (hint: mine does)? Christians will be held to account before God for refusing to speak up when those around them are being led away into death. See Proverbs 24:11-12. See also Jesus telling us to NOT hide our lamps under a bushel.
But for traditional Christians, this is old news. What is curious is how many moderns do not understand this. Why do you suppose the first Christians were thrown to lions and otherwise abused by the Roman Empire? Because they refused to align themselves with the theology of Caesar, who also claimed to be a god. Who then was the more intolerant? Christian men woman and children who would rather to die than to bend the knee to yet another deity wannnabe? Or Caesar, who was so incensed at Christian “intolerance” of his claim to divinity he tried to simply eliminate the refuseniks by executive order?
Now, your claim that the Constitution somehow prohibits the free discussion of the pros and cons of various religions, especially as they affect political life, is ridiculous on its face. I am an attorney who has substantial exposure to constitutional law, and I can tell you with 100% confidence that the Constitution does not limit the discourse of private citizens on matters of religion and politics. It only prevents the federal government from using religion to prevent citizen participation in the political process.
But what is more interesting to me is how this argument is being used as the expression of the new “civil religion” of the left to suppress free speech. God can be tolerated, as long as he is safely tucked away in the stain-glass confines of church buildings on Sundays. Heaven forbid (pardon the expression) that either he or those who strongly believe in him should be allowed to actually have a voice in the public square. Question the fitness for office of yet another “god in embryo?” Oh my, we can’t have that, because that’s against our new religion of “tolerance of all things except stuff we don’t like.”
So please realize, you may think of yourself as a conservative, but by deploying the “tolerance defense” to shore up support for Romney, you are playing one of the left’s favorite cards. I wouldn’t deny you your right to do so. First Amendment and all that. But I think you deserve to know. Golden rule. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. It just works.