Mixing politics and anti-Mormonism

[Vance]

I post this as information rather than discussion. The incident described is about anti-Mormonism exposed on a political web site.

If you want to comment, keep it about the anti-Mormonism and NOT the politics.

http://www.examiner.com/lds-church-in-national/anti-mormon-purge-coming-on-free-republic

[mercyngrace]

I post this as information rather than discussion. The incident described is about anti-Mormonism exposed on a political web site.

If you want to comment, keep it about the anti-Mormonism and NOT the politics.

http://www.examiner.com/lds-church-in-national/anti-mormon-purge-coming-on-free-republic

For years, I lurked then posted at free republic and I think the article is an accurate reflection of the sentiment that exists on the site. In my experience, there is a correlation between certain Christian denominations and militant libertarianism (is that an oxymoron?) which explains the rampant and rabid anti-Mormonism among freepers.

[jwhitlock]

Kind of like the American Family Association, that funds itself by selling (among other things) anti-Mormon books on its site bookstore.

These sites are their own worst enemies, mixing the worst of intolerant Christianity with certain political agendas. Invariably they end up being a polarizing influence, and they hurt the very agendas they espouse. Who really wants to be associated with the intolerant hypocrisy exhibited at F.R.?

Of course, this phenomenon is not associated just with conservative organizations, though if I were to guess, I would think that there are far more conservative anti-Mormons than liberal ones. I note the liberal anti-Mormon bashing of the Massachusetts media over Mitt Romney, and the general anti-Mormon agenda of the liberal LA Times. It makes a member of the Church want to hold his nose when looking at both sides, at times.

[mercyngrace]

It makes a member of the Church want to hold his nose when looking at both sides, at times.

Indeed. I held my nose for far too long before disengaging. My only defense is that hope springs eternal...

[Libs]

I wouldn't want to post on FR for a lot of reasons (and I am sure they wouldn't want me posting there, either).

That site seems to be the epitome of intolerance of almost every kind.

[Vance]

Kind of like the American Family Association, that funds itself by selling (among other things) anti-Mormon books on its site bookstore.

These sites are their own worst enemies, mixing the worst of intolerant Christianity with certain political agendas. Invariably they end up being a polarizing influence, and they hurt the very agendas they espouse. Who really wants to be associated with the intolerant hypocrisy exhibited at F.R.?

Of course, this phenomenon is not associated just with conservative organizations, though if I were to guess, I would think that there are far more conservative anti-Mormons than liberal ones. I note the liberal anti-Mormon bashing of the Massachusetts media over Mitt Romney, and the general anti-Mormon agenda of the liberal LA Times. It makes a member of the Church want to hold his nose when looking at both sides, at times.

It is very difficult to avoid the politics with this one.

At the risk of going too far I will say the following.

It appears that on the left, they are leftist first. They use anti-Mormonism as a means to further their leftist agenda.

But on the right, they are anti-Mormons first. They are very willing to abandon conservative allies to further their anti-Mormon agenda.

I realize that these are generalizations and that others' mileage may vary.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

[CQUIRK]

Not surprising indeed.

They're quite biased and fascistic in how they moderate their chatrooms. I remember how I used to bash the GOP for not being conservative enough in their politics during the Bush years, and within a week they took away by ability to post without warning or explanation.

For the practical conservative blogger, its best to just not participate on Un-Free Republic.

They are a simpleton joke of a political debate forum and maybe it would be better if Latter-Day Saints either ignored or boycotted that website.

[jwhitlock]

It is very difficult to avoid the politics with this one.

At the risk of going too far I will say the following.

It appears that on the left, they are leftist first. They use anti-Mormonism as a means to further their leftist agenda.

But on the right, they are anti-Mormons first. They are very willing to abandon conservative allies to further their anti-Mormon agenda.

I realize that these are generalizations and that others' mileage may vary.

That's an interesting observation to make, and one that merits further exploration.

[Vance]

That's an interesting observation to make, and one that merits further exploration.

I agree.

But I don't think we can do it here because the politics would get out of hand.

[Lightbearer]

I have noticed over the years that Anti-Mormonism and Political mudslinging have a lot in common, in fact the tactics are almost identical. First there is the idea of demonizing the opposition. They use a contriversial or little understood "fact" and either blow it out of proportion or spin it to make it look crazy, unseemly, or dispecable. Another favorite tactic is bald faced lies or strawmen that build a supposed case out of thin air and repeat it often so that people eventually accept it as a proven fact. Finally another great tactic is accusing the opposition of what they themselves are guilty of! So I would say political hype and religous bigotry are kissing cousins of one in the same philosophy. To contradict the truth at all costs.

[Calm]

I have noticed over the years that Anti-Mormonism and Political mudslinging have a lot in common, in fact the tactics are almost identical. First there is the idea of demonizing the opposition.

You mean like calling something a "perversion"?

[Stargazer]

Mentioned in the article was: "Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism". Something I never knew existed. Interesting that its acronym is SPAM.

[todd520]

I post this as information rather than discussion. The incident described is about anti-Mormonism exposed on a political web site.

If you want to comment, keep it about the anti-Mormonism and NOT the politics.

http://www.examiner....n-free-republic

I never visited their forum but the stats were in line with what I've seen in the Catholic and EV forums I have visited (with the EV site being 98% negative)

These sites actively encourage Bigotry. They feel in their heart that it's justified since the battle is an us or them conflict, and Mormons threw the first stone.

Mormons are the clear enemy since we've declared them apostate, not of the one true church, or of the devil's church. They have plenty of historic quotes to justify their method.

I think there is nothing substantive that can be done, since the owners are bigoted and thus show a double standard in thier control of posters,

However, LDS still need to participate in the discussion to dispel some of the lies for some of the open minded readers.

One final observation on the EV forum, when you look at their board activity, it's shocking how much activity is in the Mormun forum, more than any EV theology subforum on the site. These places don't talk about 'their religion' they talk about the religions that they hate.

[Jeff K.]

It is sad to see a people focus so much on things they hate. I don't spend my day dwelling on my dislike for beets, but I do love thinking about a nice steak.

[Jaybear]

It is sad to see a people focus so much on things they hate. I don't spend my day dwelling on my dislike for beets, but I do love thinking about a nice steak.

Says the man who has made clear, repeatedly his disdain for gay marriage.

But that's different, right?

[Jeff K.]

Says the man who has made clear, repeatedly his disdain for gay marriage.

But that's different, right?

Indeed very different, since I don't want my steak ruined by a sauce that has nothing to do with steak.

[Jaybear]

Indeed very different, since I don't want my steak ruined by a sauce that has nothing to do with steak.

You lost me. No one is making you put a beet sauce on your steak.

[Hestia]

Says the man who has made clear, repeatedly his disdain for gay marriage.

But that's different, right?

Uncalled for personal remark.

[Jaybear]

Uncalled for personal remark.

Absolutely not true. Jeff implied he was a "better" person, because he does not spend any time dwelling on things he dislikes.

Ergo, though the statement was personal, it was not UNCALLED for, as Jeff put this issue squarely on the table.

Moreover, its not even an insult. Jeff dislikes gay marriage. He post his opinion about it all the time. My point is that "dwelling" on things you don't like, doesn't make you a bad person.

[Jeff K.]

I shall not respond, the statement speaks for itself.

[CQUIRK]

You lost me. No one is making you put a beet sauce on your steak.

Depends on what state you're in. I'm all in favor of leaving the matter up to the Tenth Amendment as the final judge... But in my own state, I do not want beet sauce on my steak, thank you!

[Pahoran]

Absolutely not true. Jeff implied he was a "better" person, because he does not spend any time dwelling on things he dislikes.

No, Jeff did not imply that; you merely inferred it.

All that Jeff did was draw attention to a better approach to the problem.

Ergo, though the statement was personal, it was not UNCALLED for, as Jeff put this issue squarely on the table.

Moreover, its not even an insult. Jeff dislikes gay marriage. He post his opinion about it all the time. My point is that "dwelling" on things you don't like, doesn't make you a bad person.

I'm sorry Jaybear; does Jeff hang around on "gay" themed message boards bashing people for promoting "gay marriage?"

Or perhaps not?

Jeff has an opinion; he expresses that opinion when the subject comes up. The people you are defending find pretexts to bash the Church of Jesus Christ on the internet, without waiting for anyone else to raise the subject. There's a fundamental difference there. I'm sorry you can't see it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[todd520]

Absolutely not true. Jeff implied he was a "better" person, because he does not spend any time dwelling on things he dislikes.

Ergo, though the statement was personal, it was not UNCALLED for, as Jeff put this issue squarely on the table.

Moreover, its not even an insult. Jeff dislikes gay marriage. He post his opinion about it all the time. My point is that "dwelling" on things you don't like, doesn't make you a bad person.

I clearly read Jeff claimed he didn't spend all his time on things he dislikes. I'm certain he did not claim he spent zero time on things he dislikes

Since it was based off my post, one should really prove Jeff spends a large proportion of his time and posts on 'gay marriage' and that he is initiating the discussion and not just responding to other threads.

It's about balance, or the lack of it in how some people post