Romney and the Mormon Cult

[Syn7]

Is the Mormon Church a cult? Well let's see. What is the definition of cult?

Cult
(kŭlt)
n. 1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.

2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.

6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.




OK so under those definitions most organized religion can be considered Cults. But I personally feel that the Mormon Church is right up there on that list. I bring it up because of the whole Romney deal.
Mormons pledge themselves to their church and promise to hold Mormon values above all else, even secular. So if Romney gets in (he doesn't stand a chance, but still) who will he be the most loyal to? American Taxpayers? The Mormon Church? or the 1% he already goes to bat for day in and day out? Where are this mans priorities.

Here's my problem. If he is honest and true to his religion then he MUST hold us all to Mormon values. If he isn't honest about his faith and his church and does NOT put the Mormon Church first then who will he be loyal to? Can he be loyal to anyone is he lies to himself and his family by not obeying the Mormon Values?

Where does The Waffle stand and does he even deserve a chance after so much backpeddling and inconsistent rhetoric?

Does anyone here think StinkMitt even has a chance at winning the election?

[Hebrew Hammer]

The problem with it is that from almost any perspective you can paint any of the major religions as a cult...they are almost all ruled by men or dominated by them and are used to control the flocks.

Using the definition you listed, Catholicism would fall into that definition, its ruled by Pope (God's sole representative on earth) it's priests have been committing sex crimes against children, they worship idols, and expect money from its followers.

It reeks of David Koresh but on a grander scale. My point is be careful who you are about to judge lest you be judged by someone else's perspective. You can't paint a whole religion and its people with a broad brush. Most people don't know much about Mormonism outside of it...lots of misinformation and there is even more diversity within the religion itself.

It's a brave thread though...I'm pretty sure when Kennedy was running for office, some of this same discussion was taking place.

[David Jamieson]

All churches, temples and mosques are used by cults by definition.
All organized religion is a cult, by definition.

Be they mormons, jews, muslims, buddhists, anglicans (episcopalians) catholics or otherwise.
All the people involved in that are engaged in cult practices.

Mormons aren't any different in that sense, they are just more modern than the old ones.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Cult, sect, all the same thing really like has been said.
There really hasn't been an example of Romney's faith influencing his politics in a way that is different thasn any other candidates.
Sure the Morman religion has some distinct things that are different and perhaps make people uncomfortable but that is for the individual voter to decide in regards to Romney.

I think that term cult tends to make on thing of a small, closed to the public, religious group with some practices that may be viewed as "questionable" and perhaps even "disturbing" but even to that view all religions, heck in all ideologies are cults.

I disagree with the term "false" being used to describe a cult because that would require a "judgment" called that very few are qualified to make.

[David Jamieson]

The bigger issue with Romney is his complete disconnect from the common man. That guy functions at the 80,000 feet level, where the oxygen is really thin...

He is surprisingly unaware of the plight of the common man.
Would make a useless leader simply on that point alone.

SR- the word "false" should be replaced with non-evidential. I think anyone can make the observation that the evidence is lacking without making the outright call of "False".

[mawali]

If anything, Romney fits the definition of AntiChrist far more relaibly than President Obama. Romney has the backing of the Corporate Aristocracy and despite his flipflops, he is still pursued, courted and counted as one of 'THEM' while Obama is not, does not and he usually tells it like it is instead of sugarcoating reality.

Keep in mind, all elected officials are liars to x degree but it is better to be a peoples' candidate than a candidate set up by a committee and have citizens choose the choice of said committee!

[David Jamieson]

If anything, Romney fits the definition of AntiChrist far more relaibly than President Obama. Romney has the backing of the Corporate Aristocracy and despite his flipflops, he is still pursued, courted and counted as one of 'THEM' while Obama is not, does not and he usually tells it like it is instead of sugarcoating reality.

Keep in mind, all elected officials are liars to x degree but it is better to be a peoples' candidate than a candidate set up by a committee and have citizens choose the choice of said committee!

Actually the difference between Romney and Obama versus the antichrist is that Romney and Obama are real people.

The antichrist is an idea. Anyone can be an antichrist. Typically, the christian religious will dub the non-religious as such. NO other religion really bothers with an antichrist. It's specific to christian themes.

[Lucas]

everything i know about mormons i learned from southpark :eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually the difference between Romney and Obama versus the antichrist is that Romney and Obama are real people.

The antichrist is an idea. Anyone can be an antichrist. Typically, the christian religious will dub the non-religious as such. NO other religion really bothers with an antichrist. It's specific to christian themes.

The anti-christ in PURE Christian terms is any individual that denies that Christ was the Son of God and/or came in the flesh and/or has risen.
So it obviously can apply to a whole lot of people !
Most tend to confuse the "beast" of Revelation as THE anti-christ with how the term was more widely used - to dentote those that were against the Gospel of the Kingdom Of God ( as preached by Christ) and Jesus Christ.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I thought Bawang was the Anti Christ? I have little fear of Mormonism and Rommney, even if he were elected he would be a fool to put his religion front and center. I don't know how soo many people in this country are focused on the religion of our elected leaders, its not a religious position, we ARE NOT a Theocracy...probably the too most religious Presidents that I can think of were Jimmy Carter and George Bush. One a man of peace another a man of war...interesting contrast.

[David Jamieson]

I thought Bawang was the Anti Christ? I have little fear of Mormonism and Rommney, even if he were elected he would be a fool to put his religion front and center. I don't know how soo many people in this country are focused on the religion of our elected leaders, its not a religious position, we ARE NOT a Theocracy...probably the too most religious Presidents that I can think of were Jimmy Carter and George Bush. One a man of peace another a man of war...interesting contrast.

I think a lot of it is just an invented narrative to create buzz.
Most Americans don't really care about one's religious leanings except where they might effect public policy.

In which case, it would seem that the religious right is ok with marrying church and state, the left is vehemently against that and Joe average wants them both to shut up and talk about real issues that effect real people in a real sense.

Religion is best kept private and completely and far away from government policy on any level whatsoever.

Secular humanist rule of law is the ONLY fair way forward. You can still get on your knees and pray as much as you like, but that's not going to make science stop coming to conclusions on theories and developing real usable devices for us to make our lives easier and then teaching others how to do that as well and so on.

Trying to make it about religious propensity is absurd and works with absurd thinkers. So that is why it's there. There is a surplus on absurd political thought. Go figure. lol

[wenshu]

I thought Bawang was the Anti Christ? I have little fear of Mormonism and Rommney, even if he were elected he would be a fool to put his religion front and center. I don't know how soo many people in this country are focused on the religion of our elected leaders, its not a religious position, we ARE NOT a Theocracy...probably the too most religious Presidents that I can think of were Jimmy Carter and George Bush. One a man of peace another a man of war...interesting contrast.

It's really just the Evangelicals in the south and their influence on the GOP that makes it a big deal.

Evangelicals hate Mormons. Probably because it detracts from the pool of potential born agains.

Pundits get all worked up about it because it's a divisive issue, but outside of the GOP I don't think people whose votes actually determine elections (independent swing voters) care.

I have this theory that that is the same reason the Vatican is against birth control. It has nothing to do with the supposed promotion of premarital sex. It is because the more children Catholics have means more Catholics means more tithing.

[RenDaHai]

Were always so careful to respect other peoples religious beliefs these days and publicly we try not to judge people for it. But there are beliefs which are so ridiculous that it is a necessity for the future of our society that we do judge people on them, because these people need to be kept away from things like scissors and children and the nuclear football.

Is mormonism SO ridiculous that every one who adheres to it is by extension also ridiculous? I have no idea, like Lucas everything I know about it comes from south park.

It would be really funny if at the end of it all, it turned out the mormons were right....

[mawali]

It's really just the Evangelicals in the south and their influence on the GOP that makes it a big deal.

Evangelicals hate Mormons. Probably because it detracts from the pool of potential born agains.

Pundits get all worked up about it because it's a divisive issue, but outside of the GOP I don't think people whose votes actually determine elections (independent swing voters) care.

I have this theory that that is the same reason the Vatican is against birth control. It has nothing to do with the supposed promotion of premarital sex. It is because the more children Catholics have means more Catholics means more tithing.

Words by themselves are meaningless but the 'code' works for those who use it as a gauge for whatever the person who speaks to them and how he does it.
People like Romney are successful because of the prejudices of the past that sought to demean their person as opposed to who they worshipped. So they work harder to be above the fray.

When someone like Gingrich, a good ole boy from Georgia invokes "welfare queens"
"collecting benefits those people do not deserve", or more people receiving welfare now than with Bush (an outright lie but one can surely check the statistics minus job loss, NAFTA. preference of overseas cheap labour" etc), the lazy citizenry believes what they choose to, despite the reality so if said enought itmes, it become "truth" and politics trumps anything based how on bad you are told to hate!
Believe me, we ain't see nothin' yet!

[Dragonzbane76]

I fear his mormonism less than i fear his understanding of the common man.

[Lucas]

I'm Mormon and you guys offend me. I'm off to read my golden tomes to my wives, and pay homage to the late great Rodney Dangerfield.

[wenshu]

I fear his mormonism less than i fear his understanding of the common man.

It's unbelievable how tone deaf this guy is. I would seriously hate to be working on a campaign when the candidate actively works to undermine everything you are there to do in the first place.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/discussing-manning-romney-touts-ties-to-football-team-owners/


And at one point, Mr. Finebaum asked Mr. Romney, as a New England Patriots fan, where he thought Peyton Manning should go as a free agent, and the candidate highlighted his friendship with football team owners — echoing comments in which he explained his affinity for Nascar by noting he knew the owners of Nascar teams.

“I’m surprised to hear that Denver’s thinking about him,” Mr. Romney said. “I don’t want him in our neck of the woods, let’s put it that way.”

“I’ve got a lot of good friends, the owner of the Miami Dolphins and the New York Jets, both owners are friends of mine,” he added. “But let’s keep him away from New England.”

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's unbelievable how tone deaf this guy is. I would seriously hate to be working on a campaign when the candidate actively works to undermine everything you are there to do in the first place.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/discussing-manning-romney-touts-ties-to-football-team-owners/

I don't get it...

[David Jamieson]

I don't get it...

It works like this with Mitt

Guy in audience: "What do you think of cookies Mitt?"
Mitt: "Well I know several people who own all the companies that make cookies"

or

Guy In Audience: " Boxers of Briefs?"
Mitt: " I know the owner of Stanfields personally, I like them"

or

Guy in Audience: "Why is gas so expensive"
Mitt: " I know a guy who owns 50 oil wells!"

The disconnect is that Romney fails at the level of being able to communicate with the common man in simple human terms. Mitt has to put himself above people because that's what he has been taught to do. He discriminates based on class and more than likely hates going to rallies and town halls because he cannot relate to the common man.

He's had a silver spoon, a silver fork, a silver knife and a silver plate to eat off his whole life. He simply is disconnected from the Majority of Americans and the real on the ground issues they have.

Mitt should stay in corporate-sphere for the rest of his days. Although, he brings harm to the people there as well according to his track record of company breakups and sell offs that are followed by huge job losses.

In my opinion, the GOP is deliberately fronting these fools in order to shoe in Obama. I don't know what kind of person would support the ideas of Romney, Gingrich or the now gone Rick Perry.

I do understand the hope of Libertarian idealists who run after Paul. But Paul has too much common sense and is actually too educated and informed for the base he has thrown in with which is the modern conservative, not be be confused with actual conservatives. The modern ones seem overtly concerned about everyone having to believe in anti-abortion and jesus despite that religion and idea being pretty much a middle of the road or minority though.

The attachment by the GOP to the Christian right was a HUUUUUUGE mistake and has shot them in the foot over and over again. It's an insult to a great deal of Americans for one thing who are not all Christians, in fact, not even mostly Christians.

the very idea of Christianity having a higher seat in the government is abhorrent on every level when weighed against the constitution guidelines.

a huge mistake. It sucks. I like conservatism, but this? This is crap.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It works like this with Mitt

Guy in audience: "What do you think of cookies Mitt?"
Mitt: "Well I know several people who own all the companies that make cookies"

or

Guy In Audience: " Boxers of Briefs?"
Mitt: " I know the owner of Stanfields personally, I like them"

or

Guy in Audience: "Why is gas so expensive"
Mitt: " I know a guy who owns 50 oil wells!"

The disconnect is that Romney fails at the level of being able to communicate with the common man in simple human terms. Mitt has to put himself above people because that's what he has been taught to do. He discriminates based on class and more than likely hates going to rallies and town halls because he cannot relate to the common man.

He's had a silver spoon, a silver fork, a silver knife and a silver plate to eat off his whole life. He simply is disconnected from the Majority of Americans and the real on the ground issues they have.

Mitt should stay in corporate-sphere for the rest of his days. Although, he brings harm to the people there as well according to his track record of company breakups and sell offs that are followed by huge job losses.

In my opinion, the GOP is deliberately fronting these fools in order to shoe in Obama. I don't know what kind of person would support the ideas of Romney, Gingrich or the now gone Rick Perry.

I do understand the hope of Libertarian idealists who run after Paul. But Paul has too much common sense and is actually too educated and informed for the base he has thrown in with which is the modern conservative, not be be confused with actual conservatives. The modern ones seem overtly concerned about everyone having to believe in anti-abortion and jesus despite that religion and idea being pretty much a middle of the road or minority though.

The attachment by the GOP to the Christian right was a HUUUUUUGE mistake and has shot them in the foot over and over again. It's an insult to a great deal of Americans for one thing who are not all Christians, in fact, not even mostly Christians.

the very idea of Christianity having a higher seat in the government is abhorrent on every level when weighed against the constitution guidelines.

a huge mistake. It sucks. I like conservatism, but this? This is crap.

Ah, I understand now.
Thanks.
Politics and religion have ALWAYS been intermixed, indeed in Jesus' time religions was politics.
Sure the "new people of the new convenant" were not the be of "this world" but the issue has always been what "of this world" meant and more and more scholar that are viewing Jesus as he was - A jewish prophet in the 1st century AD under the second temple - are realizing that "not of this world" meant to NOT be part of the current second temple judaisim that was leading them to utter destruction.

Of course it is a timeless lesson also, one that warns believer always of NOT being part of what they KNOW or can at least "see" is NOT the correct way to go.

Should a christian being in politics? Yes, it is a job like any other the problem is that UNLESS a christian is able to maintain his "christianity" then he must choose between politics and Christ and that SHOULD me "bye bye politics".

Why? because a Christian is a Christian FIRST and then everything else second and by that I mean a Christian BEFORE he is an american or a senator or even a president.

[Syn7]

I don't like how Religion is weening it's way back into what is supposed to be a secular political system. Rick Santorum is a great example. WTF is he smoking? He freely admits that he will put the faith first. I haven't heard Romney say anything of the sort. In fact he barely mentions his faith at all. And that's weird in itself. I wonder what his connection really is. Is he a half assed Mormon or an undercover hardliner? What? The other end of religion in politics drives me nuts too. Perfect example is a guy like Obama. I doubt he would even go to church if he didn't feel like he had to. How long will it take for the US to elect an atheist or an agnostic let alone a Muslim, Buddhist or anything else "eastern".

If Obama came out and said "I am not a Christian anymore, my faith is gone. I am an atheist and I will not bring any of that into my politics." does anyone think he could even have a hope at winning a second term? In fact had he said it last year we prolly would have seen a democratic primary.

The republican primary is insane. Anyone see Herman Cains SickOfStimulus ad? with the fish? WTF is he smoking? Now Rush is on the run for calling a civilian a $lut, wh0re and a bunch more and FOX news comes back with "Bill Maher has said bad things about Palin and Bachman" as if being dead serious and preaching how a college woman who was a CIVILIAN is a wh0re sex addict who wants you to pay her for her addiction is the same as a stand up comedian calling a PUBLIC POLITICAL FIGURE a dumb c*nt in a stand up routine at a private show. He tones in down for prime time even tho his message is the same. That's not the same as what Rush did. These people are going crazy. It's like a race to the right. God forbid any of them actually get elected and have to backpedal like a motherfukcer because they are back in the real world. Like all that Iran rhetoric. How freaking irresponsible is that? Even the Mossad is like "WHOA, STFU!!! Think before you speak, American!"

And as they move to the right, the left tards out and moves to the center to accommodate what they feel is an exploitable gap and leave their real base with arms up in disbelief. I laugh when republicans call Obama a socialist. In reality the man is very moderate. And anything but a strong leader. The man runs on change and then hires an unprecedented amount of wall street insiders to re-tool the next scam on the taxpayer. We thought Bush was into cronyism. Obama is worse. They call him no drama Obama like he's inherently weak and avoids conflict across the aisle. But in reality I think he knows exactly what he's doing and he is positioning himself for the best possible post presidential life he can while he's POTUS.


Anywhoo. I'm done ranting... for now.


Oh and like I said in my very first post. All organized religions fall under the definition of "Cult". Every last one of them.

There is the real definition and then there is what most people think of when they hear the word. The definition a ton of folks think is....

1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

[Syn7]

It works like this with Mitt

Guy in audience: "What do you think of cookies Mitt?"
Mitt: "Well I know several people who own all the companies that make cookies"

or

Guy In Audience: " Boxers of Briefs?"
Mitt: " I know the owner of Stanfields personally, I like them"

or

Guy in Audience: "Why is gas so expensive"
Mitt: " I know a guy who owns 50 oil wells!"

The disconnect is that Romney fails at the level of being able to communicate with the common man in simple human terms. Mitt has to put himself above people because that's what he has been taught to do. He discriminates based on class and more than likely hates going to rallies and town halls because he cannot relate to the common man.

He's had a silver spoon, a silver fork, a silver knife and a silver plate to eat off his whole life. He simply is disconnected from the Majority of Americans and the real on the ground issues they have.

Mitt should stay in corporate-sphere for the rest of his days. Although, he brings harm to the people there as well according to his track record of company breakups and sell offs that are followed by huge job losses.

America has been bought out, stripped and sold for parts. Profitable business is gutted for the quick dollar and left to rot while the citizens pay the long term consequences. These perpetrators are Americans masquerading as Patriots in order to hide their economic cannibalism.

This is Romneys business model. That is how he makes his money. The main reason he has trouble connecting with common people is because he has always looked at them as pawns on a game board. From day one he was taught that he was to be served, not to serve. So when he stands in front of a group of people who aren't indoctrinated or financially benefiting from him they see right through his "I'm here to serve you" speeches because it is so disingenuous it shines right through any words he could possibly utter.

Even the GOP is annoyed that he's running. They have been trying to court more blood but have been unsuccessful. Even Jeb Bush turned them down. There is still a chance that Neither Romney, Santorum or Gingrich will get the nomination.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't like how Religion is weening it's way back into what is supposed to be a secular political system. Rick Santorum is a great example. WTF is he smoking? He freely admits that he will put the faith first. I haven't heard Romney say anything of the sort. In fact he barely mentions his faith at all. And that's weird in itself. I wonder what his connection really is. Is he a half assed Mormon or an undercover hardliner? What? The other end of religion in politics drives me nuts too. Perfect example is a guy like Obama. I doubt he would even go to church if he didn't feel like he had to. How long will it take for the US to elect an atheist or an agnostic let alone a Muslim, Buddhist or anything else "eastern".

If Obama came out and said "I am not a Christian anymore, my faith is gone. I am an atheist and I will not bring any of that into my politics." does anyone think he could even have a hope at winning a second term? In fact had he said it last year we prolly would have seen a democratic primary.

The republican primary is insane. Anyone see Herman Cains SickOfStimulus ad? with the fish? WTF is he smoking? Now Rush is on the run for calling a civilian a $lut, wh0re and a bunch more and FOX news comes back with "Bill Maher has said bad things about Palin and Bachman" as if being dead serious and preaching how a college woman who was a CIVILIAN is a wh0re sex addict who wants you to pay her for her addiction is the same as a stand up comedian calling a PUBLIC POLITICAL FIGURE a dumb c*nt in a stand up routine at a private show. He tones in down for prime time even tho his message is the same. That's not the same as what Rush did. These people are going crazy. It's like a race to the right. God forbid any of them actually get elected and have to backpedal like a motherfukcer because they are back in the real world. Like all that Iran rhetoric. How freaking irresponsible is that? Even the Mossad is like "WHOA, STFU!!! Think before you speak, American!"

And as they move to the right, the left tards out and moves to the center to accommodate what they feel is an exploitable gap and leave their real base with arms up in disbelief. I laugh when republicans call Obama a socialist. In reality the man is very moderate. And anything but a strong leader. The man runs on change and then hires an unprecedented amount of wall street insiders to re-tool the next scam on the taxpayer. We thought Bush was into cronyism. Obama is worse. They call him no drama Obama like he's inherently weak and avoids conflict across the aisle. But in reality I think he knows exactly what he's doing and he is positioning himself for the best possible post presidential life he can while he's POTUS.


Anywhoo. I'm done ranting... for now.


Oh and like I said in my very first post. All organized religions fall under the definition of "Cult". Every last one of them.

There is the real definition and then there is what most people think of when they hear the word. The definition a ton of folks think is....

Personally I think what Rick is doing is great, he is being honest and straight forward and people will either vote for that or not, refreshing actually.

As for the Rush thing, he is as big an idiot as Maher, talk about to sides of the same coin.
Sensationalism over talent I guess.
And yes, every organized religion is a cult by the very definition of the word as it was used correctly ( perhaps sect is even more correct), but the definition you posted leaves a big gray area....

1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

Many organized religions do NOT have a sole leader, false and unconvential are highly subjective terms and not all religious followers of a religion that has a sole authoritive figure follow his advice and there is no real punishment if they don't ( Roman Catholics come to mind).

[David Jamieson]

For Episcopalians and Anglicans it's the same with the british monarch being their head of the church.

For tibetan buddhists it's the DL

I think, except for Ba'hai, all organized religions have a figure head and leader, a defender of the faith so to speak. Either big scale, or in a franchised regional kind of way.

[Drake]

Dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[Hebrew Hammer]

I fear his mormonism less than i fear his understanding of the common man.

Great point...I fear his moronism more than his mormonism.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I don't like how Religion is weening it's way back into what is supposed to be a secular political system. Rick Santorum is a great example. WTF is he smoking? He freely admits that he will put the faith first. I haven't heard Romney say anything of the sort.

It's not what politicians say...its' what they do, everyone of them or at least 99% just pander to the voters and do what is in their own best interest.

[Syn7]

Personally I think what Rick is doing is great, he is being honest and straight forward and people will either vote for that or not, refreshing actually.

As for the Rush thing, he is as big an idiot as Maher, talk about to sides of the same coin.
Sensationalism over talent I guess.
And yes, every organized religion is a cult by the very definition of the word as it was used correctly ( perhaps sect is even more correct), but the definition you posted leaves a big gray area....


Many organized religions do NOT have a sole leader, false and unconvential are highly subjective terms and not all religious followers of a religion that has a sole authoritive figure follow his advice and there is no real punishment if they don't ( Roman Catholics come to mind).

That isn't the only definition I posted. What I said is that the first part of the definition is what most people think of when they hear cult. That's all. I never said it was my definition. I went thru a few dictionaries and they were all the same pretty much. This one was one of the more "diverse" and fair definitions that I could find. It gave the freak paranoid definition then it gave the rest of the meanings. What the word actually means.

I suppose Santorum being honest about one thing is refreshing since it's coming from a guy who has been caught lying a handful of times. Otherwise he's just a politician riding a wave he thinks will get him the nomination. And to be completely honest, I'm not sure I even believe he believes most of what he says as far as the fundamentalist sh1t goes.


And a comedy show, a stand up routine at a private show at that, is not the same as a dead serious political show. One is a real pundit and one is a pretend pundit, for laughs. What he believes is irrelevant. Not the same thing.

Of course the medias liberal bias is giving Maher a pass for the Jewish liberal media cabal and are not prepared to give Rush the same courtesy. Yeah that's it.

Not the same thing. One is comedy, one is serious. One is actively trying to demonize a CIVILIAN whereas another gets his kicks, and a huge pay cheque, for making fun of PUBLIC FIGURES. Political figures.

Not the same thing. It's not the same coin, It's not the same coin purse.

[Syn7]

I don't understand why you respond as if I only posted:


n. 1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.


When I actually posted:


Cult
(kŭlt)
n. 1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.

2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.

6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.


And why did you assume that was my definition when I very clearly stated:


There is the real definition and then there is what most people think of when they hear the word. The definition a ton of folks think is....


?

[sanjuro_ronin]

That isn't the only definition I posted. What I said is that the first part of the definition is what most people think of when they hear cult. That's all. I never said it was my definition. I went thru a few dictionaries and they were all the same pretty much. This one was one of the more "diverse" and fair definitions that I could find. It gave the freak paranoid definition then it gave the rest of the meanings. What the word actually means.

I suppose Santorum being honest about one thing is refreshing since it's coming from a guy who has been caught lying a handful of times. Otherwise he's just a politician riding a wave he thinks will get him the nomination. And to be completely honest, I'm not sure I even believe he believes most of what he says as far as the fundamentalist sh1t goes.


And a comedy show, a stand up routine at a private show at that, is not the same as a dead serious political show. One is a real pundit and one is a pretend pundit, for laughs. What he believes is irrelevant. Not the same thing.

Of course the medias liberal bias is giving Maher a pass for the Jewish liberal media cabal and are not prepared to give Rush the same courtesy. Yeah that's it.

Not the same thing. One is comedy, one is serious. One is actively trying to demonize a CIVILIAN whereas another gets his kicks, and a huge pay cheque, for making fun of PUBLIC FIGURES. Political figures.

Not the same thing. It's not the same coin, It's not the same coin purse.

I was just showing that, that definition, while the most popular one in regards to "cult" doesn't really apply to most organized religions, that's all.
The other definitions are what they are and can be applied to anything from MA ( as we know) to even historical figures of no religious factor whatsoever.

As for comedy VS serious, I think that's a cop out, sorry.
Disguising something in comedy MAY get a pass by some sure but Maher has always made it more than "just comedy".
And one can argue that more people take Maher seriously than they do Rush.

[Syn7]

As for comedy VS serious, I think that's a cop out, sorry.
Disguising something in comedy MAY get a pass by some sure but Maher has always made it more than "just comedy".
And one can argue that more people take Maher seriously than they do Rush.

Hmmm... I disagree. Why does it have to be a disguise? Why can't it just be what it is?

And Bill Maher didn't attack a civilian. Rush did. Clearly the sponsors agree this is different. Last Thursday on Rushs largest host 77 or 86 Ads were PSA's. Free Ad's. No revenue. As of that day he had lost 141 sponsors.

It bothers me that fox would be so hard on Maher but give Rush a pass? Not to mention that they had Ted Nugent on as an honoured guest and gave him an unconditional pass after he said Hillary should stick his guns up her snatch. But I give Nugent a pass too. Not coz he isn't a retard but because he said it at a Ted Nugent show. It wasn't a news forum and he can say what he wants as long as he doesn't incite violence IMO. Like a comedy show, he wasn't presenting "facts" and pretending to be unbiased. I'm cool with that. But for FOX to give him a pass is beyond hypocritical. And these are the leaders of the take down Maher movement. Genius sh1t. And while Maher laughs at them Rush loses more sponsors. Ultimately the market will decide what people think. And if the majority wants to give Maher a pass but not to Rush, then that's that.

You really don't see a difference between insulting a civilian on a serious show and insulting a public official in a comedy routine? Maher calls Palin stupid and shallow. Hardly as bad as calling a civilian a $lut and a wh0re sex addict. Comedy or not. Yet states are still trying to put busts of Rush in the state houses. WTF?

Ok so I know what the C word is. What is the T word? What could be so bad that starts with a T? Every time they say it it gets censored and I have no idea what it is. Anyone?

[Syn7]

I was just showing that, that definition, while the most popular one in regards to "cult" doesn't really apply to most organized religions, that's all.

Of course they don't. Did anyone say otherwise?

And like I said, I chose one of the more diverse definitions.

[diego]

Here's my problem. If he is honest and true to his religion then he MUST hold us all to Mormon values. If he isn't honest about his faith and his church and does NOT put the Mormon Church first then who will he be loyal to? Can he be loyal to anyone is he lies to himself and his family by not obeying the Mormon Values?




I'm pretty sure Mormon's heard of ww1 and ww2 they ain't trying to have a third one...he'd be loyal to the "defense of the nation" anyone who's anyone knows if you bring your faith into politics someone will shoot you.

http://lds.about.com/od/mormons/a/church_membership.htm

^it's only 14 million Mormons lol

[Syn7]

Mitt Romney isn't just a presidential hopeful who also happens to be part of the Mormon church. He was a bishop which is way at the top in that church. Like being a cardinal in the Vatican. He isn't just some civilian. He's a born wealthy religious leader. That sh1t is scary to a whole bunch of people. I hope he gets the nomination coz I think he's easy to beat.

Honestly tho, I think Santorum will take the nomination at the convention in June or July, whenever it is.

There will be no clear cut winner in delegates and the deals will start being made at the convention.

I s'pose it's possible that all 3 end up in that administration (if they win, that is). Like how Hillary used her leverage for a top job. None of those 3 will be VP candidates tho. One will be POTUS and the rest will have higher jobs in that scenario.

But yeah, I call Santorum. It's a scary thought, but it's what I think will happen given the current political climate.

I don't think he can beat Obama either tho.

I think dems need to start paying more attention to primary races in their areas and start challenging the establishment democrats and get some real ones in there. It's unfortunate that yall are stuck with a spineless wimp like Obama for another 4 years. Better than a Santorum or a Romney or a Gingrich. Ron Paul would be waaaaay better. I agree with at least 1/3 of what he believes and that is more than almost any other republican. Certainly as far as the ol' skoolers are concerned.

Already the republicans ALONE have spent double what both democrats and republicans COMBINED spent on the 2008 primary. DOUBLE, and there's a few months left?

As of a few days ago Obama had raised 42% of his donations from small donors. That means $200 or less. Paul raised 46% from small donors. Gingrich 48% and Santorum 49%. This shows grass roots support for these guys, at least in some areas. Romneys small donors amount to 10% of his total. In fact 97% of Romneys super pac money came in donations of $25k or higher. That is why this man is not good for America. He will be expected to make returns on these donations(retainers are what they really are).

The supreme court made a very VERY poor ruling in 2010 when they opened the door for super-pacs.

There is a very strong movement with massive financial weight behind it that is fighting corporate donations. They say that any corp that gives from the corp treasury thru other names trying to stay secret, they will be outed and they will feel it. They can make transparent political donations from their political funds. One of the organizations is called CAPS(Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending) and they have some serious weight. Check em out.

http://caps.nationbuilder.com/join_us?splash=1

Also there is the WolfPac, check it out. All these guys are doing whatever they can to keep big money out of politics. Eventually an ideal accomplishment would be fully public funded elections with ZERO private moneys.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/


these are just a few examples. There are a bunch of groups coordinating and really starting to make way. Stay up, it's coming.

Canada too. Same problem. There are people working on it, but we aren't as tough as CAPS yet.

[kfson]

As I understand Mormonism from various readings, their book was found (discovered) by a Freemason and the Mormon church is structured in similar to Freemasonry, whatever that means.
Evangelicals for the most part do not like Mormonism because the "books" are different.
Even among Evangelicals there is a wide variety of viewpoints. Even among the Mormons their are differences. Even among the Freemasons there are differences, but they invite plurality, as I am told.