.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} <$BlogRSDUrl$>

Ontario Empoblog

Ontario Emperor Blog
("yup, its random!")
This blog has been superseded by the mrontemp blog


October 2003   November 2003   December 2003   January 2004   February 2004   March 2004   April 2004   May 2004   June 2004   July 2004   August 2004   September 2004   October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   February 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007  

The Breast Cancer Site
Fund free mammograms at no cost to yourself by clicking on the link, then on the pink button.

Hall of Shame (NoteUnworthy Blog Posts)
Other Blogs (sorted regionally)
Ontario Emperor Selected del.icio.us Tags

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on BlogShares



Who Links Here

Click for Ontario, California Forecast

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Religious Political Viewstuff 

Before I launch into this (and everything else under the sun - you are hereby warned that this is one of those "meandering" posts), let me state my own views. Inasmuch as I believe that all people (and thus all organizations created by people, including political parties) are imperfect, it is entirely reasonable for someone to have a particular religious belief, yet be a member of any political party. To give some examples:
  • It is possible for a Christian to be a member of the Republican Party.

  • It is possible for a Christian to be a member of the Democratic Party.

  • It is possible for a Christian to be a member of the American Independent Party/Constitution Party.

  • It is possible for a Christian to be a member of the Green Party.

  • It is possible for a Christian to be a member of the Libertarian Party.

  • It is possible for a Christian to be a member of the Communist Party.

Regarding the last one - some may argue that a Christian could never be a Communist, since Communism explicitly denies the existence of religion. Yet I challenge those people to explain how, under those limitations, a Christian could be a member of, for example, the Republican Party - a party that does not explictly acknowledge Jesus Christ as the second Person in the Trinity.

So, knowing my view, you can imagine how I felt when I read this:

To be a Mormon and to be a Libertarian is an oxymoron, to put it mildly.

Don't think so.

To my knowledge, the LDS Church does not immediately excommunicate people because of the political party they join. (In fact, I heard third-hand about someone who wanted to get off the LDS membership roster, but was unable to do so for two years.) In fact, considering all of the trouble that the U.S. government gave the Mormons over the polygamy issue in the 19th century, I can see how some Mormons would be very attracted to the Libertarian movement.

Anyway, I kept reading:

On June 5th, 2006, a thread broke out concerning a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants (a set of supposed "revelation" from God to LDS founder Joseph Smith in the early-1800s). The passage concerns "plural marriage" (or, polygamy). Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith was a polygamist; but, years later, facing an announced onslaught of the state of Utah on the Mormon Church hierarchy by U.S. Marshalls and the United States Army, then-"Prophet" Wilford Woodruff decreed that he had had a "revelation"--in which, he claimed, God had spoken to him and forbade polygamy.

As luck would have it, the rescinding of polygamy in the Utah territory led to the granting to Utah of official statehood within the United States. Talk about "divine revelation."...

Nearly two-dozen posts on the subject were "Deleted by CubicleGuy" today, June 6, 2006. Which begs the question: In the absence of LF founder "John Deere" (who abandoned the site, sans explanation or communication on July 14, 2004), who is running this ship? And why is a Mormon allowed to be the "Administrator" with keys to LF's database?

Um...why not? Whoever ends up with the power over a site can make any rules he or she wishes to make. And it doesn't appear that LibertyForum is subject to 100% repression:

Posts or thoughts critical of Mormonism will not be tolerated [ Post 294701089 ]

Thanking you in advance for your adherence to this new policy,

Warren Jeffs

Almost forgot, If I catch you using sarcasm while pretending to be supportive of Mormonism I'll take one of your teenaged wives away.

Don't test me.

And this explanation, or whatever:

06/15/06 12:27 PM
Re: A Mormon Takeover at LibertyForum.org? [ To: MarcusAurelius | Post 294699257, reply to 294698895 ] (Score: 2)

TBF is banned from the forum. Any posts were originally deleted by me because they were Gary Glitter's, er TBF's posts.

CG used cleaned up the deletions.

TBF? Well, there's more in a post at LibertyPost.org (presumably a competitor to LibertyForum.org) with the subtitle "One kook screeching about another kook":

On July 9, my Report on Todd Brendan Fahey, outlining the facts and the consequences (hauled away in a police cruiser on two occasions) of Fahey's disgraceful and outrageous behavior at my home between June 14 and July 6, was posted on my website. As stated in the report, it was written for my own protection and that of family members who were witnesses to what I can only describe as the degenerate lunacy of Todd Fahey --more likely than not, certifiably insane, as evidenced by the fact that he was admitted to a psychiatric ward for observation after the following events occurred: Being ejected from my home on July 4. More drunk and disorderly conduct after drinking at a local tavern, from which he proceeded to a stalking incident at my home on July 6. And last but not least, a failed suicide attempt with a massive overdose of drugs, reported by Fahey himself in an e-mail to ex-FBI agent Geral Sosbee....

By far the greatest outrage and most damaging false witness about myself now being promoted by the low-life Todd Fahey are his claims of some sort of "sexual incidents" occuring during his stay at my home. This one small excerpt represents but a fraction of Fahey's lies and what seem to be delusions, but I certainly do not intend to provide his audience with more of Fahey's falsehoods than are necessary to refute them. In his own words, from one of his libelous posts on Liberty Forum:

[TBF: SO MUCH swill; so little time. Yes, I had sex with Barbara Hartwell twice, while we were both smashed. ]...

As far as the first false allegation: Fahey certainly made a regular practice of getting "smashed" (as my family can also attest) while at my home, but nothing of the kind is true about me. Yet this malicious liar, in another of his public posts, went so far as to call me a "drunk". In point of fact, I am not a "drunk". I have no history of alcoholism; have never been arrested for any incidents where alcohol was an issue; and have never been sent to any "rehab" facility. Fahey's history, on the other hand involves all these things....

He also told me he had "converted" to the Mormon church when he got married to his (ex) wife, whom he said divorced him because he was tripping on LSD every day for over a year and she later found out he had been lying to her about his drug abuse, just as he had been lying for years to his parents about his untreated and unrepentant alcoholism.

This was either written by Barbara Hartwell, or by Xenu - I'm confused at this point. Hartwell's name pops up here:

It appears that a national covert operation to smear and discredit Ted Gunderson was set into motion in the early months of 2000. The planning may have been initiated earlier, but the coordinated effects could be seen in early 2000. By Spring, the plan was in high gear with Art Bell's dramatic exit from the air on April 1, 2000 coupled with the pre-trial hearing of Bell's lawsuit against Gunderson and radio station WWCR set to begin in early May....

The principle [sic] members of Ted's Character Assassination Team include Virginia McCullough, Cherie Seymour, & Kate Dixon of www.newsmakingnews.com, Stewart Webb, Barbara Hartwell, Kathleen Sullivan, Jackie McGauley, and Kathy Kasten of UCLA. These people have tried to characterize Ted as some version of a 'double agent' whose pretense to helping people is just a cover for his 'real work', which is to help the dark side. When you read their defamatory words, you will be given conclusions (E.g. Ted's "Cointelpro") without evidence or proof to back up their assertions. The tools these character assassins employ include repeated innuendo, guilt by association, and outright slander to support their unfounded allegations against Ted Gunderson.

Barbara Hartwell, who was raised in a CIA family and has been programmed under MK Ultra mind control, has established herself as Ted's most vociferous, viscious [sic], and constant accuser. Her wild, totally fabricated slanders against Ted Gunderson are simply surreal and beyond rediculous [sic].

Update April 2005: Hartwell has now added attorney John DeCamp, author of The Franklin Cover Up, to her character assassination hit list. In a recent rant posted on the internet, she actually had the termerity to accuse DeCamp of being a child molester and pedophile.

Oh man, I've seen this before.

John Grubor

aka Aga, Dr. Zando, DrGod, Amy Martin, Law Systems Institute, Net Doctor
*@manus.org, *@dhp.com, *@pgh.org, manus@*, zando@, etc, etc....

John Grubor appeared on Usenet around the time of the creation of news.admin.censorship, when first started posting that "complaining to postmasters is censorship". Over the next few months, he established himself as the most annoying person on Usenet, as he posted his "list of known homosexuals" all over Usenet, destroyed several newsgroups, sent out forged newgroups in David Lawrence's name for misc.activism.cannabis, with the help of Steve Boursy co-opted Dave Hayes' Freedom-Knights mailing list, created the Kook Cabal, and generally annoyed anybody that saw him for months on end....

Grubor is certainly the most annoying personality on Usenet I have ever met. Sure, he's not exactly a competent troller - but that's just because he really means what he's saying. As far as I can understand him, he really does believe that everybody that disagrees with him is a pedophile.

I seem to have wandered from my original topic. Let's go back:

From LDS pulpits across Utah [in March 2006] came an announcement from church leaders encouraging members to go to their precinct caucus meeting. This announcement contained a recently added line stating that: "Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties."

Democrats in Utah have taken this sentence as a huge step by the LDS church toward creating a two-party system in Utah.

Unfortunately for Democrats, they'd better keep working-because most Mormons already realize that you can still be a good Mormon and a Democrat. The majority of people in Utah are Republican not merely because of their religious affiliation, but because it is the platform they believe in the most....

There are Mormons in both parties nationwide, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts and potential presidential nominee, is Republican and a Mormon....

Can you be a good Democrat in Utah if you are Mormon? For many the answer is yes. Pat Jones, wife of professor of political science Dan Jones, is both a Mormon and a Democratic state legislator in minority leadership at the Capitol.

The vast majority of the nation's high-ranking Democrats are not LDS, though-and it remains to be seen how they would welcome Mormons into their fold.

And one Mormon blogger notes, as I did way back at the beginning of this post, that political parties are human institutions:

The parties representing the Left and the Right are both essentially motivated by the same three things – Greed, Praise, and Appetites. Sure, the left claims that they are more concerned about greed than the right, and the right is more concerned about curbing immoral appetites than the left, but in reality they are pretty well mirror images of each other. Each paints the other as utter evil and themselves as defenders of truth and righteousness.

As a Latter Day Saint, I see the choice I am given about as appealing as choosing between beer and wine, or between cigarettes and chewing tobacco. I don’t like either of them. I am under covenant to establish Zion and both the parties representing the left and the right in our political arena are Babylonian institutions....Both the left and right are determined to build up and establish Babylon.

Yes, I know most Mormons are devout right-wingers, but that doesn’t change the fact that the right is just as Babylonian as the left. The right supports some hot button issues that most Mormons feel trump the stinkier parts of the right wing agenda. Those objectionable (and vintage Babylonian) hot buttons include moral (Appetite) questions like abortion, same-sex marriage, pornography, etc. Yet the stinky parts of the right wing agenda that the left rightfully complains about are Greed related issues like sheltering the rich from taxes, pillaging the earth for gain, and grinding the face of the poor (like, say, Mexicans who illegally arrive to work here) in order to live more luxuriously.

So what is a Zionist to do when I am forced to choose between two Babylonian parties? Well, I mostly plug my nose and try to vote for the least objectionable option.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid is on the outside looking in:

The Religious Coalition for Marriage, which has united divergent religious groups - including the LDS Church - behind a constitutional amendment defining marriage, is proof positive that politics makes strange bedfellows....

Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid are fuming about today's last-ditch formal reception in The Rose Garden (weather permitting) or Eisenhower Building to which scores of religious leaders have been invited, including LDS Apostle Russell Nelson. The Senate votes Tuesday. If Democrats had their way, Wednesday would be the day the Internal Revenue Service would begin re-evaluating the 501c3 not-for-profit status of every church that participated in this "brazenly partisan stunt."

Just three weeks ago, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seemed content to state its principles on marriage and let it go at that....

[T]he dexterous language in the letter the LDS First Presidency had read to all Mormon congregations in the U.S. on May 28 encouraged members to "express" themselves individually to their senators and stopped short of endorsing the amendment or telling members what to say. However, other documents referenced in the letter left little doubt about the church's stand on marriage and sexuality.

"We urge our members to express themselves" seemed to be President Gordon B. Hinckley's deft way of encouraging individual action while acknowledging there was more than one faithful path to follow....

In Georgia, members reported that regional leaders from the Church Education System had sent e-mails to all stakes and wards headlined: "The definition of what a family is could change . . . On June 6th the U.S. Senate will vote . . . It is critical that you contact your senators and ask them to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment." Adorning the flier was the portrait of a handsome young LDS couple.

But how do we know what a handsome young LDS couple looks like? Do they have the teeth of Donny Osmond or something? But I digress (again):

Bryan Kennedy, a young congressional candidate in Wisconsin, a Democrat, returned missionary and Brigham Young University graduate, had not been informed by a member of his stake presidency that his position on "choice" and "civil unions" (identical to Mitt Romney's when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994) as well as endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood suggested he had been less than honest in answering temple-worthiness interview questions about personal integrity and associating with organizations that oppose church teachings.

OK, let's move from Mormonism to some Hannity-esque form of Christianity. Ready?

I’ve watched in bewilderment as liberals attack Christians by asking; “ What would Jesus do?” as they attempt to justify their unholy perversion-of-the-day. Usually they end up looking ridiculous as they attempt to draw comparisons and equate such things as abortion to Capital Punishment....

Since it has been liberals that have set the president [sic] of asking, I think it only fair to ask which political party Satan would chose as he registered down at the DMV (to avoid proof of citizenship entanglements). Let’s examine a few of the hot button issues and try to imagine which side old Beelzebub would come down on.

How would Satan view the difference between murders and the innocents in their mother’s womb? Which would he favor killing and which would he fight to save? The answer is exactly the same as the democrats.

You can make similar comparisons with homosexuality, welfare queens, removing religion from schools, government, boy scouts, girl scouts, or whatever organization you care to name. No one can argue that the liberals agenda does not closely parallels that of evil.

Now we know why the democrats are so certain of Global Warming. I guess we didn’t realize just how “hot” things were getting for them. When a democrats tells you “it’s hot as hell”, believe him.

And this from someone who apparently thinks he's James the Just ("You have reached the Web Site of Yeshua/Jesus' Brother - Though many of you call me James, my real name is Jacob"):

No Genuine Follower Of Yeshua/Jesus Can Vote Democrat!

Satan works through the Democratic Party to turn the children away from God -- and bring them into servitude to the demonic forces of darkness. Speaking of the children Yeshua warned: "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones" (Luke 17:2 KJV). Those who offend or stumble a child, will bring the severest of judgments upon themselves. Further, the present-day doctrine that those who call upon the Lord will be saved regardless of what they do in their lives, is a grave lie, as seen in the words: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matt 7:21-23 NKJ). That there are those in the Church who tell you otherwise, and are themselves deceived by the Devil, as it is warned: "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Matt 24:24 NKJ).

However, "Jacob" doesn't care for the right either:

Republican vs Democrat
Both Parties Apostates To The Constitution
Author Equally Hated By Religious Right and Left

The Fundamentalist Left, as well as the Fundamentalist Right, both have a right to exist and thrive under our Constitutional form of government. As a spiritual man who has dwelled in the Kingdom and returned to this life as an Prophet and Ambassador of the Lord, there is much good and bad in each of the parties. What most Americans fail to realize is that under our Constitutional form of government, it is unlawful for one group to impose its will upon another group. It is therefore wrong for the religious/conservative right to attempt to use government to impose it's [sic] brand of morality upon the liberal left, as it is for the liberal left to attempt to use government to impose it's [sic] lack of definable standards upon the religious/conservative right.

So what does James the Just think of the Peace and Freedom Party?

From the Ontario Empoblog (Latest OVVA news here)

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link