Sigh: McCain and his friends at…ACORN
If you want to know why see-sawing John McCain has had to be goaded, prodded, begged, and dragged into spotlighting Barack Obama’s radical ACORN roots, here’s your answer:
Turns out John McCain had no problem calling ACORN members his friends during his ill-fated illegal alien shamnesty crusade.
Ugh.
Here’s a February 2006 press release trumpeting McCain’s appearance at a pro-shamnesty rally organized by a coalition led by ACORN. As the release notes, he made a second appearance for the group in NYC. Read it and gag:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Major Rally in Miami to Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Senator John McCain and many others to speak at the rally at Miami Dade College Wolfson Campus
Miami, Florida – February 20, 2006 ― Leaders from a diverse array of sectors will hold a rally in Miami on Thursday, February 23, 2006, in support of comprehensive immigration reform in an effort to keep immigration reform at the forefront of the public debate. Leaders from both political parties, immigrant communities, labor, business, and religious organizations will gather to call on Washington to enact workable reform.
The rally will feature Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the headline speaker along with elected officials, immigrants and key local and national leaders. Sen. McCain is one of the chief sponsors of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act; bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation introduced last Congress and scheduled for consideration by the Senate in the coming weeks. A similar rally with Sen. McCain is planned for New York City on February 27.
WHO: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL.), and immigrant, religious, community, business and labor leaders.
WHAT: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Rally
WHEN: Thursday, February 23, at 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: Miami Dade College – Wolfson Campus
Chapman Conference Center
Bldg 3000
300 NE 2nd AvenueEDITOR’S NOTE: Miami Press Availability: Sen. McCain will be available for interviews starting at 4:15 p.m. on location, Feb. 23.
The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act was introduced in the Senate by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) and in the House by Representatives Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). It addresses border security and illegal immigration while bringing the 11 million undocumented immigrants out from the shadows and onto a path to legal permanent status; setting up legal channels and realistic caps for workers and family members to enter in the future; providing for tough enforcement; and enabling more immigrants to learn English and prepare for citizenship.
The rally in Miami is being sponsored by the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC) in partnership with ACORN, Catholic Legal Services - Archdiocese of Miami, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Miami Dade College, People for the American Way/Mi Familia Vota en Acción, Service Employees International Union, and UNITE HERE.
ACORN is now gleefully reminding McCain of his common cause with the group to paint itself as bipartisan — while at the same time issuing the usual strident, anti-conservative statements that ought to be immediate grounds for revoking its non-profit tax status.
“I’ll rely on people to judge me by the company that I keep,” McCain said in February.
That’s not working out so well now, is it?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Yep, McCain Spoke at an ACORN Event « Trust, But Verify
- The ACORN Smoking Gun? « Beltway Snark
- ACORN: “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap!” « Mark Epstein
- RED GIRL RISING » Blog Archive » The Imbalance of Standards
- Why conservatives can’t stand McCain, part 4,389. : Pursuing Holiness
- Hail Mary! | Cold Fury
- this is the samaBlog » Blog Archive » Decision Tree
- JABbering Stooge :: The New One-Percent Doctrine* :: October :: 2008
- The Dustin Inman Society Blog » McCain and …ACORN and amnesty
- Acorn - Page 2 - Demopolis Live
- Traitors Find Links Between Señor Juan Sidney McCain, Bill (The Terr’ist) Ayers And ACORN | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- “Republicans Jump Ship” « The Pure Pundit
- The Other McCain: ACORN loves 'em some Maverick
- Michelle Malkin » Obamacorn, Mickey Mouse, and John McCain
- ACORN REGISTERS ‘MICKEY MOUSE’ | Right Voices
- Michelle Malkin » Sigh: McCain and his friends at…ACORN | The TIW Blog
- How Do You Spell Voter Fraud?
- F3 Coalition - [Faith. Family. Freedom.] » Blog Archive » How Do You Spell Voter Fraud?
- Hard Starboard
- How Do You Spell Voter Fraud? | Adam's Blog
- Sigh: McCain and his friends at…ACORN | The Voice
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: ACORN Watch, John McCain
Right Wing Nut House
» IS ALL THE ECONOMIC DOOM AND GLOOM JUSTIFIED?
Right Wing Nut House
» NOT EVEN A BONE FOR THE NETNUTSGateway Pundit
» Eric Holder Defended the FALN Terrorist Pardons (Video)Redstate
» Thus Begins The TerrorRedstate
» The Brutal TruthPower Line
» Obama to Delay Tax Increase?Stop The ACLU
» Left Already Disappointed With Choosing ObamaBelmont Club
» Bad mannersNewsBusters.org
» Kate Calling For Coup?
Whether you want to admit it, whether you’re offended and whether or not you can’t stand the idea that Christians could ever be that way.
Whether you like it or not.
There is a great deal of religious prejudice against Mormons and that was the tipping point for Mitt Romney and Huckabee stayed in the race long enough to see Mitt leave for that among other reasons and then out of hubris stayed to try for VP.
No matter who wins the Presidency this is a lesson that deserves to be well learned and accepted.
Values and conservative Constitutional principle are more important than the difference between two Christian denominations.
The Constitution Party sounds pretty good to me, except for a couple of things, not least of which are its views of the 9/11 attacks. It says this on his site:
“Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin is the only candidate from a FEC- recognized party to challenge the official story of the tragedy of 9-11.
“Representing the largest and fastest-growing third party based on voter registration (Ballot Access news), Baldwin joins the growing list of military, scientific and other well-credentialed experts who agree,’the government’s account of what happened that day simply does not pass the smell test’.
Baldwin, poised to attract voters who will not cast their votes for either ‘Big Box’ party candidate in November said, ‘All across America voters are telling me, ”I am afraid of Obama and I don’t trust McCain’.
“Baldwin added, ‘More and more people want answers. They want to know about government corruption, our loss of liberties and yes, what really happened on September 11th. The heartache this country endured won’t be cured, but it will give us answers to some basic questions about why our security, intelligence and civil defense measures failed and why so many aspects of the government’s version have been shown to be lies’.”
Mormonism is not a Christian denomination due to its differing views of God the Father, Jesus, man, the Bible, and salvation.
Really? What is the prerequisite for inclusion?
You need to understand a few things about Mormonism and Christianity before you start making statements about them being “two Christian denominations.”
Most Mormons may be good and decent people but LDS doctrine and theology is NOT orthodox Christianity.
Take a look at this link to a blog I wrote last year during the primaries. It lists a few of the differences between LDS and Christian theology.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=271758941&blogID=335661718&Mytoken=18265404-8DBB-41B2-97D10910AAD4E66E88997951
Thanks for the link. Good stuff. You may be interested in the videos offered on this site as well.
http://www.lhvm.org/index.htm
Listen to what Baldwin actually says about the 9/11 report. Mostly he says that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to look at the official version again. He says nothing about “government involvement” or “government complicity” in the attacks.
I don’t think Baldwin is claiming CIA pilots flew the plans or that a cruise missle hit the Pentagon. If I thought that for a second I’d take my vote elsewhere.
I think I am pretty main-stream but even I question why some known facts from previously published government documents were intentionally excluded from the offical investigation and report. It is possible not all the commissioners lacked conflicts on interests.
What exactly did Sandy Berger remove from the terror-related files at the National Archives? Was it his laundry list or something more interesting?
Why was Jamie Gorelick, the author of the “wall of separation” that almost certainly prevented uncovering the plot before hand, allowed to serve on the commission? This lady is probably the single person in government most responsible for failing to uncover and prevent the attack. Talk about conflict of interests?
You don’t have to be a “truther nut” to have some unanswered questions about 9/11 or the official report. The report and commission received a great deal of criticism from all sides when it was released?
And remember, they finally reopened the Kennedy murder investigation in the late 70s. One of my professors in college was on the panel. This may come as a shock but the government doesn’t always get everything right the first time….
I don’t agree with everything the Constitution Party offers but their core beliefs are much closer to mine that McCain.
If you have problems then you can always vote Liberterian. I thought it was a joke when I first found it but there is even a “Liberterian National Socialist Green Party!” Yes, this is a bunch of eco-friendly Nazis! It just goes to show that McCain ISN’T the most confused person in politics….
It drives me to distraction when people who evidently know nothing about Christianity or LDS say they are the same.
People are so worried about “offending” somebody that they can’t even examine the evidence and think critically about an issue.
I think LDS is bad theology and I was not eager to vote for Romney for a host of reasons but had it come down to McCain or Romney I would have picked Romney, in spite of my objections to LDS theology. I have always refused to support McCain even though I suspect his views on Christianity may be fairly similar to mine. But, he is NOT a conservative and will make a hash out of the country if he somehow manages to win in November.
Does the LDS church believe in Christ, forgiveness?
Since when does a difference in tenents create such vehement bias between Jesuits and the Evangelical Free Church and using those differences in two Christian faiths to create bias, isn’t that wrong?
Please look again at the link I offered a couple of posts back? Then, let me know if it answers any of your questions.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=271758941&blogID=335661718&Mytoken=18265404-8DBB-41B2-97D10910AAD4E66E88997951
This link provides a very basic view of the differences between orthodox Christian and LDS positions on various theological concepts.
LDS Christology and Soterology are completely different from the concepts as defined by orthodox Christians. They use the word “Christ” but mean someone and something completely different than what orthodox Christians mean by “Christ.” They use the word “sin” completely differently. They use the word “God” completely differently. LDS is NOT a Christian denomination.
It would be very much like calling a tire a bagel because both are round and have a hole in the middle.
A blogger’s summary table is just an excuse for extended bias, in fact you are proving my point, Romeny lost the nomination on religious prejudice.
Anyone who thinks Romney is less conservative than McCain or isn’t a better debater just isn’t paying attention.
Romney would have Obama for lunch in a debate.
Using fantastical differences is not a place where any religion wants to go because without them, faith would not be necessary.
In this case bias is as bias does and the outcome of this election has been effected by it.
So I demonstrated evidence with additional documentation to show the differences between LDS and Christianity theology.
These differences are fundamental and defining issues of the respective faiths. They are hardly “fantastical.”
Faith is built upon understanding the things in which you place your faith. But, you seem to now argue that trying to understand the intellectual basis of Christian theology eliminats the need for faith? Not understanding what Christianity is and means is called ignorance and not faith.
Now you have switched back to another point I have already dealt with but you ignore the comments I made then.
I never said Romney was more or less conservative than McCain.
And if you actually read my posts you would have noted that I stated clearly that I would never have supported McCain, who may be an orthodox Christian, and that I would have reluctantly supported Romney, who is LDS, if he were the nominee.
How in the world does any of that demonstrate bias or discrimination?
That you and likewise many others are focused on differences versus commonalities is part and parcel of why Romeny is not the nominee, whether you yourself supported either candidate isn’t the point, its the fact that bias is the main reason Romney isn’t the nominee or the VP so far as that goes.
I would suggest you and the many others embrace those commonalities and leave behind excuses for bias and vote for the better potential President who believes in Christian values and forget the denomination.
If they talk like a Christian, they walk like a Christian and they carry a Bible like a Christian, then they are a Christian, the rest is bias creation.
I am sorry that you cannot see the differences between Christianity and LDS theology. LDS is NOT a Christian denomination. There are no commonalties. If you understood any Christian theology you would know that.
Christ cannot be at the same time an eternal, pre-existant entity (the Christian view) and a created, mortal man (the LDS view). Yet, you seem to demand that it be so. Have you ever taken a logic course?
The main reason Romney isn’t the nominee is that he waged a poor campaign and then withdrew from the race before the issue was decided.
Why you, who obviously does not understand Christianity or Mormonism, wants to blame Christians for this is beyond me.
Since you refuse to discuss rational facts I can only assume your beliefs are based upon irrational beliefs.
It must be a strange world where an Evangelical Christian refuses to support McCain, whom he thinks is a Christian, and supports Romney, whom he knows is not, yet you accuse Christians of bigotry and bias.
You might want to actually study apologetics and comparative religions and theology before you start hurling insults and accusations.
You’re using your offense as an excuse to nullify the basic point, that being, Mormons are Christians and your strong efforts to avoid and accept that they are is proof that bias was a strong determiner in the outcome of this election.
I have demonstrated numerous points where LDS theology is in direct opposition to orthodox Christian theology. Yet you maintain there are no differences with no evidence to support your position.
You maintain that there was bias yet offer no evidence. I offered direct anecdotal evidence to refute your claim. I am an Evangelical Christian who would have supported Romney.
Believe what you wish. Your mind is made up regardless of the facts. You are free to blame Christians and ignore reality as you wish. It is still a free country. But, discussing this with you is utterly futile.
Its only futile because you refuse to acknowledge one simple fact, Mormons are Christians.
Provide one simple statement to support your proposition. Stating so does not make it so.
Do Mormons believe in Jesus?
The answer, from a logical and Christian perspective, is no. And this seems to be the concept that you can’t grasp. Mormons use the same words for concepts but pour completely different meanings into the words. Therefore, the Jesus Mormons accept is NOT the same as the Jesus Christians accept.
So what you’re saying is people can only believe in Jesus if they use your method to do it.
On October 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm, Speakup said:
So…”There is a great deal of religious prejudice against Mormons…etc..” Pretty much borne out here.
But hey, Mr.Speakup; look on the bright side:
Romneynope… Mormon (Somethin evil ’bout them fellers, better not elect the ONLY ONE WHO HAS RUN A FRIGGING BUSINESS!)Fine…
Giuliani? nope… “baby killer” (An actual quote)OK..
How about Huckabee?
Well he was liked but that whole “85 IQ” thing didn’t get him too far so..
HuckabeeWell what about:
McCainNope.. SHAMNASTY(Tm)!!!! He may have spent 5 and half years in a pow camp but he is a “traitor”. (An actual quote)Who is left?
Chuck Baldwin! Kuz fire doesn’t melt steel and building 7 was a controlled demolition committed by Zionist Bilderberger bigfoot’s (Bigfeet?). He is the latest “only man who can save America”… until we get to Alan Keyes of course.
So who is left? Well that leaves Barack Obama. That’s who is left.
We are “conservatives” here at Michelle Malkin dot com Mr.Speakup, and that is why we have done everything in our power to elect the most liberal senator in the senate.
I must conclude that you are a 12 year-old child, probably a Mormon, obviously a Romney fan, incapable of parsing and comprehending relatively simple statement much less complex concepts.
Jesus(LDS) ≠ Jesus(orthodox Christianity)
Mormons believe in someone whom they call Jesus. But the way they define their Jesus makes him completely incompatible with the orthodox Christian Jesus. Therefore, Jesus(LDS) ≠ Jesus(orthodox Christianity).
You cannot believe in the orthdox Christian Jesus if you re-ddefine him in a such a way that is inconsistent or incompatible with the orthodox Christian Jesus. Once you change what Jesus is you by definition believe in something else.
Mind you, this orthodox Christian Jesus is NOT my invention but rather the undertaking of orthodox Christian ecclesiastical leaders and scholars who largely resolved these issues by 400 AD or so.
Again, I can call a bagel a tire if I want. But when I attempt to mount the bagel on my automobile my erroneous belief will have obvious and serious consequences for my means of conveyance.
Your blowhard meme does not belie that your own words convict you.
That is precisely the response I expected from you. You are evidently incapable of reason and reasoned discourse.
Based on your inability to comprehend basic reason and logic I’ll discontinue the conversation at this point.
Its quite simple, you’re a prejudiced jerk and you’re drivel can’t hide it.
Thanks for helping put a Democrat on the GOP ticket.
Once again your inability to grasp logic is astounding. I am an Evangelical Christian who said I would have supported Romney yet you claim that demonstrates prejudice.
And I have adamantly stated since 2003 that I would never support John McCain. I further stated that, in my state’s primary, I voted for the only other candidate on the ballot who was still running. Had Romney not quit before my state’s primary I would have voted for Romney instead of Huckabee. Yet again, that indicates prejudice to you. Amazing.
That you don’t like the historical orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus Christ is really your problem. That you can’t seem to figure out that two different groups can define something differently is again your problem. That you can’t seem to grasp that the definition of something actually determines that something’s meaning is again your problem.
There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity and you have just demonstrated that difference with such clarity that this example ought to be in the dictionary.
Oh now there’s the difference between you and me.
I don’t mind learning anything worthwhile, but after I’ve improved my education, you’ll still be a bigot.
Perfect. According to you a bigot is someone who believes differently than you do.
That sounds very educated, enlightened and tolerant.
Your not understanding the definition of the word bigot is no surprise.
Here, I’ll ease your redemption for you.
Let’s try, do Mormons, love and accept Jesus Christ as their savior?
It is you who has a peculiar definition of the word “bigot.”
I have answered this question several times in several different ways. You cannot understand the anwers I have provided.
You have no understanding of Christian theology and I am highly dubious of your grasp of basic logic.
Define, in detail, what you mean by Jesus, Savior, “love and accept”, original sin, condemnation, redemption and I’ll begin to consider an answer.
Otherwise, I am pretty much finished explaining the concept that different religions assign different meanings to different terms. Yet you seem to fail to apprehend this simple concept.
And you’re obfuscating.
If you can’t accept that Mormons love Jesus just the same as you do, then admit it, let the healing begin.
Far from obfuscating, I am trying to clarify. You can’t seem to understand that LDS and orthodox Christianity mean different things when they refer to Jesus.
I have offered both an LDS and a Christian view of Jesus (and other terms as well). You refuse to define what you mean by Jesus (or any other terms). I cannot understand why you refuse to offer a definition of your terms but either you cannot or will not.
That being the case, there is no point in continuing.
And its quite simple, in order to love and believe in Jesus as your savior that’s all the prerequisite you need.
You can’t even afford people that much.
In that case, one could love and believe in a brick or a snail and that would be sufficient for salvation.
But I suspect we both know that it is the object of one’s faith that is critical.
Since you continue to refuse to explain what you mean by “Jesus” I can only assume you don’t know what you mean (which is peculiar) or you do know the LDS definition and don’t want to admit that the Jesus of LDS is completely different from the Jesus of orthodox Christianity.
Mormons (obviously) believe in the same Jesus Christ you do and all that Jesus stands for.
You aren’t capable of giving them even that much credit.
You’re so bound to your style of faith that no other is worthy of your lofty acceptance.
That’s the very definition of prejudice and you’re too insecure to even consider the possibility that what you are actually achieving has along with many others like you a negative cause and effect.
The term holier than thou suits you quite well.
No belief worth having is any good at all but that it can’t stand the test of an open mind.
Your welcome to your bias, its the sides of your own blinders that keep you safe.
Mormons obviously don’t believe in the same Jesus. To know that you only have to read the Book of Mormon and “The Teachings of Joseph Smith the Prophet” to realize that the Jesus of Christianity is completely different from the Jesus of LDS.
If you had ever read either document you would know that or you have read them and you are being dishonest.
I presented you with several key points where the two faiths diverge on the person of Jesus. Either you deny Mormon doctrine or you simply can’t understand it. At this point, I have no idea which is the truth.
The Christian view of Jesus is that He is a pre-existent and eternal spiritual being.
The Mormon view of Jesus is that he was a created man, who became “exalted.” That he is one of many gods and that he progressed from mortal to devine.
Do you either deny the Mormon teachings about the nature of Jesus or do you not understand them? But, you cannot have both of them be true. Therefore, as I have said several times, Jesus(LDS) ≠ Jesus(orthodox Christianity).
I still find it curious that you refuse to define who you believe Jesus is.
Oh, and you are wrong on the definition of prejudice too. Take a look here for the actual definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice
The definition of who Jesus is, is subject to 750 different Christian denominations.
Obviously yours is the only right one.
How is it you can’t even recognize and accept that Mormons love Jesus?
Where is the harm in giving that much instead of giving excuse after excuse for excluding people who love and accept the same person for their savior as you?
Its intolerant and discriminatory.
It boils down to your denying the foundation to Christianity to Mormons.
You are a prejudiced jerk who can’t give tiniest bit of credit where credit is due.
You continue to evade the central question here. Who is Jesus? You refuse do define him in whom you claim to believe. There are dozens of orthodox Christian denominations. But, the vast majority of all denominations agree on the orthodox definition of Jesus as developed by the church and expressed in the historic creeds of the church. That is the definition I have presented. It is not my own definition. Again, either you do not recognize that or you won’t admit it.
I have never said what you claim I have said. I have only said that the Mormon definition of Jesus is different from the orthodox Christian definition of Jesus. I have presented both definitions. You have not refuted the Mormon definition I have provided which clearly proves the LDS Jesus is different.
You seem to be incapable of actually addressing the issue here. You evidently can’t or won’t do the one thing necessary so you fall back on the age old accusation of bigotry.
What makes my definition of Jesus so important, obviously its yours that means anything.
That’s your problem.
And the central issue is your refusal to either acknowledge that Mormons are Christians or that prejudice against Mormons had the effect of putting Mitt Romney out of the race for the Presidency.
Pick one.
What does orthodox have to do with accepting Christ?
Its just another excuse for intolerance.
Besides unless you accept Mormons as Christians, bigot applies pretty well and its not accusation, you’ve proven your bigotry.
Where’s yours?
Good grief, you really can’t see the main issue.
I have stressed time and again that I would have supported Mitt Romney and that I do not support John McCain. It kind of makes your argument of “bigotry” fall apart.
The definition of Jesus really is the main issue. Since we define Him differently then He is not the same. And Mormons do define him as a created man who became a god. Christians define Him as pre-existant God who became incarnate. That you don’t see or won’t admit to that being a difference is beyond belief.
A man could no more atone for my sins than a bagel. Only the perfect, sinless God could make the sacrifice necessary for my salvation.
Mormons believe in a man who became a god. Christians believe in God who became incarnate. There is a world of difference.
I really am sorry you refuse to recognize that. If I hated Mormons I wouldn’t care about whether you understood Jesus properly or not. My hanging in here in spite of your insults and accusations of bigotry demonstrate otherwise.
But, I have to conclude you know the difference between how Christians and Mormons define Jesus and refuse to admit it yet demand I accept your statement without any clarification. The best I can agree to is that “some Mormons profess profound feelings for X”
because you refuse to define what you mean by Jesus or love. (There were three words used in Koine Greek for the word “love” and each had a profoundly different meaning.)
There is such a thing as exclusive truth. 2+2 = 4. It always does. Accepting otherwise does not mean one has an open mind. It simple makes one wrong.
Therefore, to state that Jesus(LDS) ≠ Jesus(orthodox Christianity) is simply the same thing as saying “A created man who became a god ≠ Pre-existing God who became incarnate”.
You want me to say that the two are equal but I have demonstrated they are not. You refuse to reject the Mormon definition I have provided and you refuse to offer your own definition. Therefore, I must conclude the definition provided accurately reflects your view of Jesus yet you demand I accept two different entities as the same. I can’t and won’t do that.
Your support for Romney doesn’t change the fact that you’re not generous enough to accept Mormons as loving and accepting Jesus as their savior.
And its people who share your form of bigotry that tipped the scale against him.
So what if Mormons don’t conform to your ideal of what Jesus is, yours isn’t likely to conform to the truth either.
Define all you want Mormons are free to believe just ardently as you and using a hard and fast definition as pretext to excluding other Christian faiths is much more the opposite of any intent of Christianity.
Both are fantastical, without it, there’s no need for faith and without extreme outrage of critique there’s no reason to continue believing.
Any faith is the sum of its relevance.
Christianity’s relevance is the contribution of morals and lifestyle not the fantastical.
Using your definition of a person that is God versus another is a negative sum developed from a collective ego.
All egos have a price, some are set, others are set by consequence and some the price is very high up to and including death.
What the price is it you deem adequate?
What price do you expect others to pay for your ego?
At this point you have edged well into the realm of irrationality.
You want Christianity without a Christ, salvation without a Savior, and faith with no object worthy of faith.
You are a very confused person and evidently incapable of rational discourse. You define a bigot as someone who disagrees with you even as you refuse to define or even list your views. You demand that I accept mutually exclusive ideas and concepts.
I am sorry that you are so insecure in your beliefs that you cannot or will not define them much less defend them rationally.
You ask “So what if Mormons don’t conform to your ideal of what Jesus is…” Well, I can tell you what. If you place your faith in a false Christ you cannot be saved. Salvation comes from the Lord and not from an imposter. And the Mormon Jesus is an imposter. A man can’t save you, only God can.
At this point, I will take my leave and not visit this thread any longer. It is futile to argue with someone who is irrational.
And to save you the trouble I’ll post your reply for you.
No, I define bigot as intolerance and discrimination and you qualify in spades.
You insist on elevating semantics to a critical level and you have no choice but to be offended its also that offense that causes damage in more than one way.
Its your pride and narrow vision you have to live with, hopefully.