Tag Archives: Mormon

Tax-Free Terrorism: The NRA and LDS Church

3 Jan
20130111-094526.jpg

Orrin Hatch (R-UT): NRA cohort in the Senate

There is a false perception in America that there are more gun owners than there actually are. The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010. This misconception that most Americans are proud gun owners just isn’t true. It has helped bolster a political narrative, emboldened the National Rifle Association and left politicians worried about losing elections if they try to do any of the following with regards to guns: increase regulation, increase taxes, restrict sales, legislate in favor of safety and sensibility or ban any particular type of deadly firearm or accessory. The NRA, whose affiliated organizations include the Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA’s lobbying arm, and the NRA Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, which provides “a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public.” Like this group, religious institutes, namely the LDS Cult, enjoy untold savings from their tax-exempt status. So why not partner up and make it doubly tax-free?

I’ve tried to steer clear of dissecting the Mormon political, social and economic culture since the defeat of Willard Romney, but I can’t seem to shake the connection between matters that are egregiously wrong with our society and that cult. Researching the history of the NRA’s rise to power pointed me in an unexpected direction. The perpetrator of this lobbying travesty is none other than Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut). Today, the NRA had the audacity to say Congress is “jumping on every tragedy to ban guns.” Not this Senator, he’s been a champion of “gun rights” rather than championing the rights of innocent people to live life without the threat of dying by the hand of a gun-crazed lunatic.

Tracing the ascension of the NRA’s obscenely powerful lobby leads us right to Hatch. This opportunistic Mormon was responsible for authoring the 1982 Senate subcommittee report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” His partner in crime, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, asked him what were his objectives in writing this report. He responded:

“There were really two goals, I suppose. First, we wanted a definitive account of the history of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. For decades – maybe even longer – people had tried to pretend that the Second Amendment was somehow ambiguous, (they did?) that the intent of the Framers, when it comes to this one amendment, was simply unknowable. Of course, it should be noted that most of the people making this argument tended to believe that the meaning of the entire Constitution changes over time. But, with the Second Amendment, they’d been more than willing to simply read it out of the Constitution entirely. Our second goal with the report was to change the dialogue on gun rights. Instead of arguing how far the government could go to keep people from buying guns, we wanted to get people thinking about doing more to facilitate lawful, reasonable gun ownership. I think we were successful on that count as well, though it took a number of years for the debate to be where it is now…..Even into the 1990s, it was fashionable for Democrats to demonize guns and gun owners on all sides. Guns became a scapegoat – and, by extension, those of us who supported the rights of gun owners were also scapegoats.

Leading the charge for the poor, persecuted gun owners is the same man who, earlier in his life, served as a missionary for the LDS Church in the Great Lakes region, and later as a bishop, presiding over a congregation of 600 people.

By simply wanting to stop the sale of weapons American Generals say are inappropriate for civilian use, those who grotesquely pervert the Second Amendment act as if taking their lethal toys means we are decimating a sacred document, which actually says no such thing. Utah, with it’s largely LDS population, seems to have a fondness for arsenal procurement. I’ve previously noted Utah seems to be the epicenter of gun vigilantism, as there is incredible profit in the gun business and Utah has the 2nd most guns per capita in the nation. Obviously, 2nd Amendment misinterpreters share a commonality: they feel their possession of entertaining weaponry (which makes them feel more masculine) supersedes innocent life preservation.

Utah is leading the charge to arm its citizens. A town proposed mandatory gun ownership for every household in a Utah city. They’ve also topped the list of crazy ideas gone mainstream by trying to arm every single teacher. This is how they respond to Sandy Hook! The National Rifle Association countered with “arm the teachers.” Gun clubs claim hundreds of teachers are applying for free weapons training. Two hundred people showed up for a class in West Valley City, Utah, outside Salt Lake City, on December 27, 2012, for example. Not all of the people who took the course were teachers. But some were, including Carolyn Cain, who teaches special education kids in kindergarten to the 6th grade in Utah County, Utah. Utah County is home to the headquarters, ironically, of the Crossroads Gun Show. How fortuitous for their bottom line!

The LDS Church and the NRA are both profit driven groups, which I’ve certainly ascertained during the presidential campaign. Both are predominantly Republican. Both seem to care little for the poor and defenseless of society. Both facilitate murder and pay not one cent to promulgate their violent agenda.

20130111-094919.jpg

Wayne LaPierre CEO of the NRA

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Blind Obedience and Mitt Romney

28 Oct

Helen Radkey, Researcher out of  Salt Lake City, Utah wrote this paper on the blind obedience required by the Mormon Church (or any other organized religion in my opinion, Mormonism being the most egregious).  With her permission, I am sharing her work in its original form.  Thanks to Park Romney for passing this on to me. 

In what may be one of the most  controversial exposés written about The Church  of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), my report unmasks blind  obedience within the LDS Church, and how this Mormon  requirement could affect Mitt Romney. I address abusive  Mormon behavior, with emphasis  on Church  disciplinary councils, used to control and discipline members.  Months of planning and over 100  hours went into the piecing together of this unique report, which  draws from personal experience, interviews with involved parties,  and Church communications. My account is jammed-packed  with information that demonstrates how Mormons are expected  to blindly following LDS leaders. Multiple Mormon abusers are  named.  As a card-carrying temple Mormon,  Mitt Romney is part of the Mormon system of rules—an  intrinsically abusive system.  Romney may not be mentally equipped to fairly govern all the citizens of this nation. Can  America afford to take this risk?   

Blind obedience and Mitt Romney

By Helen Radkey

October 27, 2012

Mormon blind obedience

Since the days of the founding “prophet” of Mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr., presiding officers of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) have mandated obedience to Church officials. The LDS Church is a patriarchal religion rooted in the traditions of the Old Testament. Unquestioning loyalty to LDS leaders is an immutable demand placed on Church members—and a fundamental characteristic of Mormonism.

Mormon culture emphasizes the need for members to be obedient to the authoritarian control of Church leadership. LDS authorities believe they have a divine right to impose their will upon others. A member cannot be considered a good Mormon unless he or she is subservient to LDS leaders and demonstrates compliance with Mormon teachings. Mormons may insist they sustain Church officials on a voluntary basis, but if they do not conform to the directives of their leaders, they may be judged to be in a state of apostasy.

Blind obedience compels the subordination of individual LDS Church members to the hierarchical superstructure. It is the invisible glue that binds the LDS Church and the principal ingredient that fuels the wealthy and powerful Mormon machine. Questioning the edicts of LDS authorities is viewed as subversive behavior that undermines religious faith. Blind obedience keeps Church members in check, via an uncomplicated, orderly world, where dissent is largely prohibited and Mormons obediently do as they are told—a psychological pattern generally valued above critical thinking by faithful Mormons.

The oppressive Mormon system

Mormon officials who preside over local LDS congregations, known as wards and stakes, or branches and districts for smaller congregations, are required to exercise strict control over their flocks. They are taskmasters who must ensure members abide by the rules.

A Church member who has violated Church rules is generally subjected to a Church disciplinary council—known as a Church court—an ecclesiastical trial during which the member is tried for violations of Church standards. Serious violations of civil law, spouse or child abuse, adultery, fornication, rape, and incest, usually generate Church discipline. Depending on the gravity of the charge, a disciplined member may be given “cautionary counsel,” or put on formal probation, or disfellowshipped, or excommunicated.

Formal probation involves restrictions of Church privileges for the offender as specified by the Church council. A disfellowshipped Mormon remains a member of the LDS Church, but is no longer in good standing. Disfellowshipped members are not entitled to hold a temple recommend, exercise the (exclusively male) priesthood, partake of the “sacrament” in Church, serve in any Church position, offer public prayer, give a sermon, or teach a lesson at Church. Excommunication is the most severe judgment a Church court can impose. Excommunicated parties are no longer considered members of the LDS Church and are denied all privileges of membership, including the payment of tithes.

Apostasy ranks high on the list of reasons for excommunication from the LDS Church. An apostate is a member who deserts the faith, a renegade dissenter who once embraced Mormonism, but now rejects it. Turning or falling away from Mormon gospel teachings, especially teaching or following “anti-Mormon” doctrines, and acting in opposition to the Church or its leaders, is perceived as apostasy—spiritual death—alienation from God.

Mormon apostates are “axed” to protect the interests of the LDS Church. When dissidents are labelled with “excommunicated” status, it creates the impression they have sinned. Expelled parties are likely to be discredited, stigmatized, and shunned by other Mormons, thus reducing the “anti-Mormon” influence of ousted members within Mormon ranks.

The LDS Church fails to provide a healthy environment for independent thought. Members are expected to readily accept Church dogma. Many Mormons, including dissident scholars, have been disfellowshipped, excommunicated, and fired from Church–related jobs, for writing and teaching alternate views on topics such as Mormon racism, Mormon feminism, gay rights, genetic science, and Church history. Speaking publicly in opposition to Church policy or doctrine is not tolerated. It does not matter how much supportive evidence, including documentation, is presented, members found guilty are punished through Church courts because they disagree with the “official” LDS position.

LDS officialdom is overly preoccupied with the performance of Church members. The “worthiness” of individual Mormons is measured by their degree of obedience to LDS leaders and the Mormon cause. LDS membership is influenced by the “we alone are right” persuasion, in a delusional world of domination and submission, where the “carrot-and-stick” approach is used to induce members to conform to Church standards.

Church members are offered a combination of rewards and punishments to regulate their behavior. Obedient Mormons are rewarded with social acceptance, Church assignments, and the promise of eternal salvation, godhood, and happiness with their families forever. Unmanageable Mormons may be reprimanded and threatened with disciplinary action.

General Authorities of the LDS Church are implicated in abusive behavior because they empower local LDS leaders to maintain “the law and order of the Church” through private, faultfinding Church courts that—more often than not—guarantee the “tarring and feathering” of non-compliant members who make a noise—especially a public noise.

In a spiritually abusive system such as the LDS Church, where the belief in an authoritarian priesthood power is extolled, LDS leaders require the place of honor. Mormons are encouraged to place their leaders upon pedestals. Members are taught to never criticize Church leaders, past or present, even if the claims are true. Not only do some LDS officials expect special recognition, they may use their Church status to coerce members by instructing them to deny their inner voice and decision-making process.

Charles Parsons, an LDS bishop in Hurstville, Sydney, Australia, offered me a ward secretarial position, in early 1975, when I was still an active Mormon. After I declined his proposal, Parsons insisted I should have prayed for the strength to fulfill the “calling” and not prayed and asked if the position was God’s will for me—as I told him I had done. After the run-in with Parsons, I received no Church assignments for the next six months.

LDS leaders may give counsel in any area, not just in spiritual matters. Church members do not need to ask their bishops for permission regarding mundane daily acts. Mormons are encouraged to “choose the right” in every aspect of their lives. They are counseled to read the scriptures and pray about private matters. If a personal choice involves the offer of a Church “calling” or work assignment initiated by a Mormon official, like Parsons, for example, the Church requirement would ordinarily take precedence over personal responsibilities. If a member wishes to remain in good standing, he or she will obediently accept all formal Church demands and put his or her “shoulder to the (Mormon) wheel.”

Common consent and rigged Mormon record-keeping

There is a democratic principle in Mormonism, known as the law of common consent. “Callings” to positions in the LDS Church are made by authorized leaders and then brought before appropriate Church congregations to be sustained or opposed. Church members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote by raising their right hand in agreement, or they may give an opposing vote in the same way.

It appears members exercise their “free agency” when they accept or reject names, but this function is more or less perfunctory. Mormon congregations have been intimidated into conformity. Members are expected to sustain names presented to them, based upon the assumption that these names have been chosen by Church leaders who represent God.

There are times when common consent becomes a figment of the imagination. Acts of protest by members against Church leaders—especially acts of protest in opposition to a group of LDS officials—are viewed as rebellion and will not go unpunished. The issue is always seen as disobedience. There are no structural safeguards against the abuse of Church members who question. Protesters will be accused of not sustaining LDS leaders.

In June 1976, I attended a Sydney Australia South Stake conference, with seven other adult Mormons, to vote in opposition to the stake presidency and stake high council. The LDS officials, whom I voted against, had been responsible for the excommunications of four men—all devout Mormons—in 1975. Before the stake conference, I had interviewed about a dozen key witnesses and became convinced the accused men were innocent.

Retaliation was swift. A letter was hastily hand-delivered to my Sydney home, informing me I had been disfellowshipped from the LDS Church, on March 21—over three months earlier. The letter was signed by Hurstville Ward bishopric members, Bishop Charles Parsons, and “Bro” Allan D. Murrin, 1st counselor. The Church decree listed penalties and suggestions, but gave no reason for the bishop’s court outcome. I was advised I could no longer speak or participate in meetings or attend any assembly of Church officers.

My diminished Church standing was likely conjured up by Parsons, in collaboration with John Daniel Parker—stake president of Sydney Australia South Stake. Disfellowshipped members cannot vote to sustain or oppose the election of Church officers. My disfellowshipment status gave Sydney Mormon authorities an official reason to discount my opposing vote against them at stake conference. My vote could be safely disregarded.

The telltale dates on the letter I received from Parsons told the story. The letter was dated May 31, and was delivered on June 30, which was 101 days after the date of the action. According to the (Church) General Handbook (1968), a disfellowshipped member should be notified of the conditions of that penalty when the penalty is imposed. If that person does not attend the trial, he or she should be notified by two Melchizedek Priesthood bearers or by registered letter. Parsons violated Church rules. I did not attend the trial on March 21 and was not notified of the result until June 30. My disfellowshipment status appears to have been quickly determined after my opposing vote at the June conference.

Those subject to Church disciplinary sanctions have a right of appeal. An accused member may appeal the decision of a disciplinary council within 30 days of the decision. Parsons dated his letter, May 31, and it was handed to me on the night of June 30, exactly 30 days later. Parsons and Parker had strategically managed to block my right of appeal.

Records of LDS Church disciplinary proceedings that result in disfellowshipment or excommunication should be sent to the LDS First Presidency, as stated in the General Handbook. Nearly four months after the bishop’s court, Church headquarters had not received the record—another reason why my disfellowshipment did not occur in March.

When I protested to LDS officials in Salt Lake City, a letter, dated July 9, 1976, from the Office of the First Presidency stated “…according to the Confidential Section of the Membership Department…” the record of my trial had not reached General Church Offices. The letter also stated: “There is no provision for receiving direct testimony on an appeal to the First Presidency since all appeals are handled only on the basis of the official record made by the lower court.” I was advised I would first have to appeal to the high council court before an appeal to the First Presidency could be entertained. In other words, I would have to appeal to Parker concerning the judgment of the ward trial.  Parsons had also signed the disfellowshipment letter on behalf of Hurstville Ward bishopric member, Hugh Nugent, 1st counselor to Parsons. A year later at my home, in June 1977, Nugent told me in front of witnesses that he had no idea why I had been disfellowshipped. All three members of a ward bishopric are expected to participate in bishop’s courts which have jurisdiction over all ward members. If my disfellowshipment had occurred on March 21, Nugent should have been aware of the reason for the verdict.

The Hurstville Ward bishopric was part of a Church hierarchy that was more concerned with status than pastoral care. Running amok with Church-sanctioned authority—with the support of LDS General Authorities and back-to-back LDS mission presidents in Sydney—LDS officials in south Sydney bullied members on a ward and stake level, until all Mormons who objected to their overbearing behavior were driven out of the Church

Sustaining “right or wrong” and kangaroo Church courts
The sustaining “right or wrong” belief has its roots in early Mormonism, in a secret, oath-bound vigilante group known as the Mormon Danite band or “Destroying Angels.” Mormon Danites took oaths to support a brother “right or wrong” even unto the shedding of blood. They were expected to sustain, protect, defend, and obey Mormon leaders under all circumstances. Members of the Danite band considered themselves as much bound to obey the heads of the Church as to obey God. To disobey was punishable by death.

My rude awakening to the modern-day version of the sustaining “right or wrong” Mormon rule came through Charles Parsons, when he unexpectedly stopped by my home on February 11, 1976. Parsons demanded that I meet with Parker that evening or a Church court would be convened. My Church membership was on the line, according to Parsons. When I asked him why I should meet with Parker, he insisted, “there could only be one voice in the stake and that was the voice of Stake President Parker.” Parsons then said I was required to sustain Parker “right or wrong.” I refused those terms on the spot.

It is commonly taught in the LDS Church that members should support all actions by presiding Church officers. If these actions are flawed, Mormons believe the leaders—not the members who support the incorrect actions—will be held accountable. According to Parsons, if the excommunications of the four Mormon men occurred in error, I was still expected to sustain Parker regarding those stake disciplinary council judgments—even though I believed all parties were innocent of any violation that could justify such action.

The issue at stake was the 1975 excommuncations of four Mormons—Wallace Brown, Jeffrey Watts, Brian Watts, and Paul Knightley. These men lived in Bankstown Ward, adjacent to Hurstville, in the Sydney Australia South Stake, presided over by Parker. Jeff Watts, an associate of Wallace Brown, was the first to be excommunicated. Brown was allowing LDS missionaries to use his home to teach prospective converts. Watts was upset when missionaries abruptly stopped coming to Brown’s home. They were teaching two people there and Watts was concerned the couple would be lost to the LDS Church. He phoned Earl Carr Tingey, president of the Australia Sydney Mission, and asked for an explanation. Tingey refused to respond. Watts questioned Tingey, at a Sunday meeting at Bankstown Ward, a few days later. After Tingey brushed him aside, Watts told Tingey his behavior was unlawful. Jeff Watts was speedily excommunicated by a stake high council court, upon the basis of “evidence” from LDS mission president, Earl Tingey.

The final point put to Jeff Watts at his excommunication trial was, “Do you accept what we say as leaders of the Church in this stake?” Watts replied, “Yes, in righteousness.” According to Watts, the court’s answer to his response was, “No, right or wrong!” After the trial of Jeff Watts, there was an attempt to excommunicate Wallace Brown, the following night. Brown had challenged a stake presidency edict that prohibited his wife, Taisa, from asking the children in her Bankstown Ward classes to kneel in prayer to maintain reverence. Taisa was told this behavior was too much like the Roman Catholics. Wallace Brown claimed stake officials had interfered with his wife’s prerogative.  Brown had also corrected Maximilian Forstpointner, the bishop of Bankstown Ward, who had tried to arbitrarily change the time of Sunday priesthood meetings without an elder’s quorum vote. Brown asked Forstpointner to obey the Church law of common consent. Forstpointner condescended and allowed the elder’s quorum to vote. Shortly thereafter, Brown received a scribbled carbon copy charge sheet summonsing him to a stake high council court. With no verifiable charges presented against him, Wallace Brown was disfellowshipped at his first Church court, which lasted nine hours, until the cock crowed.

Bishop Maximilian Forstpointner confronted Brian Watts and Paul Knightley soon after Brown’s first trial and demanded to know if they would support him “right or wrong.” These two young men stood firmly against Forstpointner’s requirement and they were soon summonsed to a Church court. The question of sustaining “right or wrong” was put to them a number of times, and they were drawn into nasty disputes and name-calling by those who presided over the court. Watts and Knightley were excommunicated because they refused to sustain local Church leaders, especially Forstpointner, “right or wrong.”

Brian Watts and Paul Knightley were probably excommunicated to eliminate them as witnesses so they could not testify against Forstpointer. They were present when he attempted to change the priesthood meeting time in violation of the common consent law.

Wallace Brown was excommunicated from the LDS Church three months after he was disfellowshipped. Independent witnesses, who were waiting outside the court at Brown’s excommunication trial, claimed he was verbally abused in an “unchristian-like manner” by LDS authorities during his rowdy second trial. Brown openly criticized this court for excommunicating Brian Watts and Paul Knightley. Facing no specific charges—and dealing only with personal harassment—Brown declared he was “in the synagogue of Satan…” He left the room and was subsequently excommunicated from the LDS Church.

In November 1978, while still listed as a disfellowshipped Church member, I prepared a seven-page pamphlet, Free Agency and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Australia, with the assistance of another member, John Mitchell. The pamphlet outlined the “…disintegration of respect for the rights and freedom of the individual within certain quarters…of Sydney…In the Church in Sydney, a number of individuals have been removed from the fellowship of the Church for failing to sustain their local leaders right or wrong, i.e., obedience to authority without regard to personal feelings, conscience, personal revelation, any second witness, self respect, or right of choice…”

Copies of the Free Agency pamphlet were mailed to the presiding officers of every stake, ward, district, and branch of the LDS Church in Australia, each Mormon apostle in Salt Lake City, various LDS mission presidents around the world, and selected Church members in Sydney. John Mitchell and I were promptly excommunicated, along with Stuart Olmstead, who had financed the distribution of the tract. Parker had been replaced by Graham Sully as stake president. Prior to my excommunication trial, when Sully handed me the court summons, he accused me of “causing confusion in the Church.”

The non-specific “conduct in violation of the law and order of the Church” charge was given as the reason on paper for the excommunications of Wallace Brown, Jeff and Brian Watts, Paul Knightley, John Mitchell, Stuart Olmstead, and myself. In actuality, Sydney LDS authorities had overstepped their boundaries—expected unquestioning obedience— and overreacted when they were faced with objections to their behavior. They responded the only way they knew how, by taking punitive action against the members involved.  A number of Mormons in Bankstown and Hurstville wards were familiar with the details of the seven excommunications—and did nothing—along with other members who did not want to know the facts. In spite of the tendency to look the other way, around the time of my exodus from the LDS Church, in early 1976, roughly 30 Mormons left the Church because of the excommunciations and the sustaining “right or wrong” requirement.

Death to the “Ark-steadiers”

Two years after I moved to Salt Lake City, Wallace Brown died in Sydney, in July 1986. After I received the news of his death, I met with Mormon bishop, Larry Shaw, at his home in Salt Lake City. I notified Shaw of Brown’s death and informed him that Brown had been unjustly excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1975. I also advised Shaw I intended to publish an account of my LDS experiences—as a tribute to Wallace Brown.

Shaw compared the LDS Church to the legendary Ark of the Covenant, built in the time of Moses. He flatly stated that God had killed Uzzah, as recorded in the Old Testatment book of 2 Samuel 6:6-7, because Uzzah had tried to steady the Ark of the Covenant when he was not authorized to do so. God would also strike me down, predicted Shaw, if I committed any action (such as publications) which could harm the LDS Church.

The present-day Mormon interpretation of the story of Uzzah is applied to the relationship between members and the LDS Church. Members are instructed they should not correct Church leaders or Church policies, despite any good intentions. Mormons are taught the leaders of the Church are in charge and it is not their place to correct them.

On September 11, 1986, I sent a letter to the First Presidency, the highest-ranking governing body of the LDS Church, advising them I wanted my name cleared of any wrongdoing implied on Mormon records. I requested Church records show I was no longer a member of the LDS Church because I requested this and for no other reason. I objected to the sustaining “right or wrong” mandate imposed by Sydney Church officials.  At my Salt Lake City home, in August 1987, Paul Mecham, stake president of Salt Lake Granite Stake, showed me a letter, dated December 1, 1986, from the First Presidency, affirming my excommunication from the LDS Church. The letter had been signed by each member of the First Presidency, Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon B. Hinckley, both now deceased, and Thomas S. Monson, current Church president and “living prophet.”

Thomas S. Monson, and other LDS higher-ups at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City, who were flooded during the 1970s with appeals of concern regarding the abuse of power by Sydney LDS leaders, were complicit in backing blind obedience. Without exception, they rejected all pleas for help and “rubber-stamped” the Sydney excommunications.

Former LDS bishop, Larry Shaw, resurfaced when he phoned me from Atlanta, Georgia, on February 27, 2012. At the time, my research discoveries on the proxy baptisms of well-known Holocaust victims, such as Simon Wiesenthal’s parents and Anne Frank, were receiving extensive media coverage and would prompt Mormon officials to make technological changes that would block my access to their database of proxy rites.

During the hour-long phone call, Shaw attempted to pressure me back into the LDS Church through forceful persuasion. He refused to accept my complete renunciation of Mormonism. I interpreted his call as personal harassment because of the work I had done to uncover posthumous rites for non-Mormons, which had damaged the reputation of the LDS Church. Shaw asked me about my health, three times, and implied that I might soon be going to the other side because of my age. He had called to silence me as a dissenter.

Mormon temple oaths

Faithful Mormons believe their first and foremost duty is uncompromising loyalty to the LDS Church and unquestioning obedience to Church leaders. Obedience is perceived as an active demonstration of implicit trust in the Mormon faith. Mormons who participate in LDS temple ceremonies are locked into a loyalty-to-Church mindset through the rites performed in LDS temples, which include oaths of loyalty and sacrifice to the Church.

The endowment ceremony serves as a rite of adult initiation in LDS temples. During the temple endowment, Mormons take oaths to obey Mormon gospel laws, which include:

  • The Law of Obedience requires participating temple patrons to promise to obey the law of God. Mormons understand the LDS Church to be the one true source of God’s law.
  • The Law of Sacrifice requires participating temple patrons to covenant to sacrifice all that they possess, even their own lives, if necessary, in sustaining and defending “the kingdom of God.” To a Mormon, the term “the kingdom of God” means the LDS Church.
  • The Law of the Gospel includes an admonition to avoid speaking evil of the “Lord’s anointed [Church priesthood leaders].”
  • The Law of Consecration requires participating temple patrons to consecrate themselves, their time, their talents, and everything the Lord has blessed them with, or whatever he may bless them with, to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the building up of “the [Mormon] kingdom of God on the earth…”

Mitt Romney’s Mormon indoctrination

Mitt Romney has been exposed to Mormon authoritarian rule since infancy. Mormonism has been the dominant influence in the forging of his core values and identity. Romney has internalized a theology that unreservedly claims that the LDS Church is “the only true Church” and rejects divine authority in other faiths. Mormons believe the United States was created and chosen by God, as the latter-day “Promised Land,” where Mormonism could come into existence and flourish as the “restoration” of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many Mormons believe the USA will eventually become a Mormon-ruled theocracy.

As an oath-taking temple Mormon, Romney has consecrated his life, talents, and worldly goods to the LDS Church. To be faithful to his temple vows he must also support Mormon ecclesiastical rule. That means following directives from Temple Square as well as his local Church leaders. The issue is whether Romney would be able to separate his actions as president from Mormon doctrines, edicts, and rules governing human behavior.

Differing views on faith have no place in the secular political sphere and the shaping of political policies. The multicultural USA includes Mormons, millions of believers in non-Mormon religions, and non-religious citizens. We should not be governed by a president who has taken private oaths to prioritize the advancement of Mormon agenda above other interests. Flexibility in the rule of law is the hallmark of a successful government.

Mitt Romney is a religious authoritarian whose zeal for Mormon rules mirrors that of his Church. If Romney was the commander-in-chief of this country, he would probably expect to be supported, without question, as he has undoubtedly done in the past when he served in Mormon leadership positions. Like many—if not most LDS leaders—Romney is likely to be insistent on the “rightness” of his position. As a Mormon bishop and stake president in the Boston area, he was used to dictating actions and having members obey his instructions. He did not have to make a case, or answer questions, for his decisions.

In Church, Romney frequently spoke about obeying authority and God’s fixed standards. During Mitt Romney’s years as a bishop and stake president, he would have disciplined Church members and played an active role in excommunicating Mormons. Romney has reportedly said he would support any Mormon bishop who initiates an excommunication from the LDS Church. He has also said he would not question the reasoning behind the excommunication, even if it was for differing views, and not misconduct. This attitude demonstrates Romney’s blind trust in the Mormon system, his one-eyed support of rank and file LDS officials, and his sustaining of Church court judgments “right or wrong.”

Mitt Romney is part of an aggressive Church that demanded blind obedience to its leaders in the past, expects it from members today, and will likely expect it in the future. If Romney is elected as president of our nation, we Americans may soon be required to sustain the White House “right or wrong,” in conformity with the Mormon imperative.

© Copyright 2012 Helen Radkey—Permission granted to reproduce for non-commercial purposes, provided text is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Salt Lake City Will Dictate A Romney Administration

19 Oct

This Romney statement should incite fear in all Americans: “I believe the separation of Church and State has gone too far .” Unlike President Kennedy, Willard Mitt Romney, along with his faux Catholic running mate, will most assuredly impose their religious beliefs on all Americans, whether they’d like it or not. Employers have recently coerced their employees into voting for Romney by threatening their very livelihood if President Obama should win. This is a mere foreshadowing of the fascist thought that will become rampant in the United States. All Americans should be aware of the impending demolition of the secular principles our Founding Fathers espoused over two and a quarter centuries ago, and there is good reason for this.

Mormon First, American Second: Willard Romney

It seems every single cause the GOP egregiously purports to vilify is the very same issue they seem to eschew. Freedom is their mantra, yet Romney and the GOP wish to eliminate the very religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. The tax-evading Mormon candidate, much like his cult, wishes to have it both ways: an active role in the legislative process without any pay for play. This man, who obviously embraces the Mormon tenet of “Lying for the Lord,” was exposed in the most recent debate by his extemporaneous fabrication of an alleged anti-misogynistic position of seeking more women to hire for cabinet posts, something the Mormon cult certainly, but not openly, disparages. Women are to complement their husbands, provide progeny and obviously to cook dinner. In fact, Romney’s very own Bain Capital was a veritable boy’s club with very few women in real positions of power, much like the hierarchy of the LDS authority.

Romney felt the need to clarify his Mormon faith about two months ago and openly acknowledged how the Latter Day Saints truly have molded him into the quintessential Mormon candidate. He has stated how he’d overturn Roe v Wade, effectively outlawing abortion. This is obviously the chosen position of the LDS Church in Salt Lake. To make matters worse, just consider this quote by his Draconian running mate:

Rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortions.

Any woman who votes for these two medieval-thinking lunatics obviously feels more comfortable with the mores of the Old Testament than the Constitution. I surely don’t want to unfairly lump all Mormons into this antediluvian group. Democratic Mormons have, on numerous occasions, dissented from the marching orders of the cult. Just recently, Harry Reid, (referred by fellow Mormons as “Dirty Harry”) suggested Mitt Romney hasn’t paid a dime of Federal Income Tax, and thus he was attacked by members of the GOP, especially the Mormons in the House and Senate. He’s yet to be proven false on that accusation, incidentally. Since the nineteenth century, it is almost a universal given that the Mormon Republican members of Congress have done exactly as their Church has instructed. It is worth noting how differently Democratic Mormons have behaved, as they seem to be much more capable of separating church and state.

Is there any doubt Willard Romney, a “severely Conservative” candidate, will impose his beliefs on America? The Republican party IS the faith-based party which has shown countless times their need to supersede a secular United States with a more “Christian” country, so long as the system presents a candidate that looks like them. Even Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, initially labeled the Mormon Church a cult, but has since recanted this claim in order to help Mitt Romney defeat the current “Black” President with the foreign sounding name. The history of the church exercising dominance over every single Republican Mormon should raise red flags by anyone who values the threatened freedoms we enjoy, albeit less and less each day. If you hear a Republican claim there is not enough of their vengeful, anti-poor, bigoted god in this society, that should be considered a blessing. We don’t need Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan dictating the fates of Americans whose lives they have no right to control. Just one more Conservative Supreme Court Justice will make this living Hell a reality and the federal government will mirror the Mormon Republican-dominated government of Utah. Electing these zealots could mean the end of many of our liberties and usher in an era where the United States is no longer discernible from a theocracy, much like Iran.

Interestingly enough, a prominent ex-Mormon noticed in the October 22 debate: One of the reasons he looked so uncomfortable was probably because he had to sit down this time. He is completely conditioned to standing behind a pulpit when giving sermons, looking down at the sheep from on high. His narcissicm was clearly on his face as he smirked at the “fence sitter” born into a cursed lineage. He sure looked uncomfortable and lacking in substance in my opinion.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mitt Romney Summons All Mormons With Debate Code Words

5 Oct

Thanks to MarioPiperni.com

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is composed of the faithful who truly believe they are the “God’s Chosen People“. There’s an inherent sense of entitlement that comes with “god” choosing you before you were even born. God has also decided all of his chosen people are direct descendants of Israel, even those of Northern European stock. Members of the Mormon cult are convinced this, among other principles, is absolutely true, despite the irrefutable evidence to the contrary. For instance, “despite the fact that in 1966 the original Egyptian papyri that Smith used to “translate” the Book of Abraham were discovered in the New York Museum of Art, and that they definitively prove that his translation is a complete and utter fraud, Mormons still revere it as authentic scripture, written by none other than Abraham himself.” Mitt Romney has undoubtedly fallen hook line and sinker for this fantastical mythology originated by a convicted charlatan, and lives his life believing he was chosen.

Willard walked away from the October 3rd debate feeling victorious with his “performance.” He was quite the thespian and made so many antithetical claims to actual reality, one must infer he was convinced he believed his convoluted logic wholeheartedly. However, he was using secret Mormon code to round up the LDS army to get involved now. Park Romney explains:

Mitt Romney’s reference to deficits as a “moral issue” is a very significant coded signal to Mormons and the Mormon Church. Anything identified as a “moral issue” by the Church is deemed to constitute a matter that the Church should take a public position on, even where political action is involved. This is the basis of the Church’s justification of their involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign; it was the basis of the Church’s involvement, in the 80′s in opposition to the Equal Rights amendment; and this was an outspoken appeal from Mitt Romney to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for their support of his election on moral grounds. This was monumentally significant to those of us who understand the code.

He was calling on his fellow chosen ones to focus on the issue of deficits as if it’s a moral failing of the Obama Administration. It was a call for fellow Mormons to ignore the reality that Mitt himself has saddled more companies with debt while “harvesting” them for profit, resulting in massive job loss and ultimately, bankruptcy. Willard Romney, of all people, has the gall to demand action against the deficits his policies would only greatly exacerbate, which this President inherited.

Mormons view their anointed one’s performance as a sign from god he is destined to be their fearless leader. Glenn Beck, Mormon supporter of Romney, said in this video “God is trying to make this so clear for us, if this happens it is his finger.” He spoke of the debate fondly. “It was amazing… it was remarkable, I thought. I ‘tweeted’ last night after it was all said and done to remember to fall down on your knees in thanksgiving. I mean, I prayed yesterday like never before that the scales would fall from people’s eyes.“

Obvious proclamations of moral obligations should alert us to Mitt’s true agenda: furthering the ambitions of the Mormon Church. After all, they consider themselves an elect breed apart and above all others, holier-than-thou in every sense of the word, the best-of-the-best spirits that god selected to be born into this world as his rulers in the last days before the second coming.
 If you were not chosen, too bad. Your concerns, like those of parents who encourage their children to watch Sesame Street and other PBS programs, are insignificant to Willard Romney and he will smile to your face while stabbing you in the back, as he’s done to so many Americans already.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Pulpit Freedom Sunday Violates Separation of Church And State

4 Oct
20121004-072805.jpg

Is there really a separation?

The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We are not supposed to establish a state run church/mosque/synagogue. Period.

In order to protect this vital separation, churches were added to section 501C3 of the tax code in 1954. They could not participate in politics AND enjoy a tax-exempt status. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. Senator Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping “public policy.” To ensure equality among religious and non-religious alike, this was as important a legislative act as the Civil Rights Act. He intended to keep religious leaders from directly engaging in our political process from their pulpits.

Unfortunately, the religious right seized their opening to influence policy directly with the Moral Majority. The Reagan Administration ushered in these frightening right wing Christian megalomaniacs who literally took control of his social agenda. They brought us hate mongers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who had tremendous impact on government who were not paying one red cent in taxes for their opulent and excessive wealth, while imposing their “standards of decency” on the entire nation.

To add a dash of effrontery seldom seen; reverends, pastors and preachers plan on voicing their political opinions this Sunday. This is the impetus for Pulpit Freedom Sunday set to occur nationwide on October 7th. The lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom organization states: “The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -and not the IRS -decides what is said from the pulpit.” – Erik Stanley. It heralds a complete lack of respect for the fundamentals of the United States Government. If you want a voice in the political arena, you must pay your taxes like the rest of us Americans do. That keeps us from becoming a theocracy much like Saudi Arabia. If we don’t keep these zealots in check, that might very well mirror the Religious-Right America of the future.

20121004-055230.jpg

The real message this Pulpit Freedom Sunday, October 7th

This is the third annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”. Isn’t it odd how this began after the first Black President was elected, as it was not an issue prior to that, apparently? Anyone with their eyes open can see this as just another not-so-thinly veiled display of blatant racism against President Obama. These agents of “god” are planning to videotape their sermons and then mail them to the IRS.

Speaking of racists, the Mormon Church has very publicly funded efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman by aggressively promoting Proposition 8 legislation. Ironic how they value the “one woman” principle as even today, open polygamist Mormons can be found in rural areas of Nevada, Utah, Arizona and Texas. Willard Romney’s great grandfather, Miles Park Romney had FIVE wives. We’ve obviously not successfully conquered separation of church and state as there’s still under God in our Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust on our currency. When a public official is sworn in or one testifies in court, they must place their hand on a book of fiction, the Bible.

I sincerely hope THIS Pulpit Freedom Sunday results in the very warranted taxation of many of these profitable mega churches. Religious institutions certainly have had their fair share of scandals that deem them undeserving of their 501C3 status. In addition to their often deplorable behavior, they seem to favor Draconian Old Testament laws that have no place in modern society. Bigotry and discrimination should not be legislated through the pulpit without payment. Just imagine the funds we could put into educating our children if we taxed the $30 billion in holdings by the LDS Church alone. If only….

If you’d like to help stop this, please sign my petition to eliminate tax-free status given to these hate merchants! Click on this link to add your name! Thank you.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Criticize Mitt Romney and Mormon Inc. WILL Excommunicate You

25 Sep

The Mormons, even before their Utah Territory was an official state, were very defensive of their sacred Deseret. So much so that a number of them banded together, disguised as Indians, to slaughter innocent settlers passing through the territory on their way to California in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Reliable historians purport that their beloved prophet and university namesake Brigham Young ordered the massacre to keep the US Army out of his beloved Latter Day “Saints” territory, claiming that otherwise the Indians would go on the warpath. If you’ve ever driven through Utah, as I have, you still get the sense today that outsiders, in some parts, are simply not welcome. They know their own and are suspicious of non-Mormons. Questioning the legitimacy of the LDS religion has always been a sore spot and it’s certainly no different today. It is simply forbidden and if a member dare raise valid concerns over inconsistencies in the “faith,” they are sure to be irrevocably censured.

David Twede of MormonThink

Naturally, the LDS church would never admit they don’t tolerate questioning, but of course openly admitting their obvious defensiveness of their cult’s validity would be downright embarrassing. Kay Burningham, former LDS member and author/attorney commented on this particular instance:
“There is no freedom of speech within the LDS Church.  From the clothing they wear, the words they speak, to the books, movies and music deemed appropriate to read, watch and hear, the LDS hierarchy censors its members who dissent.  As MormonThink’s managing editor, David Twede’s good faith efforts at addressing true Mormon history and his constitutional right to express his opinion on Mitt Romney’s fitness for the position of POTUS, are a threat to Mormonism’s very foundation. Only through an outward showing of discipline or excommunication, can the church spin the search for truth and the individual right to expression into a demonic activity.”  

There are many instances of Mormons coming out against the church once the true fraudulent nature manifests itself to the member.  A perfect example of a work they found objectionable is An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, which challenges the traditional explanations of the faith’s founding events – Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the visit of the Angel Moroni, Smith’s translation of ancient writings on gold plates and the restoration of the priesthood.  Even though the evidence against the charlatan’s plagiarizing of the Christian Bible is irrefutable, the church tells members any dissent is the work of the devil, which in turn provides an airtight lock on their illogical mythology.

The Mormon religion is so good at its job, they’ve even convinced their members you have to pay “money” to get into the Celestial Kingdom.  Willard Romney has asserted how instrumental the Mormon church has been in shaping his character.  If his very core is formulated by a fraudulently based belief system, one has to wonder the degree of mental fitness this man possesses that he is so duped by a cult that is utterly devoid of logic.  This is a man who believes little in public education,  for the poor masses are undeserving of the same schooling he received, thanks to LDS Inc.  Even in the face of irrefutable evidence, a true Mormon will stand and die for the lie, make no mistake about it.   Is this what we need in the White House?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Ann Romney Believes Women Should Know Their Place

22 Sep

As a woman fortunate enough to have had an upbringing where I was always taught that women and men are equals, I’d like to presume the First Lady of my country would instill similar values in other American girls. If her speech at the Republican National Convention showed her true feelings on the matter of feminine equality, it’s painfully obvious Ann Romney believes a woman should know her place, which is in the role of dutiful wife and doting mother. She firmly believes in the supremacy of men just as her adopted Mormon cult dictates. After all, a Mormon woman can only enter the gates of the celestial kingdom with the consent of her husband. Any woman exhibiting desires eschewed by the values ascribed by the Mormon cult is simply anomalous to her entitled and privileged way of life. She is perhaps the worst spokesman for the twenty-first century American female there ever was.

Ann Romney firmly believes a woman should unequivocally be a partner to a man, both in this life and the still unproven hereafter. Not only did she fail to acknowledge women in ANY professional capacity in her RNC speech, she failed to acknowledge single, lesbian or childless women (to name a few) as integral female members of a productive society. She’s so averse to answering questions regarding her own professional aspirations , she cancels any interview inquiring on the matter. Although raised largely without formal religion, (Episcopalian with a touch of atheism) she believes what the Mormon scriptures profess: By bearing and nurturing children, women are saved because they have learned to perform Heavenly Mother’s work. In other words, women truly have no other earthly function than to serve the man and bear him children. This is very similar to the Muslim faith. The role of the Muslim woman is clearly defined and outlined in Islam. In short her primary role is with the upbringing of her children and in being a dutiful wife. A woman’s job, in her worldview, is to be simply a mother and wife above all things. Funny how similar the two faiths are, much to the disapproval of unbeknownst Republicans. Ann’s very own atheist father Edward Davies was baptized into the Mormon Church posthumously, something he would definitely have objected to while alive. Her arrogance and presumption prevent her from seeing just how offensive this is.

She serves her husband also by staunchly defending his right to leading a privileged and entitled existence, free from the customary scrutiny thrust upon the life of a presidential candidate. “Have you seen how we’re attacked?,” Ann Romney said in an interview in mid August, hitting the table with her hand for emphasis. “Have you seen what’s happened?…. “It will just give them more ammunition.” These are the words of a wealthy corporate wife who is outraged her husband is under the microscope while running for the most powerful elected office on earth. She’s assuming they’ll be attacked further if they release more, so that pretty much means there’s something in those returns that’s worthy of “attack” — at least by folks who are paying taxes at a much higher rate, who are perhaps keeping their monies in these United States. “Stop it. This is hard, you wanna try it, get in the ring,” she whined earlier this week following the legendary Mother Jones video of Mitt Romney showing a rare candid example of the contempt he shows for low income Americans and the futility of garnering their vote. She was quoted by a few ladies close to her as having said “My horse has more style and more class in its hoof than they (Democrats) do in their whole deal.” Clearly this couple cares little for the middle class and their disdain is starting to manifest itself everytime they open their mouths.

20120923-062148.jpg

(Not an actual Michelle Obama quote)

Willard Romney believes his wife is his spokesperson for “what women want”. Unfortunately, women are not the monolithic wealthy, corporate white woman Mitt believes Ann is a typical representative. Perhaps Willard’s experience as a fairly omnipotent LDS “prophet” throughout much of his life has shielded him from the reality that the world is nothing like his sanitized view of entitled corporate personhood. It is very apparent she too doesn’t see the forest through the trees when it comes to women’s real world issues. Not every girl aspires to be a stay at home mom, not every girl can be that person for a myriad reasons. Frankly, this woman becoming First Lady is a gigantic leap backwards of all the progress women made in the twentieth century. Actually, given the obvious Republican war on women, what better representative for their antiquated Puritanical views on women than Queen Ann? If America elects this entitled couple it’s because of one of two reasons: they’ve suppressed the vote sufficiently or we’re so unbelievably ignorant as a people, we deserve this impending nightmare.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Political Candidates’ Beliefs Are Important

27 Aug

This is a re-post from the sagacious Mark Larsen. A former Mormon who served his mission in Argentina, Mr. Larsen is a professor who has most definitely parted ways with the Church. He has compiled this fantastic list from his site Heresies, Blasphemies, Sacrilege! I felt it was such a tremendous list of the pertinent questions to ask anyone running for public office, especially Willard Romney! I encourage readers to view all the articles on his site.

Here is his post entitled: Why Political Candidate’s Beliefs Are Important

There are SO many questions about Romney’s Mormonism that I would LOVE journalists to ask him point blank!

I opine that one’s religious views are just as important —perhaps more important— than one’s political philosophy. As my psychologist spouse informs me: for all practical intents and purposes it is impossible to separate “private” beliefs from public attitudes, prejudices, decisions, and behavior.

For example, when it comes to Mormonism in particular (and many other Christian religions)…

  • If a person privately deems homosexuality a sin, a choice, a perversion, condemned by god, can I trust that individual to labor to establish equal rights for gays and lesbians, including marriage?
  • If someone believes that humans were once male or female “spirits” in a pre-mortal existence, and god then puts them into corresponding male or female bodies, how supportive will the person be of legislation, let alone public health practices, to help transgender children establish and live according to their genetic identity?
  • If someone believes that there are “spirit children” in “heaven,” anxiously lined up, waiting for their chance to finally come to earth and get a physical body before the “second coming,” how would it affect the person’s views on overpopulation in a finite world with finite resources?
  • How would that same belief affect the person’s views on tax laws that allow more and more deductions for families who choose to have more and more children?
  • If someone believes that god gave humans “dominion” over the entire earth, to do with as we please, and that the “second coming” is nigh, that Jesus will descend from heaven to cleanse the earth of sinners and rule over the remaining righteous believers for a thousand years in the near future, should I assume that view will not have an effect upon the person’s decisions that affect the environment, global warming, even industrial pollution? It won’t have any effect on efforts to move to cleaner, renewable sources of energy rather than deciding to “drill, baby, drill” until the fossil fuels are completely gone?
  • If someone believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that Adam and Eve were how humans came to exist, will it not taint his/her decisions about funding and support for science education in our public schools?
  • If someone believes that a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus is a human being with a “soul,” god’s ultimate and most sacred creation, will it not affect the person’s votes on issues such as stem cell research, contraception, abortion, women’s rights to make their own choices about reproduction?
  • If a person believes that humans are a “special creation” of god, created in his own image, his ultimate handiwork, his own spirit children, but NOT part of the animal kingdom… and that all those other life forms exist solely for “the benefit and use of man”… would it not influence the person’s stance on laws that regulate hunting animals for sport, using them in laboratory experiments, destroying their habitat for commercial gain, exposing them to toxic waste, abusing them, protecting endangered species?
  • If someone believes that, as declared in Mormon scripture, “thou wast chosen before thou wast born,” and thus reserved to come to earth as one of the elect saints in the latter-days before the second coming, does it not affect the person’s political view that “all men are created equal”?
  • If a person believes, like Romney, that he/she is a literal descendant of Ephraim, and thus one of god’s “chosen people of Israel,” will it not affect his/her public views, influence, and decisions regarding conflicts in the Middle East?
  • If someone believes that god orchestrated the establishment of the United States of America, can I trust that person to enforce the separation of church and state?
  • If an individual is obedient to a religion’s hierarchy, believes that such leaders are divinely inspired, that they speak for god on earth, will that person advocate eliminating loopholes in the tax code so that clergy and churches have to pay their fair share of taxes like everyone else?
  • If a person privately believes that black skin is a curse from god for being a “fence-sitter” in a war between Jesus and Lucifer in a pre-mortal existence, and that god has cursed Native Americans with a red skin for their ancestors’ wickedness, sin, and idolatry, can I really assume that the person’s views and votes on civil rights issues will be free of racial prejudice?
  • Similarly, if someone doggedly purports that Native Americans are descendants of Jews, despite all the historical, archaeological, and biological DNA evidence to the contrary, is that person able to face reality, accept and implement the contributions of science and education when making decisions?
  • If a person believes that god is a patriarch who rules over multiple wives, that likewise practicing said polygamy is an eternal requirement to be with him in the “highest degree of the celestial kingdom” in the afterlife, and that only men can have priesthood power to run and administer god’s church on earth, can I truly trust that person to fight for and defend absolutely equal rights for women in society via legislation and judicial decisions?
  • If someone believes that only god can decide when to “bring a soul home,” how would it affect that person’s attitude towards legislation on euthanasia?
  • If a person believes that a ritual of anointment with “consecrated” oil can cure others of an illness, will it not influence the person’s decisions about medical and health issues that affect the public?
  • If someone believes that there is a “ghost in the machine,” that said ghost will continue to exist in an afterlife, that those who die will someday be reunited with their loved ones again in “heaven,” how would it affect the person’s judgment if and when deciding to send men and women in the military to die in war?
  • If a person believes in a god capable of intervening in our lives with miracles, whose intervention can be summoned by prayer and supplication, can I trust that person to make tough and difficult decisions to solve problems by relying solely upon human intellect, abilities, and efforts rather than leaving it “in god’s hands”?
  • If someone believes that his/her underwear is “sacred” and must be worn at all times, day and night, as a protection against “evil,” will the person rely upon scientific data or fall back on supernatural and paranormal beliefs to make pragmatic decisions?
  • If someone is required to pass an interview every year to sustain the head of his/her church as the one and only “prophet, seer, and revelator” of God on earth, is that person obligated to submit to that religious leader’s will on all matters, whether private or public, religious or political?
  • If in that same interview a person agrees to never “affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by” the person’s church, can I safely assume that said individual will treat all citizens equally under the law?
  • If a person has already taken an oath to “consecrate himself, his time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed him, or with which he may bless him, to his church, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion,” can I trust that individual to give loyalty to our country top priority while in office?

Sigh…. I could go on and on and on —and have, obviously. You can see that society’s hands-off deference to religion as a “sacred cow,” a “tabu” subject, really irks me. My point is that those oh-so-private religious beliefs cannot help but have real effects on real people in the real world. Like Richard Dawkins, I want to know what makes a candidate “tick” before casting my vote.

Follow Mark on Twitter @Yanquetino

Tags: , , , , , ,

The GOP uses Stockholm Syndrome Strategy to Lure Voters

20 Aug

Given today’s extremist right wing ideology flooding the mainstream media, I associated the inexplicable appeal of the GOP to the concept of Stockholm Syndrome, and frankly it chilled me to the bone. Truly, these right wing ideologues have employed the psychological torment in just the right dose to lure voters to do their bidding. Stockholm Syndrome, by definition is: ‘is considered a complex reaction to a frightening situation. Many researchers believe that Stockholm syndrome helps to explain certain behaviors of survivors of World War II concentration camps; members of religious cults (i.e. LDS faithful); battered wives; incest survivors; and physically or emotionally abused children as well as persons taken hostage by criminals or terrorists.’ If you think 9-11 wasn’t used as an instrument of fear and control, you have no idea how powerful and manipulative the Republican party has become.

Hell, they’ve even dragged many Democrats down to their level in pursuit of manufactured conflict with little regard for the cost in blood and treasure, not to mention the financial devastation of much of the globe. One of the consequences, intended or not, was the collapse of the global financial market. When finances are paramount, as Napoleon Bonaparte said so presciently in 1815 ‘…Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.’ That is precisely who this GOP party is today. A group operating under the guise of patriotism while possessing not a single ounce of it.

There are a few psychological manipulations the right wing employs to keep their devoted in line.

1. Religion: the concept of “you are born with original sin” implies a guilt right from the inception of life. This is a general unworthiness most religions employ to keep rank and file in their rightful place: in constant deference and awe of those deemed “rich” or worthy. Look at Willard Romney’s Mormon cult, in which he was a Stake President and Bishop who earned virtual godlike status with the power to excommunicate capriciously. Because he is wealthy and considered successful, regardless of the means employed, he is considered above the fray. Those in lower socioeconomic statuses are convinced they’ve earned their lot in life and should consider the wealthy more virtuous, even if they’ve been unscrupulous con-artists. It is masterful how they dupe poor, ignorant and largely religious folks in to thinking these objectives are in their best interests. Somehow they appeal to people’s fear of the unknown, the concept of eternal damnation (sans any evidence of its existence) and twists the teachings of Jesus (as he was portrayed at least) to worship the almighty dollar. This is also how the fear of negative publicity greatly outweighs the safety of young boys in the Catholic Church (and they’re usually the ones to pay such a dear price.) This is how Republicans keep their supporters in an abusive situation where they feel they are unworthy of a government that actually benefits them. They welcome the abuse. It is a hostage situation where the captured sympathize with their captors.

2.The GOP has become a political party that celebrates ignorance and derides education and relishes in its secrecy. They view government as the enemy, and the hiding of money from the public coffers is now considered a virtue…when you have a group of people that purposely set about to rig the system, they actually take great pride in being able to manipulate and avoid taxes and other patriotic obligations like serving in the military or keeping their vast fortunes in foreign tax shelters and not in American banks. When Reagan expressed his loathing of the concept of a government that actually helps people, which it had done for decades, the trust in the social structure shaped by centuries of political evolution was destroyed within a decade. This is like the hostage-takers being considered more trustworthy (i.e. health insurance companies) than the federal government (i.e. single-payer healthcare). I’m in awe of their resourcefulness in furthering their evil objectives. Simply look how Romney and Ryan are distorting the Medicare benefits and savings contained in the Affordable Care Act to look like they actually care if seniors aren’t truly pushed off a cliff. Make no mistake, these two monsters could care less if we throw grandma from the train.

3. Mind Control through the manipulation of the media and what’s taught or not taught in schools. They’ve even gone so far as to re-segregate schools, especially in the South! They’ve rewritten textbooks to even label the Ku Klux Klan as a positive organization who did more good than harm! They make one feel that anything beneficial to the average voter is considered lustful, forbidden or sinful while policies benefitting the power elite are deemed righteous, chaste and honorable. For example, why should a citizen have the same access to child care, medical care and education as someone who can more easily afford the finest in all these areas? Those at the top convince us they’re better than us, and more deserving of the best that money can buy. If one of us is lucky enough to escape our miserable lot in life, when we make our fortunes, we surely don’t want to have a tax policy that rewards the rest of society who created the means by which we could make our fortune and in return, paying it forward to those on the way up. We should keep it all and other unfortunates should not reap any benefits of MY prosperity. It’s what Jesus or (any of the other deities) would have wanted. They are no more than a means of control, and coming from the party inherently distrustful of authority, it seems almost paradoxical.

When the media is owned by over 90% right wing stations, there’s not much to compete with. We are out gunned by the army of idiots

To these numb nuts, patriotism means screwing the average voter so the plutocrats of this dreadful corporatocracy can grow unfettered. Regulations for the general health and well being of our citizens is very much secondary to profits. Safe working conditions, drinking water, air quality and the environment should never interfere with the bottom line. Any patriotic American knows the price to pay for cheap affordable natural gas obtained from hydraulic fracturing of the earth is worth it, no matter how flammable your tap water may be. Anyway, that’s the price you pay for supporting a gay uncle who insists he wants to get gay married. Your pastors have told you this is wrong, and no matter how much you want him to be happy, it just can’t be because he doesn’t fit under their interpretation of the Bible. You are forced to believe in a lie, and help perpetuate the myth that a few of us must live in shame. With their insane fundamentalist values, we have a self-perpetuating system of failure for the masses with a system that fosters prosperity at obscene levels for the Patrician class.

Millions of Mormons believe in the White Horse Prophecy which states that when the constitution is hanging by a thread, a Mormon on a shining WHITE horse will save us all. Willard has denied this, but it is deep within his self conscious. Sunday school and Mormon consecrations have ingrained this concept far within his “yet to be found” core of principles. Ok, that’s not fair. He has one principle and one only: To further the business of Mormon Inc. and garner as much power for his cronies and the Sheldon Adelsons of the world, first and foremost. This is what god would want. This type of thinking is very apparent in his utter omission of the word Veteran in his 59 page economic plan. I’m sure you’re not worried yet, but know that one simple conveniently staged Persian Gulf Operation could unexpectedly go awry, and will thrust us into another war of preemptive choice. The SNAFU that will be Iran, aka Sheldon’s War, will be far greater than any of our 2 Bush wars combined. Iran is a yak of a different color my friends. Perhaps all the teabaggers assume I R A Q is much like I R A N and it will not prove too difficult for our mighty military. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

After all, we’ve gotta “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.’ We have to protect the Tagg Romney’s of the world from serving his country militarily when he had a higher calling to further the business bottom line of the Mormon Cult’s registration numbers. Willard even said, Tagg has a higher calling than country, his calling is to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or whoever the polygamist de jour is to whom they are shelling out their tithes. They wish to allow Mormon Inc, Christian mega churches, and the Vatican (to name a few) the ability to put asses in the seats to maintain CONTROL over their followers. This is why atheists are so loathed by these people. We are foreign, think differently and represent a curious absence of fear of the unknown. This is troubling to fright-ridden zealots who can’t fathom a world that just “IS” and isn’t manipulated behind the scenes by an all powerful sky-daddy. We are simply not going to be duped in that manner. It’s not in our nature.

Perhaps a strategy yet untapped by us thinking liberals and progressives is the turning of fundamentalists and members of the LDS cult against each other. There is a deep seeded mistrust of the Utah gang and it is reciprocated rather seriously as well in the Beehive state towards those who are not “our kind”. Both religions, especially Mormonism, were very much into gender-based and racial discrimination. In 2012, there are still mass amounts of bigotry in the Mormon and the Christian systems of control. Because we lack a similar system of control and submission, we atheists are perceived to be immoral, yet are far less likely to engage in detrimental behavior to other human beings. We must hold fast in our unity to eventually triumph in the social/religious spectrum. Maybe we can evolve towards a day where an Atheist holds the office of the presidency, like they have in Australia. Wouldn’t that shake things up a bit? Maybe it would force the “pro-lifers” to actually be in favor of those already born!

We seem to hold the elite in the utmost regard, as they are perceived to be the most virtuous and successful in a society which rewards achievement, not the effort put forth my so many hard working Americans. Funny thing is, they convince voters to vote this way by appealing to their basal emotions of fear, suspicion and hate and it works phenomenally. It is our duty as citizens to make sure they don’t get away with stealing another election. It is just too important. I don’t need three more Justice Scalias on the bench. It will bring back the even more United Fascist States of America. After all, his daddy was the head of the Fascist-American Party back in the early 1930′s, so why not? Take a friend and VOTE! It’s our only hope to beat them at their own game. Don’t fall into the Stockholm Syndrome trap.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Nothing Bundt Cakes Joins Chick-Fil-A in Supporting Right Wing Politics

5 Aug

I was watching the Olympics yesterday, like many here were doing on a hot Vegas late afternoon and I happened to see a teaser for what the local NBC affiliate deemed newsworthy. Featured was a picture of a cake from Nothing Bundt Cakes, a franchised store based out of Las Vegas and now to found in over thirteen states, California having over thirty. The card on the cake was a direct insult to President Obama’s out of context quote “you didn’t build that.” The Mormon-owned store, never open anywhere on Sunday (because no one eats cake on that day), proudly displayed a card saying “you didn’t bake this”, on the President’s birthday of all days! Obviously they support Willard Romney with this regurgitation of his campaign’s latest blatant LIE. I have written extensively how the Mormon community supports their own to a fault. This bakery is just another example.

20120805-114438.jpg

Nothing Bundt Hate in Las Vegas, Nevada

Let me guess, Nothing Bundt Cakes, you guys grew the sugar cane, the wheat flour and built all the roads to make and transport your products? I’m also wondering if you had much to do with laying down the phone lines your business uses quite frequently. Business in America is a collective effort. This is what President Obama meant and we are all socialist to a degree, like it or not. Myself and my family have patronized this store for years. Now you have definitely lost our business henceforth.

Chick-Fil-A started a controversy when CEO Dan Cathy stated with his biblical references how we are far too audacious to challenge God’s laws on the definition of marriage. Actually, Dan, there is no place in the bible that favors one form of marriage over another . But this pronouncement brought out all the GOPs hate merchants whose love for Type 2 Diabetes is greater than their love for human rights.

It seems I’m running out of businesses I can patronize. The moment I learn of a corporation’s unsavory political positions, I honestly can’t bring myself to spend a single dime in one of these establishments. It’s been several years since I learned of Wal-mart’s practice of paying employees so little most are still on welfare to simply survive, and I’ve yet to step foot in one.

20120805-115739.jpg

Wal-Mart pays workers so little, most employees are on welfare

Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores in the USA and Mexico have engaged in truly abhorrent treatment of all their lower echelon employees who do the majority of the grunt work. It’s pathetic how selfish the CEOs are to deny the workers healthcare and living wages while taking in record profits off virtual slave-labor.

The great taste or convenience a business provides is far less important than their treatment of humanity. I will easily find other replacements for these stores who feel its important for the public to know who they support politically. Willard Romney’s Bain Capital has a vast history of destroying lives in exchange for obscene profits, just like the aforementioned corporations. I refuse to be a vehicle for hate to flourish and I hope more will join me in boycotting these right-wing businesses permanently.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 109 other followers

%d bloggers like this: