Janine Hansen for State Senate
Janine Hansen, 56, mother of two and grandmother of seven, today filed for Rural Nevada’s State Senate District, today. Hansen, a native Nevadan raised in Sparks, moved to Elko with her family in September of 2005. She has been a citizen lobbyist representing families at the Nevada State Legislature every Session since 1971. She is a graduate Magna Cum Laude from Brigham Young University.
“The Independent American Party of which I am a founding member, offers the people of Nevada something more than the lesser of TWIN evils,” stated Hansen. “The more we vote for change between the Republican and Democrat parties the more we get the same… more taxes burdening our families and businesses, more government stifling productivity, higher prices killing the middle class, and less individual liberty.”
“The Independent American Party is the wave of the future with over 50,000 registered voters. People don’t believe the old tired politicians anymore,” continued Hansen.
“I have worked representing citizens and families at the Nevada Legislature every session since 1971,” stated Hansen. “I know how the system works. The Legislature is full of lobbyists representing every level of government. Bureaucrats are constantly there lobbying our elected officials for more money, while families are busy earning a living with no one to represent their concerns. Families are smart enough to decide how to spend their own money. Families would be far better off without the excessive tax burden, which eats up more of the family’s budget than housing, food, health care, transportation, education, and recreation combined.”
“My opponent has supported almost all of the tax increases passed by the Nevada Legislature, which I have consistently opposed as a citizen lobbyist,” stated Hansen. “ I will be a voice for families saying no more taxes.”
“Our state is under assault because the federal government has failed to protect our borders. I will sponsor legislation the “Nevada Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2009” to protect Nevadans from illegal immigration just like Oklahoma and Arizona have recently done,” stated Hansen. (See attached summary). In 2003, I opposed SB 312, which as originally proposed would have allowed illegals to obtain drivers licenses in Nevada. Fortunately, after the bill passed the Senate unanimously, it was amended through our efforts in the Assembly to protect the integrity of Nevada’s drivers’ licenses.”
“I love Nevada. It’s my home. I have spent my life preparing to represent Nevada’s families in the Legislature,” concluded Janine Hansen.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Beware! Anyone who was at the CP National Meeting in Tampa can tell you to watch out for the Hansens.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Exactely! Any ant-Mormon bigots who think they can waltz right into the CP ought to think twice when confronting the Hansens!
May 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Cody, do right-wingers really need to be throwing around the b word? Don’t we hear enough of that from the liberal PC Gestapo? What is an “anti-Mormon bigot” anyway? Is it bigoted to think their doctrines are heretical and hopelessly flawed? Every orthodox Christian has to believe that because Mormons reject several essential doctrines of the Faith. Are all orthodox Christians bigots?
If I wanted to hear devout Christians called bigots I’d go to the SPLC blog.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Red Phillips wrote:
Cody, do right-wingers really need to be throwing around the b word? Don’t we hear enough of that from the liberal PC Gestapo?
I could not agree more with this observation.
No different than socialists, collectivists and other propagandists, those who wantonly hurl the B-word, among other epithets, ultimately resort to exploiting what I call The Goebbels Tactic.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Cody,
Perhaps the Hansens would be interested in what a few Libertarian activists have put out (so far) about Chuck Geshlider.
Judging from some of the things we’ve come across on this site, Geshlider was recently working with the Hansens in Nevada, no?
www.chuckgeshlider.com
May 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Aren’t Mormons bigoted against unborn babies that happen to be conceived by rape or incest?
May 17th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
“Is it bigoted to think their [the Mormons’] doctrines are…hopelessly flawed?”
I agree. Ditto all other Christians. =P
Seriously though, it’s not bigoted to disagree with others’ religious beliefs, or even to consider them heretical; what counts is how it’s expressed. If I were to say “I think Christianity is silly, ridiculous, and baseless”, that would not be bigoted. If I said “All Christians are morons and simpletons for believing in the foolishness that is Christianity”, that would be fairly bigoted (and untrue, to be clear).
May 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
What a racist bitch! I like her stance on taxes though….
May 17th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Cody, do right-wingers really need to be throwing around the b word? Don’t we hear enough of that from the liberal PC Gestapo?
= Whether Left or Right, a bigot is a bigot.
What is an “anti-Mormon bigot” anyway? Is it bigoted to think their doctrines are heretical and hopelessly flawed?
= Is it bigoted to think “Biblical” Christian doctrine is hopelessly flawed, heretical and distorted since 300 A.D.?
Every orthodox Christian has to believe that because Mormons reject several essential doctrines of the Faith. Are all orthodox Christians bigots?
= Obviously you do not know about what the CP went through during this early decade, ask Trent about it. And the bigots I speak of tried to kick out Mormons and other non-Protestants from the CP and failed.
If I wanted to hear devout Christians called bigots I’d go to the SPLC blog.
= Then if you don’t like the CP condemning religious bigotry –
http://constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=307
Then I recommend looking for another political party.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
No different than socialists, collectivists and other propagandists, those who wantonly hurl the B-word, among other epithets, ultimately resort to exploiting what I call The Goebbels Tactic.
= You’re right, I shouldn’t use the word ‘bigot’, I should use ‘simpleton ignoramus’ instead.
A more proper phrase.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Aren’t Mormons bigoted against unborn babies that happen to be conceived by rape or incest?
= Sorry, you must have us confused with the Calvinist bigots that want to put pregnant women in jail if they had to abort a deformed fetus that cannot live past birth.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
All of this nonsense overlooks the fact that Janine Hansen is a teriffic candidate and would make a great state senator. I’m sure the voters won’t care what religion she is.
Cody, the first persons remark was uncalled for, however there was no reason to turn this in a religious conflagration. That does not help the Constitution Party move forward.
Chuck Baldwin is reaching out to those of all faiths and unbelievers alike. That should be good enough for the rest of us.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Yeah, only left-wingers can recognize bigots and call a bigot a bigot. Right. I understand a lot of “leftists” throw around labels like “bigot” when it isn’t warranted, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are bigots in the world. Yes, many of them are Christian ( though certainly well represented in many religions and also the non-religious).
May 17th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Jeanine is awesome, and I have great respect for her. She would be an awesome state senator
May 17th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“Obviously you do not know about what the CP went through during this early decade …”
Cody, I was not in the CP at the time (because I was Active Duty), but I am well aware of the conflict. The issue was over exceptions on abortion. I suspect that most of the “bigots” you refer to were certain Christians who theologically believe that the Bible does not support pluralism. Whatever you think of their theology, they were/are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs, not “bigotry” whatever that means.
Again, Cody and John C. what is a bigot? Are Christians supposed to decide what they believe the Bible teaches based on whether it passes Enlightenment liberal muster, or else be called a bigot?
Whatever the excesses of the Tampa affair, and there were some, they pale in comparison to the shameless war whooping from the “victors” about how they have vanquished all the Christian “bigots.” I should never hear such nonsense coming from anyone on the right.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Red,
I’ll agree that there were good people on both sides of the issue. I wont admit that the opposition’s thoughts on Mormonism as a religion had nothing to do with it—that’d be ludicrous,because it obviously did.
However—-this is all beside the point. Janine will make a great candidate, and I hope she runs a tight race.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Gary Odom- The Baldwin campaign as well as the CP would be well advised to cease using the term “unbelievers”. This term can only serve to separate people which is NOT what I believe is intended. Perhaps a better term can be found like “unchurched” which would not necessarily imply the absence of a belief system. Just my dos centavos.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am
NewFed,
Perhaps just “Christians and non” or “Christians and otherwise” would be better…
May 18th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“I wont admit that the opposition’s thoughts on Mormonism as a religion had nothing to do with it—that’d be ludicrous,because it obviously did.”
Trent, I have conceded this. That is what I meant by this:
“I suspect that most of the “bigots” you refer to were certain Christians who theologically believe that the Bible does not support pluralism.”
My point was they were attempting to apply their theology. If holding fast to one’s theology makes one a bigot, them aren’t all the left-wingers correct when they say Christian opposition to gay marriage is bigoted?
May 18th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
CQ says: = You’re right, I shouldn’t use the word ‘bigot’, I should use ‘simpleton ignoramus’ instead.
Different phrase. Same Goebbels tactic. Pick your epithet.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Is it bigoted to think “Biblical” Christian doctrine is hopelessly flawed, heretical and distorted since 300 A.D.?
At no time in the first 300 years of Christianity or the entire history of Judaism, did we ever believe in a plurality of Gods. Christianity and Judaism has always been monotheistic. So you are going to have to go back a lot farther than 300 A.D. to try to square your sect with Christianity. Prior to Genesis 1:1.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Go Janine Hansen! Good luck, get a website up soon so we can send in some donations! Go IAP! WOOOOO!
May 18th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
The motto of the Nevada IAP should be “Vote for Cultists.”
What’s next, the Scientology wing of the Constitution Party?
May 18th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Cody, I was not in the CP at the time (because I was Active Duty), but I am well aware of the conflict. The issue was over exceptions on abortion.
= Only problem was the anti-Mormon motivation to kick out the IAP, the many emails and statements by those people puts the last nail in the coffin our their arguments.
BTW Red, did I mention that it wasn’t the first time that there was an attempt to kick out the IAP.
I suspect that most of the “bigots” you refer to were certain Christians who theologically believe that the Bible does not support pluralism.
= Which they intended to incorporate into the CP, and failed.
I could give a damn what they believe, yet the only problem was that they attempted to indoctrinate the CP with their crap.
Whatever you think of their theology, they were/are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs, not “bigotry” whatever that means.
=And such beliefs have no place in the CP. I guess you can also say a religious white-supremacist is motivated by his/her Christian-Indentity beliefs too.
Again, Cody and John C. what is a bigot? Are Christians supposed to decide what they believe the Bible teaches based on whether it passes Enlightenment liberal muster, or else be called a bigot?
= Need I cite Biblical scriptures where Jesus says to love one another, and all of God’s Children are equal in His eyes? Don’t Forget the First and Second verse of Matthew Chap. 7.
The beliefs held by the ex-CP nutjobs don’t seem to match some of what Jesus taught.
Whatever the excesses of the Tampa affair, and there were some, they pale in comparison to the shameless war whooping from the “victors” about how they have vanquished all the Christian “bigots.” I should never hear such nonsense coming from anyone on the right.
= Funny how certain American statesmen spoke and wrote such nonsense too.
You also forget the many quotes and statements the Founding Fathers made condemning Religious tyranny and bigotry themselves.
So combating religious prejudice isn’t a Left-wing thing, but actually was the main motivation for the language in the First Amendment and prohibiting Religious Tests in Article 6.
So if we suddenly had white-supremacists joining our Party, we shouldn’t take their prejudice to task?
Sorry Red, but in this political party, you’re entitled to your personal views, but we ALL must work together to restore our Republic, irregardless of our views. Anyone that cannot do that, or even seeks to exclude others fighting for the same goal shouldn’t be a member of this party in the first place.
So if you think condemning and surpressing bigotry, especially religious bigotry in the Party is wrong, then you better look for another political party to join Red.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Different phrase. Same Goebbels tactic. Pick your epithet.
= Lets not also forget the Goebbels tactics of scrapegoating and ad-hominem rhetoric, successful tactics for starting the Jewish Holocaust and preached by you during and after Tampa.
So how is the California affiliate of the AHP doing Reed?
May 18th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
At no time in the first 300 years of Christianity or the entire history of Judaism, did we ever believe in a plurality of Gods.
= WRONG!
“...The Israelites may have considered the other gods demonic or evil, but they probably were not fully monotheistic before the Babylonian Captivity. For instance, in 1 Samuel 4, the Philistines fret before the second battle of Aphek when they learn that the Israelites are bearing the Ark of the Covenant, and therefore Yahweh, into battle. 2 Kings 3:27 has been interpreted as describing a human sacrifice in Moab that led the invading Israelite army to fear the power of Chemosh. In 2 Kings 5, the Aramean general Naaman insists on transporting Israelite soil back with him to Syria in the belief that only then will Yahweh have the power to heal him. Also, in the Book of Jonah, Jonah attempts to set sail to Tarshish in the belief that Yahweh will not reach him there. Jonah was written long after the Babylonian Exile; hence, its author believes in Yahweh as a universal deity and Jonah is thwarted…”
“...The first of the Ten Commandments can be interpreted to forbid the Children of Israel from worshiping any other god but the one true God who had revealed himself at Mount Sinai and given them the Torah, however it can also be read as henotheistic, since it states that they should have “no other gods before me”, not that there are no other gods. Nevertheless, as recorded in the Tanakh (“Old Testament” Bible), in defiance of the Torah’s teachings, the patron god YHWH was frequently worshipped in conjunction with other gods such as Baal, Asherah, and El. Over time, this tribal god may have assumed all the appellations of the other gods in the eyes of the people. The destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon was considered a divine reprimand and punishment for the mistaken worship of other deities.”
“...There are nonetheless seeming elements of “polytheism” in certain biblical books, such as God’s reference to himself as “us” in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22, in Daniel’s frequent use of the honorific “God of gods” and especially in the Psalms…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism
Christianity and Judaism has always been monotheistic.
= So Gnosticism doesn’t count?
So you are going to have to go back a lot farther than 300 A.D. to try to square your sect with Christianity. Prior to Genesis 1:1.
= Maybe you need to do better research next time before you square off your argument!
May 19th, 2008 at 12:08 am
“The motto of the Nevada IAP should be “Vote for Cultists.”
=Then again, it seems that members of the True Church run a politcal party that elected 3 people to local office last year and make up 4% of statewide Nevada registered voters, and also the other CP state affiliates run by those of the same faith that have been successful politically.
...Compaired to what is the American Heritage Party and the Christian Liberty Party, which do not have ballot access or a widespread organization even.
“What’s next, the Scientology wing of the Constitution Party?”
= I doubt that their beliefs are compatible with those of the CP. I also doubt that Jehovah Witnesses would join us either.
Either or, it seems that as diverse as America is currently, a explicitly Christian (as in Calvinist or likewise) political party cannot become a formidible political party in the arena, unlike the IAP or those other CP affiliates.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Judging from some of the things we’ve come across on this site, Geshlider was recently working with the Hansens in Nevada, no?
= Have no idea.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:19 am
“but actually was the main motivation for the language in the First Amendment and prohibiting Religious Tests in Article 6.”
The prohibition against religious tests was not entirely motivated by Enlightenment liberalism. It was also motivated by a desire to keep the peace among the States, most of which had established churches and religious tests, but of various denominations.
Calling someone a bigot, is a left-wing PC tactic, and no amount of foot stomping on your part will make it less so. As is playing the race card. I would be embarrassed to use such a tactic. Next, why don’t you use a Nazi or Hitler illustration? Then you will complete the whole left-wing PC circle.
Christian Identity is not a serious theology. It starts with an idea, and tortures the Bible to confirm that idea. No serious Christian theologians support it. But almost all Christians until relatively recently by historical standards recognized Enlightenment ideas as hostile to the Faith. Accepting Enlightenment ideas and incorporating them into the Faith is the novel position. So you, the self-proclaimed determiner of who belongs in the Party, are essentially saying that anyone who holds the position that the Church held for all but the last couple of hundred years (give or take) doesn’t belong. How progressive of you. That would be fine, I guess, if the CP was the Enlightenment Liberalism Party, but I thought it was a conservative party, a party that even has pretenses of being a paleo party. What is paleoconservatism if not the conscious rejection of Enlightenment liberalism? Paleo meaning before what? Please fill me in?
I actually don’t agree with some elements of your opposition that the Bible mandates a particular political order. But it clearly does not enshrine Enlightenment liberalism either. Far from it.
My dog in this fight is the rejection of left-wing PC language by those on the “right.”
May 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
why isn’t Chris Hanson running this election cycle? Does it have to do with the Nevada Supreme Court decision against the IAP? I heard that 10+ candidates from 2006 were each being fined thousands of dollars for improperly filling Financial Statements. Is this true?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
why isn’t Chris Hanson running this election cycle? Does it have to do with the Nevada Supreme Court decision against the IAP? I heard that 10+ candidates from 2006 were each being fined thousands of dollars for improperly filling Financial Statements. Is this true?
=The cases are still pending. The state government hasn’t taken a final decision on whether to impose the fines or not. Even Janine has fines against her and yet she is still running.
BTW its ‘Hansen’ NOT ‘Hanson’ you dolt!
May 19th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
“Romney’s speech is what I expected: Religion is a very good thing except it should make no difference to a man’s politics and thus to his morals. Most of it was simply absurd, meaningless actually, as when he said he believed in his faith–which means he believes that he believes. I might have guessed he did. When otherwise intelligent people speak gibberish it is because they are lying.
Anyone who knows anything about Mormonism is aware that they hold no significant distinctively Christian beliefs. with. Period. Yes, they say they believe that Our Lord is the son of God but through, shall we say, the ordinary means of procreation–a disgusting blasphemy. They also say, as Huckabee has pointed out, that Christ is the brother of Lucifer. Ask a Mormon some time about what he expects to be doing on the planet he gets and whether he has informed his wife of the secret name by which he can be found in his next life. It is a wierd Judeo-gnostic sect based on what appears to be a fantasy novel, written in an illiterate form of Jacobean English and purloined by the water witch Joseph Smith. I would respect Romney more if he would simply come clean and tell the world some of the entirely wacky things that Mormons believe. Why are there no Mormon scholars? Because Mormons believe lies and if they start to find out truth, they become ex-Mormons. As for me, I’d vote for an agnostic immoralist like Giuliani long before I voted for a Mormon. The mere fact that the call us “gentiles” reveals how they really regard Christians: as unwashed enemies of their “faith.”
Why go on? I once naively asked a Mormon assistant why we couldn’t sink sectarian differences and shake hands on the Apostles Creed. He informed me politely that Mormons agreed with nothing in the Creeds. Not even, I persisted, that God is creator of heaven and earth? No, because they think that “God”–some kind of organic superman who worked his way to the godhead–merely shaped a preexisting universe. Wow, I answered, a giant leap backward from the profound insight of creatio ex nihilo…
I would rather not speculate on why some Christians appear to be more loyal to the GOP than to their professed faith. All I can say is that while individual Mormons may be good people and some of them may even rise to the level of Christian heretic, their strange cult should preclude any Christian, Jew, agnostic, rational atheist from voting for them.”
Dr. Thomas Fleming
Editor, Chronicles Magazine
May 20th, 2008 at 12:41 am
The prohibition against religious tests was not entirely motivated by Enlightenment liberalism. It was also motivated by a desire to keep the peace among the States, most of which had established churches and religious tests, but of various denominations.
=And such religious tests were repealed within decades after our Constitution was established.
Calling someone a bigot, is a left-wing PC tactic, and no amount of foot stomping on your part will make it less so. As is playing the race card. I would be embarrassed to use such a tactic. Next, why don’t you use a Nazi or Hitler illustration? Then you will complete the whole left-wing PC circle.
= Sorry, but its not left-wing, and if you don’t like how we believe in treating everybody equal in the Party except for those that cannot treat others as they treat themselves, then look for another party.
Hey, maybe you can check out the LP? At least people like disinter are welcome among their ranks.
Christian Identity is not a serious theology. It starts with an idea, and tortures the Bible to confirm that idea. No serious Christian theologians support it.
= But it’s still a theology, indeed as pathetic and false as it is, just like Wahhabism.
But almost all Christians until relatively recently by historical standards recognized Enlightenment ideas as hostile to the Faith.
=Many Christians, that were Freemasons, or not, like some of the Founding Fathers, actually advanced ideas that were contrary to those Churches beliefs.
Accepting Enlightenment ideas and incorporating them into the Faith is the novel position. So you, the self-proclaimed determiner of who belongs in the Party, are essentially saying that anyone who holds the position that the Church held for all but the last couple of hundred years (give or take) doesn’t belong.
= Those that want to make America into something that it never was and never will be: a man-made Theocracy, do not belong at all with the fold of those that want to restore our government and not start a new one.
Are you saying that it is wrong to distance from those beliefs that slavery is a christian institution and slaves are more animal then man? Or the view that divorce is morally wrong and that a women’s place is in the home? Or the idea that the Earth is flat, or that the sun evolves around the Earth?
= Better yet, how about we go father back then that, when there was only the Catholic Church and anybody with a mental illness was seen as possessed.
How progressive of you.
=Mankind and the world is constantly progressing, Red.
The question is, will he, progress for the good, or the worse?
That would be fine, I guess, if the CP was the Enlightenment Liberalism Party,
= Well supposedly some constitutionalist consider themselves as Classical Liberals.
but I thought it was a conservative party, a party that even has pretenses of being a paleo party.
=WRONG! It is a ‘Constitutionalist Party’; conservative is such a pathetic word that the GOP has corrupted.
What is paleoconservatism if not the conscious rejection of Enlightenment liberalism? Paleo meaning before what? Please fill me in?
= ‘Paleoconsevative’ may come close to describing us, but officially we’re Constitutionalists, as in believing in our Constitution, word-by-word, including NO Religious Tests or any crap from the old European Kingdoms that the Founders abhored.
I actually don’t agree with some elements of your opposition that the Bible mandates a particular political order.
= One Problem, WHICH Bible? The KJV, the Geneva Bible? How about the Catholic Bible that includes parts of the Apocrypha? Another Problem was that those governments that had their own Bible, or particular Faith, as the supreme law of the land, were nothing but tyrannical monarchies that were toltalitarianistic in their approach of instilling ‘Biblical law’.
While the Founders wrote our Constitution as to avoid the horrible abuses of the man-made Catholic and Protestant governments of Europe.
But it clearly does not enshrine Enlightenment liberalism either. Far from it.
= There’s two sides to the coin. The Enlightenment brought about advances in technology and medicine, it also brought a new found respect in the aspects of Republican government. Of course on the other side came about secularism and atheism, and eventually the ideologies of socialism and communism.
The Enlightenment was essentially both good and bad for mankind.
My dog in this fight is the rejection of left-wing PC language by those on the “right.”
= PC is something invented by today’s society.
Religious tolerance however, Red, is something that comes from the Bible, from what the Savior taught. The ex-CP’ers that contradicted such scripture deserve that label; being no better then the Pharisees themselves, even Jesus had strong language for such people.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:36 am
“Romney’s speech is what I expected: Religion is a very good thing except it should make no difference to a man’s politics and thus to his morals. Most of it was simply absurd, meaningless actually, as when he said he believed in his faith–which means he believes that he believes. I might have guessed he did. When otherwise intelligent people speak gibberish it is because they are lying.
=That’s why I wrote in Ron Paul’s name on my Primary ballot.
Anyone who knows anything about Mormonism is aware that they hold no significant distinctively Christian beliefs.
= WRONG AGAIN!
http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day_Saints_aren%27t_Christians
= I guess believing in Jesus Christ doesn’t make you a Christian then by this logic. LOL!
with. Period. Yes, they say they believe that Our Lord is the son of God but through, shall we say, the ordinary means of procreation–a disgusting blasphemy.
= WRONG!
http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ%27s_conception
= Why can’t you get your facts right?
They also say, as Huckabee has pointed out, that Christ is the brother of Lucifer.
= WRONG AGAIN!
http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ_is_the_brother_of_Satan
Ask a Mormon some time about what he expects to be doing on the planet he gets and whether he has informed his wife of the secret name by which he can be found in his next life. It is a wierd Judeo-gnostic sect based on what appears to be a fantasy novel,
= http://en.fairmormon.org/Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines
written in an illiterate form of Jacobean English
= http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes
and purloined by the water witch Joseph Smith.
= http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult
I would respect Romney more if he would simply come clean and tell the world some of the entirely wacky things that Mormons believe. Why are there no Mormon scholars?
= Because you obviously haven’t been to BYU!
Because Mormons believe lies and if they start to find out truth, they become ex-Mormons.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Education_and_belief
= Too bad those that claimed so we’re excommunicated for reasons like adultery or extortion, like Ed Decker, or even because of their sexuality, like Michael Quinn.
As for me, I’d vote for an agnostic immoralist like Giuliani long before I voted for a Mormon.
= Your choice.
The mere fact that the call us “gentiles” reveals how they really regard Christians: as unwashed enemies of their “faith.”
= Never mind the persecution and affliction the Church and it’s members received early on, including the murder of Joseph Smith.
Though I’ve never heard the word used figuratively in my Ward ever.
Why go on? I once naively asked a Mormon assistant
= A fictional assistant at best in this fairytale:)
why we couldn’t sink sectarian differences and shake hands on the Apostles Creed. He informed me politely that Mormons agreed with nothing in the Creeds. Not even, I persisted, that God is creator of heaven and earth? No, because they think that “God”–some kind of organic superman who worked his way to the godhead–
http://en.fairmormon.org/Infinite_regress_of_Gods%3F
merely shaped a preexisting universe. Wow, I answered, a giant leap backward from the profound insight of creatio ex nihilo…
http://en.fairmormon.org/Creatio_ex_nihilo
I would rather not speculate on why some Christians appear to be more loyal to the GOP than to their professed faith.
= Depending on the individual. Some are in it for the power.
All I can say is that while individual Mormons may be good people and some of them may even rise to the level of Christian heretic, their strange cult should preclude any Christian, Jew, agnostic, rational atheist from voting for them.”
= Too bad the Senate Majority leader is one, or that the majority of Americans don’t believe your crap.
Dr. Thomas Fleming
Editor, Chronicles Magazine
= An ‘Intellectual’ moron that shares the likes of John Lofton.
Wow ex-CP Committee! Constantly proving you wrong just makes you more petty and irrational, doesn’t it?
May 20th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I don’t have time to address all your points, but I will address a few.
“Or the view that divorce is morally wrong”
WHAT? You don’t believe that divorce is morally wrong? The Bible CLEARLY condemns divorce except in very limited circumstances. Surely you know this.
“that a women’s place is in the home”
That is, of course, an argumentative and very PC way to put it and you know it, but the Bible and all of human history endorse the idea of gender roles. So are you now a feminist? Do you oppose the clearly Christian and traditional concept of gender roles? My how progressive of you.
Cody, I don’t think you really know where I am coming from. You are arguing against where you think I am coming from or where past people have been coming from, not what I actually said. Take a few deep breaths and try to separate yourself from your emotions and the hostilities you obviously have for certain people or groups for just a minute. Try a little subtlety and nuance in your thinking. I am not a theonomist/Reconstructionist if that is what you think. I am, however, an illiberal Christian, and I am defending another group of illiberal Christians against attacks from a liberal standpoint. Theonomist should be opposed, if they should be opposed, because their theology is wrong. Not because you think the implications of their theology is too illiberal for your liking. If Theonomy was actually the correct interpretation and application of Scripture then Christians would be duty bound to follow it regardless, would they not? Or are the commands of man higher than the commands of God?
“Religious tolerance however, Red, is something that comes from the Bible,”
Well there is the rub. Where does the Bible teach that? What chapter and verse? I do not think the Bible necessarily mandates a political order that suppresses opposing faiths, but I find NOWHERE in the Bible support for the assertion that God gave us a “right” to violate the First Commandment. If so, then doesn’t God owe the Baal worshippers, among others, an apology? Too many modern Christians have placed Enlightenment platitudes in the mouth of God. If you are going to invoke God, then you have to back that invocation up with theology, not just use God as window dressing for Enlightenment liberal platitudes that are philosophically arrived at.
I really like the way you set yourself up as the arbiter of who does and does not belong in the CP. How tolerant of you. Perhaps you should learn to make mental distinctions before you set out on your purge so you don’t take down some people with friendly fire.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Interesting argument, of course as an Orthodox Christian, I find the theology of Mormons, Protestants and Roman Catholics seriously flawed.
I’m waiting for my Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, to return in the flesh to take up his rightful place.
Intil that time, I don’t want my fellow, fallen humans, either singly or collectively, running my life, sending my kids to fight aggresive wars or taxing me to do it to others. (Isn’t this the part we all can agree on?)
I’ll call no man a bigot for disagreeing with my beliefs. I always hope to recieve the same curtesy, sometimes vainly.
O.W.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
don’t have time to address all your points, but I will address a few.
“Or the view that divorce is morally wrong”
WHAT? You don’t believe that divorce is morally wrong?
= No idiot! I was talking about the views that many Christian Churches held back then! Even Divorce over adultery and abuse was frowned on then.
The Bible CLEARLY condemns divorce except in very limited circumstances. Surely you know this.
=DER!
“that a women’s place is in the home”
That is, of course, an argumentative and very PC way to put it and you know it, but the Bible and all of human history endorse the idea of gender roles. So are you now a feminist? Do you oppose the clearly Christian and traditional concept of gender roles? My how progressive of you.
= Obviously you are simpleton as to how Churches were firm on a women being ‘barefoot and pregnant’, where women couldn’t smoke or gather in large crowds.
The problem with feminists is that they go way too far in women’s rights and support abortion. The Calvinist crowd believes that women should always submit to her husband no-matter-what and have no voting rights.
= The truth is in the middle, in that balence, however.
Of course both sides can’t comprehend that.
Cody, I don’t think you really know where I am coming from.
= Sounds like you’re coming from the extremist faction that we battled years earlier.
You are arguing against where you think I am coming from or where past people have been coming from, not what I actually said. Take a few deep breaths and try to separate yourself from your emotions and the hostilities you obviously have for certain people or groups for just a minute. Try a little subtlety and nuance in your thinking. I am not a theonomist/Reconstructionist if that is what you think. I am, however, an illiberal Christian, and I am defending another group of illiberal Christians against attacks from a liberal standpoint.
=No, you’re defending them against attacks from a standpoint that Jesus took on the Pharisees and other intolerant & hypocritical sects in Jerusalem.
Theonomist should be opposed, if they should be opposed, because their theology is wrong. Not because you think the implications of their theology is too illiberal for your liking.
= I oppose them for BOTH.
If Theonomy was actually the correct interpretation and application of Scripture then Christians would be duty bound to follow it regardless, would they not?
= Then our nation and our Constitution would be completely different then it is now.
Or are the commands of man higher than the commands of God?
= “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.”
-Titus 3:1
“Religious tolerance however, Red, is something that comes from the Bible,”
Well there is the rub. Where does the Bible teach that? What chapter and verse?
= St. John 13:34, Romans 10:12, Gal. 3:28, Col 3:11, etc.
I do not think the Bible necessarily mandates a political order that suppresses opposing faiths, but I find NOWHERE in the Bible support for the assertion that God gave us a “right” to violate the First Commandment.
= If God didn’t give us a ‘right’ to violate the First Commandment, then we shouldn’t be able to sin in the first place.
If so, then doesn’t God owe the Baal worshippers, among others, an apology? Too many modern Christians have placed Enlightenment platitudes in the mouth of God.
= Other modern Christians have placed superstitious and ignorant beliefs of man & society in the mouth of God too.
Westboro Baptist Church ring a bell?
If you are going to invoke God, then you have to back that invocation up with theology, not just use God as window dressing for Enlightenment liberal platitudes that are philosophically arrived at.
= Which I already did, and also rebuked the irrational and pathetic arguments against my faith here in this blog.
I really like the way you set yourself up as the arbiter of who does and does not belong in the CP.
= You did that to yourself. I have been with the Party since I was old enought to vote, and continue to do so. Of course you’re sounding like one ‘who does and does not belong to the CP.
How tolerant of you.
= How ignorant of you.
Perhaps you should learn to make mental distinctions before you set out on your purge so you don’t take down some people with friendly fire.
= Perhaps you need to do your research into the Party history first and not defend those whom smear the name of Christ with Man’s own prejudices and doctrines.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Cody, God gave man a free will, but that is a very different thing than saying that he gave people a “right” to do wrong. The Bible speaks nothing of natural or inalienable rights. NOTHING. Chapter and verse please.
The verses you listed are completely non-germane. “Love one another” means we have an inalienable right to violate the First Commandment? Please. That is an absurd reach. Also, the neither Jew nor Greek verses refer to salvation being available to all through Christ. It also says neither male nor female. Surely you don’t think that means God was abolishing gender roles or gender. Jews remained Jews and Greeks remained Greeks after those verses were written. I’m really not even sure how that is supposed to apply. (You do realize that immigration supporters use those verses to attempt to Biblically illustrate why Christians are supposed to support open immigration, don’t you?) Really there is absolutely no Biblical basis for the concept of natural or inalienable rights. None. You will search in vain for support of those concepts in Scripture, so you should just give up now and admit you like the ideas based on rationalistic reason, not Revelation.
Again, I am not convinced the Bible mandates a particular political order, but it is completely illegitimate to say that the Bible supports the concept that God grants us an inalienable right to worship as we please. It simply doesn’t. The first 1700 or so years of the Church never believed such a thing.
“Perhaps you need to do your research into the Party history first…”
Perhaps you should test my knowledge.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Also, since you brought it up, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for placing the vain teachings of man on a par with the Revealed Word of God. That is exactly what I am criticizing. The elevation of man’s rationalistic liberal principles on a par with or above the Scripture.
Note, I have never defended the spirit of tenor of some of the Nevada critics. There clearly were excesses. But there were appalling excesses on the “victorious” side as well.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:14 am
But there were appalling excesses on the “victorious” side as well.
= Justifiable excesses. I do admit Chris Hansen went overboard on a few things, but he wasn’t the aggressor here.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Cody, God gave man a free will, but that is a very different thing than saying that he gave people a “right” to do wrong.
= Free will is the right to do both good and evil.
The Bible speaks nothing of natural or inalienable rights. NOTHING. Chapter and verse please.
= Gen. 1:26, Psalms 8:6 & 82:6 seems to indicate that man isn’t without self-control and freedom.
The verses you listed are completely non-germane. “Love one another” means we have an inalienable right to violate the First Commandment?
= You don’t get that just because someone else chooses not to follow the Commandments like you, doesn’t mean you can force them to follow the same religious laws that you do, or even force every member of a party to follow the rules of God the way you do.
Please. That is an absurd reach. Also, the neither Jew nor Greek verses refer to salvation being available to all through Christ.
= It shows that salvation is available to all, irregardless of where you came from or what you are.
It also says neither male nor female. Surely you don’t think that means God was abolishing gender roles or gender.
= It shows that God is no sexist when it comes to salvation.
Jews remained Jews and Greeks remained Greeks after those verses were written.
= Funny how I remember that some Jews were still converting to Christianity after those verses.
I’m really not even sure how that is supposed to apply. (You do realize that immigration supporters use those verses to attempt to Biblically illustrate why Christians are supposed to support open immigration, don’t you?)
= That are supposedly interpreted by them to prove it. There is also scripture that says we are to abide by the laws of the land; one of those verses I’ve already quoted here.
Really there is absolutely no Biblical basis for the concept of natural or inalienable rights.
= However there is a crystal clear basis for it in the Book of Mormon.
None. You will search in vain for support of those concepts in Scripture, so you should just give up now and admit you like the ideas based on rationalistic reason, not Revelation.
= Wrong. There’s the revelations of Joseph Smith and the other Prophets of my Church. That includes D&C Sec. 134.
Again, I am not convinced the Bible mandates a particular political order, but it is completely illegitimate to say that the Bible supports the concept that God grants us an inalienable right to worship as we please.
= If we couldn’t worship as we please, then we couldn’t sin, period, its that simple.
It simply doesn’t. The first 1700 or so years of the Church never believed such a thing.
“Perhaps you need to do your research into the Party history first…”
Perhaps you should test my knowledge.
= When did the AHP break off from the CP and why did they do it?
May 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
So CP Committee, any more lies or ignorance you have to spew?