Skip to main content

    In 2007, Mitt Romney told Jonathan Darman of Newsweek that he personally baptized dead people without the dead person's prior consent.

When NEWSWEEK asked Mitt if he had personally done baptisms for the dead—

ROMNEY: "I have in my life, but I haven't recently."
    hmmm .... my, my - baptizing people you don't know and who did not give permission seems to trample on the Civil Rights of the dead person, not to mention, extremely disrespectful of the dead person.

      To me, Mitt Romney's actions here prove he is very egotistical, arrogant, pompous and narcissistic.  Seems Mitt thinks his religion is the only real religion and if a person disagrees with Mitt, then Mitt will impede on a person's civil rights and force that person to convert to Mitt's religion when they are dead and cannot defend themselves ... by God!

      Yet, even though Mitt has proven, by his own actions here, that he has zero respect for people who are of "different" faith than him, Romney accuses President Obama of "assaulting religions" ... hmmm

Typical Romney: no respect for anyone who is "different" from him and bullies those who cannot defend themselves - like dead people, blue collar American workers, former weaker class-mates.

     My Question: What will Sean Hannity say about Romney personally baptizing dead people without consent?  

    Romney has a history of disrespecting people who are "different" from him.  Remember his high school class-mate who looked "different" from Mitt so he chased the boy, pinned him down and cut his hair as the boy cried.

     Remember the blue-collar American Workers who were "different" from Mitt when he abused the Free Market, destroyed American Families by shipping American jobs overseas so that Mitt could personally profit millions?

     I personally, don't care what religion anyone is, nor what higher powers, if any, a person believes in ... However, I do find it grotesque that Romney stomps on other people's Civil Rights and thinks of himself to be so high and mighty that HE is the sole decider of what "faith" people ... people ... shall be baptized in.

     Romney is a former Bishop and top Church Official in Boston, referred specific questions to religious leaders when, in 2007, NECN in Harford Connecticut asked Romney "why" he baptized dead people without their consent:

REPORTER: One aspect of the Mormon faith that you've said you've participated in is the baptizing of dead people, can you explain what that is all about."

ROMNEY: “The best way to get the best information is to check with the Church.  I - I - I am an active member of my faith, I participate fully, I'm not a cafeteria Mormon, I'm true blue through and through and - ah - so if people want to know about the beliefs or practices of my faith, they're probably best to check with the church. I'm not the
http://www.youtube.com/...

   

     According to the USA Today, in 1995, the Mormon Church "promised" they would never baptize dead Jews ever again ... that ended up being a lie.  

     In 2010, Mormons made a pact by in which the Mormon Church promised to at least stop baptizing dead Holocaust victims ... that ended up being a lie as it was discovered 3 months ago, Romney's religion breached the pact they made.

Why did the Morman Church lie to Jewish Leaders in 1995 and 2010?  Why so secret about their baptizing of dead people?

     Why is Mitt's religion afraid to publicly baptize dead people?

    In February 2011, Romney's Church baptized the dead parents of famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal.

     Also in February, a Mormon Database was discovered that had the names of several living Jews who were to be baptized, without their consent.  Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel’s name, as well as those of his father and maternal grandfather were on the list.  Apparently, Romney's religion thought Elie Wiesel was dead.  Wiesel was very angry when he found out and said Romney should denounce his Church's practice of baptizing dead people.

     Jewish leaders called on Mitt Romney to “speak to his own church” and ask them to stop performing baptisms on dead Jews.

     To date, I am not aware of any public condemnation from Mitt Romney regarding baptizing people without their consent.  In fact, in February, USA Today reported that Romney's campaign did not answer questions regarding Wiesel, Wiesenthal or any other dead people Mitt's religion continues to baptize without consent.

      Some people say, well some parents baptize their infant - true ... and it is the parent's right to do that as the parent is their child's guardian.  However, when the child becomes an adult, usually age 12 or 13 in most religions, the child can then pick whatever faith they want, denounce any faith they want etc.  Otherwise, once the child is a legal adult, 18 years old, they can change religions, become no religion etc.  

      There is a huge difference between Romney trampling on a person's civil rights and a parent baptizing their infant child.

     The point is: People in America have a legal right, a civil right to pick their own religion, or no religion and it is abominable that Romney secretly gives himself the power over "the People's" civil rights to force them to convert to his religion after they are dead and can no longer tell him Mitt 'f@&k off.'

      Here's what I wonder, will the rightwingers write blogs about the possibility of Romney baptizing all Americans into his religion if he were to become President and privy to the Social Security Database?  

     Will rigthiwingers pen their suspicion that Romney would give the national Social Security Database information to his Church for them to baptize all Americans into Romney's religion?  

     I mean, gee whiz, Romney's religion promised in 1995 & 2010 to stop baptizing dead people -- but they clearly lied as their database was discovered just a few months ago.

     Again, I wonder, what will Sean Hannity say about Romney personally baptizing dead people without consent?  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Holding down "lost souls" and giving them (35+ / 0-)

    haircuts... that what this amounts to.

    "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

    by Mogolori on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:43:57 AM PDT

  •  While I think baptism of the dead... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, Red Bean, Catte Nappe

    ...is a rather monumental insult to people of other faiths who are still among the living, and as a non-Mormon I find it a rather detestable practice and don't want them doing that to any of my ancestors, I don't really see how it's a violation of dead people's civil rights.

    Seems Mitt thinks his religion is the only real religion and if a person disagrees with Mitt, then Mitt will impede on a person's civil rights and force that person to convert to Mitt's religion when they are dead and cannot defend themselves ... by God!
    I mean, doesn't that all logically depend on whether or not Mormonism's claims about the afterlife are true?

    In the rather crazy and ridiculous event that Mormonism's claims about the afterlife are true, then I'd wager they'd be glad they were "converted" post-death so they don't end up going to hell. (If Mormonism is true, then the idea of inviolable "civil rights" is something of a myth anyway, given Mormonism's version of God.)

    If Mormonism's claims about the afterlife aren't true, though, then baptizing someone else in the dead person's name has absolutely no effect of any kind on the dead person, any more than my declaring Abraham Lincoln and George Washington's corpses to now be devoted Scientologists, and James Madison saved by the Flying Spaghetti Monster has on them. In so declaring them, I haven't "forced" them to do anything, because either (a) there's no "them" to "force" (if one disbelieves in any afterlife) or (b) I don't have the power to "force" their souls anywhere (if one believes in a different version of the afterlife aside from Mormonism).

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:47:00 AM PDT

    •  Mormonism has no hell as I understand it (0+ / 0-)

      just different levels of Heaven.

      I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

      by terrypinder on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:06:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh. Hmmm. Well, still. (0+ / 0-)

        I'd still bet that "non-baptized non-Mormon heaven" is less cool and Mormorific than "posthumously baptized non-Mormon heaven."

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:08:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that'd be correct (0+ / 0-)

          one level isn't much different from Earth now. then there's a second level, and then there's a top level where it rains rainbows and sunshine and kittens.

          I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

          by terrypinder on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:43:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  So would Catholics or Christians (0+ / 0-)

      "praying for the souls" for those who died in the Holocaust be offensive as well?

      Speaking as an Atheist, I would find it offensive if a religious group had a public ceremony for deceased non-believers for them to go to"hell," as this wishes a bad outcome for them.  I don't see wishing non-believers going to heaven as being offensive - especially if this were a secret ceremony.  If you does not believe in the religion with the ceremony. you also believe the ceremony does not change anything.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:15:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think there's a difference... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        word is bond

        ...between praying for someone's soul or wishing for non-believers to go to heaven, and retroactively converting them to your own religion.

        It's the difference between "God, please let this person in despite their having not been a member of the religion I think is the right one," essentially asking for God to have mercy on them, versus "God, this person is now a member of the religion I think is the right one, despite having never actually been a member of that religion in life."

        The former is an acceptance of the person's choice of their own religious viewpoints in life and asking God to be merciful; the latter is a rejection of the person's choice of their own religious viewpoints in life.

        That, to me, is the difference between the Roman Catholic practice of praying for the dead (which I also don't find offensive) and the Mormon practice of baptizing people in their place.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:44:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is just a matter of how Mormons prey for others (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe

          and their god. Nowhere do I see Mormons asserting the deceased was ever a believer.  In my mind, just a prayer with greater effort.

          Their understanding of baptism is just different than various other Christian groups believe, and the various Christian groups don't have a common understanding of what baptism is.  Some believe in baptism for infants, where there is no real content or belief, while others do not.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Fri May 18, 2012 at 12:05:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Personal choice (0+ / 0-)

          From what I understand, the Mormon baptism doesn't convert someone into a retroactive Mormon. It allows them to have some of the benefits of Mormons in the after life - if they choose. They can decline. The baptism just makes them "eligible" in a way.

          from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

          by Catte Nappe on Fri May 18, 2012 at 01:44:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Elie Weisel was very upset. (3+ / 0-)

      I realize that my opinion doesn't mean much -- especially since I'm a non- believer. But there is a living, breathing person who was baptized after his "death" so I'll take him as the authority. It made a difference to Mr Wiesel.

      The search for truth and knowledge is one of the finest attributes of a man, though often it is most loudly voiced by those who strive for it the least -- Albert Einstein

      by theKgirls on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:35:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't say I didn't find it upsetting. (0+ / 0-)

        In fact, I pretty clearly indicated that I find it insulting and detestable.

        I just don't think it should be seen as any kind of violation of a dead person's civil rights.

        If Mormons are right about the afterlife, then they've helped the person along; if they're wrong about the afterlife, then it doesn't affect the dead person in any way. Either way, I don't think anyone's rights are violated.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:39:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to direct that towards (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          you... I've heard a few rightwingers, in their efforts to absolve Romney from any criticism, say in effect "what's the bid deal!?! Who cares what happens to a dead guy?" Thus, my answer that even if it doesn't matter to me, it does matter to the guy who was baptized.

          No one's rights were violated, I agree. But I do believe that Romney should answer why his church does that.  And I'm curious what the rightwing would be screaming if Barack Obama's church did anything like that...

          The search for truth and knowledge is one of the finest attributes of a man, though often it is most loudly voiced by those who strive for it the least -- Albert Einstein

          by theKgirls on Fri May 18, 2012 at 12:56:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Civil rights is a tricky topic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe

      When a person's civil rights are violated during their lifetime, as in a case of wrongful death, their descendents have a claim for redress.  Can a person's civil rights be violated after they die?  If we are going to respect everyone's religious beliefs, then someone whose faith includes reincarnation might say the deceased are also the unborn, and it seems many believe that the unborn have civil rights. Our understanding of death is too limited, and too colored by the variety of religious beliefs, to be the basis for a legal analysis.

      The way out of this morass is to focus on the living who are injured. I don't think there's a recognized civil right to the integrity of the memory of one's deceased ancestors, but there's a moral right that is entitled to respect.

      If one's ancestor were forcibly baptized into the Mormon faith during his or her lifetime, that could be painful to the entire family. Why should an involuntary baptism after death be any different?

  •  Is Reagan a Mormon yet? (9+ / 0-)

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:52:13 AM PDT

  •  This just screams "creepy". (4+ / 0-)

    Push the idea (however wrong) that he might have post-mortem-ly baptized Christians (e.g. Baptists) to convert them Mormons, or even that he wants to, and Romney might even lose the South.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:54:05 AM PDT

  •  What are the criteria for selecting people (4+ / 0-)

    for such baptism?

    I thought it was for the ancestors of current Mormons, but obviously Anne Frank is no one's ancestor.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:55:13 AM PDT

    •  Criteria is : they are dead. (3+ / 0-)

      You don't need to be a relative of a Mormon to be baptized after death.
      They do it around the clock in Salt Lake City Temple.
      As the stand-ins for the dead are baptized the dead person is entered on a computer (right by the baptisimal  'font' or whatever they call it) database.
      I would like to know if this database is publically available?

      "Children who are victims of failed personal responsibility are not my problem, nor are they the problem for our government." Tim Pawlenty April 2001

      by cosette on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:11:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Criteria? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      It seems the people who are coming to be dunked bring their own lists of names. They are mostly in their teens and twenties, and although they are supposed to have researched their ancestors, they can bring other names. Somebody is supposed to vet the names they bring, but the LSD church acknowledges that the vetting is very imperfect.

      So the criteria are really in the barely controlled discretion of young people who troop to the temple in groups for these ceremonies. I have read multiple comments in other diaries that describe the practice by people in the know, and what I still haven't seen is an explanation of why it is so important for young Mormons to perform these ceremonies.

      •  Somewhat backward to what I'd heard (0+ / 0-)

        We've had a few Mormons (or formers) on this site explaining some of this stuff, and it was my impression that the young people who serve as stand ins are given the list they will represent by someone higher up.

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Fri May 18, 2012 at 01:41:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  besides being bizarre and thuggish, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosette, FiredUpInCA, rukidingme

    it seems to me to be a futile exercise.  As a Christian, I believe that my salvation is based on my personal relationship with God through Jesus.  How can a 3rd party's decision to "baptize" me possibly effect my personal relationship with God?

    If Romney believes that he can "save" someone by baptizing them without their knowledge or consent, he doesn't believe in the same God or the same Bible that I do.

    " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast."  

    Not by works, and not by baptism, and especially not by someone else's decision to baptize you.

    why I'm a Democrat - Isaiah 58:6-12, Matthew 25:31-46

    by marking time on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:56:51 AM PDT

  •  Hey, the Bible implies its an option. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosette

    Let's just hope Mitt forgot about the part that tells him to kill Wiccans.

  •  This may be real to Mormons but it is without (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TeamSarah4Choice, cosette

    significance in real life. It simply shows that the people who do this are totally bigoted against anyone who is not LDS member and that they disrespect all other religious people and atheists and agnostics. Whether you belive in souls, the afterlife or not, this practice does nothing, has no value, and is just wierd.

    I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box.

    by OHdog on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:00:35 AM PDT

  •  The entire thing seems bizarre to me, but ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ian S, Catte Nappe

    I don't see why anybody should care.  If Mormonism and baptizing are all a lot of BS (as I think they are), then this has no effect at all.  But if the Mormons are actually right (much as I doubt it), then it's a good thing.  Bottom line: It can't hurt anybody.

    I come from a mainline Protestant background, but when she was seriously ill a friend of my wife said her brother had said prayers for her in Israel.  I thanked her for the thought.  When my mother died, a Catholic friend asked if I'd be OK with him having a memorial mass said for her (which as I understand it, Catholics believe speeds the soul from Purgatory).  I said it wasn't necessary, but certainly would have no objection to him doing it and appreciated the thought.

    Although both of those people asked if I minded, I would have had no problem if they had simply gone ahead and done it.  And if some Mormon wants to baptize my now-deceased mother (and they may already have done it, since she was friendly with a Mormon couple), I've got no problem with that either.  If the Zoroastrians want to claim her as one of their own at this point, I have no problem with that either.   And if the Wiccans want to induct me as one of theirs once I die, I don't have a problem with that.  As far as I'm concerned, once I'm dead, people can make me a member of every religion in the world.

    Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

    by leevank on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:04:56 AM PDT

    •  "it can't hurt anybody" (6+ / 0-)

      Other than that it shows how Mormons (Romney) do not respect other religions, including all other Christians.

      •  Well, to be fair... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus

        there are plenty of Christians e.g. many evangelicals who don't respect other religions either. As an atheist, I'll admit that my own respect for religion is somewhat limited although I'd never dream of trying to un-baptize a deceased believer. LOL!

        Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

        by Ian S on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:48:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Asking if you would be OK with a prayer (0+ / 0-)

      That is taught as a responsible thing to do in many churches and faith based institutions. The thing is, if you really believe prayer will have a direct impact of some sort you really shouldn't be having that impact on people without their permission. In the strictest sense of the word it's worse to pray without permission than the Mormon baptism thing, because as I understand it the Mormon post-death baptism only makes you "eligible" in a way, and you have the right in the afterlife to decline the honor.

      from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

      by Catte Nappe on Fri May 18, 2012 at 01:38:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Considering that ancestry.com (3+ / 0-)

    is an LDS outfit and it already has the social security database among other things...(well, the death index. I found grandparents and other relatives there...)

    Anyway, I can see why those living would be insulted, but the dead are dead and that's all there is to it. Still, the whole baptism-of-the-dead thing is rude.

    I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

    by terrypinder on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:05:08 AM PDT

    •  Did not know that about ancestry.com (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cassandracarolina, Mannie

      Thought another intelligence organization started that up.
      The Mormon church would have access through ancestry.com to all those dead folks that came before the social security administration started.

      "Children who are victims of failed personal responsibility are not my problem, nor are they the problem for our government." Tim Pawlenty April 2001

      by cosette on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:19:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To Me That Is Just Sick (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosette, Ian S

    They are already dead and if you believe that getting into heaven or hell is based on what you did while alive than baptizing someone after they are dead is not going to do a thing for them.  It is kind of sick and freaky in my opinion.  

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:06:17 AM PDT

  •  I believe this is why Mittens is in a virtual (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosette, cassandracarolina

    Mittness Protection Program and refuses to sit down for serious interviews.  He is scared to death that someone will ask questions of this nature regarding Mormonism.  I don't see him opening up more until AFTER the convention.  He cannot afford to rock the boat before then.

  •  There's a simple question to be asked (4+ / 0-)

    Mitt, after you die, would you want OTHER people to convert you to THEIR religion?

  •  Just because some commenters here (6+ / 0-)

    aren't offended by the practice of posthumous proxy baptism, or can explain rationally why it shouldn't matter, the fact remains that it is deeply offensive to other people who are entitled to our respect.

    While no harm may be done to the deceased, it is clear that that the practice is deeply hurtful to their survivors. Nobody should have the right to trespass on the memory of our ancestors by making up new "facts" about them. Common decency says that this practice should stop.

  •  extremely creepy practice (0+ / 0-)

    Even for people who strive to be open-minded about others' religious beliefs, this Mormon (and Mitt Romney) practice is creepy and is grotesquely offensive to the living members of the deceased non-Mormon person's family.  

  •  turnabout is fair play? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    S F Hippie, Clem Yeobright, Short Bus

    You can convert dead Mormons into homosexuals! It is quick and easy.

    "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

    by craigkg on Fri May 18, 2012 at 12:07:43 PM PDT

  •  considering (0+ / 0-)

    how bent out of shape the fundamentalist Christians get over things like the legal definition of marriage, which has zero relationship to their religion, it would be absurd that this practice wouldn't outrage them as it is an actual affront to their religion.  Of course the hipocracy is strong to the right.  

  •  I'm late to this diary ... (0+ / 0-)

    (work has been insane -- just glad I have a job)

    ... but I must comment about this one thing Mittens (R-Money) said:

    if people want to know about the beliefs or practices of my faith, they're probably best to check with the church.
    If Willard is "a former Bishop and top Church Official in Boston," why isn't he able to answer a simple question about an act he committed in the name of his faith?

    Maybe Episcopalians are different, but there is not a single thing I do in the name of my faith about which anyone could question me that would prompt me to refer the questioner to "the church," and I'm just a layperson.

    Mittens should never be permitted to get away with that kind of a non-answer.  Oh, well.  Just one more windmill to tilt against ...

    "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

    by JBL55 on Wed May 23, 2012 at 08:59:08 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site