You oppose illegal immigration yet have no problem with American citizens fleeing into Mexico to avoid prosecution for illegal actions.
You have applied yet another position to be that I do not hold. Congratulations!
You've tried to make a quaint distinction between "persecution" and "prosecution" in an attempt to make it seem like fleeing the US for breaking the law is somehow okay in your book as long as there is a religious impetus, even though those who fled never asked for asylum but rather just left to avoid legal ramifications, but that's par for the course.
Actually, look up the history of United States/Mormon relations. The "law" was put in place specifically to persecute Mormons for their religious practices. Try, for example, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. It's absolutely persecution. This is not a "quaint distinction," but rather the difference between the historical record and fantasy.
Also, you've shown how disgusted you are by people's focus on Romney's religion and family background but I don't recall such OMG OUTRAGE when the Tea Party and other assorted libertarians freaked the hell out over Obama's potential and completely unproven religious associations and the fact that his father was Kenyan.
I'm sorry you can't recall my disgust at birthers. That's not really my problem, but your problem, especially since this is the second time in as many paragraphs you've assumed something falsely about me.
But wait, it sort of makes no sense when you've given virtually no care at all to other, similarly stigmatized religious group.
Not that you can name a group that a) has been "stigmatized" the way Mormons have historically in this country or b) any evidence that I've "given virtually no care." Less assumption, more facts, please.
Even better, bringing these things up with you will bring no real resolution. There will be no introspection wherein you wonder if there maybe, just maybe, is a problem in how you address liberal versus conservative ideas. It will just be the same thing I experience every time I interact with you, and only you specifically.
Ah, yes, the "no introspection" argument. Because I'm not allowed to hold firmly held beliefs, nor question people on theirs. Others can, but not I. Correct?
So, in closing, if you get to say and do the same thing over and over again, why can't I engage in a bit of shorthand to make the ennui experienced from the sheer, unthinking repetition of it all a bit easier to swallow
Because people's tolerance for such activity, which would be considered trolling by some, is getting old. Not to mention that your entire basis for doing so is based on falsehoods and perhaps outright dishonesty, depending on what it is you actually know.
Engage me, challenge me, and we'll get somewhere. Continue being unproductive, and it's not going to end well for anyone involved.
no subject
You oppose illegal immigration yet have no problem with American citizens fleeing into Mexico to avoid prosecution for illegal actions.
You have applied yet another position to be that I do not hold. Congratulations!
You've tried to make a quaint distinction between "persecution" and "prosecution" in an attempt to make it seem like fleeing the US for breaking the law is somehow okay in your book as long as there is a religious impetus, even though those who fled never asked for asylum but rather just left to avoid legal ramifications, but that's par for the course.
Actually, look up the history of United States/Mormon relations. The "law" was put in place specifically to persecute Mormons for their religious practices. Try, for example, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. It's absolutely persecution. This is not a "quaint distinction," but rather the difference between the historical record and fantasy.
Also, you've shown how disgusted you are by people's focus on Romney's religion and family background but I don't recall such OMG OUTRAGE when the Tea Party and other assorted libertarians freaked the hell out over Obama's potential and completely unproven religious associations and the fact that his father was Kenyan.
I'm sorry you can't recall my disgust at birthers. That's not really my problem, but your problem, especially since this is the second time in as many paragraphs you've assumed something falsely about me.
But wait, it sort of makes no sense when you've given virtually no care at all to other, similarly stigmatized religious group.
Not that you can name a group that a) has been "stigmatized" the way Mormons have historically in this country or b) any evidence that I've "given virtually no care." Less assumption, more facts, please.
Even better, bringing these things up with you will bring no real resolution. There will be no introspection wherein you wonder if there maybe, just maybe, is a problem in how you address liberal versus conservative ideas. It will just be the same thing I experience every time I interact with you, and only you specifically.
Ah, yes, the "no introspection" argument. Because I'm not allowed to hold firmly held beliefs, nor question people on theirs. Others can, but not I. Correct?
So, in closing, if you get to say and do the same thing over and over again, why can't I engage in a bit of shorthand to make the ennui experienced from the sheer, unthinking repetition of it all a bit easier to swallow
Because people's tolerance for such activity, which would be considered trolling by some, is getting old. Not to mention that your entire basis for doing so is based on falsehoods and perhaps outright dishonesty, depending on what it is you actually know.
Engage me, challenge me, and we'll get somewhere. Continue being unproductive, and it's not going to end well for anyone involved.