Saturday, October 13, 2007

Democrat Leader Reid on a "better leader"

OK, I separated the two, so my points would not be confused. Also, I'll add this stupid disclaimer -- I do not speak for the Republican Party, and they don't speak for me.

Last week Harry Reid attacked Evangelical Christians, conservatives, and Mormon church leaders and members.

From the Deseret News, Reid calls Evangelicals "Anti-Christian":
Reid also told reporters the Republican Party has been driven by evangelical Christians for 20 years. "They are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right."
While he was at it, the Democratic Leader also saw fit to attack the church's leadership:

Some past prominent LDS Church leaders wrongly pressed conservatism on church members, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday during a press conference at Brigham Young University.

The Nevada senator attacked President Bush and evangelical Christians while saying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need to worry less about abortion and gay marriage and more about health care, global warming, education and jobs.
The leader of the Senate is dictating religious teaching to the church, and warning them that they have been too "conservative".

He also called followers of the Mormon faith sheep, too easily misled, too ignorant to have decided for themselves what they believed:
"Members of the church are obedient," Reid said, "they are followers in the truest sense of the word, and I think they've taken members of the church down a path that is the wrong path.
Reid contrasted these "bad leaders" who took members "down the wrong path", with his prime example of a good leader, one that would be welcome in the "progressive" wing of the party:
Look at Joseph Smith. Here's a man who was progressive, to say the least. He broke from the pack. He did things differently than they'd been done. He was against slavery. He wanted to start a national bank.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the man Reid thinks embodies the philosophy of the modern Democratic Party. NOTE: NONE of the following items include ANY aspect of the teaching or founding of the Mormon religion. So anybody who wants to accuse me of "attacking Mormons" can just forget it. This isn't about Mormonism, or even about what I think of Smith. I chose quotes on the points Reid made about being "progressive", "doing things differently", and "starting a national bank":

In March 1826, Smith was convicted after an alleged admission to being a "disorderly person" and an "impostor" in a court in Bainbridge, New York.[8]
To raise money, Smith planned a banking institution, which was called the Kirtland Safety Society. The State of Ohio denied Smith a charter to legally operate a bank causing Smith to rename the company as 'The Kirkland AntiBanking Safety Society' and he continued to operate the bank illegally and print notes. The bank collapsed after 21 days of operation in January.[13] During this time, Smith and his associates were accused of illegal and unethical actions.[14]
Eventually, lawsuits and indictments against Smith and his banking partners became so severe that, on January 12, 1838, Smith and Rigdon left Kirtland by dark of night for the Far West settlement in Caldwell County, Missouri. At the time, there were at least $6,100 in civil suits outstanding against him in Chardon, Ohio courts, and an arrest warrant had been issued for Smith on a charge of bank fraud.[16]
In February, 1844, Smith announced his candidacy for President of the United States, with Sidney Rigdon as his vice-presidential running mate. He also theorized a quasi-republican political system which he termed Theodemocracy and organized the Council of Fifty based upon its principles.
The city council, headed by Joseph Smith as mayor, responded by passing an ordinance declaring the newspaper a public nuisance designed to promote violence against Smith and his followers.[25] Under the council's new ordinance, Nauvoo's mayor, Smith, in conjunction with the city council, ordered the city marshal to destroy the paper and the press on June 10, 1844.[26]

So, Reid thinks a man who ran for President to establish a "theodemocracy" is a "good" example, as opposed to the moder leaders Reid criticizes for standing for the unborn and for biblical principles of marriage.

Anyway, I don't expect ANY liberal outrage, except maybe someone will complain about me "attacking" the man Reid tried to hide behind to protect himself from criticism. Reid attacked the LDS church for being too conservative, and needed someone with "absolute moral authority" to provide him cover for what he wrote.

In other words, Reid once again has used the typical liberal trick of using a foil to hide behind. He slandered evangelicals, he attacked former and current leaders of the church, he essentially called the church members ignorant, and wrapped it all up in the mantle of one of the church's revered leaders so that if anybody attacked him the democrats could cry foul.

Because as we know, Democrats hide behind other people, putting words in their mouths so if you call the Democrats on their lies, they will complain that you are "attacking" the person they are hiding behind.

If Wikipedia has any facts wrong, I apologize, and note that you can go directly to Wikipedia and edit the entries to correct them.

Trent Lott was run out of leadership by Democrats for an offhand comment at a BIRTHDAY PARTY when he said Strom Thurmond would have been a "better president" than his opponents. The left had no problem dredging up Strom Thurmond's past in order to attack Trent by pretending he was saying something more than he did.

Now Reid has attacked the modern LDS leadership and held up another man as someone who would be a "better leader". Should he have to resign, or will the democrats claim that any examination of the man Reid holds up as a "better leader" is off-limits?


Citizen Tom said...

Charles, what Senator Reid did was wrong. Do you really want to emulate him? Consider the context of your post. When you have something bad to say about Joseph Smith, you will be perceived as conservative Republican attacking Mormons. There is just no way around it.

Consider what he is about. Senator Reid seeks to create a political divide between Mormons and evangelical Christians. Why give him what he wants?

What Mormons believe about their religion and Joseph Smith may be wrong; nonetheless, it is difficult to argue these people do not behave well and make good citizens. By the same token, when an intolerant Senator Reid attacks evangelical Christians, he is full of it.

To conquer conservatives, Senator Reid seeks our division. With the deliberate intention of creating that divide, Reid mixes religion and politics with no good intentions. The proper answer is to turn aside his reeking lies and hate with Christian forbearance and love.

To rebut Senator Reid, we do not have to attack Joseph Smith. That is a trap. Let Mormons sort out what they believe Joseph Smith and Mormonism amongst themselves.

Charles said...

Tom, I understand your concern, especially given the demagoging over the Frost family.

However, I have nothing bad to say about Joseph Smith. In my entire post, the only words about Joseph Smith are direct quotes from other sources, mostly Wiki (now only Wikipedia).

If a democrat attacks a republican for quoting Wikipedia, it will make my point.

This isn't about what Mormons believe about their religion. Reid wasn't holding Smith up in his quote for his religious principles, but for his progressive principles, as an example of a better person than the modern leadership.

And yet I may take you up on your suggestion. That's what the Democrats have accomplished, making it impossible to have a conversation even about the facts.

See, Reid can make up things about Smith, and use him to pummel republican and evangelical christians and the Mormon church leadership, and we apparently are scared to point out anything he said that was wrong, lest WE be accused of "attacking".

Why CAN'T we debate Reid's proposition that Joseph Smith was a better person than the modern leaders who focus on what Reid says are the wrong things?

What Reid WANTS is to get away with saying things because everybody is afraid to discuss the issue.

Citizen Tom said...

Charles -- The Democrats of this day have not accomplished much of anything. Politics has always involved stepping around people's feelings. Our headache is we have so many voters who have not been properly educated about politics and religion. I suppose you could call that an accomplishment of the Democrats, but the blame does not solely belong to the Democrats. Moreover, this lack of education more an omission than an accomplishment.

Anyway, any Mormon who wants to can find the entry on Joseph Smith on Wikipedia. I suspect that post gets many more hits than your and my websites combined. :-)

Charles said...

I think you are wrong to focus on the "Mormon" aspect. I'm certainly not.

Reid didn't say Smith was a better RELIGIOUS leader. He didn't point to his RELIGIOUS teachings. He said he was a more "progressive" leader, and pointed to Smith's activities in the POLITICAL realm, including his national bank idea (which certainly is NOT a tenet of faith).

That's why I responded, because Reid held Smith up as a good example of a progressive political leader, one that would be better for the LDS membership to follow than the "conservative" LDS leadership that "led them astray".

Citizen Tom said...

Charles -- There are times when the best thing to do is to get out of the way. When Reid attacks the LDS leadership, get out of the way. When Christians argue amongst themselves, do they appreciate it when Buddhists or Muslims stick their noses into the matter?

Do Christian Evangelicals make common cause with Mormons because they agree on religious matters? No. Would Christian Evangelicals deny Mormons the right to practice their religion? No. Do Christian Evangelicals want to stick their noses into everybody else's business. No. The Democratic Party does that.

We can refute Reid's attacks on Christian Evangelicals as purely ignorant bigotry. Otherwise, let's mind our own business and let the LDS leadership explain to Reid that he does not understand his own religion.