Thanks vr - I'm feeling blessed today...!

What always concerns me is Jesus tended to annoy the church leaders - not the people - you and I seem to have it the other way around...

Let's try to do a better job...

CV - my point is how can you possibly judge "rudeness?"

(paraphrasing) "I will turn Father against son, and Mother against daughter, etc..."

TM, as I have stated before...bigotry requires two criteria, prejudice and intolerance. Speaking against a religion ( though this type of argument is weak, because even if you could prove another religion false, it doesn't make yours more true ) speaking against another religion isn't bigotry. For example I don't see you, botg, wicked conservative as bigots, even though I know you are strongly against Mormons. Debra is a bigot because she refuses to vote for a Mormon, no matter if that Mormon were to agree with her on all her issues.

I can be intolerant of someone, and not be a bigot if I judge them by their fruits.

Here is an email I got...take it for what its worth...

Nancy French is co-founder of www. EvangelicalsforMitt

. org

Mitt
Romney Not Our Pastor-in-Chief
Nancy French Wednesday, May 23,
2007

There's a question I'm often asked by my closest friends and casual

acquaintances alike: "How could a committed Christian like you support a

Mormon for president?"

I get that question a lot as co-founder of the
Evangelicals for Mitt
organization - especially now that Rev. Al Sharpton
has apparently taken it
upon himself to question the validity of Mitt
Romney's faith.

In fact, the news that I'm supporting Romney for
president recently brought
one of my Christian friends to tears - she
couldn't understand it.

The mainstream media often seems as incredulous
as my friend. They maintain
that Romney has no chance in the Bible Belt, due
to the differences between
the Mormon faith and mainstream Christianity. But
my emotional friend's
reaction notwithstanding, the media have it
wrong.

Let me explain why. To paraphrase Jerry Falwell, I wouldn't want
Gov. Romney
as my Sunday school teacher, but that's not the office he's
running for.
The fact is, we're not electing a Pastor-in-Chief. Voters who
care about
traditional values are smart enough to keep that in
mind.

In countless conversations with Southern evangelicals, here are the

questions asked most frequently:

Can Evangelicals and Mormons really
work together and trust each other? The
fact is that in spite of our
theological differences, Christians and
Mormons are already political
allies. In fact, if
Mormons weren't consistently more conservative than their
evangelical
neighbors, Al Gore would be America's president now - instead of
his
newfound role as the earth's "weather psychic."

Does believing
"Mormon stuff" make Romney gullible? All religions
require a leap of faith
that appears silly to outsiders. If a reporter
questioned me about my
religion, he'd raise an eyebrow over my belief
that Noah was a floating
zookeeper, that Jesus was the best sommelier
in Galilee, and that he paid
taxes with coins from a fish's mouth.

No one belongs to the Church of the
Scientific Method, so religion
falls outside normal reasoning. Gov. Romney's
beliefs certainly
require faith - including his quite miraculous notion that
Jesus is
his personal Savior. In my experience, evangelicals loathe
religious
litmus tests, ever since Democrats tried to disqualify Christian
and
Catholic judges because of their beliefs. And as far as gullible
goes,
well, don't forget: Mitt Romney has two Harvard degrees.

Is
America ready for a Mormon president? If someone asked me whether
I'd support
a "former alcoholic," a "divorced Hollywood actor," or a
"Southern Baptist,"
I'd pick the "Baptist" every time. However, when
actual names are associated
with the traits, I'd pick the former
alcoholic (George W. Bush) or actor
(Ronald Reagan) over the Baptist
(Bill Clinton) faster than you can say
"Lewinsky."

The point is, individual personalities matter. As America
learns more
about Gov. Romney, his political triumphs will overshadow
his
religion. For example, after brazen judges legalized
homosexual
"marriage," he stopped Massachusetts from becoming "gay Las Vegas"
by
refusing to marry out-of-state gay couples.

He also erased a $3
billion dollar debt without raising taxes, and has
forcefully advocated
pro-life positions. In other words, the question
isn't whether we're ready
for a Mormon, but are we ready for this
Mormon.

What about Baptist
preacher Mike Huckabee? John Mark Reynolds wrote
that "my faith in the
holiness standards of Baptists survived Clinton
and my belief in their sanity
survived Carter, though that was a
closer call." But Gov. Huckabee doesn't
deserve to be tainted by the
dubious political legacy of recent Baptist
leaders - i. e. Clinton's
moral failure, Carter's weak foreign policy,
Johnson's social
programs, and Gore's use of the word "lock box."
Evangelicals evaluate
candidates on their political merits and don't vote for
the "most
Christian" person on the ballot. (Note the Oval Office absence of
Alan
Keyes.)

Doesn't theology matter? Of course it matters! If a
candidate belonged
to the "Church of Killing Canadians," to use an absurd
illustration,
voters would rightly ask whether he planned on invading Canada
and
stealing their moose. Some theologies do lead to flawed
political
decisions . But Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity have
common
moral and, therefore, political values.

In fact, the only
difference between a Mormon and a Presbyterian at a
cocktail party is the
Mormon isn't getting a chardonnay refill.
Perhaps someone less scandalous
than Ward Cleaver is just what a Mark
Foley/Ted Haggard fatigued nation
needs.

How many "first ladies" will Mitt bring to the White House? The
Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints gave up polygamy in 1890.
In
fact, the polygamists and their bun-wearing wives on Dateline are
as
realistic a portrayal of Mormons as mountain-dwelling snake
handlers
are of evangelicalism. Romney's been married to the same woman for
38
years - while Rudy Giuliani walked down the aisle three times,
John
McCain twice, and Newt Gingrich three times. As Kate O'Beirne
recently
noted, the only GOP frontrunner with one wife is the
Mormon.

Are you really a Christian? Please: I've eaten
countless
unidentifiable casseroles at potlucks and I've sung "Just As I Am"
73
million times. I just so happen to support Mitt Romney for President
-
in spite of our theological differences. I happen to think it's
more
"Christian" to give the man a fair shake, than to pave the way
for
candidates without a commitment to social issues.

I'm apparently
not alone - donors in Tennessee gave more money to
Romney than any other
candidate. Plus, he beat all current GOP
candidates in straw polls in
Memphis, Washington, D. C., and even
Greenville, S. C. He's also garnered
endorsements by prominent
evangelicals like Jay Sekulow, Mark DeMoss, and
Hugh Hewitt.

Most importantly, though, the mere mention of his name makes
the ACLU,
Planned Parenthood, and the mainstream media break out into
hives.
That, of course, is enough to make any evangelical put
aside
theological differences, and take notice.

Nancy French is
co-founder of www. EvangelicalsforMitt. org and the
author of "Red State
of Mind: How a Catfish Queen Reject Became a
Liberty Belle"

TM: So then, one is never to question those who pervert the Gospel? Jesus suffered scorn because he dared to call those in authority on the carpet for their hypocrisy. The term "white-washed tombs" comes to mind.

The passage you cite has to do with Jesus' mission. His rebuke of Peter has to do with Peter's not understanding that Jesus was doing the will of the Father by allowing Himself to suffer and die. Peter seemed to still be of the mindset that the Messiah would be an earthly King. I'm sorry. But I don't see the connection to the topic at hand. It's one thing to suffer persecution from non-believers. I believe it's a different story when those who call themselves believers pervert the Gospel.

On another level, I do understand that to ignore those who may persecute us saves everyone from a lot of unnecessary strife. However, I have a problem with the idea of "embracing" offense.

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria