My point here is that the LDS church authorized the action.

Yes, there are many extremist baptists and islamists and who knows what else, but they dont enjoy the direct support of their local church.

The massacre we are discussing here was the height of treachery. A mormon flew the white flag to discuss terms and the discussions ended with an agreement that the settlers would surrender their weapons and leave with safe passage for them and their families-once disarmed they were massacred, unable to defend themselves. And it wasnt a rouge action-the church both authorized the slaughter and then the cover up.

To compare this to the actions of terrorists or extremists who act as individuals vs the actions of church leadership is a big reach. Heck, we could eliminate any human candidate if we were to look at human history. What I am pointing to here is what does the particular church do historically and does membership in that church mean taking your direction from that church. Kennedy for instance specifically said he would not take his orders from the pope-Romney did NOT say he was independent of the mormon church but rather used the tired old story of how we need to go back to church-WARNING.

Huckabee is no saint either and I dont like how he has taken liberal positions on labor and worker rights while avoiding his extremely religious right postions on other things. I think much of his support comes from his anti-corporate greed pro working family statements which would be great were it not a suger coating for a religious poison pill.

'