Ask any LDS nmember about the Mountain Meadows Massacre and see them dance and stammer.

America's first 9/11 happened in the 1800's and it was a slaughter by Mormons of unarmed men, disarmed after a flag of truce neotiated them surrendering their guns, only to be shot to death unable to protect their families-the women were slaughtered too and the children were given to Mormon families to be raised as their own.

Ask Mitt how he feels about this church-sanctioned slaughter by the LDS.

The church considers the right to kill others to be its to give.

THAT should concern us all.

They didn't? So, no slaves died at the hands of their owners? No blacks were ever lynched in the baptist bible belt South?

That's silly - a religion which owes it's founding to the desire to enslave another race - and all of the bloodshed that foillowed that doctrine - doesn't have a moral superiority to wave over any other sect.

Oh; and what about evangelic Christian persecution of Mormons, including killing of Mormons in Jackson County Missouri and Nauvoo, Illinois?

I'm not sure that any of the Abrahamic faiths should have the chutzpah to "cast the first stone".

I'm not sure that any faith should have the chutzpah to "cast the first stone".

Corrected for errors. :)

I think it was correct in the first place - the obvious problem we have is the Abrahamic religions, not neccessarily all religions.

You don't often see massacres and hate mongering from Buddhist monks ;)

....because I have some knowledge of them, while there may be some non-Abrahamic faiths which are truly non-violent (in action as well as in word) with which I am not knowledgeable.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have historical events which make their claims of righteousness (as creeds) questionable. However, that does not make any of them not a valid faith. As I see it, only God knows which is/are "right"; and each of us must chose the path we wish to follow. As a believer, there is that "inner voice" which is as important as any religious scripture or testament.

It doesn't mean it has not happened.

What it DOES mean is that there is something special about christianity and islam which causes it's followers to act badly.

That is the real problem

Not often, agreed, but its presence is not absent.

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.

'

Religion should be what concern us all, it seems to have the most unsettling effect on people. What can be grander then having "god" tell you it's not only okay to kill but actually your religious duty, The most interesting part is that the vast majority of people are whatever religion they are for no other reason then the family / culture they were born into. You don't see many westerners becoming Hindus (Buddhism is a little trendy) Sikhs or Shintoists. The expansion of Christianity and Islam over time has been a result of proselytizing and conquest

Both monotheistic religions - Islam and Christianity in all their manifestations - are inherently intolerant claiming as they do to be God's mandate on earth. The act of proselytizing itself is a sure sign of intolerance. Why bother to convert other people if you don't believe your religion is the only true one and that all others are false? Religious wars have never occurred among practitioners of Eastern religions or among polytheists. The Semitic religions are a curse on mankind from which it seems we shall never escape.

"Religious wars have never occurred among practitioners of Eastern religions or among polytheists."

What about the continuing violence between the Hindus and Moslems on the Indian Sub-continent; and the internicine strife within Hindu itself?

Did the baptists just get invented after the Indian Wars? I swear I remember there being a shitload of Baptists around for the killing of the West....