Church Statement on Religious Liberty

[Guest Godless]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-religious-freedom-pluralism

My BIL has been flooding Twitter with similar dialogue for the last few weeks (apparently his LDS friends/acquaintances are a bit more Islamaphobic than mine). With rhetoric floating around in public discourse proposing measures that would restrict the religious liberty of Muslims significantly, it's important to remember that the LDS church has some very striking parallels in its history. I'm glad to see that the official stance of the Church continues to be one of compassion, in keeping with the 11th Article of Faith.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Godless

[prisonchaplain]

Pleased to say that there is a rising evangelical chorus, offering a similar affirmation of religious liberty--including for Muslims:  http://www.christianpost.com/news/syrian-refugees-evangelical-immigration-table-resettlement-christians-muslims-terror-fear-151675/

Edited December 8, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[NeuroTypical]

Fun slice of history from the 1979 Ensign, where we all but grant Mohammed the title of prophet, and the Koran status as scripture:

 

 

 

But for Latter-day Saints, the crucial question is: Was Muhammad a prophet of God? Are the teachings and revelations found in the Koran to be taken seriously? Anyone who reads through the Koran with patience and sensitivity will acknowledge its literary quality, its strong commitment to the traditions of the ancient prophets, its insistence that man will be held accountable for his deeds and must seek to establish a closer relationship with his God.

 

Yet is the Koran the “Word of God?” For some the Koran is but the creation of Muhammad’s vivid imagination, scattered with partial truths discovered in the conversations he had with Christian and Jewish merchants of his time. Others point out that it has brought to the Arab people a high form of religious truth, which reflects God’s concern and love for them and must not be disdained or rejected out of hand.

 

In Alma 29:8 an American prophet of ancient times declared a most powerful message: “For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore, we see the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.”

 

A most powerful and direct explanation of this book lies in the “Statement of the First Presidency Regarding God’s Love for All Mankind” issued 15 February 1978. In part, it reads: “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammad, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”

 

Many may reject some of the teachings of Muhammad because they seem so inconsistent with the fundamental teachings of the gospel. Yet there may be as much difference between what Muhammad taught in the seventh century and what the Islamic community teaches today as there is between what the apostles taught and what Christian churches teach today. The message of the Koran—that God is the creator and judge of man, that God spoke to prophets (through Mohammad’s time), that we will be held accountable for what we do, and that everyone should seek to live in accordance with God’s laws—clearly identifies it as a conveyer of moral truths with which we should be familiar.

Edited December 8, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Great news on all fronts.  Thanks for the great posts all of you.

[Guest MormonGator]

Doesn't this just make you a bit more proud to be LDS?  

Edited December 8, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Doesn't this just make you a bit more proud to be LDS?  

 

Ohhhhh yeah!  I haven't been this excited about a press release since they urged compassion in immigration issues.  

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the proposals we've been hearing about lately re a blanket moratorium on all Muslims entering the country, are premature; and I'm glad the LDS Church is speaking out. 

 

But, in the discourse, I think we need to avoid going too far in the opposite direction.  Such discriminatory immigration policy actually is constitutional (a good, brief treatment here--the money quote being "Not everything that is stupid or offensive is unconstitutional").  And, the President does, under existing law, have the power to exclude any foreigner or class of foreigners he deems to be a threat to the country (see 8 USC 1182(f)).

 

The unfortunate fact is that eleven percent of Muslims worldwide (as well as 8% of American Muslims) say that violence against civilian targets is often or sometimes justifiable in the defense of Islam (see this Pew Foundation report, page 142).  The President wants to accept ten thousand Syrian refugees next year.  They will virtually all be Muslims, because our current ICE policy effectively excludes Syrian Christians.  Statistically speaking, eleven hundred of those refugees will be open to the idea of killing American civilians.  If our screening process weeds out 99% of those folks, eleven jihadists a year will still get through.  If law enforcement is able to catch 90% of the ones who made it through before they hurt anyone, that's still one jihadist attack on American soil per year.  (I think these estimates as to the efficacy of our federal screening process/local law enforcement agencies are overly optimistic, but for argument's sake, I'll go with them for now.)

 

So, the cold calculus we face is whether it's worth excluding all Muslim immigrants in order to prevent one attack per year, saving perhaps 10-20 American lives.  Personally, I think it's worth some American casualties in order to remain a world-wide beacon of democracy and liberty--but if the number of casualties climbs into the triple digits each year, I want the option to slam the door until we can figure out a more effective vetting apparatus. Yes, that would keep out a lot of innocent Muslims, and that's a tragedy; but there are going to be some hard choices to make if we want to keep America as a place worth emigrating to and I think we should keep as many options on the table as we can.

 

And in the meantime, with six percent of Palestinian Muslims expressing support for ISIS, and fifteen percent of British Muslims believing that violence against civilians in defense of Islam is "sometimes" or "often" justified, and eighty-eight percent of Egyptian Muslims saying that death is an appropriate punishment for apostasy--I think it's crazy not to look at religion in conjunction with things like national origin when we're vetting the folks we let in here; not as the factor but certainly as a factor.

 

 

 

Then again . . . historically, the Church has been on the receiving end of these sorts of immigration restrictions in the past.  If the LDS Church can combine with American liberals to eradicate the constitutional and statutory norms that would prohibit an influx of politically unpopular religious minorities, we might find it a lot easier someday if the Church ever decides it wants to build a city in--oh, say--Missouri, and populate it with Mormons imported from all over the world . . .

Edited December 9, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Doesn't this just make you a bit more proud to be LDS?  

 

Not really. I despise the Leftist establishment, and the reactionary in me is suspicious at anything that might tend to look good to such despicable scumbags. But I am impressed and happy that the Church leadership saw fit to weigh in on this topic. I hope it curbs some of the knee-jerk responses from at least the LDS contingent of the right-wing population. As always, I appreciate JAG's analysis, and I don't think it's wise to completely condemn everything said in this vein, despite the fact that the loathsome [insert name of toupeed presidential candidate here] holds to and preaches many of the same ideals.

[Guest]

When the US stops rejecting Filipino applications for visas is when I would start feeling sorry for classes of people that can't get into America.... I predict that would be... never.

[NeuroTypical]

Folks are talking about President Carter's actions back in 1980.

 

the Secretary of Treasury [state] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Carter went on to order 50,000 Iranian students in the US to report to immigration offices. An appeals court backed up the notion that Carter could indeed deport Iranian students found in violation.  Around 15,000 were, in fact, deported.  And the Iranians weren't even killing anyone - this was in response to the hostage crisis (and the approaching election, I'm sure).  

 

So folks wishing to take partisan potshots about this or that side of the political fence, should remember that liberal democrats provide precedence for notions of such things.  Last I checked, the suggestion we're all mad about, isn't as severe as what President Carter actually implemented.

[Sunday21]

Has a church leader been specific as to what types of liberties the church wants to protect? Is there some possibility that worries us? For example in Canada it is illegal to open a city council meeting with a prayer.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Why does every question have to be about "The Liberals" (insert your favorite insult here) or "The Republicans" (where's the halo icon?).

Why not set the party nonsense aside and simply ask ourselves what the Lord wants?

I'm not a stranger to questioning why the Lord might ask us to do one thing or another. Asking questions, struggling is part of growth. No problem there. Where I suppose I would draw the line for myself is this question "Am I humbling myself to accept the Lord's will or am I trying to get him to accept mine." I've seen a lot of the latter on Facebook about this.

[Guest]

The OP's link has nothing to do with Immigration.  Joseph Smith's quote defends RIGHTS of people regardless of religion.

 

FACT:  Only Americans have the RIGHT to enter America.  The right of entry is not inalienable.

 

America CAN ban ANY and ALL non-Americans from entering the country to preserve national security.  That is what it means to be a Sovereign Nation.

Edited December 9, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

I believe the statement is inspired which should be clear even to those who oppose it.  I also believe it is based on sound rationale, which may not be so clear to those who oppose the idea at first.

 

1)      First, the Church is doing what every lover of liberty should be doing -- asking questions.

 

What if I were on the receiving end of this treatment? 

Would I still believe it would be just then?  Why? 

How could such a policy be twisted to work against me? 

Is there a just and equitable way to shield me from this treatment, while allowing it to be done to others?  How?

 

While we are still subject to earthly governments, we must remember the saying:  When they came for the Jews, I did not speak… when they came for me, none remained to speak for me.

 

Yes, we can justify security and national sovereignty.  But the Church’s statement isn’t just about legality or constitutionality.  It is about us not being hypocrites when the tables are turned on us.

 

2)      Second, the Church is in a unique position among religions.  We are the crossroads of Chirstianity, Judaism, and Islam. 

a.       We are a link between Jews and Christians.  It was the LDS of SLC that welcomed the Jews when the rest of the country had shunned them.  They are our long lost cousins.  Among all Christian sects, we share more in practice and belief with Judaism than most.  Of all Christian sects, “The Mormons” enjoy an elevated status with the government of Israel.

b.      I’ve heard anti-Mormons call us a Christianized version of Islam due to similarities in origin story.  Right or wrong, the idea is out there and many Muslims believe it.  We have a relationship with Islam that other Christian denominations do not have.  Many Muslims consider us their Christian counterpart.  While extremists may still execute us anyway, most Muslims that know of us think of us differently than they do  of other Christians.

 

Because of this position we find ourselves in, we will continue to encourage good relationships with people of all religions. 

 

As for the dangers, I believe it is more serious than the numbers JAG indicated in his write up.  But even with the danger, we need to believe in liberty before we cry for security.  It is with special regard for the evil we currently face that we begin to realize just how impotent governments of men are in protecting us from such a threat.  It should be a time when we as a nation return to the Lord.  But instead, I see those who tout small government principles now crying for stronger government and more restrictions on religious liberty.  

 

This is the time to suck it up and trust in the Lord.

[Guest]

As for the dangers, I believe it is more serious than the numbers JAG indicated in his write up.  But even with the danger, we need to believe in liberty before we cry for security.  It is with special regard for the evil we currently face that we begin to realize just how impotent governments of men are in protecting us from such a threat.  It should be a time when we as a nation return to the Lord.  But instead, I see those who tout small government principles now crying for stronger government and more restrictions on religious liberty.  

 

This is the time to suck it up and trust in the Lord.

 

 

You had me until this paragraph.

 

The ONLY reason for a Federal Government is to protect the States from foreign invasion.  It is its PRIMARY function.

 

As a Sovereign Nation, America, like any other nation, can ban ANY non-American from entering America to preserve national security.  This is why Immigration is a Function of the Federal Government.

 

Think about it - you won't even let MY FILIPINO RELATIVES come to America whose purpose for coming is so they can make enough money to feed their families.  There are millions of Filipinos who would love to have a visa.  Thousands apply... thousands get rejected.  It is quite difficult for a Filipino to enter the US!  And we are an ally nation!

 

The fact of the matter is - You are at WAR with jihadists.  Not every Muslim is a jihadist.  But ALL jihadists are Muslim.  Until you can figure out which Muslim is a jihadist and which one is not, it is quite reasonable to close immigration for that group of people... just like they currently do to my Filipino relatives.  Americans are already surrendering their dignity by getting private parts of innocent people probed and inspected just to ride an airplane... just because they are too politically correct to apply a profile.  Now you're going to give up the dignity of safe homesteads too?

 

But, of course you don't stop there.  That proposal is tempered by the accompanying proposal to "build a beautiful and secure city" inside Syria for all those fleeing from the war (as proposed by the same toupee-wearing candidate that is actually not a toupee but real hair).

 

Anyway, these are just proposals.  There is nothing unreasonable about it.

Edited December 9, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

You had me until this paragraph.

 

The ONLY reason for a Federal Government is to protect the States from foreign invasion.  It is its PRIMARY function.

 

I think you missed an important portion of my post.

 

 

 

Yes, we can justify security and national sovereignty.  But the Church’s statement isn’t just about legality or constitutionality.  It is about us not being hypocrites when the tables are turned on us.

 

I don't argue against what you just said.  In fact, I acknowledged it.  I even agree with it.  That is what I'd normally say under any other circumstance.  But I think that the Church's statement means more than is on the surface.

 

I get it if you don't see the same thing in the statement.  If I hadn't spent the time thinking about it as I have, I probably wouldn't get it either.

 

But I believe this is an exception to common sense.  I believe this is a time that the Lord is saying that "Regardless of the consequences, this is a time that you just need to trust me."

 

Yes, it is a very difficult thing to do.  Yes, it is not common sense.  And I don't blame you one bit if you don't go along with me on this because ordinarily, I'd be right along side you.  But I need to clarify that it is not about natural rights, legality, constitutionality, logic, security, earthly consequences, or the proper role of government.  I simply believe this so.  And there is more at stake here than national security or the lives of a few or even many families.  This is one of those rare instances when I'm simply trusting in the Lord.

[Guest]

I think you missed an important portion of my post.

 

 

I don't argue against what you just said.  In fact, I acknowledged it.  I even agree with it.  That is what I'd normally say under any other circumstance.  But I think that the Church's statement means more than is on the surface.

 

I get it if you don't see the same thing in the statement.  If I hadn't spent the time thinking about it as I have, I probably wouldn't get it either.

 

But I believe this is an exception to common sense.  I believe this is a time that the Lord is saying that "Regardless of the consequences, this is a time that you just need to trust me."

 

Yes, it is a very difficult thing to do.  Yes, it is not common sense.  And I don't blame you one bit if you don't go along with me on this because ordinarily, I'd be right along side you.  But I need to clarify that it is not about natural rights, legality, constitutionality, logic, security, earthly consequences, or the proper role of government.  I simply believe this so.  And there is more at stake here than national security or the lives of a few or even many families.  This is one of those rare instances when I'm simply trusting in the Lord.

 

Now, if Christians are killing thousands in the name of Christ in foreign lands, then it is also reasonable to bar Christians from entering the country - even Mormons - until a system is implemented to weed the terrorists from the masses.  As I understand it, Syrian Christians today are barred from refugee asylum to the US by law.  So there's already a profile against Christians.

 

What the Church is saying is that we shouldn't stop loving our neighbors just because they're of a different faith, even a Muslim faith.  All people, regardless of religion has INALIENABLE RIGHTS granted by God (not by any government) to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and we, as Mormons, should do everything in our power to protect that right. 

 

But entry into a country is not one of the inalienable rights.  We can love our neighbors by extending our hand of love outside of our borders... not necessarily bring them inside our borders.  It's the same concept as extending our hand of love outside of our own homes, not necessarily bring them into our homes... regardless of religion.

[Just_A_Guy]

As for the dangers, I believe it is more serious than the numbers JAG indicated in his write up.  But even with the danger, we need to believe in liberty before we cry for security.  It is with special regard for the evil we currently face that we begin to realize just how impotent governments of men are in protecting us from such a threat.  It should be a time when we as a nation return to the Lord.  But instead, I see those who tout small government principles now crying for stronger government and more restrictions on religious liberty.  

 

This is the time to suck it up and trust in the Lord.

 

. . . .

 

 

But I need to clarify that it is not about natural rights, legality, constitutionality, logic, security, earthly consequences, or the proper role of government.  I simply believe this so.  And there is more at stake here than national security or the lives of a few or even many families. This is one of those rare instances when I'm simply trusting in the Lord.

 

I think it's fair to say "look, yeah, from a conservative/libertarian argument this is very, very troubling; but I believe God trumps country in this instance". On the other hand--having made that call, I think it becomes harder for me to lash out at the conservatives/libertarians who don't share my deference to President Monson, and to start suggesting that they're acting in a way that is inconsistent with their own political beliefs. 

 

From the perspective of a lot of conservatives/libertarians, a government that won't provide an effective (if imperfect) common defense, is scarcely worth having at all.  Accepting thousands of immigrants into the political borders of the United States without regard to whether those immigrants want to kill us or whether those immigrants are committed to the country's founding ideals, has never been part of conservatism.  I'm the inconsistent one here, not conservatives.

 

Also, I think it's a fair question to ask whether the Church was specifically responding to a) the proposal that non-citizen Muslims be temporarily barred from immigrating, b) the proposal that citizen Muslims abroad be temporarily barred from returning home, c) some panicky-but-inaccurate, press-hyped allegation that the candidate in question actually wants to round 'em all up and deport 'em, d) the notion that religion should be a factor in the vetting immigrants, or e) perceived anti-Islamic attitudes that, left unchecked, might spiral into something truly horrific. 

 

If the Church wants to discourage the adoption of a specific policy, then IMHO It should specifically condemn that policy.  Otherwise, I'm going to put it into my "lock your doors if you must, but remember to love your neighbor" file.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Well, I'm not arguing with either one of you (Anatess, JAG).  And being so outside the norm for my own usual position, I'm actually arguing with myself.

 

Part of this preliminary position is that I've been pondering about a dozen world and national issues.  All are different, but they share some common characteristics.  I've never seen so clearly as I do now two things.

 

1) How much all of them could be avoided by depending on the true word God more than man.

2) How much people still will not turn to God to solve these problems.

 

It isn't just this issue.  It is many.  In none of these socio-political issues, we keep talking about government, politicians, military, guns, emergency preparedness, etc.  And don't get me wrong, they're all important.  But why do I never hear anyone talking about trusting in God to deliver us?  Why do I never hear about calling on the powers of heaven?  No one has mentioned that they say this in their daily prayers.  No one has called for a national prayer -- at least not for a few years as I recall.

 

I don't mean to be self-righteous about it.  I'm just now becoming aware of how much I've done the same thing.  It is this that is giving me pause when I start getting up on that libertarian soap box that I feel so secure on normally.  I'm having cause to think it should be more of a theological one.

 

Am I still going to cling to my guns?  Of course.  It would be foolish not to.  Do I still want to fight for a free government?  Of course.  But I'm going to start putting a lot more of God in what I would otherwise consider secular activities.

 

Maybe I'm alone on this.  For all I know it is front and center in all your prayers and you just don't want to share something so personal.  I get that.  It's just that it would be good to hear from time to time.

[Guest]

Well, I'm not arguing with either one of you (Anatess, JAG).  And being so outside the norm for my own usual position, I'm actually arguing with myself.

 

Part of this preliminary position is that I've been pondering about a dozen world and national issues.  All are different, but they share some common characteristics.  I've never seen so clearly as I do now two things.

 

1) How much all of them could be avoided by depending on the true word God more than man.

2) How much people still will not turn to God to solve these problems.

 

It isn't just this issue.  It is many.  In none of these socio-political issues, we keep talking about government, politicians, military, guns, emergency preparedness, etc.  And don't get me wrong, they're all important.  But why do I never hear anyone talking about trusting in God to deliver us?  Why do I never hear about calling on the powers of heaven?  No one has mentioned that they say this in their daily prayers.  No one has called for a national prayer -- at least not for a few years as I recall.

 

I don't mean to be self-righteous about it.  I'm just now becoming aware of how much I've done the same thing.  It is this that is giving me pause when I start getting up on that libertarian soap box that I feel so secure on normally.  I'm having cause to think it should be more of a theological one.

 

Am I still going to cling to my guns?  Of course.  It would be foolish not to.  Do I still want to fight for a free government?  Of course.  But I'm going to start putting a lot more of God in what I would otherwise consider secular activities.

 

Maybe I'm alone on this.  For all I know it is front and center in all your prayers and you just don't want to share something so personal.  I get that.  It's just that it would be good to hear from time to time.

 

I'm actually not arguing with your general point either.  I'm just sifting through the generalizations and specifically pointing to Muslim Immigration as something where the application of Christian Love is served outside the borders than inside... even better served in the case of Syrian Refugees.

 

Of course an appeal to God and trust in Him is a given.  It's interwoven in our daily lives.  It's the "user's manual" that we go by in every single one of our decisions - including political and social ones.  But just like the foolishness of the guy shipwrecked on a tiny island appealed to God for help and when a guy stopped by with his boat he decided to stay on the island to wait for God's succor... trusting in God does not mean we don't do anything.  It means we use our faith to guide all of our decisions and political positions.  My finding the Muslim ban reasonable doesn't mean I didn't trust in God.  It simply means, my adherence to my faith and my trust in Him guided me in my political view to preserve the religious liberties of Americans by keeping jihadists out of America and trusting that our succor to our brothers will be manifest in our global reach as a worldwide church organization with stakes spanning the entire globe through Christ's design and heavenly organization.  Gone are the days when Mormons in other parts of the globe descend on Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, and eventually to Utah to practice their faith.  Today, our stakes can be firmly planted where the faithful reside.

Edited December 10, 2015 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

My own cold calculus:  roughly 1% of Muslims are radical.  Maybe less.  We invite them in at a vulnerable time, after the Muslim world has failed to receive them.  Church people help sponsor them.  How many converts will we see?  Historically, refugees have been a great source of new converts.  And then...maybe 20 or 30 of these refugees stay true to their radical roots.  Maybe two or three complete a successful terrorist act, and kill roughly 50 people.  Was the wealth of new converted souls worth losing the lives of that 50--many of whom will meet the Maker?

 

In reality, government will have to answer that question.  I'd just hate to see church people sounding very un-Jesus-like. 

[Guest]

My own cold calculus:  roughly 1% of Muslims are radical.  Maybe less.  We invite them in at a vulnerable time, after the Muslim world has failed to receive them.  Church people help sponsor them.  How many converts will we see?  Historically, refugees have been a great source of new converts.  And then...maybe 20 or 30 of these refugees stay true to their radical roots.  Maybe two or three complete a successful terrorist act, and kill roughly 50 people.  Was the wealth of new converted souls worth losing the lives of that 50--many of whom will meet the Maker?

 

In reality, government will have to answer that question.  I'd just hate to see church people sounding very un-Jesus-like. 

 

It might be worth mentioning that 70% of those will vote Democrat. 

[Just_A_Guy]

You don't understand, Anatess. We need these immigrants, to elect the politicians that native-born Americans just won't vote for!

Edited December 10, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[JojoBag]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-religious-freedom-pluralism

My BIL has been flooding Twitter with similar dialogue for the last few weeks (apparently his LDS friends/acquaintances are a bit more Islamaphobic than mine). With rhetoric floating around in public discourse proposing measures that would restrict the religious liberty of Muslims significantly, it's important to remember that the LDS church has some very striking parallels in its history. I'm glad to see that the official stance of the Church continues to be one of compassion, in keeping with the 11th Article of Faith.

 

First off, "Islamophobic" is a concocted, pathetic liberal/communist PC term to label or stereotype anyone who disagrees with or speaks out against radical Islam, and by extension, the liberal/communist agenda.  Secondly, there is nothing in the statement from the Church that says we should put up with radical Islamic terrorism.  I do take from it the idea that we should tolerate peaceful Muslims and any other peaceful religion. 

 

When you have an American president (who has connections with the Muslim Brotherhood, a proscribed terrorist organization) who practically has an apoplectic fit at the thought of saying, "Islamic terrorism;" when you have a DOJ that has a number of Muslims who are members or supporters of CAIR, another unindicted Muslim terrorist support organization; when the FBI has stripped from its teaching syllabus any mention of Islamic terrorism and instead, targets Christians, patriots, veterans, supporters of the 2nd Amendment, "Constitutionalists," and any conservative group that opposes the liberal/communist agenda, then I think a bit of caution is in order when it comes to the vetting process of so-called Muslim refugees.

 

 What we have now is pathetic.  The two CA terrorists slipped right through the pathetic process and killed over a dozen people.  There are precedents for stopping immigration.  All immigration was stopped in the 1920's because of communists terrorists.  Anyone hear of the 1920 Wall Street bombing?  After that, immigration was stopped in 1924 until 1965.  During the Iran crisis, Jimmy Carter stopped the immigration of all Iranians. 

 

It has nothing to do with religion.  It has everything to do with terrorism and people whose whole agenda is the destruction of this country.

[pam]

I had to edit the above post.  Please keep in mind that we CAN NOT bring up the names of any current political candidates in our discussions.