Mormons And Catholics Upset At Being The Target Of Prop 8 Protests
By Nicole Belle Saturday Nov 08, 2008 5:03pmHypocrisy much? The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints is unhappy about the fact that the media spotlight is trained on its participation in making Prop 8 happen.
In an official statement on the church's web site, bearing false witness and hypocrisy is the order of the day.
It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.
Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States - that of free expression and voting.
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.
Bzzt. Wrong answer. The people protesting the church's significant role in an another state's democratic process -- members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave millions of dollars to remove the civil rights of human beings -- are merely exercising their right to free speech to highlight that role.
And what is this "erroneous information"? Who knows, the church doesn't say. [..]
And the Catholic church is also lying baldly:
Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church was also a target for supporting Proposition 8.
"Proposition 8 is not against any group in our society. Its sole focus is on preserving God's plan for people living upon this earth throughout time," Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles, said in a statement Thursday.
WTF? Wait a minute. Prop 8 just removed an existing right from one specific group of people. There's no way to whitewash this. There's no spin that takes away the fact that religious institutions that backed Proposition 8 did so because of their faith -- interfering with the laws of California.
Sorry, LDS and Catholic Churches, let me pull out my tiny violin for you. You have used the tenets of your faith to infringe upon my secular government to take away rights from people, and I'm supposed to feel bad that protests are targeting you? I just don't think so. Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller? You have targeted the LGBT community today, but what happens when someone targets any faith, because it's not the "right" faith? What if they target you? Inequality is inequality and it should never be tolerated.
Login or Register to post comments.
my crudeness.
Fuck mormons and catholics.
But that's not the point.
Why the fuck did Californians vote for Prop 8?
And I'm straight.
And not reading the proposition.
Stupid is as stupid does.
And I'm a Californian.
in your state.
Californians are well-informed and smart and well educated.
I just don't understant how Prop 8 went down.
Get away from the coast and the major urban areas, and there are plenty of bible thumping types.
Also there is a sizable conservative population esp. in SoCal: Orange County, San Diego, and other places where mcmansions sprawl like mushrooms tend to have their local mega church where they get their weekly dose of god-approved hate.
We got out spent.
That and their agenda was nothing more than lies.
"Freedom of Speech", Freedom of Religion"?
Stupid is as Stupid does.
That, and I noticed it was run by people(on the streets) by ethnic groups. Here in Monterey they were thick with Hispanics and Filipinos. I'm sorry, but that's who they were.
I was dissapointed when I read that the majority of African Americans voting on Prop 8 did in favor.
I guess the irony, of them being now the ones in favor of stripping the civil rights of other people, did not sink in their minds.
The only silver lining, is that a similar prop a few years ago would not have been as close in defeat (so we are progressing I guess). Alas this is not an amendment but a revision to the ca constitution, which I believe requires a constitutional referendum. And thus, I am sure it will be thrown out by the supreme court... alas you never know.
In any case, it is about time to strip the tax exception to the people who meddled politics with religion. Enough... time to pay up bitches.
You're absolutely right!! When religious groups invest their money in political activities then they should be paying taxes.
No no. I don't want them paying taxes, no matter how much they want to get involved with political affairs..
They're a religion. Its their job to make people live by stupid rules. The further away they are from the state, the more likely they are to have their asses kicked in court and the better it is for the rest of us.
I still think they should have to pay taxes if they want to be politically involved. Other organizations have rules and regulations to follow, yet these religious organizations are allowed to spend all of the money they want to oppose or endorse issues/candidates. I mean, if they want to express their political stance, then by all means - go ahead. But pay the piper on the way. Or, am missing something? Doesn't everyone else have to do that?
Why are churches tax exempt? To free up cash to push an agenda? To promote narrow views at the expense of others? What is the justification? Are they just minding their own business? Devoting their funds to charitable acts?
My polling place was in the local Knights of Columbus Hall in Los Angeles. May I ask why they were also a major funding source of the Yes on 8 campaign? Conflict of interest much?
Um...for the same reason that GLAAD and the ACLU are? They promote certain beliefs and don't make money off of it. There's nothing illegal about that.
Because technically, they're not allowed to be politically involved, at least for the most part. When it comes right down to it, churches are just another species of non-profit group, and there are very strict IRS rules involving their actions and spending that must be followed, or their tax-exempt status can be taken away.
Theoretically.
In theory, these groups cannot spend any money supporting any political campaign. And in theory, these groups cannot speak for or against any political campaign. A pastor can preach a sermon that says the church doctrine does not believe in abortion, but cannot say "Don't vote for X because he's pro-choice." The idea is that the church can say what it believes, but it's up to the church member to decide which candidate or issue to vote for.
Theoretically. Let's see if the IRS is as enthusiastic about investigating these churches as they were about investigating ministers that made anti-war statements.
who were participants in the EXIT POLL, voted for Prop. 8.
Don't join Andrew Sullivan's bigoted hatefest in blaming African-Americans for the passage of Prop 8, when African-Americans only account for 10% of the ENTIRE State POPULATION, and it is statistically proven that more of all ethnicities voted for Prop 8 besides African-Americans.
This erroneous meme is being repeated with a lack of facts.
First off, it wasn't only Mormons that voted YES TO PROP 8. everyone commenting is making themselves look very unintelligent on the subject. If you look into it, it was a huge variety from all walks of life that voted yes, that do not agree with gay marriage. And Mormons just don't live in Utah, they also live in California and in almost every country of the world. So i hope it comes as no surprise when i say that Mormons from other states didn't come to California under the guise of resident of Cali and vote yes, it was CALIFORNIANS!!!!
Also, not sure if anyone has noticed the protesting going on outside our temples and churches. Give me a break, it's over, it passed, go home and find a better solution. Since when has protesting worked in this day and age. It doesn't. If it's so important, find a way to get it on the ballot again and get it passed.
The actual entity known as the LDS church, didn't donate a dime, hence you will have no luck getting the tax exempt status revoked, it was individual citizens who happen to be members. We actually believe in not letting go of morals, and would prefer not to have our children be force fed homosexuality in school. Plenty of americans feel that way, that's why the prop passed. Stop living in ignorance, you need to yell at everyone who passed the prop cause i gaurantee you, it probably included some of your very own neighbors who happen to not be Mormon. You all once again sound very ignorant and are all just jumping on a bandwagon of ignorance. Research it and find out the truth. laws pass because the majority of the people desire them, and if someone is stupid enough to vote based on what they saw on TV because of a well donated campaign they are 100% idiots. I promise you this proposition passed due to the beliefs of the majority.
During the summer, leaders of the Mormon Church sent out a letter asking members to contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign. They responded by donating tens of millions of dollars.
Read these articles:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10839546
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051
and the irony : http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/queer-town/...
staticrug and a couple pals that just hit this thread are disgusting hypocrites. Professing a belief in Christ, while trying to vote certain brethren off of the island.
Many people were decieved by the ad campaigns that basically said first graders were going to be taught that they should marry someone of the same sex. This was based off of CA school code 51980 and an incident in Mass.
What wasn't explained was that California codes are different that Mass. and they only teach the legal and financial responsibilities of marriage, when the student is mature enough to understand. Most people bought the lie and also didn't know that in CA school code 51914 states that any cirriculim change must be approved by the school board and the PTA. Also anyone can remove their child from any health class instruction in the state of CA if they disagree on a moral basis and parents will be informed of changes. No On 8 was honest. Yes on 8 was deceptive and organized through churches.
One word: Bakersfield.
Because even left-wingers aren't completely immune to the potential threat of a posthumous penalty system imposed by an invisible sky genie who doesn't like gays.
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/newsrepo...
47% of American Catholics are pro-choice.
32% of American Catholics support the right of gay marriage (and another 36% support "civil unions" which should be the legal term for all marriages anyway).
As a member of the 47% and the 32%: F* you too.
Nice, blame a group that only makes up 2% of the population. Why not get mad at Hispanic's, they came out in droves and mostly voted yes. And they are mostly Catholic. Or, how about Blacks. 68% of African American voters voted Yes. I guess we should be mad at Obama who helped increase the African American turnout. Grow up and understand that the democratic process took place and the voters have spoken. I love how everyone jumps on the Hollywood bandwagon so quickly.
I am sorry you feel to say "%@#^" the mormons or the catholics without any research on your part! I suppose you trust crooksandliars.com as I did. They really got it wrong on this one. Here are the facts with SOURCES!
The Facts:
1. Mormons make up less than 2% percent of the population of California. There are approximately 800,00 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then out of a total of 5,661,583 yes votes. LDS voters made up 4.4% of the Yes vote and 2.3% of the total Proposition 8 vote (11,050,301).
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign (except for a nominal, and legal,in-kind donation of $2,078.97, to cover the travel expenses of leaders coming from utah for a meeting). Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and exercising their constituational right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unoficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $36 million, making it the most expensie non-presidential election in the country.
To view all 12 facts, go to:
http://www.facebook.com/group?gid=38669132820
SOURCES
1. http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsrooom/eng/...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
3. http://sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
To see all the SOURCES go here
http://www.facebook.com/group?gid=38669132820
and non credible sources. Nice one, Einstein.
and it included this little gem:
Now comes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which grabbed some TV time in Utah to urge the 770,000 Mormon church members in California to weigh in on the matter.
Now why would the LDS buy TV spots in Utah for an election in California? Trying to dodge some church/state separation laws there?
That Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. The article says "You have used the tenets of your faith to infringe upon my secular government to take away rights from people..."
The people of California voted! They voted in favor of the proposition. This is the second time in under 10 years that the people in California have voted this way.
The first vote was in 2000 and I don't have the number of votes, but 61% of Californians voted for the traditional definition of marriage. Then, this year 4 judges out of 7 overturned the decision of millions (61%) of Californians because the judges said it was not constitutional.
So in 2008 they voted to change the CA constitution and 5,682,924 people voted for it in a legal, public election. Now there is talk that judges will overturn that too. If it happens it would likely be the vote of 4 people that overturn the votes of 5,682,924.
Now who is taking rights away from whom?
So the Mormons are upset? Why don't they mind their own friggin business? Catholics too. Why are these groups so hung up on sexuality? Shouldn't they be helping the poor? Jeez!
Then they should have kept their noses and their money out of California's BUSINESS.
Oh, and I echo the sentiment that if your church is going to get involved in political activities, they should lose their tax-exempt status and start paying up to the Government.
If the Old Testament followers were true to their beliefs, they would stop cherry-picking the Bible's social directives and publically embrace all of the lunacy and hatred. They should start pressuring local governments to zone public stoning facilities for children who are disobedient and waitresses and doctors who work on the Sabbath, etc., and the FDA to ban clam chowder and bacon 'n eggers, and on and on with the whole of the word of their god.
The Mormons can have their own state where they have their rules. The rest of us will stay out. Let them keep their multiple wives, and their special underwear, and those holy tablets that would have proven them right, but then somehow disappeared into mid-air. We can even change the name of Utah to Mindless-Sheep-Who-Believe-in-Ridiculousness-iana
Leave the rest of the country to people that actually think for themselves. Well, except for Idaho, Mississippi and Oklahoma - you can have them too.
The rest of the country that actually thinks for themselves also do not allow gay marriage.
Then you probably wnat to get rid of the fedral government who defines marriage as between one man and one woman--although they do recognize marraiges from stated that define it otherwise. Or maybe you want to get rid of the 30 or so other states that have the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in their state constitution. Or how about those other 10 or so states that have a statute that define marriage as between a man and a woman. Or the other 8 or so states that also do allow same sex marriage.
Yeah let's get rid of all those states like you said and have the other 2-3 states secede and fend for themselves because they are the only ones who are not mindless sheep.
Oh but I guess you probably didn't know that. If you actually thought for yourself and weren't such a bigoted, mindless sheep you probably would have.
oh, I'm sorry, that wasn't nice. but anyway, californians voted for a black president, and against gay marriage. it's weird out there.
How many years did people in Pennsylvania vote for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry and keep Rick Santorum as their senator? That's even stupider than Prop 8.
they got death with dignity in washington state, but I think the word dignity is offensive to people so don't expect it where you are any time soon.
That "license to incite fear/to repress/to murder/to deny humanness" is a classic non-rational abstraction that ideologies use to keep the subjects/teeming unwashed/believers in line. How is it possible for a sane, sentient primate in 2008 to disregard the empirically-verified explanations of Copernicus, Darwin and Crick/Watson re our place in the universe and how life evolved on this little blue marble and spout this pre-scientific nonsense? And with a straight face, no less. Fucking amazing. And then have the balls to impose that same nonsense on their fellow citizens.
That's the trouble with thumpers dealing in politics.
This ain't church, so we don't have to listen
We can shout you down
Then put you down
It's called Democracy.
Over many years the Church has gotten in bed with the Law Makers as we've seen in this Election. Now working with Satan aka White House this comes as no surprise. God created all humans and only he has the right to judge. These Pasters are not using the word of God but their personal beliefs. I refuse to judge anyone because I remember when the church used the word of God to defend Slavery and racism. It's wrong to deny anyone their God given right. I think anyone not given equal rights should refuse to pay taxes to a country. Tax dollars are to be used for all Americans. The way that Prop 8 was written was confusing and that's why it passed.
The church also used the "word of God" to condemn a guy named Jesus.
But I'm sure Christians are better than that
Isn't there some nagging little rule about churches getting directly involved in politics? Anybody care to direct IRS attention toward the meddling Mormon church?
Oh, and may this bite them on their petty, pious asses so hard they bleed.
If the governator could collect property taxes from the 'godly' who inject their religion into secular politics, we (CA) wouldn't have such a budget crisis.
Would you be opposed to churches campaigning for the end to torture in Guantanamo Bay? Same thing. Be careful what you wish for.
Don't make comparisons that aren't valid.
I would expect a church to point out that torture is a bad thing. Kind of like you expect them to be pretty much anti-sin in general. Churches and ministers have always expressed viewpoints and taken action for causes that they believe in.
But last time I checked, the issue of torture at Gitmo is not up for a public vote. And if it were, I would expect ministers to devote sermons to the church doctrine regarding torture, and the evil of mistreating others.
But if that church starts donating money to either side, or that minister starts telling parishioners which way to vote, then they have crossed the line. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with their church, there are some actions that they cannot legally take while being exempt from paying taxes.
And the idea that anyone could compare torturing people with state recognition of same-sex marriage rights is a pretty far-fetched comparison.
wanting to wax pious about ANYTHING.
They covered up pedophile Priests in their midst for YEARS, and they were allowed to roam freely from parish to parish, abusing kids, while the POPE said JACK SHYT.
How dare they get involved with telling people how to live their lives, while they have the pedophile priest scandal still fresh in EVERYONE'S MINDS?
but from what I've read it appears that the ACLU and others have a very good chance of getting this proposition revoked.
What if the Mormon church decided that it was against their religion for blacks to marry whites and the proposition read "marriage can only be between two individuals of the same race."
Even if 99% of Californians voted to pass that law, it could not stand because of federal equal protection laws. How come prop 8 got on the ballot in the first place.
It got put on the ballot because state law allows pretty much anything to be put on the ballot if there are enough signatures in support.
And federal equal protection laws have not been determined by the court to extend to sexual orientation, or to the recognition of same-sex marriage. If they had, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the protections that the CA Supreme Court had recognized would already be the law across the nation.
Additionally, if a Mormon wanted to convert to Catholicism they would have to be rebaptised.
Catholics don't require that of all converts.
They claim Mormon baptisms are invalid (I think they say the same thing about Jehovah Witnesses.)
My guess is they lack Apostolic Succession.
So since I was raised a Mormon, and been excommunicated and practicing Witchcraft for more decades then I wish to admit to, it was like I was never a Christian at all.
Gee, I sure wish some of them Mormons and Catholics would come to MY house and explain to me just how unfair it is. While they're at it, the Catholics can explain that whole "eatin' fish-sticks on Friday" rule, and the Mormons can explain to me why "magic underwear" is so important
Musk
There are four possible sources for the fish on Friday rule.
One: Their prepping themselves for Sunday mass. It's a smaller version of Lent. Red meat eaters can have a distinct scent in their sweat in pre-deoderant days.
Two: Before the cruciform the symbol of Christianity was the fish, as in fishers of men.
Three: Vikings, and presumably other Germanic tribes, held the fish to be sacred to Freya, and ate it on her day Friday. So it was held over after they were "converted."
Four: The Ancient Greek Pythagorians (Orphics) practiced vegetarianism, but would eat fish. They claimed fish were not created sexually but by seminal water.
Christians borrowed the latter term as seminal air. So presumably the angel Gabriel could get Mary pregnant by just whispering in her ear the name of the child-to-be.
So the Mormon Church is the victim and were just exorcising -- I mean exercising their constitutional right to campaign politically to take away the rights, opportunities, and public benefits of non-Mormons living outside their state's domain. And we have the right to an economic boycott all things Utah. No conventions, no ski trips there, no visits to Hawaii's Polynesian Culture park (run by BYU), no hiring of BYU grads, the works. This quack cult masquerading as a religion is akin to scientology, banned throughout Europe. Let's take away their tax exemption, or even worse, force the Republicans to nominate Romney in 2012. That'll fix 'em!
Surprised no one has protested the black communities yet considering the exit polls said they voted I think 69% for prop-8, even though they didn't fund the campaign like the churches did. I know at dailykos it seems half of them are ready to have a race war on it.
NOT advocating doing such, just commenting on the post-8 reactions I've seen all over
I was listening to Frangela on the Stephanie Miller show explaining that blacks make up 10% of the nation and get blamed for 90% of the shinola. That means there were a lot more whites voting for 8. Let's just boycott everybody. Especially Utahans.
But I'm looking around and the backlash on prop-8 has hit a very racial tone.
Check these out for what I'm saying, besides glancing at dailykos:
http://www.jasmynecannick.com
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/1...
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/11/our_choice_on...
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?di...
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?di...
I don't live in CA, so I wasn't exposed to the campaigns - so this is a comment and a queestion....
It seems to me the blacks apparently didn't see this as a vote against oppression of a particular group, because we know they are sensitive to that issue.
Did proponents not get that message out strongly enough to the black community?
Someone needs to clues these morons in to the fact that just because someone has an opinion, that doesn't mean they aren't safe either from having to validate it or from being criticized because of it.
No theist can show evidence for the existence of a god.
No theist can show evidence for the existence of a soul.
No theist can show evidence for other people having souls, by which, they would have to follow the same kind of spirituality they do.
No theist can show, through the evidence of how the universe was created that there is any evidence that points to the existence of a conscious decision that would answer a why the universe or any specific individual within it exists.
These assholes most definitely deserve every bit of the grief they are getting. Buncha crackpots.
The problem is philosophically they don't have to. The burden is on the other side to prove there aren't such things, and logically you can't prove a negative.
However, the theists fail in that same logical test, when they claim their God is the only one, and not one of many.
Don't hand me that agnostic hogwash. Even the most basic of philosophical arguments require validation to be taken seriously. It is not the responsibility of anyone to show that anything doesn't exist when crackpot conjecturists can't show evidence that something even could exist under the right circumstances.
It is not up to opponents of 9/11 conspiracy theorist to show that they are full of shit.
It is not up to opponents of the "time cube", Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, ghosts, UFOs, or vampires to show they do not exist.
It is not up to the opponents of the Creationism or Intelligent Design to show that their notions are total bullshit.
And furthermore the amount of time a conjecture has been around for gives no credibility to its potential for accuracy.
Until any theist actually has evidence to support there could be a god, "I don't know" is not a responsible validation for even the potential of conjectural accuracy. The answer of "I don't know" can only be remotely acceptable in hypothetical notions since hypotheses actually have previous information to fall back on. There is no case in which a stagnant concept of "I don't know" has ever yielded accurate information regarding the potential validity or invalidity of a concept.
Meanwhile, in reality, the incredible lack of evidence for the existence of any G/god acts as exclusionary evidence and effectively removes the possibility that any such entity could exist. Since the evidence points to the non-existence of any entity, the only valid default is that it does NOT exist.
If you can not understand that, then its obvious that your position isn't that you "can't know" or that you "don't know". You just simply "don't want to know" in the hopes that somehow the rational can live in peace and harmony with the irrational. Tell me, what social or political applications do you think it would be reasonable to allow anyone with an irrational or unvalidated philosophy to use as a basis for their judgments regarding how any other rational person should view the same issue?
In other words, if person A has a set of ethical values that can not be validated by anything other than "Because I want to believe in it", what social or political issues would it be reasonable or safe for that person to set mandatory guidelines for so that any other person, B, with a set of guidelines that can be validated, can coexist with in harmony and without conflict?
The answer? There are no circumstances where this is viable. Because once a person has used an irrational or invalid conjectural assumption to validate any political or social stance, regardless of its potential for benefit, any other person can use the exact same invalid conjectural assumption to validate any abusive social or political position.
Anyone who claims there is or that there could be a conscious force behind the WHO or WHY regarding the construction of the universe without any evidence present of a conscious force in the HOW the universe was created is lying to themselves. Taking any assumed spiritual conjecture directly into social application is ethically unjustifiable. At any level.
Simply put, the irrational can NOT coexist with the rational outside of a purely fictional environment. Your agnostic views fail on the theoretical level and in application. You should be ashamed of yourself.
But since you're here. Answer me this. Why are there no polytheistic agnostics? Why is it that agnostics tend to only suggest that their could possibly be a Christian God? Why do they never apply their same notions to suggest that there could also be an Odin or a Zeus or a Ra? Why is it, when it comes to your final conclusions (or rather, inconclusions), you use similar wording to what the Intelligent Design proponents us, that any creator could be considered the creator, but in reality you're just using it to try to validate a potential existence for the Christian God?
Hey, wican or witch or whatever you are, keep in mind Carl Sagan's tenet that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you find this too easy, then give Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", the greatest work in epistemology since Kant's Critique of Pure Reason a read. Get back to us when you've paid some dues.
Your argument isn't with theism, it's with a system of ethics. Their belief in God (which cannot be proved or disproved) may bolster their belief that they are correct, but there are plenty of pompous, condescending, dogmatic atheists out there as well. Communism was pretty damned dogmatic about what was right and what was wrong, as an example.
You have allies in this fight, who find your atheism to be naive.
First of all, conjecture, hypotheses, and theories can't be proven or disproven. They can only have evidence for and against. So let's not pretend that just because your conjecture of "god exists" isn't a a mathematical law, that it isn't total bullshit, shall we?
Secondly, Atheism isn't a system of ethics. Atheism is only one value. There is no god. All other philosophical values must therefore be imported from other philosophical sources. The significant difference is that atheists must actually show their work to validate their philosophical values instead of relying on narcissistic pseudo-validations such as "My G/god said so".
Atheism is by no means a free philosophical pass, but those who adhere to the singular rational value within it before adhering to any further philosophical values will always have the potential to have greater social values than any who utilize invisible sky genies for their social and political philosophies could ever wish (ie pray) to have. Your religions, on the other hand, keeps its people within a perpetual philosophical welfare state.
Attempting to blame the economic naivete or the social ideals of Marxist Communism on Atheism just shows how poorly prepared you are to discuss such matters. Especially when Ronald Reagan implemented the exact same economic fundamentals under the name of Trickle-down economics.
Correlation does not equate to causation. Especially when it comes to Atheism.
You have no soul by default.
You have no god by default.
You have no validation to stand upon.
Get over yourself. I don't ally myself with those that want to get rid of one system of stupidity just to turn around and replace it with another one.
Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.” They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good
How do I Know there is a God?
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
My Faith is the evidence you deny.
But that is OK...God made us all "Free Moral Agents". We all have to decide if we are going accept God...or Reject God..WHY?
He wanted a Love of CHOICE. He could have pre-programmed us...much like Pre-Arranged Marriages....but would you like it someone told you who to marry? A Love of CHOICE is the Greatest.
Closing Thought:
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
This is Jesus talking to ya...
John 15:21-23
But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also.
You can't show evidence for love either, so why worry about marriage?
Despite what crackpots might think, there have actually been studies as to what physical chemicals are produced in a very physical brain when feeling of love are produced.
The biochemical reactants are as follows:
Oxytocin
Vasopressin
Phenethylamine (PEA)
Dopamine
Serotonin
Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)
Testosterone
Estrogen
Norepinephrine
PEA is the same chemical found in chocolate, which is why it is thought as an aphrodesiac.
Science has dissected love. Now its your turn. Show me evidence you have a soul, and where does it appear on the CAT Scan?
I suspect a lot of Californians went out and voted a straight (no pun intended) Democratic ticket and didn't bother to vote on the propositions. Most of the people who voted for proposition eight went to the polls solely for that purpose. I don't know if that theory holds up, I'd have to see the data, but I have a strong suspicion that's what happened.
Firstly, I haven't heard of any anti-8 protestors committing violent crimes against Mormons and Catholics or vandalising their houses of worship. If those things have happened, then they're no good, but if they're just whining about people saying "You're a bunch of bullies!", then grow up, geez. I look at what synagogues and black churches have been through at our history and I have to see this as just being a bunch of crybabies.
And nothing pisses me off quite like people invoking "free speech" to request protection from the consequences of their speech. Sorry, that freedom---like all freedoms---comes with responsibility, and "free speech" means not just you, but your critics, detractors, and yes aggrieved victims as well.
I wonder if their protests are loud enough to disturb church services. Or if congregants have to work through crowds of them to get into the sanctuary.
It's against the law in many places to make excessive loud noises outside a church during services. And as for working through the crowds that would be ironic considering how they crowd in on those going into family planning clinics. They've even beaten down laws requiring distance between them and the front door.
And some Christians will attend services of another that may not be anti-abortion enough for them, and deliberatly disturb the service.
People who believe in invisible cities in the sky will believe anything. Lock these lunatics up!
Or at least keep them away from the women and children.
Regressive fucks. I hope they all give birth to humans who happen to be homosexual and watch as their children are denied basic human rights. Dumb fucks all.
The mormon church managed to push for an agenda that strips other people of their civil rights AND them mormons also get to play the victim card.
I don't believe in heaven or hell, but sometimes I wish I were wrong just to have the certainty that there is a specific ring reserved for these assholes in hell.
Rings of Hell are primarily from Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy. Some scholars postulate he got the idea from Islam. Funny thing about this comedy is if anyone today says something is divine, everyone suspects he's gay.
I've got a copy of L'Inferno (1911), directed by Giuseppe de Liguoro. They started filming it in 1909, and being over an hour in length, it was way ahead of it's time. They had early special effects, and some of the scenes in the middle tend to sag, but I found myself laughing toward the end when they showed the Devil slurping down sinners, because he looked like a roly-poly bearded Italian enjoying a spaghetti dinner.
Mormons believe in what they call Outer Darkness (sounds like the title a Rod Serling show). I think the Bible on at least one occassion did refer to Hell as such. It's not physical torture but seperation reserved for killers and false-prophets.
I knew there was a reason I've been boycotting Utah my whole life. Hey,that Joseph Smith, what a guy, huh? Yeah, that's who I want forming the basis of a religion that dictates my moral compass.
Rumor has it that many early converts of Joseph Smith were women smitten with him. Then they would bring their family into the church.
http://nowscape.com/mormon/joseph.jpg
My mother was the first in our family to be converted to Mormonism, my father was the son of a theosophist. But she brought the rest of us in. But she was the first to leave after about 4 heart attacks and two strokes. The second one took away her power of speech, and she didn't want to be pitied. The third one killed her; she was 46.
Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information. - the mormons
"a spirit of mutual respect and civility"
REALLY? ... how does that jive with the lying and cheating?
"No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed..."
REALLY? ... 'cause it sure seems the church has done plenty of that...
really.
Read the comments in this thread and you'll understand why the LDS church made this statement.
Has anyone opposing Prop 8 issued a similar call for respect and civility?
I posted on another site. Stand at the entrance of the Church of latter day saints tomorrow and take license numbers, follow up who they work for and let their employers know you don't support religious racism and if as long as these mormons work for them no business from us. They can say and act however they want but there will be consequences for their position.
That sounds a bit like stalking. I wouldn't advice it.
Although thumpers get away with it with patrons driving up to a strip club.
So, you're saying we should stalk people and target them based on what church they go to? Target a business because they're hired someone that attends a particular church?
That's nuts.
Frangella on Stephanie Miller friday, talking about this...
the blacks who voted for this were told by barack that he didn't want gay marriage either... nice sound clip editing for robo calls...
hopefully he will help get it straightened out with and for them...
with obama's pic on them
but biden did say that he and obama did not support gay marriage
i just dont believe that they would support this amendment
both biden and obama are on record as saying they don't support gay marriage, but at the same time they would vote against prop 8 because it's discriminatory and has no place in any state's constitution.
i am fine with this reasoning. you don't have to support gay marriage, but you can't keep people from doing it.
Loved the post, Nicole! It was spot on!
I was born and raised a Catholic. I do believe in God. I do not believe in mans interpretation of God and his laws. I haven't stepped into a Catholic church in 25 years. They refused to let my sister marry in their church because she pregnant. That was the beginning. God teaches love and tolerance. Man teaches hate and intolerance. LDS and the Catholic church deserves this scrutiny. IF they want to put themselves into laws of this country, then take away their tax exempt status and let them go at it.
And to the Catholic church...Maybe they should spend a little less time on gay marriage and more time keeping their priest away from little boys. Hypocrites.
I have figured out what I hate these religious type people so much. They sell their religion the same way a salesperson keeps bothering you about a product.
What's their product? It's fear. Fear of being burnt in Hell forever. That's really all they have. The more I am approached by these people the more I think these guys should be confined to a rubber room.
My take is you only join a religion because its voluntary and because you choose to believe in it. And now like Nazis they seem to be going all out to take away GLBT rights.
And yeah I certainly hope the Rapture really comes and send all these intolerant people to a real Hell.
One reason this recent election gave me hope is that a vote for Barack Obama and the type of electorate indicates a majority go for secular, and I dare say, rational views.
Am a catholic and I don't support my church on any bedroom issues including who you want to love. Everyone is very upset and I really understand that. I don't go to church very often but here is a suggestion to you all that believe in separation of church and state no matter what the issue is. Start going to your churches and when they start promoting these issues start recording them when they tell you who to vote for, you will have proof. Collect any programs they hand out. Do like they did to the republican party. Infiltrate and don't let them know who you are. Start taking notes and names. When you have the information go to a trusted legal person in the ACLU (those so called evil doers,ha) and see if you have rights to take away their tax exemption. This pass election has gotten out of hand. If Palin comes around in 4 yrs than something can be done ahead of time to stop these crazies. This is only a suggestion. I know there are alot of smart people in the blog world so maybe you can get the ball rolling and good luck.
I go now, time for Radox, Pears, Pinaud and burgundy.
When the catholics pull out of choir boys various orifices and the mormons stop schtupping 12 year old girls...I know,it's just the jeff's
mormons that do that shit-right.
Then i might be ... no! You know what? fuck that.These god whores have no business injecting anything into political discourse.
It's as simple as that.
Fuck them.
Iunderstand your anger but that isn't going to get you anywhere. Be like Obama take a deep breath, stop, think before you go crazy. There are alot of churchs that support the gay community. Don't throw it all away on a few nut jobs. I was on democratic underground and they listed at least 10 or more churches that support gay rights.
Is this representative of the beliefs of those who oppose Prop 8? No wonder it passed! Who would want to be found in agreement with this?
When you speak without thinking, you do not give your cause a good name.
This is NOT how support is gained, nor progress made.
they dont solve the basic questions
can the people speak by simple majority to change a state constitution?
if one has already passed laws protecting gays from discrimination based on the equal protection clause, can one change the constitution that supercedes that same equal protection clause?
i dont believe that these protests are solving anything
just as the protests for illegals made it worse for them
just a thought
Not if the change is, by itself, unconstitutional.
But I agree. Protests do nothing more than let people know that there are other people who oppose a particular social or political position. We already know that they oppose the revision of Prop 8. There's can be no doubt that there are people who oppose it.
So they need to move beyond "protest" and do something about it.
My suggestion is education in the form of booklets. The gays need their own version of Jack T Chick.
Otherwise, the alternative is to wait for the older generations of bible-humpers to die off so that they're concept of what their god wants dies off with them. This is unfortunately, what ultimately ends up happening.
Now you got it. Educating the gay community and your friends plus the religious communities that do support you.. But do not get ugly by fighting in the streets. Because that is what they want. You keep it respectfull at all times.
can the people speak by simple majority to change a state constitution?
This is the biggest WTF of the entire issue. Any document which can be modified by a simple majority vote has no right to be called a Consitution. California state government sounds like a farce to me.
And you've identified the legal argument that will be made in California.
There's no way to argue that Prop 8 is unconstitutional (not in CA at least). By definition, once the constitution is amended, the action is constitutional.
But it IS possible that the means by which the constitution was amended is illegal, which would invalidate the amendment.
We'll be seeing a flurry of lawsuits on this one.
From this day forward please refer to the LDS Church as the Latter Day Bigots Church......They dare take my rights for happiness away and then protest my protesting, are they insane? I guess that question has been answered, yes they are not only bigots but they are insane bigots.
they didnt take your right to happinness away
you can still cohabitate with your partner....you can even get married in a church
you can even take tax deductions
you just cant use the word "marriage"
Because you're woefully uneducated about the differences between a state-sanctioned marriage and cohabitation, or even a "registered civil union."
banning the use of holy underwear
as i do not wear this type of underwear, i am afraid of what will happen when my children ask me why?
why dont we wear holy underwear daddy?
what can i say?
who's with me????
YES ON BANNING THE HOLY UNDERWEAR
“Agree with them or not, the Catholics and Mormons that supported Prop 8 did so (as best I can tell) as we hope citizens will, raising money, holding rallies, etc. What have the California gay marriage proponents offered in return? Threats against the churches. Racist epithets. Bullying tactics meant to intimidate and terrorize those that financially backed Prop 8.
All else being equal, my gut reaction is to empathize with those being attacked by angry mobs. I suspect others feel that way as well” Confederate Yankee
The whole reason we are faced with this dilemma to begin with is because too many people believe that our choices are subject entirely to our temptations. Most of us aren't even as mature as Forrest Gump- instead of stupid is as stupid does, we've regressed to stupid is as stupid feels.
What kind of society would this be if everyone expected everyone else to "tolerate" their indecent behavior? The fact that they go so far as to object to the workings of democracy, simply because it worked against them, is an ominous manifestation of actions they believe are justified.
I don't expect everyone dealing with homosexual tendencies to deal with it the way I think they should. But I DO expect the people of this nation to be able to voice their opinion and for that opinion to be respected.
screw that bullshit. Just because someone has an opinion that doesn't make it a rational or even a respectable opinion and all theistic opinions are irrational, inherently.
There is no reason why any rational person should be respectful or even tolerant of people with irrational and sociopathic viewpoints.
I feel no sympathy for the mormons.
Just who would be the arbiter of indecent behavior?
Who really cares if two men or two women want to marry?
What's indecent about loving someone and wanting to make
the relationship permanent with a ceremony?
They didn't say they wanted to blow each other in public.
I find intolerance rather indecent. I loathe prostheletizing (sp?)
and find it indecent. People are way too bothered by two men
or two women wanting to marry, why do they really care?
The Mormon Church is following the same, destructive path of divisiveness as the Republican Party, and the Mormon's short-term thinking that provides them the moral masturbation of winning a couple of elections, like the Republicans, will ultimately lead to their downfall.
With their tens of millions inserted into another state's referendum, in favor of a law that won't feed one person, won't heal one patient, won't build one road, they deservedly have become the political face of this social injustice, a face they will not be able to either pray or whine away.
Andrew Sullivan has it about right
The Mormon Church, victor this week, is simply on the wrong side of history and, like the Republicans, will discover one day that itself will be judged as it has judged others.
And yet I'm seeing a lot of intolerance in these comments. Hard to tell the difference between these comments against Mormons, and comments from the right about gays or blacks.
Utterly despicable.
I am intolerant of bullies, particularly religious ones who wield the cross as a weapon to pick on people who are different than them rather than a symbol of worship. The Mormon Church had a choice and chose to be the political bully front and center, and now it politically owns the issue. Don't whine or play the victim when people fight back. Those people did nothing to you.
One must make a distinction between the Mormon Church and the Mormons, the Catholic Church and Catholics. The American government and Americans. California and Californians.
Your comment did make such a distinction, so good for you (sincerely). Others haven't been as careful, and have shown a particularly dark side of themselves in the name of tolerance.
... of my distinctions or whatever. The Mormon Church and the Catholic Church - and their members - forfeited their right to lecture others on discrimination when their churches decided to enter the political arena to do just that. Discrimination is directed at minorities by majorities, in case you have never heard, so don't hide behind victimization when your church is money-whipping its moral code upon others. As per my original point, the churches will come to regret this short-term moral and political gratification.
so i dont have to turn the other cheek
they infused themselves into our political process...no one asked them to
so im going to utah to push for a ban on holy underwear (for it is unamerican) and the ban on booze (even more unamerican)
my god, these people dont even drink coffee...dont they care about the american economy?
the mormons are terrorists...look at the symbols on their underwear...for sure those are terrorist symbols
I agree with "rollotomasi" (nice pop cultural ID there), you are winning the war even if you lost this skirmish. I'm far more worried about the intolerance I see from my fellow liberal compatriots. While anger is understandable, voicing hatred of your opponents in this case will, in my opinion, only lead to a delay in that victory.
Yes, I'm straight so you may think I don't understand just how hurt, angry and betrayed you feel, and maybe I don't, but I think you should pay attention to one thing that Andrew Sullivan wrote, "One thing we need to remember is dignity in defeat. That's how it becomes a victory."
Think about it, what good would "striking out" at the opposite side do. The angry riots of the '60's did little but allow Nixon and other Republicans to use African-Americans and the left as boogie-men for years. You want people to understand that oppression of one group can lead to oppression to all. Hate and "fuck yous" toward those who disagree with you are counterproductive and just, face it, so Republican.
You are already well organized so keep going forward and stay positive. Plus, it seems to me that, in California anyway, you've got the courts and your state's constitution on your side. As I understand it, this proposition, which passed by the slimmest of margins, in all probability, cannot stand. It doesn't change your constitution.
Also, (and this may seem like a big detour, but stay with me and see if it doesn't make sense in the end) here's something else to think about. There was an article in the New Your Times titled, "Before Obama, There was Bill Cosby." If you haven't already, I think it is worth reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/arts/televi...
It discusses how popular culture, in this case, The Cosby Show, set the stage to make Obama's election victory possible. As Karl Rove, of all people, put it, “We’ve had an African-American first family for many years in different forms. When ‘The Cosby Show’ was on, that was America’s family. It wasn’t a black family. It was America’s family.”
The '60's imagery of angry black men, so useful in scaring older whites, is fading away. The prevailing image for anyone my age and younger (thanks, I'm sure to reruns), was Cos and the Huxtable family. Thus, along with other changes in American society, it had a "carry-over effect" (as someone else in the article put it), that "served Obama well."
Now, think about pop culture in America. Think of how the LGBT community in general is already being portrayed in the news industry, the music industry, in movies, on radio and on TV and even other media like comic books (as I understand it, both major companies, DC and Marvel, as well as many smaller companies, have established many prominent LGBT characters). DC is owned by Warner and you can't tell me they would allow LGBT characters to hang around with Batman if they thought would hurt their bottom line.
What this tells me is that the overall face of America is changing rapidly and becoming ever more tolerant by the minute. It tells me you are winning and not just in the bluest of blue states. I'd say that, while slower, even in the reddest of red states, change is on the way. If Obama can win Virginia and NC and come within small percentage points in MT, MO, GA and other once rock solid red states, so can you.
You've had a temporary setback, but they, not you, are the one's still having to defend their positions (it's hard to defend bigotry and they have to twist their logic ever more till it's in knots). Fight the good fight, keep it positive and keep the pressure on, but never give in to the hate. When you give in to hate and begin the name-calling, that's when THEY win.
summervw:
AGREED
This separation of church and state is a two way street. Now, if they want their religion to dictate laws of the land....How are they going to react to the Federal government maybe wanting a say in what their religion believes??
Oh, you don't want that?? Well, stay the hell out of my government, because I don't believe in your god or your beliefs.
In the mean time...Tax Them!!! Or make sure they get the hell out of politics!!
Deal with it.
-AF
ASIAF
Thom Hartmann had an excellent on background explanation of the Mormon Madness in California with Prop 8 and WHY THE BASTARDS DID IT.
They're going to run ROMNEY in 2012 and they wanted to make nice to the EVANGELICAL MORONS.
Listen to the scenario in the second hour of today's show.
November 7, 2008 Hour Two, Thom Hartmann KPOJ Portland OR
http://www.620kpoj.com/podcast/hartmann_natio...
because it made no sense
neither the catholics nor the mormons got involved in 22...but they did in 8
looks like they are going for a political power grab
most likely, romney is behind the discrediting of palin too
Mittens is a nasty piece of scum and he's pissed past all reason at being passed over for VP. He's also a devious bastard who knows the evangelicals have split in terms of politics, and will splinter even more before 2012. The "evangelical base" the repubs counted on in the past is history and now they're looking for a replacement. People who vote solely on the basis of their religious beliefs are desirable as they are very, very reliable voters. But how to boost those small numbers of evangelicals who are left in the fold? Why, bring in the Mormons and Catholics! Two groups who have remained reliably republican. All this needs is a common cause for alliance (Prop 8) to get things rolling and you have a new base.
This will most likely be the subject of my nightmares for the next 4 years.
Not all Catholics feel the same way about Prop 8.
I'm a Catholic, but I don't need the government to tell anyone who can or cannot marry.
It's really way past time we re-examined this whole tax exemption thing for the religious industry. If we're going to keep government out of religion then we've got to keep religion out of government.
If they want to have a say in running the country, let them pay the same as everyone else for the operations of the government they seek to control.
The leaders of the catholic and mormon cults have brought hell fire to the 21st century, and it is going to burn them. I am a straight male and will be happy to participate in the destruction of the superstitious bigots.
The LDS/Mormon state of Utah is filled with hate-mongers, and I'm tired of them interfering with government matters.
The only way to stop these intrusive religions/cults, and to keep a strong wall of separation between church and state is to do what the gays are doing. Get in their faces, and push back hard.
Mormons have a well-deserved reputation for being bullies, and this has got to stop. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's my experience that they are intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical boobs.
Down with intolerance! We should kill all Mormons to get rid of it!
/sarcasm
between an adult male and underage female and the catholic church supports male adults molesting underage males. Prop 8 would have cut into their action.
The gay community is really showing itself to be a bunch of whiny little bitches. Get over yourselves! It's not a big deal and you are creating an issue for Republicans to broaden their ranks and do some real damage to the Golden State. The Mormon Church never got so much publicity. Remember the old saying, "There's no such thing as bad publicity?" That's the case here. The Mormons look downright reasonable compared to these protestors.
And what is all the arguing about? A stupid title. The only difference in CA is in name only. Domestic partners have the same rights and responsibilities as spouses under CA Code 297.5 (a). "Marriage" is merely an emotional issue put out there to create divisions. Shrill idiots claim because it's a different name, it's the same as separate but equal and that's total BS. Do we call the participants in a gay ceremony "bride and groom" or "husband and wife"? Why not? It's a different name so it can't be equal, right?
All this bluster over a stupid name. Fuck. I can't remember anything so idiotic.
The LDS enjoys a tax-exempt status from the government of the United States, and in return for that tax-exemption, the LDS church and ALL churches are strictly forbidden from becoming involved in political matters, the way they did in California.
I will be satisfied if that tax exemption is removed from the Mormon church, and they start paying their fair share of taxes, like the rest of us. That will cost them millions, if not billions.
"There is no such thing as bad publicity" is appropriate for book deals, but when it comes to churches, it does not apply. You can confirm this with the Catholic church and its pedophilia problem.
Although they may not appear to be to some people, there is a large difference between believing in a political issue and chirping little kids. The "publicity" that Catholic Church got was for illegal, vile acts that no one can condone. The publicity the Mormons got was for supporting an issue that WON on the California ballot.
I agree, though, that I'd love to see the Mormons lose their tax exempt status. They are more a business than a church.
But I doubt they'll lose anything. They have enough lawyers on board to insure that everything they did was completely within the framework of the law.
they are a catholic charity org
shouldnt the irs be questioning them too?
Well, if it's just a stupid name, a stupid title, why aren't you supporting the gay community?
After all, if it's just a stupid name, why should anyone care of gays use it, too?
When I first read about the schizoid Joseph Smith and his Moronic drivel about divine tablets unearthed in the North Eastern US, it struck me that it was the perfect solution to Americanizing Xtianity. That is, fuck the eastern Mediteranean scene with swarthy Israelites and salt-laden seas, etc. Bring the story to American turf. That will further boost the jingoistic, americo-centered fantasy that the US is #1 (first finger raised, of course). The whole schtick was and is a Madision Avenue's PR hack's wet dream. And, of course, the intolerance and delusion is now home-grown. Fucking amazing.
Okay, I have to link to my previous comment.
Please support the Proposition to ban the Mormon Church from owning property. ;)
Why are they allowed to get away with this BS? They should lose their tax exempt status.
Here Here, Nicole Belle!
Mormon. Too many M's.
I would have no problem picketing their "sacred houses of worship" (what a crock) nor demanding my government revoke their tax-free status.
They're supposed to be giving something back to society, not harassing it.
Step into politics - and essentially do so on public money - and pay the consequence. No hiding behind a frock or special underwear.
The reason they are steamed is because they don't want to lose their tax exemption. Always remember, these churches are corporations first and foremost. Watch them lawyer up to protect their monetary interests. The only doctrine they are interested in, is their own PR.
Oh really? The Mormons have supported "1 man 1 woman" which has stood as the definition of marriage for "millenia"? Man, the Catholic church has a weird understanding of history.
There was no church rite for marriage until around the 15th or 16th century. Marriage laws were in a tug-of-war between the powers crowns claimed and powers the church claimed. Until then, they were basically civil union, that sometimes priests officiated outside the church, but even then they were subject to censure from their superiors.
We ought to be funding an approach that has Protesters on the LDS and Catholic Church door steps permanently. Let's find some folks who excel at being annoying, especially folks who can flaunt being gay in front of LDS and Catholics Churches and make sure these protesters have the money to stay there until the next election. Then let's put up a proposition that repeals Prop 8. When we get there, we remind the LDS and the Catholic churches that we can either take away these people or add more. This is a culture war folks and we need to stop fighting this nice (and unarmed). They have stooped to the lowest levels and payback must be a bitch or Progressives will always be under attack by America's Taliban.
always wanted to dress up like one of the nuns...i get a kick out of those guys
but winter is almost here...can i start in the spring?
I would be glad to carry a sign in front of their monstrosity they call a chruch in Salt Lake City that would read: "now that you got the fags, let's go round up the Nigers and Jews!" - nah, they would probably just think I was a member of the church and they might actually go out and do it!
mahoney doesnt give a shit about humanity...for years he covered up for pedofile priests
mahoney is a sick fucker
ill protest him personally
"ill protest him personally..."
You're gonna puke on mahoney's shoes?
Church and state: The issue of Prop. 8
James Brosnahan
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Proposition 8 has passed, denying to some the right enjoyed by other citizens in California, the right to marry. Now, the central question for the courts to decide is: Are gays in California equal, or can members of certain churches declare them constitutionally inferior?
The approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises troubling but age-old issues concerning the lines between religion and government. Before the founders of our country separated church and state, there were hundreds of years of turmoil caused by one religion dominating the government and using it against nonbelievers.
In the aftermath of Tuesday's vote, do gays and lesbians in California have a reason to believe that they have been abused, discriminated against and relegated to a separate-but-equal status?
Yes, and that's why this fight is far from over. [...]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/...
(but did he mean UNconstitutional at the end?)
I'm all for equality, and I know any kind of discrimination is wrong, but I can't help myself.
I don't know if the Mormons and Catholics take the position that homosexuality is a choice, but that is a common rationale for denying rights and protections for gays and lesbians. If that is the position, that it is a choice, I would argue that one's religion is a choice. Since it is now permissible to discriminate based on one's choice, we should get a petition together for a proposition on the next ballot forbidding Mormons from marrying other Mormons. I've never been married but if I ever do, I think I'd object to my marriage being devauled by the fact that it is a tradition that is shared by the LDS.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Mostly.
THEIR TAX EXEMPTION SHOULD BE REMOVED.
Shouldn't interfering with another state's election be illegal? Couldn't it be argued that since another state interfered with the voting that it's not a valid vote? Is there any argument that can be used along these lines because if any part of this stinks besides that it passed it's that it passed because another state stuck it's nose in where it didn't belong.
The idea of the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormons banding together to declare who may and may not associate (marriage is, after all, a form of association) should fill anyone in this country who has even a passing understanding of history, religion, the Constitution with an overarching sense of manifest horror. We've seen this movie before.
Between the two, these "religions of peace" have shed oceans of blood in the name of bringing that "peace" to those who didn't necessarily want it or request it. Tragically, that "peace" has more often than not been of the "eternal" variety.
While the Roman Catholic Church's parade of horror is likely more well-known to people, the Mormons have their own. Although they have painted their history with the broad brush of their persecution, in most cases it was their actions in attempting to take over communities that led to trouble. As often as not, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young et al. were more than willing to resort to bloodshed when the wagonwheel met the rut.
In the case of both churches, they have never let a little thing like the Prince of Peace get in the way of their insatiable lust for dominion over others. They have drawn a line in the sand in California. With each victory, they will draw it a little tighter on each side. Decent, freedom loving people in California and all over the nation are under siege.
These religious thugs prattled on and on about some murky "threat to marriage," and did so, as documented on C&L, as a part of an at least eleven year conspiracy. Just because they ride bicycles and wear white shirts doesn't mean their motives are any less fascist. From pedophile catholic priests to baby-marrying polygamists, these sects, in addition to their protestant fundamentalist enablers (like the American Family Association of Tupelo, Mississippi) seek nothing short of complete control of the civil life of this nation.
This initiative was only superficially about "gay marriage." At its heart, it is an attempt to impose their will upon ALL of us, gay, straight, black, white, male, female.
Want to test my hypothesis? Watch the Religion Industry's response when The Employee Free Choice Act is re-introduced in the new Congress. That law is nothing short of an enshrinement of Freedom of Association. When they pour their millions into defeating that, as well, you'll know them all the more for who they are.
Finally, if it was me, I'd ask every person with whom I came in contact "How did you vote on 8?" For anyone giving a "Yes" answer, I would refuse any further contact. Waiters, doctors, auto mechanics, teachers, pharmacists, every walk of life. The hatemongers have sought to re-introduce institutional, governmental prejudice into society. Let them see that the idea works both ways. "Yes" voters should be refused service as "a matter of conscience," just as the fundies do in regard to birth control, the morning-after pill and RU 486.
Wouldn't you just LOVE to watch some fundie's face when you tell him "I can't serve you" and turn your back?
Get On The HORN!
This is one of the reasons I am an athiest. Nobody representing a holy being would lie without the fear that they would be held in judgement by that same being. This to me proves that even the church doesn't believe in the crap the church tells it's followers.
Momons are just another crazy offshoot of chri$tanity. The Mormon robo-calls with Obama speaking against gay marriage is what passed Prop 8.
Obama said that HIS relgious beliefs are more important than YOUR civil rights. He said he is fine with keeping gays down on the farm, as second class citizens. So is he just another Harvard lawyer stepping over the bodies of others to get ahead? To which Tom Says:
“It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.” [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason].
Is Obama just a liar, or does he believe the chriStian crap? If he believes, then why doesn't he stone adulterers? If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). Oh, only some of the crazy crap counts, huh? Tom says christian looney Obama can not be trusted with my rights or life for one second:
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter.” [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
Obama’s hero Martin Luther King did not put up with second class citizenship, but he tells 'teh gays' they should put up and shut up –and keep giving the Dems money for nothing.
Remember that the Republicans kiss the ass of their right wing base, while Dems ignore theirs while they kiss the ass of Blue Dogs and Republican thugs.
obama is not in support of gay marriage, but at the same time he opposed prop 8. that's a big distinction. i hate mustard and don't want it anywhere near my cheeseburger, but I'm not going to deny others the opportunity to enjoy it.
Hating mustard on your cheeseburger will make you a blasphemer in Texas.
Sometimes semantics are important.
There is a big difference in not being in favor of something, and in actively being against it. I'm pro-choice, but that does not mean I'm in favor of abortion - I simply believe that decision should be left to the woman actually involved.
What Obama has basically said is, "My religious beliefs do not allow me to be in favor of recognizing gay marriage, but my moral beliefs do not allow me to vote against it. I cannot make others live by my religious beliefs."
If only a small percentage of the people that voted for Prop 8 had followed his lead and simply not voted either way, it would not have passed. They could have said, "My religious views do not allow me to vote against this proposition, but those are my personal religious views, and I cannot make others live by them."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nothing there about suffering no political or social consequences for being an un-American asshole. In fact, the protesters are assembling peacefully to speak freely about a group of people that set out to circumvent Congress's function of making laws that do not conflict with our Constitution. Prop 8 violates both the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment. It seeks to establish the dominion of two narrow-minded Christianist sects within our legal structure. It also seeks to deny equal rights in the eyes of the government for a specific minority.
A big LOL at the church's statement. They can sure dish it out but when it comes time to take it they want to hide behind their religion adn seek help from teh government. FUCK THEM.
when the catholics stop employing child molesters and the mormons stop engaging in child marriage and rape, then they can take part in a debate on the pros and cons of same-sex marriage between consenting adults.
Two lessons I have relearned from Sun Tzu, Military training and business training are:
- Direct assaults, are often unsuccessful and ALWAYS bloody, therefore should be avoided as much as possible. Even with overwhelming power, direct assaults are messy.
- Stealth attacks take more planning, patience and intelligence about the enemy, but are usually successful with minimal mess (on the attacking side anyway).
So maybe it is time for Gays to let the religious bigots "own" the concept of "marriage." Gays should openly acknowledge that "marriage" is a religious activity.
BUT, since marriage is a religious activity, it should not be anywhere in CIVIL, secular laws! That is, the laws of the state should ONLY detail what a civil union contract should entail and "marriage" should be banished from the law books.
There are several lines of attack that might be used to eliminate "marriage."
- The "marriage" code in California law has nothing to do with religion but only deals with property and financial contracts. The only time churches are mentioned is that clergy (along with a wide variety of other occupations) are authorized by the state to certify the contract of union. As a result of Marriage being acknowledged as a religious activity, the whole concept of marriage should not be in the state laws.
- Separate but equal is against the US constitution. Therefore marriage and civil unions can NOT both exist. The state can only have one or the other. Since "marriage" has now been certified by the Mormon and Catholic churches, via the ballot box, to be a religious activity, Marriage obviously can NOT exist in California law. That is, the secular state can ONLY define civil unions.
Once the state has ONLY civil unions, then those that wanted to be "married" would follow a two step process:
- certify their civil union with a SECULAR entity authorized to certify the union. This would invoke all the legal contracts of union. Remember that Civil union (and "marriage") is just a short hand way to encompass a large body of civil contract code.
- "marry" in some church if they also want a spiritual union. This would have no standing with the state. Which is exactly how it should be, since people should be able to practice their religion in any manner they choose. Ministers would no longer be able to certify unions to the state.
The effect would probably be like it is in most of Europe which already follow this method - Most people opt for the stability of a civil union and most people ignore the whole church thing. That is, very few people in Europe get "married." Of course the churches hate it, but it clearly draws a line between the state and church activities.
Of course, once "marriage" no longer exists in California, the next step would be to sue every other state and the federal government to force them to recognize civil unions in California instead of marriage. Yes it would screw up the federal tax code, but that is OK. The IRS will have a hard time defending denying the "marriage" deduction to every couple in California when marriage is eliminated and only civil unions exist.
After passing Prop 8, the churches will have a hard time eliminating the rights for gays to have civil unions, especially since they have already said the civil unions are OK, but marriage isn't OK.
So let the Mormons and Catholic churches have "marriage" but eliminate it in the state, providing ONLY civil unions for every couple. The churches will hate it , but have boxed themselves into a corner with their bigotry. I love it when I can sabotage some one's happiness.
BTW - I am not surprised the Mormons are so surprised at the backlash from their support of Prop 8 - Mormons have so little contact with Gays, they have no way to understand the depth of anger in the community at being treated as third class citizens. Mormons are well aware that they have been badly mistreated in the past, but are unable to understand that they are doing the exact same thing to another segment of society.
own statte ments are to be be believed, it seems to me they have provided prima facie evidence for overturning that odious piece of shit Prop Hate on First Amendment grounds...
Slam FUCKING-dunk!
"it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process."
That is absolutely correct, the church has every right to be a part of the democratic process!! We'll be sending over the assessors and auditors from the IRS to start collecting the taxes that are associated with being part of the democratic process.
Login or Register to post comments.