LDS to push marriage amendment

Judged:

6

5

4

John wrote:

Since it appears that the "Morman" church wants to get involved in the political structure of UT then their tax exempt status should be revolked and they pay for that right, just like any other business. They must start paying taxes on ALL of their real estate and money.

Judged:

6

6

5

Troy wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't members of the LDS church have the right to express our opinion? What are you affraid of?

Judged:

5

4

4

Dave Seattle Wa wrote:

Sure express your opinions. Just don't vote your religious dogma into civil law. We non-believers, have no legal, moral or ethical obligations to live our lives in accordance with a church of which we are not voluntary members. The only legal obligations, any of us have to each other, is to do no harm to one anothers person/family/property/finance s. And the same inregards to religious organizations and their leaders. Please keep your religious beleifs inside your own places of worship and your own homes and leave the rest of us alone. We don't need your religious leaders dictating to us.

Judged:

6

5

3

LawDog wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't understand democracy very well now do you? Almost all policy decisions involve winners and losers. If people never voted for something because it might hurt someone else, we'd rarely vote on anything, and politicians would do nothing (maybe that we be a good thing...). Stating you cannot vote for something because there may be a religious justification for it is no argument at all. It is an empty, undemocratic rhetorical trick. Do you think that global warming, tax cuts, and other political issues do not involve faith at some level? Yet I doubt you'd advocate not voting on these issues.

Judged:

5

5

4

Dave Seattle Wa wrote:

<quoted text>
Try reading John Stuart Mills: "Essay on Liberty", he distinctly warns against the "tyranny of the majority". Besides, since when should one religious tradition, or one sect thereof dictate standards for society as a whole when not all religious groups, inclusive churches, in particular, do not agree with your line of thinking. Conservative right-wing organizations should not have "special rights" {in regards to establishing marital standards for all of society}, not extended to liberal christian and non-christian churches.

Judged:

2

2

2

John wrote:

Since it appears that the "Morman" church wants to get involved in the political structure of UT then their tax exempt status should be revolked and they pay for that right, just like any other business. They must start paying taxes on ALL of their real estate and money.

Judged:

2

2

2

Dave Seattle Wa wrote:

<quoted text>
Try reading John Stuart Mills: "Essay on Liberty", he distinctly warns against the "tyranny of the majority". Besides, since when should one religious tradition, or one sect thereof dictate standards for society as a whole when not all religious groups, inclusive churches, in particular, do not agree with your line of thinking. Conservative right-wing organizations should not have "special rights" {in regards to establishing marital standards for all of society}, not extended to liberal christian and non-christian churches.

Welcome to STOP n DEPORT wrote:

It seems the Mormon church is moving outside of Utah as well. Trying to control Government in California. Along with Texas Baptist.
<quoted text>

Judged:

3

2

2

Troy wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't members of the LDS church have the right to express our opinion? What are you affraid of?

Judged:

3

3

1

LawDog wrote:

<quoted text>
Tyranny by the majority is preferable to tyranny by the minority (just ask any nation without free and fair elections who are oppressed by dictators). Minority protections only exist where the majority (through law and the Constitution) provide such protections. The Bill of Rights is a perfect example. Unfortunately, there is no constitutional right or law guaranteeing minority groups that the majority will not vote based relgious considerations (again, the government's requiring people to vote based on something other than religious beliefs would run into some major First Amendment constitutional issues).
I don't argue that some people in the environmental movement cannot vote based on some of the scientifically baseless dogmas that are floating around. I respect their right to vote based on faith, as I should also respect that right for religious people.

Judged:

3

2

2

newt wrote:

he's not afraid of anything. its just that for all practical purposes the mormon church is already a corporation, and if they're going to get politically involved., they should be paying taxes.<quoted text>

Judged:

3

3

1

Dave Seattle Wa wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, LawDog, but I respectively disagree. Religions, whever in the course of history, they have gained enough political power, tend to persecute minority religious groups and others. I suspecgt you are familiar with the history of the Middle Ages, the burning of Joan of Ark, the extermination of the Albegenses (sp?) by the influential Catholics surrounding the King of France. Burning of witches and homosexuals in the early days of our own country. The reason that Gays are called "faggots" in this country, is because they were tied up like "bundles of sticks" and thrown at the feet of the women accused of being witches, before the "faggots" were lit.
bCheck the comprehensive Oxford English Dictionary for the original meaning of the word faggot, I think you'll find, as did I, that it originally meant a bundle of sticks. It's a 14th-16th century term as I recall. And a little more recently, in Jackson County Missouri, the Hauns Mill Massacre,(1800's). Where Protestants massacred Mormons (Even children "cause nits make lice". And a few years later the Mountain Meadows Massacre in Utah were a group of Mormons, with or w/o Brigham Youngs, consent convinced some Indians to help them masscre a group of Missourians, passing through Southern Utah, on their way to California. If I remember my Utah History correctly, this to was a total massacre, including children.
By the way, not Mormon, but a former Utahn who's studied both Mormon History and Utah History. This is way many of us believe that religion and politics don't mix. We don't want concentration camps established again in the US (Japanese Americans in WW II) Only this time probably for anyone that doesn't belong to or at least successfully pretends to go along with, whichever religion gains the most political power in the US. Fundamentalist, and authoritarn religions, christian and non-christian, don't have a very good track record af tolerating dissent, and seldom do they have a true democratic (at least two political parties, let alone a vote by the members) form of government. Albeit, sometimes they are partially, at the local level anyway, democratic in structure, with some real authoritarian exceptions.

Judged:

2

2

2

LawDog wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that people have done horrible things in the name of religion, but close to 100 million people were murdered in the name of Communism (a political movement) alone. My point is that religion should not be singled out as a threat when it is clear that other social and political movements have led to tyranny and oppression.
And I agree that minority protections are important. My point was that the majority still determines what protections minorities receive (the Bill of Rights were created through a republican, majoritarian process). In other words, minorities receive the protections that the majority of citizens (and members of the gov't) believe the minorities should have. Today the majority of people and the government have not seen fit to allow gays to marry each other, although their right to live a homosexual lifestyle has been protected in many other ways. But I do think that this is a question better left to the political process, and not to the courts (as the NY court explained today).

Judged:

3

3

3

LawDog wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that people have done horrible things in the name of religion, but close to 100 million people were murdered in the name of Communism (a political movement) alone. My point is that religion should not be singled out as a threat when it is clear that other social and political movements have led to tyranny and oppression.
And I agree that minority protections are important. My point was that the majority still determines what protections minorities receive (the Bill of Rights were created through a republican, majoritarian process). In other words, minorities receive the protections that the majority of citizens (and members of the gov't) believe the minorities should have. Today the majority of people and the government have not seen fit to allow gays to marry each other, although their right to live a homosexual lifestyle has been protected in many other ways. But I do think that this is a question better left to the political process, and not to the courts (as the NY court explained today).

Judged:

2

2

2

Troy wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't members of the LDS church have the right to express our opinion? What are you affraid of?

Judged:

4

4

3

newt wrote:

Don't forget that the formation of Communism was largely in reaction to the slave-master societal relationship that had been fostered and encouraged by the Church, in order to gain power and subjugate the masses.<quoted text>

Judged:

3

3

2

Dave Seattle Wa wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, I disagree. The courts are usually the only place where minority groups can have their greivances heard in an orderly and logical manner and decisions not subject to the whims and emotions of the "majority". Our government, as you know, was designed so that the US Supreme Court and lower courts could make decisions based on legal precedent and not the whims and emotions of the mod.
I don't think the Founding Fathers ever imagined that someday one or more groups of citizens could have their constitutional rights taken away by majority vote. And of course we fought a Civil War so black americans could be free. There are many similarities between the persecution of blacks & gays in America. Even Mrs King agreed with the gay rights movement on many issues. All Americans deserve to have the same identical Constitutional rights regardless of what any religion teaches, regardless of White Supremecists and other hate groups. However no one group, including religions, deserve to have "special rights" and lord their supposed superiority of morals or religious beliefs/or skin color over anyone else. White, male, hetrosexual, Christians don't deserve "special rights or treatment" just because they think their way of living is more 'normal'or moral than somewones else's. Of course conservative religious groups seldom teach that their members are sinners just like they think homosexuals are.