Utah faces boycott after Mormon work for Prop 8

[The Overlord]

Let me say as a heterosexual male that believes civil rights must apply to everyone or they mean nothing, I hope they give them hell. I won't put a dime into Utah either, I'm sick to heck of the religious right sticking its two cents into other people's lives. I'm to the point of thinking that if they can't respect others then extermination of these organizations is an option.


We ARE a divided nation, deal with it, and we will never, never ever see common ground until the right learns its place. Until then, expect a fight.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/mormon_backlash_boycott

SALT LAKE CITY – Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, a spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford, among other popular tourist draws.

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.

"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."

Salt Lake City is the world headquarters for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which counts about 62 percent of Utah residents as members.

The church encouraged its members to work to pass California's Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons worked as grassroots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign.

The ballot measure passed Tuesday. It amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act, overriding a state Supreme Court ruling that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.

The backlash against the church — and by extension Utah — has been immediate. Protests erupted outside Mormon temples, Facebook groups formed telling people to boycott Utah, and Web sites such as mormonsstoleourrights.com began popping up, calling for an end to the church's tax-exempt status.

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement about the temple protests Friday that it is "disturbing" that the church is being singled out for exercising its right to speak up in a free election.

"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," Farah said.

The church had said in a statement after Tuesday's vote that "no one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information."

Aravosis is the editor of the popular americablog.com, which has about 900,000 unique monthly visitors.

He is calling for skiers to choose any state but Utah and for Hollywood actors and directors to pull out of the Sundance Film Festival. Other bloggers and readers have responded to his call.

"There's a movement afoot and large donors are involved who are very interested in organizing a campaign, because I do not believe in frivolous boycotts," said Aravosis, who has helped organize boycotts against "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger's television show, Microsoft and Ford over gay rights issues.

"The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand," he said. "At this point, honestly, we're going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state."

Gay rights groups did not immediately weigh in on calls for a boycott. Jim Key, spokesman for the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, said he had heard little about such an effort.

"It's not something that we have called for, but we do think it is important to send a message to the Mormon church," Key said. He noted an effort run by the center to overturn Proposition 8 that sends a postcard to the Mormon church president with each contribution made.

A Sundance spokeswoman didn't return messages. Leigh von der Esch, managing director of the Utah Office of Tourism, said that she's aware there's been discussion of a boycott, but that her office hadn't received any calls about it Thursday. State offices are closed Friday.

"We're respectful of both sides of the equation and realize it's an emotional issue, but we are here promoting what we think is the best state in the country," she said.

What kind of economic, religious or political impact, if any, a boycott might have is unclear. The Mormon church has members all over the world and no plans to change its stance on gay marriage.

Aravosis is not calling for a boycott of California, though that state's voters actually approved the ban.

"At this point, the Californians are the victims and the Mormons are the persecutors," he said. "We had won this until they swept in. ... We need to send a message to Utah that they need to stop trying to inflict their way of life on every other state."

Bob Malone, CEO and president of the Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, said it is unfair to try to punish certain industries or parts of the state over an issue it had nothing to do with.

"It's really not a Park City thing, and I don't see it as a state thing. That was more of a religious issue," he said. "To sweep people in who really have nothing to do with that issue and have no influence over religious issues — it's sad that people kind of think that and say, 'We're going to bury you.' It's sad to hear people talk like that."

[Storiwyr]

I have to say that I disagree with Bob Malone. It IS a state thing.

I was raised Mormon. By a devout Mormon family. That also happened to be pro-choice and pro-gay rights. The idea of religion and nonjudgmental love for people and respect of their right to make their own choices can and SHOULD coexist.

I used to hate going to Utah to visit family when I was a kid. There was a very arrogant sense from many there of "Utah Mormons are superior" that made me quite miserable and left me feeling excluded by so called "Christians."

In the past it has been policy that the LDS church does not endorse any political candidate or cause, with the idea that such things are down to one's personal conviction. I rather liked that policy and I'm sad to see that in the time since I quit associating myself with the church, things have broken down so badly. I feel for my parents now, and I hope they won't take heat for this in their daily lives. Like many religions that have been used in oppressive and power hungry way, if you look at the religious texts directly it is a religion based on very noble ideas of tolerance, love for others, peace, and a protection of human rights as God given.

This ... just makes me sad.

[HairyHeretic]

Welcome to the wonderfull world of the consequences of your actions.

The church chose, and indeed directed its adherents (from what I can see), to oppose this. Did they think that nothing would come of it? Every choice, every action, has consequences. If you're not prepared to accept those consequences, then don't go making the choices that'll lead to them. And when those consequences do come around, don't go whining about it.

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement about the temple protests Friday that it is "disturbing" that the church is being singled out for exercising its right to speak up in a free election.

"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," Farah said.

They are making their feelings known, that's the point. Just the same way you and your church did. And last I checked, the Mormon church wasn't a resident of California, so what are they doing voting over there anyway? Or funnelling cash through? Like I said, welcome to the world of consequences.

[Storiwyr]

*sighs wearily* There are members everywhere. All over the world. And plenty of them in California. My uncle was heavily involved the last time there was a gay rights measure on the ballot. The members of the LDS church who are citizens of the state of California have as much right to vote there as anyone.

What bothers me is that--despite a long standing policy of staying out of political issues and leaving it up the conscience of the members--they've scrapped that in favor of this sort of lobbying.

I'm not Mormon anymore, nor am I Christian, partially because I am attracted to women and I don't think that a choice to act on that makes me a bad person. Despite that, however, my parents are people I deeply admire and respect, and have a long history of voting in favor of Pro-choice and pro-gay rights interests. What the church is doing officially reflects on all their members. It's a horrible choice, and a clear sign of what happens when you get obsessed with and blinded by an issue and lose sight of the central tenet of every Christian religion ... the idea of love for all humanity. Not just people who are straight.

[HairyHeretic]

*sighs wearily* There are members everywhere. All over the world. And plenty of them in California. My uncle was heavily involved the last time there was a gay rights measure on the ballot. The members of the LDS church who are citizens of the state of California have as much right to vote there as anyone.

Of course there are, and they do. If they are personally opposed to it, then let them contribute, and vote against it. That is their choice and their right.

What bothers me is that--despite a long standing policy of staying out of political issues and leaving it up the conscience of the members--they've scrapped that in favor of this sort of lobbying.

And this is the consequence of that action. And it will have reprocussions on every Mormon, and because the Mormons are so concentrated in Utah, for the entire state as well.

I'm not Mormon anymore, nor am I Christian, partially because I am attracted to women and I don't think that a choice to act on that makes me a bad person. Despite that, however, my parents are people I deeply admire and respect, and have a long history of voting in favor of Pro-choice and pro-gay rights interests. What the church is doing officially reflects on all their members. It's a horrible choice, and a clear sign of what happens when you get obsessed with and blinded by an issue and lose sight of the central tenet of every Christian religion ... the idea of love for all humanity. Not just people who are straight.

There are good people and assholes in every belief in the world .. political, religious, you name it. But when an organisation that claims authority over them makes an annoucement, then it (to some degree) becomes binding on every member of that organisation, regardless of the individuals beliefs, and human nature being what it is, guilt by association will tar the individual until, or unless, they can prove otherwise.

I've also seen the Mormons looked down on by other sects of christianity, who claim that they aren't christians at all. With that simmering away in the background, well, it's not going to help matters any.

[Storiwyr]

I'm not defending what they did in the least. I think it's despicable. I told my uncle as much the last time a ballot measure like this came out and he was so vocal and involved and pushing it in his leadership role within the LDS church. I told him he should look around and see who he's walking hand in hand with when he's so passionately engaged in oppressing others.

I guess I just was hoping that the overall leadership of the church would have a little better judgment than that. The LDS church is not the place for me, and I'd never consider going back. Unfortunate though it may be, it will always be a part of my life. My family is still involved, though god knows my mother would fight any political pressure from the church til her last breath. I have many dear friends who are members. And it will be hard for me to talk to them if this issue comes up. Were I still Mormon, I would not be if I heard about something like this. I'd quit in disgust and have a hard time imagining how anyone else could stay with that sort of bigotry and abuse of power that is claimed to be god-given.

But I can't help being disappointed, like finding out your childhood hero isn't quite what you thought it was. I don't believe in the things taught by the Mormon church. I knew there was homophobia involved, but it always seemed to be simmering under the surface--rather than being this blatant, offensive, and supported and pressed by the leadership. Still, I left over it. I do believe in integrity. I believe in people living by what they claim to believe, and allowing others the right to believe what they wish.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone. I'm not saying the boycott is a bad idea--I think it's a rather good one, actually, though I do think it's sad that it could potentially cause job loss for a lot of people who had no involvement and aren't even Mormon. I'm not in the least saying they should escape consequences. They did something stupid and unjust, and there are always repercussions for things like that. I'm just saying that as someone with rather more of an insider view than many would have ... I'm really disappointed and sad. I would have thought that--as a group of people who have been so ill-treated in American history themselves--the church's leadership at least would know better than to turn around and do the same to others.

[Oniya]

I grew up in the D.C. area, so I can confirm that Utah isn't the only concentration of Mormonism.  (I used to drive under the 'Surrender Dorothy' graffiti every day going to work.)   Utah's got the bad rap because of historical reasons (the state was pretty much founded by the Mormons after they got pushed out by all the other states) and - wrongly, I might add - because of some recent scandals involving a splinter group that the LDS probably wishes would just. go. away. 

That being said, although it is the California Mormons' right to vote against Prop 8, it's shady politics when an out-of-state organization exerts pressure on a state constitutional issue.  Here in Ohio, we had Issue 6, which was whether or not to allow a casino to be put in.  Both sides were being heavily lobbied for by out-of-state interests (the man who wanted to put the casino in, and the Indiana casinos who wanted to keep the traffic of Ohio gamblers from drying up).  It failed, but considering the casino supporter's track record with business, I wasn't disappointed.

[The Overlord]

That being said, although it is the California Mormons' right to vote against Prop 8, it's shady politics when an out-of-state organization exerts pressure on a state constitutional issue. 

What it comes down to is classic Can't Mind Their Own Business.

"We need to send a message to Utah that they need to stop trying to inflict their way of life on every other state." That's what comes down to, kick them where it hurts most. When tourism starts shrinking maybe someone will get the hint.

[Apple of Eris]

I think religiousgroups should not be alloed to politicize in their churches regadless of their state. And if they do, they should lose their special tax exempt status. Mabe that'll get these goddamned ministers and priests and reverends to shut the hell up about politics and talk about, oh, I don't know...GOD?

[Storiwyr]

I think religiousgroups should not be alloed to politicize in their churches regadless of their state. And if they do, they should lose their special tax exempt status. Mabe that'll get these goddamned ministers and priests and reverends to shut the hell up about politics and talk about, oh, I don't know...GOD?

I agree completely. Seems to me that separation of church and state ought to extend the other way too--at least were legality is concerned. I think that's a perfectly reasonable requirement. Perhaps it would be hard to ban discussing or preaching on it, but actively encouraging a political stance and action like that across state lines? Definitely seems to me that tax-exempt ought to say goodbye.

[The Overlord]

I've seen this argument rear its ugly head with people close to me. The real problem in my family is that in the early 80's my aunt and uncle moved out of the Chicago area, when we were all still up there, and my cousins were still very young.

They moved into the Tampa/St. Pete's area, it didn't seem to take long before they fell into this crazy church. I mean, this place got up into everyone's business like flies on dung, even getting into it when my aunt and uncle had marital issues (they've long since divorced and I do put part of the blame on these do-rights sticking their nose into it).

I mean these people were whackos...I got my cousin into tabletop D&D not long before they moved, and of course the church decided that was evil as well. My aunt and uncle ended up confiscating his books. It's the same thing later, with groups that want to associate Harry Potter with witchcraft, etc...it's always the same story. Try to identify an evil that wrecking society, all the while missing the fact that YOU ARE the evil.



One of my cousins...well, this the most red-faced and livid I've gotten with any of my extended family, argued passionately against gay marriage, because in her words it violates or destroys the sanctity of marriage. Note that she didn't go and outright call it a sin, but somehow, inexplicably, it messes up 'normal' marriage.


OK, so...hypothetically, you and your significant other are having a perfectly workable and happy marriage and heterosexual relationship. Then one or more gay or lesbian couples move into the neighborhood...do they give off some sort of gay radiation that goes through the walls of your house and ruins your marriage? Seriously.

I have heard plenty of excuses from the opponents, most of time that it's viewed as a sin in the eyes of their faith, and that the alleged offenders are going to hell, or select the disagreeable afterlife of your choosing.

As yet I have not heard a single rational and reasoned argument from the right on this; they're thinking with thier bibles and not their brains, and that's a bad combination. Let me sum it up here-


1. Not everyone goes to your church, you pompous, intolerant prick. Frack you. Some of us take your church as reasonable advice at best, an overblown opinion at worst. Some of us just don't give a shit what you think, and we expect you respect that.

2. Any argument that homosexual marriages somehow taints your own marriages is all your head. This is based on a theological conclusion, on an abstract concept that can never be proven. It's about as fruitful as passing a national proposition to officially recognize the existence of Santa Claus.


That's the thing about this election; we took a big step forwards in equality by electing a black man to our highest office, and then we promptly stepped back on another front by promoting intolerance and bigotry as state law. Although we still have ways to go, racial equality has stepped up dramatically from the civil rights era. In a half century or so we went from a man of color not being allowed to go into the same restaurant as whites, to now walking through the door of the Oval Office.

And that's good, and it means while we still have work to do on that front, racial equality is not the pressing civil rights issue of our current time.

But sexual equality most definitely is.

[Methos]

Ironically if you read on what caused that proposition to get passed in California it was the fact that there was high turn out among African Americans who supported a ban on gay marriages by a spread of something like 70 -30. So as much as some people might want to blame a religious group for it, blame Obama for getting out the homophobic black vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html

[The Overlord]

So as much as some people might want to blame a religious group for it, blame Obama for getting out the homophobic black vote.

Bull.

There is a strong anti-gay segment in each ethnicity. It doesn't fly with the black guys that are trying to be 'the man', and among groups like Hispanics and Arabs homosexuality openly declared is like the kiss of death. I've been around enough of the former to know the machismo crap when I see it.

Those people are going to push for that no matter who runs for office. If you're not keen on Obama taking the presidency, at least blame him for something plausible.

[Trieste]

This is the second time I've had to say it: I know that all of you have an extended vocabulary that consists of more than profanity. Use it, or I will start editing every single one of your posts and changing the profanity to something silly. You don't want that. I don't want that. So please don't make it happen.

Second: This thread is about prop 8 and Mormons. Not Obama. There are other threads to discuss Obama and what he may or may not have done for or against the country. This thread is about a proposition recently passed in California, and the reaction to it and who campaigned for it.

Keep it that way, please.

[Methos]

I was simply pointing out Trieste that its simplistic to blame the Mormons when there is statistical evidence that other groups of people were just as heavily to blame.

[Trieste]

Cool.

So do you think this boycott is unfair? Do you think the LDS had every right to campaign as they did? Do you think they should lose tax exempt status? Do you think the boycott will be effective? Why?

Etc.

[Methos]

Well I think the LDS should lose non-profit status when all other charitable organization that advocates a political agenda loses their tax exempt status as well. There are countless environmental groups out there pushing a message that the world is ending, repent now. I don't see any reason why they should be allowed to push their religion with tax except status but the LDS shouldn't be allowed to agitate for their moral beliefs.

I personally find the Church of Latter Day Saints a bit silly. I mean really is anyone suposed to genuinely believe that a guy found Egyptian tablets made of gold in upstate New York and had to secretly translate them and not show them to anyone and couldn't replicate his translations? On the other hand, they are a religious group. If religions aren't allowed to preach a moral message, what exactly is left of them aside from their being a social gathering? Moral content is the only thing that makes a church gathering any more meaningful than a PTA meeting.

Do I think the boycott will be effective? No not particularly, how many gay people or hardcore liberals were going to Utah anyhow? Its not exactly Las Vegas or San Fransico.

[RubySlippers]

I hate to be the Libertarian stick in the mud here folks but endorsing political matters of a moral nature that doesn't involve candidates is perfectly legal. For example in Florida the religious groups managed to get the supermajority needed for Amendment 2 and their preaching about it in the pulpits and other campaigns were legal. As long as no candidate is endorsed the can talk about issues and promote what they want. The Liberal and moderate churches did as well the other side was just more persuasive I guess.

So yes they had every right to do what they did.

[The Overlord]

So yes they had every right to do what they did.

Perhaps they did, but if the law is allowing morality dictated by religion, then clearly we've forgotten the intent of the founding fathers. I'd say it's time to remedy that.

Let's be clear on this; they want to dictate morality to others and now they've got a fight on their hands, and this is something the side for civil rights has every right to do. Once again, I am pointing this out as the defining and crucial difference between the liberal and conservative camps.

A liberal will want to give you a choice. A conservative will give you a choice too, as long as it's their choice.


Until the right learns its place, don't be overly concerned about al queda or terrorists half a world a way. That sort of media exposure is propaganda; Bin Laden hasn't struck US soil over 7 years...the religious right just loosed their latest attack on our freedoms this past week. The real battleground, and the real threat, is right here in our backyards.

[Huntress]

it's such a hard thing...because if you say they can't legislate morality, then why do we imprison murderers? and yet.... >< it's ridiculously difficult. No black and white.

[Oniya]

it's such a hard thing...because if you say they can't legislate morality, then why do we imprison murderers? and yet.... >< it's ridiculously difficult. No black and white.

Except for the fact that you'd be hard pressed to find a religious group in the United States that says 'It's alright to kill,' while there are religious groups on both sides of issues like birth control, gay marriage, and so forth.

[Huntress]

ackk...politics. i'm not a fan. i voted this year for the first time ever and i was like...ugh. Disappointed in both the candidates. i think one needs to make the country more moderate.

[Apple of Eris]

...endorsing political matters of a moral nature that doesn't involve candidates is perfectly legal. For example in Florida the religious groups managed to get the supermajority needed for Amendment 2 and their preaching about it in the pulpits and other campaigns were legal. As long as no candidate is endorsed the can talk about issues and promote what they want....

Actually, the law as written allows a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation; although the law states also states that "no substantial part" of a charities activies may be devoted to lobbying. Now an organization like the LDS which raises millions wah year can of course drop a million and still argue that this was 'not a substantial part'.

However, 501(c)(3) organizations - which all tax exempt churches are... are NOT permitted to overtly advocate for a position on a specific bill. They may raise money for research supporting their position, they may educate indivduals about an issue, but they may not openly advocate.

And yes, these rules have been upheld in both federal and state courts.

[The Overlord]

it's such a hard thing...because if you say they can't legislate morality, then why do we imprison murderers? and yet.... >< it's ridiculously difficult. No black and white.

Well there has to be a point. I believe it needs to be a societal consensus, as is often the case on things like murder, rape, theft, etc. All countries and societies settle on laws regarding these things, and you basically have to.


Murder certainly hurts people, in fact it kills people. There is a real and negative effect from crimes like murder. Even when it's sanctioned by authorities, such as killing the enemy in times of war, murder hardly ever sits well with us. This is an objective truth.


By contrast, gay marriage harms absolutely nothing, and arguing that it does is completely subjective. If we're going to enforce morality in law, then let's enforce it on real things, not fairy tales. The religionists that push this stuff are living in some sort of la la land, because it's surely not the same reality the rest of us share. An argument against gay marriage is not the result of a rational and open mind.

[RubySlippers]

Actually, the law as written allows a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation; although the law states also states that "no substantial part" of a charities activies may be devoted to lobbying. Now an organization like the LDS which raises millions wah year can of course drop a million and still argue that this was 'not a substantial part'.

However, 501(c)(3) organizations - which all tax exempt churches are... are NOT permitted to overtly advocate for a position on a specific bill. They may raise money for research supporting their position, they may educate indivduals about an issue, but they may not openly advocate.

And yes, these rules have been upheld in both federal and state courts.

I stand corrected.

Try to enforce that then it may have been illegal, but unless that law is enforced and I've never heard it used against a major religious orgainization such as the Roman Catholics, Baptists and other main denominations its a null and void law, one the is on paper only. Add to that most ministers would say that is their opinion stated and not that of their church proper in court its a good defense. Pastor Hagee had a sermon to "Vote the Bible" he started not endorsing it to any party but its clear he meant vote Republican just not outright said so. So there are ways around it.

I do defend the right to protest the Mormons however that is clearly protected speech as are boycotts.

As for all the arguements for or against gay marriage the fact is its been declared illegal in two large states, California and Florida (our amendment was even more broad) and you have to deal with it. Its a mute point no state court can overturn a Constitutional obligation just interprete it and they left in California nothing to interprete. The Federal Constitution could but as far as I can tell nothing overtly applies. You must have one man and one woman to be a legally married couple now. All the now protests against the state doing so are effectively useless. They can't say two people of the same sex cannot form a legal partnership (Civil Union) they did that in Florida so be grateful California left you that.

[Trieste]

The problem with likening pedophilia to gay marriage is that it's comparing apples and oranges - and also rehashing an argument that was made against interracial marriages. Really, you didn't see dogs marrying cats and chaos in the streets after interracial marriage was allowed. Why would you then see it when allowing same-sex marriage?

Instituting civil unions for those gay people over there and marriage for the properly hetero people over here has also been proven wrong - or did you forget the spectacular failure of separate-but-equal in 20th-century southern America? There really is no religious issue, since churches have full control over their parishes and can choose without anyone's interference to allow or disallow gay marriage in their own little worlds. Nobody can interfere with that. It is sacrosanct. What is at stake here is not the afterlife, but civil rights under the law, which is supposed to be separate from any one church. Considering that some (Christian!) churches are allowing gay marriage and some are not, this is a bit of a problem. Christianity itself is difficult to extricate from our government - consider all the religious symbols on our money, for chrissake. But in my personal opinion, the governments are cherry-picking the choice of church... which is wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, let men marry men and women marry women. If you're really all that concerned about it, drop a grant for a research study or twelve. Hungry grad students everywhere will be very grateful.

However, what makes Prop 8 hairy is that the prior law that was on the books was passed by the state Supreme Court. Prop 8 itself was passed due to popular vote. As far as I am concerned, popular vote should trump a court ruling any day of the week - which means that I fully support the decision in California to amend their constitution. Both sides fought very hard, but there had to be a loser, and neither side was going to be happy with losing. The population of California has spoken, though. State legislators should listen.

As for the Mormon church, though, I believe that they need to realise (as Hairy said earlier) that they made a national movement very, very angry. If they didn't know they were going to do so, they are idiots. Thus, they chose to campaign, and now they are getting decisive feedback from the community against which they chose to agitate. Suck it up and deal.

[Vekseid]

Locking to split.

Also, I didn't read this thread nearly closely enough. There's nothing in policy here that say's we need to tolerate bigotry.

[Vekseid]

Unlocked. Please continue discussions regarding gay marriage specifically in the new thread.

This thread is for the boycott, Mormonism's tax exempt status, proposition 8 itself and similar topics that are (somewhat) separate from the more heated issue.

[Jefepato]

However, what makes Prop 8 hairy is that the prior law that was on the books was passed by the state Supreme Court. Prop 8 itself was passed due to popular vote. As far as I am concerned, popular vote should trump a court ruling any day of the week - which means that I fully support the decision in California to amend their constitution. Both sides fought very hard, but there had to be a loser, and neither side was going to be happy with losing. The population of California has spoken, though. State legislators should listen.

Our government was designed to prevent the majority from voting away the minority's rights.  That's why we have three branches and a list of enumerated rights instead of just a straight-up popular vote for everything -- the California Supreme Court was just doing its job.

Proposition 8 is in unambiguous violation of the United States Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and is therefore improper law no matter how many people support it.  Hopefully the Supreme Court will see this simple truth, though I'm not terribly optimistic, considering that even Lawrence v. Texas had three dissenters.

[Oniya]

I had to look it up again, but how is allowing someone to get married 'abridg[ing] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [...] depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [or] deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'?  (full text here.)

[Apple of Eris]

I can easily be argued that denying marriage rights denies equal protection by not allowing gay couples to have the same rights as married couples.

For example not all states offer civil unions, and som ethat offer civil unions don't offer equal rights as compared to married couples (visitation rights to hospitals, benefits, etc, etc.). Then you could see the example of Arkansas in that they now have restriced adoption only to married couples, thus denying gay families the right to adopt or even foster care for a child.

It is also one of the ways 'seperate but equal' as far as schooling was ruled unconstitutional.

[Oniya]

It is also one of the ways 'seperate but equal' as far as schooling was ruled unconstitutional.

That's what I thought I was reading.  The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were put in place during the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War, and were intended to affirm that constitutional rights were extended to all. (Well, men, at least.  Suffrage for women wasn't until the 19th Amendment.)

[Sabby]

Excuse me for my lack of political knowledge, but in my tiny, simple mind, the place is a hate state and I like the idea of it shriveling up and dying from a Boycott. Anywhere that's going to parade a man like Jack Thompson around like a hero can go away as far as I'm concerned, or at least shut the hell up and keep to itself.

[Sugarman (hal)]

Mormons believe in something called "Free Agency" they feel we were put here to use it. But the say there are consequences for it. What bothers me, is they try their best to get people to get people to conform to their ways. They seem to be in conflict with their own doctrine. They not only do it in the polling-place but also in converting efforts. The largest missionary program in the world is a testament to that.

[IronCharmer]

I don't get why people are boycotting utah, why not boycott California, the state that passed it?

[Sugarman (hal)]

it's because the Utah Mormons helped passed it by contributions in the millions.

[IronCharmer]

capitalism is a democracy of the dollar, you have the right to spend (or not spend) in this instance money in or around the state of utah. will that solve your problems, I personally doubt it.

[Cherri Tart]

I need signatures so i can put a proposition taking away the right for Mormons to marry in California.  Really, what's the difference?  Then, after that we can target *insert race/culture/religion here*.

[Sugarman (hal)]

I need signatures so i can put a proposition taking away the right for Mormons to marry in California.  Really, what's the difference?  Then, after that we can target *insert race/culture/religion here*.

How unGodly Cherri, but totally agree. We must protect the rights of every minority to insure our rights

[Trieste]

... that's IT! Clearly the Mormons are pissed because their form of marriage is disallowed by the state. If we let them marry as they wish, maybe they'll leave everyone else's alone!

[Sugarman (hal)]

... that's IT! Clearly the Mormons are pissed because their form of marriage is disallowed by the state. If we let them marry as they wish, maybe they'll leave everyone else's alone!

LOL they hold a grudge a good long time.

[Sabby]

I don't know a lot of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saints, so I youtubed it and found this...

[youtube=425,344]http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo[/youtube]

...do they really believe this?

[Trieste]

Are you sure that that isn't scientology? O_o

[Sabby]

No, its definitely Mormon... I already saw the gold plates and stuff on South Park, but God being a sci-fi playboy and the indecisive cursed to live as negros? That was new to me.

[Oniya]

I read elsewhere that they considered the Negro to be the descendants of Noah's son who walked in and saw him drunk and naked and told his brothers (Shem and Japheth) instead of simply covering him up.  I also know that they believed that after the Resurrection, Jesus came to North America and ministered to the Native Americans (I'm guessing that was mentioned - I didn't have time to watch the youtube clip.

[Revolverman]

didn't god turn the natives red for killing some people from Israeli or something in Mormonism?

[Sabby]

According to the video, the Mormon Gods up in their space kingdom or something had a council to see what would be done with the millions of kids that God had made with his harem of baby machine wives. Control of Earth went to Jesus, but his brother Lucifer riled up a third of the children to rebel. That third became demons, Jesus' third became good, white Mormon families, and the third that remained neutral were cursed with black skin.

Wow... kind of sounds like Power Rangers.

[Revolverman]

wow, thats... fucked up.


but then I find all religion fucked up.

[The Overlord]

According to the video, the Mormon Gods up in their space kingdom or something had a council to see what would be done with the millions of kids that God had made with his harem of baby machine wives. Control of Earth went to Jesus, but his brother Lucifer riled up a third of the children to rebel. That third became demons, Jesus' third became good, white Mormon families, and the third that remained neutral were cursed with black skin.

Wow... kind of sounds like Power Rangers.

*pokes head back into thread*

Like the Power Rangers crossed with the race of superbeings from Krypton. Fracked up is an understatement. And the neutral people were 'cursed' into being black...I just love how we can bend dogma so it fits our ignorance. I hope this isn't the real Mormon manifesto because cutting off travel and recreation revenues to Utah is the very, very least we can do.

[Sugarman (hal)]

it's simplified but a good deal true. Joseph Smith said "As man is God once was, as God is man may become.

As for me, I think it's a dam sight better then believing our only one purpose is to become angles to solely serve and worship God for ever and ever. I's a pointless future. At least they believe we have a equal potential as he had to create.

opinion only

[Oniya]

Most religions I've encountered have at least one nugget of - at least copper among the slag.

[The Overlord]

it's simplified but a good deal true. Joseph Smith said "As man is God once was, as God is man may become.

As for me, I think it's a dam sight better then believing our only one purpose is to become angles to solely serve and worship God for ever and ever. I's a pointless future. At least they believe we have a equal potential as he had to create.

opinion only

What we're really talking here, then, is Ancient Astronaut Theory turned theology.

EDIT- Oh, did I mention the glaringly racist part?

[Sugarman (hal)]

What we're really talking here, then, is Ancient Astronaut Theory turned theology.

EDIT- Oh, did I mention the glaringly racist part?

Isn't it that way?  All Christians believe that God came down and had sex with Mary, thereby creating a highbred son called Jesus Christ.

[HairyHeretic]

Isn't it that way?  All Christians believe that God came down and had sex with Marry, thereby creating a highbred son called Jesus Christ.

Not exactly. You want to frequent another of my boards and you'll see some very anti-Mary posting.

[RubySlippers]

For me its a matter of how much they can prove or not. Its clear from any common sense point there is much to question in the Bible like the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt ... nice story but no evidence from any source other than the Torah it actually happened. On the other hand a Natural Law minister can point to science, philosophy and common sense to show his position on matters since that is not steeped in some mystical text.

And somehow I think a boycott of Utah would be as effective as the Christians boycotting Disney World down here because of Gay Day. As in not going to really do that much.

[Oniya]

Any single-day boycott doesn't do much - like the ones telling people not to buy gas on Day Whatever.  Those people that want/need to do what's being boycotted will simply do their business on another day, thereby making up whatever revenue was lost during the 'boycott'.

Now, if enough people sustain a boycott against Utah... That might get noticed.

[Trieste]

Yeah, a sustained boycott on things like... what is it, Park City? Tourism is huge right now in Utah. If people don't go, it will make a dent. The problem is that it seems like the more money a person has, the more conservative they they become... which then puts them in the anti-gay camp. Not all... but most. :(

[OldSchoolGamer]

I'm rather neutral on the whole homosexual marriage issue.  On the one hand, I'm not inclined to work against same-sex marriage--it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg if two gals living down the street get married, and as an old-school American I believe in Minding My Own Business.  On the other hand, I think we have far more pressing issues to deal with as a society than rewriting our laws and re-engineering our society around homosexual couplings.

[The Overlord]

On the other hand, I think we have far more pressing issues to deal with as a society than rewriting our laws and re-engineering our society around homosexual couplings.

Which is why we should stop bickering about it and mature as a nation and realize that gay people are part of society like anyone else and there's nothing you can do about that...pass the damn law, legalize it, and move onto the important stuff like economy, getting our troops out of Iraq in a timely withdrawal plan and let Mr. Obama patch up our tarnished global relations.

Enough of this bitching from the opponents, get over it already.

[Revolverman]

Which is why we should stop bickering about it and mature as a nation and realize that gay people are part of society like anyone else and there's nothing you can do about that...pass the damn law, legalize it, and move onto the important stuff like economy, getting our troops out of Iraq in a timely withdrawal plan and let Mr. Obama patch up our tarnished global relations.

Enough of this bitching from the opponents, get over it already.

100% agreement.

[Sugarman (hal)]

I also agree, but it isn't going to devolve away. There are to many who see it as a fundamental affront to god and secured beliefs.

[The Overlord]

I also agree, but it isn't going to devolve away. There are to many who see it as a fundamental affront to god and secured beliefs.

Which again comes down to my original point; ain't none of their business, which means until it's passed, the conservative opponents best get used to the concept of eternal battle over this. Something this fundamental to the human psyche will not go away, or quietly.

On the other hand, I think we have far more pressing issues to deal with as a society than rewriting our laws and re-engineering our society around homosexual couplings.

This particular line I wanted to comment on earlier and forgot to: Based on what I've seen to date, this is a large impetus for the conservatives that are so vocal about this. That we would have to 'reengineer society' to accommodate gay marriage is simply a fabrication of the mind, propagated by misguided theological beliefs. No, nothing would have to be restructured, we simply allow gays to marry and that's it, it's no different a concept than those points in national history when blacks or women were finally allowed to vote...and you know how badly society went to hell in a handbasket when that was allowed. Riiight.

No argument I've against gay marriage holds any real weight, it comes down to theological assumptions and fantasies. If we write our laws based on figments of the imagination, that's certainly cause for concern.

[Trieste]

I also agree, but it isn't going to devolve away. There are to many who see it as a fundamental affront to god and secured beliefs.

There's a lot that has been resisted in the past because it's thought to be theologically wrong. Both sides can be equally shrill, but I do wonder if those who are fighting 'against' worry that extra little bit because it really just seems like a matter of time...

[Oniya]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081125/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_mormons;_ylt=Amm.BBI4RW2LwSRdGZI9QVQ7Xs8F

To get this a little back on topic, it looks as if someone's taking notice about the issue.

[Older And Wiser]

I think religiousgroups should not be alloed to politicize in their churches regadless of their state. And if they do, they should lose their special tax exempt status. Mabe that'll get these goddamned ministers and priests and reverends to shut the hell up about politics and talk about, oh, I don't know...GOD?

I think we need to be careful about that Apple.  There are certainly moral issues that occur in the realm of public policy.  As a Buddhist, for example, I am compelled by my religion to oppose the war in Iraq for its destruction of the lives of innocent sentient beings.  I favor many of the programs that the religous right would label "socialist" because no being can find happiness or peace when certain basic needs go unfulfilled (food, shelter, health care as prime examples). 

I have many Christian friends who feel their faith compels them to the same political action, and they seek social justice and peace because of their faith.  Consider, for example Soujourners (http://www.sojo.net/) or the Catholic Worker movement of the churches open and accepting of gay members http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/.

I suspect you would find yourself in agreement with many of these sentiments.  The big problem is that the media focuses on the loudest mouthes, not necessarily the most intelligent speakers.  So you get maniacs like Focus on Family with no seperate reporting from Catholic Bishops, or mainline liberal protestants, or the local Rabbi, or local Buddhist, all of whom tend to have moderate, reasoned voices, not shrill ones.

[Older And Wiser]

Yeah, a sustained boycott on things like... what is it, Park City? Tourism is huge right now in Utah. If people don't go, it will make a dent. The problem is that it seems like the more money a person has, the more conservative they they become... which then puts them in the anti-gay camp. Not all... but most. :(

Yes Trieste it is Park City.  The snow there is awesome, but I can tell you from experience that Colorado is just a great, if not better, for the average to expert skier.  In addition, it is far easier to find adult beverages apres ski, as we do not have Utah's screwy liqour laws.

The only thing you can not find is Poligamy Porter - my favorite name for a micro brew beer.  Why have just One?
http://www.wasatchbeers.com/polygporter.html
;D

[Revolverman]

I think we need to be careful about that Apple.  There are certainly moral issues that occur in the realm of public policy.  As a Buddhist, for example, I am compelled by my religion to oppose the war in Iraq for its destruction of the lives of innocent sentient beings.  I favor many of the programs that the religous right would label "socialist" because no being can find happiness or peace when certain basic needs go unfulfilled (food, shelter, health care as prime examples). 

I have many Christian friends who feel their faith compels them to the same political action, and they seek social justice and peace because of their faith.  Consider, for example Soujourners (http://www.sojo.net/) or the Catholic Worker movement of the churches open and accepting of gay members http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/.

I suspect you would find yourself in agreement with many of these sentiments.  The big problem is that the media focuses on the loudest mouthes, not necessarily the most intelligent speakers.  So you get maniacs like Focus on Family with no seperate reporting from Catholic Bishops, or mainline liberal protestants, or the local Rabbi, or local Buddhist, all of whom tend to have moderate, reasoned voices, not shrill ones.

I disagree with any church supporting ANY political party, issue or anything. Using the threat of supernatural retaliation when politics are involved leads to very bad things.

[Trieste]

Bwahaha. Awesome name for a beer, I'll give it that.

I have only been skiing on the east coast here, and I have to say that I couldn't stand the Poconos. I much prefer the White Mountains... though it's been a while.

As far as religious policies and agitating for a better life ... that's the way it should be. If half the money that has been put into campaigning for or against gay marriage were put into things like food banks and homeless shelters, can you imagine how much good it would do? Communities - be they religious or not - need to focus more on helping hose who want to change, not those who are unapologetically on the wrong path (even if that 'wrong' path is homosexuality). Yes, I support the legalization of gay marriage, but that's not why I'm disappointed in the mormons. They chose to take resources and use them to harm, in the house of another no less, when it could have been used to help instead. That's what I think they did wrong - and that is with regards to any issue.

[RubySlippers]

I think we need to be careful about that Apple.  There are certainly moral issues that occur in the realm of public policy.  As a Buddhist, for example, I am compelled by my religion to oppose the war in Iraq for its destruction of the lives of innocent sentient beings.  I favor many of the programs that the religous right would label "socialist" because no being can find happiness or peace when certain basic needs go unfulfilled (food, shelter, health care as prime examples). 

I have many Christian friends who feel their faith compels them to the same political action, and they seek social justice and peace because of their faith.  Consider, for example Soujourners (http://www.sojo.net/) or the Catholic Worker movement of the churches open and accepting of gay members http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/.

I suspect you would find yourself in agreement with many of these sentiments.  The big problem is that the media focuses on the loudest mouthes, not necessarily the most intelligent speakers.  So you get maniacs like Focus on Family with no seperate reporting from Catholic Bishops, or mainline liberal protestants, or the local Rabbi, or local Buddhist, all of whom tend to have moderate, reasoned voices, not shrill ones.

I am in a tax paying church and we are very political since paying taxes frees the church from those laws that restrict our speech, in fact the seperation of Church and State doctrine and the tax exemptions unduly restrict a Church or other body to its First Amendment rights. So yes I think every church should pay taxes perhaps not a legitimate charity such as a homeless shelter or the like but the holdy sanctuary proper should.

[Zakharra]

I disagree with any church supporting ANY political party, issue or anything. Using the threat of supernatural retaliation when politics are involved leads to very bad things.

It's their right to do so, provided they follow the laws. Everyone and every organization has the right of Free Speech. It's how they use it that  turns people on or off. The Mormon Church used it in a way that annoyed a lot of people. Whether it is legal or not has not been decided.

Personally I think marriage should be strictly a religious ceremony, with no legal standing at all. Civil unions between consenting adults is what should be legal. That way any religion can operate by it's standards as long as they do not break the bill of Rights. You need a government license to marry already, so marriage by a priest isn't worth much. *shrug*

[The Overlord]

It's their right to do so, provided they follow the laws. Everyone and every organization has the right of Free Speech. It's how they use it that  turns people on or off. The Mormon Church used it in a way that annoyed a lot of people. Whether it is legal or not has not been decided.

Personally I think marriage should be strictly a religious ceremony, with no legal standing at all. Civil unions between consenting adults is what should be legal. That way any religion can operate by it's standards as long as they do not break the bill of Rights. You need a government license to marry already, so marriage by a priest isn't worth much. *shrug*

Maybe that's the problem; in the arena of politics perhaps religion has too many rights in what it can get away with and needs to get blunted sharply on the nose so it pulls its head back and thinks twice.

Supernatural retaliation, yeah I think that phrase more or less sums it up, and I don't like the tone of it. Not one bit.

Where some may be content to be god fearing because of that dogma, for me it does the opposite. If god, whatever you want call it, and I am using it because I'm not even convinced gender applies to a supernatural being, wants me to be afraid of it just because, then it's my enemy. That true of any mortal being and it's going to apply to anything beyond as well.

[Zakharra]

Maybe that's the problem; in the arena of politics perhaps religion has too many rights in what it can get away with and needs to get blunted sharply on the nose so it pulls its head back and thinks twice.

I agree with that to a point. They have the right to speak out on the issues that are important to them. There are many in this country that would cut Christianity and to a lesser extent, other religions, out of all public view.  From holding office, supporting candidates, having crosses on their buildings, removal of all religious symbols from everything, including historical and cultural buildings, monuments and symbols(like city/county/state seals).

People might not like it, but they do have the right to speak. I'm not a Christian, so I ignore most of what they might 'threaten' me with. they have their god, I have mine. Meh.

[The Overlord]

Well, members of any faith, Christian or otherwise, have the right to speak out on the issues. The problem lies in the fact of what they do in general, which includes this Mormon issue that is the topic of this thread. It's not enough for them to dislike gay marriage, they have to make sure nobody can practice it.

In pushing your theology in this manner, you are effectively trying to make everyone follow the ethics of your church, no matter if they're a member or not; this is something that should elicit a major, hard-core WTF from anyone with an ounce of sense and tolerance in them.

Regardless of what they might believe, this is religion stepping way out of bounds, and at least in my view, it's grounds to fight on any level, even resorting to violence if all other options are expired.

[Zakharra]

Well, members of any faith, Christian or otherwise, have the right to speak out on the issues. The problem lies in the fact of what they do in general, which includes this Mormon issue that is the topic of this thread. It's not enough for them to dislike gay marriage, they have to make sure nobody can practice it.

In pushing your theology in this manner, you are effectively trying to make everyone follow the ethics of your church, no matter if they're a member or not; this is something that should elicit a major, hard-core WTF from anyone with an ounce of sense and tolerance in them.

Regardless of what they might believe, this is religion stepping way out of bounds, and at least in my view, it's grounds to fight on any level, even resorting to violence if all other options are expired.

To a point I agree with that. Historically, the US was a very Christian nation, following the Bible, more or less. It's the 'American Way' in many minds. To move away from that is to change the warp and woof of the American cultural fabric. To make it less 'American'. As they see it, it is others (people like you*) who are forcing their strange view on what god fearing Americans should know. So they have every right to fight those changes, and like it or not, the majority of voters in California did vote to amend the State constitution to make marriage  only between a man and woman.

This will be taken to the US Supreme court, since the 9th Circuit can't automatically override a State constitution.

*  is not necessarily the viewer, but those that are coming down against religion and their views. Which includes me to a degree.

[Oniya]

If they find out there was some sort of impropriety in the vote, couldn't they put it up for a re-vote?

[The Overlord]

A Christian ideal certainly is woven into the American fabric, no doubts there. In fact it's woven in so much, that the paranoia talk I hear occasionally regarding the war on terror makes me laugh uncontrollably on how duped some people can be.

Even my own aunt living in Houston; she's been searching for something all her life, that much was made plain, when a good 25 years ago she headed out to the Portland area and got involved in one of those classic cults that limited their contact with the outside world until my grandparents got her out of it. Later on she went to Christianity, but she's got some crazy ideas that she still lets people pump into her head. We've had some pretty heated debates, as you can imagine. The most recent WTF moment I experienced was a conversation just weeks ago, where she's convinced we have to fight the war on terror to keep the United States from falling under sharia law.

It's just one of those moments where to have let the laughter subside, the fact that she's family notwithstanding, and compose your response. Listen, besides every hardcore yahoo that will come pouring out of the hills as soon as Islam tries to plant its flag here, and the millions of Christians, Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics in every corner of the country, that's some of the most full-blown paranoia I've ever heard, and I'm somewhat saddened that someone that shares my bloodline fell for such weakness.

In that regard I'm glad for the Christians and other denominations here, for no other reason that radical Islam taking root here will be bled dry by legions of cross bearing faithful.


All that aside, I maintain that I don't want to see religion evaporate here, but it has to learn its place. As long as it tries to push its ethics on the rest of us, it will represent a bigger threat to our liberties than any crackpot Muslim half a world away. The war on terror is a diversion from the true threat.

[Zakharra]

 I don't think so. There might have been violations made by the Morman church, but it was still a legal vote by the people of California. As long as that wasn't breached, it should stand unless stricken down by the USSC.

[CassandraNova]

To a point I agree with that. Historically, the US was a very Christian nation, following the Bible, more or less....

Well...not really.  The Constitution is a nearly godless document. It mentions neither God, nor Christianity outside of a reference to the date using the Christian calandar. It does however have a provision against requiring specific religious ideas as a qualification for office (see Article VI, section 3).  The First Amendment to the Constitution establishes that there shall be no national church or religion (Establishment Clause).

The Treaty of Tripoli, a document ratified by the United States Congress and signed by President John Adams, contains the words:  "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..."  John Adams himself, one of the Founding Fathers and second President, had this to say about Christianity in a letter from 1814:  "Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years."

Thomas Jefferson, of course, was notoriously unreligious, and rewrote the bible to preserve what he called the "moral teachings" while removing what he considered to be supernatural garbage.  Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Washignton...the list goes on and on of deists, freethinkers, and unreligious people forming a secular government unfettered to religious authority or tradition.

I will concede that the United States is a country in which Christians live.  It is not in any meaningful way, a Christian country.

[RubySlippers]

The First Amendment only demands that the government not set up one national Church at any level, there is nowhere a Seperation of Church and State in the US Constitution. There is however in the constitution of the former Soviet Union in clear and unambiguous language. So I agree its religion neutral to a great degree but neither for or against the execution of religion in the United States. Let me explain this as I see it from my Libertarian roots.

Say there is a sacred institution in Florida and Governor Christ wanted to make this Church of the Giant Spagetti Monster with Meatballs (CGSMM) the official church of Florida that is clearly banned at the Federal level. Say the CGSMM instead claims tax exemption due to religion I view that as just as illegal as they have land used for a purpose that is not de facto charitable as in say running a homeless shelter on it. Its in fact a money making enterprise. The First Amendment doesn't state that these institutions shouldn't pay taxes just that the government cannot establish nor interefere with religious practice. Its not the GSMM can still be worshipped just that the place must pay fair taxes for services. It the Courts that established a status that is not demanded by the Constitution a special protected class that stifles religious speech and practice.

I can defend that. Can a religious institution that is tax-exempt campaign for candidates they like, take open positions against candidates who have offensive views to them and in all other way unfettered act as a community member? No. Because the Federal Government and all lower level governments enforce the Seperation Clause that doesn't exist and for tex exemptions buy the religious centers. This I'm shocked by that these supposed holy centers be they church or synogogue don't refuse this and pay taxes, they could as far as I can tell, which would free their speech. Taxation equals liberty and not paying taxes denies liberty to religious groups if they could understand that then things would be far better for everyone.

As for the Founding Fathers and Mothers, Bejamin Franklin for one in one of his fameous wise sayings stated each home should have a newspaper and a Bible and both should be read often. And are you saying all the signers of the Declaration of Independence were not at all religious, a few were recognized ministers, one a Quaker of no small regard and from a cursory survey most seemed to be men of faith. The ones of higher education or worldly experience perhaps not but saying all did is not sensible. Perhaps some were deists but even they believed in a higher power of some sort. So saying religion did not play a role in the document is silly the fine men put into it their values many of which were at least touched by their religion. Pensylvania was well regarded for its religious tolerance and that is in the document in the First Amendment is it not a respect for free execution of ones faith is a powerful concept that differed from most other governments of the period.

But nowhere did it appear to be commonly accepted that people of faith should not be active I would argue since there were many Founding Fathers and each signed off on the government unless you can discount them all, we can conclude there is a strong opinion to be made that the Christian faith did strongly influence the document.

[CassandraNova]

The First Amendment only demands that the government not set up one national Church at any level, there is nowhere a Seperation of Church and State in the US Constitution....

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  In the words of Hugo Black:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Emphasis mine.

Madison himself wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh), "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches).

[RubySlippers]

I didn't argue that the later interpretations of that by the High Court supported me but that the Constitution in the wording doesn't state that.

And am I wrong read the opinion again? I can argue that by granting tax-exemptions and thereby strangling the free rights of all religiions to full opinion in public on any matter the government is violating its own position. They cannot aid one religion, aid all religions, levy taxes to support a religion and the rest. Very well then I argue as a Libertarian it cannot also refuse to levy taxes on religions either unless the purpose of a facility or charity is exempt on non-religious grounds apart and seperate. Its not levying a tax to support religion is it rather asking a church say to pay for the land its on and services of the state it has benefit of just like the barber shop across the street or the restaurant on the same street. And by stating a religion cannot preach against say Obama or McCain during an election openly they are in fact siding against religious beliefs and breaking their own seperation clause. And in fact stifling the free expression of faith also demanded by the First Amendment.

It seems to me churches also  want it all tax-exemption and the right to act as their faith dictates in public matters and I argue you can't have both and I argue Hugo Black in his learned opinion in fact demands that churches should be free to speak and act, just the government is bound to not get involved at all for or against it but the Churches cannot expect to get by in society with property and land and not pay fair taxes on it the opinion nowhere states that taxes cannot be levied. Just again not levied to favor religion. If applied fairly and broadly to all religious property that is not violated. If one wants a home church then one pays a smaller tax than a huge megachurch, but the later uses far more money and collects likely far more profits. So that is not unfair.

As I would see this matter the church holy place and offices are a business (with any profit making aspects like stores or a coffee shop) and should be taxable as a business. If they have a homeless center that can be exempted as a charity easily enough and if they have a free medical clinic that can be exempted like any other not-for-profit charity of a secular nature could. So why are we not enforcing learned Black's interpretation literally and to its logical conclusion in this nation?

[CassandraNova]

Whether or not by being free of taxes and likewise restricted from speaking on matters of government is one issue, and one that can be debated on the pros and cons of both sides.

It is, however, another issue to state as you did that nowhere in the Constitution the idea of separation of church and state.  I have pointed to examples from Jefferson and Madison, the text of the First Amendment, and the interpretations of Justice Black.  All of these sources point to the same thing:  the establishment clause of the First Amendment was intended to separate church and state.  That is the factual point you made, and it is the one I refuted.

[RubySlippers]

[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.]

Ok you and I can read plain English lets look at the First Amendment then. Nope - I see two clauses in simple language. One cannot Establish a religion that is clear it says nothing else so no Church of America or the like. And can't prohibit the free exercise of religion again its pretty clear that can't restrict the peaceful practices of faith. Thats it.

I don't know why people have to overanalyze and interprete what is plain and simple language. As for the learned Black and a few other Founding Fathers who unless you can prove to me normative they are wrong, I can say that my opinion is as valid as Jefferson's. As for Justice Black he clearly can't read plain English its simple to understand the First Amendment on this the government is constrained on matters of faith it says nothing about the reverse. There is nothing else to worry about, if a minister runs for office and is a devout Christian, and legislates from his faith as long as its not violating either simple principle its fine.

Its the same for the other Amendments there is so much interpretation when its not necessary for any of them just apply it as written with the clear simple intent of the language and its easy. But no special interest groups, radical courts and others have to keep reading things into the language and have done so to such a level it disrespects the document at this point.

[CassandraNova]

I see your point.  I dissent from it, however.

Edited to extract the bitchy.

[Trieste]

Chill, please, or it gets locked.

[CassandraNova]

Yes, ma'am.

[Trieste]

Thank you.

[RubySlippers]

Take the wording as is its one thing a chain on the government in both the establishment of a religion (endorsement of) and a protect of religious expression of citizens from the government (under clear common sense restrictions such as if it would be grossly illegal otherwise). Its to protect religions from the government not in the wording the other way around. Its in English if that is what they wanted they would have stated such in simple added text.

And I have another viewpoint is tax exemptions on religions as opposed to a charity non-profit encouraging the establishment of churches and religious organizations of a non-Charity nature? One may argue a Church is charitable by its nature but when I see very large churches ,Megachurches and others with very large property holdings, and making profits I find that a hard case to argue. A Church based in a homeless care center might argue that since they primarily take care of the poor and happen to hold services in the building, than if they are say a large baptist Church and School that does charitable activities on the side to the community (if at all). If this encourages churches to be created it would also break Justice Blacks opinion in that case clearly to me.