A question for the Mormons and "reformed" Mormons on this board... — Page 2

Besty - I think it's their tax-exempt status that breaks down the barrier between church and state - they're getting special privledges! Just from a property standpoint, we as a general society only have so much to go around - why are these people allowed to use a portion of it without contributing to the general funds by property taxes?

These are voluntary social organizations in my mind, nothing more - why are the Elks paying property taxes and not the religious organizations?

...which brings me back to the main question I posed in this thread... how do you deal with it, when you are against Prop 8 and what it stands for, yet are a member of the Mormon church?

I go with the old cliche "actions speak louder than words."

To say you're against it, yet stay with the church, merely relegates your position on this subject to "something we disagree on and a matter of opinion."

I hope that human rights and the the freedom we enjoy as American citizens is more than just "a matter of opinion" or "something to disagree on."

It's something our ancestors have fought to the DEATH to uphold. And it should be obvious why. And you should expect the same (ultimately) now, with this issue and the continued "separate but equal" mentality of the religious fanatics in this country.

I also think it's very similar to a Nazi or a member of the KKK (both groups also tried---and are trying?---to deny basic human rights to individuals). So if you're born or raised as a member of either the Nazis or the KKK, and you say, "well, I don't agree with the group's stance on being Jewish or being black or being gay, but I'm still a member of the group..." sounds pretty awful, doesn't it?

If you're a member of the group, you're a member of the group.

Period. You are supporting what they support by being a member of that group.

Choose your groups wisely, folks. AND as you become an adult, it is a choice. You're not forced to be a member of any group in this country. Religious or political or otherwise. It's a choice.

I'm not saying it's an easy one, but it is a choice.

---

"If you're a member of the group, you're a member of the group.

Period. You are supporting what they support by being a member of that group."

Which was also brought up in the Catholic thread.

Ultimately, I'm beginning to think Prop 8 not passing is exactly what was necessary. It was never really going to amount to much in-and-of-itself on the state level - and it's passing seems to have invigorated a national outrage.

AND, it's FINALLY having an effect on people's perception (or even awareness) of organized religion's interference in civic matters.

True enough, Q.

I'm hoping the negative becomes a positive.

Maybe we needed to take a step backwards in order to take several steps forward now.

It certainly served as a "wake up call" to those folks in the big cities (especially in sunny Cal.) who thought everything was going fine.

I knew (and said several times before this election) that Prop 8 was going to pass. It was very clear to me, because I was seeing those horribly persuasive ads on TV. Hundreds of them (no exaggeration), and maybe one or two ads---and very somber and non-persuasive ads---against it.

That over-confident mistake can never be made again.

---

Updated On: 11/9/08 at 12:35 PM

Hey, if they want to act as a powerful political body influencing legislation for or against human rights, that's their choice. But not under the umbrella of a 501(c)3 religious organization.

Nope. They gotta pay for the right to do that, just like the rest of us.

And I agree, we could use the cash!

But they'll have to come out from behind the cross first.

---

I agree we need the money. But after we get used to having that extra money, we may regret having unleashed the beast. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay. I'm just suggesting we do something like every time they participate politically, like now, we remove their exempt status for that whole year's revenue. But still keep them on the leash. I'd rather try to keep religious organizations out of the political process. Can you imagine what this presidential election would have been like if churchs were allowed to actively tell their followers how to vote?

---

Arts, what makes you think churches didn't explicitly tell people how to vote.

Like it or not, they are already in the political process. Two of my friends who voted for Prop 8 did so specifically because of their religious beliefs and what their Church told them to do.

Also, I wonder how happy the Republicans will be with those "faith-based initiatives" now that Bush will no longer be doling out the cash.

I asked Neil LaBute about this. He just muttered something about men and women being terrible.

---

"if churchs were allowed to actively tell their followers how to vote?"

YWIW beat me to it. I'm pretty sure this already occurs. Not that you aren't correct about the way it's SUPPOSED to be - but if they were the way they were SUPPOSED to be to begin with, none of this would be an issue

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's . . ."

But then, I have post traumatic catholic upbringing syndrome.
Holy Mary, Mother of SIN, so do I!

And the Mormons have told me they think this is a really bitchy thread.

I do NOT have "post traumatic catholic upbringing syndrome." There is nothing "post" about mine. I had it straight through!

Anyway...churches DO tell their congregations how to vote. I was shocked at a Unitarian Universalist service in 1992 to hear the minister say that everyone should vote for Bill Clinton. I was really surprised that she would be so blatantly political from the pulpit, especially because Unitarians vehemently preach "tolerance and acceptance" of others' beliefs. Even though she was advising people to vote as I had planned to, I still found it highly disturbing.

---