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

[romantico]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 11:20am

I could not agree with Elphaba more! You need to make it clear to your family it is NOT OK and how prop 8 hurts you. If they don't respect that then they do not have your best interest at heart and that is not love. That is not what families do. I would rehearse and plan EXACTLY what to say. Show them a side they have never seen before and hell, even tell them this will be the last family gathering you attend if they decide to discuss the matter in your presence. Its painful to hear you give in and let them tell you how it is. Its no different than Rosa Parks refusing to budge from her seat. Its that determination and fight from gays before you that has given you the rights you have now.You are taking the cowards way out and frankly, I would rather not read such things. So, if you are going to post stuff like that its going to win you no respect here.Just saying.

[Q]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 11:30am

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?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 11:42am

Why don't the Mormons realize the radical Christians hate them every bit as much as they hate the homos?

That's why they did this. It was the Mormons' bid to become part of the Radical Right-Wing Religious faction in this country at the precise moment when that faction has lost power.

That way the Mormons can become the new leaders of the bigoted wings of the Evangelical Protestant and Fundamentalist Catholic churches.

It was a brilliant move on the part of the Mormons...only they thought the faggots would bend over and take it.

But a new generation of 20-somethings, fired up by Obama's win, woke up Wednesday morning to find a Giant Buzz-Killer in the form Prop 8, California and the Mormons.

These new activists are NOT going to let this happen without an ugly bruising fights that in the end, will make things difficult with the tax-exempt status of ALL organized religions that try to interfere with political progress.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 11:58am

...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.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 12:01pm

And, the only bright spot in the voting patterns of Prop 8 is that those bigoted fools are dying off - hopefully quickly. If you look at how the young voted, well, Prop 8 would have lost in a landslide.

The Christian Right is just delaying the inevitable, and in the process, exposing themselves.

Whether it is next, week, next month, or next year, Prop 8 will be overturned.

There was a 9% shift since the last vote on gay marriage to those who support the right of all men and women to marry whomever they choose, and while that does not provide any immediate comfort or support for those fighting against hate, it does show the tide has turned.

I just wish it was a Tsunami and not a damned tide pool.
Updated On: 11/9/08 at 12:01 PM

[Q]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 12:21pm

"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.

[artscallion]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 12:32pm

Tax free status for religious organizations is necessary in order to maintain separation of church and state. If you tax groups without allowing them to participate or influence the decision making process, that equals taxation without representation. Nt taxing them is the only way we have of keeping their filthy paws off our silky drawers.

Keep in mind that this is a double edged sword. If their tax exempt status is removed, after they get over the shock, they'll realize that they now have free reign to pour all of their efforts into influencing politics.

I suggest instead that we work to establish HUGE monetary fines for breaking the rules, but let them keep their status just to keep them in check for the future.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 12:35pm

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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 12:42pm

On the other hand, the country could use the tax revenues to fill the deep hole on the balance sheet left by the unnecessary war the "President chosen by God" has us mired in. Of course, Joe the Minister would be all whining about it on Youtube and whatnot.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 12:47pm

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.

[Q]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 12:52pm

Arts - I think their influence is already more than felt - and that's not even considering the overt nonsense like we've just seen.

I'd rather have the money, and be able to confront their views head-on, without them hiding behind their facades.

[artscallion]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 12:58pm

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?

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:02pm

Art--I wouldn't worry about it too much. If they would actually agree to pay, they would lose a lot more than a few dollars. Their entire existence as an organization would come into question (legally as well as morally). They'd have the freedom to wield a political sword... but it would cost them millions and millions (and MILLIONS) of dollars.

I don't see them going for it.

They may have no choice, and if I had my way, I'd strip them of their tax exempt protection right now.

Today.

Even on SUNDAY.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:08pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:16pm

I think there is a difference between a group who takes a stance "as a matter of a collective opinion" on a political issue, whether it be gay marriage or anti-war, etc.

But if you are financially backing public initiatives against it, when you assert your collective selves FAR beyond your parish pulpit to launch a huge-scale advertising campaign to convince all citizens to vote "your way"... that's where they cross the line.

Big-time.

It's the difference between preaching and lobbying.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:18pm

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

[artscallion]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:19pm

All right. You talked me down. But I'm still going to be a little nervous. I keep picturing scenes from 80s horror flicks like Poltergeist wher someone foolishly pulls up the floorboard to see what that light underneath is coming from and suddenly the whole floor flies away and the unholy bowels of hell rise up into the dining room. But then, I have post traumatic catholic upbringing syndrome.

[Q]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:21pm

"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

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:26pm

Just remember Art, they lose a LOT of government protection (not just financial) if they were to lose their "religious organization" status.

We could sue the hell out of them, one joker at a time. Lots of arrests, lots of actions called into question publicly. Oh, and I wonder if they'd become a "publicly held" corporation or a "private" business. Either way, those financial books would fly wide open, with lots of eyes upon them. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

And they'd be paying LOTS and LOTS of taxes.

It's time for Uncle Sam's tithe, brethren. Dig deep into those pockets and pay him for the right to launch your political initiatives and campaigns.

Operators are standing by to take your credit card numbers now.

[Q]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:28pm

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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 1:37pm

I HATE NEIL LABUTE AND HIS TAWDRY LITTLE PLAYS.

There, I said it.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 4:19pm

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.

[Q]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 4:32pm

"I have post traumatic catholic upbringing syndrome."

I believe there are quite a few of us floating around these parts . . .

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 9:00pm

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.