Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it should also include liberal organizations like the sierra club, acorn and the like that are tax exempt and still fiddle around in politics.
Well yes and no.
I think that people have a right to protest, and I think that people have a right to protest against my church, whether or not I like it. What I find grimly amusing is the ignorance, intolerance, hypocrisy, and hatefulness displayed by many who are doing the protesting in the name of enlightenment, tolerance, integrity, and love.
But this has nothing to do with the tax exempt status of a group. Some people here apparently have fallen for the silly falsehood that tax exempt groups cannot legally or morally engage in any part of the political process. That is just ridiculous. Tax exempt groups very definitely CAN take part very aggressively in a number of ways in politics. It is explicitly allowed in the United States. What such groups CAN'T do is endorse a candidate or a political party.
So a tax exempt Sierra Club can very definitely support pro-environment legislation and actively work to promote that cause and to turn out the vote for pro-environment legislation. What they can't do is support candidate John Doe in an election because he is more pro-environment than his opponent.
In like manner, ACORN, the NRA, and the NAACP are all free to be engaged in the political process for their causes, just not for specific candidates. Accordingly the GLBT Historical Society, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can all legally spend their time and money promoting their view of political and moral issues without at all endangering their tax exempt status.
Last edited by PaulMcNabb; 12-01-2008 at 09:31 AM..
Is this the same Bible that declares that grass and fruit trees came into existence on the third day, but the sun, moon and stars weren't created until the fourth day?
Grass and fruit trees need light, which was created on the first day.
Mormon brainwashing is hard thing to kick isn't it?
I grew up lds... that church is crazy....
enacting laws and governing people and saying it's all coming from god is f-ing ridiculous.
That's like me telling everyone to follow my teachings and words because the big spegetti monster in the sky talks to me and I am a prophet here on earth to guide people.
That's called the biggest snow-job on earth if you ask me.
anyway, look, i understand your position. But you're justifying everything because your church or religion is important to you. Its an emotional thing for people who believe. Faith is an emotion. You know things are true, not from facts but by an emotion, a "feeling".
Its great that you value that and all... but don't sit here and insult our intelligence in the process either.
There will never be must understanding between the people of faith and the people who aren't. because frankly someone of faith could not even fathom a day without their faith, and a person with no faith, cannot know or create anything similar to enter into the psychological mindset of faith based belief systems.
its like oil and water.
best of luck to you... you'll need it.
Ah, so you are now enlightened and see clearly. The rest of us are childish, foolish, and feeble minded...
I like these condescending posts where someone claims he/she knows what I'm thinking but that his/her thought processes are too advanced for me to comprehend.
It is equally easy to reverse the process and throw it back onto you (and equally fallacious and condescending, I might add).
[sarcasm]Poor boiseguy. I used to be an unbeliever like you are now. And I've seen other little people just like you that were born into the LDS culture but never understood it and left it confused and bitter over the things that they never could quite grasp. I totally understand your psychological dependency on your sense of superiority and the mental block you have against people of faith. Never having experienced the freedom that comes from enlightened faith, you are shackled and blinded by the emotional weight of your anti-faith. When I see your emotionally-charged responses to the solid position of faith, it is obvious that your emotionally-crippled psychological state will always get in the way of your finding freedom, happiness, and peace in your life. Good luck in your stifling, closed mindset. Maybe someday you'll reach a stage where you are emotionally and mentally ready to move up to the next level of truth.[/sarcasm]
See how easy it is? It practically flows off the keyboard like water!
Boiseguy, your feeble psychoanalysis of those who disagree with you, with your resulting conclusion that you have "moved on and up" and left them behind in a mire of emotional irrationality, is unsavory.
Rather than tell me that you're right and I'm wrong because you're enlightened and I'm emotionally and intellectually constipated, just say what you believe and give some evidence, arguments, and examples to support your view.
Equally intelligent, honest, and sincere people can sit on both sides of this issue.
You obviously know you are gay and can't change it. So that means God made you gay, right? I don't see how you can think that and also think he doesn't want you to be gay.
I never said I wasnt born gay but we dont know that for a fact anyway, My contention is that redefining marriage to accomodate gays.
Protests against the LDS church should continue. Those protests should also spread to Catholic and black Baptist churches as a result of their influence and votes!
Why stop undermning religious freedom with Mormons right?
Because we've waited long enough already and there's NO time like NOW. What if LBJ had said that back in 1964 and 1965 when he ramrodded the Civil Rights Act and Voting Act through a very resistant Congress?
This is not the same as the civil rights movement and this person of color has yet to see any evidence that they are like circumstances.
Ah, so you are now enlightened and see clearly. The rest of us are childish, foolish, and feeble minded...
I like these condescending posts where someone claims he/she knows what I'm thinking but that his/her thought processes are too advanced for me to comprehend.
It is equally easy to reverse the process and throw it back onto you (and equally fallacious and condescending, I might add).
[sarcasm]Poor boiseguy. I used to be an unbeliever like you are now. And I've seen other little people just like you that were born into the LDS culture but never understood it and left it confused and bitter over the things that they never could quite grasp. I totally understand your psychological dependency on your sense of superiority and the mental block you have against people of faith. Never having experienced the freedom that comes from enlightened faith, you are shackled and blinded by the emotional weight of your anti-faith. When I see your emotionally-charged responses to the solid position of faith, it is obvious that your emotionally-crippled psychological state will always get in the way of your finding freedom, happiness, and peace in your life. Good luck in your stifling, closed mindset. Maybe someday you'll reach a stage where you are emotionally and mentally ready to move up to the next level of truth.[/sarcasm]
See how easy it is? It practically flows off the keyboard like water!
Boiseguy, your feeble psychoanalysis of those who disagree with you, with your resulting conclusion that you have "moved on and up" and left them behind in a mire of emotional irrationality, is unsavory.
Rather than tell me that you're right and I'm wrong because you're enlightened and I'm emotionally and intellectually constipated, just say what you believe and give some evidence, arguments, and examples to support your view.
Equally intelligent, honest, and sincere people can sit on both sides of this issue.
Thanks!
That's where you're wrong, I've never said anyone is wrong, because I don't believe that NOT believing in religion is right. I'm saying that it is the logical approach. I am more of an agnostic, in that I cannot prove religion to be right or wrong. But for someone who is religious, to claim you are right is just as false as someone who is not religious or athiest claiming they are right too
I think you've just hit the nail on the head here.....
The undertone of your message hints at an us vs them mentality. That is what is wrong with incorporating beliefs based on emotion into laws.
People that murder, is something that can be valued, because someone died at the hands of another innocently. That is measurable in that someone's life, liberty and persuit of happiness was tread upon. Same could be said for a theif, or a pedophile, or many other things we view as crimes that are also spoken of in religious beliefs. Two homo's marrying each other does not impose the same measurable limitations on society where someone else is being effected or their rights being infringed upon.
Bottom line is, just think about it... don't sit here and pick sides and be angry because I've brought up the discussion that might make a person's view of faith seem ignorant. It's not meant to insult, its meant to shine a different light on it. But your response is typical of people with beliefs based on emotions (religion) in that you're defensive rather than actually hearing and understanding the issue.... emotions are not logical...Religion is not logical because it is based on emotional truths, not anything that an be proven with fact... freedom has many forms, the truth can set you free... whether it be factual truth, or emotional truth based on a story or explanation. That is why the argument could go either way.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it will quickly sweep you to conclusions that are untenable and theologically inconsistent.
If being born with a certain trait or even predisposition means that God wants that person to be "that" way, then we would have to agree that God approves of people acting out their impulses and tendencies in such areas as violence, pyromania, rage, alcoholism, kleptomania, pedophilia, bulimia, and a host of other antisocial, destructive, and/or immoral behaviors that society condemns, controls, and punishes. Similarly, such rigid and simplistic reasoning would lead us to believe that people born with genetic defects such as diabetes, cerebral palsy, bipolarism, deafness, and other issues are born the way that God wants them to be and that it would be immoral or contrary to God's will for them or us to attempt to correct or ameliorate the condition. You need a more mature, comprehensive, and well-reasoned theology if you want to drag God into this.
Showing that a certain behavior may be caused in part by a genetic predisposition only means that we should be more compassionate towards a person displaying the behavior because of the predisposition, not that the behavior should be considered acceptable, normal, or moral.
Similarly, whether or not homosexuality can be traced to genetic factors is immaterial as to whether such behavior should be considered acceptable, normal, or moral. Such a connection, however, would certainly mean (at least to me) that we need to be more compassionate and less judgmental about people displaying that tendency and that we might want to reconsider the degree of moral culpability of one displaying that behavior. It also means, among many other things, that we need to reconsider what it would mean to "cure" someone of that tendency and to what extent society should bend its rules to accommodate people with that tendency.
Interesting that the post after this you'd point to condescending attitudes borne of ignorance when you've exhibited the same in the above.
Religious doctrine states homosexuality is inappropriate and immoral. I'd like to point out that your bible and my bible are not applicable to the entire planet. The bible is only valid in the lives of the people who uphold it with their lives. Those who have voluntarily submitted to this higher standard.
Multicultural societies are obliged to tolerate one another, which means, the standard you hold for yourselves as Mormons, and I as Catholic, is not meant to be imposed upon others. This is the price we've agreed to pay to live straddled between the kingdom of God and secular life. Should you be so threatened by multiculturalism, you're even free to create your own community the way Amish have done to keep yourselves insulated from what might offend or tempt you.
You equate homosexuality with disease. Let's contemplate that concept beyond our Bible since it doesn't pertain to Buddhists or Pagans. You're now in the realm of medical science. There is no evidence, despite hundreds of years of effort to prove otherwise, that supports your assertion that homosexuality is a disease.
Beyond empirical data, we can judge what a disease is by harm to others or the individual. They unanimously agree that what they do together as consenting adults is not harm to themselves or their partners. There is no victim in need of rescue. There have been victims requesting rescue from inside the Mormon polygamist sects but you mean to police homosexuals?
The harm that has been tangible has been authored by heterosexuals. The legislation and the cures you mean to apply aren't something you have to pay for with discomfort or grief by virtue of being heterosexual. They're being told in so many words that they're obliged to pay for your displeasure with their existence. Without homophobia running around the world, sponsored in part by disturbed religious instruction, would the gay population be healthy and happy? How can we ever know if they're mutilated by people trying to cure them, socially ostracized, crucified in the name of god, or daily abused by prejudice every which way?
Should the abuse end entirely and gays were free to discover for themselves what healthy/moral is, I'm very confident they'll come to conclusions that their maker and life itself dictates to us all as human beings. When they're unhappy, they'll have to attribute it to themselves. When they're happy, they'll have to attribute it to themselves. I do not fear what they might find when they come fully into their freedom (aka responsibility). I have no idea why you would fear gays being free as any other citizen enjoys. I do know that whatever you fear isn't anyone else's problem but your own.
Gays did not invite you in their lives. Gays are not asking to be cured of anything but prejudice imposed upon them in society. They're saying they'd much rather be left alone. The boundary issue clearly points to your guilt, yet you persist with the belief that you have the right to enforce god's will in the world by manipulating secular law. You've all but announced your inability to consider fallibility. Why post in any thread if your intention is to proselytize or listen to yourself talk? You can do that alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Why stop undermning religious freedom with Mormons right?
Why isn't it enough for you to uphold your <alleged> faith in your own life without requiring legislation to support yourself?
I'm religious and I'm saying if any organized religion means to manipulate government to support it's beliefs then the freedoms they've enjoyed ought to be limited or revoked on the grounds of abuse.
<rolls your eyes back to you> You need them to look at yourself honestly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
