An alternative to anti-Mormon protests

[doppelganger]

Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8 - FAIRMormon

There are several disingenuous statements at your link, and several misleading ones as well. I don't see the point in debating you about it. Just thought I'd point out that the link takes you to what looks like a wiki page, but is actually a political spin page for the church.

 

[Autodidact]

Right. Got any neutral sites, silvermoon?

 

[Green Gaia]

Ok, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that everyone read this page before continuing this thread (or any thread related to Mormons and Prop. 8). It's a collection of all the data concerning the issue, and it's quite striking what you find in there.

Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8 - FAIRMormon

Did you read the OP?

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

i only read the first page and the last but i thank this article is of relevance to what has been said...

the article

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

i agree with the article, and i agree with what the op said in the second paragraph i would be really ashamed of my religion if they do what are opponents are doing now... i would more than like step back my participation of church activities by just doing the bear minimum to be in "good standing" its childish and nonsense.

if anything else the no on prop 8 and other that are doing the protest show that they have more in common with hitler then with the right and freedom of america. i have a lot of friend that are guy and lesbian and they themselves are not like that. for the more part they are the most kind people that i know... and they understand my position on marriage and do not want to take that away from me as i would like to see them have the privileges that marriage dose provide. this movement needs to make there own not stilling if from other...

marriage is gift not a right, what comes with marriage is a privilege that have some rights for those that inter into this sacred agreement...

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

LDS takes a share of the blame. It was the huge amount of money they invested in successfully passing Prop 8.

It was divisiveness in the beginning that brought us to to todays fight for rights. Sadly I don't remember the name of the nightclub police raided time and time again. That brought the club patrons and performers into the streets. Reasoning failed then and it's failing now.

Bob

how dose anyone know the religious view of the that donated the money? i looked on the site to find out all i see was names and the amount on most people... some number and none of them had there religious views???

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

Democracy has the burden of protecting the rights of minorities. It can not do so with just a vote. It must have judges of what is a right.

no it doesn't... the popular voted to protect civil right after the minority made there case... the popular made there choice and thats that... and that is what democracy is all about... make your case, the people will vote make it again and see what happens...

and beside your talking about a monarchy the minority imposing on the majority.

We have more! The Mayflower Compact would be stupefying today and your particular religious practice may just well be "voted" out of existence.

so i'll move out of the country...

 

[Apex]

Ok, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that everyone read this page before continuing this thread (or any thread related to Mormons and Prop. 8). It's a collection of all the data concerning the issue, and it's quite striking what you find in there.

Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8 - FAIRMormon

Nice article. I think it was fairly balanced. It mainly just tries to portray the incidents that have occurred without any fluff. Although, you should have posted it in one of the other threads (such as http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/latter-day-saints/72807-results-prop-8-a.html or http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/72961-results-prop-8-response-thread-lds.html) as it really has no relevance to this one.

 

[lilithu]

They really should ammend that to say "deal with your own flock before preaching to the rest." I thought religion and state were meant to be separate? Churches should be tax free as long as they mind their own business, which isn't the case here.

Separation of church and state is NOT separation of religion and politics. It never has been. Like it or not, religious institutions have always played an influential role in U.S. politics. Always. Heck, a lot of momentum in favor of declaring independence from Great Britan was whipped up by preachers in Sunday morning pulpits.

The whole point of politics is to try to get society to see things your way. And to claim that churches should mind their own business when no one else does is to say that eveyone has a say in politics except religious insitutions. Sorry, but that's discriminatory against religious institutions.

 

[PHOTOTAKER]

Separation of church and state is NOT separation of religion and politics. It never has been. Like it or not, religious institutions have always played an influential role in U.S. politics. Always. Heck, a lot of momentum in favor of declaring independence from Great Britan was whipped up by preachers in Sunday morning pulpits.

The whole point of politics is to try to get society to see things your way. And to claim that churches should mind their own business when no one else does is to say that eveyone has a say in politics except religious insitutions. Sorry, but that's discriminatory against religious institutions.

i agree with you... i just wanted to post, i love your signature!!

 

[darkendless]

Separation of church and state is NOT separation of religion and politics. It never has been. Like it or not, religious institutions have always played an influential role in U.S. politics. Always. Heck, a lot of momentum in favor of declaring independence from Great Britan was whipped up by preachers in Sunday morning pulpits.

The whole point of politics is to try to get society to see things your way. And to claim that churches should mind their own business when no one else does is to say that eveyone has a say in politics except religious insitutions. Sorry, but that's discriminatory against religious institutions.

I apologise, i always thought they were the same thing. Church/religion, state/politics :areyoucra i don't see a difference. I just dislike that churches (mainly Christian) can wave their magic wands to make their followers approve or crush whatever they want. I guess thats people power for you and religions aren't the only ones who do it. I think i just see religions doing it more than anyone else, mainly Prop 8.

 

[lilithu]

I apologise, i always thought they were the same thing. Church/religion, state/politics :areyoucra i don't see a difference.

Separation of church and state means that govt cannot favor one religion over another, or favor religion over lack of religion. And that govt cannot prevent people from practicing their religion. It does not mean that religious groups can't get involved in politics.

What religious groups cannot do is endorse a particular party (Dem or Pub) or a particular candidate (McCain or Obama). But they most definitely can weigh in on social issues.

I just dislike that churches (mainly Christian) can wave their magic wands to make their followers approve or crush whatever they want. I guess thats people power for you and religions aren't the only ones who do it. I think i just see religions doing it more than anyone else, mainly Prop 8.

There's a reason why, when Obama wanted to organize people in Chicago to effect change, he went to the churches. Churches already have the structure to do community organizing built into their systems - a large group of people who have a common cause, an effective means of disseminating information, motivation... Yes, it's people power. And yes, churches (and synagogues) do it better than nearly anyone else. But there is nothing stopping non-religious organizations from doing it too.