…but this time, even though they aren’t Mormons, they said something. That’s called pluralism, folks.
27 thoughts on “First They Came For The Mormons”
Comments are closed.
…but this time, even though they aren’t Mormons, they said something. That’s called pluralism, folks.
Comments are closed.
Interesting how the “Mormons” funding the prop 8 activities has been played in every newspaper in the country (even though individuals funded the activities, not the church organization) – but almost no one has reported the domestic terrorism response from the gay community…
I guess it just doesn’t fit the agenda.
Is there a balanced view of this somewhere? Personally, I was a bit put out by what I saw as well-funded interference from outside of California in support of Proposition 8. I voted against the proposition. I did not strike back against the Mormon Church for the activities of its followers nor do I support those that do.
Having said that, do we have evidence of serious crime against churches or people due to their religion? In this website, I see a lot of weak stories about “protests”, disruptions of religious services, and name-calling in the press. I don’t see the “domestic terrorism” that David above claims is there. But I guess I just don’t see the agenda.
Going back to my disappointment in the passage of Proposition 8, I suppose the stilted morality is one reason I’m no longer Christian. I see no Christian justification for the ban against marriage. I remain mystified as to why some Christians believe God would even care about the issue of gay marriage, or that just because God does, they have to as well. Then again, my view is that unquestioned morality would be in the portfolio of Satan rather than God.
Way back in the late 90’s, I attended the marriage ceremony (given within the Unitarian Universalist Church) of two male friends back in North Carolina. I have never regretted that and as far as I know, they haven’t either. I know some people out there won’t believe me, but to my knowledge they genuinely loved each other and cared for each other greatly. Nor do I see any evidence that the institution of marriage in North Carolina has been harmed as a result of this marriage.
Karl, before this I would have agreed with you. I still agree with you on the right of two people to perform a ceremony that they call marriage – note that the state of North Carolina was not involved in the “marriage”.
What I don’t want: I don’t want to be told that I should permit such marriages in my church. I have mixed feelings about extending tax benefits to such marriages. I think that non-tax benefits (visiting rights, etc) should be extended to everyone.
But that is not what this is about: this is about Mormons standing up for what Mormons believe in, and terrorism being committed against them.
The FBI is treating it as terrorism:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10976621
And I stand by my previous statement – why is none of this in the general press? Everyone talks about the evil Mormons, how they funded “anti-gay” measures – where is the mention that the gay community has responded with terrorism?
And since when do I not get to say what I think? I didn’t expect prop 8 to pass – but I wouldn’t have started making terrorist threats against people if it hadn’t.
Whoever did this needs to be slapped down hard.
I saw as well-funded interference from outside of California
If what happens in California would stay there, you might have a point. But it won’t. And let’s not forget that in the past it’s been perfectly acceptable to “interfere” in other states when the actions in that state have been perceived to be detrimental to the country as a whole. A recent example was the campaign to punish Arizona when the governor there vetoed a state Martin Luther King holiday. Or farther back, there was the pressure put on southern states to end segregation.
(And considering the way California and its politics tends to jerk around all of the neighboring western states, it’s amusing to see Californians get all upset about getting a little of their own back.)
FWIW,
Being Mormon, and living in California, I haven’t personally seen or heard of any backlash against members of my church in our neck of the woods. That said, Tehachapi is in what I’ve heard called the “Texas part of California”….
~Jon
Having watched the Dixie Chicks get railed at and threatened
by drooling war mongers, frankly i’ve been disappointed by
the decay of political debate in this country
I agree Jack – I think that people have stopped respecting each other. If someone disagrees with you politically, instead of trying to understand them (and possibly attack their positions), the person is attacked – BushHitler, Palin Derangement Syndrome, soon to be Obama Derangement Syndrome.
I hope this can be reversed – I’m not sure.
“drooling war mongers”.
Doing your part to elevate the health of political debate in the country, eh, jack?
Yeah, Jack- because god help if ANYONE should express an opinion opposed to that of the Dixie Chicks. My uncles didn’t fight in Europe so that “warmongers” could “rail” against the Dixie Chicks… that’s just not American!
It’s okay to protest, lots of people do it on all sorts of things
but note the line “And Threatened”.
Drooling warmongers cross the line from acceptable political
expression when they make explicit threats or encourage
acts of violence against people whos’e ideas they oppose.
http://www.protestingthedixiechicks.com/
I’m sure DaveP’s uncle didn’t fight in germany so that thugs could
threaten anyone who had a dissenting opinion.
Karl, before this I would have agreed with you. I still agree with you on the right of two people to perform a ceremony that they call marriage – note that the state of North Carolina was not involved in the “marriage”.
What I don’t want: I don’t want to be told that I should permit such marriages in my church. I have mixed feelings about extending tax benefits to such marriages. I think that non-tax benefits (visiting rights, etc) should be extended to everyone.
What do you mean by permit gay marriages in your church? How is your church going to be forced to perform the marriage cermony same sex couples? I don’t see it.
But that is not what this is about: this is about Mormons standing up for what Mormons believe in, and terrorism being committed against them.
The FBI is treating it as terrorism:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10976621
No, this is about some idiot sending “suspicious white powder” in the mail. The rest is security theater. It demeans genuine threats to the US to call it “terrorism”. It also happens to be one incident.
And I stand by my previous statement – why is none of this in the general press? Everyone talks about the evil Mormons, how they funded “anti-gay” measures – where is the mention that the gay community has responded with terrorism?
The problem is that “suspicious white powder” even now is a ridiculously common occurance. I gather hundreds of such cases are still reported to the FBI every year. What makes this instance newsworthy?
And this has what to do with the Dixie Chicks? Threats? Acts of violence? I trust you have links to back this up.
We see far more unhinged ire in the Prop 8 aftermath than we did when the Southern Baptists held their annual meeting in Salt Lake City in 1998. Private-sector arguments do tend to be more civil than private-sector ones.
Such links are easily found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2972043.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12745436/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_political_controversy
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Dixie+Chicks%22%2B%22threats%22%2B%22president%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
As if merely being a celebrity doesn’t attract enough common-garden, non-political wackos by itself…
And all that for only being *ashamed* to be from the same state as the President. (Now that’s really giving treasonous aid and comfort to terrorists and destroying national unity, isn’t it?) And I have to think that those who make such threats conveniently forget, or are just unaware that all service people swear to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States’ upon enlistment. The same one that includes that annoying First Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
And while ‘Larry the Cable Guy’ had a point…
http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/1111082425/
…as people have every right to vote with their wallets, and the Chicks’ core demographic is such that they should expect to take *some* heat. But the only threats should be to an artist’s income, not their persons.
“My idea of a free society, is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.”
– Adlai Stevenson
I’d say this applies to Mormons (and Gays) as well…
Jack, my uncles didn’t fight so idiots could give “fashionable” aid and comfort to the enemy. The idea that treason is somehow patriotic and that actons that encourage the enemy to kill American soldiers- what is what you are so approving of- are protected by the Constitution is a recent development.
So I take it our correspondents likewise condemn the drooling proggs who have done far more than merely threaten violence against anyone who dared not be 100% behind the election of Barack Obama?
Karl,
There have been two incidents of white powder being mailed to mormon temples. There have been incidents of vandalism at meeting houses, and two individuals have resigned from high-profile jobs in the arts because of their support for Prop 8 (that also happened to be mormons).
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html
Does the vandalism count as terrorism? The white powder? I wouldn’t take that step, but what’s going on is ugly.
I find it laughable that you could somehow compare the dixie chicks publicity stunts and media hounding over every juice detail to push a anti-war propaganda as some legit form of threat…
Bush has had whole movies done about how great it were if he were killed…. along with a whole t-shirt line…
Frank glover you are a pathetic little man who only has moral outrage when its fits their tiny little worlds… If this was 1933 germany you’d be posting about how some jew called hitler evil and how all jews are violent war mongers…
Take your hippy garbage and crawl back in the hole you came from.
Alan, you wrote:
We see far more unhinged ire in the Prop 8 aftermath than we did when the Southern Baptists held their annual meeting in Salt Lake City in 1998. Private-sector arguments do tend to be more civil than private-sector ones.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Southern Baptists left Salt Lake City. And when they did, the provocation went away as well. Proposition 8 changed the California constitution. That’s permanent at least until it is overturned by another amendment.
I don’t see changing demographics allowing that possibility for at least ten years. By then, the state may well be unlivable anyway. I assume the court cases that are sure to come will not change the outcome. It is clear (at least to me) that the new amendment overrides existing ones.
McGehee, you wrote:
Jack, my uncles didn’t fight so idiots could give “fashionable” aid and comfort to the enemy. The idea that treason is somehow patriotic and that actons that encourage the enemy to kill American soldiers- what is what you are so approving of- are protected by the Constitution is a recent development.
It is convenient for you that any disagreement can be cast rhetorically in this way. My take is that yes, your uncle did fight so that people could disagree with the US openly during a time of war. And it’s been that way since before the US was created.
Having said that, the Dixie Chicks’ protest seemed pretty insipid to me as does much of the current antiwar protests. But to call them all “treason” is an abuse of the term.
What do you mean by permit gay marriages in your church? How is your church going to be forced to perform the marriage cermony same sex couples?
I’m sure that no state would ever force Christian groups to arrange adoptions for gay parents or go out of business. I’m sure no state would ever force private individuals to cater to potential customers who are gay.
Karl, if gay marriage becomes legal, it’s a safe bet to think that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages. After all, it’s discrimination.
So Rick C, you can point to churches that have been forced to perform mixed-race marriages after Loving v. Virginia, right? I’m not talking about publicly funded institutions (say, Bob Jones University) forced to abandon racist policies as a condition of public funding — I’m talking about churches being forced to perform religious ceremonies. By your logic, it must have happened, right?
As to the NoMobVeto.org, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it’s cravenly ambiguous, strongly implying that a wide swath of dissent is unacceptable without having the stones to come out and say it. Becket himself would be embarrassed.
Karl says:
“… Personally, I was a bit put out by what I saw as well-funded interference from outside of California in support of Proposition 8.”
Would you be equally put out if there were more out-of-state funding against prop 8 than for it?
Karl wrote:
“I’m not talking about publicly funded institutions . . . forced to abandon racist policies . . .”
Because, you know, opposition to gay marriage is obviously the equivalent of “racism.” This rhetoric actually underscores Rick C’s point: that religious institutions that refuse to permit same-sex ceremonies will be deemed the equivalent of “racist” and shunned from polite, progressive society. In fact, Catholic health care providers are under attack, and threat of shutting down, because of their refusal to perform abortions on moral grounds. This on the basis that they receive Medicaid and Medicare “subsidies” (i.e., they receive reimbursement for providing–and providing well– medical care to the indigent and the elderly). While the ROTC is banned–despite the Solomon Amendment and a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary–from college campuses, because of the military’s “discrimination.” Is it really a stretch to imagine some not-too-distant future when religious groups of all kinds will be banned from educational campuses, public and private, and other public places of accomodation, because of this newly-formed brand of “discrimination.” Who is being naive here, anyway? But then, that may well be the endgame of this “progressive” issue altogether, no?
“Another thing to keep in mind is that the Southern Baptists left Salt Lake City. And when they did, the provocation went away as well.”
The last part isn’t entirely true. The provocation simply left the streets of Salt Lake City; the many efforts of Evangelicals and Mormons to seek converts from each other still remain. The two faiths (I happen to side with the former) accuse each other not of being flawed Christianity but of not being Christian at all. Even the Arminians and Calvinists had more common ground – at least they agreed that Jesus is an eternal being.
You don’t get many religious debates bigger than that.
What is noteworthy about the controversy is that the Mormons and Trinitarians aren’t running to government to settle their dispute. Certainly neither of them are trying to get the government to legislate changes in the English language.
Some would construe forcing gay people to pay more tax money than straight people using the force of government as “initiation of acts of violence.” One might even say that white powder in an envelope pales in comparison.
As for the Mormon church, don’t hate the player – hate the game.
The whole concept that marriage is a government-controlled franchise, or that it is up to government to control the “sanctity of the bond between a man and a woman” should be an affront to every religion on Earth. The fact that it’s not is a primary reason why I’m not religious.
Well, guess I’m wrong about no organized reaction against Prop 8 supporters. There’s a website titled “Californians against hate” that seems devoted to “exposing” major contributors to Proposition 8. The above link is to their “dishonor roll”. It basically lists everyone who has donated significant money (maybe $100,000?) to the campaign for Proposition 8.
There also is organized harassment of Proposition 8 supporters in the LA area. The example in the linked story is of a restaurant under siege because a manager there donated $100 to the Prop 8 campaign. She also happens to be Mormon.
These names can be found because campaign donors (at or above $100 maybe?) are public information.