The whole Mormon thing - prop 8 in CA

[DanKroh]

Yes, OGE, very sure. In June of this year, Janice filed a lawsuit against the hospital, but it is not clear that they actually broke any laws in denying her access. Google Janice's name, and you will find lots of information, including Janice's own blog where you can read the story in her own words.

 

The one good thing that came out of this tragedy within a tragedy is that Lisa's heart was able to save the life of Florida man, who now corresponds regularly with Janice. Knowing Lisa lives on in another has been a great comfort to Janice and the couple's four children.

[funscout]

Getting back to the original post:

 

If ScoutMomSD's daughter looks like she's 16 or older, maybe these young men were interested in her for more than religious reasons! It's tough having kids who look older than they are. Both of my boys look several years older than their true age. When my older son was just 12 years old, he was asked what kind of car he drove!

 

I don't see anything wrong with the LDS church giving their support to a political issue.

 

I also don't see how that reflects on their association with scouts. Now, if these men had been in boy scout uniforms when they approached someone about a political matter, then that woule be wrong.

 

A couple years ago, while at a Show and Sell with Cub Scouts, 2 young Mormon men approached us and they were very nice and respectful. We enjoyed hearing about the fun they had had when they were Cub Scouts. These men were not pushy at all and I admired them for their dedication to their religion.

 

I have never had a problem with Mormons who have knocked on my door. They have consistently been polite and respectful as I explain to them that I am secure in my own religion and will not be converting. Now, Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, have sometimes been rude to me when I explained my faith. I made the mistake of being too nice to one J. W. and finally had to be rude after her THIRD unsolicited visit to my house, in less than two weeks! Just saying, "I'm not interested" was not enough. I had to atually say, "Do not come back to my house." I felt bad about having to be rude, but she just wouldn't give up!

[DanKroh]

"I don't see anything wrong with the LDS church giving their support to a political issue."

 

How about it's a violation of their tax-exempt status?

 

From IRS Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (benefits and responsibilities under the federal tax law) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

 

"To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

 

no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation"

 

I assume the Mormon Church currently enjoys federal tax-exempt status, yes?

 

I'm not a tax lawyer (Beavah?), but it seems to me that legally, their tax-exempt status could now be revoked.

[Bob White]

It is unlikely that you could show that their activities in this matter were "substantial".

 

 

[DanKroh]

I'm sure you're right, Bob White.

 

I'm sure the Mormon Church has carefully crafted a source for the $20 million dollars that they allegedly funneled into the Yes on 8 campaign that does not endanger their tax-exempt status.

 

Personally, in these economic times, I find in incredibly sad that $70 million dollars was spent on an issue that will have absolutely no effect on a single heterosexual marriage.

 

I wonder how many destitute people could have been fed, clothed, and housed with all that money....(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Narraticong]

Last time I checked DanKroh, we (with the exception of President Obama) do not get to decide how people's wealth should be redistributed. If Mormons feel that their money is wisely spent with this proposition, that is their business. Have you done research to see how much they contribute to helping needy people? I have not, but my guess is that the amount is substantial. Conservative people tend to put their money where their mouth is. Case in point can be seen in the charitable giving of McCain/Palin versus Obama/Biden.

 

Challenge them on whether you think the proposition is right or wrong. But you have no right to challenge them on financially supporting what they believe to be right any more than you can tell them how much of their time they can give to the effort.

 

You have absolutely no right to tell another American how he should spend his legally earned dollars.

 

"That there's Socialism, right there..."

[DanKroh]

Narraticong,

 

No where did I say that I should be able to tell Mormons, or any other Americans, where or how to spend their money.

 

My objection is the political involvement in this piece of legislation of the Mormon Church. Doing so violated the spirit, even if the letter of a violation has been carefully danced around, the tax law that grants them tax-exempt status.

 

Ahh, again with the Socialism meme... Never gets old, does it?

 

If my suggestion that the money could have been better spent elsewhere offends... well, too bad.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[John-in-KC]

What I have proposed on another forum:

 

CIVIL UNIONS become the province of Government. That's what you license to do when you get your license to be united.

 

Solemnization comes from 2 sources

 

- Through the Courts of Record in your State

 

- Through a religious ceremony, subject to the theological discretion of the man of faith solemnizing the event.

 

The term Marriage becomes what God created it to be: The province of faith.

 

The term civil union provides all with the rights of a couple united.

[Narraticong]

Sorry DanKroh, I've been caught up in semantics. Perhaps you won't be offended (but then again, to use your phrase- too bad), if I "suggest" that the liberal elite such as George Soros should "redistribute their wealth" rather than spend their millions upon millions of dollars trying to take away my rights? Joe Biden tells us it's patriotic to redistribute the wealth. But his charitable donations are next to nothing.

 

Urban churches did not even pretend to dance around the issue of who to vote for. Maybe not so much money raised (although we might be surprised), but lots of political clout and votes garnered. Do you have an opinion there?

 

Socialism? If it walks like a duck...

[DanKroh]

"Perhaps you won't be offended (but then again, to use your phrase- too bad), if I "suggest" that the liberal elite such as George Soros should "redistribute their wealth" rather than spend their millions upon millions of dollars trying to take away my rights? Joe Biden tells us it's patriotic to redistribute the wealth. But his charitable donations are next to nothing."

 

I don't care what you think he (George Soros) should do with his money. Don't know much about him, other than a lot of right-wing publications making him out to be a boogieman, and honestly, I don't care. What rights of yours do you think he is trying to take away?

 

Spin Biden's tax comment any way you want. I'm part of the majority here in MA that just voted to keep our state income tax, so I don't think taxes are a boogieman, either.

 

"Urban churches did not even pretend to dance around the issue of who to vote for. Maybe not so much money raised (although we might be surprised), but lots of political clout and votes garnered. Do you have an opinion there?"

 

Any church that publicly, officially endorses or opposes a candidate or a specific piece of legislation should be stripped of their tax-exempt status. Period. Churches should be in the business of shepherding spirits, not leading sheeple to the polls. That's my opinion, all $0.02 of it.

 

"Socialism? If it walks like a duck..."

 

Oh, wait, am I a liberal elitist or a socialist now? I guess there's nothing that says I can't be both. But only in your mind. Frankly, sir, I'm disappointed.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Narraticong]

Do the research on George Soros and you will see how one can be both a liberal elitist and a socialist. You had no problem questioning whether money spent on political matters would not have been better spent helping the poor. When I suggested Soros money might be better doing the same, you chose to dodge the question.

 

As to Biden, I have not "spun" any statement. Both he and Obama have made it clear they believe it is right to take money away from some and give it to others. This is a redistribution of wealth and is clearly socialist in nature. Personally I am a flat tax proponent. No deductions, no loopholes, everyone pays the same percentage. Our current tax system is socialistic. Obama just wants to make it more so. Not if I can help it.

 

We almost agree on the issue of churches and politics. Except many pastors are smart enough not to make "official" statements. But how many urban churches invited Republican candidates to address the congregation? Bill Clinton made great inroads in American cities by being welcomed to speak in churches.

 

As to you DanKroh, I don't know if you are a liberal elitist, but I think your ideas are clearly socialist. And that is fine. In America, you are entitled to your opinion and to persuade others to think likewise. I find it interesting that socialists in America shy away from labeling themselves as such. In other countries they have no problem.

 

I am not sure what you are disappointed about, but I hope you get over it.

[DanKroh]

"Do the research on George Soros and you will see how one can be both a liberal elitist and a socialist. You had no problem questioning whether money spent on political matters would not have been better spent helping the poor. When I suggested Soros money might be better doing the same, you chose to dodge the question."

 

I didn't dodge the question. I don't know how George Soros spends his money now, so how can I comment on whether it would be better spent? However, I notice you dodged my question of what rights of yours you think he is working to take away. I don't know what causes the man supports except that obviously you think they are "liberal" ones, whatever that might mean. Honestly, I applaud those with money who choose to use it to donate to charities, and yes, do wish that those who don't would. But again, their money, their choice, not mine.

 

"As to Biden, I have not "spun" any statement. Both he and Obama have made it clear they believe it is right to take money away from some and give it to others. This is a redistribution of wealth and is clearly socialist in nature. Personally I am a flat tax proponent. No deductions, no loopholes, everyone pays the same percentage. Our current tax system is socialistic. Obama just wants to make it more so. Not if I can help it."

 

First of all, you are making some very broad assumptions about my politics, which I don't appreciate, from one issue I have commented on, that I support marriage equality. Others on this forum have said that they also think that money wasted on politics could be better spent helping others, yet I have not seen you attack them as you have me. Why is that?

 

"As to you DanKroh, I don't know if you are a liberal elitist, but I think your ideas are clearly socialist. And that is fine. In America, you are entitled to your opinion and to persuade others to think likewise. I find it interesting that socialists in America shy away from labeling themselves as such. In other countries they have no problem."

 

That's right. All you know about me from what I've said here is that I support same-sex marriage and equal rights for homosexuals. Perhaps that leads you to believe I am a liberal or a Democrat. You would be wrong on both counts. You are entitled to believe I am a socialist, but that doesn't make it so, either. I can't say I would be ashamed (as you intimate) to be called any of those things, but they would still be incorrect. Personally, I shy away from all labels, except the one that really counts... human being.

 

"I am not sure what you are disappointed about, but I hope you get over it."

 

I'm disappointed that you choose to fixate on one comment that I think money spent on politics could be better used elsewhere (and I feel that way about all money spent on politics, not just Prop 8), and attack me for it by making mistaken assumptions and using terms that lately carry a pejorative note in this country and on this forum. And honestly, sir, I'm disappointed to see such behavior coming from a self-avowed Eagle scout.

 

But rest assured, I will get over it. But will you?

[captainron14]

So, is the Mormon "bashing" over yet?

When is it the Catholics turn? Are there any plans on protesting their churches too?

Has anyone drafted up a list of Churches and other organizations that supported Prop #8?

We don't want to forget anyone do we? ;o)

 

Its funny how those so called "tolerant" folks get all rilled up and act not so "tolerant" when you don't agree with them. I guess they are only "tolerant" when you do agree with them.

If you read the comments on the web from those on the loosing side, it sounds like people having a temper tantrum.

BTW, These are the same people who "protested" when President Reagan died. Sad.

 

I wonder where the GOP is holding their anti-Obama protest(s)?

[gwd-scouter]

"I wonder where the GOP is holding their anti-Obama protest(s)?"

 

Spend some time in the mornings listening to some of the folks that call in to Washington Journal on C-SPAN. You'll get a good dose of anti-Obama rhetoric. Granted, there was also a good number of anti-McCain callers during the campaign. But, some of the criticisms of Obama I've heard since he was elected are, frankly, incredible.

 

As for the gay marriage thing. I imagine it will one day be accepted everywhere - much like at one time it was illegal for interracial marriage but is pretty commonplace now. Oh yeah, our President-elect is a result of an interracial marriage. How times change.

 

I really don't get the argument that somehow allowing gay couples to marry will destroy the meaning or foundation of marriage. As I see it given the divorce rate in this country, heterosexual couples haven't done a very good job of upholding the sanctity of marriage.

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, GWD, I think you may be correct if you meant to say that Obama himself is the offspring of an interracial union. However, our new President is the result, I hope, of far more than that.