skippy the dead wrote:I thought the 2006 letter to be inappropriate, even with the *wink wink* aspect ("Tell your representative how you feel", without such feeling specified). I was similarly uneasy with the letter read in California when the original marriage initiative was on the ballot (basically saying to vote because it's important to vote, but not saying how to vote). But the 2008 letter goes even further, which is even more distasteful to me - instructing members to use their money and time to pass the constitutional amendment, based on the directives of the local church leaders.
It's as simple as this to me: the church does not need to recognize or perform marriages between same-sex couples. Aside from that, they should just butt the hell out. The church happily discriminated against blacks for most of its existence regardless of societal pressures and norms; it can do the same here.
Do we see the church trying to revive Prohibition, to ensure that no one can sin by breaking the WoW? Do we see the church pushing laws criminalizing adultery, since that is a grievous sin? I don't even see the church contributing to pro-life organizations, or working to overturn Roe v. Wade. .
Hmm.. I wonder if this type of announcement will hurt or help Mitt's chances to snag the VP..
It depends on how conservative McCain wants to look. There is Mitt conservative and there is Huckabee conservative. Neither is truly conservative but I think Mitt is closer to the ideal.
Frankly, I wouldn't be suprised if McCain is actually considering Hillary Clinton for VP.
Its not a question of conservative as it is the church telling its members how to vote.. which would include ol' Mitt.
I don't see McCain selecting Hillary but I sure do see Lieberman as an option ..
EAllusion wrote:The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It passes through the vote of the people. In order to say that the courts reversed the vote of the people you have to argue that the courts interpretation of the constitution is incorrect or not understand what the vote of the people all entails.
The "vote of the people" you initially refer to is the CA state constitution. The "vote of the people" the FP letter referred to was a non-constitutional law, so you are speaking of two different things.
Since the latter comes only through ignorance or stupidity, the more favorable interpretation is the FP is making a judgment on the correctness of the decision.
It's up to the CA Supreme Court to decide was is or is not constitutional under the CA state constitution, not the FP (or even "the people"). The court's decision was not a "reversal of the vote of the people," but a finding that a particular law was unconstitutional under the CA state constitution (regardless of how it was enacted).
Of course, chances are they are just expressing the base majoritarian sentiment that makes for a major talking point for those who oppose gay marriage. It's a shame they just didn't start talkin' about activist judges.
And this is why the issue becomes political, and why the FP should not delve into political issues, in my opinion.
So the potential act of overriding the will of the people by the activist court can now be overturned by the will of the people changing the constitution.
I see nothing political about a Church encouraging the people to take a position on what it views as a moral issues. Why all the hub bub about Church's being silent on the issue? Are they supporting candidates? As has been noted, and I believe BC may be correct, the tax exempt status and political activity is directly connected to supporting candidates and parties, not positions and issues.
Jason Bourne wrote:I see nothing political about a Church encouraging the people to take a position on what it views as a moral issues. Why all the hub bub about Church's being silent on the issue?
Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue. What happens if a member takes a contrary view, and the Church finds out about it -- will that member be disciplined for going contrary to an explicit FP instruction? With this latest letter, is it even possible for a faithful member to put a "NO to the gay marriage amendment" in his/her front yard, or will that be considered public opposition to the Brethren, and grounds for discipline?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Jason Bourne wrote:I see nothing political about a Church encouraging the people to take a position on what it views as a moral issues. Why all the hub bub about Church's being silent on the issue?
Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue. What happens if a member takes a contrary view, and the Church finds out about it -- will that member be disciplined for going contrary to an explicit FP instruction? With this latest letter, is it even possible for a faithful member to put a "NO to the gay marriage amendment" in his/her front yard, or will that be considered public opposition to the Brethren, and grounds for discipline?
Hypotheticals, when it comes to a religion whose adherents believe they follow a prophet of God, don't work very well. What if, what if, what if --- meaningless debate. What if you finally got some courage, posted with your real name, and came out against the California amendment? Then we'd have something to talk about.
Jason Bourne wrote:I see nothing political about a Church encouraging the people to take a position on what it views as a moral issues. Why all the hub bub about Church's being silent on the issue?
Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue. What happens if a member takes a contrary view, and the Church finds out about it -- will that member be disciplined for going contrary to an explicit FP instruction? With this latest letter, is it even possible for a faithful member to put a "NO to the gay marriage amendment" in his/her front yard, or will that be considered public opposition to the Brethren, and grounds for discipline?
Hypotheticals, when it comes to a religion whose adherents believe they follow a prophet of God, don't work very well.
Actually, it was not a hypothetical. The last time CA went through this, with Prop. 22, some LDS members who publicly voiced their opposition (and, yes, some with lawn signs) were called in by local LDS leaders (and some had their TR's taken).
What if you finally got some courage, posted with your real name, and came out against the California amendment?
One-note wonder Bob strikes again! I can't help but wonder if you are this boring in real life ....
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue.
I don't view it as political at all. It is a social issue that is impacted by laws and the Church is well within its rights to encourage and instruct its members on the Church's position on the issue.
What happens if a member takes a contrary view, and the Church finds out about it -- will that member be disciplined for going contrary to an explicit FP instruction? With this latest letter, is it even possible for a faithful member to put a "NO to the gay marriage amendment" in his/her front yard, or will that be considered public opposition to the Brethren, and grounds for discipline?
You are mixing up the issues. This one is not political or social at all. It is an institutional or ecclesiastical issue. Certainly the Church could do this and I would assume as an organization they would be withing their rights. One could argue that taking a stance against the church position would be apostasy and grounds for discipline. In the practical world it is doubtful that such would be the case. Unless however, BC is your bishop.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Actually, it was not a hypothetical. The last time CA went through this, with Prop. 22, some LDS members who publicly voiced their opposition (and, yes, some with lawn signs) were called in by local LDS leaders (and some had their TR's taken).
I don't believe it. I am willing to be educated to the contrary.
rcrocket wrote: What if you finally got some courage, posted with your real name, and came out against the California amendment? Then we'd have something to talk about.
I have come out against the amendment with my real name, in real places. I don't need to give you my real name on a silly board like this.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
Jason Bourne wrote:I don't view it as political at all. It is a social issue that is impacted by laws and the Church is well within its rights to encourage and instruct its members on the Church's position on the issue.
I have no problem with the Church's telling everyone what its official position is (as if we didn't already know). My problem is with the Church's instructing the members to take the same position and to do everything in their power to make that position a reality. Given the Church's penchant to discipline members for anything it might consider "public opposition," such an instruction can serve to chill a member's right to voice his/her position, which may be different than that of the Church. This happened to some degree with the Prop. 22 battle in CA a few years ago. Again, my beef is not with the Church's expressing its position, but with telling its members to take the same position and actively promote it.
You are mixing up the issues. This one is not political or social at all.
It certainly is -- we are talking about amending a state constitution -- it can't get any more political.
It is an institutional or ecclesiastical issue.
Amending the state constitution has nothing to do with religion (the Church can continue to discriminate against homosexuals to its heart's delight, just as it did with blacks).
Certainly the Church could do this and I would assume as an organization they would be withing their rights. One could argue that taking a stance against the church position would be apostasy and grounds for discipline.
The Church has done it before: in CA with Prop. 22.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)