imo .. at an absolute minimum .. the LDS empire should lose their tax exempt status for their involvement in obvious political activity concerning CA prop 8 .. as well as any other “religious” organization which did so ..

it is far past time we allow the mixing of politics and the pew to escape the prohibition on such activities ..

This post seems to be saying that unless the LDS church actively supports the proposed bills, it has lied about its support of non-marriage rights. The exact words from the LDS church’s press release are as follows:

Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

That strikes me as something less than a commitment to become a central force in getting those rights extended, though as a member of the LDS church, I hope these types of rights are extended.

Why is it the church’s business anyway!

Surely, the LDS leadership wouldn’t lie about their support of these non-marriage rights?

No, unh-unh, never. That could never happen. The people who claim to have discovered the lost gospels written on gold plates buried in an Indian mound? They would never lie to you.

It is not and never has been. Marriage is quite plainly a civil institution, not a religious one and even Christianity did not get into the marriage racket until the later Middle Ages, as part of the Catholic Church’s efforts to extend their control over the lives of people.

Seems to me that the real issue is whether the LDS will actively oppose rights for gays as they have in the past (IMO).

And what in the world is a traditional family? I cannot define it and neither should the Mormons be allowed to. They need to stay in Utah and mind their own business.

highway61,
I think the Church of the Latter Day Saints has some explaining to do if they do not support equal rights for gay couples. If they do not support equal rights after stating that they do not object to rights for same-sex couples, the proper term is hypocrisy. Having same sex marriages in no way infringes on the traditional family. If the church is worried about the “constitutional rights of churches”, why aren’t they equally worried about the constitutional rights of all people as well?

Now, these legislators will introduce bills to protect all of these rights, and they ask the Church leadership to support them.

fuck that.

When “these legislators” charge straight at the beast by challenging its tax-exempt status, gimme a call.

Or at the very least tell the Church to take a flying fuck and stay the fuck out of politics if they do not want to be redefined as a political action committee instead of a religious body.

i think the church is between a rock and a hard place. their bluff is being called and either they actively support this type of legislation or they prove that they are a political action committee and subject to taxation.

hehehehehehe

can’t wait to see which devil they go with

with a loss of nontax status!

Frankly, I am generally in favor of taxing all religious bodies under the same provisions as other nonprofit corporations. Too many of them have too much money and wealth with no accountability. Pat Robertson’s various enterprises would probably lose their nonprofit status under this scheme.

The Mormons are the worst hypocrites I have ever seen. Spent a week in Salt Lake. They profess not to drink. There are “private clubs” – the hotel gives you free tickets to get into the bars and they are packed with people. Very few women. The women in SL were very pleasant and helpful but frankly the men gave me the creeps.

If you’re doing business with a religious son of a bitch, get it in writing. His word isn’t worth shit, not with the good Lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal.
— William S. Burroughs.

All I have to say about the LDS.

I too favor taxing all religions, but that will never happen in America.

And Utah legislators who favor taxing LDS would lose their seats pronto.

No, this is very clever triangulation on the part of Equality Utah and their legislative allies: “You said you didn’t object; doesn’t that mean you’ll join us in pushing for these rights?? You’ve proven the value of law to protect people by passing Prop 8. Now protect the LGBT among us by granting them rights you don’t object to their having.”

Nice to see their own legislators (in their state) frame the LDS Church in this manner.

Positively lovely . . . now may it come to some fruition.

Although I’d prefer the Church waffled, and put itself at risk for PAC label, or lose non-profit exemption, I’ll guess they will waffle, fight it all in courts, and tie it up for a decade. After all, the church has LOTS of money, as they aptly demonstrated with Prop 8.

Bright Side? Like all horrible beliefs, there’s been a HUGE swing blue wise and the fundies, racists, homophobe’s and White Only folks continue to get swept into a smaller and smaller square.

The day may come in our lives (boomers of 50+) where we WILL see some huge resolution’s about the true nature of equality our Constitution lays forth. *G*

Not since Selma, and ‘64 legislation, have I seen this much outcry coast to coast, border to border, about Civil issues . . *G* And the outcry is a positive force. And getting more and more powerful. After all, it’s just common sense, for crying out loud . . . *G*

dugg your post teddy

Because the church is the state.

Common sense?

Who’d a thunk?

Lovely lovely lovely!

Not the theocrats.

I totally agree!

Teddy I love the picture you used!

Think I will call it an early night. Take care all. Separation of church and state with no establishment of religion!

I’m a little apprehensive about the focus on the LDS church here. I think they might’ve been setup a bit here by the other thug forces. Sure, many Mormon individuals, businesses and even parishes contributed to 8 but in terms of critical institutional money they were dwarfed by other carpetbaggers — namely out-of-state Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian groups such as the Knights of Columbus arm of the Catholic Church (the #1 single donor period, with well over a million dollars of pro-8 blood money), the Catholic US COuncil of Bishops, the LeHaye-millenialist-survivalist-jihaddi-connected CWA, Ayatollah Dobson’s Focus on the Family, that stupid NJ “pro-marriage” rethug group, several current and former Christian Coalition board members, and, of course, the fundie Christian reconstructionist Prince family of Blackwater-fame. There were only a couple Mormons in the top 15 (>$200K donated), both seem to have legitimate CA connctions, and both were acting as individuals.

This must be a double coup for rightwing Catholics and the wingnut fundie fringe – use state funds to amend a sovereign state’s constitution to take away citizens’ fundamental civil rights and then successfully blame their bigoted annihilation of the very concept of church-state separation on those wacky LDS heretics, whom they probably despise nearly as much as they do gays.

Are they a church or a cult?

Nite DD

Political speech is in fact “free speech”.

When I engage in it, or when anyone else does the same, it is constitutionally protected “free” speech. The “free”, however, is only in the sense that one is ‘free’ to say what one chooses about one’s political beliefs.

Churches, otoh, are granted tax-exempt status (rightly or wrongly) because of the compact between these churches and the government that the *sole* purpose of a church is to speak of, and praise, the god which a particular church recognizes. It is the religious purpose which conveys an exemption from taxation.

When a church deviates from its solely religious purpose and ventures into other pursuits, aims, and goals, it has strayed from its commonly-understood purpose. Again, it is “free speech”, but it is no longer engaging in a tax-exempt purpose – that being the religious pursuits between the member of the church and the church’s god.

Churches are ‘free’ to make that choice. They are not free to avoid the suffering of the consequences.

P.S. The Mormons have nothing on the Catholic Church when it comes to this kind of hypocrisy. Smack ‘em both – hard – we need the money anyway.

P.P.S. If I’m wrong, I’m thinking about opening my own church which will worship the Nissan Altima. My parishioners will thus be able to partake of my god without paying any sales tax, and I will not have to report any taxable income.

Talk to me – I’ll make you a heckuva deal.

I don’t entirely agree, Dr. D.

Both the New Testament and Old Testament refer to marriage and divorce. Granted, old Israel was a theocracy and so civil and religious matters were closely intertwined. But the New Testament was written in the context of separate civil and religious spheres of influence.

It’s each sect’s decision about who they will or won’t allow to be married in their definition. But it’s none of their business who is or isn’t allowed to be married under civil law.

this post currently has 62 Diggs, which is not bad for an FDL post. Let’s give it some more Diggs and spread it far and wide.

I thought that is what the founding fathers had in mind when they put into the constitution “Separation of church and state with no establishment of religion” All established religious entities that pushed prop 8 should lose their tax exemption. We should begin push to boycott any businesses that all who donated time and money.

Pay your money and take your choice, Billy. One person’s cult is someone else’s church/religion.

As far as I’m concerned, anyone who knowingly joins a religious group other than the one in which they were raised has joined a cult.

It’s each sect’s decision about who they will or won’t allow to be married in their definition. But it’s none of their business who is or isn’t allowed to be married under civil law.

ding ding ding

What the framers had in mind was a basic agreement to disagree. Some of the new states were Catholic (Rhode Island, Maryland), some were Congregationalists (most of New England), Pennsylvania was Quaker, the Carolinas and Georgia were mostly low-church Presbyterians.

They couldn’t agree on what church should be sanctioned by the new Federal Government, so they agreed that no church would be sanctioned. This has since been codified into the various State constitutions.

What you suggest is very clearly what some of them had in mind (Jefferson, Adams, and Washington at the minimum). I don’t think it’s clear that’s what all of them had in mind though. It was very much a compromise.

Yeah, Suz?

that really is the core of the issue – why are churches involved in politics that are about the civil code?

if one follows the institutional money trail on the pro8 side I think it’s safe to say we have far far worse enemes than a few ancestor worshippers in Provo. The dislclosed $10 million in out of state funding for the pro8 side provided by the Roman Catholic Church and charities and lobbys tied directly to (non-Mormon) Christian fundie extremists like Dobson, LeHaye, Gallagher, and Ahmanson represent a far greater threat to democracy. If churches and church-funded propaganda and dirty
tricks funds can buy an anemdment to the constitution of a secular US state government, we have a big problem. To me, the LDS role in this, while despicable, is just a footnote.

I’ve said that for years, dear.

If Baptists don’t want to marry gays, then fine. Don’t marry them. If the Metropolitan Church does, then fine, do marry them.

I have a bunch of Catholic friends who are divorced (civilly) and remarried. They can’t remarry in a Catholic church. Some handle it before a judge or JP, others find another minister to marry them.

So, why do gays have to be handled differently?

exactly how i feel bct

What??? This whole experiment started out of freedom of religion and democracy.

Check your history, Loo.

English dissidents crossed the Atlantic to be free to practice their religion. They didn’t want anyone else practicing some other religion.

A good history of that is The Cousin’s Wars. Kevin Phillips, worth the read, even if he did propose Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

I don’t care what other people believe in ,I just don’t want them forcing their beliefs on other people!

Anyone see William Ackman on Charlie Rose? I only saw the last part, the part where he believes that we can survive.

Amen to that.

g’night firepups

pain free sleep wishes tex

Oh Betsy,
Best wishes for pain free. Thanks for helping the blue fight.

come on Pups, let’s give this a few more Diggs.

do you know that if you leave a comment at Digg, it counts as an extra Digg vote?

Good night, TB.

Thanks Chris. Thanks Suz.

g’nite

I know a Mormon, and she told me that LYING was a HUGE no-no in that church. Well, are they going to commit a mortal sin (in the Mormon church), or let their hatred go above that?

Talk about slippery slopes! The Mormons have done it this time!

The RC bishops and archbishops are trying to make Obama support them on stuff. If they push, they might be looking at the pointy end of an IRS investigation – and I hope that happens. From the AP via Earthlink:

BALTIMORE – The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

In an impassioned discussion on Catholics in public life, several bishops said they would accept no compromise on abortion policy. Many condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back President-elect Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.

Funny, they didn’t think that attacking same-sex marriage was an attack on religious freedom. They also didn’t say anything about Rudy Giuliani with his wives and mistresses – and him taking communion publicly after divorce and remarriage. Could be their thought processes need a little adjustment.

Hey, Busted! Can I borrow a really big wrench?

Lying is a mortal sin in the Church, except when you’re lying to Gentiles. LDSers are very in/out group oriented.

The LDS Church ought to forget about same sex couples and concentrate on LDS issues that are prevalent in their own lives, like spousal abuse, child abuse, teenage pregnancy, marriages at very early age, resulting mental health issues, and divorce. Anyone familiar with Mormons in Utah knows this is a hotbed for dysfuntional families.

In-group vs. out-group. The outgroup doesn’t have rights.

Nite… see you above.

And that’s the truth. In the 60s/70s Valium was called ‘The Mormon Drug’. In fact, drug companies stopped issuing state (and lower level) sales because of the patterns that were revealed.

Nite, CE.

RI was absolutely not Catholic. Quakers and Baptists mostly (wild-eyed radicals, to their neighbors). Catholics were illegal for a long time.

late late nite upstairs

Okay, what was the second Catholic colony? There was Maryland … was it Georgia? I’ll have to check Phillips again…

But the point is that the colonies were pretty segregated by religion, and it was a factor in the Revolution, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

I’m a Herbangelist and a Pastafarian, depending on the day of the week, the phase of the moon, and how I feel.
(Well, Pope Elst said it was okay if I was also a Pastafarian.)

I don’t remember a second one.
RI was weird fore New England; its founders were kicked out of Massachusetts for being too non-conforming, and they got the basic model for religious freedom stuck in their charter (when they finally got one, 25 years after foundation).

so sorry I missed this thread in real time Teddy

effin’ love that graphic !!!