gtaggart Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Salt Lake TribuneDeseret NewsMormon Times Blog.First Elder Holland, now Elder Oakes. The times seem to be changin'.
structurecop Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 The anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement, a high-ranking Mormon says in a speech to be delivered Tuesday. Oh... Em... Gee...
gtaggart Posted October 13, 2009 Author Posted October 13, 2009 I suppose we'll forever be reminded that we once denied Blacks the priesthood, but that fact should not detract from an apt analogy of voter intimidation in one era to voter intimidation in another.Here is the "offending" quote in context (the speech, by the way was 7 pages long, not including notes, and this quote was in the middle of the 6th page):We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California
Pahoran Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Oh... Em... Gee...Yes, I can see why you'd be worried.Regards,Pahoran
dawndenver Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Listened to it live. My daughter goes to BYU-I and was there. I thought she would be bored by it, NOT. Very lawyerly talk, but Go Oaks go! I loved the way he explained things. Kinda wondering about the timing of this and Harry Reid? maybe not. *Edited to add last comment
structurecop Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Yes, I can see why you'd be worried.Regards,PahoranI'm not worried. It's just a totally irresponsible comparison.
gtaggart Posted October 13, 2009 Author Posted October 13, 2009 I'm not worried. It's just a totally irresponsible comparison.Not in the least. Yours is an irresponsible reading. Again, he was not equating the treatment, he was equating the intended effect of that treatment: Get out of the public square!
Zakuska Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 I'm not worried. It's just a totally irresponsible comparison.Irresponsible?Whats irresponsible about using a similar incided of voter-intimidation wether they are black white yellow or brown? The Trib as usuall has mangled the message and defaimed the messenger.
structurecop Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Irresponsible?Whats irresponsible about using a similar incided of voter-intimidation wether they are black white yellow or brown? The Trib as usuall has mangled the message and defaimed the messenger.Tell me just how exactly someone would keep an LDS person from entering the polls.
Pahoran Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 I'm not worried. It's just a totally irresponsible comparison.Why?Regards,Pahoran
mysteryman Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Salt Lake TribuneDeseret NewsMormon Times Blog.First Elder Holland, now Elder Oakes. The times seem to be changin'.I am not sure the parallel of the 1960s is valid, but that the democratic process was attacked is. One side lost the election. Rather than living to fight another day they through temper tantrums due to the fact they were very sore losers. Furthermore their tantrums were misplaced, they came to Utah to protest the fact they were smacked down by CALIFORNIA VOTERS.
Zakuska Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Tell me just how exactly someone would keep an LDS person from entering the polls.We saw it first hand... Intimidation. You vote for or support a Group my company doesn't approve of and budy... your out the door.
structurecop Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 We saw it first hand... Intimidation. You vote for or support a Group my company doesn't approve of and budy... your out the door.And how exactly would they know for whom you voted?
Zakuska Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 And how exactly would they know for whom you voted?You've got a point there.However, we are talking about block voting. Not every LDS voted for it. But they intimidated a whole religion for the out come. Its the same type of Political intimidation that led to Josephs Marytrdom.
gtaggart Posted October 14, 2009 Author Posted October 14, 2009 Tell me just how exactly someone would keep an LDS person from entering the polls.By boycotting them. By shouting them down. By threatening them. Choose your poison. Yes, you can't tell LDS persons by their skin color, but that doesn't mean that acts of violence are not intimidating and that doesn't change the fact that the purpose of those acts is to keep certain people from expressing their views.
Aquilifer Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 I'm not worried. It's just a totally irresponsible comparison.I think that his point regarding one's right to vote according to one's conscience without coercion or intimidation is good, but given:(1) The other side's position that the Church is working to withhold civil rights from gays; and(2) The Church's own "uneven" history with respect to race,I think your point is certainly fair. It isn't really a great parallel for him to use to persuade others to his position.
Zakuska Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 By boycotting them. By shouting them down. By threatening them. Choose your poison. Yes, you can't tell LDS persons by their skin color, but that doesn't mean that acts of violence are not intimidating and that doesn't change the fact that the purpose of those acts is to keep certain people from expressing their views.The Idea is to get you to shy away from the poles all together.Its Political Chest thumping.
structurecop Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Why?There are sufficient laws and law enforcement capabilities in place to deal with any such "intimidation." There were either no such laws in the South (or in many other places in the US) or they were unenforced by local authorities during the civil rights movement. That's what the civil rights movement was about. People who violently protested in California were arrested. Mormons in California aren't in danger of having crimes committed against them with no hope of recourse through the criminal justice system.What does Elder Oaks want? Disagreeing with Mormons to be illegalized?
Pahoran Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Tell me just how exactly someone would keep an LDS person from entering the polls.They wouldn't have to. The democratic process only ends at the ballot box. It starts long before that, and the earlier part of the process is every bit as important; some say it is even more so.So, if Latter-day Saints are restricted from participating in the earlier stages of the process, and only permitted to shuffle into the polling booths to cast their votes on the candidates and the issues that their "gay" massas have allowed to be placed before them, that rather makes them second-class citizens, doesn't it?And I take it you are okay with that?Regards,Pahoran
juliann Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 It's just a totally irresponsible comparison.Prove it.http://67.192.238.59/multimedia/pdf/Reports/thelongshadowofjimcrow.pdf The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America TodayRecent efforts to obstruct, suppress, and intimidate voters have long historical roots.These efforts have precedents in the reactionary violence and abandonment ofconstitutional principle in the wake of Reconstruction and the massive resistance to thefederal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
structurecop Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 By boycotting them. By shouting them down. By threatening them. Choose your poison. Yes, you can't tell LDS persons by their skin color, but that doesn't mean that acts of violence are not intimidating and that doesn't change the fact that the purpose of those acts is to keep certain people from expressing their views.By boycotting Mormons? Or Mormon-owned businesses? I don't understand. If the Church is willing to take a moral stand (which is apparently a popular one) they should be willing to accept the consequences. How does the song go? Boycotting Mormon-owned businesses is entirely legal, by the way. What do you want -- enforced patronizing of LDS business?You seem to be saying that opposing a certain political position should be classified as a hate crime. That is truly outrageous. Both sides have freedom of speech. They also have a right to peaceful assembly.
structurecop Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Prove it.http://67.192.238.59/multimedia/pdf/Reports/thelongshadowofjimcrow.pdf The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America TodayThe violent protestors have been dealt with legally. Their other activities were entirely legal. How about the intimidation of people who wanted to vote "no" on Prop 8?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.