juliann Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 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 a bunch of unmitigated baloney. Give names and dates of all those arrested protestors. People lost their jobs. Homes, cars and churches were vandalized. Our names and addresses were posted on sites agitating for paybacks. Now you are being irresponsible....and in a rather disgusting way.
juliann Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 The 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?CFR
structurecop Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 People lost their jobs. Homes, cars and churches were vandalized. Our names and addresses were posted on sites agitating for paybacks. Now you are being irresponsible....and in a rather disgusting way.Are those illegal activities? Were law enforcement officials notified? Were investigations opened? What else do you want?
Zakuska Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 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.Bingo...Broken windows, Vandalism, Little old ladies being knocked down by the crouds.... Are these your ideas of "Peaceful Assemblage"?
juliann Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 One more time. CFR on all your baloney and that doesn't mean a random newspaper report of "arrests".
gtaggart Posted October 14, 2009 Author Posted October 14, 2009 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.Please don't twist my words. I've said nothing about hate crimes legislation. In fact, I'm opposed to hate crimes laws. I wouldn't outlaw boycotting. But you wanted to know how Mormons and other opponents of same-sex marriage could be intimidated from expressing their views. I suggested some ways. Want me to go on? Vandalism. Threats. Harassment. That some methods may be legal, doesn't change their intended effect: Get The Hell Out of the Public Square! And when that happens, both sides don't have freedom of speech.
structurecop Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Bingo...Broken windows, Vandalism, Little old ladies being knocked down by the crouds.... Are thesre your ideas of "Peaceful Assemblage"?No, those are illegal activities. There are laws in place and law enforcement agencies designated to deal with those activities.What no pro-Oaks posters have done on this thread is to propose a legal solution to such things. There's nothing anyone can do until a crime is committed, unless you're into instituting the Thought Police.
juliann Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Please give us detailed information about the legal remedies for these acts:http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day_Saints_and_California_Proposition_8#Post-election_eventsPalm Springs, CA Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally. Los Angeles, CA Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" [30] San Francisco, CA A Prop 8 supporter writes a letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. According to the editorial page editor, "Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed - a condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle - opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer's small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the "Comments" section of SFGate.com - urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author's business and its identified clients."I suppose you didn't realize...or care.... that blacks were being intimidated along with the Mormons when you made your uninformed "irresponsible comparison" slam.
structurecop Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 I suppose you didn't realize...or care.... that blacks were being intimidated along with the Mormons when you made your uninformed "irresponsible comparison" slam. Umm, were they being intimidated because they were black? http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htmTitle 18, U.S.C., Section 245Federally Protected Activities 1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...; a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public College; a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.
Zakuska Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Yes they where... Because the news reported that Blacks had overwelmingly supported prop 8 and lifted it over the top.
structurecop Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Yes they where... Because the news reported that Blacks had overwelmingly supported prop 8 and lifted it over the top.Allright, then what needs to happen is some high-profile prosecution and federal prison time for some of these d-bags (actually, state prison time would be preferable, since it is a lot rougher, but California State Law might not have these specific provisions).
Rich Hansen Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 The Idea is to get you to shy away from the poles all together.Its Political Chest thumping.I suppose shying away from the Poles, though not illegal, would display some level of ethnic insensitivity.
stux Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of
DanGB Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 I'm not sure Oak's speech was in direct response to Harry Reid's comments but the timing(coincidence or not), is rather fitting!I have to admit though, I wish he had used a different analogy to make his point. I don't think it will do anything to help out the image of the Church and could hurt it again. And I wish he would have left Mitt Romney out of the article. I think Romney has showed better than all since last years campaign and that the "Mormon thing" was becoming a non issue. This may only stir things up again for Romney.Sometimes it's better to let a sleeping dog ....!
Ray Agostini Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 But they intimidated a whole religion for the out come. Its the same type of Political intimidation that led to Josephs Marytrdom.Codswallop. A whole religion? There are more Mormons outside the US now. Do you think Australian Mormons, on the whole, gave a rat's *** about prop 8? Mormons in Oz, and religious people in general, are never, ever, censored from free expression, nor having their say in the "public forum". And it's a largely secular country, which, incidentally, has not one state which recognises Gay marriage - unlike the US. (Ironically, Tasmania may become the first, because it was the last to recognise Gay unions, and received more opposition than all the other states.)Some premature "predictions" and "persecution" complexes need to eradicated here, I think.
jwhitlock Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Tell me just how exactly someone would keep an LDS person from entering the polls.Like in Missouri in the 19th century? And with the support of the government of Missouri?Do you really think that government is more enlighted, more kind, and more gentle in our day? Or that what has happened once can never happen again?Think again.
jwhitlock Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Some premature "predictions" and "persecution" complexes need to eradicated here, I think.The only way you're going to do that is to ignore some very basic facts and trends about not only what has happened in the past, but how those same trends are drifting in the same directions today.Or do you think sticking your head in the sand is a valid way of "eradicating" something?
juliann Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Umm, were they being intimidated because they were black? No, it was the color of their eyes. Come on. Are you really that uninformed of the demographics behind the win?
Zakuska Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Thank you jwhtock.People seem to forget that it was Joseph' run for president, after the Mormons had been block voting for so many years that got him killed.
Ray Agostini Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Or do you think sticking your head in the sand is a valid way of "eradicating" something?What do you want to "eradicate". Other people's rights?
Daniel Peterson Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 As always, a carefully reasoned and important talk.And, for structurecop: Have a look at David Hackett Fisher's discussion of "the fallacy of the perfect analogy" on p. 247 of his wonderful book Historians' Fallacies. I think you're perilously close to committing it:http://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=fallacy+perfect+analogy&source=bl&ots=JpEhrmJ_Z0&sig=rP6GA0EkOhT8C8dETVUgijnJptI&hl=en&ei=aEHVSoTIB5D0MdeG2ZUD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=fallacy%20perfect%20analogy&f=false.
structurecop Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 As always, a carefully reasoned and important talk.And, for structurecop: Have a look at David Hackett Fisher's discussion of "the fallacy of the perfect analogy" on p. 247 of his wonderful book Historians' Fallacies. I think you're perilously close to committing it:http://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=fallacy+perfect+analogy&source=bl&ots=JpEhrmJ_Z0&sig=rP6GA0EkOhT8C8dETVUgijnJptI&hl=en&ei=aEHVSoTIB5D0MdeG2ZUD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=fallacy%20perfect%20analogy&f=falseIf the analogy is so flawed, one wonders why he would invoke it in the first place.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 If the analogy is so flawed, one wonders why he would invoke it in the first place.Airball!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.