Wall Street Journal (Opinion Section) Slams "8: The Mormon Proposition"

[the narrator]

Nevetheless, it seems clear that your evidence is rather limited, and if true, would indicate only a local aberration restricted to your friends. I can't imagine why they would be singled out like that, can you?

People with similar interests and views tend to become friends easier. As such, I have a lot more progressive friends than conservative friends. Things just happen that way.

And when you vocally oppose something as big as Prop 8, it's not hard to be singled out.

[mfbukowski]

But you're not a member of any group opposed to the church, right?

[the narrator]

I joined the thread just to point out that I know a few people who had lost recommends or callings due to their vocal opposition of Prop 8. It was a rather simple claim based on my own experience and interactions with others. Like all posts on Prop 8, it has gotten way out of hand and far more aggressive than I wanted my comment to go. This is probably due to my own aggressive nature and I apologize for slinging mud on my side.

I really don't want to carry this any further. Sorry.

[Anijen]

Selek said, Narrator has yet to demonstrate that any legitimate rights were stripped away.

Since narrator is ignoring some very good points by Selek I will ask Narrator to please demonstrate which/what of any legitimate rights were stripped away.

Wade perhaps to save time it is narrator MO to ignore those who make his arguments look silly just warning you before hand.

[the narrator]

But you're not a member of any group opposed to the church, right?

My only group memberships are academic.

Unless you count FB, then I'm the leader of dozens of apostate groups.

jk

[mfbukowski]

I joined the thread just to point out that I know a few people who had lost recommends or callings due to their vocal opposition of Prop 8. It was a rather simple claim based on my own experience and interactions with others. Like all posts on Prop 8, it has gotten way out of hand and far more aggressive than I wanted my comment to go. This is probably due to my own aggressive nature and I apologize for slinging mud on my side.

I really don't want to carry this any further. Sorry.

Fair enough.

[selek]

I joined the thread just to point out that I know a few people who had lost recommends or callings due to their vocal opposition of Prop 8.

A claim which you have failed to substantiate in any way.

It was a rather simple claim based on my own experience and interactions with others.

Meaning, therefore, that it is totally subjective and utterly without support- just like every other "argument" in which you've maligned, smeared, and defamed the Church and its members.

I really don't want to carry this any further. Sorry.

Before you go, would you kindly substantiate ANY of the claims you've made in the last five pages?

You've yet to demonstrate even a single coherent or cogent argument as to why the Church's support for Prop 8 was morally or ethically wrong.

You've accused us of hypocrisy, implied that we were bigoted and oppressive, and insinuated that we are no better than Bull Connor or George Wallace- but you haven't backed up those bombs with even a single fact.

Care to correct the oversight?

[frankenstein]

Happily.

The case in question was Campaign Finance Reform, and the (now acknowledged as un-Constitutional) limits on campaign donations and participation by corporations (even non-profits) in political matters.

http://townhall.com/...otes_of_the_day

how does that case address tax exempt status and 501c3 organizations. additionally prop 8 was prior to this decision, so even if this desicision applied, were there violations at the time. It seems apparent there is a good faith arguement there were violations.

[ERayR]

I joined the thread just to point out that I know a few people who had lost recommends or callings due to their vocal opposition of Prop 8. It was a rather simple claim based on my own experience and interactions with others. Like all posts on Prop 8, it has gotten way out of hand and far more aggressive than I wanted my comment to go. This is probably due to my own aggressive nature and I apologize for slinging mud on my side.

I really don't want to carry this any further. Sorry.

How about a number? How many is a few? That would not be revealing any confidential information. Was it more than ten? Less than ten and More than 5? More than 1 less than 5? Was it 1? Inquiring minds want to know.

[selek]

not applicable selek. That case does not address tax exempt status and 501c3 organizations.

Bull Pockey.

Citizens United, the corporation at the heart of the case IS a tax-exempt firm.

The case specifically addresses corporate donations and political advocacy- specifically those made by a non-profit corporation.

CFR.

Please demonstrate where tax-exempt organizations such as the Church are specifically exempted from this ruling.

[Facsimile 3]

Man, and here I was thinking I was sticking to the topic by trying to talk about how the film The Mormon Proposition is a piece of trash that contradicts the ethics of the outsider and the indie community.

[mfbukowski]

How about a number? How many is a few? That would not be revealing any confidential information. Was it more than ten? Less than ten and More than 5? More than 1 less than 5? Was it 1? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think it's clear he does not want to continue, so imo we should go with what he's posted and stop badgering him.

[ERayR]

I think it's clear he does not want to continue, so imo we should go with what he's posted and stop badgering him.

Sorry I posted before I saw this.

[yesucan2]

It's hard to believe that I am already in my mid 50s. In what seems like such a short period of time, so much has changed. The lines used to be so much more non-distinct, but it's clear that now the lines are being drawn. We are going to have to decide; what side are we on?

[frankenstein]

Bull Pockey.

Citizens United, the corporation at the heart of the case IS a tax-exempt firm.

The case specifically addresses corporate donations and political advocacy- specifically those made by a non-profit corporation.

CFR.

Please demonstrate where tax-exempt organizations such as the Church are specifically exempted from this ruling.

citizens united is a 501c4 organization. The LDS Church is a 501c3 organization. 501c4 are permitted under IRS Code to lobby and engage in political activities, 501c3 have severe restrictions. The Court did not address 501c3 which are prohitibed by other regs other than campaign finance, from participating in the political realm. So as it stands Citizens United does not apply to 501c3 organizations and the restrictions placed upon those organizations.

[selek]

citizens united is a 501c4 organization. The LDS Church is a 501c3 organization. 501c4 are permitted under IRS Code to lobby and engage in political activities, 501c3 have severe restrictions. The Court did not address 501c3 which are prohitibed by other regs other than campaign finance, from participating in the political realm. So as it stands Citizens United does not apply to 501c3 organizations and the restrictions placed upon those organizations.

Yet the ruling in Citizens United undermined the foundations of the rules against political activism and donations by all corporations, both for-profit and non-profit.

Answer the CFR, please demonstrate where tax-exempt organizations such as the Church are specifically exempted from this ruling.

The Citizens United ruling clearly and broadly shot down the premise that corporations- whether private, public, profit, or non-profit- are to be excluded from politics.

Unless you can provide a specific exemption to that ruling, you're just whistling past the graveyard.

You'll also note, of course, that the California Election Commission fined the Church for failing to report contributions on a daily basis- NOT for its actual participation.

If such participation were as clearly wrong as you are wont to pretend, then surely they would have said so, no?

[Facsimile 3]

Is anyone else besides me disappointed by the fact that the other board has yet to get their act together and post an official commentary on this thread?

[selek]

Is anyone else besides me disappointed by the fact that the other board has yet to get their act together and post an official commentary on this thread?

Disappointed? No- I can't be bothered to check.

Surprised? Hardly- their cheerleaders and apologists are getting waxed like one of Mr. Miyagi's vintage automobiles.

Of course, it's not beyond the pale of precedent for Narrator or one of his groupies to show up over there and declare victory.

[frankenstein]

Yet the ruling in Citizens United undermined the foundations of the rules against political activism and donations by all corporations, both for-profit and non-profit.

Answer the CFR, please demonstrate where tax-exempt organizations such as the Church are specifically exempted from this ruling.

The Citizens United ruling clearly and broadly shot down the premise that corporations- whether private, public, profit, or non-profit- are to be excluded from politics.

Unless you can provide a specific exemption to that ruling, you're just whistling past the graveyard.

You'll also note, of course, that the California Election Commission fined the Church for failing to report contributions on a daily basis- NOT for its actual participation.

If such participation were as clearly wrong as you are wont to pretend, then surely they would have said so, no?

the case only address campaign finance and organizations that are not otherwise prohibited from engaging in political activities.

is the the California Election Commission the IRS? Does teh CEC enforce the 501c3?

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Rather than respond to the numerous complaints on this thread, by more than one person, it looks like it's time to give it a rest.

Thank you,

Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board Staff

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Rather than respond to the numerous complaints on this thread, by more than one person, it looks like it's time to give it a rest. Everyone needs to remember to cut the personal jabs and stick to facts and when asked to CFR do so.

Thank you,

Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board Staff