The State Vs. Religious Freedom.

[frankenstein]

When have you ever chosen to "step in and challenge the presentation and then present the full inconvenient facts" in those cases?

For instance: when Mormons did indeed lose their jobs in California over their support for Prop 8, and when business owners were harassed by "gay" jihadists -- not for what they did, but for what their employees and/or relatives did in supporting real marriage and defying the gross immorality of the alternative -- did we ever see you admitting that the slimy rationalisations of the "gay" apologists were false?

I asked for the proof that LDS lost their jobs, the only proof provide was that a statement from Elder Oaks, just because Elder Oaks says it does not make it true, no one has provided proof that mormons lost their jobs due to voting in favor of prop 8. Peter Vidmar, voluntarily gave up his job, all indications are from the US Olympic "management" was that Vidmar would have done an outstanding job despite the prop 8 issue, so because Vidmar made the choice to leave, and there is not indication he would have been fired, then it is not reasonable to say Peter Vidmar, a mormon, lost his job because of prop 8. To recap, Peter Vidmar is the only mormon that anyone has presented as evidence of a mormon loosing a job because of prop 8. Yet, it should be noted that the Elder Oaks quotes refers to the plural, so where are the other mormons? So pahoran, can you show the "mormons (plural) who lost their (plural) jobs (plural)

As I told others, show me your proof and most likely I will have to agree with you, but if you have no proof, then you have no real basis for the claim. Where is your proof?

And oddly enough, every such "given situation" being one that is helpful to your homophilic partisanship.

I can not help it that those several here present misleading or false information. I present the truth that they withhold, why is that a bad thing to you?

Do you genuinely believe that a blatantly counterfactual accusation isn't a lie if it's followed by a question mark?

Regards,

Pahoran

I am presenting the truth of a situation and you are disparaging me for that truth, so it can be surmised that you are not in favor of the truth being known, thus it is a fair assessment to ask why you are opposed to the truth being known. Do you care to express why you are opposed to the truth about the Ocean Grove situation being known? The truth being, tax exempt status required public accommodations.

--------------------------------------------------------

as for the issue from the OP state v. religion, I would refer everyone to Bob Jones University v. US, wherein the SCOTUS upheld the revocation of tax exempt status of the religious university because that university had rule against interracial marriage and interracial dating. The reasoning of the case does not bode well for religious institutions as opposed to religious universities, this is because SCOTUS looked at the history and rationale of tax exempt law in general.

But I will say that I have tough time excluding a religious person from laws, whilst holding a non-religious person accountable to the law. So I think that if a religious institution wants to be involved in the market place in what ever fashion that religion should be required to adhere the same laws as it neighbors bound too.

Edited July 28, 2011 by frankenstein

[Jeff K.]

Dishonest people will go to any lengths to justify anything. But we know what really happened and no amount of obfuscation will hide the fact these people were forced from their employment by a vicious group whose adherents don't even have the intestinal fortitude to admit when they are wrong. They will go to any lengths to justify what is wrong, because they don't care what is wrong, their morality is the agenda they adhere to, and it overrides any ethical code of conduct the rest of us understand.

[Pahoran]

I asked for the proof that LDS lost their jobs, the only proof provide was that a statement from Elder Oaks, just because Elder Oaks says it does not make it true,

It's considerably more reliable than someone merely denying it.

no one has provided proof that mormons lost their jobs due to voting in favor of prop 8. Peter Vidmar, voluntarily gave up his job, all indications are from the US Olympic "management" was that Vidmar would have done an outstanding job despite the prop 8 issue, so because Vidmar made the choice to leave, and there is not indication he would have been fired, then it is not reasonable to say Peter Vidmar, a mormon, lost his job because of prop 8.

Rubbish. Of course the USOC would say nice things about him; they hadn't fired him, and couldn't fire him because he hadn't done anything wrong.

Don't you agree?

But the fact is that he left to avoid the Olympic effort being dragged through the Prop 8 mud. IOW, he was hounded out of his job by a cat's chorus of shrieking handbag-flailers.

To recap, Peter Vidmar is the only mormon that anyone has presented as evidence of a mormon loosing a job because of prop 8.

Really? What about the theatre manager in San Francisco?

As I told others, show me your proof and most likely I will have to agree with you, but if you have no proof, then you have no real basis for the claim. Where is your proof?

So according to you, if something isn't "proved" to have happened, then it didn't.

On that basis then, one photograph of an orthodox Jew being bullied on the street by a couple of brownshirts is not evidence that it ever happened to anyone else.

Got it.

I can not help it that those several here present misleading or false information. I present the truth that they withhold, why is that a bad thing to you?

You can certainly help it that you never quite get around to correcting any of your fellow "gay"pologists when they "present misleading or false information."

I am presenting the truth of a situation

You are presenting a one-sided advocate's view of the situation.

and you are disparaging me for that truth, so it can be surmised that you are not in favor of the truth being known, thus it is a fair assessment to ask why you are opposed to the truth being known.

No, it is not. It might be appropriate to ask if I am so opposed; but to ask "why" as if the "if" had already been established in your favour is begging the question.

Do you care to express why you are opposed to the truth about the Ocean Grove situation being known?

I am not "opposed to the truth about the Ocean Grove situation being known," and I cannot see that you have any good faith basis for making that accusation.

The truth being, tax exempt status required public accommodations.

The truth being that after the Christians (upper case, no scare quotes ever used by anyone who just wants the truth to come out) realised that making their pavilion available for weddings would enable immoralists to demand the use of it for immoral purposes, they withdrew it from being used for weddings, real or feigned, but still allowed public access.

Which, of course, was in itself a victory for the pollution of marriage lobby, but that wasn't enough; they wanted the Christians to be punished for the crime of having moral standards.

And you and the rest of the immoralists are quite delighted that they were, aren't you?

as for the issue from the OP state v. religion, I would refer everyone to Bob Jones University v. US, wherein the SCOTUS upheld the revocation of tax exempt status of the religious university because that university had rule against interracial marriage and interracial dating. The reasoning of the case does not bode well for religious institutions as opposed to religious universities, this is because SCOTUS looked at the history and rationale of tax exempt law in general.

But I will say that I have tough time excluding a religious person from laws, whilst holding a non-religious person accountable to the law. So I think that if a religious institution wants to be involved in the market place in what ever fashion that religion should be required to adhere the same laws as it neighbors bound too.

IOW, from one side of your mouth you pour scorn and ridicule upon those who are concerned that your good friends and allies would ever try to use the apparatus of the state to force the Church to allow them to pollute our temples with their filth, while from the other side of your mouth you express your deep satisfaction and approval at the prospect.

I understand you perfectly, Frankenstein.

And I'm glad I was able to help the truth to "come out" on that point.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited July 28, 2011 by Pahoran

[Minos]

If the liar liar stuff doesn't stop the thread will be closed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think affirmative action is one such example.

We could also include the NAACP. I think the very nature of that organization is racist but nothing is ever said or done. The interesting thing is that I support the rights of that group though I strongly disagree with it.

This is almost too rich. I doubt you take issue with the NAACP. It is discriminatory to the core. I, as a white person, could never get any such help from them. They are never sued in law suites for their discrimination, they are protected. They discriminate based on race. Why is it ok for them to do it but not the guy that cuts hair or runs the tire shop?

Frankie, are you going to respond to my post? I understand you are being torn apart by Pahoran at this time, but if you could I would like to see a response.

[Jaybear]

But the fact is that he left to avoid the Olympic effort being dragged through the Prop 8 mud. IOW, he was hounded out of his job by a cat's chorus of shrieking handbag-flailers.

Really? What about the theatre manager in San Francisco?

I would agree that both were effectively "forced out" of their job.

But it was not because they were Mormon. Its because they actively supported the passage of Prop 8.

Were Vidmar an outspoken anti-gay catholic, his appointment would have faced the same scrutiny.

At present, I am aware of four Mormons who were forced to quit their job, because their contribution to Prop 9 angered their customer base, or support staff or colleagues.

The Sacramento Theater Director had to be incredibly obtuse not to know that making a sizable donation to support the passage of Prop 8 would impair his working relationship with the writers, the talent, and many of the theater patrons.

Which, of course, was in itself a victory for the pollution of marriage lobby, but that wasn't enough; they wanted the Christians to be punished for the crime of having moral standards.

And you and the rest of the immoralists are quite delighted that they were, aren't you?

A vacationing lesbian couple with two children, ages four and six, come to the front desk to check in. The owner/clerk turns them away telling them we don't allow your kind to stay our hotel, we have high moral standards.

Yeah, I am going to root for the lesbian family, even if that means in your eyes, I am an "immoralist."

Edited July 28, 2011 by Jaybear

[Loran Blood]

Both of you know what happened and neither of you are willing to be honest it. I know that you, Lehi, have denied the truth of the Ocean Grove case via a libertarian spin

A "libertarian spin?" Alright, how then would you define the "spin" of the state of New Jersey here?

as I said you did this quite some time ago on this board (i say 10months back or more). You both can start reading the above link and return with your denials and spin, page 4 seems a good starting point, but since it is only 12 pages you might as well start from the beginning.

And the "contract" between the Ocean Grove Church and the public was what? I did a search for the term "contract" and the word never appears in the document.

What I find most interesting about the Ocean Grove case is that never has anyone on this board - other than myself, Jaybear and perhaps California Boy - ever presented the full facts without spin or bias. The truth of Ocean Grove is inconvenient for those of the anti-gay agenda, thus the necessity for the spin machines to turn at spewing out dizzying denials and obfuscation.

Which is just to say that the truth of the text of the Constitution and its original intent is rather inconvenient for those with a pro-homosexual bias, not to mention a plethora of other ideological projects to which the Constitution presents an imposing firewall.

Here, with all of the legalistic flim flam put to the side for a moment, is the fundamental truth of the matter: in this country, and under this particular constitution, citizens are not - and cannot - be forced to lend their own property to uses that they find to be objectionable on moral/religious grounds. They cannot be forced to subsidize, in any manner, the lifestyle choices of others for which they have deep moral and philosophical antipathy. This is why the first amendment says, as clearly as it could possibly be said, "Government (including the state of New Jersey) shall make no law...

The lesbian couple wishing a civil ceremony, had, in this massive urban and suburban area, the choice of hundreds, and, more realistically, probably thousands of other venues, both civil and religious (there are a number of liberal Protestant denominations and clergy who would have accepted such a ceremony (any Unitarian minister would in all probability would have been happy to oblige them) within a few minutes drive from the Ocean Grove pavilion.

But no, what was important here, above and beyond the ceremony itself, was the imposition, by force of law, of the de facto legitimizing of their homosexuality through the courts by compelling a religious denomination to open the doors of its own private property, and use that property for the solemnization of, a practice grossly out of harmony with its core principles of Christianity as it understands that system of religion. The couple had open to it, in our open, heterodox, pluralistic society, a plethora of other venues in which to obtain the ceremony sought. Ocean Grove was hardly the only choice available. But choice is not the issue here. The issue is the legal and public coercion of those with strong, principled disagreements with the homosexual lifestyle and with homosexual marriage, to morally and materially subsidize those practices.

The satisfaction in forcing others to pay tribute to one's own gods even within the walls of property erected in the name of the principles of those of others, should be obvious, but such evil satiation was one of the things the Founders, in their inspired wisdom, sought to banish from their particular experiment in human self government and individual liberty.

Yes, individual liberty, that nefarious "libertarian spin" so detested by many. That lesbian couple had countless other options open to them, but chose to force themselves, their personal lifestyle choices, and their ideology on others, publicly and through the coercive force of a state, for whom those choices and ideology are repugnant and immoral, by forcing themselves onto the private property of others for the purpose of legitimization of that ideology and those lifestyle choices. They knew they could do this because they understand themselves to be a special, protected class who's sexual orientation and accompanying status based group rights trump the unalienable rights of others outside that offical status designation.

In many ways, we are no longer a rule of law and equality under the law based society, but have returned to a medieval-like status based social order, in which different groups (commoners, craftsmen, merchants, landed nobility and the ruling class) exist under different sets of rules, laws, and norms bases on group membership. Be it race, class, gender, or sexual proclivity, "affirmative action" of any sort produces the same deleterious, malignant effects wherever and whenever it becomes part of the social fabric.

What's my conservative/libertarian spin here? Very, very simple: the lesbian couple could have easily gone somewhere else for their ceremony (which would have been nothing if not a simply foray into the phone book) and let sleeping dogs lie. They could have, in such an open society with so many choices and options, let those who disagree with them alone, with their own principles on their own property, and gone somewhere else where they would be welcome without argument.

But no. In the brave new postmodern "queer" world, as with so much else, all the exits must be barred, all points of escape locked and bolted, and all the safety valves that allow people with strongly divergent principled beliefs live together in peace, plugged, so that one side must, by force, be brought into intimate coincidence with that which they find abominable and revolting to their sensibilities and values. Not only this, but they must be made to de facto acquiesce in the legitimization, even thought they be a religious organization whose core principles oppose the very practices and values they are being forced to subsidize, of those very practices.

These are the actions of a police state that looks at its citizens, not as individual citizens each bearing equal unalienable rights, but as members of disparate status groups, each with more or less rights than others grounded in those status relationships. These rights, as well, are not of the unalienable variety, but are legal concoctions inhering in no authority greater than the state itself, and are manipulated and emended accordingly.

As I said before, the Nephites went through all this, and their prophets left us a warning of what happens when the Gaddianton Robbers, the Kingmen, the Nehors and the Korihors, move from critics and subversives on the outside looking in, to becoming the government and institutions of society themselves.

That way is the "road to serfdom," and that road, yellow brick as it may be, goes right through the center of Babylon.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Jeff K.]

I would agree that both were effectively "forced out" of their job.

But it was not because they were Mormon. Its because they actively supported the passage of Prop 8.

That is false. I don't see people from the AME church being forced out of jobs (they were large supporters and many say the tipping point for a majority vote, and they too went door to door. Or Muslims, the Catholics, or Latino Catholics who are not only anti gay but strong supporters of the measure.

It is a falsehood they were driven out simply because they supported the proposition, we know of many groups who did not in any way feel the repercussions as the LDS community did. Why? Because it is still acceptable to be bigoted against them, you can't drive Jews or African Americans from their jobs, or Catholics, but Mormons? They are a small group, easy to identify and easy to denigrate.

No one here believes your somewhat weak argument that it "just because they supported prop 8". It was a cowardly act by a powerful group in California upon a minority religious group. To say otherwise is to avoid an honest dialogue on the matter.

In an effort for honesty, let us look at what San Fransisco article said in 2008.

All of California's Catholic bishops have all come out in favor of the measure. So have many evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. Yet it is Mormons, who account for 2 percent of the state population, who are catching the most heat.

"We seem to be the symbol of the Yes on 8 campaign," said Rand King, 60, a Walnut Creek resident who is Mormon and who was watching Sunday's protest from inside the temple's gates.

Prop. 8 opponents are increasingly narrowing their focus on Mormons, harnessing technology and open-records laws in their efforts. One Web site run by a Prop. 8 opponent, Mormonsfor8.com, identifies the name and hometown of every Mormon donor. On the Daily Kos, the nation's most popular liberal blog, there is a campaign to use that information to look into the lives of Mormons who financially support Prop. 8.

It has led some Mormons to question why other religious groups in the coalition aren't being targeted.

I trust we won't hear the false statement again.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Loran Blood]

No one has or can force you to do any of those things.

But that's exactly what happened to the owners and operators of the pavilion. Exactly.

If however, you CHOOSE on your own volition to move to Vermont and open an Inn, you will have to accommodate gay couples that wish to stay at your Inn, and handicapped people, and interracial couples, and Jews.

Here' s the problem you're working overtime to obfuscate, Frank: according to the constitution, I don't. This is especially true with respect to homosexuality, which is a lifestyle choice and sexual practice, not a ethnicity or genetic inheritance. An interracial couple (two people of with certain genetically determined characteristics over which they have utterly no control) are a very long way from the behavioral syndrome of homosexuality.

So what the probelm actually resolves itself into here is that, while you are correct that, if I move to Vermont, I will have to obey the laws of Vermont, Vermont (and New Jersey) may themselves be in deep violation of the Constitution, which was, at one time, the "supreme law of the land" (at least, that's what the text actually says).

Further, in the case of the Pavilion, the denial of services there had nothing to do with the kind of ancien regime bigotry of the kind that would look askance at interracail couples, Jews, or Irish immigrants. This was principled dissent from that lifestyle based on religous principle grounded in core moral and socail values whose point was homosexual behavior and lifestyle, not skin color or nationality. Apples and orenges are not going to be sufficient for you here.

The "freedom of association" nonsense spouted in this thread is not a real issue.

Without freedom of association, as with most other freedoms, there really is only one other option, and you have made quite clear which side of the demarcation line you are on, pursuant to this core principle of the human condition.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Firstly, though I deleted it, I like you label the Attorney General of New Jersey as an immoralist because the AG upheld the law and held a "christian" accountable to the obligation the "christian' had.

Which was what, precisely?

[thesometimesaint]

Lorsn Blood:

"CO2 is a pollutant, you know".

Yes it is, and too much of it will kill you in about 5 minutes. It is also a Greehouse Gas that fact was established in the 19th Centuury.

[LeSellers]

CO2 is a pollutant, you know. [implied sarcasm]

Yes it is [sic], and too much of it will kill you in about 5 minutes. It is also a Greehouse Gas that fact was established in the 19th Centuury.

But it is also a necessary component in the air we need to survive. Without it, we "forget" how to breathe properly.

It is absolutely necessary for photosynthesis. CO₂ is not a "pollutant", except in the minds of those who want to control us and direct our lives.

JUNEAU, Alaska — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

AP

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

...

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

Forbes

CO₂may be a pollutant in some eyes, but it just is not doing what the AGW alarmists want it to be doing.

Lehi

Edited July 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[Jaybear]

That is false. ...

No one here believes your somewhat weak argument that it It was a cowardly act by a powerful group in California upon a minority religious group. To say otherwise is to avoid an honest dialogue on the matter.

Its a simple statement, had they not contributed financially to the passage of Prop 8, they would not have been forced out their jobs.

Yes, its possible that their detractors were more vociferous because they also happened to be LDS. But I don't personally think so. We really can't know for sure.

We certainly do know that the activists boycotted and protested businesses not owned and operated by Mormons and other churches.

In an effort for honesty, let us look at what San Fransisco article said in 2008.

Off course Mormons were the focus of the backlash by political activists. Duh. Money and manpower wins elections. Despite having only two percent, Mormons appeared to have provided the bulk of both for the Prop 8 campaign.

Focusing their ire on Mormons makes sense, politically speaking. Surely you weren't expecting hugs and kisses.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Lorsn Blood:

"CO2 is a pollutant, you know".

Yes it is, and too much of it will kill you in about 5 minutes. It is also a Greehouse Gas that fact was established in the 19th Centuury.

So if some thing can kill you in "5 mins" it must be a pollutant? It might be a green house gas but it really has not much effect on warming.

Please note, it does have some effect, just not much effect.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

How would feel if you were forced out of your job because of how you voted, in a free and fair election. How about whom you give money to? But doing that to Mormons is OK with you.

The vast bulk of the "Protests" were directed at the LDS, its chapels, and Temples?

I wonder why such "Protests" didn't take place down in south central Los Angeles?

Could it be that the "Protesters" would get the crap kicked out of them by the homey's?

[Jeff K.]

Mormons are easy targets by powerful gay groups in California. Look to Jaybear to overlook the bully tactics and attempt to justify them. He finds nothing wrong with it. The fact is that the vast majority of protests were against the weakest in a group, and to Jaybear, that is just fine.

[Loran Blood]

Lorsn Blood:

"CO2 is a pollutant, you know".

Yes it is, and too much of it will kill you in about 5 minutes. It is also a Greehouse Gas that fact was established in the 19th Centuury.

CO2 is not a pollutant, but perhaps the most critical gas and plant fertilizer on earth, without which there would be no life as we know it at all (if any).

Anything is a pollutant or poison is sufficient dose or concentration, so your assertion here is meaningless.

It is also, true, a "greenhouse gas," abeit a very minor trace gas whose function is not well understood, but which appears to have a modest regulatory function. We have no evidence that it drives or initiate climate warming or cooling per se.

[Loran Blood]

Mormons are easy targets by powerful gay groups in California. Look to Jaybear to overlook the bully tactics and attempt to justify them. He finds nothing wrong with it. The fact is that the vast majority of protests were against the weakest in a group, and to Jaybear, that is just fine.

This is, indeed, a salient characteristic of much of the homosexual movement.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

How would feel if you were forced out of your job because of how you voted, in a free and fair election. How about whom you give money to?

That depends. Was I aware of the fact that my actions would create a problem for the business with its clientele?

If not, I would feel like an idiot.

If so, and I did it anyway, I would feel smugly satisfied that I did the right thing.

But doing that to Mormons is OK with you.

Any employee who openly insults the customer base, does so at risk to their job. Why is that concept so difficult to grasp?

The vast bulk of the "Protests" were directed at the LDS, its chapels, and Temples?

I wonder why such "Protests" didn't take place down in south central Los Angeles?

Could it be that the "Protesters" would get the crap kicked out of them by the homey's?

I told you why. Politics is driven by money and manpower. I doubt the prop 8 folks got much of either from South central LA.

[Jaybear]

Mormons are easy targets by powerful gay groups in California. Look to Jaybear to overlook the bully tactics and attempt to justify them. He finds nothing wrong with it. The fact is that the vast majority of protests were against the weakest in a group, and to Jaybear, that is just fine.

I told you Mormons were targeted because they were perceived as providing the bulk of the money and manpower behind Prop 8.

When you address that point, you will have provided meaningful response.

As for justifying bully tactics, ... boycotts, protests, marches are legitimate expression of free speech. I don't need to justify them. I have never sought to justify theft, vandalism or violence.

[Jeff K.]

That depends. Was I aware of the fact that my actions would create a problem for the business with its clientele?

If not, I would feel like an idiot.

If so, and I did it anyway, I would feel smugly satisfied that I did the right thing.

Any employee who openly insults the customer base, does so at risk to their job. Why is that concept so difficult to grasp?

I told you why. Politics is driven by money and manpower. I doubt the prop 8 folks got much of either from South central LA.

Look to Jaybear to overlook the bully tactics and attempt to justify them. He finds nothing wrong with it. The fact is that the vast majority of protests were against the weakest in a group, and to Jaybear, that is just fine.

One does not have to be a prophet to know how certain types react, nor how far they will go to justify any action.

I remember speaking with a supporter of Hamas once. He did the same thing, justified the rockets, the killings, the boycotts, the protests, it didn't matter what happened to the individuals, they were not nearly as important as the group think.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 July 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

Mormons are easy targets by powerful gay groups in California. Look to Jaybear to overlook the bully tactics and attempt to justify them. He finds nothing wrong with it. The fact is that the vast majority of protests were against the weakest in a group, and to Jaybear, that is just fine.

I told you Mormons were targeted because they were perceived as providing the bulk of the money and manpower behind Prop 8.

When you address that point, you will have provided meaningful response.

As for justifying bully tactics, ... boycotts, protests, marches are legitimate expression of free speech. I don't need to justify them. I have never sought to justify theft, vandalism or violence.

By the time Vidmar lost his job, it was already known that other groups contributed a great deal. It doesn't wash, nor have we seen ANY other group protested. You cannot continue hiding from the truth of the matter and attempting to avoid the very fact that Mormons were the weakest of the groups, and the easiest to attack.

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

Incorrect.

CO2 is a known pollutant.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-carbon-dioxide-domes-affect-health

Water is not a poison, but less than 2 teaspoons in the right place will kill you.

Salt is not a poison, but incredibly small amounts will kill you.

Here is a simple test for you. When we breath we inhale 0xygen and exhale CO2. Now hold your breath.

The function of C02 is while not totally understood is well understood.

[Jaybear]

By the time Vidmar lost his job, it was already known that other groups contributed a great deal. It doesn't wash, nor have we seen ANY other group protested. You cannot continue hiding from the truth of the matter and attempting to avoid the very fact that Mormons were the weakest of the groups, and the easiest to attack.

I don't have a problem with your opinion that the Mormons were the easiest to attack.

The evangelicals don't have single unified church.

Black Christians don't have a single unified church, and they didn't invest time and money.

Catholics have a unified church, but most Catholics opposed prop 8.

That leaves the Mormons, who not only led the charge to pass prop 8, but they have those temples which form a nice backdrop to the protests.

I do have a problem with your attack of boycotts, marches and protests, all of which are a legitimate and protected expression of free speech. Putting those tactics, for example, in the same sentence with killings and rockets is very childish, and reflects that you not interested in having a mature discussion of the issue.

[Loran Blood]

Loran Blood:

Incorrect.

CO2 is a known pollutant.

http://www.scientifi...s-affect-health

This is classic pop media junk science without empirical foundation (as a cursory look at the article shows) and not worthy, at this late date, or critique, and even if anything more the pure conjecture (which it clearly is), only makes my point that anything in sufficient concentration is a poison. CO2 is the major plant fertilizer on earth, without which there would be no organic life, as we know it at least, at all. Thousands of empirical studies over almost two decades show that a CO2 enhanced world is a greener and healthier world, period (and we know it has been in the past, including the very distant past).

Water is not a poison

Really? Stick your head under water in your bathtub tonight and take a deep breath.

Salt is not a poison, but incredibly small amounts will kill you.

So, as I said, anything is a poison in sufficient dose or concentration.

Here is a simple test for you. When we breath we inhale 0xygen and exhale CO2. Now hold your breath.

That has to do with suffocation do to lack of oxygen, not the presense of CO2.

The function of C02 is while not totally understood is well understood.

Its relation to planatary climate is not well understood at all, but in any case, I don't want to derail this thread with a foray into the cult of climatism. I love to debate that issue, but I'm trying as hard as I can now to stay away from threadlocks and bans.

So I'll end that here.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood