The State Vs. Religious Freedom.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Good advice. Stop polluting the environment TSS. Stop breathing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So I'll end that here.

And so shall I. Good call.

I am still waiting for Frankincense to respond to my post about the NAACP and the idea of protected classes.

[Loran Blood]

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.

Perhaps not, but southern California blacks represented a solid block of opposition to homosexual marriage. Indeed, as I recall, in that particular community, opposition was disproportionate when contrasted with the majority white population.

[Loran Blood]

And so shall I. Good call.

I am still waiting for Frankincense to respond to my post about the NAACP and the idea of protected classes.

Gay marriage supporters are such innnnnnnneresting monsters...

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 July 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

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.

A gun is amoral. You shoot to murder someone, it becomes an immoral tool. Apparently ethics is a weak point for some.

Evangelicals came out and protested in the streets.

Knights of Columbus gave the largest single donation in favor of prop 8

Black Christians voted in large percentages for the prop 8

To attempt to limit money as the overriding influence is ridiculous given those against prop 8 spent MORE than those in favor. Votes counted too, and there were alot, evangelicals spoke out in favor of prop 8 it in their pulpits, as did the AME church, stating that homosexuality was not for the family.

The facts once again make the statements and the attempted limiting of parameters seem like so much of a weak argument. Not to mention the certain ethical lapse.

[Loran Blood]

Opponents of Prop 8 outspent supporters by a margin of $43.3 million to $39.9 million. Now, this admittedly is not a huge difference, but it should put a stop to the continued howling about how the big conservative/Christian/Mormon bullies beat up on the poor, tiny, defenseless Gay rights movement in this episode.

Both sides, in point of fact, were just about evenly matched, financially speaking, and the LDS church did not "lead the charge," although it was prominent in the issue arena.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Jaybear]

A gun is amoral. You shoot to murder someone, it becomes an immoral tool. Apparently ethics is a weak point for some.

Evangelicals came out and protested in the streets.

Knights of Columbus gave the largest single donation in favor of prop 8

Black Christians voted in large percentages for the prop 8

To attempt to limit money as the overriding influence is ridiculous given those against prop 8 spent MORE than those in favor. Votes counted too, and there were alot, evangelicals spoke out in favor of prop 8 it in their pulpits, as did the AME church, stating that homosexuality was not for the family.

The facts once again make the statements and the attempted limiting of parameters seem like so much of a weak argument. Not to mention the certain ethical lapse.

Jeff, I said "money and manpower." Mormons were the obvious political target, and as you noted they were the weakest target. As they provided most of the money and manpower, and as they only accounted for 2% of the population, there is almost no political cost to making them them out to be the bad guys.

Do you have a point, or are you just looking for sympathy?

[Jaybear]

Opponents of Prop 8 outspent supporters by a margin of $43.3 million to $39.9 million. Now, this admittedly is not a huge difference, but it should put a stop to the continued howling about how the big conservative/Christian/Mormon bullies beat up on the poor, tiny, defenseless Gay rights movement in this episode.

Both sides, in point of fact, were just about evenly matched, financially speaking, and the LDS church did not "lead the charge," although it was prominent in the issue arena.

Strawman alert: No one here has howled "about how the big conservative/Christian/Mormon bullies beat up on the poor, tiny, defenseless Gay rights movement in this episode."

As for "leading the charge" if not the Mormons, what group contributed more money, and what group contributed more volunteer manhours?

[Loran Blood]

Jeff, I said "money and manpower." Mormons were the obvious political target, and as you noted they were the weakest target. As they provided most of the money and manpower, and as they only accounted for 2% of the population, there is almost no political cost to making them them out to be the bad guys.

The LDS Church supplied no direct monies to the effort. All help given by the institutional church was in-kind in nature. Actual direct monetary support came from individual church members, which means from individual American citizens, which means that all the intimidation, all the protests at churches, all the boycotts, all the political theatrics, and all the threatened legal action was nothing more than an attempt to shut down the free speech and deny the political participation of the politically incorrect; of other American citizens who were exercising their right to participate in the political life of their communities and nation.

I'm not at all sure how much clearer this could really be.

[Pahoran]

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

My apologies for being part of that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Loran Blood]

Strawman alert: No one here has howled "about how the big conservative/Christian/Mormon bullies beat up on the poor, tiny, defenseless Gay rights movement in this episode."

Really? Its was all the rage in the blogosphere, the MSM, and the liberal 501c3s for months after the dust had settled. Miss it? Sorry.

As for "leading the charge" if not the Mormons, what group contributed more money, and what group contributed more volunteer manhours?

The church didn't contribute any money, only private citizens who happened to be Mormons. You might want to look here for some basic orientation:

In the February, 2009 issue of Politics Magazine, Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint of Schubert Flint Public Affairs wrote about how they got Proposition 8 passed in California. Their conclusion: “Members of the Mormon faith played an important part of the Yes on 8 coalition, but were only a part of our winning coalition. We had the support of virtually the entire faith community in California. Prop 8 didn’t win because of the Mormons. It won because we created superior advertising that defined the issues on our terms; because we built a diverse coalition; and, most importantly, because we activated that coalition at the grassroots level in a way that had never before been done.”

[Pahoran]

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."

There's no such thing as a "lesbian family;" the expression is an oxymoron. There are families that are damaged by various kinds of sexual dysfunction, but no families are defined by such things.

And as you know, it's not a case of a hotel refusing to accommodate anyone; it's a case of a church refusing to allow its property to be used in a manner contrary to its mission and beliefs.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

The LDS Church supplied no direct monies to the effort. All help given by the institutional church was in-kind in nature. Actual direct monetary support came from individual church members, which means from individual American citizens, which means that all the intimidation, all the protests at churches, all the boycotts, all the political theatrics, and all the threatened legal action was nothing more than an attempt to shut down the free speech and deny the political participation of the politically incorrect; of other American citizens who were exercising their right to participate in the political life of their communities and nation.

I'm not at all sure how much clearer this could really be.

Your position would be clearer if you did not resort to hyperbole ..l "shut down the free speech and deny the political participation of the politically incorrect".

When you engage in hyperbole, it becomes difficult to separate your substantive arguments from your rhetorical arguments.

The church didn't contribute any money, only private citizens who happened to be Mormons. You might want to look here for some basic orientation:

Per your website: "According to our research, at least half of the monetary contributions were from individual Mormons."

Ergo, most of the money came from Mormons.

Thank you for confirming the accuracy of my posts. I strive to be accurate.

[Pahoran]

Your position would be clearer if you did not resort to hyperbole ..l "shut down the free speech and deny the political participation of the politically incorrect".

When you engage in hyperbole, it becomes difficult to separate your substantive arguments from your rhetorical arguments.

There is no hyperbole in view. Punishing people for participating in the political process has no other expectation than to reduce such participation in the future. As I'm sure you realise, and as I am certain you approve of.

Per your website: "According to our research, at least half of the monetary contributions were from individual Mormons."

Ergo, most of the money came from Mormons.

No, "at least half" is not most of something. If that were the case, then there could be two mosts, which is rather nonsensical.

Thank you for confirming the accuracy of my posts. I strive to be accurate.

Not in my experience.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thank you for confirming the accuracy of my posts. I strive to be accurate.

I really don't know what the issue is. Other than some try to make it seem that the church gave the money. Which is implied when you state "group". Loran is just trying to rat out any misconceptions that will more than likely come.

So lets try this. Mormon's as individuals gave more than any other group. Splitting hairs? Maybe.

[Jaybear]

There is no hyperbole in view. Punishing people for participating in the political process has no other expectation than to reduce such participation in the future. As I'm sure you realise, and as I am certain you approve of.

There is difference between dissuading participation and denying participation.

The difference is hyperbole.

I don't dispute that the goal of gay rights activists is to stigmatize those who oppose gay rights, and therefor dissuade them from joining the battle.

No, "at least half" is not most of something. If that were the case, then there could be two mosts, which is rather nonsensical.

You are correct. At least half means no less than 1/2. If, in the wholly implausible scenario, one half precisely came from Mormons, I would be wrong.

Not in my experience.

If you have an example of where I made a factual statement which proved to be incorrect, please feel free to point it out. Otherwise, I don't appreciate your suggestion to the contrary.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Jaybear

[Loran Blood]

When you engage in hyperbole, it becomes difficult to separate your substantive arguments from your rhetorical arguments.

Need I really go into detail regarding the behavior, and especially public behavior, of a number of organized supporters of the opposition to prop 8, especially in California? This is not a recent phenomena. In the mid-eighties, members of ACT-UP stormed a religious service in session at a famous Catholic cathedral in New York City (St. Patrick's, I do believe) and threw condoms at parishioners. This became a favorite tactic over the years since, as well as other, much more intimidating behavior.

Its all, as the song went, "in the game."

Per your website: "According to our research, at least half of the monetary contributions were from individual Mormons."

Ergo, most of the money came from Mormons.

Let me get this straight. Mormons contributed 50% of the money to the prop 8 campaign. Therefore, it follows from this that they contributed most (more than 51%) of the money.

Is that correct?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

There is difference between dissuading participation and denying participation.

The difference is hyperbole.

No. Hyperbole is exaggeration of a single principle or point in order to place extreme emphasis on that point. I've done neither. The behavior of the pro-homosexual activists in this case, and which mirrors the behavior of an allied cultural element in our society over the last forty years or so in other areas, was intended to target, isolate, stigmatize, and intimidate supporters into political silence, allowing the the counter-culture to win by default, as is always the core tactic of this cultural element.

I don't dispute that the goal of gay rights activists is to stigmatize those who oppose gay rights, and therefor dissuade them from joining the battle.

Thank you for making my very point as you deny its legitimacy. The purpose was to dissuade them from participation in the political life of their communities and country. To silence their speech, in other words.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Jaybear]

Let me get this straight. Mormons contributed 50% of the money to the prop 8 campaign. Therefore, it follows from this that they contributed most (more than 51%) of the money.

Is that correct?

Close. The article says Mormons contributed AT LEAST 50%.

[frankenstein]

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

it still is not proof of fact.

But the fact is that he left to avoid the Olympic effort being dragged through the Prop 8 mud.

CFR.

If Peter Vidmar truely supported prop 8 he would not have resigned. He would have kept his position and shown the world that someone can support prop 8 and work along side those who disagree with prop 8.

What about the theatre manager in San Francisco/

pahoran you mean " Scott Eckern, Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry. Eckern gave an apology and donated an equal amount to the effort to overturn Prop 8."

yes, let use give Scott Eckern the martrys honor, his actions are just cowardly, in the face of opposition, rather than standing for what he claimed to be truth, he flinched and effectively showed the world he goes wheresoever the wind blows. yes, lets honor Scott Eckern with the motto "When the going gets tough, the tough recant".

In his own statement Eckern effectively says he does not support prop 8. " I want to support ... everyone in their efforts to receive equal rights so I will be making a comparable donation ($1000) to the Human Rights Campaign.' (HRC has made disparaging comments towards the LDS Church and supports ssm....are you still sure you want to present Scott Eckern as a martyr?) And before you start, my information on Scott Eckern quoted above is taken from fairwiki.org and the links provided by fairwiki.

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

Where is your proof that "mormons lost their jobs because of their support for prop 8" that is all i have asked, and that only statement i have made is that Elder Oaks claiming it is so does not mean it was true. Elder Oaks, acting in good faith that what he was told is truth, could repeat the claim in good faith, but just because a General Authority of the LDS Church opens his mouth and speaks does not mean every utterance of a LDS General Authority is true.

i will give you this, i presented peter vidmar, you presented Scott Eckern (a Benedict Arnold or Judas), that equals two, which means plural, so you do seemingly plural, however, both resigned, and one negated his actions.

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."

thats right, because when ever I tell someone 'Yes I am member of the LDS church" I do not want to hear in return "Well I knew a few mormons and they misrepresented the truth about many things, someone even denied the truth when the truth was right before them". So why do i only really care when other lds misrepresent the truth, make unsupported claims, or make false assumptions, because I myself am LDS and do not want to be associated with those who would deceive others. The lds can either be a group of people who stand for truth based on truth or the lds can be a group of people to whom the truth is relative and a matter of convenience.

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

tax exemptions required public accommodation, is the written law of New Jersey, I presented the cold hard facts of the truth.

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

I have only ever stated the facts, or rather provided the information necessary for a person to make an informed decision. you disparage me for providing enabling informed decisions, why do you do that? So yes, i will provide the information necessary for a person to make an informed decision on Ocean Grove, eharmony, Scott Ekern, Peter Vidmar, the photographer from new mexico, the parent initiated non-mandatory trip to the gay wedding, the univolved parent in Mass. who by omission consented to their children being read a book about a homosexual prince. You are more than welcome to associate yourself with those who deliberately withhold information so as to promote their own agenda. And you are more than welcome to not object to fellow LDS using deception to promote what the LDS Church claims is eternal truth, why you would not object to deception being used to promote eternal truth is astounding.

If the The Family: A Proclamation to the World, is truth, then there is no reason for deception, smoke and mirrors, or misrepresentation to used to uphold or defend the principle that are proclaimed from God, via the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. The foundation of eternal principles is truth and nothing but the truth can uphold those principle. It is a defilement of eternal principles to attempt to uphold them with deception or any synonym thereof.

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

loran blood, go back and read page 4 of the link, then read Locke.

Edited July 28, 2011 by frankenstein

[Jaybear]

No. Hyperbole is exaggeration of a single principle or point in order to place extreme emphasis on that point. I've done neither.

The word "deny" is hyperbole. There is no scenario by which gay rights activists could "deny" mormons the right to participate in the political process. If society comes to accept that opposition to gay rights is odious bigotry, Mormons still have every the right to participate.

The behavior of the pro-homosexual activists in this case, and which mirrors the behavior of an allied cultural element in our society over the last forty years or so in other areas, was intended to target, isolate, stigmatize, and intimidate supporters into political silence, allowing the the counter-culture to win by default, as is always the core tactic of this cultural element.

"Win by default?" More hyperbole.

Thank you for making my very point as you deny its legitimacy. The purpose was to dissuade them from participation in the political life of their communities and country. To silence their speech, in other words.

My, my you are dramatic. Blowing up a printing press is silencing an opponent. Using protests, boycotts, marches, giving speeches, writing articles, to define the debate, and frame the issues is hardly silencing your opponent speech.

This pity party your are throwing is rather pathetic.

[Jeff K.]

My, my you are dramatic. Blowing up a printing press is silencing an opponent. Using protests, boycotts, marches, giving speeches, writing articles, to define the debate, and frame the issues is hardly silencing your opponent speech.

This pity party your are throwing is rather pathetic.

As are the storm troopers who say "Jews work here, do not shop". Isn't that what you call legitimate means in your land of ethics?

[Pahoran]

it still is not proof of fact.

I deny that a non-controversial fact needs to be proven before it can be asserted.

The swine for whom you are an apologist hounded Latter-day Saints out of their livelihoods in retaliation for their daring to exercise their political freedoms. That is a fact not disputed by any honest person.

CFR.

It is the best conclusion based upon the evidence, given that he had not done anything wrong.

If Peter Vidmar truely supported prop 8 he would not have resigned. He would have kept his position and shown the world that someone can support prop 8 and work along side those who disagree with prop 8.

Of course it's not possible; not when the marriage pollution lobby are too bigoted to allow such a thing to happen.

pahoran you mean Scott Eckern Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry.

That would be him, yes. The guy who resigned after his theatre was threatened by scum in the entertainment industry.

yes, let use give Scott Eckern the martrys honor, his actions are just cowardly, in the face of opposition, rather than standing for what he claimed to be truth, he flinched and effectively showed the world he goes wheresoever the wind blows. yes, lets honor Scott Eckern with the motto "When the going gets tough, the tough recant".

That is entirely irrelevant to your cavil. The fact is that he was another Mormon who was hounded out of his job because of his support for Prop 8, contrary to your stubborn denials.

And may I point out that you, of ALL people, are the VERY LAST person qualified to criticise anyone else for caving under pressure from immoralists.

Where is your proof that "mormons lost their jobs because of their support for prop 8" that is all i have asked, and that only statement i have made is that Elder Oaks claiming it is so does not mean it was true. Elder Oaks, acting in good faith that what he was told is truth, could repeat the claim in good faith, but just because a General Authority of the LDS Church opens his mouth and speaks does not mean every utterance of a LDS General Authority is true.

i will give you this, i presented peter vidmar, you presented Scott Eckern (a Benedict Arnold or Judas), that equals two, which means plural, so you do seemingly plural, however, both resigned, and one negated his actions.

IOW, when you demanded "proof" of a plural number of Latter-day Saints having lost their jobs because of their Prop 8 support, you already knew of two, but you preferred to act as if you did not. I'll keep that in mind next time you demand "proof" for something.

thats right, because when ever I tell someone 'Yes I am member of the LDS church" I do not want to hear in return "Well I knew a few mormons and they misrepresented the truth about many things, someone even denied the truth when the truth was right before them". So why do i only really care when other lds misrepresent the truth, make unsupported claims, or make false assumptions, because I myself am LDS and do not want to be associated with those who would deceive others. The lds can either be a group of people who stand for truth based on truth or the lds can be a group of people to whom the truth is relative and a matter of convenience.

Then might I suggest that you tell people where your real loyalties lie? You could say something like, "Well I'm a Mormon of sorts, but I really support SSM more than the Church. And my fellow SSM advocates aren't exactly squeaky clean when it comes to the facts, either."

tax exemptions required public accommodation, is the written law of New Jersey, I presented the cold hard facts of the truth.

And the United Methodists never ceased to provide "public accommodation," according to the information found in your partisan advocacy source. When they made their property available for weddings, they did not foresee that immoral reprobates would have the termerity to demand the use of their property for wedding parodies, or that an amoral state apparatus would actually lend its support to such an abomination.

And all people of conscience, everywhere and without exception, recognise that the Methodists were right and NJ was wrong.

I have only ever stated the facts,

As folded, spindled and mutilated through your partisan spin machine.

If the The Family: A Proclamation to the World, is truth,

As all genuine Latter-day Saints readily affirm,

then there is no reason for deception, smoke and mirrors, or misrepresentation to used to uphold or defend the principle that are proclaimed from God, via the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. The foundation of eternal principles is truth and nothing but the truth can uphold those principle.

And I am satisfied that the truth upholds those principles perfectly well. Your shrill falsetto shrieks about "deception" etc. are baseless.

It is a defilement of eternal principles to attempt to uphold them with deception or any synonym thereof.

Remarkable irony there. The real "defilement of eternal principles" in view is when marriage is defiled by being polluted with gross immorality.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

When a group decides to attack and destroy or damage the career of one man for voting his conscience, it does indeed hamper the democratic process in an effort to create fear. If people do not like the Mormons and wish to embargo their products, deny their missionaries their time, that is one thing. But to financially hurt an individual, to damage their livlihood, that is immoral.

Just as I mentioned before, it is immoral for brownshirts to stand outside a store and say "Jews work here, do not buy".

Or will some presume that doing so is indeed a good moral choice?

[Pahoran]

When a group decides to attack and destroy or damage the career of one man for voting his conscience, it does indeed hamper the democratic process in an effort to create fear. If people do not like the Mormons and wish to embargo their products, deny their missionaries their time, that is one thing. But to financially hurt an individual, to damage their livlihood, that is immoral.

Just as I mentioned before, it is immoral for brownshirts to stand outside a store and say "Jews work here, do not buy".

Or will some presume that doing so is indeed a good moral choice?

Evidently to some it would be fine if it advanced some "gay" cause or other.

Like the SA itself, for example....

Regards,

Pahoran