California Supreme Court Gunning For Bsa; Is Church Of Jesus Christ Next?

[california boy]

BSA is nothing like the KKK. Who's the one engaging in histrionics here?

Well to be fair, BSA is something like the KKK,  They are both organizations that have institutionalized discrimination.  That is the part of both organizations that are being compared.  

 

You might also be reminded that KKK was touted by its followers as a guardian of religion and used the Bible as their God given right to discriminate against another race.

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR that MFBukowski (or anyone else) said anything about guns.  Thanks in advance.

 

P.S.: The title of the thread doesn't count; I'll let Scott speak for himself, but I'm fairly certain that, as a professional communicator, Scott can tell the difference between a metaphorical expression and a literal one, and that his intended use of that expression in the title is the former.

Whoah!

I'm rejoining this thread late and haven't yet read thru it, but does somebody here (Canard, maybe) really think that by thread title I meant that I really think the California Supreme Court is literally going to start using firearms against the Church?

Do all Britons have this much trouble grasping metaphor? (I know they don't, but I'm playing off Canard's broad-brush crack about Americans.)

[Scott Lloyd]

Well to be fair, BSA is something like the KKK,  They are both organizations that have institutionalized discrimination.  That is the part of both organizations that are being compared.  

 

You might also be reminded that KKK was touted by its followers as a guardian of religion and used the Bible as their God given right to discriminate against another race.

When a majority of our citizenry starts to take outlandish comparisons like this seriously is when we will have reached a crisis point in the threat to our First Amendment freedoms.

[california boy]

So when it is pointed out that black people voted against you you are going to blame their decisions on ads that led them to vote the wrong way. Good job taking away their agency. You should definitely take your Victorian ideals to their logical conclusion, take up the White Man's burden, and start civilizing and educating the heathen savage.

When it was pointed out that black people voted for Prop 8, I pointed out that it is not because Mormon leaders preached from the pulpit to vote for Prop 8, but rather for their activism in raising millions and going door to door.  No black church did that kind of aggressive tacit against married gay couples.  Only the Mormons did that.  

[carbon dioxide]

I can see where homosexuals have rights just as heterosexuals. That wasnt my question. My question was specific to homosexual marriage. Since when did homosexual marriage ever have constitutionally protected rights?

Until recently never.  Its a new right granted to gays.  For over 200 years, gays did not have the right to marry.  The US Supreme Court however will finally decide the issue in terms of legal status.  That does not mean the religions, individuals, ect will have to accept gay marriages.   Just because something is legal does not mean it is good or right. 

[carbon dioxide]

When it was pointed out that black people voted for Prop 8, I pointed out that it is not because Mormon leaders preached from the pulpit to vote for Prop 8, but rather for their activism in raising millions and going door to door.  No black church did that kind of aggressive tacit against married gay couples.  Only the Mormons did that.  

The fact of the matter is even though the LDS Church is blamed for the passage of Prop 8, it would have passed anyway even if the church did not get involved.   Gay marriage was shot down by California voters in an early election.  The courts overturned  it and that is what led to prop 8.  The LDS Church did not lead any campaign in the first vote.  Plus up to that point, gay marriage was shot down in every election it was raised across the US.  There is no reason to believe California would have done something different that dozens of other states had done.  My criticism of the LDS Church for Prop 8 simply is they did not need to get involved.  Prop 8 was going to pass in California so there was no reason to bother.

 

Keep in mind as well that more money was spent by the side to defeat Prop 8 than the side to pass it.  Which means whatever millions was spent by Mormons to pass Prop 8 was matched by those to defeat it.  If money buys or influences election results, prop 8 should have been defeated.

Edited January 26, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

When a majority of our citizenry starts to take outlandish comparisons like this seriously is when we will have reached a crisis point in the threat to our First Amendment freedoms.

 

The problem you have scott is that the majority of Americans already dislike ANY organization that discriminates.  But don't worry, as you know, the Supreme Court has already ruled that BSA has First Amendment freedoms to discriminate.  Churches can too.  It is not the legal right to discriminate that is in jeopardy.

 

It doesn't mean that most Americans want to support those groups that choose to discriminate.  That is what is in jeopardy.  People have had it with organizations that institutionalize discrimination.  They are no longer willing to turn a blind eye.  It is unfortunate that the church is a part of BSA.  

[california boy]

Until recently never.  Its a new right granted to gays.  For over 200 years, gays did not have the right to marry.  The US Supreme Court however will finally decide the issue in terms of legal status.  That does not mean the religions, individuals, ect will have to accept gay marriages.   Just because something is legal does not mean it is good or right. 

 

Gays have always had the right to marry.  What is recent is the challenge to recent laws that have been instituted preventing them from doing so.  Your statement is like saying blacks never had the right to be discriminated against until the 60's.  The truth is, they should never have been discriminated against.  Sometimes justice takes a while to get things right.  Discriminating against a minority is rarely a good thing. 

[tonie]

BSA is nothing like the KKK. Who's the one engaging in histrionics here?

 

And yet, Stone Holm's comment demontrates that Professional Organization in the United States, ARE permitted to restrict the Professional Members to other organizations.

 

And speaking of histrionics, I think the genesis of this thread is histrionic.

[tonie]

You can accuse USU78 of paranoid rantings all you want, but I've never seen him opine on a topic such as this when he isn't stating his own deeply-held convictions.  If you think that nobody in the U.S. legal system pays any attention to, or has any desire to emulate, what goes on in other common law countries, with all due respect, you are woefully misinformed. 

 

And as you also have comparable legal training as USU78, perhaps you can demonstrate why the individuals in the United States - with our ensign to the Nations in terms of freespeech and association and the God Inspired Constitution - can articulate why we,  US Citizens, should be concerned about what another Country does regarding freedom of speech of its Citizens.

[rodheadlee]

I am an American.  I believe in the rights guaranteed me in the constitution.  I am willing to fight to keep those rights by those who seek to take them away from me.  If you think that makes me some unhappy soul fighting against God, you are dead wrong.  I have a wonderful life shared with a wonderful guy who is as much a part of me as my life itself. The fact that you make such a judgement of my happiness based on someone you don't even know is amazing and misguided.  Do you seriously believe that every gay person is living some miserable life?  Is that what you used to justify discriminating against them?

The fact is you only post on Gay, SSM threads. I have never in my 8 years here seen you post one single thing positive or on a different subject, so that is all we have to  go by. It seems to me your whole purpose to be here is to contend about SSM and the Church.

[california boy]

The fact of the matter is even though the LDS Church is blamed for the passage of Prop 8, it would have passed anyway even if the church did not get involved.   Gay marriage was shot down by California voters in an early election.  The courts overturned  it and that is what led to prop 8.  The LDS Church did not lead any campaign in the first vote.  Plus up to that point, gay marriage was shot down in every election it was raised across the US.  There is no reason to believe California would have done something different that dozens of other states had done.  My criticism of the LDS Church for Prop 8 simply is they did not need to get involved.  Prop 8 was going to pass in California so there was no reason to bother.

 

Keep in mind as well that more money was spent by the side to defeat Prop 8 than the side to pass it.  Which means whatever millions was spent by Mormons to pass Prop 8 was matched by those to defeat it.  If money buys or influences election results, prop 8 should have been defeated.

 

Well in that case it was a completely stupid idea for the church leaders to ask the members to donate millions to a proposition that was going to be defeated anyway.  Because now the church is known for being one of the most antigay churches in the world.  

 

And your history about prop 22 the previous proposition is a bit lacking.  The Mormon church certainly did support prop 22 in a big way.  But unlike Prop 8, they limited their involvement for the most part to preaching against it from the pulpit.  

[rodheadlee]

Well in that case it was a completely stupid idea for the church leaders to ask the members to donate millions to a proposition that was going to be defeated anyway.  Because now the church is known for being one of the most antigay churches in the world.  

 

And your history about prop 22 the previous proposition is a bit lacking.  The Mormon church certainly did support prop 22 in a big way.  But unlike Prop 8, they limited their involvement for the most part to preaching against it from the pulpit.  

I don't know what Church you're talking about, The one I go to is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We don't worship Mormon.

Edited January 26, 2015 by rodheadlee

[mfbukowski]

Any volunteers?

 

"Yes, I was quite happy to get that invitation to dinner at my neighbor's house ... until I found out exactly what he meant when he said he would make me the 'guest of honor' ..."

And it gives a new dimension to having the missionaries for dinner. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

And it gives a new dimension to having the missionaries for dinner. 

 

I had a student in Indonesia whose grandmother had had missionaries for dinner, but they were French and Catholic and extremely annoying, the old woman insisted.

[Kenngo1969]

And as you also have comparable legal training as USU78, perhaps you can demonstrate why the individuals in the United States - with our ensign to the Nations in terms of freespeech and association and the God Inspired Constitution - can articulate why we,  US Citizens, should be concerned about what another Country does regarding freedom of speech of its Citizens.

Oh, you flatter me!  No, my legal training is in no way comparable to that received by USU78 : he was a better law student than I was, he's a better lawyer than I'll ever be, and has been in practice for many years; I, on the other hand, was a marginal law student, and it's quite likely that I'll never be licensed anywhere, let alone be able to amass the kind of experience he has. Furthermore, even if we were, for all practical purposes, essentially equals in these respects, he has resources at his disposal that I do not.  And I'm not saying that "Joe Citizen" (my appellation) is, or should be, concerned about what other common law countries does regarding "freedom of speech of its Citizens."  I am however, saying that (whether they should or not), more than a few judges do pay attention to these things, and, at least in some cases and at least at the margins, what's done in other common law countries does factor into their decision making.

 

P.S.:; And, as I wish to remain on good terms with USU78, I will thank you in advance for retracting the rank insult you inflicted upon him by stating that my legal acumen is in any way comparable to his.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

And it gives a new dimension to having the missionaries for dinner. 

 Shhhh!  Don't give Trey Parker and Matt Stone any ideas for a sequel to the smash Broadway hit, The Book of Mormon Musical!

 

[california boy]

The fact is you only post on Gay, SSM threads. I have never in my 8 years here seen you post one single thing positive or on a different subject, so that is all we have to  go by. It seems to me your whole purpose to be here is to contend about SSM and the Church.

Well you are wrong.  I do post on other issues.  If you are interested in some of my other recent non gay issue posting can be found on  "Why do they stay" "Best Answers to The Common Statement in My Home Lately" "Why Are Youth Leaving the Church" threads among others.  What I don't post on are threads that talk about the proof against Mormon scriptures like those disproving the Book of Mormon or The Book of Abraham.  I don't think it is my responsibility or duty to tear down anyone's religious beliefs.    

 

But that doesn't mean I don't have a passion for defending the civil rights of gays and discussing how the church deals with it's gay members and those of the rest of the LGTB community.  And in fact, if you read my posts about gay issues, I have never stated that the church does not have the right to preach anything it wants against gays.  I only point out the wrongness of discrimination and lack of revelation for many of these policies against its gay members.

 

I am a gay man that brings a gay perspective to an otherwise pretty much straight board.  I think I have a perspective that adds to the discussion of this issue.  If you don't think so, then I think there is a way you can ignore my posts.

[california boy]

I don't know what Church you're talking about, The one I go to is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We don't worship Mormon.

 

Well that is one way to avoid dealing with real issues.  I didn't realize you had never heard the church referred to as Mormons.  My apologies.

 

P.S.  You might want to direct this comment to the church leaders.  You can find their official web site at www.mormons.org.  

Edited January 26, 2015 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

Surely this is missing the point...

Some random state in America is going to (potentially) take steps that would (potentially) favour relationship rights over religious rights and Mormons are saying the constitution of America will (potentially) hang by a thread and, as a result, it's time to get dem gosh-durn-it guns out.

Americans would be funny sometimes if they weren't so terrifyingly serious about it. It would make brilliant satire if only it were intentional.

Well there is some point missing here, but I am not sure it's on my side.

 

We poor uncivilized Americans with our silly penchant for firearms took away your colonies from your civilized redcoats with targets on their chests, marching in neat rows and defeated you, and then yet again in 1812 because again we didn't play by the rules. Maybe if you had been a little less civilized you could have kept the colonies and saved yourselves, but as it turned out, Chamberlain was too civilized to save your own people in WWII and again you had to turn to us funny savages with our bad grammar.

 

I am sure your civilized Bobbies with their sticks will be ready for ISIS when it hits London, but for me, I would sure feel better with at least a shotgun under the bed.

 

But of course we will be there to bail you out yet again.  You're welcome!

Edited January 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

When it was pointed out that black people voted for Prop 8, I pointed out that it is not because Mormon leaders preached from the pulpit to vote for Prop 8, but rather for their activism in raising millions and going door to door.  No black church did that kind of aggressive tacit against married gay couples.  Only the Mormons did that.  

 

Actually others did as well but I understand that we make a convenient primary target. It would dilute the purity of the crusade to add in going after the Hispanic and Black voters (and the Catholic and Black Churches) and tell them that you will never forgive them for their actions, fundraising, and activism.

 

Well to be fair, BSA is something like the KKK,  They are both organizations that have institutionalized discrimination.  That is the part of both organizations that are being compared.  

 

You might also be reminded that KKK was touted by its followers as a guardian of religion and used the Bible as their God given right to discriminate against another race.

 

An organization formed primarily for the purpose of terrorizing minorities is similar to one primarily about outdoorsmanship and personal development?

 

The KKK were domestic terrorists.

[Mystery Meat]

Actually others did as well but I understand that we make a convenient primary target. It would dilute the purity of the crusade to add in going after the Hispanic and Black voters (and the Catholic and Black Churches) and tell them that you will never forgive them for their actions, fundraising, and activism.

 

 

An organization formed primarily for the purpose of terrorizing minorities is similar to one primarily about outdoorsmanship and personal development?

 

The KKK were domestic terrorists.

 

His comparison is even less sound than comparing the GOP to the Nazi's or the Democrats to the Communists. Its stupid on its face.

[carbon dioxide]

Well in that case it was a completely stupid idea for the church leaders to ask the members to donate millions to a proposition that was going to be defeated anyway.  Because now the church is known for being one of the most antigay churches in the world.  

 

And your history about prop 22 the previous proposition is a bit lacking.  The Mormon church certainly did support prop 22 in a big way.  But unlike Prop 8, they limited their involvement for the most part to preaching against it from the pulpit.  

That would be my point.  Of course the Church has and will always be against gay marriage regardless of whether it is legally recognized or not.  SSM mixes with LDS doctrine like water and oil mix.   I do think the Church should have approached Prop 8 like Prop 22.   I would not have donated a penny for Prop 8 because it would have been wasted money in my view.  Prop 8 was going to pass regardless.  Whether the Church is considered one of the most "antigay" or not really should not matter.  When I read the passage in the Book of Mormon on Lehi dream of the tree of life and the great and spacious building, I don't see any instruction for those partaking of the fruit at the tree of life to try to appease those who are mocking them in the spacious building.  The mockers and those that cast scorn are going to do their thing.  We just need to do our thing and hold on to the iron rod and not listen to them.  We already know who wins in the end.  That much is certain.

[Scott Lloyd]

What is troubling linking to a for-profit blog.

 

.

Peterson's blog?

I don't know about it being a "for profit" blog, but I've been linking to it fairly often for some time now, and this is the first I've encountered any suggestion that there is something untoward or shady about doing so. I find the accusation beyond bizarre, actually.

That said, I'm more than happy to be your test case. By all means, complain about me to the moderating team. And please report to us their response.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That would be my point.  Of course the Church has and will always be against gay marriage regardless of whether it is legally recognized or not.  SSM mixes with LDS doctrine like water and oil mix.   I do think the Church should have approached Prop 8 like Prop 22.   I would not have donated a penny for Prop 8 because it would have been wasted money in my view.  Prop 8 was going to pass regardless.  Whether the Church is considered one of the most "antigay" or not really should not matter.  When I read the passage in the Book of Mormon on Lehi dream of the tree of life and the great and spacious building, I don't see any instruction for those partaking of the fruit at the tree of life to try to appease those who are mocking them in the spacious building.  The mockers and those that cast scorn are going to do their thing.  We just need to do our thing and hold on to the iron rod and not listen to them.  We already know who wins in the end.  That much is certain.

Ain't it grand? Like watching a video recording of your favorite team in a game when you already know your team has won.