Thursday, January 15, 2009

Mormons may have violated Election law and IRS Standards.

Whether or not a case may be proven without access to Mormon financial records is actually immaterial from the viewpoint of individuals such as myself. It's fairly clear that steps were taken to evade IRS and election oversight measures. In other words - words being echoed by various activist groups - the Mormon push on Prop 8 was clearly and deliberately intended to subvert the political process - which governs every citizen of a nation - in order to impose religious rules that apply only to a tiny minority of ... well, let's call it for what it is; religious bigots.

You see, not doing something or forgoing something for religous reasons, for yourself and to a limited extent, on behalf of family is one thing. Imposing conditions on other people in order to make it easier for you to adhere to your faith is quite another. One might seriously question the "faith" of persons who see social control as a tool of faith.

In any case, whatever is proven, this direct interference in the lives and moral choices of other people should be persuasive to persons of genuine faith and conscience. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the ten commandments - but adultery is. Adultery, in the Hebrew, speaks to "splitting apart" a relationship. It's speaking of any human relationship. It's considered to be as serious a matter as murder or giving false testimony in order to harm another.

This would seem to disqualify anyone in a leadership position from leadership if they could see this as a proper course of action for a church.

Shake the dust from your feet. Faith is about upholding and living up to standards to the best of YOUR ability - not imposing standards upon others and punishing people in the civil world for not setting examples you approve of. That's indistinguishable from pure bigotry, and you can find that sort of "faith" in any corner bar.

So, why not get a beer for your five bucks, if you are willing to settle for that sort of uplifting companionship?


Anonymous said...

A strange perspective, especially considering that the GLBT have long used the courts to sidestep the democratic process. That doesn't bother you, but Mormons manning telephones and walking the neighborhood is a subversion of the political process? That IS the political process my good man.

Either purposely or unaware, you are equivocating between the concepts of relationship and marriage. Marriage is simply the social recognition of the relationship. Traditional families are the backbone of civilization--how do we characterize so-called "gay marriages"?

The idea that gay and traditional marriage have equal value to society is a risible conceit. That isn't to say that gay relationships don't have some value, so there is clearly room for negotiation and compromise, but its the GLBT that have acted to ram an illicit legal definition down the throats of citizens.

For the life of me, it resembles radical Islam in its drive to impose its views and crush all dissent.

Americans will respond to real fairness, so why don't you try it for a change?

Bob King said...

First, thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain once again that the United States is not a "Democracy" in which "majority rule" is held sacred. The founders were justly concerned that this would lead to "tyranny by the majority."

Prop 8 is precisely the sort of witch-hunt they had in mind when they settled upon a constitutional republic under the rule of law.

I use the term "witch hunt" deliberately - for literal witch hunts were still a raw spot in the historical conscience at the time,
and a very stark illustration of how wrong people can be when they are absolutely sure they are Right.

As a direct result, there are very, very few things regarding the individual rights of other people - check your copy of the US Constitution - that you actually have the right to be consulted upon. Particularly Matters of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Re-read the Enumeration Clause, particularly the one starting with "rights not enumerated."

Refresh your understanding of the term "inalienable rights," while you are at it, as well as the concept of "whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

Who are YOU to decide whom God may see as being married? And what correspondence may that have with your limited understanding of whom She should bless or curse? What arrogance!

Second, let me address a plain fact. Churches are given tax-exempt status and a host of other privileges and exemptions conditionally - that they do not attempt to influence politics or in any other way involve themselves in secular affairs. They may comment upon it, they may have views about policy, but when they start organizing and co-coordinating, then they have, by choice, "gone secular" and should be judged and taxed and regulated in the same way as any other special interest group - starting with open books and audits.

As for your opinion of the practical necessity for legal recognition of relationships that actually do exist, whatever your opinion of their "social importance," the judgment of their "social importance" is irrelevant. Neither church NOR government has the right to abridge or limit tangible and important rights (such as visiting rights in hospital, estate management, child custody, etc) for what amounts to the defense of a faith that I and many others argue has little if any correspondence to it's supposed scriptural basis.

When Christians live up to the letters in red, they MIGHT have some useful insight into the social value and moral benefits of the practices of other people; might possibly even become wise enough to regulate the lives of others - except of course that people who read those red letters realize that's something only a Pharisee would do.

Marriage - to the extent that government and law may appropriately be concerned with it - is a form of economic and personal contract between persons.

It's a long established, well tested, well-understood body of law which is of undeniable advantage to people who are in committed relationships and immensely simplifies litigation that arises from failed relationships, disease, disaster, mental illness and death.

Currently, same-sex partners have to completely re-invent the wheel, legally speaking, simply to approximate the legal simplicity of a marriage license. That doesn't meet the "equal protection" smoke test.

Let us also realize that civil society has the concept of common law marriage; in which it realizes that two people (a man and a woman) who live together become entangled economically and emotionally after some period of time. This is clearly true of same-sex couples as well, regardless of whether you think they OUGHT to be.

To the extent that any two persons (or indeed, any household) meets the general standard of common-law marriage and would need to be held to it in terms of legitimate social interest, it should apply - as a matter of legitimate state interest.

It therefore follows that denying civil marriage is a clear violation of the legitimate rights of ALL interested parties, while persons such as you have no legitimate interest and no legal or moral standing.

You see, you have every right to say that you disapprove of someone's relationship, lifestyle, or religious affiliation.

What you do NOT have the right to do is to fuck with them using that disapproval as justification for it. Nor does it matter at all that you can gather a group of like-minded thugs with deep pockets. That is not at all the same thing. Nor is resisting you an "imposition" or an "attack on your faith."

Although Jesus Himself would - with a plumbatum.

Jesus was many things, but he was not a judgmental asshole who concerned himself with the moral choices of others. Instead, he told his followers to improve themselves and uphold their own standards.

What YOU are saying is that your beliefs give YOU the right to fuck with other people's relationships, to interfere with who they love, to publicly condemn them, abuse and penalize them; to deny them access to their spouses in hospital, as just one example, or use the lack of their "legitimate" status in other ways against them.

Why ELSE would this matter to you, one way or the other?


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Popular Posts

News Feeds

Me, Elsewhere