Mormons Investigated on Prop. 8 Funding

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Nov 26, 2008.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid67099.asp

    I can't believe this is actually happening. It's about time.

     
  2. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #2
    I can't believe that Utah is full??

     
  3. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #3
    "Citizens Against Hate"... :rolleyes:

    Nice false comparison. That's like naming an anti-abortion group "Citizens Against Killing Babies."
     
  4. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Regardless- it's good that this is finally happening. Churches have been getting away with stuff like this for far too long. It needs to be stopped. You start trying to directly influence elections, you get fined. End of story.
     
  5. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #5
    Well, I wasn't remarking on the content of the investigation.

    But I'm not sure what's being charged here. Churches can actively fund propositions, but not candidates. Are they merely saying they did it improperly?
     
  6. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    I'd say that's a fair guess. ;)
     
  7. valdore macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #7
    I'd love to see tax exemption revoked on the churches. Might draw in some additional tax money we need to bail out the investment bankers and car companies.
     
  8. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #8
    A lot of times church try and operate above the law. Getting behind political causes and then when people start looking at them, "Oh we are a church, we are doing Gods work".

    This being rather high profile may open grounds for more investigations.

    The way I figure it. If you are a church enjoying tax exemption, then you can enjoy not having any say. If you want representation, then pay some taxes. Or, at least if you are going to contribute money then that amount should be taxed.

    When I donate to a political cause I am not allowed to write it off on my taxes and I don't think churches should either.
     
  9. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #9
    I was just confused by your remarks about churches doing this all the time. Maybe I'm ill-informed, but this is the first I've heard of a church improperly using campaign funds.

    Well, that's not what the law says. They keep tax-exempt status so long as they don't endorse or fund candidates. It's perfectly legal for them to endorse or fund propositions. I was surprised by that, too.
     
  10. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #10
    Did you see some of the ads for Prop 8? They most definitely were hateful.

    As for the abortion comparison, I think "pro life" achieves the same result.
     
  11. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    There were instances just recently where priests were telling congregations if they voted Democratic, they couldn't receive communion.



    Apparently, something happened to warrant investigation.
     
  12. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #12
    I knew it was legal and that gets me. I started really disliking church tax exemption when I worked at a music store. All the time there was these cheap ass bastards that would deal you down as much as possible and then demand tax exemption without any paper work. Well they would come back a week later demanding the same deals and display their tax exemption for their phony church. Or, church members would come in with the tax exemption and try and buy stuff for themselves. The whole thing was madding.
     
  13. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #13
    Yes, I did. And there was nothing hateful about them. To assume that proponents of prop. 8 were hateful or that their message was one of hate is very closed minded. It'd be like saying that pro-choice people hate babies. It makes no sense and gets us nowhere.

    Actually, that was quite different. First of all, it was after the election, so it didn't influence voting. Second of all, it wasn't for "voting Democratic" but for voting for a candidate that supports abortion rights, eg. Obama. Third of all, those priests were voicing an opinion. They had no authority in the church to enforce it, and were not denying people communion. It is a mortal sin to receive communion if you have a mortal sin on your conscience and you haven't confessed it (in the Catholic Church). These priests were merely opining that voting for Obama was a mortal sin. The rules for mortal sins are far from concrete, except in a few cases. And lastly, what does that have to do with campaign finances?

    I don't doubt it. I'm not defending whatever illegal things the Mormon church might have done. I was just stating the law. For all I know they overstepped their legal bounds. What I don't get is the "It's about time" mentality as if these regulations being skirted was well-known... :confused:
     
  14. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    I'd say they're getting a little too close to trying to influence their congregation's vote. I don't know about you, but any church that started telling me who to vote for "or else" wouldn't be one I'd be going to for long.
     
  15. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #15
    Are you serious? You really believe that Pro Life and Citizens Against Killing Babies sound equally bad?

    P-Worm
     
  16. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #16
    Really? So if we were to put up a prop banning marriage between Catholics, and then advertise to say that if the prop doesn't pass children will learn about Catholics in school and about how they can get married, all with the intention of scaring the electorate into voting for the prop, you wouldn't find that hateful?
    No, it's accurate. By putting the rights of any minority up for a vote, you are being hateful. Gay people weren't going up to the Mormons forcing them to watch them get married, or even asking Mormons to perform the ceremonies. Mormons decided to take it upon themselves to campaign against a minority in society (quite ironic when you consider the circumstances) in order to deliberatly take rights away from them. That is hateful.
    If the prochoice lobby goes out to pass a prop that mandates the killing of babies, then you'd have a apt comparison. Until then, what the proponents of Prop 8 did was hateful, bigoted, and reprehensible by the standards of any modern Western society.

    No, but I do think that 'pro life' has the same effect as "anti hate."

    If the gay rights group called itself "citizens against bigotry" you'd have similar situations.
     
  17. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    Agreed. Hate is at the very root of this kind of thing. To say that it isn't is more than a little disingenuous. And even if it's not hate, it's fear. Both are equally as bad.
     
  18. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #18
    I disagree. Hate has nothing to do with it. Even if you think they're misguided, hate doesn't enter into the equation at all. Sure some people hate gays, but to claim that all people who voted for Prop. 8 are hateful or fearful is more than a little disingenuous.
     
  19. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #19
    Um, the from the pro-life point of view abortion is killing babies. Obviously the pro-choice side disagrees. And what do "mandates" have to do with anything? The pro-life side sees abortion as killing babies and sees the pro-choice side as saying "It's okay to kill babies."

    To claim that the statements "those against gay marriage are hateful" and "those who are pro-choice don't care if babies die" are any different or useful at all to the debate is completely illogical and biased. Obviously you don't see abortion as "killing babies" whereas other people do. Why are you right? Why is unfair to label someone who gets an abortion a "baby killer" or a "baby hater" whereas it's perfectly reasonable to call someone against gay marriage a hateful person? It makes no sense and is a complete double standard.

    NOTE: I'm not actively arguing in favor of one side or another on either debate. My point is only on validity of arguments. To me, "Pro-choice people hate babies" and "Anti-gay marriage people hate gays" are equally stupid and uninformed statements, despite my views on the two matters.
     
  20. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #20
    Hate has everything to do with it.

    No matter how you slice it, the Mormons who put Prop 8 on the ballot and then funded it were acting out of hate.

    Now of course they thought they were saving the world in some way, but then again so did Hitler (I'm not comparing the two, but merely trying to point out the psychology at work here).

    Every group that takes away rights from another always thinks it's doing what's best, so they don't see the hate at work.

    Why not go back to the Catholic ban and answer that point? Would that be hateful or not?
    No one said that all who voted for the prop were guided by hate. Most were guided by fear and ignorance. A small number were genuinely fueled by bigotry and then used fear tactics to convince 52% of the state to vote based on that fear.

    For now we're talking about those who advanced the prop, not those who voted for it as general voters.
     
  21. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    So far you haven't made one effort to say what it is. And what other reason is there other than reasons based on fear, hate, ignorance or some other negative emotion?
     
  22. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #22
    It depends on their motivations. Hate implies motivation. It could be hateful, it could not. How can you vote for a "hateful" measure without being a hateful person? And how can you claim that those funding it were fueled by "hate"? Hitler's motivations were completely different. If you asked him if he hated Jews, he'd say yes. If you ask vocal supporters of Prop. 8 if they hate gays, they'd say no, even if hooked up to a polygraph machine. The Mormon and Catholic churches did not push the proposition out of "hate." To claim so betrays complete ignorance of their positions and theology.
     
  23. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    So please explain what the motive was. You still seem unable or unwilling to do so.
     
  24. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #24
    For one, that is factually incorrect. I don't care what pro-life people believe, but science simply doesn't support their view (funny how that happens with religion so frequently).
    Mandates are the crux of the matter here. Pro life people would mandate that the government halt all abortions, just like Prop 8 supporters would like a mandate banning gay marriage.

    The opposing side merely wants citizens to have options, which is the antithesis of hate and ignorance. That's what's going on here: coercion. It isn't enough for pro life people to not have the abortion themselves, they want to make sure that no one else gets to make that decision for themselves.

    Just like Mormons wouldn't like to get married to someone of the same sex, but they also want to make sure that no one else gets to make that choice.

    That is hateful through and through.
    Again, it's not about terminating babies but rather a general mass of cells, but the pro life side certainly does want to make it seem that way.

    What other people? People without scientific facts behind their views? Why must I tolerate their opinions at all?
    Because I'm advocating a view that is affirmed by science and best practice from a sociological standpoint (in both gay marriage and abortion).

    When the opposing view can marshall actual evidence to their side, we can talk. In the meantime, it's all based on limited readings of religious texts.
    You can rightfully call a person who gets an abortion a "mass of cells hater" if you want, since that's what they decided to jettison from their body.

    In any case, deciding not to have an abortion can have adverse consequences for a mother, while if a gay couple gets married straight people aren't affected one bit, and that's what makes it hateful. They're trying to stop something that has no impact on them personally.
    It's not a double standard. There's only one standard at work here, and that's equality under the law. Gay marriage bans acheive that effect, and that's why those who support them are bigots and have hate.

    If you want women to be able to make their own reproductive decisions, you aren't enforcing your views onto anyone, but merely letting others make their own choices in life. That is not hate at all.
     
  25. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #25
    The motivation was to keep the word "marriage" as between a man and a woman. The motivation was to keep homosexual sex from being acceptable in society. If their kids were born gay, they wouldn't want them to get married. They'd want them to not have sex at all (homosexual or otherwise). They believe this to be morally the right thing. It's not because they believe homosexuals are evil or sinful or anything of the sort. It is because they don't believe in homosexual sex or unions. It's because if their kid is gay and grows up in a country where gay sex is seen by the state as equal to heterosexual sex, they're going to be less likely to refrain from engaging in homosexual acts.

    It has everything to do with the structure of society and the education of children (whether explicit or not). For many marriage has been going to hell in a handbasket. The reason no longer is to form families or have kids or grow society. The reason is because people want personal pleasure, marrying, getting divorced, getting married again. The proponents of prop. 8 see gay marriage as another step towards the mentality that marriage serves no purpose but personal pleasure for yourself and one other person. They view marriage as an essential part of society where sex is tied to conception and the creation of families.

    Now this isn't the best-written thing ever, and I really don't have time to elaborate, and I certainly don't want to get into a debate over the merit of these arguments (Lord knows I've heard enough about Prop. 8 over the past months), but there is not an iota of "hate" anywhere in these arguments. If you want to say they're misguided or flawed or whatever, fine. That's another debate, one that I really don't want to have right now. But nothing gets me angrier than people claiming to be for tolerance lashing out at Prop. 8 as hateful when it is anything but for the majority of those who voted for it and campaigned for it. It polarizes the debate, makes both sides hate each other, condescends to those on one side as ignorant and is generally useless and unhelpful. It makes things worse. Nothing like telling someone that the proposition they voted for was hateful and ignorant to get them to change their mind.
     

Share This Page