NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course you are not, but I believe that my point evades you? If you publicly promote a boycott of a company for whatever reason, you may "potentially cause harm to innocent parties" as a result of your actions. Also, you may "potentially cause harm" to the very people you are trying to help, especially if they receive income or assistance, directly or indirectly from LDS.So, basically, we should not go after organized crime or Hamas.

a boycott does not advance your goal because your goal is presumably not the punishment of the mormon church but getting same sex marriage re-instated in california.

the legal question of the involvement of the church in this issue should proceed. but that is a matter for a handful of people to deal with. its outcome is on the periphery of the actual problem at hand.

if action is needed it is better done on swaying the opinions of those who are against full civil rights for gay people.

a boycott does not advance your goal because your goal is presumably not the punishment of the mormon church but getting same sex marriage re-instated in california.

Technically, it could be considered that. If another proposition came along trying to constitutionalise gay marriage in California, then making sure the Mormon church doesn't have the ability to fund against the proposition, it will greately increase the chances of the proposition passing.

Reducing your political opponents political power is a good way to increase the chances of you getting your way, politically. If you can reduce your political opponents power by exposing the illegality of their operation, then you are not only advantaged by doing it, but morally compelled to do it.

Another thing that I find perplexing is that all of this built up resentment seems to be focused against the LDS. I don't see or read anything about the Knights of Columbus (Catholics) in these threads, even though they too published pro Prop 8 ads.

The KoC are a Catholic fraternal organization, not a front for the Vatican.

a boycott does not advance your goal because your goal is presumably not the punishment of the mormon church but getting same sex marriage re-instated in california.

the legal question of the involvement of the church in this issue should proceed. but that is a matter for a handful of people to deal with. its outcome is on the periphery of the actual problem at hand.

if action is needed it is better done on swaying the opinions of those who are against full civil rights for gay people.

Speaking for myself, I would like to see Gay marriage legalized AND churches who try to act as political organizations punished. If there's never any enforcement of separation of church and state, then there IS no separation. That is unacceptable to me.
Of course, if I did have to choose between equality for homosexuals and the carrying out of justice against the LDS church, I would choose equality over justice, but I do not think it is necessary to choose.

No religious organization should be regulated by the state.

No religious organization should be regulated by the state.
Requiring religious organisations to abide by the same rules as businesses, political parties and individuals with respect to political activities is not an unfair or too burdensome a regulation, in my opinion.

Speaking for myself, I would like to see Gay marriage legalized AND churches who try to act as political organizations punished. If there's never any enforcement of separation of church and state, then there IS no separation. That is unacceptable to me.
Of course, if I did have to choose between equality for homosexuals and the carrying out of justice against the LDS church, I would choose equality over justice, but I do not think it is necessary to choose.
oh me too. but i have no legal expertise so it is for others to make that goal happen.

boycotts wont advance that goal.

i dont know what businesses the mormon church owns but i am utterly uninterested in punishing individual mormons for the policies of the church they attend. i see no point in going after mormon owned businesses or the state of utah in general.

what i can do is try to persuade people that everyone deserves the right to get married to the person they love.

So, I'm guessing that schools don't teach people about Caesar Chavez anymore?

Where exactly is that little line between social assistance and political interference? The LDS isn't the only religious organization (ahem...Catholic Church) that I think meddles in government decisions a little too much to be allowed tax exemption.

Of course you are not, but I believe that my point evades you? If you publicly promote a boycott of a company for whatever reason, you may "potentially cause harm to innocent parties" as a result of your actions. Also, you may "potentially cause harm" to the very people you are trying to help, especially if they receive income or assistance, directly or indirectly from LDS.
No, I did not miss your point. I responded to it.

I am not suggesting anything of the sort. Your deviation does not support your argument.
Of course you don't think so, but you're wrong.

Obviously.


I completely understand the concept of boycotts, and that is why in this instance, I am suggesting that "a boycott is not the way to promote your goals".
Except that you are both wrong and irrelevant.

At least I got my foot inside the door. :D
No, actually, what you're getting is me considering returning you to my ignore list. I had taken you off because you had been gone for a while, but you are such a high post volume pest, that I think I need to put you back on, just to save scrolling time.

<snip the usual redundant, not really relevant to anything, beside the point argumentativeness that never leads anywhere with you>
In the content I snipped and didn't snip, above, you merely repeated the exact same points you made more than once before. You added nothing and did not carry the point further. I have already responded to the points as made so far. Take the next step forward, or I guess we're done with each other.

I'm sorry if you take this as a personal attack but I have to be honest and tell you that, in your posting history with me and other people, although you are not a troll or a flamer, you nevertheless show yourself to be the kind of poster I don't like to debate with.

Of course you are not, but I believe that my point evades you? If you publicly promote a boycott of a company for whatever reason, you may "potentially cause harm to innocent parties" as a result of your actions. Also, you may "potentially cause harm" to the very people you are trying to help, especially if they receive income or assistance, directly or indirectly from LDS.

*sigh*

Throughout this thread (even in the beginning when you didn't understand most of what the thread was about), you seem to take the position that we should leave the LDS Church alone merely because it is a church. Sorry, but we aren't buying that. Just because a "church" touches your heartstrings doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.

Nor does it make sense that because an organization does some charitable work, its destructive political actions should be excused.

I am curious as to what makes you think that there a significant numbers of gays and lesbians ("the very people [we] are trying to help") that receive income or assistance from the LDS Church.

I completely understand the concept of boycotts, and that is why in this instance, I am suggesting that "a boycott is not the way to promote your goals".

1) You have yet to suggest a good way in which to promote our goals that we are not already pursuing.

2) You have yet to suggest a good reason why a boycott is counter-productive.


So your suggestion of boycotting LDS is based solely on speculation, which according to this post appears to be false (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14254330&postcount=210), and is totally discriminatory in nature.

1. Mixing apples and oranges. The likelihood of success of removing tax exempt status from the LDS Church is a separate question from whether the LDS Church should be reported, investigated, and/or boycotted.

2. There is nothing discriminatory in targeting a group prominently responsible for Prop. 8 for backlash.

How do you know what they did or didn't do behind the scenes. They certainly ran ads....possibly in the $ millions?

Argument from ignorance. Just because you haven't followed the copious activities of the LDS Church related to Prop. 8, doesn't mean they aren't there.

"As far as I know" = zero points. Freedom of speech is dependent upon State boundaries?


"Freedom of speech"? WTF? No one is talking about taking away anyone's freedom of speech.

If you can reduce your political opponents power by exposing the illegality of their operation, then you are not only advantaged by doing it, but morally compelled to do it.

Speaking for myself, I would like to see Gay marriage legalized AND churches who try to act as political organizations punished. If there's never any enforcement of separation of church and state, then there IS no separation. That is unacceptable to me.
Of course, if I did have to choose between equality for homosexuals and the carrying out of justice against the LDS church, I would choose equality over justice, but I do not think it is necessary to choose.
I agree completely with the above two statements.

The way I see it, there are three distinct issues in question here.

1) Getting the Prop 8 amendment repealed. This could be best accomplished by, first, a grassroots effort to win the public away from the Prop 8 position within the state of California, and second, by reducing out of state interference from non-Californian sources. The second suggestion leads to the second separate issue, which is:

2) Investigating whether the LDS violated regulations in what it did in the Prop 8 campaign. This has the direct application described above to the California issue, but it has a much wider national significance as well, as it would be a reinforcement of the much weakened wall of separation in general. If an organization as big as the LDS can suffer a tax penalty for identifiable political actions that exceed the allowed limits, then let all other politically involved churches take similar note and stay on the proper side of the wall -- for a freakin' change.

And finally:

3) Letting the LDS know exactly what kind of effect their action really had on the public. And this is where the boycott comes in. By "voting with our wallets" in effect, the public is in a position to send a clear message to the LDS of exactly what we think of their moralistic meddling in our lives. And the message will be clear, no matter how it cuts. If very few people engage in the boycott, then the message will clearly be that they are welcome try this sort of thing on at will. If many people engage in the boycott, enough to apply real pressure, enough even to get LDS-connected companies to separate themselves from the LDS position on this (the way Marriott did without even waiting for pressure to build), the message will clearly be that they are not the accepted moral arbiters speaking for the people that they portray themselves as.

Nor does it make sense that because an organization does some charitable work, its destructive political actions should be excused.


Indeed, otherwise we need to back of Hezbollah.

No religious organization should be regulated by the state.

Right, my organization that believes we must sacrifice random passersby to my dark god must not be regulated.

Right, my organization that believes we must sacrifice random passersby to my dark god must not be regulated.

Heretic. You are only to sacrifice them to my dark gods.

No, I did not miss your point. I responded to it.

Of course you don't think so, but you're wrong.

Except that you are both wrong and irrelevant.

No, actually, what you're getting is me considering returning you to my ignore list. I had taken you off because you had been gone for a while, but you are such a high post volume pest, that I think I need to put you back on, just to save scrolling time.

In the content I snipped and didn't snip, above, you merely repeated the exact same points you made more than once before. You added nothing and did not carry the point further. I have already responded to the points as made so far. Take the next step forward, or I guess we're done with each other.

I'm sorry if you take this as a personal attack but I have to be honest and tell you that, in your posting history with me and other people, although you are not a troll or a flamer, you nevertheless show yourself to be the kind of poster I don't like to debate with.
You don't like to debate with me on this, because your argument has been defeated:

Your claim(s):

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14251344&postcount=92

that there a quite a few churches that I would like to see get slapped -- i.e. be penalized as appropriate -- for breaking the rules limiting political involvement by churches. They are out of line. They need to be put back into line. It's for their own good as well as everybody else's -- remember, half the point of separating church and state is to keep the state out of the churches' business, too.

Same here. It's past time we repaired and reinforced that wall of separation.

Also, I get a kick of the LDS. They openly acknowledged their efforts to pump millions of dollars worth of money and services into promoting Prop 8, yet they have the nerve now to stand on a mere $5000 of reported contributions?

A) The LDS is a church, and there are rules limiting church involvement in politics that do not apply to groups like the Knights of Columbus or local businesses, etc. It is believed the LDS broke the rules about churches and politics and for that reason, it deserves an investigation that the Knights of Columbus do not.
The reality that you chose to snip and call redundant included a link posted by Nervun (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL&tsp=1). The reality is that your claims are false and your argument dies:

In the wake of Proposition 8's passage, opponents are railing that churches that supported the ballot measure violated their tax-exempt status.

It's a common accusation at the now-weekly protests, gaining enough traction that Geoff Kors, a member of the No on 8 executive committee, said lawyers are investigating the issue.

"The Mormon church overstepped its boundaries by being a tax-exempt organization," said Sharone Negev, 54, of San Francisco, who has gone to protests in San Francisco and the Mormon temple in Oakland. "They clearly are not supposed to be involved in political activities."

But interviews with experts and activists on the issue say Prop. 8 opponents should look elsewhere for reasons to criticize the measure's supporters.

"They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the leading advocacy organization on the issue. "While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives."

Generally speaking, churches, schools, and nonprofits that are 501c(3) organizations are prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on political activities, Lynn said, noting that his organization is held to the same standard.

The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars - if not billions - to violate their tax-exempt status.

Despite common perceptions, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave relatively small amounts of money to Prop. 8. The church's sole filing by Nov. 4 was for $2,864.21, according to the California secretary of state's office. The church said that was an in-kind donation to pay for plane fare for its members. More in-kind donation filings are expected from the church, though the total probably will still be far below the threshold.

It was individual Mormons who contributed up to $20 million toward the Yes on 8 campaign, possibly totaling up to half of the campaign's contributions. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the leading Catholic body in the nation, gave $200,000, while the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal group, gave $1.25 million to the effort.

That doesn't satisfy Negev, the Prop. 8 protester.

"Why are they even having these tax-exempt laws if churches can exert so much power on issues of civil rights," said Negev, who attends Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, a reform synagogue that opposed the measure. "Why have these laws in the first place?"

An exemption for several

The issue was last debated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1970, according to Jesse Choper, a professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Choper said the court acknowledged that the history of tax exemption for churches stretches back to the nation's beginnings. The court ruled that because tax exemption was a benefit not solely given to religious groups, but included groups like schools and nonprofits, it was fair.

In fact, the opposition to Prop. 8 was led by leaders of secular nonprofit groups, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Equality California.

Kors, executive director of Equality California, said his group created a separate political arm for the election that was not tax-exempt. Still, he singled out religious involvement as being different.

"Having religious institutions impose their views on our civil constitution and take the extraordinary measures that a few took is something everybody should be concerned about," he said.

Convincing the voters

But Lynn, the church-state separation advocate, said that while he was outraged by the Prop. 8 victory, these arguments are a waste of time.

The battle for same-sex marriage will be won, he said, by ensuring that progressive churches do a better job of convincing all churchgoers that "this is a civil rights issue, and it's not going to destroy the church."

The ultimate people to convince, he said, are voters.

"The court of public opinion is the one that needs to understand this," he said. "I'm confident that people will."
So be my quest and "waste your time" fighting the wrong battle. As I stated earlier in this thread, SSM was passed into law in Canada through the court system and through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, NOT by attacking the churches or proclaiming boycotts.

So be my quest and "waste your time" fighting the wrong battle. As I stated earlier in this thread, SSM was passed into law in Canada through the court system and through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, NOT by attacking the churches or proclaiming boycotts.

Great. Too bad what worked for Canada doesnt work everywhere else.

And NERVUN's "source" was ignored because it was an essentially an opinion peice that didnt really back anything up. Boycotts work. The civil rights movement showed that.

oh me too. but i have no legal expertise so it is for others to make that goal happen.

boycotts wont advance that goal.

i dont know what businesses the mormon church owns but i am utterly uninterested in punishing individual mormons for the policies of the church they attend. i see no point in going after mormon owned businesses or the state of utah in general.

what i can do is try to persuade people that everyone deserves the right to get married to the person they love.

The two aren't as separate as you might like to think. In areas where there is a large Mormon population to publicly identify as a Mormon business is a form of advertising. In exchange for being able to advertise in this manner, they have to donate 10% of their gross income to the Mormon church (as any Mormon is required to do.)

If you continue to patronize Mormon-owned businesses, you are donating to the Mormon Church.

So, I'm guessing that schools don't teach people about Caesar Chavez anymore?

In Utah they teach that gays killed him for championing prop 8.
and they say he went to heaven even if he was a heathen catholic.

You don't like to debate with me on this, because your argument has been defeated:

Your claim(s):

The reality that you chose to snip and call redundant included a link posted by Nervun (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL&tsp=1). The reality is that your claims are false and your argument dies:


So be my quest and "waste your time" fighting the wrong battle. As I stated earlier in this thread, SSM was passed into law in Canada through the court system and through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, NOT by attacking the churches or proclaiming boycotts.

Hilarious. You want to judge how things work in the US by how they work in Canada. You show the same level of understanding of this as you did of US politics. Meanwhile, you make no real argument. You just throw assertions around like peanuts and "back them up" with irrelevant references. I'm sorry, but to defeat my argument, you would have to actually make one of your own.

You show the same level of understanding of this as you did of US politics.


He is.



And I dont mean that in a complimentary way.

The two aren't as separate as you might like to think. In areas where there is a large Mormon population to publicly identify as a Mormon business is a form of advertising. In exchange for being able to advertise in this manner, they have to donate 10% of their gross income to the Mormon church (as any Mormon is required to do.)

If you continue to patronize Mormon-owned businesses, you are donating to the Mormon Church.
that is just wrong. they are mormons not the church itself.

And NERVUN's "source" was ignored because it was an essentially an opinion peice that didnt really back anything up.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14255199&postcount=229

Yup, that's some ignoring all right. :rolleyes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14255199&postcount=229

Yup, that's some ignoring all right. :rolleyes:
The only ones ignoring your most relevant post, are the ones that choose not to avail themselves of the facts regarding this situation. They want to pursue "arguments" that are "a waste of time".

Hilarious. You want to judge how things work in the US by how they work in Canada. You show the same level of understanding of this as you did of US politics. Meanwhile, you make no real argument. You just throw assertions around like peanuts and "back them up" with irrelevant references. I'm sorry, but to defeat my argument, you would have to actually make one of your own.
Plan of attack:

The battle for same-sex marriage will be won, he said, by ensuring that progressive churches do a better job of convincing all churchgoers that "this is a civil rights issue, and it's not going to destroy the church." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL&tsp=1)

Ditch the proposed discriminatory boycott of LDS, which will only get you more anguish from organized religions.

Only 6 countries in the world have SSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage). Investigate how SSM was achieved in those countries. Don't turn up your nose at Canada as if it were some sort of political back water place.

Check out the Timeline of same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage)

Get in touch with Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the leading advocacy organization on the issue, and ask his advice.

Don't diss people who would like to see you suceed in establishing SSM in your country.

The only ones ignoring your most relevant post, are the ones that choose not to avail themselves of the facts regarding this situation. They want to pursue "arguments" that are "a waste of time".

Plan of attack:

The battle for same-sex marriage will be won, he said, by ensuring that progressive churches do a better job of convincing all churchgoers that "this is a civil rights issue, and it's not going to destroy the church." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL&tsp=1)

Ditch the proposed discriminatory boycott of LDS, which will only get you more anguish from organized religions.

Only 6 countries in the world have SSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage). Investigate how SSM was achieved in those countries. Don't turn up your nose at Canada as if it were some sort of political back water place.

Check out the Timeline of same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage)

Get in touch with Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the leading advocacy organization on the issue, and ask his advice.

Don't diss people who would like to see you suceed in establishing SSM in your country.

Meh. You've bent over backward to argue against any backlash against the LDS Church regardless of the evidence. Clearly you have a sympathy there that you fail to back up with argument.

That Barry Lynn doesn't think an attack on the LDS Church's tax exempt status will work, gives me pause, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated.

More importantly, if you note, part of Lynn's analysis is based on the low amount the LDS Church has reported spending on Prop. 8. The OP article is about how California is going to investigate whether these reports are truly accurate or whether the LDS Church has violated campaign finance laws.

SSM was passed into law in Canada through the court system and through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, NOT by attacking the churches or proclaiming boycotts.
SSM was also passed in the US through the court system. In Canada, you did not have the churches overruling the courts, indeed attacking the very legitimacy of judicial decision-making itself, as we have here. The churches have intruded into politics in an intolerable way.

Right, my organization that believes we must sacrifice random passersby to my dark god must not be regulated.

That's fine, and your organization should not be regulated. However, members of your organization (potentially all, depending on specifics) who have criminal intent to commit criminal acts will be prevented from doing so. Of course the ones who simply mutter the Dark God's Commandments at every meal and watch the Dark God TV Network, but don't actually go through with those commandments which might be illegal or, more importantly inconvenient or otherwise unworkable (not lusting after your neighbor's wife for example) are free to believe as they want.

See, problem solved, and everyone goes home happy except a few criminals. And the dark god, but fuck him, if he was any good he'd sacrifice the random passersby himself. Let him cry.

Plan of attack:

Ditch the proposed discriminatory boycott of LDS, which will only get you more anguish from organized religions.


So?

Organized religions do boycotts all the time. They use their membership to harass corporations over things like same-sex policies in the company.

LDS used their money to try and install fear through a campaign of lies. For example there were radio spots of a woman talking about her 7 year old(or was it 8? I don't remember) learning about gay marriage as to imply there will be forced indoctrination to the concept. The primary grades don't even talk about hetro marriage(well at least in my kids school).

Don't diss people who would like to see you suceed in establishing SSM in your country.

Ahh but you are advocating that churches can't be punished for their actions. They should be punished just as anybody else.

Remember the Duplessis orphans?
Remember the religious orders running the residential schools and their treatment of aboriginal children?

They were just trying to promote their Religion right?

Nineteen pages of...wow. (shakes head)

Really the way to win people to your cause-"We lost, so we're going to use the courts to harass our opponents".

Can you be any more stereotypical?

The Opponents of Proposition 8 didn't understand the market they were operating in, if they had, they might have spent more time and effort opposing that piece of shit than they did. When you have a National Presidential Election with a Minority candidate, you're going to motivate more people out of the Hispanic and Black neighbourhoods to vote-and LOTS of those folks don't like gays, even MORE than they don't like Mormons.

Someone noted it's a "Generational issue" and to an extent, it is, but it's also an issue of choosing your fights-the anti-8-side was largely composed of the same folks who get the vote out for the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party this year was serious about winning the white-house. Guess where the money and effort went to defeat the Proposition?

Meanwhile, in spite of his 'Born again' rhetoric, most hard-core conservatives didn't vote or contribute to McCain-a lot of the effort that might have gone into the National election on behalf of GOP candidates went to state issues like Prop 8. This is called picking battles one can win-after the atrocious performance of Republicans for the last eight years, GOP senate and House races, and the GOP's candidate for President, weren't going to have much real (as opposed to cosmetic or ceremonial) support from their 'base'-and they didn't. Where did that money go? it went to issues like Prop 8, same with the energy and volunteers. Blaming the Mormons is easy-they're an easily despised minority religion with lots of crazy konspiracy theories directed at them (some of said theories being simple re-hashes of the krazy konspiracy ideas pointed traditionally at Jews prior to 1945. Everything from Horns to human sacrifice can be found falsely attributed to Mormons.)

The real answer, the TRUE answer, is to devote some of that diverted energy (now that, after all, the Democrats hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and haven't fucked up enough in public to lose them) into writing a repeal, and then into campaigning for passage of said repeal.

Now that Obama's in office, I think it's safe to say the fundraising, organizing, and campaigning machinery is available and already assembled.

(after you do it, maybe push a change to California's constitution so that it requires a 60% supermajority, instead of 50%+1, to change the State Constitution by ballot measure.)

Nineteen pages of...wow. (shakes head)

Really the way to win people to your cause-"We lost, so we're going to use the courts to harass our opponents". Welcome to American politics.

(after you do it, maybe push a change to California's constitution so that it requires a 60% supermajority, instead of 50%+1, to change the State Constitution by ballot measure.) I can't believe that California's constitution requires only a simple majority. No wonder that state is so fucked up.

Really the way to win people to your cause-"We lost, so we're going to use the courts to harass our opponents".

If you feel that someone has broken the law, shouldn't you call them on it? And is checking into that really harassment?

The real answer, the TRUE answer, is to devote some of that diverted energy (now that, after all, the Democrats hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and haven't fucked up enough in public to lose them) into writing a repeal, and then into campaigning for passage of said repeal.

I'm quite certain this will be done if the court challenge doesn't work.

It is possible to multi-task.

(after you do it, maybe push a change to California's constitution so that it requires a 60% supermajority, instead of 50%+1, to change the State Constitution by ballot measure.)

This is actually a big part of the reason for the current court challenge. Was this a measure that was appropriate as an amendment? Or would it actually be a revision (which would require 2/3 of the CA legislature and then a ballot measure)?

Plan of attack:

The battle for same-sex marriage will be won, he said, by ensuring that progressive churches do a better job of convincing all churchgoers that "this is a civil rights issue, and it's not going to destroy the church." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL&tsp=1)

Ditch the proposed discriminatory boycott of LDS, which will only get you more anguish from organized religions.

Only 6 countries in the world have SSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage). Investigate how SSM was achieved in those countries. Don't turn up your nose at Canada as if it were some sort of political back water place.

Check out the Timeline of same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage)

Get in touch with Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the leading advocacy organization on the issue, and ask his advice.

Don't diss people who would like to see you suceed in establishing SSM in your country.
The Cat-Tribe and Tmutarakhan already said exactly what I would have said in answer to you (uncanny!), so I refer you to their last posts.

The LDS church is worth at least 30 billion dollars. Federal law allows political action provided it is not a substantial part of the church's income.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986794,00.html

highly doubt the money spent on prop out will be viewed as substantial for the LDS church.

The LDS church is worth at least 30 billion dollars. Federal law allows political action provided it is not a substantial part of the church's income.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986794,00.html

highly doubt the money spent on prop out will be viewed as substantial for the LDS church.

As to the LDS Church's tax exempt status, you are partially right and partially wrong.

The IRS does not apply a simple expenditure test to a church's income to determine if it has engaged in too much lobbying under 501(c)(3). Instead, the IRS applies a "substantial part test":

Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.
link (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163393,00.html)

Thus, all of the LDS Church's organizational efforts, grassroot support, in-kind donations, etc., count in determining whether the Church's lobbying constitutes a substantial part of its overall activities. That said, you are probably right that the LDS Church is so big that even the extensive lobbying it conducted regarding Prop. 8 will not constitute a substantial part of its overall activities.

Nonetheless, it is worth having the IRS take a look at it and maybe make the Church second-guess such activity next time.

Further, as noted in the OP, it is not just federal tax exempt status that is at issue, but also compliance with California campaign finance laws.

Nineteen pages of...wow. (shakes head)

Really the way to win people to your cause-"We lost, so we're going to use the courts to harass our opponents".

Can you be any more stereotypical?

The Opponents of Proposition 8 didn't understand the market they were operating in, if they had, they might have spent more time and effort opposing that piece of shit than they did. When you have a National Presidential Election with a Minority candidate, you're going to motivate more people out of the Hispanic and Black neighbourhoods to vote-and LOTS of those folks don't like gays, even MORE than they don't like Mormons.

Someone noted it's a "Generational issue" and to an extent, it is, but it's also an issue of choosing your fights-the anti-8-side was largely composed of the same folks who get the vote out for the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party this year was serious about winning the white-house. Guess where the money and effort went to defeat the Proposition?

Meanwhile, in spite of his 'Born again' rhetoric, most hard-core conservatives didn't vote or contribute to McCain-a lot of the effort that might have gone into the National election on behalf of GOP candidates went to state issues like Prop 8. This is called picking battles one can win-after the atrocious performance of Republicans for the last eight years, GOP senate and House races, and the GOP's candidate for President, weren't going to have much real (as opposed to cosmetic or ceremonial) support from their 'base'-and they didn't. Where did that money go? it went to issues like Prop 8, same with the energy and volunteers. Blaming the Mormons is easy-they're an easily despised minority religion with lots of crazy konspiracy theories directed at them (some of said theories being simple re-hashes of the krazy konspiracy ideas pointed traditionally at Jews prior to 1945. Everything from Horns to human sacrifice can be found falsely attributed to Mormons.)

The real answer, the TRUE answer, is to devote some of that diverted energy (now that, after all, the Democrats hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and haven't fucked up enough in public to lose them) into writing a repeal, and then into campaigning for passage of said repeal.

Now that Obama's in office, I think it's safe to say the fundraising, organizing, and campaigning machinery is available and already assembled.

(after you do it, maybe push a change to California's constitution so that it requires a 60% supermajority, instead of 50%+1, to change the State Constitution by ballot measure.)

First of all, I don't understand why some of you think enforcing the rules regarding campaign finance and tax-exempt status are mutually exclusive of other political or legal efforts. We can multi-task. We are multi-tasking.

Second, I am not on a witch-hunt. I don't have some version of anti-semitism against Mormons. I (and many Mormons) are pissed off at the conduct of the LDS Church regarding Prop. 8. The LDS Church isn't being targeted because it is "an easily despised minority religion" but because it was one of the biggest promoters, organizers, and funders of Prop. 8.

Third, I haven't heard any mention of using "the courts" to "harass" the proponents of Prop. 8. Legal challenges to Prop. 8 are being pursued. In the meantime, our opponents have been playing hardball. Not investigating what appear to be violations of the rules of the game is both poor strategy and sheer stupidity.

Fourth, there are many reasons why Prop. 8 passed. It is partially due to the enourmous funding and support it received. It is partially due to failures on the part of the opposition to Prop. 8. But, again, addressing these reasons are not mutually exclusive.

Finally, people keep suggesting that backlash against the LDS Church will "hurt our cause." How exactly? The LDS Church made its position on same-sex marriage perfectly fucking clear and I have yet to hear any reason to believe that will change anytime in the near future.

Ditto on everything TCT said. And I have to be frank and add that I am getting pretty fed up with this whole "holding people accountable for what they do is a bad thing" line of argument. I hear it with a lot of things nowadays, not just this LDS issue. In a world where some people are constantly yelping about the value of "personal responsibility," a lot of those same people yelp even louder about how unfair it is when someone actually does get held responsible for their actions. What gives with that?

Ditto on everything TCT said. And I have to be frank and add that I am getting pretty fed up with this whole "holding people accountable for what they do is a bad thing" line of argument. I hear it with a lot of things nowadays, not just this LDS issue. In a world where some people are constantly yelping about the value of "personal responsibility," a lot of those same people yelp even louder about how unfair it is when someone actually does get held responsible for their actions. What gives with that?

Because "personal responsibility" is usually a line to justify not helping poor people. Its proponents rarely actually mean it to be taken literally.

Because "personal responsibility" is usually a line to justify not helping poor people. Its proponents rarely actually mean it to be taken literally.
Especially when it's taken literally and applied to them. :D

If you believe someone or someones to have broken the law, then it is your moral (and I believe legal) obligation to have it investigated at the very least. Calling for an investigation into the LDS's involvement in the campaign is the morally right thing to do. It is your duty as a citizen of the United States to make sure that those who have broken the law are found guilty, and that those who have not broken the law are recognised as innocent.

The Cat-Tribe and Tmutarakhan already said exactly what I would have said in answer to you (uncanny!), so I refer you to their last posts.
Hey great....you are all on the same wave length. That doesn't imply that your collective strategy is not short-sighted, is not mean spirited, is not discriminatory, and is the most effective way to seize the day.

Personally, I think it is made of fail, but have it your way.

Hey great....you are all on the same wave length. That doesn't imply that your collective strategy is not short-sighted, is not mean spirited, is not discriminatory, and is not the most effective way to seize the day.

Personally, I think it is made of fail, but have it your way.

Yep. What CH says is of course 100% correct. Always. Allow me to take this time to congratulate President Elect John McCain and his new VP Sarah Palin.

If you believe someone or someones to have broken the law, then it is your moral (and I believe legal) obligation to have it investigated at the very least. Calling for an investigation into the LDS's involvement in the campaign is the morally right thing to do. It is your duty as a citizen of the United States to make sure that those who have broken the law are found guilty, and that those who have not broken the law are recognised as innocent.
Precisely. If I were the LDS and I was confident that I had done everything legally, I would be welcoming an investigation to prove it. This is one of the reasons I get annoyed with the complaint that it is bad to call for an investigation. There is an "appearance of wrongdoing" and to call for an investigation is only fair, both to those who suspect and those who are under suspicion.

If people had been calling for penalties against the LDS without an investigation, that would be different, but that is not what we are doing.

Hey great....you are all on the same wave length. That doesn't imply that your collective strategy is not short-sighted, is not mean spirited, is not discriminatory, and is the most effective way to seize the day.

Personally, I think it is made of fail, but have it your way.
I will, thanks.

Oh, and this, too:
Yep. What CH says is of course 100% correct. Always. Allow me to take this time to congratulate President Elect John McCain and his new VP Sarah Palin.

Hey great....you are all on the same wave length. That doesn't imply that your collective strategy is not short-sighted, is not mean spirited, is not discriminatory, and is the most effective way to seize the day.

Personally, I think it is made of fail, but have it your way.Are you a Burger King spokesman?

I will, thanks.

Oh, and this, too:
Not only did you lose this debate, you have to resort to petty trolling.

You can go ahead and finish the thread with a flourish. You ask for suggestions, and I believe that I offered some very good ones, but you really don't want my suggestions, you want a platform to promote obvious vindictiveness.

Ciao....

Not only did you lose this debate

Lolz. It thinks it won. Isnt that cute?

Not only did you lose this debate, you have to resort to petty trolling.


If that was really so, why would you need to say it? And say it so often? I've only tuned in for some of this and frankly it looks like a lot of petty trolling for which you can hardly be called innocent of.

Not only did you lose this debate, you have to resort to petty trolling.

You can go ahead and finish the thread with a flourish. You ask for suggestions, and I believe that I offered some very good ones, but you really don't want my suggestions, you want a platform to promote obvious vindictiveness.

Ciao....
'Bye. *waves*

Lolz. It thinks it won. Isnt that cute?
I swear, I think he's a comedian or performance artist or something. I mean, can anybody so consistently post such total and obvious nonsense and not be putting on an act?

I especially like it when he declares victory based on nothing at all, not even a real exchange of posts.

And the repeated announcements that he's leaving, like a great ballerina's unending tour of farewell performances.

And the repeated announcements that he's leaving, like a great ballerina's unending tour of farewell performances.

Especially because we can see that he's still viewing this thread.

Hey great....you are all on the same wave length. That doesn't imply that your collective strategy is not short-sighted, is not mean spirited, is not discriminatory, and is the most effective way to seize the day.

Personally, I think it is made of fail, but have it your way.

You still haven't given a single reason why potential criminals should be let off the hook, and not, at the very least, investigated.

As to the LDS Church's tax exempt status, you are partially right and partially wrong.

The IRS does not apply a simple expenditure test to a church's income to determine if it has engaged in too much lobbying under 501(c)(3). Instead, the IRS applies a "substantial part test":

Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.
link (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163393,00.html)

Thus, all of the LDS Church's organizational efforts, grassroot support, in-kind donations, etc., count in determining whether the Church's lobbying constitutes a substantial part of its overall activities. That said, you are probably right that the LDS Church is so big that even the extensive lobbying it conducted regarding Prop. 8 will not constitute a substantial part of its overall activities.

Nonetheless, it is worth having the IRS take a look at it and maybe make the Church second-guess such activity next time.

Further, as noted in the OP, it is not just federal tax exempt status that is at issue, but also compliance with California campaign finance laws.

It is worth an Audit but I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Not only does the Mormon church have a huge base. they also have a sizable for profit investment section (this is taxed). And they can easily label part of the money coming from taxed income. the Mormon church is experts at balancing their books and they have a 3rd party accounting company review them.

As for the California investigation. the state of California might make some progress. but they are likely going to hit road block once they need to investigate anything in Utah.

He is.

And I dont mean that in a complimentary way.

Yep. What CH says is of course 100% correct. Always. Allow me to take this time to congratulate President Elect John McCain and his new VP Sarah Palin.

Lolz. It thinks it won. Isnt that cute?
Added to points raised in Moderation thread.

Added to points raised in Moderation thread.
You didn't leave after all, I see. I'm just posting this to notify you that I'm putting you back on ignore, as it has been some time since you posted anything of substance and even longer since you tried to advance the discussion. So, as far as I'm concerned you and I are done with our part of the conversation. As you had already declared victory over me, this should not be a problem for you.

fixed

Neo, you know better.

It is worth an Audit but I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Not only does the Mormon church have a huge base. they also have a sizable for profit investment section (this is taxed). And they can easily label part of the money coming from taxed income. the Mormon church is experts at balancing their books and they have a 3rd party accounting company review them.

As for the California investigation. the state of California might make some progress. but they are likely going to hit road block once they need to investigate anything in Utah.

I wonder who's going to get investigated for making that commercial that portrays LDS missionaries as hateful assholes (it was mentioned in the LA Times as "not enough").

If someone were to make a similar commercial about Jews or Muslims or anyone else, I'm sure there would be a Federal investigation.

I wonder who's going to get investigated for making that commercial that portrays LDS missionaries as hateful assholes (it was mentioned in the LA Times as "not enough").

If someone were to make a similar commercial about Jews or Muslims or anyone else, I'm sure there would be a Federal investigation.

Not really, because we have this thing called freedom of speech.

I wonder who's going to get investigated for making that commercial that portrays LDS missionaries as hateful assholes (it was mentioned in the LA Times as "not enough").

If someone were to make a similar commercial about Jews or Muslims or anyone else, I'm sure there would be a Federal investigation.

Unlike the Church of the Latter Day Saints, "Jews" or "Muslims" aren't organizations. It is acceptable to criticize the actions of an organization, particularly if as in this case that organization actually does actions which are hateful assholery.

I wonder who's going to get investigated for making that commercial that portrays LDS missionaries as hateful assholes
It portrayed them as tearing up a lesbian couple's marriage license. ISN'T THAT PRECISELY WHAT THEY DID? Are you agreeing that the actual LDS conduct was "hateful" and "assholish"?

It portrayed them as tearing up a lesbian couple's marriage license.

I would have liked to see some people tearing up the SKINS of the morons that did that.

I wonder who's going to get investigated for making that commercial that portrays LDS missionaries as hateful assholes (it was mentioned in the LA Times as "not enough").

If someone were to make a similar commercial about Jews or Muslims or anyone else, I'm sure there would be a Federal investigation.

With all due respect, these are unbelievably stupid statements for reasons too copious to detail.

I would have liked to see some people tearing up the SKINS of the morons that did that.

Down, boy, down.

I would have liked to see some people tearing up the SKINS of the morons that did that.

Yes, because violence is the refuge of the just. :rolleyes:


A better way to get back at them is to overturn Prop 8.

With all due respect, these are unbelievably stupid statements for reasons too copious to detail.

Which can be condensed to, "It's Kimchithink."