Did the Mormons baptize Obama's mother, after her death, without his knowledge or consent?How nice to know that when I die, I'll become a Mormon. I guess as long as I'm guaranteed my own planet....
California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.And:The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.
Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.
Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.
A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.
A Miami-Dade circuit judge Tuesday declared Florida's 30-year-old ban on gay adoption unconstitutional, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two foster kids he has raised since 2004.
In a 53-page order that sets the stage for what could become a constitutional showdown, Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman permitted 47-year-old Frank Gill to adopt the 4- and 8-year-old boys he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas four years ago. A child abuse investigator had asked Gill to care for the boys temporarily; they were never able to return to their birth parents.
''This is the forum where we try to heal children, find permanent families for them so they can get another chance at what every child should know and feel from birth, and go on to lead productive lives,'' Lederman said in court before releasing the order. ``We pray for them to thrive, but that is a word we rarely hear in dependency court.''
''These children are thriving; it is uncontroverted,'' the judge added.
The LDS First Presidency announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every Mormon congregation. Since then, California LDS leaders have prompted members to sign up volunteers, raise money, pass out brochures produced by outsiders and distribute lawn signs and bumper stickers. Bishops have devoted whole Sunday school classes and the weekly Relief Society and priesthood meetings to outlining arguments against same-sex marriage. Some have pointedly asked members for hefty financial donations, based on tithing. Others have even asked members to stand or raise their hands to publicly indicate their support.From someone who was a Mormon:
Gary Lawrence, writing in the online Meridian Magazine, compared opponents of Proposition 8 to those who sided with Lucifer against Jesus in the pre-mortal existence. Others have questioned such members' faith and religious commitment, accusing them of undermining the prophet.
Literature written by Proposition 8 proponents is freely distributed in Mormon wards, giving the impression the church approves it, but much of it is "misinformation," said Morris Thurston, an LDS attorney in Orange County.
Thurston has circulated a point-by-point refutation to an anonymously authored document that has been widely disseminated by Mormons, "Six Consequences . . . If Proposition 8 Fails." Thurston argues that most of its arguments are either untrue or misleading.
He welcomes critiques of his analysis, but some have been hostile and many question his motives.
"I feel like I am entitled to my opinions, especially when they involve legal matters," Thurston said, "and I don't think I should be compared to Satan's minions."
My point is this: the Mormon Church is pulling out the stops. These kinds of wedge issues help them retain members by engaging them in "causes" that make people feel special and on God's side. There is no discussion in church or outside about fairness, the Golden Rule, and Unforeseen Legal Ramifications. Being part of a crusade is exciting... and never mind who gets hurt!Update 10/27: Steve of SteveAudio has a wonderful post on the people who are against Proposition 8.
I never wanted to be a religious affairs correspondent. I had always regarded it as a slippers and pipe sort of a job, to be given to ageing hacks in beige cardigans working their way towards retirement.
[snip]
Anyway, weren’t we all pretty ecumenical these days? Didn’t religious chaps and chapesses think the best of everyone, even those not of a like mind? How wrong I was. This was in the days before 9/11, George Bush’s election and the dawning realisation of the murderous impulses of religiously inspired Islamic terrorism, but I soon discovered there were quite enough feuds to be going on with even in the good old Church of England. The first inkling was when I opened what was to become my favourite religious periodical, the English Churchman, a deeply conservative publication which still calls the Pope the Anti-Christ, publishes the odd article suggesting slavery was not really such a bad institution and argues that Margaret Thatcher’s worst mistake was allowing shops to open on Sundays.
[snip]
The religious correspondent is the one specialist on the Guardian who has to justify his specialism to the sceptics, on the paper and outside (“Why do we have to read this rubbish?”), and to our many religiously inclined readers (“Why are you always so hostile to religion?”). The Guardian actually gives more space to a wider range of religious (and non-religious) opinions than any other paper. That is precisely because religion is important as a philosophical, political, cultural, social and historical motivating force across the world and, despite the best efforts of atheists and secularists – some as fundamentalist in their beliefs as the most dogmatic religionist – will remain so.Now I am moving on. It was time to go. What faith I had, I’ve lost, I am afraid – I’ve seen too much, too close. A young Methodist press officer once asked me earnestly whether I saw it as my job to spread the Good News of Jesus. No, I said, that’s the last thing I am here to do.
I wonder if he ever reported on the Pastafarians...
Romney can't have it both ways. Either religion in politics matters or it doesn't. Romney says it does matter, but only when someone else's religion is the subject of scrutiny. His religion only matters when he intends to jam it down our throats after he's elected. Then again, both ways is the way Romney lies it best. First pro-gay, then anti-gay. First pro-gun, then anti-gun. First pro-choice, then pro-life. And now he's flip-flopping on whether the religion of a nominee is a relevant factor in their employment.Remember:
More repugnantly still, both the NYT article and accompanying video contain all sorts of quotes from Romney and his co-missionaries complaining about how very hard life was for them in France because it was so difficult to convert people, without any sense of how that "hardship" compared to their fellow citizens' fighting and dying in the Vietnam jungle. It's hard to put into words what twisted self-absorption and lack of empathy is required to wallow in such self-pity -- exactly the same strain that led Romney earlier this year to equate his sheltered sons' work on his presidential campaign with other Americans' sons and daughters who are in the Iraq war that Romney so loves and exploits for political gain.
Romney's draft-avoidance isn't quite as shameful as Super Tough Guy Rudy Giuliani's, whose deferment request was denied in 1969, thus placing him at imminent risk of being drafted, when he somehow convinced the federal judge for whom he was clerking "to write to the draft board, asking them to grant him a fresh deferment and reclassification as an 'essential' civilian employee." The very idea that a first-year judicial clerk, just out law school, is "essential" for anything is absurd on its face. Yet the swaggering tough guy Rudy Giuliani used that blatant lie to ensure that someone other than himself was sent to fight in Vietnam.
But Romney's record is hardly better. Although he claims he was ultimately convinced by his dad that the war was wrong, he spent most of the war cheering it on -- from the same safe and sheltered distance where one finds most of our right-wing tough guy warriors today, the ones who understandably recognize themselves in both Romney and Giuliani. Needless to say, a centerpiece of both of their campaigns is how "tough" and courageously pro-war they are.
After connecting dots, Ripley notes:In case you missed it, here’s a dKos diary I wrote about 18 months ago, noting the curious representation of BYU grads in the Bush administration – esp. in Legal and Environmental positions. I also mentioned some connections to Exxon-Mobil and Diebold.
That diary was inspired by an innocuous report I ran across about D. Kyle Sampson taking the Chief of Staff spot at the DOJ. Needless to say, it’s become semi-relevant again and received some renewed attention. That, of course, led me to start digging around again.
So, Romney’s former investment firm, Bain Capital Partners – along with Thomas Lee Partners and the Carlyle Group – are under investigation by the DOJ, which is littered with BYU grads. I won’t go so far as to say there might be cause to claim conflict of interest, but it makes me wonder how far these investigations will progress. Granted, with Sampson’s exit, things may change but I’d still cast a wary eye on any conclusions in this matter. (I need to do some digging on these particular cases, so don’t assume there’s a conspiracy, yet. I just wanted to put this thread out there for thought.)And after frightening us all, Ripley says:
Again, I don’t know, yet, if there’s really any cause for genuine concern – and I certainly don’t have an axe to grind with LDS (at least not at the moment). But I find it curious that BYU and LDS are so heavily represented in the Bush administration, esp. in light of Romney’s Presidential candidacy. The question I have to ask is this:
Is Bush (or Carlyle/Bain/LDS, et al) pushing for a Romney Presidency? If so, why? I’ve read claims that LDS isn’t very particular about where its members earn their money, as long as they’re tithing. Is LDS making a slowmotion power grab? How is it that Romney raised more funds than his opponents last quarter? sure, MCain is a dead-stick candidate, but still…
So. Long skirts, covered heads, multiple submissive wives, chickens in the backyard, large families.... What's not to like with the incoming new world order?