Tantalizing post from another blog, "Right Side Redux.com."
Mormon Anomaly: Harry Reid
This article raises numerous interesting questions. Is a "Mormon" merely somebody who "has the faith" and technically exists on the membership rolls? Or are ther other necessary credentials -- like serving a mission -- and having a "temple recommend" -- and "slavishly voting Republican" attached?
Is it a mortal "sin" to be a registered Democrat, or a gay Mormon? And what about "jacks?" Is modern Mormonism inclusive in a Christian sense -- or is there a snooty and snobby status hierarchy who would remove "jacks" to the gutter? Are there people within "The Church," who still remain dead-set on maintaining the cultish "escaping from Nauvoo" mentality?
Don't fergit to chime in on this, gentle readers.
16 comments:
Speaking of the "escaping from Nauvoo" mentality, I once told a friend about a list I read that ranked Denver as the best urban area to raise a family, and she reacted with "Oh really? Why didn't the list say Salt Lake?" And then her husband said in all seriousness "They must not like LDS people."
Some people...
There were some inaccuracies in this piece on Senator Reid. Surprising considering the writer claims to be LDS.
Nothing to overboard, the most glaring being the one about Utah and the Church being Republican as far back as any one can remember.
Not so at all. For example Senator Hatch replaced a Democrat - Senator Moss, who held office for 18 years. Also Lyndon Johnson kicked Barry Goldwaters ass big time in Utah in the middle sixties. There were also a number of democrat representatives all the way up to and including Karen Shepard. Also Governor Matheson was extremly popular and long lasting, and of course his son currently serves in the US House.
Other high elected officials who come to mind are Wayne Owens, Gunn McKay, governor Maw, and of course who could forget that ass Rocky! (even tho most of us would like too)
You see usun Mo's don't always go Republican, just mostly in recent times. But hey, there is always hope for the future, and as that great Minnesota philosopher Zimmerman said: "The times they are a changin".
The great NeoCon Republican juggernaught is starting to fall apart at the seams. The facade is cracking all over the place - from Washington D.C., with the Libby indictment and collapse of the
Bushies too Ogden with our recent election. And God willing, maybe even that great song writer Borin Orin Hatch may be leaving the senate for that new job he has as a coffin model.
Other notable Dem's within memory include:
Bill Orton, Cal Rampton, Ted Wilson, Palmer DePaulis, Francis Farley, Governor Dern, Senator Thomas, and Utah's first woman representative Reva Bosone.
In addition Ogden's own Marriner Eccles was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Roosevelt and Truman for many years. His name is chiseled in Marble on the Federal Reserve Building on the Mall in Washington, D.C. He was a MoMo and a Demo.
Our new councilman Glasmann just has to be a Demo if you believe his campaign retoric, and the fact that his family goes way back as Democrat king makers.
And lets not forget the little guy on nine who is a RINO (Republican in Name Only) his political apparatus is strictly Demoncrat, that being the former representative and father in law Ed Allen.
My favorite active Dem is our very own representative Neil Hansen who does a very good job for Ogden in the Snake Pit at the Capitol. (Apparently the little mayor doesn't think so as he is spending forty five thousand dollars for his very own representative, who incidently lives in Salt Lake!)
For many many years, Utah was the most Democratic state in the nation.
I see the Mormons as a communitarian oriented block vote that the leaders can switch between parties to gain influence.
Voting as a block and minimizing dissent with the ranks are the main characteristics of LDS politics. If the general authority saw reason to switch parties, Utah would be the most Democratic state in the nation within one or two election cycles.
Some people describe Utah Republicans as Neocon. Neocons refers to groups that switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican party.
BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLICANS
Mine eyes have seen the bungling of that stumbling
moron Bush;
he has blathered all the drivel that the neocons can
push;
he has lost sight of all reason 'cause his head is up
his tush;
The Doofus marches on.
I have heard him butcher syntax like a kindergarten
fool;
There is warranted suspicion that he never went to
school;
Should we fault him for the policies - or is he just
their tool?
The lies keep piling on.
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
His wreckage will live on.
I have seen him cut the taxes of the billionaires' lone
heir;
As he spends another zillion on an aircraft carrier;
Let the smokestacks keep polluting - do we really
need clean air?
The surplus is now gone.
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'l l Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Your safety net is gone!
Now he's got a mighty hankerin' to bomb a prostrate
state;
Though the whole world knows its crazy - and the
U.N. says to wait;
When he doesn't have the evidence, "We must
prevaricate."
Diplomacy is done!
Oh, a trumped-up war is excellent; we have no
moral bounds;
Should the reasons be disputed, we'll just make up
other grounds;
Enraging several billions - to his brainlessness
redounds;
The Doofus marches on!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
The Doofus marches on!
According to the tax code, "Tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) Of the Internal Revenue Service code are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or inopposition to, any candidate."
FOX news this week did a story on a church in Pasedena that is under investigation by the IRS because of a sermon entitled: "If Jesus debated Senator Kerry and President Bush."
And in '99, USA Today reported that the city of San Francisco requested the IRS to investigate the Mormon Church for contributing to an anti-gay marriage campaign.
''We need to have a fair and honest debate,'' Supervisor Mark Leno said. ''We can't do that if large sums of tax deductible dollars have involved themselves in a political campaign and completely overrun the entire ballot process.''
''Nonsense,'' Michael Otterson, a spokesman for the Mormon church, said Wednesday.
The Mormons are not the only religious group supporting the initiative, and the tax laws apply equally to all of them, Otterson said. He declined further comment.
The IRS cannot comment on whether the agency agreed to investigate the Mormon church, said Larry Wright, an agency spokesman in Oakland.
Meanwhile, in Washington, there is a movement afoot to allow this sort of thing:
Jones' bill, the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005," introduced in January, is now before the House Ways and Means Committee. It would amend the Internal Revenue Code (search) to allow religious organizations and houses of worship to engage in "religious free exercise and free speech activities" without violating their tax-exempt status as nonprofit groups. They would still be bound by campaign finance laws that restrict tax-exempt groups, however.
This bill was defeated in '02, the article says, and as of the writing of the above story, there was no scheduled new vote.
My opinion? Tax exempt churches should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. In fact, I think they should stay out of politics all together. If a church thinks that being gay is a sin, for instance, it can certainly preach that, but it should stop short of ordering its members to vote certain ways because of this issue and actively campaigning against candidates who are sympathetic to gay issues.
Conversely, the US goverment should not contribute to religious organizations either. Our diversity and idea of equality are two things that make this country great, and in my opinion, a blending of church and state has a negative impact on them.
Good thing Ozboy has set the record straight.
RS Probes Political Sermon at Calif. Church
City asks probe of Mormon election stand
Lawmaker Hopes to Open Churches to Political Speech
Poor Richard says....
While I prefer not discussing Religion and politics I feel impressed to on this issue, and prefer that his blog not be associated with ongoing discussion of any one religion or political party.
As an active member of the LDS church I would say no, it is not a sin to be a Democrat.
But I believe much of the democratic platform is based opposite our founding fathers primary function of good government. LDS people generally support moral free agency which is generally opposite most of the objects in the platform of a faithful democrat. To say that the Republican Party is totally correct in their principles is also unwise and I conceive both parties are most often seeking both power and adulation.
Lets simply discus what one historic democrat promoted. See if you see any parallels in what is happening in Washington or even with Ogden Inc. and the new recreation center, and then let the reader decide which spirit a faithful democrat portrays.
If you are a reader of history see how this statement below compares to Robespierre, the mister of public safety during the French revolution who wanted to “save” everyone by forced good. This is a direct quote from Dinesh D' Souza's c. 1997 book on Ronald Reagan.
"FDR argued that an American who doesn't have a decent house or a good education or adequate medical care is not truly free. In 1944 he (FDR) proposed a second "Bill of Rights," which would included a right to a "useful and remunerative" job, "adequate" clothing and recreation, and freedom from "unfair competition" and “the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.” Roosevelt saw it as the government’s “duty to ensure” that citizens were able to exercise these rights.”
Permit me to politely point out that using Dinesh D'Sousa quoting Ronald Reagan as a reliable source for what FDR and Democrats believe is a little like relying on Michael Moore quoting John Dean as a reliable source on what George Bush and Republicans believe.
Skimmed over the Democratic and Republican platforms for 2004. These are on the internet in PDF format. One thing that really stood out was the Republican stance on eminent domain, which I do not think the Democratic Party addressed.
After a large section on the virtues and Republican support for private ownership came the following, on page 43 of the PDF:
Private Property Rights
The core of ownership in America has always been ownership of private property that a citizen can call his or her own. Republicans respect this tradition. For reasons both Constitutional and environmental, therefore, President Bush and the Republican Congress will safeguard private property rights by enforcing the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and by providing just compensation whenever private property is needed to achieve a compelling public purpose. We oppose efforts to diminish the rights of private citizens to the land they own.
What???
My translation of this is--It's great that you have managed property ownership. Therefore, if we the government decide to take it, we won't just take it without giving you something for it. With this threat of perhaps losing your property looming, be advised that we do officially oppose all efforts to infringe on your private property rights.
This is not safeguarding private property rights. (And I wouldn't think that construction of a WalMart falls under the definition of "a compelling public purpose," either.)
Both parties believe in "strengthening the role of faith based organizations," (that from the Democratic platform.) Since the government itself, with welfare and social programs, sort of took on the role of helping the needy itself decades ago, it might indeed want to get out of that, but I don't think giving tax dollars to these organizations is the way to do it.
(Since this is a religion and politics thread, thought I would put that last in.)
I really think both parties have changed so much that there are no longer clear lines between them. Will look at these platforms again and see if there are distinct differences.
Here -- for once -- is a posting I wish UTmorMAN would weigh in on.
If the reporters who are fond of pointing out Harry Reid's Mormonism ever trail him to church, I haven't heard of it. Whether he is a tithe payer and regular attender, I don't know. But if he wants to be counted as a Mormon, why shouldn't he?
Can anyone identify a critical juncture in the Senate where Harry Reid's Mormonism ultimately decided his vote? He professes to be anti-abortion, but other than that, I don't see him wearing it on his sleeve. Contrast that with Hatch. Remember when JFK insisted, probably honestly, that as president his loyalty would first be to the U.S.A., not Rome? Contrast that, again, with Hatch. Does anyone doubt our senior senator's first loyalty is to 47 East South Temple?
Moroni
This is the land of "Zion". The bottom line is that any politician in a statewide office has to have a certain degree of loyalty and sensitivity to Temple Square. It is a matter of political survival. If you aint in the game you can't play!
All things considered it works out fairly well, thanks to the US constitution and a pretty decent group of "Brethren" that truly run the show here in the Stake, er I mean State. It also is great entertainment, especially when the goof ball legislature gets together. they are a wild and crazy bunch of priests when they make laws, and play ward basketball.
"Loyalty to Temple Square" is indeed crucial in the Behave State, from the endowment-robed rulers to the grass roots. I remember a woman in my home town declaring that as far as she was concerned, Senator Moss was through, because "he told President McKay to go jump in the creek."
Full disclosure: my first loyalty is to Union Square.
Well, at least we now know who one of Steve Huntsman's alternate posting personalities are. Hello and welcome Steve, errr... Poor Richard! Now all watch as this post and Steve's will shortly be deleted to protect the "integrity" of the board.
I don't recall seeing any posts by "Poor Richard"? Can some one point out any?
I do however on occasion see posts from Steve Huntsman. They are always on point, very intelligent, and in defense of the US Constitution. Utah desperately needs more statesmen like Steve in poliitcal office.
Could it be that the previous poster is not aware of what "Poor Richard" is? We apparently do have some rather uninformed participants here on the Weber County Slug Fest.
I know the Glasmann's and Ozboy is way off the mark with his political assumption of them. The Hatch family, Salt Laker's like many of us, were the Democrats, not the Glasmann's.
The Glasmann's are mostly Republicans.
Steven:
You may be right about a lot of the Glasmanns. However, Wilda Jean Glasmann Hatch was definately the major patron of most modern day Utah Democrats. She was the daughter of Abe Glasmann who owned the Standard Examiner and was one of the most successful business men in Utah history.
I am not sure if our new councilman Glasmann has declared what party he belongs to, but he sure was sounding like a Demo during the election, and he was seen in deep discusion with our favorite Democrat representative Niel Hansen during the campaign.
Maybe you could enlighten us on the Glasmann Republican connection?
New comments are not allowed.