As most of our regular readers are already aware, your blogmeister took the weekend off; so we've decided this morning to play "catch up," and do a roundup of a few of the news stories that caught our jaded eye within the last couple of days. To kick off today's discussion, we'll reel off those stories which we found most interesting since last Friday's post:
Ron Paul Update: Last Monday, we ran a Ron Paul "teaser," featuring a You Tube video about GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul. In response to this, we elicited 25 reader comments, ranging from Tec Jonson's unquivocal embrace of Dr. Paul as the only candidate with a "coherent and acceptable platform," to the comments of True Republican, with "Don't throw your votes away on someone who cannot possibly win!" We particularly liked Monotreme's take: "Oh, and the anarchist in me wishes for a Paul-Kucinich matchup."
The purported "non-viability" of Dr. Paul's candidacy is of course the constant refrain of Big Media (and party insiders on both sides of the partisan political aisle.)
It's in that context that we post this morning's L.A. Times "Top of the Ticket" blog article, reporting on Dr. Paul's Sunday online fundraiser, wherein the Ron Paul campaign just set another all-time record ($6 million) for such a one-day event.
Does Ron Paul's candidacy "have legs?" We believe that yesterday's fund-raiser suggests that it does.
Several other interesting articles on the WCF back-burner:
Vescor Capital Update. Emerald City "investment broker" Val Southwick is back in the news, with this 12/16/07 Salt Lake Tribune article. And from the article, we post this short exerpt:
"Some talk about how he [Southwick] used his membership in the LDS Church to assure investors or potential investors about his honesty and the safety of their investments. Brad Hatch told of one investor, who, after payments stopped, went to speak to Southwick on behalf of others with whom he had vouched for Southwick. Southwick invoked the Sunday school lesson he was planning that week about the need for patience.Where, we ask, have we heard that story before?
"That gave credibility to him, that Val was telling the truth," Hatch said.
Disturbing Environmental News. We have this good news from this morning's Standard-Examiner: "Diesel spill threatens Nature Center".
Replace the Emerald City RDA Director. Finally, a Weber County Forum Tip O' the Hat to gentle reader Tom Owens, for his success in disseminating a constant Weber County Forum theme to the general readership of the Standard-Examiner.
In the interest of getting this morning's discussion going before this afternoon, (the telephone has been ringing off the hook all morning,) we'll post today's article now, and leave the microanalysis to our gentle readers.
As per usual, feel free to pick up the discussion on any of the above suggested topics, or start up one of your own.
17 comments:
There is an interesting article in the Tribune this morning about how developers are buying up city councils around the state. Although Godfrey wasn't mentioned, his main and biggest contributors were developers that have their major vacuum snouts firmly in Ogden City's public trough.
Read the article here:
city governments for sale
Frank
And speaking of the Tribune, here is a letter to the editor this morning that perfectly and succinctly describes a very large percentage of Utahnians:
"How to tell if you are a native Utahn: You are more upset about the Blue Boutique moving two blocks east than you are about EnergySolutions bringing radioactive waste from Italy."
Don Bosch
Bountiful
What about the Merry Christmas for the renters ousted right before Christmas from their homes for the benefit of Mr. Kite (I mean that shady developer from California, whatever his name is).
All in the name of progress, development, preservation of your open spaces -- and in the interest of the citizens of Ogden.
BUT -- they didn't use eminent domain. Does that make it any better a situation for those out on the street for the holidays?
HMMMMM?!?
It is interesting that Mayor Godfrey was quoted a few months ago talking about what a fine man, and long time family friend, this Southwick fellow is. Proof of the truth of the old saying about birds of a feather flocking together!
Seems like Southwick isn't the only crook that plies his trade in LDS Church meetings. In fact there is a long list including: Affleck, Wayne Ogden (back in the news and jail recently), Southwick and Godfrey to name just a few.
Will
Maybe you are onto something here.
My cousin who lives in the far north end of town, and who is active LDS, told me that during priesthood meetings for two weeks in a row right before election that there was a strong lobbying effort made on behalf of Mayor Godfrey's campaign efforts by the priesthood leaders. It was presented as a critical situation and they were all urged to not only get out and vote for the Mayor, but also to make sure their wifes and relatives did also.
He doesn't live in the same ward as the mayor, or any where close, and knows of no members in his ward that are related to or knows the mayor. It appears that this is something that came through the priesthood leadership and not any personal connections.
Is any one else aware of this happening in other wards throughout Ogden? Does the church operate like this usually? It has been my understanding that the Mormon church believes in separation of state and church and doesn't get involved in politics or endorsing candidates.
The main problem we have in Ogden right now is poor people, Jennifer.
The sooner we can kick them out of town the better.
Don't be an apologist for SATAN!
If these people had been righteous under GOD'S PLAN, they would be rich!
I'm with Gadi on this.
After we kick out the dirt poor, we can start working on the semi-broke (and semi-righteous) and so on.
From there, we can move on to elimating all brown-skinned people, LDS backsliders and ultimately "Christ-killers" -- which is something (conversion & redemption) that Gadi needs to think about as he moves into our community...
It's all GOOD, Lovely Jennifer.
It's all part of "The Plan."
Will the real J. Patterson please exit the building?
Now, that's cleared up -- Mr. "Patterson" : is your real name, perchance, Winston Smith?
TLJ
P.S., Mr "Patterson"
I do believe you've skipped several sessions in the Screaming Room ...
eh?
TLJ
Fern,
If you would tell me the names and the ward of these "priesthood leaders" who adulterated their callings by using the church house and church meetings for political campaigning, I will personally see to it that they will be called into account for it. Please let me know names and the ward involved. This kind of thing is the worst kind of corruption and absolutely cannot be tolerated.
Davis S
I do not know any of the participants or their names. I would have to talk to, and ask, my cousin who told me about this. He is a practicing member and I am not sure how he would react to such a request, especially considering what the purpose of knowing is.
When he told me this he did not seem to see the wrong in it. Don't get me wrong, he is a wonderful man in all ways, but he does strongly believe in the priesthood as not only a heavenly calling but a very practical earthly one as well.
I don't know allot about the inner workings of the church and priesthood, but after a life time of second hand exposure I am of the opinion that they are both full participants of civil life in Utah. I can understand my cousin's point of view on that fuzzy line between the church and the government given my observations. I personally look askance at the blending of the two, but the reality is that it is blended here, and those so practicing are citizens as well as church members and like every one else are entitled to their opinions.
Do you have any suggestions as to how I should broach this subject with him? I am willing to bring it up with him.
Fern,
Call Rep. Neil Hansen he would like to know all the reports of how the Godfrey campaign went beyond the boundary of church in this election.
Please give him a call.
Is any one really surprised that members of the LDS Church are involved in politics and bring their religious beliefs with them? And what is wrong with that? Seems to me to be the way of Democracy. We don't require members of the NRA or the NEA or the CIA to leave their beliefs behind when they go to the voting booth do we? Members of labor unions take issues close to themselves into the political process, don't they?
Joseph Smith himself was a candidate for the President of the US (beating Romney as the first serious LDS candidate in history by a 160 years or so!). The Church has had to be political to survive in a century and a half of a relative hostile political environment.
Orson:
I think you may be confusing two things. Of course people bring their religious beliefs with them when considering matters of public policy [abortion being the best example currently but there are many many others]. And of course American democracy presumes that all citizens will and should take part in civic life... believers of all stripes as well as non-believers.
What people are raising questions about, however, is another matter: voting for [or against] someone exclusively [or primarily] because of their membership in a particular denomination. Voting for someone because he or she is LDS... or is not. Because he or she is Catholic... or is not. Because he or she is Jewish or Moslem or Rastafarian or whatever. That's the matter at issue.
It's also true that often people have voted exclusively on the basis of a candidiate's religion since the birth of the Republic. The question isn't "does it happen." Of course it does. The question is should it.
Plus there is one other matter involved here, one of law. Churches are tax exepmt institutions and as such are not permitted as churches to actively participate in political campaigns on pain of losing their tax exempt status. Now I agree, this has been honored under the administration of the Hon. [?] G.W. Bush more in the breech than not. Still, it is the law, and churches... a very small number of them... have been taken to court by the govt. for violating the non-politics requirements of their tax-excempt status. [E.g. for passing around approved candidates lists for their congregants at Sunday services.]
So there may be a legal question involved... and certainly an ethical one... in members of a church using church properties and religious gatherings on them for electoral purposes or in church leaders permitting church properties and gatherings to be used in that way. This would apply to all churches, not exclusely LDS ones.
So while it's perfectly proper for individual congregants to apply their religous principles to public issues, it's a lot dicier when churches as organizations get involved in electoral politics.
Democracy is a messy business. Always has been. Always will be. The day it stops being that, it stops being democracy.
Orson, If thats the case, be carefull what you wish for.
An open full discussion of beliefs is exactly what would be required to determine if they could vote for the guy. Thats what Mitt Romney is avoiding like the plague.
You must admit, it's quite a stretch to assume that an organization so enveloped in secrecy for so long, may not be so enthusiastic about opening the full spectrum of what they believe to public scrutiny. Mitt must be extremely sensitive to his beliefs being seen thru the public eye, and feels that would be a negative.
What struck me as so phony was during his speach, he totally refrained from disclosing anything except to say, he's a Christian, just like his intended audience, accentuating the commonality and totally avoiding any diference. In other words, while saying that Religion shouldn't be an issue to be judged, he asked them to vote for him, based on their common religious beliefs.
Curmudgeion
You wrote:
"What people are raising questions about, however, is another matter: voting for [or against] someone exclusively [or primarily] because of their membership in a particular denomination. Voting for someone because he or she is LDS... or is not. Because he or she is Catholic... or is not. Because he or she is Jewish or Moslem or Rastafarian or whatever. That's the matter at issue."
Well, I certainly agree with you on this problem. Why I've even heard of such things as Yeller Dog Democrats voting for candidates for no other reason than them being Democrats themselves!
Fern,
Of course LDS can have an opinion, and they can share it. What they cannot do, is use a church meeting house and church meeting to encourage voting for a certain candidate. That is strictly forbidden.
The church is very clear about it. This is why the people who do it are so wrong to do it.
Why do something about it now? Because this sort of thing is so wrong it must be stamped out. Tell your cousin to at least explain this to the people who did it. If they're decent folks, they'll mend their ways and no more need be said.
Ozboy:
Well, not exactly parallel situations, Oz. While it is certainly true that Jesus was a Liberal and would be a Democrat today and regular poster on Daily Kos --- that much at least is surely beyond serious doubt --- joining the Democrats [while, again, a highly moral and intelligent thing to do] is not the same as joining a religion.
And while it is certainly true that I'd vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a Republican for Congress or President, the reason is the dog has a much higher probability of possessing characteristics that I, being a Democrat, rather like to find in a candidate for national office... like a baseline minimal intelligence at least, loyalty, common sense and reliable instincts... than do most Republican candidates for national office.
By way of example, would the country have been better off in 2000 if judicial fiat had placed a Yellow Dog in the White House rather than G. W. Bush? The question answers itself, Oz....
Post a Comment