Printer-friendly
Send to e-mail
PDF versionA friend of mine is a brand-spanking new Presbyterian minister who is setting herself up in a small rural congregation in Utah. Her church has been previously pastored by men so naturally her first order of business was to clean the joint up. As she was clearing out the clutter in a closet she found two old boxes of 12-gauge shotgun shells.
That was a curious discovery. But even more curious was the remark by a Mormon woman who heard about the old ammo and asked Pastor Cindy, "Are you going to start shooting Mormons again?"
The irony of that odd question lies in the fact that among Pastor Cindy's predecessors in that same church was the Reverend Duncan McMillan. Back in 1875 Pastor Duncan received enough threats to life and limb from Mormon bullies that he started wearing a sidearm to protect himself and his family. The Rev. Duncan McMillan may have been the first pistol-packing Presbyterian pastor in Utah.
As a note here, since those rugged frontier days both the Presbyterian church and the Mormon community around it have built cordial and mutually affirming relationships. And my pastor friend fearlessly gave the ammunition to her duck-hunter Mormon neighbor.
Still, the point is that concern about persecution is always close the surface with Mormons. People often forget that in the middle 1800s Mormons were literally driven out of the United States of America into Mexico. But eight months after the Mormons arrived safely in Utah, the United Stated concluded the Mexican-American war with the treaty of Hildalgo and the Mormons were back in the good ol' USA again. And the persecution started again, but thankfully anti-Mormon persecution in Utah was mostly legal wrangling and far less violent than the bloody strife in Missouri and Illinois.
Mormon sensitivity to persecution persists into the 21st century. These days you can't even make an honest and critical remark about Mormonism without triggering the reaction that you're some kind of antagonistic Mormon-hater. I should know, I make a living telling people and institutions to repent. The Mormon church has occasionally attracted my critical attention in this column. I have often had to deal with knotheads who missed my point and stupidly accused me of persecution.
This justifiable apprehension about persecution was a subtext in President Dallin Oak's speech at BYU-Idaho two weeks ago. That speech has provoked the usual vitriol from the usual suspects. Most of their attention has focused on not understanding a single incidental sentence in Oaks' speech. He merely pointed out that California Mormons have been catching heat for how they voted, which he compared to the voter-intimidation of the civil-rights struggle a generation ago. He drew no other parallels. His point was clear, people in a free country, including religionists, should not suffer consequences for how they vote. Period. Even the piece about Oaks' speech in this newspaper a week ago missed that point.
The fact is, Oaks' speech was a 4,300-word lecture on constitutional law as it applies generally to freedom of religion and particularly to the freedom of Mormon in 21st century public discourse. The transcript even includes footnotes. You see, Dallin Oaks is not only a Mormon executive leader, he's an attorney and expert on constitutional law. He worked as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was even on the short list of possible Supreme Court nominees 25 years ago.
So, agree with President Oaks or not, when he has something to say about the law, particularly constitutional law, he has an informed point of view.
The theme of his speech was very simple and straightforward: religious people have constitutional rights to free speech and political activity. But he also included the warning that religious people also have to be more cautious and prudent in political discourse than others because, well, they're religious. If you're conservative and religious, you have to be even more careful. And if you're Mormon, you have to be extra, extra, extra careful.
He has a point. But it's old news for Mormons.
The good news for Mormons is that the vast majority of religious people in this country agree with their position and actions on maintaining the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The bad news for Mormons is that they will be hammered more than most for their stance.
Mormon (defined) A
Mormon (defined)
A religion that is no more and no less evil than others, but whose members are encouraged to donate as much as they can to homophobic causes.
One member was so enthusiastic, he gave away the second 'M' of the very name of his religion and now all are known collectively as Morons.
In an attempt to make people forget that the church was founded on Polygamy, Mormons give money to prevent others from having the right to marry one person of their choice and have hence forth become a church of Morons.
Source - - - “The Urban Dictionary”
If you don't want to get hit, stay out of the fight.
I agree with flatlander100 on this topic, the Mormon church should stay out of politics.
If you don't want to get hit, stay out of the fight.
response to flatlander
In your (I think it was) original post, you said "He went so far as to liken Mormons being criticized on gay rights to African-Americans being attacked during their struggle for civil rights in the 1960s".
Isn't that what the GLBT is doing, too? Are they allowed to do that but we aren't?
After all of the wild protests from Prop 8 from the gay supporters to teh LDS church, if there is another issue on the ballot in CA, I have a feeling that the GLBT lobby will have to triple their efforts to get out the vote, because those opposed to gay marriage, especially the LDS and the like, won't need that much money, they will only have to remember what happened after Prop 8. It wasn't just some peaceful protestors, it was intimidation and vandalism and threats. Not unlike what teh mafia supposedly does.
Two points
Here's why the analogy [LDS with civil rights movement] doesn't work: blacks in the south of the 1960s were politically powerless, often kept from voting [by really violent intimidation like lynching], unprotected by law [lynchers were often not brought to trial or if tried, not convicted]. The LDS Church is a powerful, very well funded organization with considerable political influence, whose members have not been subject to lynching or life-threatening violence since the middle of the last century, and whose members enjoy the full range of American civil liberties.
Here's why the analogy [gay marriage advocates with civil rights movement] works better [though it is not a perfect analogy either]. Gays seeking to marry are a small part of the overall society, seeking a liberty the rest of society enjoys [the right to marry] that they do not. The LDS Church in California was not fighting to achieve for its members a liberty others possesed that they did not. It was fighting to prevent others from winning access to a liberty that LDS members possesed that they did not. No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it's a significantly closer fit than suggesting LDS members were being treated like black civil rights advocates in the sixties.
And for really silly analogies, yours likening the gay marraige advocates to the mafia takes the cake.
response
It's not all that wrong of an analogy, because that's what it looked to me, and probably to other LDS, that the GLBT was telling the church, hey don't MESS with us! We're prepared to do anything to get what we want.
response
Flatlander said " boycotting and picketing are both kinds of political "speech" that have a long tradition in the US and that are, and rightly, constitutionally protected. Blacks organized boycotts and picket lines in the Civil Rights struggle"
Isn't this one of the big complaints people had about Elder Oaks speech? How is it that he can't compare what some LDS are going thru with the civil rights movement, etc., but you can with the "gay rights" thing? I can't say that homosexual feelings are natural or not. But, homosexual ACTS are ACTS, that people choose to do or not do. And while I am in full agreement that gays should not be discriminated against just because they are gay, in jobs or whatever, there is NO WAY that they can compare themselves to a RACE of people. Blacks do not choose to be black or white or whatever. Black people are black people and mostly, they stand out as black. White people are white, and mostly, they stand out as white.
Gays, however, come in all sorts of colors and ethnicities. No one has to know one is gay.
I, myself, have not decided how I feel about "gay marriage". However, I do respect the rights of everyone to decide whether or not they want to allow it or not. If it's on the ballot, and people vote on it, then side with the most votes wins. It's up to you, and me, and everyone, to make sure we get enough people to the ballot who want to vote on it.
On Prop 8, in Cal. I hear that those opposed donated more than the other side. seemingly thousands came out on the protests after the election. How many of those did NOT vote? Why are people getting so vociferous when they could have gotten out jsut before the election and urged people to vote?
Protests are one thing; boycotting is one thing; but this was, plain and simple, intimidation.
Instead of 'throwing temper tantrums" about how the vote went, why don't they just go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and try to come up with another strategy to figure out how to get what they want. They sure ain't gonna get it throwing temper tantrums in front of the temple! In fact, it's probably making it worse.
You said "But when a church that claims tax-exempt status and whose adherants can deduct from their taxes whatever they contribute to the church then uses those resources in election campaigns, it crosses the line."
Problem is, that THE CHURCH didn't make any monetary contributions, and very little "in kind" contributions. The church also has a for-profit side that pays it's taxes. So, I'm thinking no tithing money was used by THE CHURCH.
the majority of LDS contributions came from individuals, not hte church. Even Mormons can do with their own money waht they want. If I pay my tithe and fast offering, and want to take the money left over and send it to some cause of candidate, I can do that.
What I'm trying to say is, that it just seems like those who favor "gay rights" are doing the double standard shuffle.
Agree/disagree
You wrote: "However, I do respect the rights of everyone to decide whether or not they want to allow it or not. If it's on the ballot, and people vote on it, then side with the most votes wins. It's up to you, and me, and everyone, to make sure we get enough people to the ballot who want to vote on it."
On that, we agree completely.The anti-side won at the polls, and the resulting decision is law in California as a result, and --- unless and until it is legally removed --- the prohibition on gay marriage stands as law and needs to be obeyed. We disagree in no way about that. Don't know if you were reading the comments section at the time, but I argued that post-election legal challenges to the Prop were ill-advised, that the judgment of the people of California, expressed at the polls, had to be respected. Just as, if in some future election, they legalize gay marriages in the state, that judgment will have to be respected. If you take part in an election, you by doing so commit yourself to be bound by the results of the election, whatever they may be.
You wrote of those who lost in California: "why don't they just go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and try to come up with another strategy to figure out how to get what they want."
Answer: they are.
You wrote: "THE CHURCH didn't make any monetary contributions, and very little in kind contributions."
The press accounts I read suggested otherwise. The Church's for-profit [taxed] operations are not at issue here. And if you, as an individual, want to make a non-tax deductable donation to a PAC opposing gay marriage in California or anywhere else, you'll hear no complaint from me about your right to do so. That's your right every bit as much as it would be my right to make a non-tax deductable donation to a PAC favoring gay marriage in California or anywhere else if I wanted to.
I am a knothead
I was reading this column and thinking, "This is good writing! Then it came.. as usual Mr. Humphrey had to say something bad about Mormons. In the past I am one of the knot heads who missed your point and stupidly accused you of persecution. Your columns can be interesting when you are not slamming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or as you call it the Mormon Church. This column surprisingly shows much less hatred for the "Mormon" church than you often spill in our columns! Just Google Mr. Humphrey's you will find his anti-Mormon rants. The Standard allows him to write about a church he does not belong and states on a website about leaving the church "That was the functional conclusion of my relationship with Mormonism". You no longer have a relationship with the church so please stop writing about it, and I promise I will never write a column about The Presbyterian Church.
rights
flatlander seems to think that Mormons have BIG problems with the GLBT because the GLBT was a little miffed. But, I didn't see "a little miffed", I saw out and out intimidation, the kind that makes people afraid to go out in public because they don't know what's going to happen. Things like setting up boycotts on businesses owned by Mormons (with pickets). Things like sending anonymous letters with white powder to temples. Things like burning a Book of Mormon on the front steps of LDS chapels. Breaking windows, etc.
It was like they were saying "You don't have a right to your own opinion because we don't like it and we are going to make you rue the day you tried tangling with US!"
It was not THE MORMONS who voted down so-called "gay rights", it was citizens of the various states. Mormons did not force anyone to vote one way or another. I would be willing to bet that there were Mormons who voted FOR said "gay rights". Mormons don't even tell Mormons how to vote.
But, like anyone else, Mormons DO have the right to try to influence others to their way of thinking. Which ever way that is. We just don't use intimidation and fear. The GLBT say Mormons do and they don't, but remember, when you point a finger at someone, there are three pointing right back at you.
Mormons don't intimidate and they definately don't like to BE intimidated. That was the gist of Elder Oakes' talk, if I'm not mistaken. We can vote as we want, we can support what causes we want, and so can everyone else.
We are in partial agreement
You've made some points with which I agree. Vandalism, violence have no place in a free country. And, had Oaks limited his comments to those few [and they were few] who engaged in them, I'd have had no problems with his remaks and I've have joined in them if I could have.
You take the point to extremes, though, and unconstitutional ones, when you include "things like setting up boycotts on businesses owned by Mormons [with pickets]." Sorry, but boycotting and picketing are both kinds of political "speech" that have a long tradition in the US and that are, and rightly, constitutionally protected. Blacks organized boycotts and picket lines in the Civil Rights struggle for example, and Caesar Chavez organized boycotts to support agricultural laborers in Califronia, and so forth. You, like Oaks, seem to want to expand the "right" of relgious groups to be free of those who criticize them in public.
You say it wasn't Mormons who voted down gay marriage, and that probably some Mormons voted for it. Almost certainly so. But you quietly ignore the fact that the Church officially came out against the gay marriage cause, and urged its adherants to oppose it, and contributed funds to help organize the poltiical campaign. To have done all that, and then to claim surprise that those on the other side held the Church responsible for its actions seems.... well, just a little disingenuous.
You say Mormons have a right, just like anyone else, to try to influence people to accept their ideas. Couldn't agree more. But when a church that claims tax-exempt status and whose adherants can deduct from their taxes whatever they contribute to the church then uses those resources in election campaigns, it crosses the line. No organization, not even a church, can expect the taxpayers to subsidize its involvement in elections. Any church that wants to surrender its tax exepmtions and the deductiblity of funds contributed to it can campaign as much as it likes. But it should not be using tax exempted funds in political campaigning. And as I understand it, in California, it did. Yet another example of the kind of special exemption Mr. Oaks and those who think like him want to claim for religous institutions that are not available to others.
Really
Flatlander100, with a knack for dissecting words and phrases and twisting the meaning; especially when it comes to religion, ignores the fact that Oaks was speaking to mostly Mormons at BYU/Idaho. Actually I thought we were in Iran or Pakistan before and after the election. The losers put on their gloves and attacked the opposition by intimidation, damaging property, threatening lives, boycotting businesses, etc.
Public speech is public speech, no matter the forum
Java:
I don't see why Oaks speaking to "mostly Mormons" makes any difference in the validity [or the lack thereof] of his arguements. They would have been no more defensible, or no less so, had he been speaking to the graduating class at Harvard or to an American Legion convention in SLC or to the Texas Association of Toenail Clippers. In fact, Java, you seem to be arguing that because he was speaking "mostly to Mormons," the criticism he got from outside the Mormon community for the speech was unfair. That's an excellent illustration of the point I was trying to make: that relgious speakers, like Oaks, and now you, like to claim some special exemption from criticism because they are relgious speakers.
Happily, no such exemption exists under the First Amendment. Nor should it. Nor, please Ra, will it ever.
Defining Oaks' radicalism down....
Interesting column, as the Rev. Humphrey's often are, but one that curiously misses the main point of Mr. Oaks speech. If he had simply claimed what very nearly no one in the US denies, that religious people have as much right to make the case for their beliefs and their positions on public policy resting on those beliefs, in the public square, the speech would have likely drawn little notice and less criticism. But he went considerably further than that. He suggested that those who thought differently than he and his church did on the matter in question were wrong to attack them [verbally] for their beliefs and actions. He went so far as to liken Mormons being criticized on gay rights to African-Americans being attacked during their struggle for civil rights in the 1960s. And so Mr. Oaks lent support to the idea often expressed, sometimes with great heat, by religious people --- and not only Mormons by any means --- that their First Amendment right to free speech should also shield them from criticism by those who disagree with them, that criticism of their remarks somehow endangers their free speech rights.
Rev. Humphrey contends that all Oaks was saying was that "people in a free country, including religionists, should not suffer consequences for how they vote." No. Mr. Oaks was making a much broader claim: that Mormons and their church should not be criticized for stating their belief that non-Mormons in California should be forced by law to conduct their lives according to Mormon religious doctrine. Mr. Oaks was arguing that Mormons' religious speech should not only be heard in the public square [as of course it was being heard], but that it should be accorded some kind of special respect because it was religious speech such that those speaking it should not be subject to strong criticism. Sorry, Mr. Oaks [and Rev. Humphrey], it doesn't work that way in a free country. In Iran and Pakistan, maybe. But not here. Here, when you put on the gloves in an election fight, and wade in [rhetorically], you have to be prepared for the other side to [rhetorically] hit back. You don't get to make your point, and then insist that those who differ are somehow violating your free speech rights or engaging in religious bigotry because they differ and say so. Loudly.
Rev. Humphrey began his column talking about some Mormons' modern-day paranoia, which he runs into whenever he writes a column critical of the LDS Church. But then, oddly, he himself starts to slide down the slippery slope of paranoia when he writes this: "But he also included the warning that religious people also have to be more cautious and prudent in political discourse than others, becasuse, well, they're religious. If you're conservative and religious, you have to be even more careful. And if you're Mormon, you have to be extra extra extra careful. He has a point."
No, Rev. Humphreys, he doesn't. Nor on this point, do you. You'll have a hard time establishing, I think, the religious conservatives must in the US tip-toe ever-so-gently around the edges of the public sqare making their points on matters of public policy. Think Jerry Fallwel, think James Dobson, think Ted Haggard [before the fall anyway], think medieval Catholicism's loudest modern defender, Mr. Donaghue.
So, Mr. Oaks [and Mr. Humphrey], weigh in all you like from whatever religious and conservative perspective you like. But when you do, you don't get to whine when someone replies " Hey, no fair! He hit me back!"
Re: Defining Oaks' radicalism down....
Actually, Rev. Humphries has it right, you have it wrong.
Oaks never said we should not be criticized. He did, however, say that firing employees for donating money - just as the economy was falling into the abyss - is wrong in a democracy. So is vandalizing church buildings.
Winning an election is not a civil right, nor is voter intimidation.
If Oaks had limited...
If Oaks had limited his complaints to denouncing those who resorted to violence, there'd have been no controversy. No reasoning person would have argued in defense of those few who turned to intimidation and vandalism. Certainly I wouldn't. But, again, he spoke about much more than that, and claimed Mormons and the godly in general were facing a concerted campaign from atheists and others to silence them in the public square, as, he suggested, white bigots had tried to silence blacks in the sixties. That's when he went off the rails metaphorically [likening the lynching of blacks to the protests over the LDS role in the Prop 8 fight was nonsense and he was rightly called on it]. There is no such conspiracy. There is no such campaign. Oaks was arguing that religious speech, because it is religious speech, ought to be accorded additional respect and protection in the public square. Such claims are both shockingly uniformed for someone who claims to be a scholar of the Constitution, and shocking radical to hear in a free country. No speech --- not Oaks, not mine, not yours, not the Rev. Humphreys, not the President's --- is entitled to automatic respect in the public square. Speech has to earn whatever respect it might be accorded. It cannot demand respect as a right, no, not even religious speech.
You are certainly correct that being guaranteed a win in an election is not a civil right. Nor is intimidating voters via violence a civil right. On those points we certainly agree. But the LDS Church and Oaks similarly have no right to demand silent acceptance once the vote was over from those who lost and who think the wrong decision was made and who intended to try to have it reversed at the next poll. Had Oaks side lost, he too and they would have had every right to say, loudly, that the people had chosen unwisely and wrongly and to begin working to have the decision overturned at the next poll themselves.
As for his saying that "firing employees for donating money just as the economy was falling into the abyss is wrong in a democracy." That's a puzzling claim. [Would it have been OK to fire them for contributing if the economy was strong?] Are you alleging that because those employees donated to advance a religious belief on their part, their jobs were, or should have been, specially protected? You do know that gays can be fired from jobs for being gay, don't you? And if their jobs are not protected from such discrimination, I'm hard put to see why anti-gay employees should have their jobs protected. I would not have done fired them. I would not have asked any questions, ever, about their contributions on grounds it was none of my business. But had I been a gay employer and I disovered they were taking part in a political campaign to force me, by law, to live according to their religious beliefs, I might have.
And there is as well the problem of the Church's tax exempt status [and the tax deductable nature of contributions to it]. Tax exemption and deductablity carry the obligation for the receiving organization to stay out of election campaigning, to avoid having the taxpayers subsidize religious organizations engaging in electoral politics. As I've said elsewhere, if a church is willing to forgo its tax exempt status, it can campaign 'til the cows come home and no complaint from me. But it cannot expect taxpayers to subsidize its campaigning, and when the LDS Church committed its institutional resources to the campaign [as it reportedly did], it in effect had its political campaigning subsidized by the taxpayers. And I think that's wrong in a democracy.
Re: If Oaks Had Limited ...
Here's the link to his speech:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-...
Please point out even a single instance of him "denouncing" any but those who try to silence religionists - or any other point of view, for that matter - in the public square. You can start with his quote of Richard John Neuhaus: “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb."
It would seem to me that he was saying the opposite - that religionist and atheist alike have the same right to express opinions. I believe it's called Freedom of Speech. But that right stops well short of voter intimidation.
With respect to my comment about firings in this economy, which do you feel is more injurious - and, therefore, more intimidating: firing somebody in a robust economy when there's a good chance he can find a replacement job within two weeks, or firing somebody in a poor economy, when it may take a year or more to find a replacement? Which one may cost the victim his home?
Finally, with respect to taxation, the Mormon Church is very careful to follow state and federal guidelines - which dictate that we must not endorse and candidate for office. The laws do not preclude speaking out on moral issues, nor do they preclude encouraging members to financially support causes about which they feel strongly.
Just for now...
You will not find any suggestion from me that the LDS church, and all others, don't have an equal right with anyone else to "speak out on moral issues." Nor would I object, ever, to individuals of any faith, as individuals, contributing to political causes about which they feel strongly. But if the church itself, as an institution, devotes its institutional [tax exempt] fund to political campaigning, it is having its activities subsidized by the taxpayers. Whether churchs can use tax exempt funds to campaign for referenda, whether that is substantively different, under the law, than using the funds to campaign for a candidate I am not at all sure. Will have to do more looking into that. But if you want to argue it out on "ought" rather than "law," the point seems clear: taxpayers ought not, ever, to fund a church's --- any churches --- political camapign efforts.
As for the firing matter, I thought you were arguing it as a matter of right. Something I believe you said that shouldn't happen in a democracy. As a matter of right, it doesn't matter what the state of the economy might be. If it was wrong, it was wrong in a robust economy or a down one or at any point inbetween. [I'd only add that gays fired for being gay, and it happens, are just as apt to lose their homes as well.]
Getting late and I have prep to do for tomorrow. I'll comb through Oaks' speech again --- I did read it --- for the portions I thought claimed broader rights for the religious tomorrow or the next day and post again.
You keep coming back to the vandalism. Once again, on that point, you and I and I and Oaks are in complete agreement. It has no place in a free country.
Re: Just for now ...
I'm glad you chose to defend firing as a matter of right. Certainly one is more serious (in its consequences) than the other, but, at the same time, both are wrong at their core because they both have, as their intended effect, intimidation.
If that is clear to you, then why aren't Oaks' remarks about voter intimidation in the South?
Certainly burning down a church is more evil than breaking a few windows. Certainly lynching a man is more heinous than firing him. Ditto the killing of 4 black children vs. the boycotting of certain business owners who supported Prop. 8. But no matter how high or low these various sins rank on the scale of evil, they are all similar in their intended effect: to circumvent Freedom of Speech and intimidate voters into voting something other than their conscience (or refrain from voting altogether).
Which was Oaks' exact point:
"In their effect [the incidents of violence and intimidation] are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation (emphasis mine).
With respect to taxing churches, Caesar should be content with what I render unto Caesar. He shouldn't also want a piece of what I render unto God. How would this not qualify as a "Believer's Tax?"
Talking a little at cross purposes...
We're talking a little at cross purposes. I wasn't arguing that firing someone for donating should be banned as a matter of enforceable right. I'd need to think about that, and its consequences [intended and otherwise] a lot more than I have before I go that far. I thought you were arguing that, as a matter of enforceable constitutional right, a person should not be able to be fired for political donations. You were, I gather, not advocating that. Had you been, then the state of the economy would have been wholly irrelevent.
With respect to taxing churches, you say "Caesar should be content with what I render unto Caesar. he shouldn't also want a piece of what I render unto God. How would this not qualify as a 'Believers tax?"
At no point ever have advocated a special tax on churchs or on religious donations. [That would indeed be a "believers' tax" and I'd oppose it. ] But when you donate to your church, that donation is deductable from you taxable income. It reduces your taxes. That's the problem with respect to the church then using those funds for political campaigning. To the extent that you can deduct religious donations from your taxable income, the taxpayers are subsidizing any political campaigning the church does. [Let me be clear: I mean literally political campaigning. Not simply stating a position on an issue as a matter of religious conviction. Campaigning for votes with Church institutional resources is the problem. And I gather that happened in California.]
If I set up a PAC to collect donations to fight for gay marriage via political campaigns, donors cannot deduct what they give me from their taxable income. But you can deduct what you give the Church from your taxable income, and the Church can use that money to campaign for votes against gay marriage. The tax deduction gives the Church a priviledged position in the political money-raising competition which, to the extent it uses its resources for political campaigning, it should not have. Hope that makes my stand on the matter clearer.
Whether church real property ought to be taxed as other real property is is quite another matter, involving other issues. But even there, if I were to argue that churches [all of them] should have their property taxed the same basis as other property owners in a town, I would not be endorsing a "believers'" tax. I'd be suggesting that churches' privileged position [their property free from taxes which other property owners must pay] should end.
Re: Talking a little ...
Whoo boy, I didn't express myself very clearly. Sorry about that.
The first sentence of my last reply should read something like, "I'm glad you chose to see the firings as a matter of right vs. wrong, not a matter of degree." I was responding to "If it was wrong, it was wrong in a robust economy or a down one or at any point inbetween."
"Right" as in the opposite of wrong, not "right" as in Constutional right.
The firings were wrong, period. Doesn't matter if a replacement job is found in 2 weeks or 18 months. They are a form of voter intimidation.
Vandalism is wrong, period. Doesn't matter if just a few windows were broken or the church was burned to the ground. It is a form of voter intimidation.
With respect to "Campaigning for votes with Church institutional resources is the problem" may I point out that the Church did not spend any of its own money to fight Proposition 8. According to official filings, they gave about $186K in "in kind" donations.
Finally, with respect to the PAC - why not do as Money Magazine suggests: Donate the money, instead, to a charity that the PAC supports. That way you help the PAC, you help the charity, and you help yourself.
Thanks for actually reading Oaks' speech!
How refreshing to find an article on Oaks' speech written by someone who actually read and understood what he was saying!
Does Oaks have reason to be concerned? Consider the facts collected by a non-Mormon attorney writing for the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm