Blogs
Nov 26, 2008 at 8:59 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
THINK - Catholic bishops, who invited the Mormons to play
really small fry
might feel good, means nothing, those California Catholic Bishops must be having a silly ha ha ha fit, not targeted at all, what is with that?
See unlike our Danny, Richard Raddon is a man of integrity, who resigned because out of concern that bringing further negative attention to his private life would hurt his work.
This is a fatwa. And Savage is the Ayatollah of Hate.
Here's an example of a privately held religious belief. Mark E. Peterson, one of the 12 Mormon apostles, speaking at BYU in 1954:
"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage.That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace.'..."
btw dan-- i'm still waiting for my response to the letter i sent with the receipt from my donation to no on 8. [gentle reminder]
Several mainstream religions have a habit of fighting back and forth like this. It's kinda sad, since minority groups ALWAYS get caught in the middle.
It's about time. Why has it taken so long for this to catch on??
Richard Raddon IS a man of integrity and will go on to do fine, thank you.
Not so for those microscopically small petty vicious minds that gloat at his discomfort.
DannyBeau-
what did you have to get up for in the morning before you outed yourself as a 24/7 obsessive Mormon-hater?
How's life on the Dark Side?
The explicit lack of a state-sponsored church is what allowed sects like the LDS to thrive in the first place in this country. Their attempt to breach that protective wall between Church and State is biting the hand that feeds. Here's hoping this backlash reminds them of that.
from sacramento bee
If you knows pretty much nothing about Mormons (like me) read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer.
We are aghast, and rightfully so, when behaviour like this comes from the religious right. We should be equally indignant when it comes from "our" side.
Matt in Denver
Could you spread your cheeks a little wider?
thanks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25…
Similarly, Vilsack, tool of agri-business is out of the running for Secretary of Agriculture in part due to the ruckus caused (in part) by a petition from the Organic Consumer's Association
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11…
The situation with Raddon is not any different. If you take a public stance on an issue, you will get a public response.
Once the fires of bigotry and hate are fanned you can't control who or what gets consumed.
You shouldn't play with matches, Dan.
BTW, nice sock puppet @ 20.
The analogy I have been fond of is if someone personally disagrees with the Catholic church on the issue of birth control, but regardless, donated $1,500 towards a political campaign seeking to outlaw it. Would we feel sympathy for that person? I wouldn't.
Similarly, I don't feel sorry for this guy because he had free will, he exercised that free will, and he has to live with the consequences of that action (not the fact that he is Mormon -- that's the key point here, we're judging him on his action, not on his religion).
Wider!
I'm sure Dan would *love* to be hounded out of his job by a mob of religious right wingers because he donated money to a pro-gay rights initiative.
I"m sure Dan would *love* having his name and his address posted all over the internet, along with the school his child attends, because hey, that is just how brave he is.
Or maybe Dan thinks we ought to live in little gay cocoons, and only interact with people who agree with us on every issue.
Well fuck that.
I know some of the things they do here is fucked, but this isn't one of them.
The director of LAFF has no such luxury, and if you like, we can just flip that example - a gay director of LAFF having to resign because of Mormon protests at his donating 1500 to the No on 8 campaign. Are you telling me Savage and you and whoever else would be in favour of it then?
Grow the fuck up.
Or from the other side: Let's say this theater director guy was found to be donating to something undeniably objectionable, like Neo-Nazis or NAMBLA. Would his forced resignation be unfair then? Do you really think people don't have the right to strenuously object to working with someone like that?
Now, try to think about this with a clear head sometime.
Ciao.
He voted with the majority to protect marriage.
Those against Proposition 8 are attempting to destroy traditional marriage and to do so with hate and harrassment.
There is no reason for gay and lesbians to "marry" when they can be legally bonded in a Civil Union.
There is no "stripping of civil rights" here. Only a refusal to redefine marriage for those who have been denied it for religious reasons. Those who want marriage although they refuse to abide by its terms appear to be whining and crying for something that is a privilege of those who worship God. And when they didn't get it, they are throwing a tantrum. Viciously. Shame on you, Gay and Lesbian community.
Stay out of religion, and religious people will stay out of politics.
Harvey Milk stood taller and endured more for his right to suck cock than these Mormons are doing for their so-called religious beliefs.
How we actually vote is private, but campaign donations are public. Stake holders in any issue have a right to know who their opponents are and how much money is being given by whom because secret money hobbles free expression. Raddon took a public stand, there are people who support him and people who don't, that is the nature of coming out in any way.
"There is no "stripping of civil rights" here. Only a refusal to redefine marriage for those who have been denied it for religious reasons. Those who want marriage although they refuse to abide by its terms appear to be whining and crying for something that is a privilege of those who worship God. "
News flash: Atheists are allowed to marry. (Well, male atheists and female atheists.)
He made a PUBLIC donation to a political campaign. The fact that he is a Mormon, while laughable on many levels, is irrelevant to the issue. After all, were he just a Mormon who hadn't made a large cash donation to this campaign, he wouldn't have caught any flak. He is a PUBLIC figure making PUBLIC statements about civil rights issues. You don't like that political contributions are made public? Tough. Change the rules. But don't bitch when you get called out because of it.
You're a straight-laced politician who wants to keep his career? Don't buy drugs. Don't hire call-girls/boys. Don't offer blowjobs in public bathrooms. Don't do any of the stupidly suicidal shit that's going to get you laughed out of your career.
Want a career in film, a form of media almost unanimous in its support of gay civil rights? Don't make a public donation to a reactionary, bigoted campaign.
I'm an atheist and I'm married and I vote. Not in California, unfortunately.
Religious beliefs are fine. Using religious beliefs to impose morality on those who do not worship your god is wrong. I do not understand why this is so hard for people to get.
Targeting large donors to Yes on 8 in this way is totally legitimate. Public Square.
Targeting churches themselves or people of a certain faith is not. Private Faith.
That WOULD be McCarthy and that, 33, is the critical difference.
Can you read? Why should churches who engage in political campaigning as the LDS church has done have any expectation of "privacy" in these matters? That's the whole friggin point. They are trying to have it both ways -- they want their beliefs to be reflected in law but they don't want their beliefs to be up for discussion.
Something that Mr Raddon should have considered before he chose to fan those flames with his PUBLIC $1500 donation.
Dude, sorry but if you work with tons and tons of gay people (ahem, los angeles film festival) and you make your living in large part due to them, then you are going to get in fucking trouble if you do something as stupid as donate to yes on prop 8.
It would be the same if someone at the Mormon church, who worked as the head of the temple, donated to a "No on Mormons" campaign. she/he would be pressured to resign, period. Doesn't matter what their "personal beliefs" are. If you are part of something and then donate to go against it, your career will probably suffer.
Private religious belief = prayer or religious service in your own home or church
NOT private religious belief = donating money to a political campaign.
Donating money to a political campaign is in no way a private religious belief. Your religious beliefs may influence your decision, but the act of giving money to a political campaign is a conscious public political choice, not a private religious choice.
Have any religious belief you wish!
Just don't let the Queers see you doing something they don't approve of.
Freedom has it's limits, you know.
very clever, Johnny!
do you smell smoke?
Next time you’re tempted to have sympathy for those people (an emotion they’re not capable of, btw), think of the countless innocent kids these psychos have so driven to despair that they take their own lives. If you have kids, take a long look at them and imagine what kind of monsters could do that.
i'm not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure that is not a wise public announcement given that the mormon church are already being investigated for not understanding the whole church-state divide.
hopefully this can become something to thank raddon for.
Anonymous contributions to political campaigns are illegal. Citizens have every right to know who is financing political campaigns.
This has nothing to do with how Raddon voted, unlike donations votes are anonymous. But yes, a vote for or a donation to a campaign to strip a minority of your fellow citizens of a civil right currently enjoyed by all is objectively an act against said minority.
Were there many gays that were FOR Prop 8? Who wanted it to pass and take away the right to marry? Have I missed something huge?
I read an article on HuffPo (can't remember who it was by) that said the cost of health benefits for a civil-union partner were taxed as income - unlike those for a married partner. True or not? Or does it depend on the state?
Still clueless, apparently, but seeking enlightenment.
He voted with the majority to protect marriage.
From...what? Nobody has ever answered that question. It's always conveniently glossed over when someone who makes such an idiotic statement is called on it.
Stay out of religion, and religious people will stay out of politics.
Gee, does your planet have, like, oxygen and kittens and stuff, too? 'Cause you're sure not from THIS one.
Do the religious folk not really believe that? Maybe they feel like they need to promp God since we haven't turned into pillars of salt already.
#62, one of the guys debating Dan last week said it would take him an hour to explain how gays getting married would hurt him. (Without interruption or question, of course...)
Hey Jordan, would you be so supportive of folks like Raddon if they had donated to the KKK? Nation of Islam? Aryan Nations? Do you find funding of ALL kinds of bigotry acceptable? Or do you just excuse anti-gay bigotry?
The LDS church has taken a very public and explicit stance here, and is acting on it as an institution. Ergo, this is not guilt by association. Holding dues-paying members of an organization accountable for the actions that organization takes on their behalf is perfectly appropriate. Again, that's the whole point here. If I wrote a check for 10% of my yearly income to Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, I might expect to have to answer some questions about my support for their public actions.
If I were to "target" friends or associates of Mormons simply for their association with members of an explicitly anti-homosexual group, that would be in a sense be guilt by association. Except since I'm not the State, the only consequence of such "guilt" would be criticism, so again hardly a threat to anybody's personal liberties.
I'm not aware of any Constitutional right to be exempt from criticism.
Since you are making the claim through inference, why don't you make it explicit. Explain exactly how a donation to a proposition to remove the right of marriage from gays is not an act of anti-gay bigotry.
still think it is small fry
our loss was from a fucked campaign on out side
blame, blame, finger, finger - waste of time if we continue to give tens of millions to crummy ballot campaigns
they, No on 8, did MOST everything wrong - - or more pointedly, they did NOTHING
and frankly, the MORMONS could give a crap about a bunch of whining homos
scratch the surface and you will find hard core survivors - bolstered by their own history and hard work
but then, again, where is the rage about the Catholic Bishops???
Lots of gay boys are lapsed Catholics, so do they feel better letting the Bishops who organized the campaingn off the hook??
Jesus, this is hard to sort out ... I detest all organized churches for good reasons it seems. I did suck dick at Sunday school as I remember...
More to the point, who are YOU to decide what is a bigoted cause and what isn't? What if PETA decided to start shit about people who voted against that animal rights initiative in CA? Would you be saying, yeah it's totally reasonable for people to lose their jobs because they don't support animal rights?
You assholes, and Dan first among them, ought to read Sen. Smith's Declaration of Conscience, delivered at the height of McCarthyite witch hunts. It might provide some much needed perspective on the issue.
You have still failed to address the question. In fact, you seem to be implying that there is no possible objective definition or measure of bigotry.
Again, I no of no one who has been fired for supporting Prop 8. Raddon quit, most likely because he felt he had that public knowledge of his donation had destroyed any relationship of trust he had with his gay and gay friendly colleges. Same for the guy in Sacramento.
I certainly wouldn't expect to maintain good relationships with a bunch of Mormon co workers if I donated money for a petition denying them the right to baptize the dead without their permission or make magic underoos. Would you? (note don't expect that you'll actually address this question, rather than respond with just personal attacks)
You do understand that there's a difference between protests by private citizens and actions taken by the government, right? Is somebody holding Congressional hearings for Mormons and their associates? No? Then this isn't McCarthyism.
If you think it's right for people to lose their jobs over their political views, that is of course your right. It is also my right to label the current climate in the gay community as McCarthyite, and harmful to long-term prospects for equal marriage.
It is also my right to distance myself from the majority of responses to Prop 8, because I don't wish to be associated with the intolerant and racist screeds that have been centered on recriminations, in particular against the African-American community and the Mormon Church.
If you are a bigot, Johnny, and from your magic underoos comment we can see that you are, you can't expect me not to call you out on being one.
No one said it wasn't your right to distance yourself from anything you don't like. You can distance yourself from the entire queer community for all I care. You can even attack it, as you have been doing.
I would also point out that members of the Mormon Church are free to distance themselves from the bigoted anti-gay campaign of the LDS. They are also free to try and hide their bigoted actions behind the smoke screen of "private religious beliefs".
Oh, and one last time, perhaps it will sink in with you. No one has lost their jobs over their political views .
Maybe one good thing that might come out of this is that the next time the LDS Church tries to armtwist members into donating by looking at their tithing records and seeing what they can afford, the members will demur in one way or another.
===========
When I sent in my resignation letter to the Church two weeks ago, I told them I'd donated to No on 8 and No on 102 here in Arizona. I don't have a problem with people knowing I donated. I WANTED the Church to know. What's Raddon's problem?
mouths are. Hey, is lynching still illegal? I hate people with different morals
than mine, especially Mormans. ;)
You made that up, didn't you.
Yes, that game's over.
Not really. Its got nothing to do with love them or hate them. Its about "believes gay people are equal and entitled to the same treatment as everyone else" or "gay people are inferior, and therefore its ok to deny them their rights." And if you choose the latter position, you can expect to get backlash because you are an asshole.
[quote]It is also my right to distance myself from the majority of responses to Prop 8, because I don't wish to be associated with the intolerant and racist screeds that have been centered on recriminations, in particular against the African-American community and the Mormon Church.[/quote]
By all means, distance yourself. Wait, you're still here. Why is that again?
Really? I have no problem what so ever with people, whose morals differ from mine. Where I do have a problem is with people, who try and create laws that force me live according to their morals, rather than my own.
This is a list of Nazi German Concentration Camps.
At the end of the war the German citizens were forcibly marched through them so they could see What They Had Allowed! What They Had Allowed!
Why should Mormons be protected from their same atrocities. The Mormon Meadows Massacre happened so long ago but it is their essence.
The only way to alter Maniacal Mind Sets is confront them with Reality.
They are Not the chosen ones nor superior.
Mormonism is No democracy perhaps it should be.
It is absolutely inexcusable that they would be willing to back this man up. I'm glad they finally yielded to sense, but it is very troubling that they resisted at first.
I'm going to be regarding both of them in a new light from now on.
One of the consequences of public action, of making your opinions known in an attempt to persuade others of them, is the possibility that others will find them reprehensible. If you fear they will disassociate themselves from you afterward, you should keep them to yourself, and keep them private.
Aside from disagreeing with you about what a private matter is -- I think you're much too restrictive, Dan -- I think you're on the right track.
1. People have a freedom of association (and by implication the freedom of non-association with people they don't like). This was used to explain why blacks could be denied access to public accommodations. Well, if that's the case, why are conservatives crying foul just because we don't want to do business with people who treat us like crap?
2. You can't legislate morality. This was used by people who would, arguendo, admit that racism was wrong, but that you couldn't use a statute to make people act non-racist. Do you notice that ever since Lawrence v. Texas, they've completely dropped the "you can't legislate morality" line?
"The director of LAFF has no such luxury, and if you like, we can just flip that example - a gay director of LAFF having to resign because of Mormon protests at his donating 1500 to the No on 8 campaign. Are you telling me Savage and you and whoever else would be in favour of it then?"
NONSENSE.
This is a ridiculous analogy. The director got flack because his donation TOOK AWAY OTHER PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS.
Joe McCarthy was vilified because he was performing a witchhunt. Withhunts target INNOCENT PEOPLE. This director's ACTIONS AWAY OTHER PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS.
That being said, I thought that it was really terrible that so many people said that they would never consider voting for Mitt Romney for President solely because of his religion. I actually had sympathy for the plight of the Mormons for a while there. Those days, however, are now long gone. One would think that a group of people so distrusted and despised as the Mormons wouldn't be so quick to go after a group even more distrusted and despised than them, but I guess that's what bullied people do in situations like this. They find someone with less standing and less clout and bully them. The difference between gays and Mormons, apparently, is that gay people will actually fight back.
His statement about religion is a gem!
Harvey was killed, at 10:55am - on Nov. 27, 1978.
Today is the 30th anniversary of his death.
If only he were with us today.