Pharyngula

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 10:04 PM

Oh noes. The hate group is fussy.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 13, 2009 10:09 PM

I keep on linking to this on pretty much every "halp! we're being persecuted!!!" thread, but it's always, always relevant.

The Persecuted Hegemon: I suspect that [Christian] persecution complex is an inevitable side effect of sectarian hegemony. Once you believe that your faith requires cultural dominance, and that it deserves it, then any threat to that dominance -- even just the unwelcome reminder of the existence of alternative points of view -- is perceived as a threat, as a kind of persecution. Thus, for example, Hannukah is perceived as a threat to, and an attack on, Christmas.
The persecuted hegemon is thus an oxymoronic creature driven by an oxymoronic principle: non-reciprocal justice. For these folks, turnabout is never fair play, turnabout is merely backwards. Thus when others respond to them in kind, or even simply remind them of the Golden Rule, they take offense, as though this constitutes an injustice toward them.

Posted by: Aquaria | October 13, 2009 10:12 PM

Fucking unbelievable.

This man is either so fucking retarded that he doesn't know his own church's history regarding African-Americans, or he knows it and is just plain evil enough to think no one else would catch his hypocrisy.

Then again, it could be both.

Posted by: formosus | October 13, 2009 10:28 PM

To use an analogy that I pinched from Matt of the Non-Prophets:

"Not all discrimination is bad. For example, if you are hitting someone with a stick, and I take that stick away from you, I am limiting your rights. But not in a bad way."

Actually, it was more cleverly worded. But, in a nutshell, no one has the right to infringe on the rights of others.

Also, I was still religious (marginally) when Prop 8 came up in California. And I still voted hell no. There are no logical arguments for withholding rights from people just because they happen to love members of the same sex. And to think I wanted to join the Knights of Columbus when I was a kid.

Fuck them and fuck the Mormons. Your generation will soon die out, and you know it. Let me say that I can't fucking wait, and it can't happen soon enough.

Posted by: Fil | October 13, 2009 10:34 PM

Mormon's, lol.

They almost make Scientology believers look sane.

Actually no, both belief systems are batshit crazy.

Golden plates...woo! Hahahahaha!

Posted by: Happy Heart | October 13, 2009 10:39 PM

I once met a Mormon who was wearing a name tag that said Elder Berry. No joke. I had to to try very hard not to laugh.

Posted by: PixelFish | October 13, 2009 10:40 PM

Thanks for linking this, PZed. And yes, everybody go poll-crash the poll Johnny has relinked at comment 6.

My desk should have a larger groove where my head has been hitting it.

This speech is from the LDS site and is either the speech Oaks delivered Monday or is derived closely from it. Much of the speech focuses on the slightly askew version of the world wherein atheists effectively silence all religious people. In this world, there is no distinction made between asking a religious person to abide by secular law and keep religion out of the public sphere, and denying religious people office altogther. Strawman atheists are held up as bogeymen and denying other people's civil rights takes the form of "defending civil rights".

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom

Posted by: pcarini | October 13, 2009 10:42 PM

They do just fine on their own, thank you very much!

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 13, 2009 10:43 PM

"It may be offensive to some -- maybe because it hadn't occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era," he said.

The man is 77. He probably supported the LDS Church's bigoted policies during the Civil Rights Movement.

Posted by: $1.386sx ® | October 13, 2009 10:57 PM

Lol, that guy thinks he's an "apostle". Institutionalized cultism. Gotta love it!

Posted by: Alverant | October 13, 2009 11:14 PM

So the Mormons claim they're being persecuted because they're not allowed to persecute others. That pretty much sums of christian thought in the last 30 years.

Posted by: ArmandTanzarian | October 13, 2009 11:22 PM

Cue the "But we were persecuted too!" comments.

Seriously, of all the comparisons you could dig up, you took black people in the 60s?

Posted by: Lynna | October 13, 2009 11:34 PM

Here are a few comments from the ex-mo site. These comments are from people who lived inside the beast, so they know what they're talking about. I don't think the commenters will mind me bringing their thoughts to a wider audience:

When gay marriage advocates can pass laws forcing Mormons to sit in the back of the bus, use segragated bathrooms and drinking fountains and attend segregated schools, give me a call Elder Oaks.

The mormons are framing this as "Religious Freedom is Being Threatened" on their web and print outlets. This is a tactic to align themselves with fundies, with Bill Donahue, with Focus on the Family, etc. For those that don't know, someone broke some church windows in an almost-all-mormon town -- maybe even disaffected mormons? Anyway, my local news outlets are playing this up big-time as a "hate crime." It's all bollocks.

Posted by: pcarini | October 13, 2009 11:38 PM

There were a myriad of instances of voter and donor intimidation and harassment after the vote on Proposition 8.

Yes, if you change the meaning of 'intimidation' to mean picketing and boycott. Remove instances of these two (completely legal and commendable) behaviors from your 'myriad' and you don't have much left. This doesn't make the few actual cases any less deplorable.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 13, 2009 11:40 PM

Yes, if you change the meaning of 'intimidation' to mean picketing and boycott.

But, bigots have every right to expect to continue to get money from me after they actively work to harm me. And I have no right to tell other people that such folks are hate group members out to harm us, and that we shouldn't be giving money to them.

Posted by: bad Jim | October 13, 2009 11:42 PM

"Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights," Oaks said.

The California Supreme Court disagreed, at least before Prop. 8 changed the state constitution.

Posted by: CalGeorge | October 13, 2009 11:45 PM

I hope the LGBT community pickets the fucking Mormons forever for that bullshit they pulled in California, and for the crimes they've committed against gays.

"...as late as 20 years ago, the church counseled men with homosexual tendencies to participate in shock-aversion, vomit-aversion and other heinous experimental therapies...."

http://qsaltlake.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1402:mos-vs-mos-the-battle-between-mormons-and-gays&catid=43:feature&Itemid=4

Posted by: raven | October 13, 2009 11:45 PM

There were a myriad of instances of voter and donor intimidation and harassment after the vote on Proposition 8. This was not limited to members of the LDS Church, but the LDS Church got most of the press.

Source?? This sounds like total bullcrap lies. It is also perfectly legal to call bigots, bigots whether they are a religion or not. It isperfectly legal to call the LDS church a made up fiction mind control cult, especially when it is the truth.

If the LDS church wants to play the politics of hate, discrimination, and bigotry, they have to realize that these are unpopular positions for many Americans. They get pushed, they push back.

The LDS church is simply trying to impose their beliefs on everyone by force of law. That hasn't been popular with many in the USA since the time the Puritans started hanging witches.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 13, 2009 11:47 PM

As with the previous post, this is beyond gay-rights and has everything to do with civility in public discourse.

FYI, condemnations of "uncivility" are a tool of oppression: when the dominant group cries that the oppressed groups refuse to play by the rules that the dominant group established, you know it's all just bullshit to protect their unearned cultural privilege.

Posted by: pcarini | October 13, 2009 11:50 PM

And as for the blacks and the Mormon church thing, the comments of saying the LDS church is racist because you quote a couple Mormon leaders (completely unrepresentative of the whole) is intellectually dishonest.

You do understand that Mr. Oaks was using the civil rights fight of the 60s as an example, correct? The church had an institutionalized policy of racial exclusion until 1978. Intellectually dishonest, my ass.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 13, 2009 11:55 PM

Cicero,

That's like me using a quote from Abraham Lincoln where he said black should not be allowed to vote or serve on juries (a view he later changed) to suggest that all Americans are racist.

I thought it may help if everyone actually read the entire talk given by Oaks rather than taking his words out of context.

Posted by: Kamaka | October 13, 2009 11:57 PM

Umm, no, it is the issue. I'm fine with polyamory, but where do a bunch of polygamists get off dictating marriage rules for other folks?

The mormon/catholic alliance against homosexual marriage is quite telling, because I doubt they agree on much else.

Posted by: pcarini | October 14, 2009 12:03 AM

That's like me using a quote from Abraham Lincoln where he said black should not be allowed to vote or serve on juries (a view he later changed) to suggest that all Americans are racist.

I'll take the man who says something racist but abolishes slavery over any million assholes who claim Jesus's love while actively supporting repression.

Posted by: StoaPoikile | October 14, 2009 12:04 AM

Re: pcarini | October 13, 2009 11:38 PM #27

If you think boycotting and picketing are the extent of what I am talking about, you probably haven't followed this very closely. Look, I am not saying Mormons are being lynched, but there have been reports of violence, many documented instances of violent threats, rocks thrown through windows at a number of Church meetinghouses, etc.

But let's put all of that aside and just suppose it is boycotting and picketing only. The intent of these activities is very clear - intimidation. In other words - "don't you dare sign one of these petitions, donate to this cause, put a sign in your yard, or vote for this proposition or we will make your life a living hell." This really isn't complicated - the intent of such activity is intimidation, pure and simple. I fully agree with the Mormon Elder that it is undemocratic.

Posted by: Lynna | October 14, 2009 12:06 AM

pcarini @36: Yes, I think you're right that most of the "violence" comes off as juvenile. And the idea that kids vandalize a church they also attend is backed up by a few of the church-goers I know. It's mostly stupidity, and not persecution, nor a real threat to "religious freedom." I heard that rocks were thrown through glass doors at some church-owned buildings in Jordan, Utah.

I think there are groups of crazy christians (James Sweet mentioned Baptists on a previous thread) that picket the LDS buildings near temple square. The crazies also occasionally phone in bomb threats. I think their take on it is that the Mormons are evil. This is also stupid.

Posted by: CalGeorge | October 14, 2009 12:07 AM

Aversion Therapy is no longer practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The practice of electroshock therapy at BYU ended in the 1970s. Aversion therapy had to be abandoned by BYU because electroshock aversion therapy failed to cure homosexuality. Reparative therapy programs today use behavior modification instead of the barbaric methods employed in the 70s by the Mormon church.

Evergreen, a group with ties to the Mormon Church, and Exodus International are two of the largest organizations reparative therapy organizatoins in the United States. The American Psychological Association does not recognize these programs. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness and is not listed in the DSM-IV.

http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cfm/byu_electroshock_aversion_therapy

Not the actions of a persecuted minority.

They won't even let gays kiss on church property. That's how paranoid and pathetic they are.

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 14, 2009 12:10 AM

Cicero, regarding racism, we're not talking about a few isolated, out of context quotes from a few Mormons. We're talking about official LDS church doctrine through 1977.

Posted by: raven | October 14, 2009 12:14 AM

There are several websites that give details about how much individual Mormons contributed and where they live with instructions to harass them. The LDS temple in LA was tagged as were several church buildings and members were intimidated from going to church. However, the problem was that this grouped voiced their opinion and then were told they shouldn't be allowed to VOTE!!

There are 33 million people in California and probably over a million Mormons. Someone spray painting a temple hardly constitutes persecution. It is vandalism and not right or smart but hardly indicative of some generalized persecution.

To put it in perspective, gays face daily ubiquitous discrimination and are occasionally beaten up and killed.

Wake me up when someone starts killing Mormons for walking down the street. And if the LDS church promotes hate, don't be surprised when people hate them back.

Posted by: Kamaka | October 14, 2009 12:14 AM

They won't even let gays kiss on church property.

Gays kissing?? Ewwwww.

Is that allowed anywhere?

Posted by: pcarini | October 14, 2009 12:15 AM

If you think boycotting and picketing are the extent of what I am talking about, you probably haven't followed this very closely. Look, I am not saying Mormons are being lynched, but there have been reports of violence, many documented instances of violent threats, rocks thrown through windows at a number of Church meetinghouses, etc.

Fine, provide links to credible sources, please. Churches are vandalized (particularly in Utah) on a fairly steady basis, so an instance of vandalism isn't enough to support your case. Find me instances of vandalism where there is more than just speculation on the ksl.com messageboards tying it to gay rights and we might have someting. I'm again not stating that such a case doesn't exist -- just provide a credible source.

But let's put all of that aside and just suppose it is boycotting and picketing only. The intent of these activities is very clear - intimidation.

So the party complaining that its free speech is being violated is also intimidated by the thought of people picketing? The boycotts serve a very clear purpose, which is to ensure you don't financially support someone with whom you disagree, or in this case someone who is directly harming you and your friends.

You'd have to be some sort of dumbass or ideologue to believe that picketing and boycott are undemocratic ways of getting your message across.

Posted by: Kamaka | October 14, 2009 12:19 AM

Mormons are not taught to follow leaders blindly

This is a joke, right?

Posted by: Lynna | October 14, 2009 12:22 AM

Cicero @34: Per your advice, I did read the entire speech. It brought up more questions and presented more instances of Oaks twisting and shaping history to fit his preconceptions.
For example, Oaks said:

An 1833 revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the Lord established the United States Constitution by wise men whom he raised up for that very purpose (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80). The Lord also declared that this constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77).

There is not a nation or a dynasty now occupying the Earth which acknowledges almighty God as their lawgiver....I go emphatically, virtuously, and humanely, for a theodemocracy.... [Neighbor newspaper, Nauvoo, Ill]

Posted by: Cicero | October 14, 2009 12:24 AM

@ truthspeaker

Pretty sure that was the policy of the United States until the late 1960's.

let's quote some more recent LDS leaders:

"God’s second commandment, love thy neighbor, clearly leaves no room for racism" - Maxwell

"Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church" - Hinckley

I do not condon racism spoke by any LDS leader in the past. It was wrong absolutely and completely and any LDS person today who justifies racism is not living the teachings of the Church.

Here is the commentary: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction

Posted by: $1.386sx ® | October 14, 2009 12:27 AM

This may be tough to understand but the fact that a leader is appointed by God does NOT mean that everything they say is OF God. They are men, not God.

Not tough to understand at all. Nor is it tough to understand that people who are appointed by God often can are total dogmatic thick-headed jerks, since we have many fine examples of such. The thing that is tough to understand for those mired in religious indoctrination is that they aren't appointed by God.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 14, 2009 12:28 AM

Pretty sure that was the policy of the United States until the late 1960's.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 14, 2009 12:31 AM

So what you're saying is that the LDS church is only 10 years more racist than the rest of the country. That's reassuring.

Posted by: Cicero | October 14, 2009 12:36 AM

@Lynna

Haha! Firstly, I don't think those comments go contrary to each other. One is saying the constitution protects all flesh, the is Joseph Smith (likely speaking as a really charasmatic man and probably not on behalf of God)saying we need to be lead by God. I don't know the context of Joseph Smith's words so I can't really comment on them but it's funny how people try to suggest that Mormons are these regressively conservative people. Pretty sure Harry Reid is a Mormon!!! So are a lot of democrats and people pushing for gay-rights!

But that wasn't your point right. You're problem is that you're so focused on tearing down a man and I don't care because the man doesn't matter! That's like me telling everyone that Moses was a murderer (because he killed the guy in Eqypt). The man never mattered. People who fault mormonism for flaws in people or even the organization itself have missed the whole point!

And what other questions did the article raise?

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 14, 2009 12:37 AM

Posted by: Cicero Author Profile Page | October 14, 2009 12:24 AM

@ truthspeaker

Pretty sure that was the policy of the United States until the late 1960's.

You're off by a few years (the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964), but regardless, that does not take away from the point that racism against black was official LDS doctrine until 1978. Nobody disputes that racism was codified into the laws of many US States through 1964. But earlier you tried to claim that any charges of racism against the LDS church were based on a few statements by a few leaders.

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | October 14, 2009 12:39 AM

lol. You do know Moses never existed right? But that's beside the point. It does matter. He is representative of a whole move, and if he can commit an evil what's to stop his flock from doing it.

Posted by: pcarini | October 14, 2009 12:43 AM

People who fault mormonism for flaws in people or even the organization itself have missed the whole point!

So if the church itself, its people and its prophets can all be so quickly discounted, what's left? The Book for Mormon itself?

Posted by: Cicero | October 14, 2009 12:47 AM

@pcarini

I absolutely agree with you. There should be an objective measure of intimidation. Actually, I'm not really sure what the legal definition of intimdation is. That's a really great point though.

Here's what I found on wiki (I know...not the most legit site, but it was cited :) )

Intimidation is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm.

Did the LDS people fear injury or harm? Well, not sure what the definition there is either. Does that mean physical injury or harm? Or financial or emotional? I think that is up to the courts.

Anyway, sorry I can't discuss more. Going to bed.

To state my opinion clearly. I am a Mormon (Obviously), and I do not condon any form of racism. Furthermore, I realize that the LDS Church's position on gay-marriage seems hypocritical. I think many within the church struggle with reconciling it (read Harry Reid's comments...heck, he is the one pushing to repeal don't ask don't tell...that's right...a Mormon!!). This was not meant to be a commentary on gay-rights, but rather on understanding and how easy it is to inculcate intollerance without being willing to listen to each other.

Posted by: Sanction | October 14, 2009 12:51 AM

Cicero says:

Again, my comments are not about gay-rights or racism. They are about understanding and civility.

How do you propose that we be understanding and civil about an institutionalized promotion of bigotry?

Violence against LDS temples and individuals based on the beliefs that they promote or hold is wrong, just as violence against atheists or gays based on their nonbeliefs or lives is wrong.

But short of violence, I decline your invitation to express "understanding and civility" toward bigots, individual or institutional. In short,

Fuck off, bigots.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 14, 2009 12:55 AM

Cicero,

it's funny how people try to suggest that Mormons are these regressively conservative people. Pretty sure Harry Reid is a Mormon!!!

You do know that Harry Reid is pretty damn conservative on social issues, right?

60% of Utahan are Mormons.

Utah voted 63.09% for McCain/Palin in '08, and the Republicans running for the three House seats each got more than 63% of the vote too. Huntsman/Herbert (Rep) won 77.9% of the vote the same year for governor.

Only Oklahoma and Wyoming had a higher proportion of McCain/Palin votes than Utah. Those are really damn conservative states, too.

Pew US Religious Landscape survey says Mormons are the most conservative of any religious group in the USA
Mormons are one of the most conservative religious groups in the country. To say otherwise is to lie.

Posted by: Cerberus | October 14, 2009 12:59 AM

Wait, is the mormon bigot seriously claiming with a straight face that:

a) Boycotts, the single most tepid and peaceful form of protest on the planet is the equivalent of say what happened to my friend when she tried to counterprotest a mormon Pro-prop 8 gathering and was attacked with signs or indeed more aptly to the assumed metaphor, what anti-choice activists have been doing since they decided it was just faster to start shooting people?

and b) that the Mormon Church enforcing segregation for decades after it was fucking illegal in this country to do so as well as it's well-documented history being at the forefront of fighting against civil rights for black people was actually them standing up for the little man. Furthermore, all the real mormons were marching with Dr. King posing as young jews?

Oh and let's not forget c) ignoring the fact that the Mormon Church is being "targeted" because they currently are the fucking anti-gay movement. Most of the funding is coming directly from the tax-exempt mormon church which is a fucking violation of campaign finance and tax-exempt status laws, the leadership are front-groups for the Mormon Church and in every campaign being invesitgated since California, they have openly broken and ignored the state laws for campaign finance disclosure, often committing perjury in the process.

Also, really tired of the new favorite conservative meme. No, fighting against oppression or commenting on oppression isn't reverse oppression or being the real oppressors. It's called being a fucking human being. If gays funded a national organization to strip away all marriage rights for mormons as well as civil rights in general, I'd damn well expect mormons to point that out and to react negatively about it. I would even expect them to swear.

Because that's what fucking human beings do when they're being fucked around.

Posted by: Azkyroth | October 14, 2009 1:05 AM

If you think boycotting and picketing are the extent of what I am talking about, you probably haven't followed this very closely. Look, I am not saying Mormons are being lynched, but there have been reports of violence, many documented instances of violent threats, rocks thrown through windows at a number of Church meetinghouses, etc.

But let's put all of that aside and just suppose it is boycotting and picketing only. The intent of these activities is very clear - intimidation. In other words - "don't you dare sign one of these petitions, donate to this cause, put a sign in your yard, or vote for this proposition or we will make your life a living hell." This really isn't complicated - the intent of such activity is intimidation, pure and simple. I fully agree with the Mormon Elder that it is undemocratic.

I believe you've been asked once already to cite some sources....

Even assuming what you say is true, however:

"MOO-OM! HE HIT ME BACK! AND I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO HIM!"

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | October 14, 2009 1:07 AM

More from the Pew research on Mormons:

Most Mormons say they are committed to the traditional beliefs and practices of their religion. Two-thirds (68%) prefer preserving these traditions to adjusting beliefs and practices (23%) or to adopting modern beliefs and practices (3%). Mormons are more likely to favor preserving traditional beliefs and practices than the affiliated public generally (44%); in fact, only Jehovah's Witnesses come close to rivaling Mormons on this measure (61%).

And the traditional beliefs and practices of the LDS Chuch are bigotry and misogyny. It's disgusting system of entrenched white male power.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 14, 2009 1:09 AM

pcarini, I laughed when I saw your correction with the White and Delightsome link, but now that I've read how chief LDS church leaders pushed malignant racism, I feel sick to my stomach.

Lynna, the Steve Benson piece contains plenty of quotes that read like the wingnut storm we heard about Obama in the last few months before the election and still hear today from teabaggers and dittoheads.

Posted by: pcarini | October 14, 2009 1:14 AM

The Church is imperfect because it is run by men (though inspired...and yes, it can be inspired and imperfect).

Yet when these imperfect men decide that their flock should be encouraged, from the pulpit, to financially support the effort to pass hateful, bigoted legislation everybody hops to. Don't you see the problem here?

I'll spell it out: they're wrong. Sometime, probably about twenty years after we've federally outlawed discrimination based on sexual preference, they'll realize it, at which point "god" will tell them that gays are ok. The leadership can safely pull an about-face on this, and the people who supported bigotry don't have to feel bad because they were only following orders from above. Neat trick, that, but no less shitty for it.

Posted by: John Morales | October 14, 2009 1:17 AM

raven,

To put this in perspective, who knows how many gays are killed in the USA every year for walking down the street.

I'm not American, but still am appalled by this:
Second suspect ID'd in gay-bias beating that broke every rib in Queens man Jack Price's body.

Posted by: Cerberus | October 14, 2009 1:27 AM

raven 90-

Can do you one better. Trans people, a tiny subgroup of the general queer community, counting only the murders this year for being queer or trans in America and only counting up to the end of August:

12 murdered in cold blood. This year, only counting 9 months worth of this year. Not intimidated, not boycotted, murdered for being visibly queer, because queer people are accepted targets.

Numbers via Trans Day of Remembrance.

And wasn't there that SF woman who was assaulted during the campaign for having a no on 8 window sticker?

But Cicero, don't let me interrupt, please do tell me how some mormons when they went to church had to pass by some angry people who they just fucked with for sport and that made them feel sad because they were filthy degenerates and some of them looked brown or worse jewish.

Posted by: Brainy Jello | October 14, 2009 1:34 AM

@ Sanction #98 - "What part of 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...' gives any suggestion of any "special place of religion in the United States Constitution"? Dumbass."

I would guess he was taught rather a lot about the Constitution, even if you don't like the way he interprets it. Just be grateful his name isn't much more familiar to you.

Posted by: $1.386sx ® | October 14, 2009 1:34 AM

So what do we hold on to? For God so loved the world that He sent his only begotten Son. That whosover believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. That's it.

Cicero, this is obvious baloney because there are thousands of religions out there. There's no "that's it" about it. But yet you think this is the grandest case you could make, despite its obvious baloneyness. This is your brain on religion, folks.

And you think there is something profound about your statement, in spite of the utter lameness and outrageously dumb nonsensical way for a "god" to go about doing something. This is your brain on religion, folks.

Posted by: raven | October 14, 2009 1:43 AM

cerberus:

Can do you one better. Trans people, a tiny subgroup of the general queer community, counting only the murders this year for being queer or trans in America and only counting up to the end of August:

12 murdered in cold blood. This year, only counting 9 months worth of this year. Not intimidated, not boycotted, murdered for being visibly queer, because queer people are accepted targets.

Numbers via Trans Day of Remembrance.

Good Cthulhu, 12, this year? How many Mormons were murdered for being Mormon this year. Roughly zero, I'm sure. And there are a lot more Mormons than trans.

Strange. Do you have any idea why trans get targeted for murder? This is something I don't pay much attention to or follow closely.

I'll add here that suicide is a leading cause of death in teen agers. Many of those for some reason or another are gays. Something about being a hated and discriminated against group and being a kid just doesn't mix well.

Posted by: mythusmage | October 14, 2009 1:51 AM

PZ, since you've been spending so much time bashing loonies and moonbats here I thought I'd recommend a different topic. A few months back you wrote about placozoans in Seed, noting that they were the most primitive known animals. Rather recently I've learned that that's not necessarily the case.

Consider the myxozoans (introductory). Once counted among the protists or slime molds, most recently genetic work has shown a closer relationship to the cnidarians, and some researchers think that the myxozoans are derived cnidarians, though I'm more apt to think them as ancestral to jellyfish, hydra, and corals.

I'd like to see you post about myxozoans, and I'm wondering if there's support for this among Pharyngulites. Would Pharyngulites like to see a myxozoan post, as a break from the loon bashing and moonbat reaming?

Posted by: frankosaurus | October 14, 2009 1:59 AM

magic underwear. What more is there to say?

Posted by: Nathan | October 14, 2009 2:00 AM

Wait - just one quick, off-topic question, Cicero and others (although, I suspect you've spammed the comments page and are off, never to look back at the responses) -

I'm curious - what would your response be to PZ's post, or the Mormon church in general if you had a gay, lesbian, or transgendered child? Hypothetically, of course.

Posted by: Cerberus | October 14, 2009 2:13 AM

Nathan 111-

Well if they're anything like the mormon parents of one of my lesbian friends. Disown the unclean creature, cut off all contact lest it blight the purity and pray to the bishop to save them.

Mormons are really big on the purity doctrine, hence the racism. One drop of sin in a family doesn't just fuck up that person's chance of getting into mormon heaven, but the chances of every single living mormon relative. Thus a queer mormon often has several choices, start lying or entering "reparative therapy" in order to protect grandma, be disowned to save the rest of the family from hell, or get the entire family on the church's shitlist.

Parents worth a damn choose option 3. Sadly she didn't have those, though from what I hear, she's managing to slowly slide her sister down the lonesome path to Hell by occasionally calling her up on the phone and having gasp coffee with them.

I actually got a version of the mormon disownment from my best friend in middle school. Apparently at the time there were rumors I was unaware of that I was a gay male. Apparently they reached the boys parents and he was forbid from having even conversations with me for fear that it was catching. Being a kid at the time he did what they said and we didn't have a conversation again until late high school where he apologized for being an ass for his parent's religion.

In odd coincidences, the person who became my current best friend after that incident happened to be raised an evangelical christian. That act was the beginning of a slow ride into fully rejecting that faith to become a norse pagan.

Ah cults and children...

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | October 14, 2009 2:25 AM

Nathan wrote:

The lack of lesbian marriage in religious propaganda is somewhat curious to me.

It's because girl-on-girl action is hawt. And Utah has the highest number of online porn subscriptions out of any state in the U.S.

Posted by: pixelfish | October 14, 2009 2:41 AM

"Completely unrepresentative of the Church as a whole...."

See, that whole line would have a lot more credibility if the example I cited earlier--Ezra Taft Benson--wasn't the appointed head of the whole frickin' LDS church for a number of years. Thirteenth Prophet of the church.

The head of the Church. Wrote. A. Racist. Pamphlet.

The man who was supposedly called of God. The man called to lead 10 million people....in theory.

Just happened to be a racist.

That's not some schmoe dug up from the depths of nowhere.

Incidentally, I linked to the text of the entire talk several posts before Cicero condescendingly demanded that we read the thing in context. Yay for reading comprehension!

RE: persecution - I can damn well tell you that most Mormons in Utah don't feel persecution for being Mormons, EXCEPT IN THEIR HEADS. When you casually wander around, assessing everybody by their church calling, and calling them Brother and Sister right and left, you're obviously not worried about people knowing you're Mormon. On the other hand, try telling random people you're an atheist in Utah. Chilly reception, lemme tell you.

The biggest sign that Mormons don't understand oppression and persecution for their beliefs: They think arguments and boycotts and once-in-ten-or-twenty-years vandalism is oppression. I didn't get it when I was Mormon, although I did always wonder at the Especially for Mormons stories where Peter Priesthood bravely stands up for his beliefs at a party....because that never happened in Utah. Ever. Everybody was Mormon. I could name only two openly non-Mormon kids in a graduating class of over 900. You tell me who has the power there.

Posted by: John Morales | October 14, 2009 3:14 AM

Methinks Porno is a Poe.

Posted by: Walton | October 14, 2009 4:15 AM

Cicero,

First off, I should be clear that I don't hate Mormons any more than I categorically "hate" any other religious group. As a non-theist, I don't agree with Mormon beliefs - nor do I agree with Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, or any other orthodox theistic beliefs - but I'm sure there are plenty of individual Mormons who are decent people. Most people here would say the same, despite their (sometimes) rather overzealous rhetoric.

That said, the problem which many of us have with the LDS Church today is that it is among the best-organised and best-funded lobbies against gay rights in the US today. This is not to single out Mormons; the Catholic Church, and several conservative/fundamentalist Protestant sects, are equally anti-gay. But the LDS Church, due in part to its centralised top-down structure and its strict requirements of adherence to doctrine, is very effective at marshalling its followers to achieve political objectives - and, right now, its funding and resources are being directed towards a goal (banning gay marriage) which I and others consider to be discriminatory and wrong.

Although I do not find Mormon beliefs (or any other theistic beliefs) rationally defensible, I accept that, in a free society, you have a right to profess and practice whatever religious beliefs you choose. However, when you are motivated by your religious beliefs to campaign for political measures which take away rights from other people, I think the rest of us have a right (and indeed a duty) to oppose you in doing so.

Posted by: Strangest brew | October 14, 2009 4:36 AM

# 120

"And for a while Christians were rejoicing that they were becoming happy meals for lions."

And so they did and do the poor luvvies...prob is that never actually happened quite as the xians pretended it did!

True some were executed...'ad bestias' but it was apparently mainly a treat for criminals and enemies of the state...clue there maybe!...which might explain why some xians ended up on the menu.

In the main there is very little proof positive the mass xian execution via lion claims.
Several writings and mentions were penned by committed xians not impeachable sources considering the breed.
But even then mention of mass lion tea parties with xian aperitifs were not central to the text.
Certainly it seems plausible in later centuries that the Church exaggerated the point...what a shock?

What is very true is that Roman society got mightily peeved at the upstart whiners..that they were Christians mattered not a jot..Romans could not care less they were a poly theist society anyway...one more god or less did not bother unduly...what did was the mewling and constant complaining by 'christus' clowns...but that does not mean they were persecuted just disliked for being total prats and a general vexation to the spirit!

Strange how so very little changes!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 14, 2009 7:38 AM

This was not meant to be a commentary on gay-rights, but rather on understanding and how easy it is to inculcate intollerance without being willing to listen to each other.

The LDS Church has nothing of value to say to queer people. It's a hate organization.

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 14, 2009 7:54 AM

-Here's what it comes down to: bigots are entitled to be bigots and to profit from those they're working to harm.-

No they don't. Thats free speech gone mad. Mad I tell you. I wouldn't want to eat in a place that was pretending to be friendly then stabbing me in the back. It would be downright creepy. Would I trust them to serve me properly? or not put weird things in my food?

Posted by: Cowcakes | October 14, 2009 8:45 AM

I'm astounded that currently in the poll 38% of people agree that Mormons have been persecuted and obviously don't see the double standard that voting yes entails. Must be suffering from RIV, Religion Impaired Vision.

Posted by: MosesZD | October 14, 2009 8:54 AM

That's a pretty stupid analogy to make. First, because as pointed out, it's exactly opposite of what happened during the civil rights era. Second, it's a stupid analogy to make because the Mormons, as a church, were against civil rights and discriminated against blacks as an institution. Benson, the head of the Mormon Church back then, was a big-time racist. His grandson left the church, became an atheist, and published a huge expose on Benson's (and the Church's) racism and racist policies.

The Mormons also fought the ERA in the 1970s. Fought the right for women to vote. Fought the repeal of prohibition. The Mormons were also the reason Utah became the first state to outlaw marijuana and began the long process of its criminalization. The John Bircher's got lots of help and succor from the Mormon church.

That nut-job on Fox, Glen Beck, is a Mormon. And he does speak a lot of Mormon bullshit beliefs in his rants. Not to say all Mormons believer that crazy talk. But huge swaths of those cultists do believe that crap. Beck is on the more radical fringe perhaps, but it's not the same gulf of separation that most of us have from Beck's lunacy.

In fact, thinking about it, I believe there is not a single social issue I can name which the Mormons have been on the "correct" side (the one embracing equal rights, autonomy of the individual and respect for the individual and their personal-life choices).

Posted by: Insightful Ape | October 14, 2009 9:00 AM

To belabor the obvious, it is really a shame that Cicero the Idiot doesn't seem to understand, an organization with a "scripture" claiming that dark skin color is punishment for skin is racist by nature. You simply can't paper over that.
And by the way, Moses did commit premeditated murder. Just read Exodus. He looked to left and right to be sure no one was looking before he killed a man.

Posted by: SEF | October 14, 2009 9:06 AM

@ Cicero #30/#34:

Adding to intolerance is EXACTLY what happen during the civil rights era.

Justifiable intolerance of unjustified intolerance is a good thing though. Bigots should not be allowed to get away with imagining they're on the side of good. All that's required for their evil to prosper is for the genuinely good people to be tolerant of them and it. Mormon intolerance of (harmless and even beneficial) homsexual relationships is something which should not be tolerated.

The only interesting issue which could have been there would have been if the Mormons were trying to stand up for themselves having multiple partners in their marriages. Which, as it happens, I'd be much more willing to consider as similarly harmless and even beneficial - if it weren't for the fact that it was always one man with a harem of women, never the other way, and it was done oppressively rather than fairly. But they weren't doing that anyway. They were simply and unreasonably trying to oppress someone else.

Oaks wasn't suggesting that Mormons are like Blacks during civil rights by being beaten. He was suggesting that they were intimidated for their vote like those in the South were during civil rights.

Unfortunately, Oaks was still trying to liken himself to the blacks actually being intimidated (read: killed and tortured, not just picketed) for daring to consider themselves as equally human and equally deserving of the right to vote etc. Something which is actually the position of the homosexuals in the modern scenario and not of the Mormons.

And he was doing this rather than properly likening himself to the whites being intimidated back then, in a way which didn't happen (ie much beyond merely having people write to point out their racism), for trying to continue to oppress the blacks and demanding that it was their right to do so. Back then, just as in the modern scenario, that demand was typically made on the false basis of religion rather than any fair and rational grounds.

So he's dishonestly (and very nastily) trying to reject the role he actually plays and co-opt instead the sympathetic* role of his victims. That's a sign of an evil man more than merely a stupid one.

* ie deserving of sympathy.

Posted by: Strangest brew | October 14, 2009 9:32 AM

# 135

"That's a sign of an evil man more than merely a stupid one."

It would seem also to be a prerequisite sign of religion in general..the religious by default and the Mormon religion in particular...they are what they rant and rave about...Malevolent evil...and they are proud of it!

Posted by: CalGeorge | October 14, 2009 9:47 AM

Mormonism teaches that God (Heavenly Father Elohim) lives on a distant planet that orbits a huge star called Kolob with one or more Goddess wives (Heavenly Mother).

http://www.watchman.org/lds/progress.htm

Kolob means "the first creation." It is the name of the planet "nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." It is "first in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. . . . One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth." (Book of Abraham, pp. 34-35; Abra. 3:3-9.) ( Mormon Doctrine, p.428)

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/kolob.html

There's even a hymn to Kolob:

If you could hie to Kolob
In the twinkling an eye
And then continue onward
With that same speed to fly
Do you think that you could ever?
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where God began to be

Or see the grand being
Where space did not extend
Or view that last creation
Where gods and matter end
Methinks the spirits whispers,
“No man has found your space'
Nor seen the outside curtains
Where nothing has a place

The works of god continue
And worlds and live about
Improvement and progression
Have one eternal round
There is no end to worry
There is no end to love
There is no end to being
There is no death above

http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/fiddlesticks/if_you_could_hie_to_kolob-lyrics-1208280.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwYm_mKQ3Gs

When they aren't gay bashing, they're making stupid shit up or trying to defend the stupid shit that others made up a long time ago. Or soothingly singing about the stupid shit.

Vicious and stupid. A dangerous combination.

Posted by: Sparrowhawk | October 14, 2009 10:09 AM

So the bigots are crying persecution because they were called out as bigots for acting like bigots? Oh my, that is rich! Seriously, is there something wrong with the tax exemption laws? I know tax exempt religious organizations aren't allowed to endorse candidates, and I would HOPE that they aren't allowed to endorse ballot initiatives either, especially not directly use resources and funds to support them. There's just so much projection and irony going on here with this guy claiming that mormons are like blacks during civil rights....from the fact that they were trying to deny a group rights by supporting prop 8 to the fact that until recently the official church stance toward blacks was....well, nevermind. The whole thing is silly and that's no shocker for me since religious faith is involved. Just wow.

Posted by: raven | October 14, 2009 10:16 AM

wikipedia:

LGBT youth
Main article: Suicide among LGBT youth
A 1989 U.S. government study found that LGBT youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people.[6] This finding was supported by a 2001 study that found LGBT adolescents 2.3-2.5 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers.[7]

There you have it. Suicide is the third leading cause of death in 15-24 year olds. Gays are 2-3 times more likely than their peers to commit suicide.

Cicero claims we aren't civil to hate filled, malevolent bigots. Correct. I'll be civil when they stop driving kids to suicide, promoting hate and discrimination, and lying. This will be long after hell hits absolute zero.

I couldn't find any statistics on the suicide rate among gay LDS teen agers. Wouldn't surprise me if it is higher.

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 14, 2009 10:35 AM

Don't miss out on the fact that Jesus' original 1831 polygamy revelation to Joseph Smith commands Mormons to marry Indians so that their posterity would become "white."

[I]t is [Jesus Christ's] will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites [i.e., Native Americans], that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

Later, in Jesus' 1843 polygamy revelation, Jesus commanded Mormons to marry multiple women or be damned:

I [Jesus] reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. … And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. … [T]hen shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; … if she receive not this law … she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt.

This covenant directly from Jesus is "everlasting", so anyone who does not adhere to it is damned to Hell.

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 14, 2009 10:43 AM

nor pagans.

They will probably blame the atheists anyway...just in case.

Posted by: nigelTheBold | October 14, 2009 10:47 AM

Thus a queer mormon often has several choices, start lying or entering "reparative therapy" in order to protect grandma, be disowned to save the rest of the family from hell, or get the entire family on the church's shitlist.

A good friend of mine is a lesbian in a Mormon family. Because of the way the church (and neighbors, and even her own mother) have treated her, her dad has reconsidered his faith. When I met him, he had recently come to the conclusion that if there were a god (he was leaning to non-existence), he certainly wouldn't create a set of laws that would force a family to disown a loved one.

The church doesn't stand much chance on this subject. They are one of the last holdouts, along with fundies and more orthodox Catholics.

I think we'll see national same-sex marriage much sooner than most of us believe. (At least, I hope. The signs are good, I think.)

Posted by: Anri | October 14, 2009 10:54 AM

Cicero sez (in part):

Again, my comments are not about gay-rights or racism. They are about understanding and civility. To paraphrase John Locke, "it is not the diversity of opinions but the unwillingess to tolerate different opinions that has lead to all the bustles and wars that have occured."

Would you say that just such an unwillingness to tolerate different opinions might manifest as an unwillingness to recognize the right other people have to a lifestyle that differs from yours?

Maybe even a little?

Or is it not an issue when the intolerance comes from god?

Just something you might want to consider - when the LDS church is willing to extend understanding and civility, it might just deserve the same itself.

Posted by: Cerberus | October 14, 2009 11:37 AM

146-

Not true. Atheists call one group pagans.

Of course that group is pagans.

It also rules out gays as the culprit as they don't call mormons pagans (usually because they know at least one neopagan bisexual and don't see it as an insult), preferring epithets more like bigot, fascist, haters, and of course mormons. So that's not gay backlash and we're completely down to the boycotts and investigating the money trail. Yeah, they are really being repressed by the queers.

Posted by: sqlrob | October 14, 2009 11:50 AM

@MosesZD:

But Prop 8 isn't a candidate. Is it still illegal? Slimy and should be illegal, but it appears to follow the letter of the law, at least the law you quoted.

Posted by: Cerberus | October 14, 2009 11:54 AM

155-

Doesn't really matter, because they also broke campaign finance disclosure laws, so even if it would have been legal, by trying to hide their real contributions, they broke the campaign finance laws anyways.

Posted by: Lynna | October 14, 2009 12:11 PM

Not true. Atheists call one group pagans.

Cerberus @157 is correct. The mormon church is being investigated:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/politics/26marriage.html?ref=us
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/11/mormons_facing_1.html
The two links above refer to the Prop 8 campaign in California. The info below refers to the current campaign in Maine, with a reference to the investigation of the California campaign:

LOS ANGELES, CA / AUGUSTA, ME — August 13, 2009 — Californians Against Hate founder Fred Karger sent a letter today warning top Maine election officials of possible money laundering by opponents of same-sex marriage.
     The organization trying to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage law, Stand for Marriage PAC recently turned in 100,000 signatures to place the question on the November ballot. These gay marriage foes hope to repeal LD 1020 — the law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor allowing same-sex marriage in Maine.
     Of the $343,689.50 raised to pay the Brighton, Michigan-based National Petition Management, Inc. to collect the signatures, only $400, or a mere .001 of that total came from individuals. The remaining $343,289.50 was given by various religious organizations and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) gave nearly half of that total, $160,000. The remainder came from Catholic organizations ($150,000) and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family ($31,000).
     “It sure looks like they are trying to hide the donors in their latest effort to strip away marriage equality,” said Fred Karger. “There is no way these organizations like NOM and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland had all this money sitting in their treasuries (except for possibly Focus on the Family). They went out and raised it expressly for this campaign. It’s very expensive to hire these signature gathering firms to collect 100,000 signatures in a short period of time.”
     There is an ongoing investigation into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC Case #08/735). The FPPC is looking into both the Church’s lack of reporting its non-monetary contributions to Prop 8, and also whether NOM was, in fact, established as a front group by the Salt Lake City-based Mormon Church. The Mormon Church has used this tactic in several states beginning in Hawaii in 1996.

Posted by: raven | October 14, 2009 12:27 PM

Stoapoikile lying:

"What I mean by intimidation is when people exercise their religious beliefs and they are then fired from jobs, churches are subject to vandalism, people are coerced,"

All of this happened and it is well-documented and anyone can go and look it up.

Repeating the same old lies. We asked for documentation about this persecution many times and never got any. You are just a lying religious kook.

How many gay teen agers commit suicide every year? Quite a few, I posted the statistics above in #143. How many gays are murdered every year? No one knows but Cerberus posted a link that 12 trans were murdered this year alone. They are a very small minority of the LBGT population. How many gay kids and adults were beaten up this year? Again, no one knows, but when you have hate and discrimination it happens a lot.

Wake me up when people start killing Mormons for being Mormon.

The real problem is that the LDS church wants to get into politics and impose their religious views on nonMormons. This isn't going to go over well with the segment of the population that values living in a secular and free democracy. Push people and they push back.

My impression is that the old white religious gerontacracy that runs Utah is so used to being dictators that they don't know how to handle politics when they are a small minority. We will show them what living in a democracy means. No you can't force your religious views on other people. And yes, people will call you hate filled, fascist bigots when you are. Deal with it.

And don't bother asking me or people like me to join your nasty little weird nonxian made up cult. Making politics and hate part of a religion is a dumb move. People who don't like your politics or hate aren't going to like your religion either.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 14, 2009 12:40 PM

Yes, the type and degree of the intimidation may be different, but it definitely occurred and he is simply saying that we need to be careful about this type of activity in our political discourse.

"Yes, gay people are insulted, assaulted, beaten, discriminated against, mocked, misunderstood, slandered, demonised, and murdered, but someone once called me a bigot. A bigot! Can't you feel my pain, too?"

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 14, 2009 12:57 PM

StoaPoikile, #158: What I mean by intimidation is when people exercise their religious beliefs and they are then fired from jobs, churches are subject to vandalism, people are coerced.

I have a question. How do we distinguish between the intimidation of voters for the way the vote and the intimidation of bigots for being bigots and undermining the basic principles of democracy?

Posted by: StoaPoikile | October 14, 2009 1:06 PM

There are many references to the awful acts committed against gays in this country. There is no doubt that gays and lesbians are persecuted far more severely than members of the Mormon Church. I understand that and I think it is deeply troubling, but members of the Mormon Church voicing their opinion in a civlized way in the public square regarding the definition of marriage does not equate to the type of anti-gay violence that has been referenced.

We are talking about backlash for voicing ones opinion in the public square.

In response, many here will say that the very voicing of an opinion on marriage incites violence against gays. No. Such a response eliminates the responsibility of those who commit such terrible acts. Voicing an opinion in the public square in a civilized and respectful way is what this country is founded upon. Violence against gays is clearly terrible and deeply troubling, but it cannot be logically tied to how the Mormon population (about 1-2% of California) voted or participated in a particular election.

Posted by: Cerberus | October 14, 2009 1:08 PM

I think what baffles me the most about the mormon bigots is that their whines are about things they and the anti-gay forces at large have been doing for years.

Boycotts of "pro-gay" businesses were bread and butter including as I stated in an actual blackmail campaign during the run-up to election and targeting people to be fired has been the favored right-wing tactic against critics forever.

Not only this, but they have been very vocally against ENDA, which seeks to primarily make illegal the ability to be fired for being gay. So the apologist whines about people being fired for being religious, while supporting an organization actually lobbying to keep in place laws that allow people to be fired simply for being gay, no other reason needed.

Also, the people "fired" weren't fired, they were ultra-rich business owners who resigned offices of power while usually retaining most of their shares and thus actual control over their businesses. They got in trouble because they donated CORPORATE funds to yes on 8. So that would be the business that makes its money in the gay community demanding that gays continue to give them money or else they're intimidating free speech.

I'm sorry, but if "Christ Doodads Inc" a major evangelical supplier gave a large corporate contribution to no on 8, I'd expect wingnuts to boycott the business. Certainly, their tactics are to boycott ANY business that donates to equality issues which is why there were campaigns to boycott both Microsoft and Apple recently (yeah, I know).

So yeah, lying out of their asses on all counts.

There are real intimidation campaigns out there. The most egregious is currently Oklahoma which passed a law putting privileged protected medical information collected on women who obtain abortions on the internet. Now that's bad enough, medical information is most definitely protected in a way that money isn't for very good reasons.

But it takes on a whole nother level when you realize that every single abortion worker or volunteer or client for decades has been literally threatened with death. And those threatening have taken out a good number of doctors and volunteers already.

That's more like what intimidation means and looks like, it is a vital threat that implies genuine harm to engaging in actions. Gay people certainly know what this is like as queers are still killed at appalling rates simply for existing, but also in genuine attempts to enshrine unequal rights including the right to be fired for being gay.

Mormons cannot even imagine that equivalent for all their prattle about being "fired for deeply held religious beliefs". That's because they are not in the position of a deeply prosecuted minority and they are in fact whining about legal, extremely peaceful attempts to not actively fund or support bigotry against themselves and to note and trace the conspiracy against them.

So yes, do call me when you aren't essentially complaining that the blacks were intimidating you when they wouldn't leave your restaurant and denied you an honest day's work with their thug tactics.

And I wasn't there but I'd bet my left arm that whites only business owners complained very loudly about the thug tactics of the civil rights movement and how intimidating they were to god-fearing folks just following their deeply held religious beliefs.

Posted by: StoaPoikile | October 14, 2009 1:23 PM

As I said in my original post, the legal implications of what is happening in California are what interest me most. An overarching opinion that has occurred through these posts is an apparent disdain toward religious thought and perhaps an opinion that it should not be allowed in the public square. The disdain toward religious thought is a personal opinion and I will not argue for or against it, but I am concerned that it is perhaps being pushed out of the public square. This is troubling from a 'freedom of speech' standpoint and it is what has interested me about how all of this is playing out. A thought from Richard Johhn Neuhaus effectively sums up my concern -

“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.”

The expression of religious (or any other) thought in the public square should be vigorously defended. When I see backlash against a particular group of people based on how they have voiced their opinion in the political arena, it concerns me as an American. I see no reason why any individual should have to fear any type of retaliation for respectfully voicing their opinion in the public square. When such a fear is present, we are dangerously close to infringing on freedom of speech. A gay man should have no fear of retaliation for raising his voice on this or any issue and a Mormon should likewise enjoy that right. The fact that retaliation is made against gays does not make a backlash against Mormons any more "right". It is wrong in both cases. With that, I don't have anything more to say on the issue and I will respectfully bow out leave the floor to all of you. Thank you for your thoughts.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 14, 2009 1:38 PM

StoaPoikile, #167: We are talking about backlash for voicing ones opinion in the public square.

Actually, we are talking about responses to a group that is undermining some of the basic tenets of democracy, like equality and personal autonomy.

I admit that this is a conundrum. How does a democracy deal with people who are out to undermine democracy itself? If society retaliates in some way against the anti-democratic forces, then one is in danger of institutionalizing the marginalization of all sorts of unpopular groups, even those who aren't a threat. On the other hand, if anti-democratic forces are allowed to pollute the public square at will, then democratic society itself is in danger.

I don't think any democratic society has ever really found an effective way of dealing with this situation.

Posted by: Desert Son | October 14, 2009 1:44 PM

StoaPoikile,

It appears that you have mistaken counter-opinion for restriction of freedom of speech. This happens from time to time among those who imagine that freedom of speech means being able to say whatever they want without hearing anything counter to what they say.

What freedom of speech actually means is the freedom to say whatever an individual wants (except in cases violating law, q.v. shouting "fire" in a crowded building if there is no fire, etc.). That's it. Freedom of speech does not include the right NOT to hear anything said counter to what the speaker says, nor does it include the right NOT to be offended.

The other part of it is that freedom of speech is not violated by the normal workings of the capitalist system of goods and services. As consumers, individuals have the option to spend their money in different ways. They may choose not to buy from an institution owned by someone who discriminates against individuals based on sexual orientation. Choosing not to buy from businesses owned by those who discriminate based on sexual orientation is NOT prohibiting free speech. The owners that discriminate based on sexual orientation remain free to voice their opinion on the subject, just as consumers remain free not to buy from those business owners. In both cases, both individuals freedoms are firmly intact without violation. There are no rights enshrined in law that necessitate or guarantee success in business.

Human integrity of corpus, as well as rights, are protected. You, and other apologists for the Mormons, have suggested that the oppression happening is because an opinion has been voiced. No.

The oppression that is happening is happening to a group of people based on a quality of their existence, not an opinion. Opinions expressed are often subject to counter-opinion. Counter-opinion is not oppression; counter-opinion is as much an expression of the freedom to speak as the words of bigots who discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation, skin color, or other ridiculous and arbitrary designation.

Oppression is what is happening to homosexuals, including laws enacted to limit their rights, voted on (acted on) by, among others, Mormons. Opinion and counter-opinion is what is happening to Mormons.

To once again quote from recent Molly-winner Carlie, OM, from her post in this thread: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/supreme_court_justice_scalia_i.php#comments

The intention isn't to piss people off, it's to stop those people from shitting all over others. If they get offended by being told to stop doing so, that's their problem. It's a weird kind of egotism a person would have that assumes that anyone standing up for their own rights is doing so simply to piss them off. No, it's not about them.

In other words, this isn't about you and your fellow Mormons. This is about working for the rights of those who are just as human as the rest of us, and therefore deserving of the same rights as the rest of us. The Mormon church retains the power to continue to speak in bigoted terms; the rest of us retain the right to denounce such behavior as shameful and morally bankrupt. Acting against the rights of individuals seeking equal treatment under the law, however, represents actual repression on the part of voters, including Mormons. Mormons do NOT have the right to be free of criticism if they behave in such a way.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Cerberus | October 14, 2009 1:49 PM

Maybe you are right StoatPickle and mormonism and religion in general actively breed sociopathy thus explaining why one can think fantasies or beliefs can legitimately outweigh basic human rights (hint they do not, hence why no matter how many atheists come to power, there would be no way for them to legally ban religious observation).

But no matter your dance, it becomes sickening when you consider that the "freedom" they are decrying is the freedom to actively campaign for the right to fire homosexuals for being gay. That's an active bloody campaign that they have even tried to weave into all gay rights battles. The Ref 71 battle in WA and the Maine marriage battle have both tried to argue ENDA cases in their supposed fight against marriage.

Let's also not forget that this is a bias crime against religion that they are committing in the marriage fight. They are denying the right for a state to recognize civil marriages by imposing a religious idea of marriage as CIVIL law, one which is actively discriminatory to churches who believe that marriage CAN be between two men or two women as well as the gay men and women seeking to wed.

Oh and let's not forget that this battle creates an interesting leftover group. The ban blocks HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE between a heterosexual trans person and a heterosexual cisgendered person, but allows SECRET HOMO marriages between homosexual trans people and queer cisgender people.

Oh, yeah, and hate crimes went up by a huge margin when anti-gay ballots were on the ballot and there were a good number of assaults on pro-gay forces during the campaign.

Oh yeah, and beliefs don't trump civil rights. Mormons are allowed to preach their hate, tell their followers that their gay children are evil and deserve death. It's sad, but it's their free speech right.

They do not have a right to speech without contention. We have a free speech right to point out bigotry, name who is against us, track money donations, and exercise our own free speech rights to mobilize protest.

Oh yeah, and no one has a right to other people's money. If I decided to never buy another microsoft computer because the evil jew conspiracy is using them to control the microwaves in my teeth, then no matter how bigoted and insane my beliefs, and no matter how many followers I tell of the microwave jew conspiracy, they do not have a right to my business and cannot demand I buy their product because my opposition is bigoted.

This is how mormons have boycotted nearly everything not mormon owned without comment and it's why no gay business is expecting the local mormon church to come by and buy one of everything.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 14, 2009 1:51 PM

StoaPoikile, #171: A gay man should have no fear of retaliation for raising his voice on this or any issue and a Mormon should likewise enjoy that right.

So far no one has really offered a solution to this problem. I have one. Work for justice. Maybe in the future this won't be a problem: gays will be accepted as the normal, productive members of society that they are so they won't experience retaliation for being gay, and very, very few people will be experience retaliation for being anti-gay since they, like Aryan Nation racists, will be only a tiny, marginal part of society.

That is how the similar problem regarding blacks and racists has been and is being dealt with. Maybe not a perfect solution, but I would hope that the goal of being able to voice one's opinion is to lead to a more just society, not just to demonstrate who is and is not a bigot.

Posted by: skeptifem | October 14, 2009 1:55 PM

I moved to utah from a non mormon heavy state. Most of the mormons here don't know what the hell to say until the church tells them what to think. You can notice it on the ksl.com boards too, even. You can't expect much from a church that demands such a crazy amount of conformity.
For example, the church used countless mormons to do work against gay marriage in california for free. A church with such massive resources using people as a free labor pool adds an extra layer of skeeve onto the whole affair. The volunteers were actually paying the church via tithing while working for them to accomplish political goals that they have never thought to question. they aren't really allowed to question them without changing their whole lives.

Anyone who has seen how this church works knows why they can't allow gay marriage. It challenges tradition gender roles. Enforcing traditional gender is one of the best tool they have for controlling the people at their church. It causes huge amounts of suffering for both the women and the men dealing with the very forced 1950's style life they are encouraged to live, but its pretty damn hard to change when all the kids here get married/pregnified right out of high school; and they would be socially isolated/disowned by family/financially screwed/in trouble with the church for doing anything about it.

Posted by: Lynna | October 14, 2009 2:11 PM

Most of the mormons here don't know what the hell to say until the church tells them what to think. You can notice it on the ksl.com boards too, even. You can't expect much from a church that demands such a crazy amount of conformity.

Here's a little example from today's local news: BYUI serves about 10,000 students in the small town of Rexburg. The university recently made a new ruling that single students cannot live off campus. They feel that they will have fewer students straying from the path, fewer lost sheep, if they put all the students in BYUI dorms where they have more control over their personal lives. Some residents of Rexburg will lose significant income when student renters are fewer (married couples may still live off campus). Also, the university will now have to build a lot more dorm rooms and there's some controversy on where they want to build, on traffic control, etc. The local news story also made the point that students in dorms have a roommate that helps to keep them in line. If I were a BYU student, I would be worried about this amount of oversight.

BYUI also controls the local NPR radio station, so NPR-generated programs can be bumped for mormon "Devotionals", for broadcasting General Conference live, etc.

Control and message saturation are the norm for mormons.

Posted by: Sastra | October 14, 2009 2:16 PM

Desert Son #195: excellent post.

We don't want to keep religion out of the public square: doing so only turns it into a sacred, unquestionable truth placed in a privileged position. Instead, we want it brought into the public square, where it can be examined, analyzed, addressed, criticized and mocked -- same as political, economic, scientific, and social beliefs. No special treatment.

But we do want to keep religion out of politics: faith beliefs are not open to gaining a public consensus. They're internal to churches. Nobody cares or feels obligated to follow the irrational precepts of someone else's religion. If a religious belief can't justify itself on secular grounds, then it should not effect laws which apply to people generally.

When Mormons say that gay people should not marry because this goes against God's law, then we have a right to demand that they either prove that their religion is true to the rest of us, or shut up and restrain themselves to forbidding gay marriages in their own churches.

Posted by: Sastra | October 14, 2009 2:24 PM

Desert Son #195: excellent post.

Oops, that's #175. Unless you want to make another good one in a few minutes.

Posted by: Lynna | October 14, 2009 2:39 PM

PixelFish @182

My second cousins proudly proclaimed their ward's interference in the family newsletter. They talked about working shifts at a call center--who was paying for the call center--and how their bishop organised tasks. This effort on this scale had to stem from SLC. (Believe me, ward budgets go under plenty of scrutiny.) There was tithing money involved somewhere and it wasn't the measley 2K I saw as the initial campaign disclosure.

Thanks, PixelFish, for those details. That's exactly the kind of detail and insider info that people need to know. It's still difficult to explain to outsiders the degree of control the LDS Church can exert over members. It's all too easy for Church lawyers to claim that it was all individuals exercising their rights of free speech and freedom of religion.

Now the church has established separate PACs in states like Maine, Washington, and Hawaii, and those PACs are all related to the mostly empty offices of NOM -- but who is really doing the work, and where is money coming from? At least they can't blatantly send missionaries out to do anti-gay-marriage campaigning anymore, like they did in Hawaii in the 1990s.

Posted by: robinsrule | October 14, 2009 2:45 PM

An overarching opinion that has occurred through these posts is an apparent disdain toward religious thought

Instead of playing games just present some credible evidence to support your religion. If you don't have any evidence, then start considering the possibility that your beliefs are in error.

and perhaps an opinion that it should not be allowed in the public square.

No, the more we know about the Mormon church the better. By their fruits you will know them.

Posted by: Lynna | October 14, 2009 3:24 PM

To explain how assinine, let's just say that our entire dorm room was "quarantined" or "Q-ed" for having a guy cross the threshold of the living room to the back hall. The reason he did this was to give my roommate a Priesthood blessing, which at the time, we believed would help her get better. We had even obtained permission beforehand, but the RA who gave permission was off-duty by the time the incident occured, our neighbours reported us, and that was that.

McNaughton's painting made live guys look like dead guys, so I don't know what their objection to your painting could have been. You should have titled it "Patriotism" or "Prepare for the Celestial Kingdom". /sarcasm

As far as the stuffed bats are concerned, as least you didn't hang a stuffed Jesus-on-a-cross. I think a plush toy of Emma with a threatening look in her eyes and a rolling pin upraised in one hand would be good decor for a female BYU dorm room.

At least the Priesthood holder didn't turn you in for luring him into the proximity of females who could corrupt him.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 14, 2009 3:30 PM

Utah needs a serious influx of non-mormons to break the church's stranglehold on state power.

I had two phone interviews with a school in Utah last year. I was freaking out a bit, but figured I could live in SLC and commute. The day after Prop 8, I withdrew my application. The folks I'd had my interviews with had been honest about the fact that Utah is a fairly HOSTILE place for queers. But, I've been in not-so-welcoming places before, and my day-to-day activism does tend to fit in better in such places where coming out is still an issue for folks. But, it just got to the point where I'd rather have spent a year without a job and move back in with my parents than move to Utah. Shit, I'm in North Dakota--not a particularly friendly place for queer folk--and I'm a couple million times better off than I would be in Utah.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PbW94bQ7hfDDpgZIW3U_hMjFlIlrQRqxDkwdPxjeJX9Bt9yQZ6yJi6Qwhij8ldlG#35d13 | October 14, 2009 4:09 PM

PZ:

Curse my dyslexia. I understood you to be condemning LSD not the LDS. I'm so relieved.

anti_supernaturalist

Posted by: $1.386sx ® | October 14, 2009 4:22 PM

Where did the hit n' run Mormons go? Garsh they seemed so reasonable!

Posted by: Edward Lark | October 14, 2009 5:23 PM

If you think boycotting and picketing are the extent of what I am talking about, you probably haven't followed this very closely. Look, I am not saying Mormons are being lynched, but there have been reports of violence, many documented instances of violent threats, rocks thrown through windows at a number of Church meetinghouses, etc. But let's put all of that aside and just suppose it is boycotting and picketing only. The intent of these activities is very clear - intimidation. In other words - "don't you dare sign one of these petitions, donate to this cause, put a sign in your yard, or vote for this proposition or we will make your life a living hell." This really isn't complicated - the intent of such activity is intimidation, pure and simple. I fully agree with the Mormon Elder that it is undemocratic.

You and the Elder are equating the reaction of an oppressed minority with the action of the oppressing majority during the height of the Civil Rights struggle. If you are sincere, the comparison is blinkered and pathetic. If you are simply being disingenuous, the comparison is cynical and deserving of approbation.

I grew up Mormon and know how controversial the inclusion of black into full membership, and the eventual inclusion of the first black general authority was - and continues to be for many in the Church. Tell me, does the LDS church still preach the doctrine I was taught while still in short pants that the reason blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood prior to 1978 is because black souls born before that time had not been worthy of the priesthood? (I have been told that the more enlightened version of this doctrine now flips the equation, saying that the white membership was not yet ready to accept the full membership of blacks and that - basically for the good of the institution - God withheld the "revelation" until slightly after it became an raging embarrassment to the Church to continue to be so behind the times. What happy coincidence that.)

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 14, 2009 5:37 PM

-Until they own up to this, and until they apologize and attempt to make amends for it, they have nothing to say to queer folks-

Umm, no..I think the church and it's "political" agenda needs some serious investigation. The kind where the number of missing people starts getting accounted for and large sums of money get traced.

Posted by: shatfat | October 14, 2009 6:22 PM

@30

I'm sure this comment has already started a flame war, but I haven't read it yet because I got snagged on this ridiculous paragraph:

And as for the blacks and the Mormon church thing, the comments of saying the LDS church is racist because you quote a couple Mormon leaders (completely unrepresentative of the whole) is intellectually dishonest. That's like me using a quote from Abraham Lincoln where he said black should not be allowed to vote or serve on juries (a view he later changed) to suggest that all Americans are racist.

1. The Mormon church is a top-down church, not a loose affiliation like Southern Baptists or even Episcopalians. This means that what their leaders say *is* representative, and any member who disagrees is thrust into a crisis of conscience.

2. You say "quote a couple Mormon leaders" in order to minimize the fact that your SUPREME PROPHET OF GOD ON EARTH was going around saying Blacks were fallen and could not become Mormon priests back during the mid-20th century. (In fact, the LDS didn't lift this bar until the 1970's--outrageous.)

3. YOU are the one who can't seem to grasp "context." When Abraham Lincoln made those remarks, it would be very fair to say that the majority of whites in America were racist. If you're trying to argue that the people who supported slavery; who supported slavers kidnapping anyone who *looked like they might be a slave in "free" states; who excluded people of recent African origin from education, good terms of employment, churches, and many civic buildings; who profited from racial discrimination; who argued openly that Blacks were morally and intellectually inferior; who developed entire scientific theories purporting to prove that northern Europeans were morally, intellectually, and physically superior to every other people on Earth; who accepted the inhuman 3/5 compromise, the denial of basic human rights to slaves, the auctioning of children, the social shunning and exclusion of freemen, the jingoism and revisionism to place their own ethnic group in a better light, the ongoing genocide of Native Americans--if you are trying to argue that these people were not racist, well, sir, I leave you to that uphill battle alone.

Posted by: shatfat | October 14, 2009 6:39 PM

But let's put all of that aside and just suppose it is boycotting and picketing only. The intent of these activities is very clear - intimidation. In other words - "don't you dare sign one of these petitions, donate to this cause, put a sign in your yard, or vote for this proposition or we will make your life a living hell." This really isn't complicated - the intent of such activity is intimidation, pure and simple. I fully agree with the Mormon Elder that it is undemocratic.

Crocodile tears.

The LDS tried to mask its involvement in Prop 8 (just as it's trying to do in Maine with NOM). Rather than standing behind the cause they supported, they are now trying to scuttle away like so many German cockroaches from the light.

What a shame when your cause is so despised you must hide behind a cloak of anonymity. The hateful are at last the hated. Hm, I guess the Bible was right all along!

Posted by: Anri | October 14, 2009 7:18 PM

MAJeff, OM said:

You are bigots. Own it.

This, exactly is it.
I don't have any problem with the Mormons using thier freedom of speech, they do!

If you don't want gay people to get married, stand up and say so! Say it loud, say it clear - make it apparent to everyone around you just what you think, so that they will know what to think of your opinions the next time you spout them off!

If your church wants to get up on its hind legs and proclaim that anyone of (insert sin here) is subhuman, or not worthy of bread, or whatever, then do it!

But do not,
do not
DO NOT
sneak around, try to cause these things to happen, and then disclaim them.
If you want to influence things, then do it in public and in the open - be proud of what you are doing!

...you are proud of what you are doing...
...right?

Posted by: Insightful Ape | October 14, 2009 7:36 PM

Stoa-liar, have you no shame?
So the mormons have the right to "respectfully" express their opposition to the rights of others, but those who oppose them should keep mum or else people may think there is a "backlash" against the Mormons? And we wouldn't want to bring out any religious sect's victimhood complex, would we. Why do the bad guys let the poor (in more than one sense of the word) Mormon church to campaign against a minority without fear of consequences-like those people getting upset and starting badmouthing the Mormon church? Why won't they shut up so that the church can celebrate its victory at ease?
As for the Mormons being small in number and so not changing the results significantly that is meaningless. What counted was the money the church brought from
other states that mattered.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 14, 2009 7:41 PM

And, to preempt any of the hate cultists:

"protect marriage" from what?

If it's the presence of same-sex couples, then you really need to own being anti-gay bigots. That's what you are, and your church is an anti-gay hate group. Own it.

Posted by: Lynna | October 14, 2009 8:04 PM

Oh, look, our dear Brother Dallin Oaks has come to the attention of the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/13/us/AP-US-REL-Mormons-Religious-Freedom.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=dallin%20oaks&st=cse
Excerpt:

In the interview Monday, Oaks said he was referring in part to the 2008 presidential bid of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose Mormon faith troubled some evangelicals.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 14, 2009 8:13 PM

Ha! I called that one. I smelled excuses for Romney's poor showing in that pile of garbage.

Thing is, those of us who have had to live with Romney know that he's quite simply a piece of shit as a human being.

Posted by: Lynna | October 14, 2009 8:25 PM

Thing is, those of us who have had to live with Romney know that he's quite simply a piece of shit as a human being.

Missing from their marketing material is the wide range of sexual crimes and “issues” they are also willing to treat, especially homosexuality. ... They say, “West Ridge Academy is a nondenominational Christian organization” while 100% of their staff is Mormon, the bulk of their funding and referrals come directly from local LDS wards and families. There is only one chapel on campus: a Mormon chapel. Only one religion is being represented by the missionaries on campus - Mormonism. Youth are required to read the Book of Mormon to progress in their program.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 14, 2009 8:30 PM

The only thing that matters to Willard is Willard.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 14, 2009 9:38 PM

Bronze medal for Worst Person was given by Keith Olbermann to Elder Dallin H. Oaks:
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33319827

Good on Keith.

I'd still like our hate cultists to let me know why they're entitled to my money after actively working to harm me.

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | October 14, 2009 11:18 PM

Lynna wrote:

Steve Benson posted a more thorough trashing of the mormon church's history when it comes to racism. Readable, and damning: http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_recovery&key=1255504784&newest=1255561312

I fixed the link.

Posted by: Leigh Williams | October 15, 2009 1:01 AM

"There are several websites that give details about how much individual Mormons contributed and where they live with instructions to harass them. The LDS temple in LA was tagged as were several church buildings and members were intimidated from going to church."

Their churches got tagged? You're fucking kidding me, right?

Did anybody lynch these folks? Prevent them from voting with threats of violence, or indeed actual violence? Burn down their houses? Bomb their churches, or steakhouses, or whatever the hell they call them?

No? What happened to them was that a few of them took a richly-deserved economic hit, and they got called out as bigots -- which may have hurt their widdle feelings, but was also richly deserved.

I'm sure others have responded to these Mormon apologists, but I don't have time to read the whole thread tonight (got to work) and I'm too pissed off to postpone thrashing them.

Let me join with MAJeff (OM) to tell you cretins, very LOUDLY:

FUCK OFF.

Posted by: Sanction | October 15, 2009 11:33 AM

The month isn't quite half over yet, but you've got my vote for the October Molly, Lynna, for your illumination of the Mormon church on this thread and others.

Posted by: Lynna | October 15, 2009 11:44 AM

Thanks, Sanction @229. Though I don't think the mormon defenders we had earlier in the thread enjoyed the exposé quite as much.

One of the results of bringing the LDS Church's back room politics into the open is that more reasonable mormons (I know, sounds like an oxymoron) stand up and fight with their own version of "cut it out, that's not nice" -- Of course, some of them that fight back are forced to resign if they don't want to be excommunicated. http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon489.html

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 15, 2009 12:31 PM

“Where do you stop? I mean that’s the problem going down that slippery road. Pretty soon we’re going to have a special law for blue-eyed blondes … or people who are losing their hair a little bit,” Herbert told reporters in August....

At least he's equating homosexuality with other natural human aspects.

There's that.

/daily attempt at optimism

Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | October 15, 2009 12:40 PM

It's important to remember just who the aggressors are here. It's the Mormon Church (and other anti-gay forces) who are obsessing about gay folks, fixating on them and *targeting* them, whether legislatively or physically -- sometimes both. In comparison, the gay people I know and work with just want to get on with their lives and jobs without being hurt, and they don't seek out quarrels. Asking them to not strike back when harassed is not only insulting, but ignores the entire aggression dynamic and enables what in some cases comes down to simple schoolyard bullying.

I've asked these Mormon and similar religious types the same question many times: "What has a gay person ever done to you?" Never get a real answer.

Posted by: Lynna | October 15, 2009 5:03 PM

"Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights."

Right. No doubt. I have no interest in equal rights for gays, I just focus on persecuting mormons. I wonder why I even bother to point out that Focus on the Family, and the Catholic League are also anti-gay? I need to get back on track here. Persecuting mormons is more important. Sheesh!

Up-thread, some of the other quotes you pulled attracted other reader's attention as well. Comments included the fact that the first quote is unconstitutional in its premise.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 15, 2009 5:32 PM

Oh, silly Lynna. Queers ain't people.

Posted by: Lynna | October 15, 2009 5:54 PM

Thank you for reminding me, MAJeff, that queers ain't people. For a minute there, I thought they were, and I was just about to grant them equal rights. Close call. The mormon view seems to be that queers are temporary not-quite people on earth, but they might become normal people, fucking heterosexuals as they should, in the Celestial Kingdom. In the meantime, queers aren't people, they are just walking bags o' sin and perversion.

For an insight into mormonthink that leads to the kind of obedience that had mormon folk taking out second mortgages to fund prop 8, see the home-teaching lesson from Prophet Monson. Excerpt:

There is no need for you or me in this enlightened age, when the fulness of the gospel has been restored, to sail uncharted seas or travel unmarked roads in search of the fountain of truth. For a loving Heavenly Father has plotted our course and provided an unfailing map—obedience!

Yeah, yeah, right. Strength comes from obedience to Herr Monson. Full text of this exercise in big brothering is at http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=5d6a31f3db7e3210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Posted by: kopd | October 15, 2009 6:04 PM

they are just walking bags o' sin and perversion

Hey, I like that. I think there's a song in that.

Posted by: Lynna | October 15, 2009 6:39 PM

they are just walking bags o' sin and perversion

Hey, I like that. I think there's a song in that.

T-shirt slogan? Walking Bag O'Sin and Perversion

Posted by: aratina cage | October 15, 2009 7:40 PM

The only gay violence from Prop 8 I can remember happened in the Castro, and it wasn't that violent, just scary for the godbots (perhaps Mormons or Westboro Baptists, I don't know, same thing) who provoked it.

The godbots regularly went into the center of the Castro (San Francisco, California) and held up signs condemning homosexuality, and they naively did so again right after voting to make gays subhuman. There was a lot of loud scolding and some angry confrontations. And who wouldn't want to give the godbots a swift kick to their behind to help them move along after the horrendous Prop 8 vote?

You can read about it from a gay ex-Mormon here (the link to the YouTube video is there, too).

Posted by: Lynna | October 15, 2009 7:56 PM

More from girl who was asked to take down a tweet about Oaks' speech by the LDS Church:

I went into Boss Lady's office all teary-like because I really was all teary-like because did I mention the LDS church was forcing me to take down a tweet? I know you all think I'm this big, cursing, hard-ass and I am, I totally am! I WILL CUT YOU I SWEAR but I was so upset and having LDS flashbacks which are not unlike LSD flashbacks and probably worse. I told Boss Lady and Manager McManagerson what just went down. And can I just say I work for the two best motherfuckers around? They were so kind in response that I became down right verklempt. I'm not saying there were actual tears involved but let's just say that someone handed someone (a giant pussy) a tissue but that could also be because Manager McManagerson sneezed. They said they were glad I took the "offending" tweet down because there was no need to get into a thing with the church but then Boss Lady was like, you go tweet that they told you to take it down because of the embargo and Manager McManagerson said, man, why do they care, the embargo is up in five minutes anyway?
     I raced back to my desk to tweet my stupid tweet BEFORE the embargo was up to kind of thumb my nose at The Evil Empire. Here was my big nose-thumbing:
     Broke embargo. LDS church spokeswoman asked me to remove previous tweet about story we're working on. Full information in five minutes.
     And you can bet that at three o'clock on the dot I damn near broke Twitter tweeting the contents of that speech. But I'm mad. Mad that I'm such a pussy. Mad that I wrote that I broke the embargo when I didn't. Mad that my knee-jerk reaction was to take down the tweet just like my reaction growing up was to fearfully and blindly oblige anything any LDS church leader said.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 15, 2009 8:41 PM

ok, maybe i missed this in one of your earlier posts, but what's this "embargo"?

Posted by: Lynna | October 15, 2009 9:17 PM

Hmmm, all those big mormon families in Utah have an effect on the quality of education. And, perhaps there's also an element of the LDS-dominated public school system in Utah *not* living up to its Family Values reputation.

Updated: 10/14/2009 05:47:03 PM MDT: Utah continued to have the highest ratio of students to teachers in the nation in recent years, according to federal data released Tuesday.
     During the 2007-08 school year, Utah schools had about 23.5 students for each teacher. That number was up from 22.3 students per teacher the previous school year, according to the data. Utah also ranked last in the nation that year.
     State Superintendent Larry Shumway said he expects future data will likely show further increases in the ratio for Utah schools, which have been facing budget cuts.
     "There were significant cuts made in administration and support staff, but in the end, cuts were also made that affected the classroom," Shumway said. He said some researchers question whether smaller class sizes make a difference in student achievement. But parents generally prefer smaller class sizes, and teachers say they're more successful teaching fewer students, he said.
     Nationwide, Maine had lowest ratio of students to teachers in the nation, with an average of nine students per teacher. -- Lisa Schencker

Posted by: Lynna | October 15, 2009 9:28 PM

In what seems to be a "jump on the right bandwagon" attempt, Senator and LDS church member, Harry Reid is now criticizing the Church for backing the Prop 8 measure in California.

One of the benefits of this move by Senator Reid is that figures for mormon individual contributions, and for the LDS Church contributions, are brought to the public's attention again. Excerpt below:

More than 1,000 Utahns contributed either individually or through a business to the Prop 8 fight, giving $3.8 million. More than 70 percent of that cash went to groups backing the gay-marriage ban. Utah ranked second only to California in the amount given to the ballot battle.
     The LDS Church kicked in nearly $190,000 in in-kind contributions to ProtectMarriage.com, the leading pro-Prop. 8 group. In the end, Prop 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 15, 2009 9:42 PM

So, the hate cult is totalitarian and authoritarian. Surprise, surprise.

Posted by: Lynna | October 15, 2009 10:03 PM

aratina @258:

Ironically for the reformed "non-racist" LDS church, equating their hurt feelings following Prop 8 with the struggle for civil rights was a racist act in itself.

How did the Mormons mobilize for Prop 8?
     On June 29, 2008, a letter from the Mormon Prophet was read in every California congregation commanding that they fight for Prop 8 with their time and money. The church then mobilized its members:
     Priesthood leaders contacted each individual member of the church to assure their compliance in donating money, placing yard signs, and volunteering in organized actions.
     Each congregation was ordered to “call” a Prop 8 Coordinator. A Mormon “calling” is a summons from God to serve.
     Weekly speeches on Prop 8 were given from the pulpit.
     There were special Sunday School lessons on the proposition.
     At special meetings across the state, members listened to live satellite broadcasts from headquarters, ordering each member to contribute 100 hours of volunteer service for Prop 8.
     Members where emailed regularly soliciting donations.
     Prosperous members were approached to make larger contributions.
     Members who did not agree were charged with opposing core doctrine and opposing the Prophet.
     Mormon Bishops questioned support of Prop 8 in “Temple Interviews,” threatening access to the temple and subsequent shaming.
     Church members were ordered to disguise their actions. They were to not go in pairs, not wear white shirts and ties, and not to identify themselves as Mormon during their neighborhood actions.
How were Mormons so organized?
     Mormons are always so organized. It is one of their great strengths. You absolutely want the Mormons around when a natural disaster hits. They are scary when they come after your rights.
     Every Mormon is under the direct authority of a male priesthood holder who receives instructions through a well-defined hierarchy from headquarters in Salt Lake City. Every member can receive instructions, be organized, and be pressured to conform through this efficient organization.

Posted by: Lynna | October 16, 2009 12:15 AM

Optimist @260: Good to hear that about parent involvement. That has to be one of the good side effects of a community that really expects parents to do a good job.

Meta comment, commenting on my own comment @241, where Monson is quoted a touting obedience as the cure-all for all ills: "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. -- Einstein

Posted by: Lynna | October 16, 2009 12:25 PM

Great cartoon in the Salt Lake Tribune, imagines Dallin Oaks waking up gay one morning.
http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | October 16, 2009 10:09 PM

Oh that Mormon civility.

Posted by: Lynna | October 16, 2009 11:47 PM

I've heard from a lot of mormon friends that tithing income is down and that the LDS Church is tightening it's belt by providing even worse housing for missionaries than previously, and by housing some missionaries with church members; by cutting back on the funds Bishops have to help needy families, etc. (Of course, this doesn't affect their plans for building new Temples, and for building a 2 billion dollar mall in SLC). Their Beneficial Life Insurance company went under, but they still seem to have quite a bit of cash. Still, the financial troubles sounded like good news. Now I'm not so sure that it a downturn in tithing income will affect them that much.

Apparently, they are well set up to pressure older members to will their estates to the LDS Church. Here's a quote from an ex-mo:

Where I live in central Utah it is very common for active church members to will everything they own to the church (much to the consternation of survivors). Here is a link to the web site: http://www.lds.org/deserettrust/will.html

Morg has an entire legal division dedicated to establishing trusts so members can leave them assets. Used to work with them in past life, they are very good at setting these trusts up for anyone with substantial assets who shows interest in bequething the assets to the Morg upon their death. There are thousands of these trusts that have been set up with help from this 'planned-giving' department of the church, which will result in huge amounts of assets from members being directed to the morg for many years to come, circumventing the family and any other potential heirs. It is a substantial pipeline of 'evergreen income' to the Morg, an extrememly significant portion of its current and future wealth.

Posted by: Carlie | October 17, 2009 8:34 AM

they are just walking bags o' sin and perversion

That kind of sounds like fun - where can I sign up to be a walking bag o' sin and perversion? And does anyone get a free toaster out of it?

Posted by: Lynna | October 17, 2009 10:00 AM

Carlie @269

they are just walking bags o' sin and perversion
That kind of sounds like fun - where can I sign up to be a walking bag o' sin and perversion? And does anyone get a free toaster out of it?

Good idea with the toaster! I'd vote for adding that to the program of recruiting people to join our queer agenda, or recruiting them to participate in the gay lifestyle. But, I'll have to ask MAJeff for his opinion. He's the official Queer in this discussion, and it was him that reminded me that "Silly Lynna, queers are not people." I'll bet queers eat toast, even though they are less than human.

Viewing MAJeff as a walking bag o' sin and perversion remains difficult for me, but by devising a catchy slogan we can all make an effort. Plus, we can get the T-shirt and the free toaster and join the haters in Washington and Maine who are shouting and demeaning our fellow mortals.

This is actually a good idea. We should infiltrate the anti-gay forces with irony as our weapon. They don't have any irony of their own, so they will be defenseless.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 17, 2009 10:04 AM

Hey can I get in on the walking bag o' sin and perversion? Sounds right up my alley.

Posted by: Lynna | October 17, 2009 10:18 AM

We'll have to ask, but I think Carlie would go for the ipod-nano. Carlie, our first recruit! And Rev BDC the second recruit! MAJeff, we are on a roll.

I'll give the rights to "Walking Bag O' Sin and Perversion" to whomever wants to make the T-shirts available for purchase.

Much as I like your slogan, MAJeff (and we will still use it, of course), I think we need to add something new to the mix. Public proclamations that ones own self is a walking bag o' sin and perversion is bound to make 'em think twice. Think how nice it would look on TV News footage.

Posted by: Lynna | October 17, 2009 10:34 AM

Of course, I've also read some hypotheses that this is more a result of excessive emphasis in society on sex in general, so it slops over; mainly I've seen this argument in the guise of explaining that some women say/think they're attracted to women not out of being lesbian or bi, but because they're bombarded with "women are sexy" images everywhere and internalize it. And I have no background in cultural theory to be able to unpack that and determine if that idea has any validity, because does that mean there's a difference between thinking you're attracted to the same sex and being attracted to the same sex, and if so, what?

Posted by: RickR | October 17, 2009 10:59 AM

Lynna- ""Silly Lynna, queers are not people." I'll bet queers eat toast, even though they are less than human."

Wow, I'm positively loathsome, then!

I ate FRENCH toast last night! :)

Posted by: Lynna | October 17, 2009 11:19 AM

Remember that awful painting by McNaughton that PZ featured recently? http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/the_goggles_they_do_nothing.php
A discussion of the odd mix of Patriotism (capital "P" intentional) and religion mystified some of us. The patriotism/religion stew has a particularly strange flavor when you look at what Dallin Oaks, McNaughton and Glenn Beck cook up. The common ingredient is mormonism. Steve Benson recently posted some tidbits that elucidate some of the thinking behind the mormon version of the stew.

The quotes below discuss a purported appearance of the Founding Fathers in the St. George, Utah temple. The FFs supposedly asked a mormon Head Cheese why they had not yet been proxy baptized (baptized after death, with worthy mormons as stand-ins in the baptismal font, which rests dramatically on the backs of carved oxen).

“When I [Ezra Taft Benson, grandfather of Steve Benson] became President of the Twelve and Spencer W. Kimball became President of the Church, we met, just the two of us, every week in our Thursday meetings in the temple, just to be sure that things were properly coordinated between the Twelve and the First Presidency.      “After one of those first meetings, we talked about the man sacred documents in some of the older temples. St. George was mentioned in particular . . . and it was agreed that I would go into the archives—the walk-in vault—of that great temple and review the sacred documents that were there. . . .      “And there in the St. George Temple I saw what I had always hoped and prayed that someday I would see. Ever since I returned as a humble missionary and first learned that the Founding Fathers had appeared in that temple, I wanted to see the record. And I saw the record. They did appear to Wilford Woodruff twice and asked why the work hadn’t been done for them. They had founded this country and the Constitution of this land, and they had been true to those principles. Later the work was done for them.”      (Ezra Taft Benson, address delivered in Sandy, Utah, 30 December 1978, reprinted in Benson, "The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988], p. 603)

Posted by: Lynna | October 17, 2009 11:39 AM

Pharyngula deserves some small credit for upping the hits at exmormon.org. The bulletin board there received well over 200,000 hits on Tuesday. Administrators at the site say most of the upsurge in traffic seemed to be related to the Dallin Oaks fiasco. Now they've received "tersely worded" letters from their ISP. Basically, they're going to have to upgrade because they're breaking the system. Stop tithing, and send that dough to a worthy cause. :-)

Posted by: Lynna | October 17, 2009 11:53 AM

Unfortunately, I find myself not as peeved about it now as I did during the election, which makes me think they have succeeded in pushing the Overton Window farther to the right.

Posted by: bastion of sass | October 17, 2009 9:37 PM

MAJeff wrote:

The toaster oven promotion was phased out several years ago. We're down to yearly drawings for an ipod-nano. The more folks you recruit, the more chances you have to win!

Wow! Heroin-like sex, plus a chance to win an i-pod?! How can I resist that?! Please send me the enlistment forms ASAP.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 17, 2009 9:49 PM

Somehow a death cultist will use this as proff that gays are out to for their kids, much like the use the Onion to bash Harry Potter.

OK, I'm showing my age here, but the toaster oven joke comes directly from the "coming out episode" of Ellen DeGeneres' sitcom in the mid 90s.

Posted by: SC, OM | October 17, 2009 10:03 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKfEdjlRxSk

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 17, 2009 10:19 PM

Thanks, SC. That brings back some memories.

That was such an amazing pop culture moment. Some of my friends had to work that night, so we taped it to watch later on, so I watched it live with my dad. And I criiiiiiieeeeed when it finally happened. For those of us of a certain age and above, even a sitcom's main character being openly lesbian was HUGE! We were quite literally starved for representations that didn't involve death, be it from suicide, murder or AIDS.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 17, 2009 10:37 PM

Carlie,

Was that in Florida? I remember the Ray brothers--hemophiliacs with HIV--being firebombed out of their house for trying to go to school.

That's one of the weird things about teaching about AIDS today. So many of my students have no idea, not just about who the Ray brothers or Ryan White were, but even about the hysteria.

I recently bought a copy of the Colors magazine where they doctored a photo of Reagan to give him Kaposi's Sarcoma. It's getting copied, enlarged, framed, and hung in my office.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 17, 2009 10:57 PM

For those of us of a certain age and above, even a sitcom's main character being openly lesbian was HUGE!

Never watched the show. (Hey, I never bothered to watch Seinfeld.) But, yes, I remember the excitement when Ellen came out and when her character came out. Lots of lesbian bars that night tuned for that episode. Even we non fans were excited by this. Funny thing, I do not recall society falling apart as part of the aftermath.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 17, 2009 11:02 PM

See also the nervous way many straights will play the "exception game" where they'll name a few celebrities they'd go gay for under the guise that they're heterosexuality has been well proven before the game, usually by detailing opposite sex celebrities they'd cheat on their partner with.

Toni Braxton. Iman.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 17, 2009 11:17 PM

Funny thing, I do not recall society falling apart as part of the aftermath.

Well, there was that idiot from Texas who occupied the White House for eight years...things haven't been so good since he was "elected" in 2000. I don't think we can blame that on Ellen, though.

Posted by: bastion of sass | October 18, 2009 12:03 AM

MAJeff wrote:

OK, I'm showing my age here, but the toaster oven joke comes directly from the "coming out episode" of Ellen DeGeneres' sitcom in the mid 90s.

Yeah, but no straight kids wanted a toaster, so to recruit them, the gays had to switch to offering ipods.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 18, 2009 10:05 AM

Therefore, if there's only 10% strictly gay people out there and it's a normal distribution, there's probably only 10% strictly heteros out there as well. - Carlie

But there's no reason it should be normal. I don't think we should be relying too much on Kinsey, either; by modern standards his protocols were pretty sloppy, not to say ethically dubious. Furthermore, the gay/bi/straight continuum is itself a cultural construct: look at how differently sexualities are classified in other cultures.

Posted by: James Sweet | October 19, 2009 4:45 PM

heh, yeah uh, sexuality being a normal distribution would be pretty evolutionarily unsound... While the biological roots of sexuality are poorly understood, I think one would have difficulty making a case for any evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) in which the curve was not fairly heavily biased towards the side that facilitated reproduction in wild humans.... don't you think?

Of course, this doesn't undermine the whole continuum idea. And FWIW I think a population that included no strictly heterosexual individuals could be just as evolutionarily stable as one which did. But I would think in any ESS, you'd expect to see a sizable majority of individuals interested in copulating with the opposite sex a sizable majority of the time...?

Posted by: Cerberus | October 19, 2009 5:35 PM

307-

Pretty much. Not likely to be normal distribution and to be fair to the subject, the example was in the form of "the more I hear, the more it seems to be" not an actual biological hypothesis.

And yeah, the continuum, first outlined by Kinsey and further refined by the excellent work of his Institute and sexologists and sociologists studying this problem around the world has some decent evidence for this and if you want a fascinating anecdotal version of this, be queer and start talking openly about "real" sexual orientation via the Kinsey Scale with all of your "presumed straight" friends. Lots of fun.

From my way too limited and anecdotal to be at all scientific support, my suspicions are, not normal distribution, but also not majority straight. Bisexuality seems to be the dominant sexuality for most.

Which to be entirely fair, seems to be how it shakes up in the animal kingdom, with some species being "at first perspective" almost entirely bisexual or given to engage in bisexual activity including several variants of primates.

There's some potential arguments that even more than heterosexuality, bisexuality may have the highest fitness especially in species that aren't naturally monogamous (promotes stronger tribe loyalty especially among males for greater kin fitness, gives males something to shag when females are out of heat, etc...)

Posted by: Cerberus | October 20, 2009 9:01 AM

Carlie-

Most definitely.

And it's really easy to see with who will even call themselves a bisexual. For instance a Kinsey 5 may call themselves completely gay or they might call themselves bi, but a Kinsey 1 will almost universally call themselves straight and most people in general assume a Kinsey 3 to be what a bisexual is.

Anyone who comes out as bi will be seen as a Kinsey 3 no matter where they line up. So naturally many who see themselves as Kinsey 2s or 1 will avoid the bi label if they can even if they are supporting of the concept because they want to privilege their dominant heterosexuality socially.

For people who don't even have that and have little vocabulary to examine their sexuality, the slightest hint of kinsey 5ness can be seen as the escape hatch to normal town. See Ted Haggard proudly trumpeting the fact that at one point he was attracted to his wife as his "not gay" proof.

Posted by: Josh | October 27, 2009 11:49 AM

BYU shock aversion therapy article on byu's website: http://digg.com/arts_culture/Exposed_Shock_aversion_therapy_on_gays_by_Mormon_Church