This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 11/16/2008 11:11:03 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
enough |
Posted on 11/14/2008 7:25:12 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Although a week has passed since California voters overturned that state's Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the state has felt numerous aftershocks as gay rights activists have mounted large-scale protests directed at supporters of Prop 8, specifically the Mormon church.
... Demonstrations outside Mormon temples were reported over the weekend throughout California and more are anticipated nationwide. The Mormon church, however, is not the only Prop 8 supporter coming under criticism for its role in the controversial election, as Catholics and Evangelical churches have seen protests, as well.
An estimated 10,000 gay-rights protesters gathered in San Diego, Calif. outside Saddleback Church. The church is home to Pastor Rick Warren...
... Catholic churches were also protested Sunday, and one protest in Michigan turned ugly.
A group of about 30 gay rights activists from the group "Bash Back!" stormed into Mount Hope Church in Lansing. Mich. and unfurled a large rainbow flag at the pulpit. The group also tried to disrupt the Mass by banging on cans and shouting "Jesus was a homo."
...
(Excerpt) Read more at thebulletin.us ...
That may depend on your definition of the word "love".
*****************
I usually avoid any of the threads that attract that kind of thing, but this one is about Prop 8, which is a subject of interest to me. It's an important issue which should not be sidetracked.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practicesSo here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.
Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself...”
(see also: United States v. The Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)
How ironic for these homosexual cultists, who want separation of church and state, that the court case they want to base their argument upon was used against the LDS church to justify the statutory regulation of marriage in the United States!
Just wait . . . someone will presently be by to explain that they are praying for me. [chuckle]
****************
There are worse things. :)
The doorbell just rang, and it was a Jehovah's Witness! (And she was a cutie).
LOL!
"A" JW???
That’s correct. She was alone (and I surmise she was a JW from the literature she handed me).
*********************
Are you seriously comparing the Admin Mod to the above?
Hyperbole much?
Philly Nomad wrote:
And the Homosexuals are right.
The Homosexuals werent bothering anybody, until a bunch of blue-noses got their knickers in a twist because they were entering legal contracts and having parties. So they put a stop to their fun.
Its not like the gays are going in there and shooting up the churches.
Philly Nomad wrote:
And the Homosexuals are right.
The Homosexuals werent bothering anybody, until a bunch of blue-noses got their knickers in a twist because they were entering legal contracts and having parties. So they put a stop to their fun.
Its not like the gays are going in there and shooting up the churches.
The Obama squads are still on payroll?
Heh. :)
Walsh: LDS stand on Prop. 8 oozes irony
By Rebecca Walsh, Tribune Columnist
Tales of Haun's Mill, Reed Smoot and Mitt Romney fill Sunday School and Family Home Evening lessons. Years of violence and lampooning and soft bigotry drive The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' historical narrative. Persecution is in the psyche of the people.
But now the victims seem to have turned into the aggressors - and over, of all things, an alternative definition of marriage.
-SNIP-
"This is a church that has been persecuted for its flavor of Christianity, for its past marriage practices, for its past religious practices. And here they are turning around and persecuting another group of people," says Jay Redd, a gay lapsed-Mormon movie director whose San Francisco marriage ceremony was featured last week in Salon.
-SNIP-
The irony is thick here. But it seems lost on church leaders and many members.
More than 150 years ago, Mormon settlers were driven from their homes and their prophet was killed, in part, because of their polygamous definition of marriage. After years of isolation and marginalization in the desert, the church abandoned the practice to achieve statehood, political legitimacy and validation in American society.
Now, Mormons are using the same words that were used against their ancestors. It's not completely inconsistent with a history and doctrine centered on procreation.
Still, in this electrified climate, the church can't escape legitimate reminders of its muddled history. Officially, Mormon polygamy is now a quandary for heaven. But California bloggers speculate that the church's support is really a ploy to legalize polygamy. After all, the thinking goes, the initiative language says "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But what about one man and two women?
-SNIP-
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks rejects the notion that the church's history of polygamy conflicts with its judgment of homosexuality.
-SNIP-
But that still seems to leave the door open. If polygamy can end with a revelation, wonders Washington Post columnist David Waters, what about Mormon opposition to gay marriage?
-SNIP-
Affirmation assistant executive director David Melson says the church has done damage to its own members and its reputation. "Win or lose, the actions of the church over the past 90 days will result in damage to the LDS Church in California and beyond from which it may take a generation or longer to recover," he says.
The ERA failed. But feminists still went to work.
Salt Lake City Tribune, November 2, 2008
Article excerpted according to posting rules.
You didn't see my posts, because they were deleted. I wish you had.
Moreover, are you claiming there is Freedom on the Religion Forum? Ha. You obviously have not posted there. Try entering into a debate about Mormonism there - and take the "con" side. See how far you get before you are either:
A. Attacked via Freepmail and on the Board
or
B. Threatened by the Mormon Mod
By the way, I was physically threatened by one of the most Holy LDS members here. He is well known here, and his nickname is "Thug."
He basically posted pictures and quotes from a 19th Century Mormon mass murderer named Orrin Porter Rockwell - and made it clear that he "wondered" if I would "enjoy" such a fate as his victims. When I finally complained, the Mods finally intervened, but only to basically say "Everyone Make Nice!" and left the offender on Free Republic. I was slapped down equally to him, and I never, ever made threats like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Rockwell
Then, when I posted the 19th Century Mass Murderers picture the following morning, I was mocked and jeered by one of the Mods - and then he/she deleted my post that provided a link and a picture of the Mormon "Destroying Angel of Mormondom" that the previous poster had threatened me with.
You don't have any idea of what you are talking about here. I suggest next time you post you listen and observe more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.