LDS Church Found Guilty on 13 Counts of Prop 8 Malfeasance, Fined by FPPC

[MissDirection]

By Dan Aiello
California Progress Report

On Wednesday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints became the first religious organization to be fined for political malfeasance, according to Californians Against Hate (CAH), the non-profit organization that filed the complaint after voters narrowly approved the anti-marriage equality initiative, proposition 8, November, 2008

Leaders of the Mormon Church "failed to timely report making late non-monetary contributions" to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, an amount totaling $36,928, according to the June 10, 2010 finding by California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), announced at the commission's meeting Wednesday in Sacramento. The commission's enforcement included levying a 15% punitive fine against the LDS organization, totaling $5,539 dollars.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7845

Can we strip their tax free status yet? Maybe jsut at least for the year they were a political organization.

Doesnt freedom of religon mean freedom from religion as well?

http://www.empireonline.com/images/features/avenging-angels/dogma.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py6Zc3eq0Uo

[Pasadenacpl2]

Doesnt freedom of religon mean freedom from religion as well?

No. Those are two distinctly different statements, with two very different meanings. One of those statements is supported by the Constitution. The other is not.

Pasa

[MissDirection]

No. Those are two distinctly different statements, with two very different meanings. One of those statements is supported by the Constitution. The other is not.

Pasa

They sure sound the same from where I'm sitting. Explain how they are different, maybe I'll get it.

[Pasadenacpl2]

One is free, by our Constitution, to exercise religion in any way that one chooses. That is freedom 'of' religion.

Freedom 'from' religion is the concept that you have the right never to hear from anyone else about religion. You don't. Freedom from religion is a concept that says that you cannot be affected by a vote I cast for religious reasons. Nothing in our Constitution says anything of the kind. Anyone who has a wholehearted belief in their god votes with the principles their god gives them to live by. You are not free from that. And nothing in the Constitution supports the idea that you are.

Example: We pray at ball games. You don't have to participate, but you don't get to shut them up from doing it. Example: We pray at commencement ceremonies, you don't have to pray, but you cannot demand that the prayer not happen.

The "Freedom From Religion Coalition" is a group that wants to turn all expression of religion outside of a church or your home into an illegal act. Thank God they will not be successful, though they have been the power behind the attack on relgious expression, such as the removal of saying "Merry Christmas" in the workplace of many major industries.

Pasa

[MissDirection]

One is free, by our Constitution, to exercise religion in any way that one chooses. That is freedom 'of' religion.

Freedom 'from' religion is the concept that you have the right never to hear from anyone else about religion. You don't. Freedom from religion is a concept that says that you cannot be affected by a vote I cast for religious reasons. Nothing in our Constitution says anything of the kind. Anyone who has a wholehearted belief in their god votes with the principles their god gives them to live by. You are not free from that. And nothing in the Constitution supports the idea that you are.

Example: We pray at ball games. You don't have to participate, but you don't get to shut them up from doing it. Example: We pray at commencement ceremonies, you don't have to pray, but you cannot demand that the prayer not happen.

The "Freedom From Religion Coalition" is a group that wants to turn all expression of religion outside of a church or your home into an illegal act. Thank God they will not be successful, though they have been the power behind the attack on relgious expression, such as the removal of saying "Merry Christmas" in the workplace of many major industries.

Pasa

Yeah, but I dont have to go to either the baseball game or to the commencement. I dont care what you do with your religion, just keep it out of my face. No, I dont care why you think your religion is the bestest thing since ice cream, I really dont.

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." -RAH

[DuckiesDarling]

You asked for clarification of his statement that the two sentiments were different and I agree they are different. He gave it and you accuse him of slamming his religion in your face? Sighs.........

[MissDirection]

You asked for clarification of his statement that the two sentiments were different and I agree they are different. He gave it and you accuse him of slamming his religion in your face? Sighs.........

No, Accusing him would be saying he did it. I was using the universal "you" as in those of the religous persuasion.

He hasnt preached at me, yet...

[Pasadenacpl2]

Then we agree. You have that freedom to express your religious preference that way. You don't have to worship the way anyone else tells you to. That's freedom of religion. You are not, however, free from hearing about it from others. To be so, would infringe on their freedom to express their religion.

Two different concepts. Two different ideas. One is supported by our Constitution, and one is not.

I love Heinlein, btw. Stranger in a Strange Land is a book I recommend to many, many people both religious and atheist. Your quote is one that I always pictured Jubal Harshaw using.

Pasa

[Falke]

Then we agree. You have that freedom to express your religious preference that way. You don't have to worship the way anyone else tells you to. That's freedom of religion. You are not, however, free from hearing about it from others. To be so, would infringe on their freedom to express their religion.
Pasa

This. Really, if it weren't for putting their religious code into law I and many others would have absolutely no issues with religious folks what-so-ever.

[MissDirection]

This. Really, if it weren't for putting their religious code into law I and many others would have absolutely no issues with religious folks what-so-ever.

Preach it brother!

[Pasadenacpl2]

This. Really, if it weren't for putting their religious code into law I and many others would have absolutely no issues with religious folks what-so-ever.

Most of our basic laws are based upon religious belief and has been from time immemorial. The basis for even things such as laws against theft and murder stem from religious belief, codes and laws. So, the line in the sand you are looking for is extremely hard to define.

I'll agree with you that overt religious belief should not be a part of our laws. Example: marriage. Then again, I think we should remove marriage from the law completely.

Pasa

[TaylorMade]

This. Really, if it weren't for putting their religious code into law I and many others would have absolutely no issues with religious folks what-so-ever.

If it were only religious people ALONE that went for it, then I'd agree. It's one of those issues that DOES cross religious lines.

At this point, I don't have much besides ... they are guilty, let them pay the fine and go on their way. Life's too short for grudges, and they only affect the holder, anyhow.

~kanye shrug~




I'll agree with you that overt religious belief should not be a part of our laws. Example: marriage. Then again, I think we should remove marriage from the law completely.

Pasa

I'll go with that as well... As much as I love me some ceremony (that's the British part of me talking) I think it would actually mean more if there was some serious legal paperwork . . . make it as tedious, complicated and costly as buying a new car or a house, and I think people would slow down on it.

*Taylor*

[MissDirection]

Most of our basic laws are based upon religious belief and has been from time immemorial. The basis for even things such as laws against theft and murder stem from religious belief, codes and laws. So, the line in the sand you are looking for is extremely hard to define.

I'll agree with you that overt religious belief should not be a part of our laws. Example: marriage. Then again, I think we should remove marriage from the law completely.

Pasa

Most of which originated in the "Code of Hamurabi" .

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

[TaylorMade]

Yeah... but BOTH Hammurabi AND Moses as well as Solomon are immortalized on the Supreme Court Building's facade. So... there's that. It can get REALLY subjective.

And there's Muhammad up there too.

IJS.

*Taylor*

[Pasadenacpl2]

Most of which originated in the "Code of Hamurabi" .

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Absolutely correct...well...correct in that Hammurabi is the first person we have found to have written down laws. We do not, however, know if Moses knew of these (as some are close to what was written in the 10 Commandments).

But, guess what? Hammurabi got his laws, written on tablets, from the Sun God Shamash. These laws were ordained by the gods that were important to the people of the time.

It is a VERY recent event in human affairs that laws have not been born of religious origins, or that anyone has desired it to be. There is not, currently, a purely secular government on the planet. No nation's laws are free of the influence of religion. And why is this? Because religion is an important facet, and need, of the majority of human kind.

I respect your desire to not believe what I believe. I even respect your desire to believe that God(s) do not exist. I will not respect you much if you read and believe Dawkins, but that's just because he's a terrible scientist and an even worse luminary. But, I digress.

But, for all of that, to say that law should be free from religion is to want to remove laws from mankind, for religion is a fundamental part of man, and has been since man began.

Pasa

[MissDirection]

FWIW: I didnt say god doesnt exist. I just dont think we know enough to know one way or the other.

As far as Dawkins goes, I dont, in fact, read him. But then I dont read any of these new age whatsits (gurus?)

[allbimyself]

Saying laws stem from religion is nonsense. Since all religions were invented by man, laws stemming from religion also were created by man.

[Falke]

Most of our basic laws are based upon religious belief and has been from time immemorial. The basis for even things such as laws against theft and murder stem from religious belief, codes and laws. So, the line in the sand you are looking for is extremely hard to define.

I'll agree with you that overt religious belief should not be a part of our laws. Example: marriage. Then again, I think we should remove marriage from the law completely.

Pasa


You are correct. To put it in a 6 one way, half dozen the other so-to-speak, many of those basic common sense laws. Murder for example is considered wrong by most people, the damage it causes is quite massive to those involved. Same same thing goes with theft. Almost anyone you talk to will consider these to be distasteful acts, regardless of what religion or beliefs they hold.

As far as the rest goes, I also agree that overt religious laws should not stand. This goes for everyone, if the purpose of a law is because X or Y group is offended, but it doesn't cause any damage, then said law should be seriously examined or nixed outright. Sex toy bans, Gay marriage bans, indecency laws, etc. would fall under this.

[TaylorMade]

You are correct. To put it in a 6 one way, half dozen the other so-to-speak, many of those basic common sense laws. Murder for example is considered wrong by most people, the damage it causes is quite massive to those involved. Same same thing goes with theft. Almost anyone you talk to will consider these to be distasteful acts, regardless of what religion or beliefs they hold.

As far as the rest goes, I also agree that overt religious laws should not stand. This goes for everyone, if the purpose of a law is because X or Y group is offended, but it doesn't cause any damage, then said law should be seriously examined or nixed outright. Sex toy bans, Gay marriage bans, indecency laws, etc. would fall under this.

I think about it like this . . .if Christ lived in a world where for much of the non-Jewish population prostitution is legal, homosexuality and bisexuality were known quantities, and . . .for good for for ill, people managed to not destroy the species.

I think we'll be fine. Not perfect, but fine.

*Taylor*