Jeep thing or sheep thing?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Marc wrote:

> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Skin color is given us, as is gender. Sexual orientation is something we
> >acquire. It is a choice we make somewhere along the line. Most of us choose
> >the opposite sex, but some of us do not. I don't really care which sex you
> >choose, if there are standards of morality in a community or state that make
> >your choice difficult, then you change your choice or your community.
>
> I can remember being attracted to females before reaching puberty and
> knowing what and why I was attracted to them. It was never a choice for
> me.

What?! You mean you never filled out your PR-SOS413 (Permanent Record
Sexual Orientation Selection) in triplicate and filed it at your local
post office "somewhere along the line"?! Dude, you're in SERIOUS trouble!
Sexual orientation isn't just *given*, y'know. It's not *innate*, you have
to CHOOSE! And heaven help you if you don't print in black or blue ink --
green doesn't count, and rumor has it they put you in "homosexual" if you
use peacock blue...

DS

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:43:55 -0400, Daniel J Stern
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Marc wrote:
>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Skin color is given us, as is gender. Sexual orientation is something we
>> >acquire. It is a choice we make somewhere along the line. Most of us choose
>> >the opposite sex, but some of us do not. I don't really care which sex you
>> >choose, if there are standards of morality in a community or state that make
>> >your choice difficult, then you change your choice or your community.
>>
>> I can remember being attracted to females before reaching puberty and
>> knowing what and why I was attracted to them. It was never a choice for
>> me.
>
>What?! You mean you never filled out your PR-SOS413 (Permanent Record
>Sexual Orientation Selection) in triplicate and filed it at your local
>post office "somewhere along the line"?! Dude, you're in SERIOUS trouble!
>Sexual orientation isn't just *given*, y'know. It's not *innate*, you have
>to CHOOSE! And heaven help you if you don't print in black or blue ink --
>green doesn't count, and rumor has it they put you in "homosexual" if you
>use peacock blue...
>
>DS

As a heterosexual female, I have always been rather confused by the
argument that you *choose* your attractions. My hormones kicked in
and I was attracted to men. I suppose if you are attracted to both
men and women, you can choose which set of attractions to act on,
but I sure didn't choose my heterosexual orientation and I don't
imagine that gay men or women someone decide one day to be
attracted to the same sex.

I think the argument that the attraction is a choice is weird. Now
the particular actions you take are a choice, but that's in the *how*
you express your sexuality, not in the gender of the person you are
attracted to.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

"toto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:43:55 -0400, Daniel J Stern
: <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: :
: As a heterosexual female, I have always been rather confused by the
: argument that you *choose* your attractions. My hormones kicked in
: and I was attracted to men. I suppose if you are attracted to both
: men and women, you can choose which set of attractions to act on,
: but I sure didn't choose my heterosexual orientation and I don't
: imagine that gay men or women someone decide one day to be
: attracted to the same sex.
:
: I think the argument that the attraction is a choice is weird. Now
: the particular actions you take are a choice, but that's in the *how*
: you express your sexuality, not in the gender of the person you are
: attracted to.
:
:
: --
: Dorothy
:

What? Why I can't imagine why EVERYONE wouldn't choose to be gay; to put up with the
taunts, insults, bullying, discrimination, the complete general bull****! That sounds so
attractive! We should all become homosexual right now!

"Dr. Zachary Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vjXPa.3582$Bp2.147@fed1read07...
>
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> :
> : "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]...
> : >
> : > "Buddy Ebsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > news:QiiPa.1134$Bp2.137@fed1read07...
> : > >
> : :
> : There's more than one issue here. First, 13 year old girls? Mormons
didn't
> : do that. Incest? Mormons didn't do that.
>
> The hell they didn't! You don't live here and don't have a clue about what
you are saying!
>
> Polygamy? Mormons did do that
> : more than a century ago, though very few as a percentage did. The
remnants
> : and effects of polygamy are still very strong in the church today.
Modern
> : polygamists have zero attachment to the polygamists from a century ago.
> : These people are typically in various forms of disaffection or have been
> : brought up with it. They are not Mormons, though they might have
started
> : out that way or their relatives from previous generations.
>
> Wrong. Colorado City is a Mormon Community! For the mormon church to
refute polygamy would
> require the restructuring of the core of their theology. Ol' Joseph Smith
& Bring'Em Young
> saw that plural wives was a central value of that religion.
>

I don't believe it. And I do know what I'm talking about. So I did a
little Yahoo search and found a brief history of the place and it's exactly
as I thought. The polygamists in Colorado City were excommunicated in 1935,
shortly after it was founded. They have their own church called the
Fundamentalist LDS church, or something like that, and believe the Mormon
church has lost it's way. They aren't Mormons and haven't been for 70 years
since they started their colony.

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "Dr. Zachary Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:vjXPa.3582$Bp2.147@fed1read07...
: >
: > "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > news:[email protected]...
: > :
: > : "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : news:[email protected]...
: > : >
: > : > "Buddy Ebsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: > : > news:QiiPa.1134$Bp2.137@fed1read07...
: > : > >
: > : :
: > : There's more than one issue here. First, 13 year old girls? Mormons
: didn't
: > : do that. Incest? Mormons didn't do that.
: >
: > The hell they didn't! You don't live here and don't have a clue about what
: you are saying!
: >
: > Polygamy? Mormons did do that
: > : more than a century ago, though very few as a percentage did. The
: remnants
: > : and effects of polygamy are still very strong in the church today.
: Modern
: > : polygamists have zero attachment to the polygamists from a century ago.
: > : These people are typically in various forms of disaffection or have been
: > : brought up with it. They are not Mormons, though they might have
: started
: > : out that way or their relatives from previous generations.
: >
: > Wrong. Colorado City is a Mormon Community! For the mormon church to
: refute polygamy would
: > require the restructuring of the core of their theology. Ol' Joseph Smith
: & Bring'Em Young
: > saw that plural wives was a central value of that religion.
: >
:
: I don't believe it. And I do know what I'm talking about. So I did a
: little Yahoo search and found a brief history of the place and it's exactly
: as I thought. The polygamists in Colorado City were excommunicated in 1935,
: shortly after it was founded. They have their own church called the
: Fundamentalist LDS church, or something like that, and believe the Mormon
: church has lost it's way. They aren't Mormons and haven't been for 70 years
: since they started their colony.

Splitting hairs.....
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy4.html
renounce polygamy and the cornerstone belief of that church dies. the only reason the salt
lake mormons went for it was to gain admittance to the union
http://www.truthandgrace.com/wives.htm
but then what religion has ever stood on principle? they all change to fit the winds of
time

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure you mean the ninth amendment. I can accept that a privacy right
> >can't be denied because it isn't enumerated. But a derived right must be
> >strongly rooted in other express rights. There has to be a limit to
derived
> >rights. Where is that limit? Some rights just can't be found in the
> >constitution. Those rights are reserved to the states and the people
(tenth
> >amendment).
>
> If they can't be found in the Constitution, that does not mean they are
not
> basic rights. Read the 9th. It is quite clear. You do not need to
> "derive" and rights from others. They are rights in their own right.
>

The ninth was originally included because some were very concerned that
enumerating any rights would imply that rights not enumerated were not
rights at all. The idea was to not allow a right to be denied just because
it isn't enumerated. That means that privacy can't be denied as a
constitutionally protected right just because it isn't enumerated. But
equally, it doesn't mean that privacy is a constitutionally protected right
just because it isn't enumerated.

The ninth doesn't say that rights not enumerated are necessarily protected
rights. That's ridiculous. We'd have total chaos with people making up
rights of all sorts, good and bad.

Also, if you read the tenth carefully, it seems to say that those not
enumerated are reserved to the states and the people to decide.

So here we are. Where's the line between rights protected by the
constitution and those to be decided by states? It's a great debate!

Roe v. Wade seemed to find a balancing point in the second trimester, with
right to privacy trumping everything in the first trimester, and right to
life winning in the third trimester and the second trimester neither
protected by the constitution.

These two rights are incompatible with each other when abortion becomes a
privacy issue. It expands privacy to include abortion and thus denies the
right to life in the first trimester. All on a judgement of viability. To
me, that's the arrogance of Roe v. Wade.


> Right to privacy is a basic right. I object to calling it "derived." The
> 9th Amendment is quite clear that there need be no other mention of the
> right for it to be a right. The court doesn't need to decide whether it
> "derives" from other enumerated rights.
>
> It is quite reasonable that the right to privacy not be enumerated. There
> was no practical way to violate it. The EM spectrum was not in use for
> personal reasons. There were not any communications devices in people's
> houses. The recording and surveillance technology employed by the
> government consisted of a guy with a telescope (very poor quality) and a
> paint brush. If you didn't want anyone violating your privacy, you closed
> your blinds. The regulations against mail tampering should have been
> applied to *all* communications as they became available. That was the
> only possible invasion of privacy.
>
> Today, there is technology that will let people see in the dark, look
> through walls, monitor nearly all wired and wireless communications. The
> right to privacy that is as important today as it was in 1787 was not
> enumerated then because it was not necessary to enumerate it based on the
> limitations in being able to violate it.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, toto wrote:

> As a heterosexual female, I have always been rather confused by the
> argument that you *choose* your attractions. My hormones kicked in and
> I was attracted to men. I suppose if you are attracted to both men and
> women, you can choose which set of attractions to act on, but I sure
> didn't choose my heterosexual orientation and I don't imagine that gay
> men or women someone decide one day to be attracted to the same sex. I
> think the argument that the attraction is a choice is weird.

That's how I see it, too.

> Now the particular actions you take are a choice, but that's in the
> *how* you express your sexuality, not in the gender of the person you
> are attracted to.

Very important point, and it brings up an interesting contradiction: Those
against gay rights/protection/marriage/whatever seem to think that to be
gay means to engage in particular behavior. The notion that gay people
fall in love and develop emotional relationships seems not to enter the
picture, for some reason.

By the same token, there are just as many ways to have
unhealthy/unsafe/unclean heterosexual sex as there are to have
unhealthy/unsafe/unclean homosexual sex, and just as many ways to have a
****ed-up ("dysfunctional") heterosexual relationship as to have a
****ed-up homosexual relationship. Mind games, lying, manipulation, etc --
I don't think these are exclusive to relationships of any orientation.

DS

"Will Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Rg1Qa.3670$Bp2.2667@fed1read07...
>
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> :
> : "Dr. Zachary Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:vjXPa.3582$Bp2.147@fed1read07...
> : >
> : > "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > news:[email protected]...
> : > :
> : > : "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > : news:[email protected]...
> : > : >
> : > : > "Buddy Ebsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > : > news:QiiPa.1134$Bp2.137@fed1read07...

<snip>

> : > Wrong. Colorado City is a Mormon Community! For the mormon church to
> : refute polygamy would
> : > require the restructuring of the core of their theology. Ol' Joseph
Smith
> : & Bring'Em Young
> : > saw that plural wives was a central value of that religion.
> : >
> :
> : I don't believe it. And I do know what I'm talking about. So I did a
> : little Yahoo search and found a brief history of the place and it's
exactly
> : as I thought. The polygamists in Colorado City were excommunicated in
1935,
> : shortly after it was founded. They have their own church called the
> : Fundamentalist LDS church, or something like that, and believe the
Mormon
> : church has lost it's way. They aren't Mormons and haven't been for 70
years
> : since they started their colony.
>
> Splitting hairs.....

Not at all. It's a vital point. Mormons don't practice polygamy. To
suggest there's a wink and a nod going on while tolerating polygamy is
waaayyyyy off base. It's totally false.

> http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy4.html
> renounce polygamy and the cornerstone belief of that church dies. the only
reason the salt
> lake mormons went for it was to gain admittance to the union

This is simply not true. The cornerstone of the church is revelation via a
modern prophet. The foundation is faith in Jesus Christ.

> http://www.truthandgrace.com/wives.htm
> but then what religion has ever stood on principle? they all change to fit
the winds of
> time

Renouncing polygamy was the right thing to do in 1890. That decision
doesn't fit into the category of sacrifice principle "to fit the winds of
time." More than any religion I know Mormons are principled. We haven't
gone along with the sexual revolution, feminism, abortion, redefining the
family and marriage.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:08:09 -0400, Daniel J Stern
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, toto wrote:
>
>> As a heterosexual female, I have always been rather confused by the
>> argument that you *choose* your attractions. My hormones kicked in and
>> I was attracted to men. I suppose if you are attracted to both men and
>> women, you can choose which set of attractions to act on, but I sure
>> didn't choose my heterosexual orientation and I don't imagine that gay
>> men or women someone decide one day to be attracted to the same sex. I
>> think the argument that the attraction is a choice is weird.
>
>That's how I see it, too.
>
>> Now the particular actions you take are a choice, but that's in the
>> *how* you express your sexuality, not in the gender of the person you
>> are attracted to.
>
>Very important point, and it brings up an interesting contradiction: Those
>against gay rights/protection/marriage/whatever seem to think that to be
>gay means to engage in particular behavior. The notion that gay people
>fall in love and develop emotional relationships seems not to enter the
>picture, for some reason.
>
I think in some ways, this is actually because society makes if very
difficult for gays to have stable relationships.

I think that the emotional relationships among gays I know that have
lasted, often last *despite* many more hardships that society imposes
than the ones that heterosexuals face in general.

We all face our own challenges in any relationship, but when you
are not allowed to proclaim your love (for example, just having
pictures of your lover on your desk at work, is one thing that most
heterosexuals can do that many homosexuals cannot do without
having problems with their bosses), you face obstacles placed
in your way that don't exist for heterosexuals.

>By the same token, there are just as many ways to have
>unhealthy/unsafe/unclean heterosexual sex as there are to
>have unhealthy/unsafe/unclean homosexual sex, and just as
>many ways to have a ****ed-up ("dysfunctional") heterosexual
>relationship as to have a ****ed-up homosexual relationship.
>Mind games, lying, manipulation, etc --
>I don't think these are exclusive to relationships of any
>orientation.
>
I agree with this. I also think there are arguments to be made
for gay marriage that go beyond the legal aspects of simply
being fair to all people.

You can look at this two ways, imo.

Either the state has NO interest in marriage at all and should
get out of the business of approving them entirely and should
stop all legal tax breaks, etc for couples no matter what the
gender of such partners is.

Or the state has a compelling interest in stable relationships
and so should encourage both gay and straight couples to
marry and to commit to staying together.

Personally, I think that state sanctioning of such relationships
is unnecessary unless their are children involved (and that
includes children adopted by gays as well as natural and
adopted children of straight couples). I would expect that
the state might have an interest in protecting the rights of
partners in relationships in the sense of allowing for insurance
and health care, etc, but that doesn't require marriage per
se, but only recognition that two people have committed
themselves to a domestic partnership.

OTOH, I would like to see marriage become more difficult
and to see divorce be more difficult as well. It seems to me
that the stability children need is best provided by two parents
who are committed to making their relationship work for a
long period of time. We tend these days to throw away
relationships thinking a better one is around the corner
or that little irritations are enough to break the bond we are
creating. Single parenthood is very difficult and the animosities
in most divorces create pulls on kids that are bad for them and
bad for society.

It wouldn't be bad to have several different kinds of marriages
recognized by the government with one where the couple
wants to have children being the most stable and committed
kind and the hardest to get out of.

>DS



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

Will Robinson wrote:
>
> I merely made the point that slavery is condoned in the bible. Many people are surprised
> to hear that. There are lots of things in the bible that should make people think twice
> before praising it as some great literary work. Personally, I prefer "Cosmos"

WARNING WILL ROBINSONS!! DANGER DANGER!!

(or is that the response you were hoping for by using that moniker?) 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Your example of the Olympic scandal is odd since there's no "official
dogma"
> that relates to what happened.

This is a lame excuse. My sister in law and her husband just returned from
living for 3
years in Salt Lake City and they know what goes on there firsthand.
Fundamentally,
the city of Salt Lake is run by the Mormon Church. It is of course
convenient for the
Mormon Church to not have "official" jurisdiction over the secular city
government, but
the fact of the matter is that all the movers and shakers as well as just
about all the line
bureaucrats in Salt Lake City are Mormon Church members, and there is a huge
Old
Boy's network down there. Oh occassionally you run across the odd crank
here and
there who rails against the church, but when the Church wants something
(like condemming
several of the busiest city streets smack in the middle of downtown so they
can build
a park) they get it, regardless of any land use planning laws that may say
otherwise.

For you to argue that the Mormon Church wasn't intimately involved with the
IOC's
selection of Salt Lake is totally rediculous for anyone that has experienced
first hand
living in Salt Lake City.

The Mormon Church claims to stand for morals, but what was done to get Salt
Lake
selected was the most immoral Olympic selection process in the history of
the selection
process itself. Clearly, the money of having the Games there was far more
important
to the Mormon Church than any qualms about immoralities of bribing committee
members,
otherwise none of the bribery would have happened.

Natually, the Church is going to protest and claim they had nothing to do
with it, just
like the Catholic Church protests and claims they had nothing to do with the
priest
sex abuse scadals. But The Church was in charge of the government down
there and
the government did some very, very bad things.

> Excommunication is a very personal matter
> and isn't used to identify scapegoats or send a message to or appease
> anyone.
>

I said nothing about excommunication. What I said was that if the Mormon
Church of
Salt Lake had any morality, when news of the scandal broke they would have
made a
public announcement stating that they did not feel that Salt Lake deserved
to host the
games, due to the immoral and illegal nature of the decision making process.
If the IOC,
after it had reconstituted the selection committee, had then said "That's
OK, your forgiven,
we are going to keep Salt Lake selected" then that would have been fine.
But the Church
remained silent on the immorality of the bribery used to get Salt Lake
selected, and quite
obviously made sure that any discussion of fairly reselecting the site of
the Games was
quashed.

Ted

"toto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Either the state has NO interest in marriage at all and should
> get out of the business of approving them entirely and should
> stop all legal tax breaks, etc for couples no matter what the
> gender of such partners is.
>
> Or the state has a compelling interest in stable relationships
> and so should encourage both gay and straight couples to
> marry and to commit to staying together.
>

From a pure economic standpoint the state has TREMENDOUS
interest in promoting marriage and stable relationships, whether
gay or straight.

If you look at who is on welfare, it is overwhelmingly single
parents raising children, where the other half has disappeared
and abandonded financial responsibility.

And worse than that, is that until the total income of the person
or the combined income of the couple reached I think it's
$36,000 yearly, the person or couple is not paying as much in
taxes to the government as they are extracting in common
resources. (ie: roads, police & fire, etc. etc.) Actually the
dollar figure might be higher, you can look this up.

Also, it is much more likely that a higher income resulting
from a combined income on a marriage will be used to purchase
a home, thus spawning a whole bunch of other purchases
(improvements, vehicles, etc.) which help the economy.

So, regardless of the morality, if you discuss this subject with
any economist, they are going to give you a whole pile of math
that explains the factual reasons that the government is currently
involved in promoting marriage with tax credits, etc.

>
> OTOH, I would like to see marriage become more difficult
> and to see divorce be more difficult as well. It seems to me

NO NO NO you DEFINITELY don't what this! What you want
to do is make marriage very easy to get into, and rather difficult
and costly to get out of, which is how it is setup now. (unless
there's no children involved and the divorce is no-faulted)

Ted

Well, believe what you will. I have no doubt there's a clash of cultures in
Salt Lake City and that the church does have a lot of influence as it's had
from the beginning (when it was the only thing there). There's certainly
nothing suprising about that given a majority there are LDS and that's where
the headquarters of the church is. It's no different than any other large
organization in relatively small cities.

Let me just say that I don't want to be an apologist for LDS in SLC who
behave badly. I have no doubt it happens and it hurts the church. They
constantly plea to members to be good neighbors at the bi-annual conferences
held there. The church's influence is indirect and it can't control those
who behave badly.

This Olympic bribery business was an unfortunate thing. It has happened at
virtually every city the Olympics has been at. It was some of the members
of the IOC who expected and courted favors. Heck, in many countries it's
business as usual to grease the skids to get business done. The only reason
it made news in SLC was because an insider saw some of it going on and
thought it was wrong and reported it. And I say kudos to that person. How
much do you want to bet that person was LDS?

But for the church to step in and say the Olympics should move is
ridiculous. Those who need to be punished are the guilty, not everyone
else. And nobody wanted it to happen. Not the (remaining members of the)
IOC, not anyone who had a say in the matter, not the regular people in Salt
Lake, not the athletes. Maybe just those who reveled in watching the church
in an embarrassing situation. The people involved were kicked out (both the
IOC and the SLOC), the IOC used the opportunity to reform itself (hopefully)
and then business went on.

Also, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Your example of the Olympic scandal is odd since there's no "official
> dogma"
> > that relates to what happened.
>
> This is a lame excuse. My sister in law and her husband just returned
from
> living for 3
> years in Salt Lake City and they know what goes on there firsthand.
> Fundamentally,
> the city of Salt Lake is run by the Mormon Church. It is of course
> convenient for the
> Mormon Church to not have "official" jurisdiction over the secular city
> government, but
> the fact of the matter is that all the movers and shakers as well as just
> about all the line
> bureaucrats in Salt Lake City are Mormon Church members, and there is a
huge
> Old
> Boy's network down there. Oh occassionally you run across the odd crank
> here and
> there who rails against the church, but when the Church wants something
> (like condemming
> several of the busiest city streets smack in the middle of downtown so
they
> can build
> a park) they get it, regardless of any land use planning laws that may say
> otherwise.
>
> For you to argue that the Mormon Church wasn't intimately involved with
the
> IOC's
> selection of Salt Lake is totally rediculous for anyone that has
experienced
> first hand
> living in Salt Lake City.
>
> The Mormon Church claims to stand for morals, but what was done to get
Salt
> Lake
> selected was the most immoral Olympic selection process in the history of
> the selection
> process itself. Clearly, the money of having the Games there was far more
> important
> to the Mormon Church than any qualms about immoralities of bribing
committee
> members,
> otherwise none of the bribery would have happened.
>
> Natually, the Church is going to protest and claim they had nothing to do
> with it, just
> like the Catholic Church protests and claims they had nothing to do with
the
> priest
> sex abuse scadals. But The Church was in charge of the government down
> there and
> the government did some very, very bad things.
>
> > Excommunication is a very personal matter
> > and isn't used to identify scapegoats or send a message to or appease
> > anyone.
> >
>
> I said nothing about excommunication. What I said was that if the Mormon
> Church of
> Salt Lake had any morality, when news of the scandal broke they would have
> made a
> public announcement stating that they did not feel that Salt Lake deserved
> to host the
> games, due to the immoral and illegal nature of the decision making
process.
> If the IOC,
> after it had reconstituted the selection committee, had then said "That's
> OK, your forgiven,
> we are going to keep Salt Lake selected" then that would have been fine.
> But the Church
> remained silent on the immorality of the bribery used to get Salt Lake
> selected, and quite
> obviously made sure that any discussion of fairly reselecting the site of
> the Games was
> quashed.
>
> Ted
>
>

I live in Colorado. We don't need no stinking Olympics to trash our state.

http://www.summit-magazine.com/story.cfm?ID=115

Will this thread never die?

Earle

David Allen wrote:
> Well, believe what you will. I have no doubt there's a clash of cultures in
> Salt Lake City and that the church does have a lot of influence as it's had
> from the beginning (when it was the only thing there). There's certainly
> nothing suprising about that given a majority there are LDS and that's where
> the headquarters of the church is. It's no different than any other large
> organization in relatively small cities.
>
> Let me just say that I don't want to be an apologist for LDS in SLC who
> behave badly. I have no doubt it happens and it hurts the church. They
> constantly plea to members to be good neighbors at the bi-annual conferences
> held there. The church's influence is indirect and it can't control those
> who behave badly.
>
> This Olympic bribery business was an unfortunate thing. It has happened at
> virtually every city the Olympics has been at. It was some of the members
> of the IOC who expected and courted favors. Heck, in many countries it's
> business as usual to grease the skids to get business done. The only reason
> it made news in SLC was because an insider saw some of it going on and
> thought it was wrong and reported it. And I say kudos to that person. How
> much do you want to bet that person was LDS?
>
> But for the church to step in and say the Olympics should move is
> ridiculous. Those who need to be punished are the guilty, not everyone
> else. And nobody wanted it to happen. Not the (remaining members of the)
> IOC, not anyone who had a say in the matter, not the regular people in Salt
> Lake, not the athletes. Maybe just those who reveled in watching the church
> in an embarrassing situation. The people involved were kicked out (both the
> IOC and the SLOC), the IOC used the opportunity to reform itself (hopefully)
> and then business went on.
>
> Also, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>Your example of the Olympic scandal is odd since there's no "official
>>
>>dogma"
>>
>>>that relates to what happened.
>>
>>This is a lame excuse. My sister in law and her husband just returned
>
> from
>
>>living for 3
>>years in Salt Lake City and they know what goes on there firsthand.
>>Fundamentally,
>>the city of Salt Lake is run by the Mormon Church. It is of course
>>convenient for the
>>Mormon Church to not have "official" jurisdiction over the secular city
>>government, but
>>the fact of the matter is that all the movers and shakers as well as just
>>about all the line
>>bureaucrats in Salt Lake City are Mormon Church members, and there is a
>
> huge
>
>>Old
>>Boy's network down there. Oh occassionally you run across the odd crank
>>here and
>>there who rails against the church, but when the Church wants something
>>(like condemming
>>several of the busiest city streets smack in the middle of downtown so
>
> they
>
>>can build
>>a park) they get it, regardless of any land use planning laws that may say
>>otherwise.
>>
>>For you to argue that the Mormon Church wasn't intimately involved with
>
> the
>
>>IOC's
>>selection of Salt Lake is totally rediculous for anyone that has
>
> experienced
>
>>first hand
>>living in Salt Lake City.
>>
>>The Mormon Church claims to stand for morals, but what was done to get
>
> Salt
>
>>Lake
>>selected was the most immoral Olympic selection process in the history of
>>the selection
>>process itself. Clearly, the money of having the Games there was far more
>>important
>>to the Mormon Church than any qualms about immoralities of bribing
>
> committee
>
>>members,
>>otherwise none of the bribery would have happened.
>>
>>Natually, the Church is going to protest and claim they had nothing to do
>>with it, just
>>like the Catholic Church protests and claims they had nothing to do with
>
> the
>
>>priest
>>sex abuse scadals. But The Church was in charge of the government down
>>there and
>>the government did some very, very bad things.
>>
>>
>>>Excommunication is a very personal matter
>>>and isn't used to identify scapegoats or send a message to or appease
>>>anyone.
>>>
>>
>>I said nothing about excommunication. What I said was that if the Mormon
>>Church of
>>Salt Lake had any morality, when news of the scandal broke they would have
>>made a
>>public announcement stating that they did not feel that Salt Lake deserved
>>to host the
>>games, due to the immoral and illegal nature of the decision making
>
> process.
>
>>If the IOC,
>>after it had reconstituted the selection committee, had then said "That's
>>OK, your forgiven,
>>we are going to keep Salt Lake selected" then that would have been fine.
>>But the Church
>>remained silent on the immorality of the bribery used to get Salt Lake
>>selected, and quite
>>obviously made sure that any discussion of fairly reselecting the site of
>>the Games was
>>quashed.
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>
>
>
>

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>
>>> ...No government should have absolute power over its citizens, not even a
>>> democratic government elected by the people...
>>
>>A truly democratic government, by definition, *does* in fact have
>>absolute rule over its citizens - IOW - the majority rules in all
>>cases. IOW, in a true democracy, if the majority votes to put a person
>>to death just because they don't like the color of his shoes, then he
>>gets put to death. We live in a constitutional republic - the
>>Constitution trumps the majority will by specifying rights that can't be
>>abridged. IOW, the Constitution is the only thing that stands between
>>us and mob rule ( = anarchy = true democracy).
>>
>>(I know - picky, picky, picky)
>
>And ignorant. We are a democracy as well as a republic. Look up "democracy"
>in the dictionary -- you've cited just ONE definition.

When dealing with a specialty, words are generally redefined for one
specific, unambiguous, definition. Take, for example, the legal
profession. They define specific words in ways to eliminate confusion and
ambiguity. The same is true for other professions.

The political science definition of democracy is exclusive of republics
because there is a word to define republics. There is no reason to have
the overlap. So you know that, when using the words in the "technical"
manner that a "democratic republic" is one where some items are voted on
directly and others are voted on through elected representatives. When you
further add "constitutional" to the front, you know that there is a set
document that outlines rules as well.

Or is a covalent bond when two atoms hang out for a while and learn that
they show similar interests? Just because it is in the dictionary doesn't
mean that it applies to the context.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

This thread isn't dead yet??? Move on, folks, move on.

B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

This thread isn't dead yet??? Move on folks, move on.

B

--
Brian Heller

It is easier to tame wild beasts
than to conquer the human mind.

Brian wrote:
> This thread isn't dead yet??? Move on, folks, move on.

<python>It's not dead, it's just resting.</python>

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:09:39 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Well, believe what you will. I have no doubt there's a clash of cultures in
>Salt Lake City and that the church does have a lot of influence as it's had
>from the beginning (when it was the only thing there). There's certainly
>nothing suprising about that given a majority there are LDS and that's where
>the headquarters of the church is. It's no different than any other large
>organization in relatively small cities.

Yes, it is different. The Mormons have run Utah for years. There are
no other states run by specific religious groups.

I like to look at Mitt Romney "I saved the Olympics" as an example
of a well known Mormon with high moral standards. He lived in Utah
for years, got tax exemptions for being a Utah resident, signed
the tax returns where he claimed the exemptions. Even signed the
checks to pay the taxes where the residence deduction was shown.
Then, when it was time to run for governor of MA, suddenly he was
a resident of MA all along.

Quite a moral example: first claimed he never got the exemptions,
the claimed he never saw the checks as his wife wrote them, then
claimed he signed them but never read the paperwork, then claimed
his accountant did the tax returns and he never read them.

Yes, indeed-e-do, a real great example of Mormon morals. Funny
how the officials in UT never prosecuted him for tax fraud
following his claims that he was never a resident there.

Bob

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:09:39 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Well, believe what you will. I have no doubt there's a clash of cultures
in
> >Salt Lake City and that the church does have a lot of influence as it's
had
> >from the beginning (when it was the only thing there). There's certainly
> >nothing suprising about that given a majority there are LDS and that's
where
> >the headquarters of the church is. It's no different than any other
large
> >organization in relatively small cities.
>
> Yes, it is different. The Mormons have run Utah for years. There are
> no other states run by specific religious groups.
>

Maybe you should call the Justice department. Isn't that illegal? You
know, separation of church & state?

The feds ran the mob out of Chicago and NY. Certainly they can fix this


> I like to look at Mitt Romney "I saved the Olympics" as an example
> of a well known Mormon with high moral standards. He lived in Utah
> for years, got tax exemptions for being a Utah resident, signed
> the tax returns where he claimed the exemptions. Even signed the
> checks to pay the taxes where the residence deduction was shown.
> Then, when it was time to run for governor of MA, suddenly he was
> a resident of MA all along.
>
> Quite a moral example: first claimed he never got the exemptions,
> the claimed he never saw the checks as his wife wrote them, then
> claimed he signed them but never read the paperwork, then claimed
> his accountant did the tax returns and he never read them.
>
> Yes, indeed-e-do, a real great example of Mormon morals. Funny
> how the officials in UT never prosecuted him for tax fraud
> following his claims that he was never a resident there.
>
> Bob

Don't blame Mitt, he didn't elect himself governor. Heaven knows there's a
lot of smart people in Massachussetts, isn't there?

Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that he's maintained homes in
both states for YEARS and lived primarily in Utah during the run up to the
Olympics. Only his political enemies were digging in that hole.