Unruly Passengers

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
said:
punishment. But they just fall all over themselves supporting the
right
to
commit suicide, euthanize old people, and kill unborn children. It
has
reached the point that the Democratic Party resembles nothing so much
as
a
cult of death worshippers.

Remember the good old days, when it was the Republicans who thought
that
the government shouldn't make laws taking away your right to do
something
unless it harmed others? That was back before they became a wholey
owned
subsidiary of the radical Christian Right.

And according to CJ's profile on Jay's site, that's a dead-on
assessment.

The radical Christian right might beg to differ with that view. When I was
working on Troy Romero's campaign for state senate a few years ago, the
local Journal-American pointed out that Troy is a 'Mormon' and recommended
voting against him because of his Christian beliefs.

We got the same thing here when Matt Salmon tried running for governor, from
both the Dem's and the Repub's.

The Christian right was
so incensed at a 'Mormon' running for office that they fielded their own
candidate and campaigned against Troy claiming that he is not a Christian.
So I guess you just can't win for losing.

Religions, for the most part, hate intolerence...of their views.


It has always been like that. Still, the State of Illinois recently passed
a
resolution apologizing for the State sanctioned assassination of Joseph
Smith (then the Presidential candidate of the Reform Party), seizing of
all
lands and assets belonging to 'Mormons,' official disenfranchisement of
all
members, driving them out of their homes in the middle of winter without
adequate food and clothing, and using military force to burn and pillage
the
city of Nauvoo. That was very nice of them and the resolution was
gratefully
received by members of the Church. Still, you see the same attitudes that
prevailed in those times are still around, even on this news group.

In Utah, until just a few years ago, you couldn't win office unless you were
Mormon. Same goes in predominantly Mormon areas in other states, such as
Mesa, AZ. Things have changed and they are longer the dominant political
force, but it isn't unusual in how these groups like to think that as long
as they are the majority they can rule with an iron fist.

I note, too, that the Mormon's were banned from practicing polygamy in the
late 1800's because "it wasn't a mainstream practice".

Today the Mormon's are pretty "hands off" regarding other peoples values and
they don't try to foist their religious values on the entire towns where
they live (such as bar, liquor and the like), but they sure didn't go
voluntarily.

Still, I don't think there's a religious group out there that wouldn't turn
their town, state, or the entire country into a theocracy of their own
making if they could get away with it. Apparently they think that all they
need is enough votes and a selective enough interpretation of the
Constitution that would do modern liberals proud.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:r5Vbc.12

In Utah, until just a few years ago, you couldn't win office unless you
were
Mormon. Same goes in predominantly Mormon areas in other states, such as
Mesa, AZ. Things have changed and they are longer the dominant political
force, but it isn't unusual in how these groups like to think that as long
as they are the majority they can rule with an iron fist.


This could be said of any place where there is essentially a dominant
monoculture. The alternative, of course, is to ask 'Mormons' (or anybody
else) to not promote their values in the political arena, which would be
both ridiculous and unfair. After all, that is what democracy is all about.
Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but 'Mormons'
should not? I think it is vital to a living democracy that everybody work
hard to promote their particular political agendas, or you will end up with
just the sort of iron fist rule that you are talking about.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:r5Vbc.12

In Utah, until just a few years ago, you couldn't win office unless you
were
Mormon. Same goes in predominantly Mormon areas in other states, such as
Mesa, AZ. Things have changed and they are longer the dominant political
force, but it isn't unusual in how these groups like to think that as
long
as they are the majority they can rule with an iron fist.


This could be said of any place where there is essentially a dominant
monoculture.

Except they are not a monoculture, even in Utah.

The alternative, of course, is to ask 'Mormons' (or anybody
else) to not promote their values in the political arena, which would be
both ridiculous and unfair.

Geez, you don't suppose the First Amendment tries to prevent that?

After all, that is what democracy is all about.

Well, considering the fact we're not a democracy...

Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but 'Mormons'
should not?

My political opinion has nothing to do with religious views or even my
morals. That stuff is between me and my alter ego.

I think it is vital to a living democracy that everybody work
hard to promote their particular political agendas, or you will end up
with
just the sort of iron fist rule that you are talking about.

Yeah...let's wait until the Fundementalist Muslims claim that right.


Like I said...give 'em enough votes.

(I though you had a better clue of the proper functions of government?)

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but
'Mormons'
should not?

My political opinion has nothing to do with religious views or even my
morals. That stuff is between me and my alter ego.

Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but
'Mormons'
should not?

My political opinion has nothing to do with religious views or even my
morals. That stuff is between me and my alter ego.

Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but
'Mormons'
should not?

My political opinion has nothing to do with religious views or even my
morals. That stuff is between me and my alter ego.

Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.

May I suggest that you are deluding yourself? Your views of what is right
and wrong are probably no more rational than those espoused by most
religions. It seems hypocritical to demand that you have a voice in the
political system while denying that voice to others on the basis of their
religious beliefs. Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.

May I suggest that you are deluding yourself? Your views of what is right
and wrong are probably no more rational than those espoused by most
religions.

Suggest anything you want, but until religion is based on reason instead of
faith, don't talk to me about rationality.

It seems hypocritical to demand that you have a voice in the
political system while denying that voice to others on the basis of their
religious beliefs.

I don't deny them their belief, only the basing of policy on them. As has
been mentioned previously, we're NOT a theocracy, no matter how much the
various sects try to cram it up out behinds.

Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

Wrong.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
One of the common causes of suicide is a terminal medical condition;
suicide in that situation *reduces* medical bills.

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_14b.../187008-1.html

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions
have
nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.

May I suggest that you are deluding yourself? Your views of what is
right
and wrong are probably no more rational than those espoused by most
religions.

Suggest anything you want, but until religion is based on reason instead
of
faith, don't talk to me about rationality.

It seems hypocritical to demand that you have a voice in the
political system while denying that voice to others on the basis of
their
religious beliefs.

I don't deny them their belief, only the basing of policy on them. As has
been mentioned previously, we're NOT a theocracy, no matter how much the
various sects try to cram it up out behinds.

Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

Wrong.

You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as you
do in yours.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

Wrong.

You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as
you
do in yours.

Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...