What group of americans are still being discriminated against?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Does being annoyed by the door bell ringing on Saturday count as repression?

I used to try to convert them to Catholicism.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Please, when you quote studies, quote from peer-reviewed journals, or at least use sources that quote from those.

Any idiot can publish a book. Just look at the books about horoscopes, for example.

Eh, I don't care enough to deep quote. He didn't make up the stuff though, its all cited. The 50's stats from Better Home and Garden (yea I know, but it was the 50s), the 70's stats from Alcohol Health and Research World 6, and the 91 stats were compiled by the author from various survey data. (he's been published in several journals, he's not some out there wacko)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Does being annoyed by the door bell ringing on Saturday count as repression?

If they don't give up? Seems like at least harrassment to me.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
It is not a case where people are treated equally by the law. You cannot simply declare that since most people will reach a certain age and be granted rights, its equal. Inequality moves along the 4th dimension too. The political opinions of a 70 year old are not the same as that of a 30 year old, so it would be wrong to claim equal treatment by making everyone wait until 70 to vote..

It would still be equal treatment. Equally wrong perhaps, but equal. Somewhat like having to stand in line at the DMV to get your liscence, wait your turn. Except everyone is guaranteed the same waiting period, and the wait is longer (though sometimes those lines are so slow it doesn't feel like it! ). Another analogy would be allowing foreigners to vote. There is a waiting period (and education requirements?) to get citizenship rights.

I agree with you that voting age is arbitrary and discriminates against people by age. I even agree that it isn't a good form of discrimination. I don't agree that it isn't an equally distributed discrimination though. It certainly isn't the worst form of discrimination either, as it actually works in favor of children in many cases. Yah they can't vote, but they also are protected by law in ways adults aren't.

I would support giving voting rights to everyone regardless of age. Currently our politics are so entrenched in a two party system that I don't see how allowing more people who will probably just vote party lines (or parent's party lines at least for half their new voting window, then anti-arent party lines) will screw anything up. It would be funny to see what the new 'reproduction' party comes up with as a platform though. I'll bet it has something to do with increasing tax credits for dependants!

Allowing kids to be bound by contract is definitely a bad idea though. Just because some adults sign contracts that they shouldn't does not make it any better. "Sign here Billy, and you can have this candy bar." - RIAA agent hiding in the bushes at the local elementary school signing up new potential talent to a lifetime contract.

I definitely do not support any effort by the government to enforce educational requirements for voting though, as it opens the door for political bias to be tested before a person can vote. You think appointing judges is a big windfall for the current administration, wait until they are approving questions for test on who can vote!

(hyperbole follows!)

Question 1: Gay marriage should be illegal. TRUE or FALSE?

"Dear X,

The Government of the United states of America is pleased/sorry to inform you that you do/don't qualify to vote. You did/didn't answer question 1 correctly. If you are interested in keeping/regaining your voting rights, the RNC/DNC offers free classes that will instruct you on how you can display the necessary maturity on these tests to qualify you/keep you qualified for voting."

[Verto]

Originally posted by The Templar


Didn't the city of Salt Lake sell Main Street to your church? And then, when your church complained about protestors, the city revoked the easement for free speech on Main Street. Yeah, real oppressed. The only oppression is against non-Mormons stupid or insane enough to live in Utah.

Although if you quit going door to door to convert people, they might be more friendly.

What a worthless excuse for a troll.

I've seen the protestors you mention first hand - the ones that harass the LDS members trying to get to General Conference, sometimes physically. The Church has only tried to force the protestors to maintain distance, so they can't heckle or prevent churchgoers from entering the Temple Grounds, or getting to the Conference Center.

If I knew you weren't just trolling, I could be bothered to respond more seriously, but it's not worth the time.

[OzzyKP]

By imprisoned I mean held against their will, not literally in a prison. A mental institution can hold and medicate a patient deemed a danger to themselves or others without consent, a criminal charge, reading of rights, or a fair trial. Criminals get a fair trial and due process, but by law there is no such guarantee for mental patients unless they are charged with a crime.

Same is true of youth. They can be medicated, and imprisoned with no due process, no charge of crime, no chance to appeal.

[Inverse Icarus]

white middleclass america gets the shaft. TAX THE RICH! KILL THE POOR!

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Verto


What a worthless excuse for a troll.

Sounds like you've got nothing.

I've seen the protestors you mention first hand - the ones that harass the LDS members trying to get to General Conference, sometimes physically. The Church has only tried to force the protestors to maintain distance, so they can't heckle or prevent churchgoers from entering the Temple Grounds, or getting to the Conference Center.

As I thought, you have nothing. Anybody resorting to physical harassment needs to be arrested. That having been said ...

When the church bought Main Street, people were understandably upset. So the city added an easement so that people could continue to use the street both as a pathway and as an area where people could speak freely. What did the church do? It immediately violated the easement and attempted to stop protests that were allowed under the easement. I.e. the church is the only verified lawbreaker here - as the 10th Circuit affirmed (and the 10th Circuit is such a hotbed of liberalism ).

How did the city respond? It dropped the easement. The residents allowed this only on the grounds that such an easement would be made. The city broke its promise, and the whole thing is going back to court.

Again, the only lawbreakers here are the Mormon church and (likely) the city.

If I knew you weren't just trolling, I could be bothered to respond more seriously, but it's not worth the time.

Sorry dude, you can't beat something with nothing - and you got nothing.

[Verto]

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

However, the city and church agreed in the sales contract that the city's easement would not be a place for protests protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, and that the church could control behavior on the property. Several plaintiffs filed suit against the city, challenging that portion of the agreement, and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, holding that the city could not both preserve the pedestrian easement and cede control of expression on it to the church.
Under the settlement proposed by Mayor Rocky Anderson, the city would vacate its pedestrian easement in exchange for 2.1 acres of church-owned property near the Sorenson Multicultural Center in Glendale, plus $5 million in community donations (including $250,000 from the LDS Church Foundation) to build an addition to the center, plus the church's agreement to pay half of the plaintiffs' legal fees in the court case.
Some Salt Lakers argue that First Amendment rights to free expression on the plaza are too precious to sell at any price. In principle, that's true. But what is really at stake here is the right of anti-Mormon preachers or other protesters to hurl epithets at Latter-day Saints virtually on the steps of the Salt Lake Temple instead of 300 feet farther away on the public sidewalks of South Temple and North Temple. Moving protesters a few hundred feet is not a huge sacrifice of free expression. Something similar would happen if the city retained the easement, defined its boundaries and adopted limits on when, where and how large and noisy the protests could be within it.

And I don't see how this dispute over Main Street negates my statements regarding Missouri and Illinois.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Verto
And I don't see how this dispute over Main Street negates my statements regarding Missouri and Illinois.

Hmmm, Mormons were oppressed in MI and IL over 100 years ago. Now, the Mormons in Utah have decided to be tyranical within Utah. The difference is between persecution today and persecution that ended long ago.

As for the pedestrian easement - why do you think people pushed for it? Perhaps the city officials assured that people would not be allowed to protest, but non-Mormons in part wanted the easement in order to exercise their rights. It seems it was sold different ways to different people. Of course the pro-Mormon rag you cite only tells the official church position - wouldn't want to get anyone's magic underwear in a not.

A friend of mine in the ACLU National Office told me about the constant problems they have in Utah, especially Salt Lake City, with the Mormon church constantly pushing too far.

[Nubclear]

Are you repressed by the Mormons?

Sigh.

(But really, why do you live in Utah?)

It's nice and quiet, stable, good healthcare system....
But I'm planning on moving to Salt Lake so my children can get a good education.

I've seen the protestors you mention first hand - the ones that harass the LDS members trying to get to General Conference, sometimes physically. The Church has only tried to force the protestors to maintain distance, so they can't heckle or prevent churchgoers from entering the Temple Grounds, or getting to the Conference Center.

Mormons are SO oppressed in Utah *Plays a violin*
But seriously, come on Templar: Do you really expect Mormons to be nice to non-mormons when non-mormons have been very mean to Mormons?
I do wish that they would stop asking for dinner at my house though.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

But seriously, come on Templar: Do you really expect Mormons to be nice to non-mormons when non-mormons have been very mean to Mormons?

Why not? The "war" so to speak is over. After all, the Mormons expect Black people to let bygones be bygones. The mormons only allowed black people full membership in the eighties. If that is long enough to get over it, then over a century is enough time to get over it.

[OzzyKP]

"The mormons only allowed black people full membership in the eighties."

Really?! That's terrible!

[Verto]

Originally posted by The Templar


Hmmm, Mormons were oppressed in MI and IL over 100 years ago. Now, the Mormons in Utah have decided to be tyranical within Utah. The difference is between persecution today and persecution that ended long ago.

Tyrannical? By pushing protestors back a couple hundred feet? Glad you aren't being sensationalist, or insulting for that matter. Let's not forget how much of Salt Lake City was owned by the Church, before the Federal government decided to send in troops, and try to strip the Church of its property and land.

Do you really expect Mormons to be nice to non-mormons when non-mormons have been very mean to Mormons?

Hm..

"As far as the Muslim community is concerned, we are very happy in Utah because we share many common beliefs," said Mohammed Shoaibuddin of the Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake City.
Shoaibuddin said that any perceived discrimination "would probably be because he or she is Muslim, not because he or she is not LDS."


It [the LDS Church] charges $1 per year in rent for the large downtown plot that houses the Salt Palace Convention Center. The church provided land, money and tens of thousands of volunteers for the Winter Olympics here last February.

Sounds awfully tyrannical and 'mean' to me.

I can't believe I'm getting worked up on Apolyton.

[Verto]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
"The mormons only allowed black people full membership in the eighties."

Really?! That's terrible!

No, the Priesthood was not allowed for Black males(save a few exceptions) until the 1970s - if that is what was meant by the above post. Nothing unusual, considering for example that in Biblical times, the Priesthood was only available to Levites.

[The Templar]

BTW Verto, try reading the actual case - First Unitarian v. Salt Lake, 308 F.3d 1114.

And I quote, "The first recommendation, that the City retain an easement for public use "planned and improved so as to maintain, encourage, and invite public use," was a condition of the ordinance as approved by the City Council. Id. vol. I at 191." First Unitarian, 308 F.3d at 1118.

So in order for the sale to meet the requirements of the law, the easement was to include public use - including protests. The city pulled a fast one by adding a bit about the easment not to be construed to necessarily apply to activiteis other than walking. So, the city tried to have it both ways.

The court then looked at how to interpret the easement in terms of the authorizing legislation.

"the City's actions approving the sale and the resulting property ownership structure were specifically designed to ensure these aims were accomplished, and the pedestrian easement was central to these goals. The ordinance the City Council passed approving the street closure and sale--the City's necessary legislative act for closing and selling a public street--was expressly contingent on several conditions. The first of these was that the City retain a perpetual pedestrian easement "planned and improved so as to maintain, encourage, and invite public use." Id. vol. I at 191" First Unitarian at 1126.

Since the sale was authorized by the underlying ordinance, the terms of the ordinance had to be respected.

Next time, read the case before you argue.

PWNED

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Verto


No, the Priesthood was not allowed for Black males(save a few exceptions) until the 1970s - if that is what was meant by the above post. Nothing unusual, considering for example that in Biblical times, the Priesthood was only available to Levites.

Which year in the 70s?

[Verto]

9 June 1978

"As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever- increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long- promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows there from, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.."

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Verto
9 June 1978

So I'm 2 years off on the date when blacks were no longer second class mormons.


(Oddly, I've never met a black mormon. Have met some Hispanic ones though in Peru).

[Verto]

Well, my ward has a black bishop. Go figure.

[Verto]

Originally posted by The Templar
So I'm 2 years off on the date when blacks were no longer second class mormons.

Second class Mormons?

So all Jews outside of the Levite tribe were second class, since only a small number of them could be priests in the temple?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Verto



Second class Mormons?

Glass ceiling. What else to say? It wasn't full inclusion in the chuch.

So all Jews outside of the Levite tribe were second class, since only a small number of them could be priests in the temple?

Don't remember enough about ancient judiasm to answer the question. But it sounds like there were no per se tribal limitations to becoming a priest, only an insufficient number of positions to accomodate all who were interested.

But the context here is modern America, not ancient Judea.

[Verto]

It wasn't full inclusion in the chuch.

Not all white males had it, either.

But the context here is modern America, not ancient Judea.

Not when the LDS perspective is that God's Gospel and Priesthood have been Restored, and He is directing the Church. There is a very direct tie in many ways to Judaism and the LDS religion.

[Nubclear]

I'm not even going to bother reading all those posts and stuff.
I'm just going to say this:
The Church does many good things. But the Church really is a political organization as much as a religious institution.
Most of the members are good people. They do good things to. But sometimes they do bad, mean things to people.
I've had church members threaten me with "action" if I didn't convert. I've had other churchgoers engage in a civilized, rational debate and I've had some churchgoers donate money and food to me because they are nice, kind people

[Verto]

Originally posted by The Templar

PWNED

Major ownage.


Church and city government formed a deal; portions of deal later ruled against by the Court. Church appealed. Big deal.

The Church was trying to prohibit vulgar language, loud music, and other disturbances.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I'm not even going to bother reading all those posts and stuff.
I'm just going to say this:
The Church does many good things. But the Church really is a political organization as much as a religious institution.
Most of the members are good people. They do good things to. But sometimes they do bad, mean things to people.
I've had church members threaten me with "action" if I didn't convert. I've had other churchgoers engage in a civilized, rational debate and I've had some churchgoers donate money and food to me because they are nice, kind people

As with all groups and organizations, there are good, and not so good.
It would be like me judging Catholicism solely by the actions of pedophile priests, or Baptists by the two ministers that whipped a pair of boys.

In the defense of the Church, it's leaders do not try to force, coerce or persuade members to vote for a particular party or candidate, church meetinghouses cannot be used for political purposes, etc. Certainly it wields political influence in Utah, what do you expect when the LDS make up 70-80% of the state?

I've had church members threaten me with "action" if I didn't convert.

Why do you think I'm here?

[Nubclear]

Why do you think I'm here?

It's best that I be moving now, eh?

[Verto]

No, my IP track is still in progress.