I grew up LDS (Mormon) and I have nothing against the church. Traditionally, the church has specifically stayed out of politics and refused to tell members how to vote on specific issues or candidates. This has changed over recent years.
Anyway, the reason I think that this is relevant in Oregon is Gordon Smith is also LDS and I wonder if people in Portland should know the competing influences. Generally I like Smith and I think he is the better of the two Oregon Senators, so I will be interested to know how he votes.
Not sure what the point of the writer's statement is. Does he/she support a gay marriage ban?
Gordon likes to appear independent of the D.C. GOP groupthink, and on occasion he is. But when the rubber meets the road, he has been a pretty dependable vote for them. And his unwillingness to question Bush or the distorted GOP policies makes him no better than any of it.
Gordon, grow a pair and cease with the low-profile.
A senator's religion has a stance on issues. So what?
Does he only vote the LDS line? Is he incapable of processing different arguments and reaching a conclusion? Is he the Manchurian Mormon?
People don't necessarily agree with or follow their religions' stances on issues of the day. Those who don't understand this employ ignorant stereotypes. This post smacks of such "logic".
But I do love the opening line--"I grew up LDS (Mormon) and I have nothing against the church." The reader is portraying himself as unbiased and that's strong red flag behavior.
If the LDS church is endangering their tax exemption, then the Evangelical Mega-church machine, Focus On The Family, and Benny Hinn must really be pushing it.
What's interesting to me is the church's public intervention in legislative matters, which may violate the terms of its tax exemption.
What better time to take a bite at the apple, though? Judicially speaking, that is. I don't pretend to know anything about tax law, but it would seem we have four justices (and a fifth potentially on the way depending on how close Ms Coulter can get to Justice Stevens' coffee mug) who might wish to visit such a boundary.
Did you read the link? It is the LDS Church that made this topic valid, their statement is basically that this is a litmus test and a Mormon has to support the FMA.
Under those circumstances wondering how Smith (and other Mormons like Reid) will vote is valid.
Eric, I read the link and their sub-links. Well, except for their Style Guide. I refuse to have my style dictated by Mormons.
I saw nothing in the LDS statements that makes Gordo or Harry vote a certain way or else. The LDS is entitled to doctrinal spewings, potential legal issues notwithstanding.
From what I gather the claim goes like this:
1) Religion wants Members to support Religion's view on Issue;
2) Congressman belongs to Religion; and
3) OMGOMGOMG!
How many groups and religions do congressmen belong to that promote a particular stance on an issue? Why single out the LDS?
This discussion, except for the legitimate tax matters, reeks of religion-baiting.
Never been a member of the Communist Party,
Anahit
I am personally aware of a candidate running for local office in rural Utah that was faced with this:
Every single Mormon facility in the district had a sermon on the evils of divorce on the Sunday before election day. Not only was divorce considered a sin, and a failure of your marriage vows, but that it called into question all of your ethics and morals.
Oh yeah, the Democratic candidate was the divorced one. Nevermind that it was 40 years ago, and he'd been happily remarried for decades and a pillar of the community.
The Republican was a young guy with no experience, but the Mormon equivalent of an altar boy.
There's usually not polling in those kinds of small races, but the folks on the ground were relatively certain that Mr. Pillar-of-the-Community was a rock-solid lock on the seat - versus Mr. Inexperienced-but-Devout.
72 hours later, it went the other way.
I don't know if that violates their tax exemption, but it sure smells funny.
It seems to me the statement suggests that the right thing to do is to support the ammendment. But that members are expected to "express themselves", that leaves room for memebers who disagree (and there are a few) to speak against.
Should I be outraged when Sierra Club asks its members to contact Senators? Should I seek to revoke their tax status?
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009
Lello, Douro Tinto 2009
Quinson Fils, Cotes de Provence Rose 2011
Anindor, Pinot Gris 2010
Buenas Ondas, Syrah Rose 2010
Les Fiefs d'Anglars, Malbec 2009
14 Hands, Pinot Gris 2011
Conundrum 2012
Condes de Albarei, Albariño 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2007
Penelope Sanchez, Garnacha Syrah 2010
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2007
Atalaya do Mar, Godello 2010
Vega Montan, Mencia
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2009
Portuga, Rose 2011
Revelation, Chardonnay, Pays d'Oc 2010
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2005
Monte Alto, Tinto Reserva 2005
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Cabernet, Indian Wells 2009
Espiral, Vinho Rose
Vin-Koru, Pinot Gris 2011
14 Hands, Hot to Trot Red 2009
Rodney Strong, Cabernet, Sonoma 2009
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #11
Portuga, White 2010
La Bourgeoisie, Red 2009
Januik, Red 2009
Three Rivers, River's Red 2008
Kirkland, Alexander Valley Merlot 2008
Muga, Rioja Rose 2010
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2009
Mauro Molino, Barbera d'Alba 2009
Garda Chiaretto Rose
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Vineyard 10 White
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris, Columbia Valley 2009
L'Hortus, Rose de Saignee 2010
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2008
McKinley Springs, Bombing Range Red 2008
Trader Joe's Pinot Gris 2009
Montes Alpha, Cabernet 2007
Gran Sasso, Sangiovese, Terre di Chieti 2009
Garda, Classico Chiaretto Rose
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1999
Picos del Montgo, Tempranillo 2008
Chateau de Montmirail, Vacqueyras 2008
La Granja 360, Syrah 2009
Montgras, Carmenere Reserva 2009
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet 2008
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio 2010
Trader Joe's Coastal Syrah 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Merlot 2008
Trader Joe's Coastal Chardonnay 2009
Vieux Papes Red
Domaine de l'Aujardiere, Chardonnay 2009
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Medalla Real 2007
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2008
Guild, Red, Lot #02 2008
Dievole, Dievolino Sangiovese 2008
Laforet, Burgogne Chardonnay 2009
Columbia Winery, Merlot 2007
Bonterra, Cabernet 2008
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2009
Maquis Lien 2006
Scott Paul, Pinot Noir, Le Paulee 2007
The Occasional Book
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Road Work
Miles run year to date: 21
At this date last year: 52
Total run in 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (13)
FWIW, Harry Reid is LDS too.
Posted by Chris Snethen | June 2, 2006 12:07 PM
Not sure what the point of the writer's statement is. Does he/she support a gay marriage ban?
Gordon likes to appear independent of the D.C. GOP groupthink, and on occasion he is. But when the rubber meets the road, he has been a pretty dependable vote for them. And his unwillingness to question Bush or the distorted GOP policies makes him no better than any of it.
Gordon, grow a pair and cease with the low-profile.
Posted by TKrueg | June 2, 2006 12:22 PM
Timothy Leary, he was LDS too, wasn't he?
Posted by Bark Munster | June 2, 2006 2:39 PM
A senator's religion has a stance on issues. So what?
Does he only vote the LDS line? Is he incapable of processing different arguments and reaching a conclusion? Is he the Manchurian Mormon?
People don't necessarily agree with or follow their religions' stances on issues of the day. Those who don't understand this employ ignorant stereotypes. This post smacks of such "logic".
But I do love the opening line--"I grew up LDS (Mormon) and I have nothing against the church." The reader is portraying himself as unbiased and that's strong red flag behavior.
Some of my best friends are black,
Anahit
Posted by Anahit | June 2, 2006 4:26 PM
What's interesting to me is the church's public intervention in legislative matters, which may violate the terms of its tax exemption.
Posted by Jack Bog | June 2, 2006 5:26 PM
If the LDS church is endangering their tax exemption, then the Evangelical Mega-church machine, Focus On The Family, and Benny Hinn must really be pushing it.
Posted by TKrueg | June 2, 2006 5:36 PM
What's interesting to me is the church's public intervention in legislative matters, which may violate the terms of its tax exemption.
What better time to take a bite at the apple, though? Judicially speaking, that is. I don't pretend to know anything about tax law, but it would seem we have four justices (and a fifth potentially on the way depending on how close Ms Coulter can get to Justice Stevens' coffee mug) who might wish to visit such a boundary.
Posted by Chris Snethen | June 2, 2006 6:19 PM
Theocracy, here we come.
Have we as a country already forgotten why this country was founded?
Posted by TKrueg | June 2, 2006 7:44 PM
Anahit,
Did you read the link? It is the LDS Church that made this topic valid, their statement is basically that this is a litmus test and a Mormon has to support the FMA.
Under those circumstances wondering how Smith (and other Mormons like Reid) will vote is valid.
Posted by eric | June 2, 2006 8:04 PM
Eric, I read the link and their sub-links. Well, except for their Style Guide. I refuse to have my style dictated by Mormons.
I saw nothing in the LDS statements that makes Gordo or Harry vote a certain way or else. The LDS is entitled to doctrinal spewings, potential legal issues notwithstanding.
From what I gather the claim goes like this:
1) Religion wants Members to support Religion's view on Issue;
2) Congressman belongs to Religion; and
3) OMGOMGOMG!
How many groups and religions do congressmen belong to that promote a particular stance on an issue? Why single out the LDS?
This discussion, except for the legitimate tax matters, reeks of religion-baiting.
Never been a member of the Communist Party,
Anahit
Posted by Anahit | June 2, 2006 10:00 PM
I am personally aware of a candidate running for local office in rural Utah that was faced with this:
Every single Mormon facility in the district had a sermon on the evils of divorce on the Sunday before election day. Not only was divorce considered a sin, and a failure of your marriage vows, but that it called into question all of your ethics and morals.
Oh yeah, the Democratic candidate was the divorced one. Nevermind that it was 40 years ago, and he'd been happily remarried for decades and a pillar of the community.
The Republican was a young guy with no experience, but the Mormon equivalent of an altar boy.
There's usually not polling in those kinds of small races, but the folks on the ground were relatively certain that Mr. Pillar-of-the-Community was a rock-solid lock on the seat - versus Mr. Inexperienced-but-Devout.
72 hours later, it went the other way.
I don't know if that violates their tax exemption, but it sure smells funny.
Posted by Kari Chisholm | June 3, 2006 11:32 AM
"Gordon on the spot" can you spell amnesty?
Posted by j | June 3, 2006 4:09 PM
It seems to me the statement suggests that the right thing to do is to support the ammendment. But that members are expected to "express themselves", that leaves room for memebers who disagree (and there are a few) to speak against.
Should I be outraged when Sierra Club asks its members to contact Senators? Should I seek to revoke their tax status?
Posted by pete | June 4, 2006 5:57 PM