This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 2, 2006 11:55 AM. The previous post in this blog was Score one for the bloggers. The next post in this blog is Taxpayers, take a ride. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Friday, June 2, 2006

Gordon's on the spot

A reader writes:

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.


Me, too.

Comments (13)

FWIW, Harry Reid is LDS too.

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.

Timothy Leary, he was LDS too, wasn't he?

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,

What's interesting to me is the church's public intervention in legislative matters, which may violate the terms of its tax exemption.

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.

Theocracy, here we come.

Have we as a country already forgotten why this country was founded?


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

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,

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.

"Gordon on the spot" can you spell amnesty?

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?

Clicky Web Analytics