Otto yet again proves his bigotry is not mere bigotry but incredibly ill-informed bigotry. Baptisms for the deceased (what that jerk referred to as baptism in absentia) are only done for the deceased and are just a prayer. Too bad for that bigot, that the way we pray doesn’t have to get his bigoted, hateful, and ignorant approval, isn’t it?
A member of a commission who queries the leadership of a large group that commission member thinks may raise a stink about an issue before that commission is not violating church and state. He is merely seeking actual information as opposed to going off of what some other members of that commission may have been putting forth erroneously as fact (see the comment in the OP which used the word purported). It does not marginalize anyone at all. And the change in the law will have an affect on anyone–no matter what their religious affiliation is–who is sentenced to death.
I now await the righteous indignation condemning any other state government for listening to and/or daring to query the leadership of whatever large group happens to be in that state’s population on a matter before that government. To time this waiting period, should I use a stopwatch or a 100-year calendar?
An Arky correctly summed it up: this action was to slay ignorance.
Otto continues in his fight to perpetuate not only ignorance, but malicious ignorance.
This is just politicians pandering to the people that elect them. Nothing more or less. If wearing a clown suit would get them more votes they would do it. The fact is that this move may have helped ease some public concerns about the change in the law and thus helps protect the politicians involved in it from accusations of disregarding the beliefs of the people who elected them.
If the government had asked the church to decide the issue for them then there would be cause for alarm.
Horseshit. The Church is a member of the public too, and it’s perfectly capable of commenting anytime the government solicits public opinions on the matter. But the committee didn’t do that, of course. It didn’t ask the Catholic Church what their opinion was, it didn’t ask business groups what their opinion was, it didn’t ask Joe Schmoe down at the 7-Eleven what his opinion was. Out of all the folks in the state whose opinions they could have listened to, they only asked for one: The LDS Church.
As in, “Please, LDS Church, is it acceptable for us to change this law? Hey, get the fuck away from me, Joe Schmoe. I’m trying to talk to the Church here.”
Or perhaps it’s merely one member of the sentencing commission sending a letter requesting information and getting an answer as the story apparently reported. Wow, how nefarious! How evil!
Too bad the answering letter didn’t say that the church was against execution currently.
Neither the Catholic Church nor business groups nor Joe Schmoe at 7-11 have the opinion-making power of the LDS in Utah.
You’re being silly. You want a broad-ranging invitation to comment, with all the costs that entails. Doubtlessly that will be part of the process as the commission moves forward. But the LDS church is unquestionably the one group that could deep-six this proposal at the drop of a hat. For simple cost reasons, it makes sense to ask them early on if they will oppose the measure. If Joe Schmoe opposes the measure from the outset, there is still a pretty good chance the measure can be implemented. Not so if the LDS church opposes it.
My response to TeaElle is much the same: if 90% of the population takes their political marching orders from the LDS church when matters of doctrine are implicated, then the LDS church will (subject to constitutional constraints) assume a role of central importance in policymaking. There’s simply no way around that, short of giving up democratic principles entirely. To pretend otherwise is to deny simple political realities, and frankly I’m of a mind that we need less disingenuousness in government, thankyouverymuch.
Look, I understand where you’re coming from. I’m a conservative Republican living in Westchester County. My opinions around here are given less credence by those in power, too. But that’s just my bum luck for being in a very small minority in these parts.
Oh, the story already reported that “Joe Schmoe,” along with others, had already voiced their opinion.
Quoted already in the OP:
It’s not the church’s beliefs that the commission members feared would jeapordize the change in the law but rather the beliefs of a number of people about the church’s beliefs.
Again: a request for clarification from the authority on the issue for which clarification was desired.
So what? That makes the LDS Church’s opinion more valid than Joe Schmoe’s? The hell with that. This is not a theocracy, and government commissions should not behave as if it is.
Don’t be so ridiculous. What does it cost to put out a statement that the committee is soliciting public comments on the proposal to do away with firing squad executions? Next to nothing, that’s what it costs. Put that sucker on the committee’s website and fax a copy to the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, then wait for the responses to come in. Shit, son, public comment is an ordinary part of every legislative initiative.
So what? That does not excuse the impropriety of a government body asking a religious institution for its permission as a prerequisite to government action.
Fortunately, the First Amendment is anti-democratic. “Congress shall make no laws,” remember? No exception for “unless it’s politically expedient.”
Yes, I understand that conservatism is an irrational philosophy that must be accepted on faith instead of objectively verifiable evidence. But that still doesn’t make the Republican Party a religion.
Once again, Monty, I don’t give a damn who voices their opinions on the matter. I don’t care that Joe Schmoe is writing letters to the editor, and I don’t care that the LDS Church has decided God is okay with dropping execution by firing squad. Hooray for them for exercising their right of free speech.
My beef is with the government, i.e., the legislative committee that acted as if the LDS Church gets veto power over the actions of the government of Utah. That is the “excessive entanglement” I find so objectionable, not the fact that the Church or anyone else has an opinion on a matter of public interest.
Minty Green: You should know the world ain’t perfect. To deny that the LDS church holds the political cards in Utah is not realistic. They do, and since this seems to suit the majority of citizens there the situation is not likely to change.
Can’t you accept that whether you agree with this or not, that’s the way it is, and that’s the way it’s gonna’ stay?
If not, move to Utah and run for governor on an anti-LDS platform.
Huh. The attack poodle in his need to go after me as he has since I joined the boards somehow failed to respond to this:
Of course in the grander scheme of things it shouldn’t be necessary to consult the Greeks or the Assemblies of God. Nor should it be necessary to consult the Mormons. Thing is, it was necessary to consult the Mormons. What it comes down to is that if any other religious sect were substituted for the Mormons in this story, Monty would likely have no opinion. The only reason he’s involved at all is because it’s his cult that’s being challenged as opposed to someone else’s. I, on the other hand, would hold the same opinion of any government commission getting clearance from any cult before attempting to change a law. In Monty’s tiny mind, that makes me a bigot. Monty is a stupid motherfucker.
Perhaps because the church’s position should have fuck all to do with making the laws of the land?
You know, Monty, it IS possible to criticize the Mormon church at times and not be anti-Mormon.* Just like it’s possible for someone to be pissed at how the Vatican is handling child molester priests, without being anti-Catholic.
*In this case, it’s more of a criticism of the government kow-towing to the church, though, not really picking on the church itself.
Just out of curiosity, if executions are to be permitted, what’s wrong with using a firing squad? Dead is dead, right? Now, if the Mormons held that justice wasn’t done until someone had been fed slowly feet-first into a wood-chipper, I can see a problem, but death by firing squad looks at least as quick, if not more so, as the electric chair or gas chamber.
Well, if the state was about 80% Greek Orthodox or Assemblies of God, it might be a good idea to consult them. I understand that it can leave a nasty taste in your mouth, but the Mormons are a supermajority in Utah, so the legislators are going to worry what they, as a group, think.
It’s the same thing as legislators in Harlem being careful not to piss off black people, or legislators in Miami being careful not to piss off Cubans. Ideally, legislators should do what they think is right, and not be beholden to any special interests, but practically, if you piss off your constituants, you can forget about reelection.
To Utah’s credit, they did allow the condemned to choose between Lethal Injection and the firing squad.
What’s the big deal, besides the SOCAS issues? I’m not sure about the humaneness of the firing squad versus other methods, but it just looks kind of backwards and antiquated, in light of the fact that no other state does executions like that.
