backtop

Blog: Internet Mormon Church Attacks Wikileaks
Jason Mick (Blog) - May 14, 2008 2:10 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 213 comment(s) - last by A5un.. on May 27 at 11:59 PM
The Mormon Church joins Julius Baer and The Church Of Scientology in the fight to promote online censorship

Online censorship is generally condemned by the public, but some groups are hard at work trying to promote it.  The Chinese government invests massively in censoring blogs and news sites to prevent what it feels are subversive materials.  Violators are oft jailed.  Outside China, banking giant Julius Baer fought unsuccessfully to try to shut down Wikileaks when the site released documents implicating it in numerous international crimes including money laundering and tax evasion.

In the past, the Church of Scientology sued and threatened legal action against Wikileaks for publication of embarrassing church documents.  And more recently there was the famous incident where the Church of Scientology tried to censor leaked online videos of Tom Cruise explaining the religion in a humorous manner. The Church was subsequently rocked by hacker attacks and international protests from people angry at its assault on free speech.

Despite this example of the public unpopularity of such moves, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS),  appears to be following in the Church of Scientology's footsteps, attacking Wikileaks for release a handbook of secret church procedures made for its leaders.  According to a report posted on Wikileaks, LDS sued Wikileaks for copyright infringement in an attempt to silence it.

Wikileaks first received its copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions via a URL link. The two-volume work was received from an anonymous whistleblower on April 16.  Wikileaks says the leak was significant as, "The book is strictly confidential among the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka LDS in short form) bishops and stake presidents and it reveals the procedure of handling confidential matters related to tithing payment, excommunication, baptism and doctrine teaching (indoctrination)."

Wikileaks offered the document on the document sharing website Scribd.  Scribd now offers this little tidbit on the books, which are no longer available:  "This content was removed at the request of copyright agent B. S. Broadbent of the Intellectual Property Division of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

On May 5, the LDS' legal representation contacted the Wikimedia Foundation charging the site with copyright infringement and requesting that the material be removed -- the site complied with the request.  No Digital Copyright Millennium Act (DCMA) notice has been filed as of yet.

The material had been released partially online previously in 1999 when Jerald and Sandra Tanner posted part of it.  In the case Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, the Church won a controversial injunction from the U.S. court banning the Tanners from releasing the material online.  The church eventually dropped their suit when they forced the Tanners to agree to destroy the books.

The LDS has recently been increasingly in the public spotlight due to former Republican presidential candidate front-runner Mitt Romney, an LDS church member, speaking publicly about his beliefs.

Wikileaks, despite the legal action, as of May 13 has refused to remove the book, which is still available from the site.  It can be found here for those curious.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Just an observation here.
By Misty Dingos on 5/14/2008 2:24:47 PM , Rating: 5
When your god needs a lawyer to "protect" your beliefs from public scrutiny perhaps it is time to look for a new belief system.




RE: Just an observation here.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/14/2008 2:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
...Or the average thinking person might become alarmed that until 1978 their church claimed that god disallowed blacks to be priests and then in 1978 their church leaders claimed that "after having a conversation with god" it was revealed that it was okay to have black priests.

I can just imagine:
"GOD: YOU SHALL OBEY MY COMMANDS! We meet again...
LDS Priests: Oh, hi god, hows it going. I haven't seen you since last Saturday...
GOD: Silence mortals! I have something important to tell you. Remember what I said about African Americans and priesthood...
LDS Priests: Oh yea, you told us not to let them be priests! We would never do that your greatness.
GOD: Well... ummmmm... Actually you see I um, well kinda changed my mind...
LDS Priests: What?!?
GOD: Well yea anyways from now on they can be priests!
LDS Priests: Alright God! Your order is our command! Are we still on for dinner on Sunday?"

Sure....


RE: Just an observation here.
By dubldwn on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Just an observation here.
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/14/2008 6:11:16 PM , Rating: 4
the article isnt attacking the there religious beliefs genious. they're just informing the general public how LDS is trying to censor a website which is completely retarded because wikileaks isnt doing anything wrong.

besides, when an organization starts to act in the manor in which they have, is it wrong to strongly verbally disagree with them?

quit being a pazie


RE: Just an observation here.
By borismkv on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Just an observation here.
By Aloonatic on 5/15/2008 4:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how things work in the US but in the UK I believe that journalists and the press had an exemption in copy write law and were allowed to quote texts.

Maybe they should move there severs over here, to the land of the free.

They'd be quite safe with several CCTV cameras pointing at them and police using counter terrorist laws to pursue and prosecute people for minor offences :-s


RE: Just an observation here.
By Aloonatic on 5/15/2008 4:47:56 AM , Rating: 1
in before grammar Nazis

quote:
I'm not sure how things work in the US but in the UK I believe that journalists and the press had an exemption in copy write law and were allowed to quote texts.


There's a sentence there somewhere, you're going to have to decipher it your self tho.

It's still too early in the morning for me :-s


RE: Just an observation here.
By masher2 (blog) on 5/15/2008 9:20:21 AM , Rating: 5
> "but in the UK I believe that journalists and the press had an exemption in copy write law and were allowed to quote texts."

There's a difference between quoting from a text for educational purposes, and posting the entire contents of a piece of copyrighted material.

For instance, it does not violate copyright law for a news organization (such as DT has here) to observe that, based on the contents of these 'secret' works, the Mormon Church once banned black priests. Placing the entire text online, though, does.

Mick is wrong; there is no "censorship" here. No one is being prevented from expressing their own ideas or viewpoint...they're merely being stopped from their misuse of someone else's copyrighted statements.


RE: Just an observation here.
By nstott on 5/15/2008 10:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
The text in question doesn't mention blacks in connection with the LDS Priesthood. Mick was piling on with one of the standard anti-Mormon arguments. There are many LDS publications that do discuss the issue candidly, and it is still an issue even within the LDS Church for both black and non-black Mormons.

As always, thanks for being honest, Masher. I'd be less likely to read DT if you weren't here.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Autisticgramma on 5/18/2008 3:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
You bring up an interesting point, which leads me to a quasi off topic subject.

Non-Profit groups - Tax Exempt, lets be specific.

I'm really interested in how this plays out. Do we know if this is going to litigation or did they just fold?

On to my point.

Copyright, as I understand it, gives creators the ability to be profitable, i.e. the basic ability to survive in a capitalist society. Churches are by definition not for profit ventures. I'm curious as to why they get the benefits of copyright; furthermore do church members pay for this text? Being from Utah I'd bet no. If you ask nicely a truck load of Book of Mormon will be delivered to your house, for you guessed it - Free. (By two volunteers with name tags.)

This is an image ploy, just like the allowance of blacks into the priesthood was a social necessity, and probably (I wasn't in the room) not a conversation with God. This is a misuse of copyright used to plug a potentially harmful information leak.

I would additionally call for ALL non profits to be disallowed this legal bludgeon. Copyrights are for artists who have enriched our lives through humor, song, story and visual image. Not for a powerful, rich organization to fuel public ignorance, and manipulate public opinion.

If you really believe it, you will not have a problem with me reading it.


RE: Just an observation here.
By nstott on 5/19/2008 7:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
This informative post from "hthalljr" needed to be moved closer to the top.

quote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not making any effort to protect its "beliefs" from public scrutiny. Why else would more than 50,000 missionaries labor to share their beliefs around the world, at their own expense?

I have, at times, been authorized to consult The Handbook of Instructions. But even if it remains on line, I will not read it now, because I no longer have that authorization. But I testify that does not contain anything of a conspiratorial nature, or evil, or of any kind of threat to the public.

Unlike most religions, the Church has no paid ministry. Its local leaders (bishops, who preside over a single ward or congregation) and stake presidents (who preside over approximately 10 wards) are lay people who have families and occupations. They do not ask to serve nor even plan to serve; rather, they are called to serve by inspiration of general Church leaders. Bishops typically serve only about 5 years; stake presidents serve a few more years. The Handbook of Instructions is a guide to these leaders, who come to their positions with no prior training. It is distributed to them to ensure that Church policies and procedures are uniform around the world.

Unlike other churches, we also do not decide which congregation we attend: we attend the ward in whose boundaries we reside. This also creates a need for uniformity of policy and procedure. (You can learn the place and meeting times of your nearest congregation by selecting the link "worship with us" at mormon.org and entering your address.)

Any members of the Church who has a question about doctrine or policy can ask his bishop, who can consult the Handbook. However, leaders are encouraged to use these guidelines prayerfully and to adapt them to immediate needs and circumstances.

If the Handbook were published, it could tempt some members to take a legalistic approach to policies and procedures and try to see just how close they could come to "crossing the line." Publication could also tempt some members who have more time on their hands than their bishops to make a hobby of knowing the handbook "better" than their bishop, which could undermining his efforts to provide inspired and thoughtful leadership.

The Church has every right to control distribution of its Handbook of Instructions. Copyright protects not just the right to publish, but also the right not to publish.

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com


By martinrichards23 on 5/21/2008 10:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure how things work in the US but in the UK I believe that journalists and the press had an exemption in copy write law and were allowed to quote texts.


I believe there are exceptions if it is in the public interest as well (i.e. exposing an illegal activity or something like that)


RE: Just an observation here.
By dubldwn on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Just an observation here.
By winterspan on 5/16/2008 2:26:31 AM , Rating: 1
Oh get over it. Why exactly should anyone be outraged at anything? The article is about the Mormon Church using copyright law to keep weird religious doctrine secret.. That all it says. And trust me, I've had enough experience with the crazy LDS church that I'm sure they have some weird shit in those papers. If anyone is outraged, they should be outraged that they have let themselves become so deceived by such nonsense!


RE: Just an observation here.
By feraltoad on 5/14/2008 10:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
The comments are separate from the article. Maintaining that authorship strips one of the right of an opinion is as unfair as writing a biased article. Some people understand that there can be and should be a separation between subjective opinion and objective facts. The Mormon Church certainly has a right to defend their copyrights, but the fact that they feel the need to keep secret portions of their actual religious doctrine doesn't engender trust. Of course I'm always suspicious of any multilevel marketing.


RE: Just an observation here.
By dubldwn on 5/14/2008 11:03:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maintaining that authorship strips one of the right of an opinion is as unfair as writing a biased article

Agreed, opinions are totally cool after an unbiased article – actually it adds a lot to be able to chat with the author. But that's a moot point now. This article has been changed to a blog, so it can be all be biased.
quote:
…but the fact that they feel the need to keep secret portions of their actual religious doctrine doesn't engender trust.

See, I don’t find that suspicious. What is suspicious is God using the term African-American in 1978.
quote:
GOD: Silence mortals! I have something important to tell you. Remember what I said about African Americans and priesthood...


RE: Just an observation here.
By feraltoad on 5/15/2008 3:59:09 AM , Rating: 1
lol ur right! God has gotten a lot more PC! Must be the CNN. I guess he got over the sore cursing.

Like the word delightsome below? I like to say that word with a lisp. It's sthuper! I'm delightsthome, you're cursthed! Nope, not natural sthelection, cursthed.

2 Nephi 5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Oh, and being shut out from the priesthood entails more than just being denied leadership roles. It means you are prohibited from accessing the "power of God." For example, you couldn't lift ur x-wing out of a swamp.

Priesthood denotes elements of both power and authority. As a power, priesthood is said to include the power Jesus gave his apostles to perform miracles such as the casting out of devils and the healing of sick (Luke 9:1). (wikipedia)


RE: Just an observation here.
By Micronite on 5/14/2008 3:39:42 PM , Rating: 5
Wow, you clearly have a bias which is reflected both in your article and your comments.

Since I know you want to present a balanced journalistic report, it may be worth noting that this is not a censorship issue as described, it is a copyright issue. If an enterprise had internal (secret) documents leaked, don't you think they would do anything to protect their IP? I fail to see how this is much different.
I don't know why people are so anxious to learn about "secret" parts of churches. If you're really that curious about the Mormons, there are probably a couple guys in your area that can help you out.

You seem really anxious to destroy the faith of others without limited information and incomplete understanding of the principles underlying the LDS belief system.

One thing you probably didn't think about when you wrote your article is that there are a lot of Mormons that read and perhaps respect(ed) DailyTech and are probably a little disappointed by your tone in this article.


RE: Just an observation here.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/14/2008 3:59:40 PM , Rating: 4
Censorship-
1. the act or practice of censoring.
cen·sor
(noun)
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
(verb)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

Clearly by the definition of the word censorship the actions of Julius Baer, The Church of Scientology, and the LDS church could all be considered to consitute censorship.

The article is presented in a clear manner, and leaves opinion to the reader. As far as my personal sentiments, I'm all for the freedom of religion.

However a religion that seems to have openly advocated racism until the late 70s, when it was forced to officially change its stance due to societal pressure, I do personally find troublesome.

If I have "limited information and incomplete understanding of the principles underlying the LDS belief system" please explain to me how this acceptable, or what I'm failing to grasp about this policy. This was not a few rogue members, it was a churchwide policy.

One may note that you don't attack my specific points, you just respond in vagueries saying I'm wrong. That is not how to formulate a logical argument. Please be specific.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Homerboy on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Just an observation here.
By dubldwn on 5/14/2008 4:37:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The article is presented in a clear manner, and leaves opinion to the reader.

First, stating the LDS are “promoting online censorship”, then the comparison to Chinese government control to stoke the fire, then the unrelated mentioning of money laundering to add a crime element, then Scientologists, complete with the mention of Tom Cruise and a South Park thumbnail to bring on ridicule. The context you put this in clearly put the LDS in a bad light.
quote:
I'm all for the freedom of religion.

You’re also for setting people’s religions up for ridicule. Why mention the tablets and the glasses? All that does is incite posting things like, “How is this any different than a talking snake in a tree? People are idiots.” You know this.
quote:
…I do personally find troublesome.

And I’m telling you your bias came out in your writing of this news article. I’m just saying.
quote:
One thing you probably didn't think about when you wrote your article is that there are a lot of Mormons that read and perhaps respect(ed) DailyTech and are probably a little disappointed by your tone in this article.

QFT


RE: Just an observation here.
By babighead on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Just an observation here.
By Homerboy on 5/14/2008 4:50:55 PM , Rating: 1
yeap very good retort.
I'm still amazed this article, in its present, misleading form was "OK'ed" to be posted.


RE: Just an observation here.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/14/2008 5:02:17 PM , Rating: 1
Again you're deflecting the real issue of the racial stance. You in no way responded to that.

As to Baer/Scientologists, they were mentioned as they were other groups who fought with wikileaks. While you may have a negative opinion of these groups, I'm sure some individuals would make the same claims about them being unfairly attacked as you're making in this instance.

As far as the stones, etc. that was included to illustrate one thing that was considered controversial about the religion. It is generally considered more controversial than say talking snakes in trees as it was made in the modern era. But take it as you will. It is what the LDS states correct? Why not state it? If you aren't ashamed of your religions statements, you would have no problem with its inclusion.

I'm not stating inaccuracies, just widely known church beliefs.

Again, I'd like to see a logical counter argument to my ORIGINAL point, as opposed to more vague deflections. Your entire argument is emotional with almost no logic/facts. Simply raising a bunch of issues and discussing them emotionally does not make your argument logical. Present some facts, please.


RE: Just an observation here.
By borismkv on 5/14/2008 5:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
Oh get over yourself, Mick. You're a lazy ass journalist who had no way to fill up your article with anything other than half-truths and anti-Mormon propaganda. The LDS church doesn't often take legal action, when it does, it usually has a good reason to. The LDS church could very easily sue every single company that has ever published anti-Mormon literature for libel and slander, but they haven't because it really doesn't matter.

And your major hang up with the LDS Church isn't that they didn't allow blacks to have the priesthood for over a hundred years, but rather that they don't conform to your view of things. It doesn't matter if I give you every single fact and point out the number of unbelievably good things the LDS church did for blacks (Particularly those in Africa today) in the 19th, 20th, and current centuries, but you would still think what you want because you're an egotistical jackass who is always right no matter what anyone else says. But hey, good luck with the writing career. Needless to say, I won't be following it.


RE: Just an observation here.
By babighead on 5/14/2008 5:56:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Again you're deflecting the real issue of the racial stance. You in no way responded to that.

Did I miss something? When did "the real issue" become racial stance? If I'm not mistaken this issue only became an issue when a sad blogger felt the need to write comments on his own wall to support his own ego.

What you did succeed was turning a very boring manual into quite a scandal. Congratulations. I hear they are looking for people over at the national enquirer or the weekly world news.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Xtremist on 5/14/2008 4:47:53 PM , Rating: 4
How is it censorship if the publisher/author of a book sues to prevent that book from being distributed against copyright laws?

I'm all for Wikileaks, but this is a copyrighted document, the same as a car repair manual, or Harry Potter. It's not some public (but secret) document. The fact that the LDS Church doesn't want it publically distributed indicates nothing about censorship.

I can't imagine if you were the author of some work you'd want it distributed without your permission?


RE: Just an observation here.
By Xtremist on 5/14/2008 4:51:39 PM , Rating: 1
Someone needs to start a website that copies all of the content here. Then we'll see what DT/AT truly feels censorship is :-)


RE: Just an observation here.
By dwalton on 5/14/2008 6:16:15 PM , Rating: 1
Copyrights by nature are in place to protect the ability of the copyright owner to profit or not from the copyrighted material as an indirect effort to promote the creation of new works. Copyrights aren't in place to protect the privacy of the copywriter.

The LDS using copyrights laws has nothing to do with disallowing some internet websites from profiting off their works but to ensure that the general internet goer doesn't have access to the works, which makes it an act of censorship.


RE: Just an observation here.
By borismkv on 5/14/2008 7:33:06 PM , Rating: 3
Copyrights by nature (and as shown by the words Copy and Right) protect against the distribution of unauthorized copies, and gives the copyright holder the authority to determine the proper use and distribution of copies of the original work (They have rights over all copies of the work. See, copy right. Get it? Cool, huh?). Therefor, the LDS church has every right to demand that Wikileaks remove the copyrighted material from the site, as its presence is a violation of their rights over all copies of the work that they created.


By lexluthermiester on 5/14/2008 9:13:01 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Clearly by the definition of the word censorship the actions of Julius Baer, The Church of Scientology, and the LDS church could all be considered to consitute censorship.


Mr. Mick,

The reasons about why the LDS church is taking these actions are simple, and seemed to have escaped your attention. Let's put them clearly in focus shall we?

The LDS church, having discovered that proprietary information and documents have been released to the public in an unauthorized fashion, have exercised their legal rights to remove access to such documents. This would be no different than the actions Microsoft took when the source code to Windows 2000 was leaked. While the content and format of such informations is different, both are private and not intended for public possession. The LDS church has every right under the law, and indeed an obligation, to protect such information.

This is NOT a case of censorship. And anyone who thinks it is needs to brush up on the meaning of the word, including yourself.

quote:
However a religion that seems to have openly advocated racism until the late 70s, when it was forced to officially change its stance due to societal pressure, I do personally find troublesome.


In consideration of your comments/accusations about racism on the part of the LDS church, let us examine the issue. The prohibition of folks of African decent positions of authority was an issue that stemmed from a biblical decree, banning the issuance of priesthood standings and authority to those of African ancestry. This was a mandate that came out of the bible, not an LDS decree. Many other religions practiced the same ban until they also saw the need to rightfully lift the ban. Those who were in authority in the LDS church had an obligation to obey the aforementioned decree. Only after nearly 130 years of mulling the matter over did the "revelation" come that it was acceptable to grant priesthood standings to those of African decent. It was an issue that had been on agenda within the LDS church since its inception. The issue weighed heavily on the minds of LDS leaders, including its founder Joseph Smith. Smith himself did not think it was right for any man deemed worthy of holding a standing of authority should not be granted it. However, because no "revelation" was given him at that time about the matter, no action was taken to lift the ban.

Mr. Mick, I find your bias disturbing at the very least. Perhaps you, like any good journalist, should do research into issues you write about. Your writing style comes across as informed and authoritative when it is, in fact, anything but. And before you try labeling me a Mormon defending his church, I grew up in a Catholic family. And as such I am frustrated about how people ruthlessly berate the LDS church for simply believing differently than other religions who focus on the teachings and works of the individual known as Jesus Christ. I personally know LDS folks, and with few exceptions, they are some of the most spiritual and genuinely kind people I've ever met in my life. So I short Mr. Mick, do your research[like I did] BEFORE opening your mouth or out typing your misinformed opinions.

And again, let the fanboy down-rating commence...


RE: Just an observation here.
By nstott on 5/15/2008 3:59:35 AM , Rating: 4
So if Wikileaks thought you were interesting enough to publish all of your medical records, report cards, home address, phone numbers, DOB, SS#, etc; would you also consider it to be censorship for you to fight against that? Do you also think it's censorship when someone hides their personal diary or journal?

Typically, the word "censorship" is used when a party blocks or suppresses the work that a third party is attempting to release for public consumption, not when a party attempts to conceal or exercise rights over its own work.

Thus, you are misusing the meaning of the word "censorship" here. Even the usage "self-censorship" doesn't carry the same negative connotation.

Can you present factual evidence that the LDS Church was forced to change their policy in 1978 based on societal pressure, or is that just another opinion of yours? Furthermore, your blanket statement that the LDS Church advocated racism doesn't hold water when one looks at other LDS Church positions, policies, and actions with regards to race from 1830 to 1978.

quote:
Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation.
-Joseph Smith, Jr., 1st Prophet and President of the LDS Church, statement given in 1842 (during US slavery and in response to debates in the US among whites as to whether or not black people have souls or not - there was a doubt as to blacks having soul?! ;) )


quote:
No church or other organization is more insistent than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the Negroes should receive all the rights and privileges that can possibly be given to any other in the true sense of equality as declared in the Declaration of Independence. They should be equal to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They should be equal in the matter of education. They should not be barred from obtaining knowledge and becoming proficient in any field of science, art or mechanical occupation. They should be free to choose any kind of employment, to go into business in any field they may choose and to make their lives as happy as it is possible without interference from white men, labor unions or from any other source. In their defense of these privileges the members of the Church will stand.
-Joseph Fielding Smith, Prophet and President of the LDS Church, statement given in 1958 (right in the middle of the Civil Rights Movement when MLK was marching and holding boycotts)


Some links on Blacks and the LDS Priesthood:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bla...
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/genera...

BTW, what juicy secrets were discovered in the LDS handbook you refer to in the article? What are they hiding? I'm guessing that you would have dropped the bombshell if there would have been one. In the absence of any real facts, all you had left was insinuation, sensationalism, and then regurgitating already well-known anti-Mormon diatribe.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 5:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seem really anxious to destroy the faith of others without limited information and incomplete understanding of the principles underlying the LDS belief system.


Yeah I'm totally sure thats what he set out to do when writing an article. Are you for real ?


RE: Just an observation here.
By ImEmmittSmith on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Just an observation here.
By Homerboy on 5/14/2008 4:33:32 PM , Rating: 3
you cant rate once you post...
His "humor" would be fine to post except he is the author of the article which detracts EVERYTHING from the article (granted there isn't much there to start with). I still do not see the connection to "censorship" at all. They are trying to protect their IP and copyrighted material.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Homerboy on 5/14/2008 4:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... that's a pretty arrogant and smart-ass thing for the author of the article to post wouldn't you say? Kinda discredits your "unbiased" journalistic approach.

LDS has all the right to stop their copyrighted material from being posted for the public to download. Just as any book publisher/writer would.


RE: Just an observation here.
By babighead on 5/14/2008 4:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no Mormon but I am smart enough to know you don't go to the Pope for the truth on what Muslims believe.

If you want the dirty truth about Mormons then find one and ask them. They even offer that option straight on their website.

www.mormon.org

With so many web savvy people I thought someone would go to the source.


RE: Just an observation here.
By borismkv on 5/14/2008 5:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. And my favorite place to get hardware news just suddenly became a bastion of Anti-Mormon garbage. Mick, you are absolutely not a journalist, and I seriously hope you don't consider yourself to be one. Journalism requires you to actually take your personal feelings out of the picture and report on something. This is almost nothing but pure slander, my friend.

Your views of the LDS church and blacks are just as horribly skewed. The LDS church *couldn't* allow blacks to hold the priesthood in its infancy. Remember, this was 1830, when blacks were not even considered people by the US government. In addition, the Church was lambasted the entire time they were in Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio because it was the only church that would let blacks *attend* meetings with whites. It was strongly anti-slavery, and an extermination order was ordered against them in the state of Missouri which legalized looting Mormon settlements and even killing members of the church. This order stood until the 1980s. One of the main reasons for this order was the political influence the Mormons were building in a state that was teetering on the edge between slavery and emancipation.

When the members of the church were forced to leave, they settled in Utah where there were no blacks except a very few that had managed to escape slavery to join them on the trek west. Until 1978, none of the leaders of the church had even bothered to ask God about the issue. But then, I guess history and facts don't matter so much when there's someone who doesn't like bending to your will, huh Mr. Mick. Learn your trade. Report the news. Don't make it up.

As to whether or not the Church has a right to sue for this publication...Would it be legal for me to print a New York Times best seller on the Internet for everyone to read right now, with the distinct intention of preventing people from buying it themselves? It would be both illegal, and immoral for me to do so. The writer of that book has a right to protect the investment of time and energy that they made in creating it and to even profit from it if they so choose. And in fact, if they fail to protect that copyright from infringement, they will eventually lose it. This is the situation the LDS Church is in right now. They can choose to protect the investment of time spent creating this handbook and they hold a copyright that must be protected or it will cease to be enforceable. But then I guess that doesn't matter much to you, does it Jason? Anyone that tries to keep you from getting what you want when you want it is evil, and anyone who doesn't conform to your world view is just "ignorant" or they aren't a "thinking person." Well, I hope you enjoy living that way. I will make certain to avoid any articles written by you in the future.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 5:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Journalism requires you to actually take your personal feelings out of the picture and report on something.


In Mick's defense, nobody does this anymore.

And man, you guys need to lighten up. Sheeesh.


RE: Just an observation here.
By borismkv on 5/14/2008 5:20:03 PM , Rating: 1
Which is one of my biggest beefs with modern media. Just because nobody does it anymore doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. There is no such thing as a journalist anymore. They're all just bloggers with a twig up their butt.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Homerboy on 5/14/2008 5:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
As it should be nearly EVERYONE'S beef with modern "journalism"


RE: Just an observation here.
By dwalton on 5/14/2008 5:39:39 PM , Rating: 1
So the persecution due to racism of others resulted in the higher ups in the Mormon church asking God what to do and his reply was "Ye shall deny blacks priesthood"?

Or did the Mormon higher-up decide this requirement without direction from God and waited until 1978 to asked whether or not this was proper?

Does it make sense that GOD would allow political pressure of non Mormons to force a change in their basic belief of equality? Does it make sense for GOD, in the best interest of the whole church, allow for a segment of the church be sacrifice just to appease non-believers?

If Mormon was persecuted for allowing blacks to attend intergrated churches and felt the need to change their spiritual law, then why not ban black membership or create segregated churches. Why ban blacks from joining the preisthood at all?

You know there are plenty of denominations of the Christian faith that had black churches with black preachers during this time of Mormon persecution. It doesn't make sense that non Mormons who were probably Christian to accept black preachers of their own faith but persecute an outside faith for such extending priesthood to blacks.

Mormon were persecuted for not being of traditional Christian faith and intergration was probably one of many excuses for their persecution. But I highly doubt that a ban on priesthood for blacks were due to outside pressure but from the inside.

One question, how many blacks ever obtained priesthood in the Mormon church prior to the rule of exclusion?


RE: Just an observation here.
By borismkv on 5/14/2008 5:58:47 PM , Rating: 1
Pay attention. The LDS church couldn't legally allow blacks to have any leadership role in a church that had whites in it. This is the early 1800's we're talking about here, not the 1950s. The world view of blacks in 1830 (particularly in Missouri, and in many other mid-western states) was that blacks weren't considered people. When determining state and city populations for voting districts at the time, blacks were often counted as 1/4 of a person. There were black churches with black preachers and black congregations, but they did not even remotely resemble the type of black churches that exist today. The vast majority of blacks were, get this, SLAVES!

So no, the church couldn't allow blacks to hold the priesthood when it started, and it wasn't a very big question to the few blacks who joined the LDS pioneers traveling to Salt Lake City because, well heck. They were free! Who cares about anything else? It wasn't until the mid 1970's when the LDS church began establishing itself in Africa (which currently has one of the fastest growing LDS populations in the world at present) that blacks began asking when they would be allowed to have the priesthood. There was never a reason for the church leaders to ask before this time, and when they did ask if blacks could be allowed to hold the priesthood, according to the leadership of the time, the answer was a very emphatic yes.


RE: Just an observation here.
By dwalton on 5/14/2008 6:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
You need to pay attention, because get this, slaves were allowed to attend and have churches. Slaves were probably restricted to the same religion as their owners so most of blacks that were Mormon were probably free blacks. Segregated black churches with black priest would have been a lot easier to swallow then intergrated churches. You still haven't answer my question of how many black priests existed amongst the LDS before the state law was enacted.

If there were a law disallowing the LDS from having no black priest then why write into the laws of the church when it was already state law (if that is true, have proof)? Did the state require the LDS to write a law within a document of rules and forced to produce said document as proof of abiding by that law?

Furthermore, for some odd reason the virtue of this rule was never questioned and repealed in Utah where the racist missourian laws or other midwest states had no jurisdiction and that this law never crossed anyone mind. If this was an issue of with africans how can you not expect that this was an issue with african americans who lived in Utah? You don't think there a big difference in terms of pressure to repeal in trying to go to Africa and convert new members where almost everyone is black versus a state where there are virtually no blacks.


RE: Just an observation here.
By borismkv on 5/14/2008 8:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, let me explain something. The point of my post was to point out that there are a number of reasons for this rule to have existed other than, "They're just racist bastards." People will believe what they want to believe, whether it's true or not. That's why there *are* so many religions in the world. But I'll give you a few more reasons for the church to have waited.

The blacks who joined the church were free, usually. Some were escaped slaves. The last thing escaped slaves needed was the public exposure that goes with leadership in the church. In the early days of the church, the entire community got together to worship. There was no separation into congregations. It was usually one whole town of Mormons getting together to worship. And I'm also betting, that at this time in history the church also realized that publicly calling a black person into a leadership position over whites would have gotten that particular black person killed.

In comparing it to a current church policy, how about we go here...Did you know the LDS church outright refuses to allow Muslims with living relatives in the middle east to join the church? "Well" you say, "They're being racist!" NO! They're protecting that person and their relatives' lives because it is not uncommon for Muslim extremists to torture and kill people who convert to Christianity *as well as their relatives*. There were many groups in the US, even up until the early 80s, who probably would have killed a black Mormon priesthood holder if given the chance. "I mean, it's bad enough that he's black, but he's also Mormon! And he thinks he has some authority over the white man! He's even more evil!" They would have said. The late 70's was a pretty safe time for the church to extend the priesthood to blacks (who were not allowed to have the priesthood from the creation of the church for reasons I've mentioned. The church started officially in 1830, just so you know). The racial stress brought on by the civil rights movement was gone, the organized groups of white supremacists had lost all the power they had previously and had become nothing more than fringe groups. And the church was growing rapidly in Africa. So there was absolutely no danger in extending the priesthood to blacks anymore. After hearing of the wishes of the African members of the church, the leadership got together changed the policy, because it was the right thing to do at the right time.

You can go on thinking that the LDS Church chose not to let blacks have the priesthood because of racism. But doing so does not make you a "Thinking person" as Mick believes. In fact, it means you think *less.* Because any person with a brain and an open mind can come up with a number of really good reasons for the church to have waited. But Mick, being the thickheaded arrogant fool he is, chose not to think and stuck simply with the more convenient, easier to protect his distorted world view, easier-to-hate-them-for reason.


RE: Just an observation here.
By borismkv on 5/14/2008 8:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Further, I don't know that there ever was an actual rule in the church handbook that said, "Blacks can't have the priesthood." It could have been one of those things that just stayed the way it was in the beginning because no one thought to think about it. I mean, after all, Mormons were being raped, tortured, mugged, and killed all through the late 1830s. Once they moved to Utah the US government was still hounding them. The US government even mobilized an army division to invade the Utah territory. The treatment of the LDS church by the US government and the people of the time was one of the greatest civil rights abuses in American history. I can imagine how determining whether or not blacks should be allowed to have the priesthood now would be kind of low on the list of problems to be dealt with.


RE: Just an observation here.
By charlieee on 5/14/2008 6:41:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One question, how many blacks ever obtained priesthood in the Mormon church prior to the rule of exclusion?

Probably two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_The_Church...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_The_Church...


RE: Just an observation here.
By dwalton on 5/14/2008 7:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
Now is the question of what part to believe or discount?

Black priest existing in Missouri and other midwestern states or rules against black priesthood becoming formalized in Utah and not because political pressure of racist midwesterners but due to the audacity of a black priest taking on white wives.


RE: Just an observation here.
By charlieee on 5/14/2008 6:05:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Despite this example of the public unpopularity of such moves, the Church of Mormon appears to be following…

The Church of Mormon does not exist.

3 Nephi 27:5,7-8
Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day;
Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.
And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

Doctrine and Covenants 115:4
For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary...
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reiterates that it has no affiliation whatsoever with any polygamous groups, including the polygamous sect in Eldorado, Texas. The Church discontinued polygamy officially in 1890, but more than a century later some news and Internet reports fail to draw clear distinctions between the Church and practicing polygamous sects.

Furthermore LDS members do not believe polygamous groups to be Mormon.

quote:
Mormon Church Attacks Wikileaks

Jason Mick used the word, "Attacks" in the headline instead of, "sued" as in the article. The word attack is not a synonym for sue.
---------
The reason I have stopped posting on Dailytech for some time is because my profile or IP seems to have been blocked. However this one (charlieee) is working again for some reason. The charliee (two e's) account is still blocked from replying however. For those of you looking forward to my posts I will probably be censored/banned/modded down again on Dailytech soon and therefore will not be able to post. An email to the Anandtech forum administrator was not returned. Note to any server administrator: the website allows for any single person to ban another user by modding down multiple posts belonging to another account in a short time.


RE: Just an observation here.
By feraltoad on 5/15/2008 5:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
Furthermore LDS members do not believe polygamous groups to be Mormon.

They sure seem to consider themselves Mormon. Just more adherent to the original teachings of the true Prophet of God that re-established God's true church on this earth. But I guess he could have been wrong about the whole thing.

Naturally, churches don't have a high opinion of other churches.
1 Nephi 14:6 "There are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil."

Although, polygamy currently might be prohibited (only after intense political/public pressure from outside the church) the church still considers the principle to be sound, and it is still published in the scriptures. Current doctrine might amend the conditions on polygamy, but the true playa Joseph Smith Jr. is still kicking it with his 30+ wives up in heaven. Also, the "sealing" ritual can be done to create valid eternal plural marriages in the "afterlife".

What is wrong with "attack"? We often see various synonyms, idioms, and metaphors as descriptors of litigation, and many pertaining to violence. "Legal battle" "Opening salvo of the prosecution" "Hamstringed the defense" "marshal a defense" "hostile witness". Even the words "prosecute" has confrontational roots: L prosecutus, ptp. of prosequi to pursue, proceed with.


RE: Just an observation here.
By charlieee on 5/19/2008 7:32:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Naturally, churches don't have a high opinion of other churches.
1 Nephi 14:6 "There are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil."

Incorrect quote.

This is the correct quote of 1 Nephi 14:6
6 Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God.

feraltoad was mostly likely attempting to refer to 1 Nephi 14:10.

1 Nephi 14:10
And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

1 Nephi 22:23 illustrates who belongs to the church of the devil.

1 Nephi 22:23
23 For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

Another name for the church of the devil is Babylon. The fate of Babylon is to be burned as stated in D&C 88:94.

D&C 88:94 (note also D&C 88:105; Rev. 14:8)
…That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned.…
----------
quote:
Naturally, churches don't have a high opinion of other churches. - feraltoad

D&C 18:20
Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil.

Now, if there be two churches only, why then does D&C 18:20 speak as if there were more than two churches? Unless D&C 18:20 means do not contend amongst yourselves where it states, "Contend against no church" then it implies that there are more than two churches. If there by any other church calling themselves a church who do not meet the qualifications listed in 1 Nephi 22:23 and D&C 88:94 (powertrip, popularity, lust of the flesh/porography, covetess, persecute and kill saints) can they be called the church of the devil? No. But should just be called a church as mentioned in D&C 18:20. Therefore shall a church who does none of those things of the church of the devil meet the same end? No. Therefore do LDS hold churches who do not do the works of Babylon in the same esteem as Babylon? In other words should they be burned? No.
quote:
Naturally, churches don't have a high opinion of other churches. - feraltoad

So what does 1 Nephi 14:10 mean where it says, "two churches only"? The context of 1 Nephi chapter 14 is that an angel is speaking about a future day. The context of D&C 18:20 is the Lord giving instructions (which are still vaild today) to those living at the time. Therefore in time there will be two churches only.

Furthermore I will contend that 1 Nephi 14:10 means that those who do good belong to the church of the Lamb of God and those who do evil are of the church of the devil thereby implicating even those people who do not claim to be affiliated with any church. Therefore I will say that 1 Nephi 14:10 is both literal and figurative regarding the word church.
----------
quote:
What is wrong with "attack"?

Ask what is intended with the use of the word attack. Other peoples' posts maybe helpful. When you are done asking then ask yourself is your judgement willful.
quote:
But I guess he could have been wrong about the whole thing.

There is a way to test. If you go do good according to that which is written with real sincereity at your maximum level or ability to do good then after a while you will know if he was wrong or not. But the first test you can try in your head is: Is it good to help others?


RE: Just an observation here.
By charlieee on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Just an observation here.
By charlieee on 5/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Just an observation here.
By FITCamaro on 5/14/2008 2:43:37 PM , Rating: 5
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb....


RE: Just an observation here.
By FITCamaro on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Just an observation here.
By Noya on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Just an observation here.
By dever on 5/14/2008 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of it was simply the truth
Any "true" examples you'd like to expound on? I'm sure DailyTech's reader's would have a heyday with your conspiracies.


RE: Just an observation here.
By FITCamaro on 5/14/2008 3:21:22 PM , Rating: 3
Yes I'd love to know what facts you have to support the claim that the US government invented the AIDs virus to kill blacks. Or any of his other rants that have come out.

If you truly believe that his rants are those of truth, you're no better than the Islamic extremists telling people that Muhammad said they should kill Americans and to blow themselves up so they can get their 15 virgins or however many it is.


RE: Just an observation here.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Just an observation here.
By FITCamaro on 5/14/2008 3:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'll give you that but I will mention that most states still have laws that make oral sex illegal.

I don't think that was just a Mormon thing. Whoever believes it though, that ain't gonna stop me from liking my girl going down on me. ;)

Oh and I left the Catholic church because I got tired of what they were saying and what I saw those who claimed to be "good Catholics" doing.


RE: Just an observation here.
By jlips6 on 5/14/2008 5:21:15 PM , Rating: 1
+1 man. There are some things in life that shouldn't be missed.


RE: Just an observation here.
By mikefarinha on 5/14/2008 4:50:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I do take issue to the latter half your statement. Should catholic church-goers be punished if their priest molests a boy? It seems like if a Church official starts doing something bad and you leave the church, thats a GOOD thing not a bad thing. I could be wrong.


This is analogous to taking a class where your history teacher molests a student then you subsequently refuse to take another history class.


RE: Just an observation here.
By jlips6 on 5/14/2008 5:19:47 PM , Rating: 1
interpreted AKA they couldn't get any.

Sheesh. Forgive me for finding religions that prohibit sex off-putting. Am I supposed to believe that sex is an evil act because your invisible best friend told me so? Get real.

(I myself am Jewish/Atheist for those who are wondering. Yes, it does work.)

If they want to practice Mormanism, that's their choice/loss. I'm tired of all the religions that say sex in all it's forms is evil.


RE: Just an observation here.
By borismkv on 5/14/2008 5:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it's sex outside of Marriage that Mormons find evil. In particular, the statement above was more concerning oral sex outside of marriage. The church does not mingle in the sex lives of married people.


RE: Just an observation here.
By jlips6 on 5/14/2008 10:54:18 PM , Rating: 1
having to marry someone to have sex is still ridiculous. *sigh* Just sign me up for the church of the flying spaghetti monster.


RE: Just an observation here.
By nstott on 5/15/2008 2:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
If you're going to be a one-sourcer, how about not having it be the encyclopedia anybody can edit.

This is a reasonable essay/blog on Mormonism and sexuality (also read the comments):

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/17/prophetic-coun...

BTW, Mormons do not believe sex is evil.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/14/2008 3:19:58 PM , Rating: 3
The Rev. Wright issue doesn't change anything...

The Rev. Wright issue isn't going to change anyone's opinion of Obama much one way or the other. People who claim that they wouldn't vote for Obama after the Rev. Wright controversy probably wouldn't have voted for Obama BEFORE the Rev. Wright controversy anyway.

Most people are able to see beyond that crap anyway, and Obama has already denounced his comments.


RE: Just an observation here.
By FITCamaro on 5/14/2008 3:26:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Obama has already denounced his comments.


Simply saying you denounce them and actually doing so are two different things. If I smoke crack for 20 years and then call all drug users bad people, does that absolve me of the fact that I smoked crack for 20 years?

If he had gone to that church and left it a long time ago, I wouldn't hold it against him. But to claim he went there for 20 years and didn't know anything about it, and only now to denounce it? How big of an idiot do I have to be to believe that he's sincere?


RE: Just an observation here.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/14/2008 3:38:22 PM , Rating: 3
I'd rather not get into a political discussion, but most people have already moved past the Rev. Wright issue. There are more pressing matters facing our nation (war, the failing economy, housing slump/foreclosures, health care, America's stature with the rest of the world, etc.) than the ranting of Obama's pastor.

But like I sad, the Rev. Wright matter is just a distraction. Given your tone, and your previous comments in other articles, I have a "hunch" that you aren't voting for Obama anyway. And you probably had no intention of voting for him before the Rev. Wright comments.

So Rev. Wright changed absolutely nothing.


RE: Just an observation here.
By FITCamaro on 5/14/2008 3:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
In the beginning of all this, he actually seemed ok. But then all the real truth about him has come out. His views, his ideology. But yes, I wasn't voting for him before that anyway.

But for those who are planning to, I think dismissing it is absurd. But yes, with him supporting things like the Global Poverty fund (will cost Americans $750B a year), universal health care, a bail out for people who made bad decisions on their mortgages, granting immunity to illegal aliens, being pro-global warming, wanting to raise my taxes, etc. the Rev. Wright thing is just the tip of the iceberg.

And the sad thing is McCain isn't much better. Hopefully he'll pair with a true conservative to keep him in check.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 4:43:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
America's stature with the rest of the world


Yes because thats what made America great, being loved by the rest of the world.

/sarcasm.

quote:
There are more pressing matters facing our nation


Not really. Its " TIME FOR A CHANGE " works on the weak minded who actually think there is some huge problem with this country that needs changing. In other words, Liberals. Three of those on your " pressing matters " list are actually problems now BECAUSE of liberalism. Especially healthcare.

People made this country great. Not government or policies. And until people like you understand that, and stop trying to " fix " everything with taxpayer money and more legislation, we'll always have those problems.

quote:
So Rev. Wright changed absolutely nothing.


Not true. It opened up a great many peoples eyes about who the man trying to be our next president associates himself with. A conservative having a few friends in the NRA and the catholic church causes a huge commotion these days. But we're supposed to just gloss over Obama's friendship with a man spewing insane anti-American and pro terrorist hate speech ? The double standard is insulting.


RE: Just an observation here.
By FITCamaro on 5/15/2008 7:44:56 AM , Rating: 1
Well said.


RE: Just an observation here.
By zinfamous on 5/14/2008 6:22:05 PM , Rating: 3
Obama never claimed he didn't know anything about it. He claimed that he always had disagreements with some of Wright's rhetoric. People choose a particular church for different reasons. His intent was one of spirituality, which, for him, was apparently fulfilled through the church parishioners and that community.

Your putting words in his mouth. Watch that speech he gave about racism. It's about as level-headed and honest a perspective you will get from any presidential candidate concerning racism and culture wars in this country


RE: Just an observation here.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/14/2008 4:10:49 PM , Rating: 1
Most people are able to see beyond that crap anyway, and Obama has already denounced his comments.

As a person that is suffers under his rule, I mean lives in Illinois, I can tell you yes, most logical people can see through this crap. Problem is there are too many anti-logical people out there.... Here are things to think about:
First time in office 2005 (fact, not one day earlier)
He said he voted against going to war in 2001/2002. With who? his wife at the kitchen table?? He was not in office.
In the 3 years he's been in office he has written two books and now has been running for the office of president for the last 20 months...When is he going to start working for the citizens of Illinois??
In this current year our taxes are going up 67% an average $3,350.00 per person in the state of Illinois (not all on income tax, but tobacco, beer, food, air, what he could raise the tax on he did), because he thinks he knows how to spend my money better then I do.

There is one truth – a vote for Obama is a vote for less money in your pocket...again, I'm living it.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Parhel on 5/14/2008 4:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
I live in the suburbs, in Cook county, and it's truly obscene how much they are getting away with. Property taxes and sales tax specifically are becoming out of control. I even find myself driving to DuPage county to go shopping.

I don't see how what that has to do with Obama though. He's in the federal government now. Those things are decided at the county and the local level. I would have liked to see him do something to prevent it, but I don't fault him for it either.


RE: Just an observation here.
By phattyboombatty on 5/14/2008 4:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see how what that has to do with Obama though. He's in the federal government now.


The point is that he is from the same political machine with the same idealogy. In other words, he will implement at the federal level what the citizens of Illinois are suffering through right now.


RE: Just an observation here.
By tdawg on 5/14/2008 7:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
There's a reason we have a government structured as we do. 3 branches with checks and balances between them is designed to keep one branch of government from getting away with whatever he/she wishes, populous be damned.


RE: Just an observation here.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/14/2008 4:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
He's in the federal government now. Those things are decided at the county and the local level.

Taxes are also done at the state level....That's his spot.
Everything level of the government effect the taxes you pay. Do not try to protect the man from what he has done...He has vote Yes over 300 times in one year on things that would/will increase your taxes as a citizen of Illinois. He is for change, he wants everyone to be poor, very, very poor.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/14/2008 4:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
Everything level of the government effect the taxes you pay

my bad, should be: every level...not everything level


RE: Just an observation here.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 5:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Oh man I feel for you Illinoisians ( lol is that a word? )

The only reason he even got his seat in Illinois is because Sen Ryan had a nasty divorce with Jerry Ryan ( 7 of 9 ) and had to step down because a bunch of personal stuff about him was made public. Obama was just given it. Hes never had to win anything in his life. What little track record he has isn't good.

quote:
When is he going to start working for the citizens of Illinois??


Oh but he is ! Didn't you hear ? Chicago now has the highest sales tax in the COUNTRY.


By phattyboombatty on 5/14/2008 5:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama was just given it.


Don't tell Alan Keyes that.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/14/2008 5:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh man I feel for you Illinoisians ( lol is that a word? )

It is now. :)


RE: Just an observation here.
By tdawg on 5/14/2008 4:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
It shouldn't matter what a candidate's religion is, since religion should be kept separate from government. As long as they are a good leader, it doesn't matter what their personal faith is.

Barack Obama's minister shouldn't tarnish his credibility any more than Catholic priests tarnish their paritioners' beliefs.


RE: Just an observation here.
By phattyboombatty on 5/14/2008 5:03:04 PM , Rating: 1
A person's religion reveals that person's set of beliefs. A person's beliefs guides their policy choices. Thus, religion is an extremely important indicator of the policies you will get out of a politician. If one of