Kissing on Temple Square? Everybody?

[HEthePrimate]

It's not mine to extend, but yes, I would. If I didn't love where I live, I'd feel the responsibility to leave, myself. The only other option history seems to exhibit is for malcontents to antagonize those around them and demand that an entire culture adapt to them, rather than adapting to the culture around them which was there first. Kind of reminds me of all those people I saw with "Darwin fishes" on their cars when I lived in Salt Lake City, except that some of them moved to Salt Lake City and expected it to conform to them rather than vice versa.

You gotta respect the culture. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

No offense intended.

Who's to say they don't love where they live, just because they disagree with the majority religious views? Frankly, the "love it or leave it" attitude is stupid and simplistic. No, you don't have to respect the culture, and as much as I like him, quotations of Mr. Spock are not the law of the land. (I favor the 1st Amendment, myself.) I live in a highly diverse area, and I would be sad if everybody but the largest group departed to live with "their own kind," leaving behind a homogenous culture. That would be b-o-o-oring! Me likey diversity!

HEP

Edited July 30, 2009 by HEthePrimate

[prisonchaplain]

Hey, welcome to America where we have freedom of speech. That includes speech we find offensive. If they refused to leave LDS property and were charged with trespassing, that's one thing, and the Church is within its rights to do something about it. However, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the Church because these people were "in your face," confrontational, or disrespectful. They'd be wise not to do exercise their freedom of speech on Church property in the future, but I can certainly understand why they want to make a statement. This is not a political issue the Church should have gotten involved in, IMO.

Peace,

HEP

I disagree on several levels. First, this whole notion that free speech rights, as listed in the Constitution, were not intended to protect offensive, profane, sacreligious speech. It was meant to insure free debate in society, not provide cover for pornographers, or for radical protestors willing to resort to sacrilege and physically offensive tactics. Tossing blood allegedly tainted with AIDS at Christians opposed to homosexual marriage, threatening to invade and attack private religious property, and yes, engaging in intentionally offensive displays of public affection--none of this is protected speech.

As for the church involving itself in "politics." If Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. should not speak to society's permissive sexual immorality, then I'm not sure you'd think church's should speak about anything. There are few topics more consistent in the Bible, the Quran, and I assume, the Triple, than opposition to sexual immorality (be it fornication, adultery, or same sex activity). So, why shouldn't this be THE issue churches speak to?

Edited July 30, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[HEthePrimate]

I disagree on several levels.

Of course you do! And that's ok...

First, this whole notion that free speech rights, as listed in the Constitution, were intended to protect offensive, profane, sacreligious speech. It was meant to insure free debate in society, not provide cover for pornographers, or for radical protestors willing to resort to sacrilege and physically offensive tactics. Tossing blood allegedly tainted with AIDS at Christians opposed to homosexual marriage, threatening to invade and attack private religious property, and yes, engaging in intentionally offensive displays of public affection--none of this is protected speech.

Physical attacks are just that, physical attacks, and should be prosecuted as such. Tossing AIDS-infected blood on people is a physical attack. You are also correct that threatening attack is not protected speech. But don't try conflating criminal acts like that with speech that is legitimately protected by the Constitution.

"Sacrilege," "radical," and "offensive" are all very subjective terms. For example, when a Mormon says God has a physical body, many Christians would consider that sacrilegious because they think that demeans and limits God. I believe that claiming God supported the invasion of Iraq is sacrilegious. But that is protected speech nonetheless. Defacing Church property would be sacrilegious, but it would also be vandalism. It would be prosecuted under the law because it is vandalism, not because of the sacrilege. When somebody says black people are lazy, I find that offensive. And yet, that is protected speech. I consider the John Birch Society to be a radical right-wing organization. But their speech is also protected, as it should be. If speech that offends us is not permitted, then there is no freedom of speech at all--calling it freedom of speech would be meaningless.

As for the church involving itself in "politics." If Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. should not speak to society's permissive sexual immorality, then I'm not sure you'd think church's should speak about anything. There are few topics more consistent in the Bible, the Quran, and I assume, the Triple, than opposition to sexual immorality (be it fornication, adultery, or same sex activity). So, why shouldn't this be THE issue churches speak to?

Oh, the churches can speak about morality all they want. However, the LDS Church went well beyond merely speaking about morality. In any case, I said it was a mistake for it to get involved in this issue, not illegal. That mistake will come back and bite the Church eventually.

The whole thing is rather ironic, isn't it? At one time, other Christian denominations passed legislation outlawing polygamy, in the name of morality, and the Mormons accused them of violating their freedom of religion. Now Mormons are trying to legally outlaw gay marriage, also in the name of morality, and claiming that their freedom of religion allows them to legally impose their morals on people who may not share their religious views. Go figure. It smacks of hypocrisy.

HEP

[prisonchaplain]

Of course you do! And that's ok...

Physical attacks are just that, physical attacks, and should be prosecuted as such. Tossing AIDS-infected blood on people is a physical attack. You are also correct that threatening attack is not protected speech.

Well, the blood stunt is years old, committed by a group called ACT UP, abd done in church sanctuaries, if memory serves me right. Protesting mobs have converged on LDS temple sites...though ironically, not at Black church sites (may analysts believe it is the black Christian vote that actually defeated prop-8). Perhaps physical intimidation only works on those who are not perceived to be willing to strike back??? Which leads me to believe that the threat, whether planned or not, was conceivable real.

But don't try conflating criminal acts like that with speech that is legitimately protected by the Constitution.

"Sacrilege," "radical," and "offensive" are all very subjective terms. For example, when a Mormon says God has a physical body, many Christians would consider that sacrilegious because they think that demeans and limits God. I believe that claiming God supported the invasion of Iraq is sacrilegious. But that is protected speech nonetheless. Defacing Church property would be sacrilegious, but it would also be vandalism. It would be prosecuted under the law because it is vandalism, not because of the sacrilege. When somebody says black people are lazy, I find that offensive. And yet, that is protected speech. I consider the John Birch Society to be a radical right-wing organization. But their speech is also protected, as it should be. If speech that offends us is not permitted, then there is no freedom of speech at all--calling it freedom of speech would be meaningless.

The bar would be very high and difficult for proving intentional sacrilegious attack. But, why should gay couples get to make out on church holy sites, only to face the mildest of trespassing violations (plus the sympathetic free publicity from the press), while crimes motivated by racial or sexual-orientation hate receive exponential punishment?

In Europe and Scandanavia pastors have been fined for preaching that homosexuality is sin. There is current legislation in England that seems poised to force religious organizations to hire without regard to sexual orientation (yes...a gay youth pastor in a church that opposes homosexual behavior!). We're not there, but 10 years ago who seriously believed same sex marriage would be the law in a half dozen states?

There's no smart or non-saavy in this scenario. The Catholic Church, LDS, evangelicals, and yes African American churches will speak the truth to society, even if it earns scorn. This is our belief, how can we not speak?

The whole thing is rather ironic, isn't it? At one time, other Christian denominations passed legislation outlawing polygamy, in the name of morality, and the Mormons accused them of violating their freedom of religion. Now Mormons are trying to legally outlaw gay marriage, also in the name of morality, and claiming that their freedom of religion allows them to legally impose their morals on people who may not share their religious views. Go figure. It smacks of hypocrisy.

HEP

Well, there may be some irony here, in that I still believe that if gay marriage becomes federally mandated by judicial fiat then polygamy is around the corner. As for imposing morality, law does that. Balancing community standards vs. individual rights is a constant tug of war in our society. We want both, and get both--neither in purity, neither to the satisfaction of all--it's the wonder of our system of governance.

[Justice]

I disagree also.

"Not getting involved" is exactly what we are warned against. Sitting idly by and watching the morality of our nation decline is the worst thing to do. The Church must encourage it's members to get involved. It's true, the Church shouldn't tell people how to vote. But, that doesn't mean the Church can't support the side it believes is right.

Law does deal with moral issues; it should deal with moral issues. As far as a law is a moral issue, that's how far the Church should get involved. The hard part is enforcing them equally. It's as PC says, allowing the majority to rule while not infringing on the rights of the minority is a delicate balance. In my view, it takes more than good laws to accomplish this. It takes patience and consideration from the people. And, it starts with the people getting involved, it doesn't end there. The sad part is many people don't get involved because they don't think they should. They somehow think by getting involved they are infringing on others rights, when if they were involved properly, they could make their opinion count just the same as anyone elses.

Minority views WILL win the day if the majority doesn't get involved. We can be involved, show tolerance and love towards others freedoms, without letting laws we know are wrong get passed. Same goes for the Church.

[bytor2112]

Hey, welcome to America where we have freedom of speech. That includes speech we find offensive. If they refused to leave LDS property and were charged with trespassing, that's one thing, and the Church is within its rights to do something about it. However, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the Church because these people were "in your face," confrontational, or disrespectful. They'd be wise not to do exercise their freedom of speech on Church property in the future, but I can certainly understand why they want to make a statement. This is not a political issue the Church should have gotten involved in, IMO.

Peace,

HEP

How about because they were drunk and verbally abusive? While you may "understand" why they were exercising their free speech rights.....I think they were exercising stupidity and only adding to the divide. Nothing about their actions or the actions of say...Temple protesters do anything to ameliorate the divide over the g/l marriage issue.

So, HEP, do you think President Monson was led by revelation on this issue or by his own personal bias? Another error by LDS prophets like your assertions regarding polygamy?

[its_Chet]

Hey, welcome to America where we have freedom of speech. That includes speech we find offensive. If they refused to leave LDS property and were charged with trespassing, that's one thing, and the Church is within its rights to do something about it. However, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the Church because these people were "in your face," confrontational, or disrespectful. They'd be wise not to do exercise their freedom of speech on Church property in the future, but I can certainly understand why they want to make a statement. This is not a political issue the Church should have gotten involved in, IMO.

Peace,

HEP

Aaron, Aimee & Adelaide: How much longer must we endure?

Give that a read, won't you?

When you're done, THEN let's talk about the Church's guilt in all this, if indeed there is any. And maybe THEN we can discuss just how members of the Church viewed their involvement in the support for prop 8. Maybe THEN we can discuss their rights as citizens to influence the outcome of elections in their community, using nothing more than their own constitutionally provided, civil rights. Maybe after that we can discuss just how many prop 8 opponents sought civil dialogue and understanding over this issue, rather than vandalizing Church property, or stalking private citizens for their civic involvement.

Read that whole blog first. Then tell me the Church was wrong.

And let's establish something right here, right now. Do you or do you not accept the doctrine that the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are duly authorized representatives of Jesus Christ? If you don't accept the doctrine, do you at least respect it, as our non member friends (like prisonchaplain, for example) do?

I say our good friend prisonchaplain is right on this issue, as he normally is.

Edited July 30, 2009 by its_Chet

[its_Chet]

Frankly, the "love it or leave it" attitude is stupid and simplistic.

HEP

How profoundly Christ like of you.

My opinion does not require your validation, just so you know. It is an opinion, and nothing more, and I never claimed it was anything more.

But your criticism of it is worth nothing more than my own opinion.

And my opinion stands:

It is wrong to move into a community and disrespect its prevailing culture. It is wrong to move into a community and insist that the entire community's prevailing culture adapt to your own whims, rather than the individual adapting to it. If I moved to Rome, I would not start taking shots at the Catholic Church and harassing its members.

It is also wrong, if one finds himself or herself born into a community with a prevailing culture, to attack it and demand that it change to suit that individual, should that individual fail to appreciate their own community's beauty. The individual should adapt to the community, not vice versa.

And no, I did not suggest that a line from Star Trek is the law of the land. But I see no problem with citing wisdom wherever I find it. And unfortunately, the law of the land is becoming more and more devoid of wisdom.

I have an opinion, and it is nothing more than an opinion. Same with your criticism of it. If you disagree, that's your right, but dismissing it as summarily as you have doesn't change anyone's mind.

Edited July 30, 2009 by its_Chet

[bytor2112]

Pray. Often. Don't forget to include those who are set against you.

And finally, have no doubt President Monson knows where all of this is leading. He will surely reveal the knowledge to us on the Lord's timetable. Meanwhile, we must support and trust him, his inspired councilors, and our inspired local leaders in our actions. Their actions of Christian courage will be our examples.

Amen.

[Moksha]

... engaging in intentionally offensive displays of public affection--none of this is protected speech.

I agree with you 100%. However, a brief kiss and hug (even between Gays) is legal everywhere else in SLC. Even a brief kiss and a hug between a heterosexual couple is permissible at ground zero of the Church plaza.

BTW, the Salt Lake City Prosecutor has declined to proceed at the arraignment hearing.

[StrawberryFields]

Hey, I know someone who got asked to quit smoking outside on the buildings on Temple Square too.

I think they watch for this kind of activity.

[Maxel]

I agree with you 100%. However, a brief kiss and hug (even between Gays) is legal everywhere else in SLC. Even a brief kiss and a hug between a heterosexual couple is permissible at ground zero of the Church plaza.

Did you miss the part of the thread where it was revealed the couple was engaged in far more than a "brief kiss and hug"? Some people (and this fault is widespread, not unique to any philosophical camp) refuse to look at facts when their ideology or opinion may be damaged by them. I think we have a case of that right here. Edited August 1, 2009 by Maxel

[john doe]

I agree with you 100%. However, a brief kiss and hug (even between Gays) is legal everywhere else in SLC. Even a brief kiss and a hug between a heterosexual couple is permissible at ground zero of the Church plaza.

BTW, the Salt Lake City Prosecutor has declined to proceed at the arraignment hearing.

Yes, but if it turns into a makeout session with groping, even a hetero couple would be told to take it elsewhere.

As far as dropping the charges, he was playing politics. That was part and parcel of Salt Lake City politics, where liberals who hate the LDS Church like to grandstand for their special interests. And yes, it is full-blown hatred. Salt Lake is the only place I have been where it is not only tolerated and acceptable, but encouraged by the local media to promote bigotry against the dominant religion.

It should be obvious to any uninterested observer that when a person has been asked or told by representatives of a private landowner that they need to leave, and the person belligerently refuses to do so, then they should not become surprised when police arrive and charge them with trespassing. I am not surprised that the charges were dropped, it probably happens all the time with minor violations like this, especially when the landowner wants to move on and not make the issue larger. However, if the defendants return and repeat this behavior, it will be hard for the prosecutor to justify refusing to pursue the matter in the future.

I would like to know why the clip of surveillance video the prosecutor released did not include footage from when the whole confrontation began. Did he not have it? Or did his office 'accidentally' erase that part of the tape?

[Wingnut]

Aaron, Aimee & Adelaide: How much longer must we endure?

Give that a read, won't you?

When you're done, THEN let's talk about the Church's guilt in all this, if indeed there is any. And maybe THEN we can discuss just how members of the Church viewed their involvement in the support for prop 8. Maybe THEN we can discuss their rights as citizens to influence the outcome of elections in their community, using nothing more than their own constitutionally provided, civil rights. Maybe after that we can discuss just how many prop 8 opponents sought civil dialogue and understanding over this issue, rather than vandalizing Church property, or stalking private citizens for their civic involvement.

Read that whole blog first. Then tell me the Church was wrong.

And let's establish something right here, right now. Do you or do you not accept the doctrine that the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are duly authorized representatives of Jesus Christ? If you don't accept the doctrine, do you at least respect it, as our non member friends (like prisonchaplain, for example) do?

I say our good friend prisonchaplain is right on this issue, as he normally is.

Showing the missteps and in-poor-taste activities of "the other side" doesn't automatically make us right and them wrong. That's only an emotional argument.

[JohnnyRudick]

Showing the missteps and in-poor-taste activities of "the other side" doesn't automatically make us right and them wrong. That's only an emotional argument.

Sure it does:D

[HEthePrimate]

Did I hear something about kissing on Temple Square? Where do I sign up?

HEP

[Justice]

YouTube - Mormon Apostle David Bednar Discusses Proposition 8

[Justice]

YouTube - Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur

[its_Chet]

Showing the missteps and in-poor-taste activities of "the other side" doesn't automatically make us right and them wrong. That's only an emotional argument.

To a point I would agree, but when you see people organizing nationwide and this is how they're behaving, I think common sense dictates that you be more vigilant than you were before when they trespass or appear to be trying to start trouble.

Something's coming. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year. But this is no time to fall asleep at the wheel.

Most of these people are probably just expressing themselves poorly. Some of them are inadvertently giving us a warning.

[Wingnut]

I'm not saying I disagree with your point...I just think it was a semi-flimsy argument. :)