If the United States were to collapse

[DanteGabriel]

I get that. I was just trying to figure out how consistently you apply the principle that religious groups shouldn't get involved in politics.

Well, I'm against the Taliban getting involved in politics too, since they're so damn similar in every conceivable way to the LDS church.

The only elephant in the room that is being ignored are African American and Latino voters. L A Times Their votes are the ones that put Prop 8 over the top. Of course placing the blame at their feet would be political suicide for any liberal/Democratic politician so blame had to be found elsewhere. The Catholic church is to powerful, the religious right is to obvious and they would proclaim any blame pointed their way as proof of their strength and would seize the propaganda victory. The LDS is other. Christians are supicious of them and a lot, don't see them as fellow Christians, the secular don't like religious groups in general and conservative ones in particular, and the LDS is so closely associated with Utah many see them as foreign. They make the perfect "other" for the left to blame, rather than protest outside of the local AME Church. The truth is that President Obama drove up minority voters most of whom voted for Prop 8. Without them it more than likely would have failed.

Wait, are religiously conservative blacks and Latinos going to carve out their own slice of the corpse of the United States?

[IheartTesla]

First of all, you shouldnt believe everything exit polls tell you because very few people actually agree to take those compared to pre-polls. Remember when many of them predicted Kerry would win in '04? Yeah me either. Secondly, there are other studies which put the African American support for Prop 8 at 58%. Interested people can easily find this competing study.

That's still higher than 52%.....but African Americans are also disproportionately more religious, and you can lay that 6% difference on the good ole church (Catholic or Protestant). And all the ads on TV might have swayed some voters too, for which I blame the Mormon church. There's plenty of church blame to throw around.

Also, first time voters in Cali (of which Obama got 83% of the vote) voted 62-38 against prop 8. Lets not peddle some BS linear causation where Obama ---> minorities ----> yes to prop 8. He probably added half a million votes on the 'no to Prop 8" side of the ledger.

The answer to demonizing the Mormons isn't demonizing minorities. Lets all demonize the "church" instead, which is after all only some high-ranking individuals and pulpit thumpers.

Wow, I cant believe I wrote all that off-topic stuff.....if the US were to collapse I'll be in my room.

[Brude]

So: What will the bounds of this sinister Mormon theocracy be? Certainly Utah, but do you think they could absorb Idaho (26% LDS) and Wyoming (11.5% LDS) as well? And I wonder what the chance of them restoring the New and Everlasting Covenant of Plural Marriage would be. With so many righteous women to raise up seed for the Prophet, soon the legions of Nephi will grow until they tread the godless wastelands of California underfoot and tear down the foul Sodom of San Fransisco!

I put the borders in my post as Utah + those counties in Idaho (quite a few) and Wyoming (only 1) where Mormons are a majority. There are two counties in Nevada where they are just under 50%, so if they voted en mass, there's a chance they could affect local policy and join up too (assuming it happened because of votes).

[AndyP]

cyrano

I don't want to demonize anyone but to illustrate the the passage of Prop 8 was more complicated than those casting the LDS as a boogy man would allow. After all it was the stonecutters. :P

[DanteGabriel]

cyrano

I don't want to demonize anyone but to illustrate the the passage of Prop 8 was more complicated than those casting the LDS as a boogy man would allow. After all it was the stonecutters. :P

Oh for fuck's sake. No one's saying the LDS was solely responsible for the passage of Prop 8, and you're the one oversimplifying things with the "Prop 8 wouldn't have passed without Obama" horseshit. Take a deep whiff of the shit you're shoveling, because it surely does stink.

What we're saying is that the Prop 8 episode is concrete proof that the LDS is not shy about using their financial resources, organizational muscle and political influence to impose their morality on others. And thus, in this fantastical scenario where the United States falls apart, they would probably organize Utah into an intolerant banana republic.

[The Progressive]

The only elephant in the room that is being ignored are African American and Latino voters. L A Times Their votes are the ones that put Prop 8 over the top. Of course placing the blame at their feet would be political suicide for any liberal/Democratic politician so blame had to be found elsewhere. The Catholic church is to powerful, the religious right is to obvious and they would proclaim any blame pointed their way as proof of their strength and would seize the propaganda victory. The LDS is other. Christians are supicious of them and a lot, don't see them as fellow Christians, the secular don't like religious groups in general and conservative ones in particular, and the LDS is so closely associated with Utah many see them as foreign. They make the perfect "other" for the left to blame, rather than protest outside of the local AME Church. The truth is that President Obama drove up minority voters most of whom voted for Prop 8. Without them it more than likely would have failed.

Wait, who's arguing that Mormons are the majority group whose votes decided the passage of prop 8?

Oh that's right, nobody made that stupid argument, given that Mormons isn't even a major voting block in California. It's a beautiful red-herring though.

It seems that even AndyP can't see the elephant in the room which is the millions of dollars and political clout spent by the Mormon Church to put prop 8 in the ballot and subsequent campaigning for its passing.

[Lord O' Bones]

Calfiornia is the state with the second highest population of Mormons

I certainly don't want to protract the Mormon train wreck, but this had me lol.

Let's break this down:

Population of Canada: 33 million

Population of California: 37 million

Population of Utah: 2.7 million

Population of San Diego: 3 million

Mormon Population of CA: 750k

Percentage of Mormons in Utah: 60%

Percentage of Mormons in CA: 2%

I mean what in demographic would it be surprising or even relevant that "California is the state with the second highest population of?"

Which is beside the point for me anyway as...

and yes the majority of the money spent on Prop. 8 came from Utah

Negative, Ghostrider. The majority of money came from California. (75% or so, 2% of which were Mormons) And I'm ok with that, as much as I personally disagree because they are Californians.

Utah accounted for the most money by far from out of state. (45% or so) And fuck those people right in their ears for that. Good job keeping to yourselves, assholes.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't think they'd necessarily be a huge factor in the overall division of America. However, they might be the only group of their size in America with such a clear identity, location and organization. They have a lot of the necessary infrastructure already in place to be self-governed. The only other group that would probably be capable of regrouping so decisively is Texas - or at least it seems like Texans regard their state the way that other people regard their country, religion and mother put together.

Almost any other group or state lacks sufficient central organization or uniformity to be able to predict exactly what would happen with the degree of certainty that I have about Utah.

California would be an utter disaster in that regard, probably fragmenting into a bunch of different warring factions if things started to get tight.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Guardian of the North

I felt that was untruthful and blatantly unfair statement to both Utah and Mormons. And merely commented how it wouldn't really be fair to make a general statment like that about any other group (I used New York Jews).

I disagree. Most religions have elements of bigotry and hatred, some more, some less, and the LDS is no exception.

But why is it that if Mormons should happen to believe in something and put their money where their mouth is (Calfiornia is the state with the second highest population of Mormons - and yes the majority of the money spent on Prop. 8 came from Utah) they are portrayed as intolerant backwards bastards who don't have a right to an opinion?

This is a bullshit argument. Nobody is saying that Mormons don't "have a right to an opinion." We're saying that their opinion on this issue is terrible, bigoted, and when implemented, leads to unfair discrimination against others. We portray them as intolerant backwards bastards not because they dare to have an opinion, but because that opinion is intolerant and backwards (given their great work on genealogy, they'll know whether they are bastards or not much better that I ever can, so I will not accuse them of being bastards). If they want to stop being depicted as intolerant and backwards, they need only to stop what they're doing.

This is also not some persecution organized against the LDS specifically. I, for one, have similar things to say about it for other religions which also promote intolerance against gay people and which devalue women. So if you want to construct a crucifix for martyrdom on behalf of your LDS friends, you're going to have to get the wood from someone else.

At least of few Calfornia Mormons were forced out of jobs and threatened for supporting Prop. 8. Does this mean all people who opposed Prop. 8 are xenophobic backwards idiots who are out to get Mormons? Of course not.

Why don't you ask FLoW? I seem to recall that he supports at-will employment and said it's okay if employers want to fire their employees for reasons such as race and sexual orientation. I think he might also support firing employees for reasons of religious conviction. You'd have to ask him.

Me? I think if people are fired for their faith, it's wrong. If those cases are documented, I hope the local prosecutor(s) will bring a case against the employer(s).

So yes both individual Mormons and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints supported something they believe (not what their opponents who have a right to differing opinion believe) that marriage means between a man and a woman. Would you have more respect or less for them if they say they believe one thing and then do the opposite?

You're conflating what they belief in with what they are trying to make non-believers do. It's not a matter of them either being consistent with their faith, or not. That would have been whether they perform same-sex marriages for their own followers while maintaining that homosexuality is sinful. The issue, rather, is about their push to make laws that apply to everyone, including non-Mormons. Your question would have been the same if it were re-phrased to ask whether you'd respect Jews more, or less, if they were to say they adhere to Kosher diet rules but then do not push for laws to make Kosher diets mandatory for everyone else.

I can't and won't continue this argument because I'll admit it now, if you want to find fault with Mormons you definitely can beacause they aren't 100% perfect. And defending every single action or belief of every single Mormon or the Church as whole is an exercise in futility.

But I'm not interested in all the imperfections of the LDS - just this one, on their active role in the political process concerning gay marriage. It's also a feeble attempt to deflect the criticism in claiming that the LDS is not 100% perfect. You know what else is not 100% perfect? Everything. You see me portraying the Quakers as intolerant bigots for their stance on gay issues? No? I wonder why?

[Guest Raidne]

I thought the Quakers were one of the only religious groups that performed same sex marriages?

[Nymeria Sand]

I thought the Quakers were one of the only religious groups that performed same sex marriages?

They are.

[Guardian of the North]

Re: Guardian of the North

But I'm not interested in all the imperfections of the LDS - just this one, on their active role in the political process concerning gay marriage. It's also a feeble attempt to deflect the criticism in claiming that the LDS is not 100% perfect. You know what else is not 100% perfect? Everything. You see me portraying the Quakers as intolerant bigots for their stance on gay issues? No? I wonder why?

I'm not sure what you want me to say on this issue, I've already said and you've just repeated that everyone has imperfections. In this instance you are angry that the Mormon church used its resources to influence Prop. 8. The exact influence in my opinion unknown. Yes we can talk specifics about the amount of money spent and things like that, if I'm not mistaken I've heard that more money was spent by opponents of Prop 8, so I think we can say both sides had the opportunity to explain their view points.

And as has been pointed out, despite there being a relatively large number of Mormons in California they make up a very small part of the population. So it seems while they were able to get their message out there they weren't the ones that actually voted for it.

Voters certainly had plenty of opportunity to hear both sides of the argument, it was major issue. Ultimately more voters decided to vote in favor of Prop. 8 than against it. Would the end result have been different if the Mormon church hadn't taken such a big role? Maybe I don't really know.

But it sounds like to me you are saying all that is sort of besides the point you are trying to make, you are mad because you feel that the Mormon church used its resources to force its religious beliefs (which you feel are wrong) about homosexuality in the state of California. I don't recall Mormons forcing anybody physically or otherwise to vote a certain way on Prop. 8. Did they try to influence the vote and did they succeed? Yes, but that is a lot different than forcing beliefs on people (back to the Taliban boogey man).

Ok you can be mad about the Mormon church stance on homosexuality because you don't agree with it, I don't think anyone has argued that you can't. But you also said everyone has the right to an opinion or belief (isn't that the heart of the definition of tolerance?)Isn't part of that right the ability to publicly express that opinion or belief whether or not it matches any specific person or groups particular views on what is right or wrong?

So if you feel Mormons are being intolerant towards you by expressing their beliefs about marriage publicly; it has certainly seemed to me you are being just as intolerant back towards them and seems most religious groups by applying blanket labels such as "Backwards" on them because of their beliefs about marriage. And I quote:

"If they want to stop being depicted as intolerant and backwards, they need only to stop what they're doing."

So they can have an opinion they just can't express it where anybody can hear it? Isn't every time I expres an opinion an influence on anybody that hears it? So apparently all other groups involved for or against Prop 8. are guilty of forcing their beliefs on others by expressing their opinions. I'm sorry but you can't have tolerance if it is only one-sided.

[Guest Raidne]

You understand that you're not the first person to realize that campaign finance reform and free speech are somewhat in conflict with each other, right?

And also that the Mormon Church enjoys a special tax-free status as a religion because they have asserted that engaging in that kind of speech is not a substantial part of their activities? Or does the fact that they are lying perpetrators of tax fraud also deserve our sympathies?

I don't even want to know what would happen if a mosque or a synogogue put that much effort and money into a ballot initiative.

[Brude]

Okay, because I fell asleep yesterday pretty early and woke up at around Midnight or 1:00 AM maybe, I found myself wide awake all night with nothing to do, so to fill the time I went and did a silly thing:

Map of Successor States to the USA

Yeah, it was a lot of work but I've been enjoying the thought exercise. Also, if you would have ever seen my countless D&D maps, you'd know this is sort of my thing (I love making maps for fun). There's some changes from my initial post, but much is the same. Some of the break-ups of states were more 'cause I thought it would be fun to do it that way than anything else. Others have some more reasoning behind them. Here's a breakdown of the various countries with their internal states:

Allegheny: Pop. 11 million. Kentucky, Monongahela (Western PA + Western Maryland), West Virginia. I went with the name Monongahela 'cause I like it.

Alaskan Republic: Pop. 700,000. As I said in my original post, they may not make it on there own and so might eventually join Canada, if they don't try to rejoin with one of the other US successor states.

Arizona: Pop. 6.6 million. Based on current government in power. With a more liberal government in place they might instead combine with New Mexico or even join Pacifica.

Atlantica: Pop. 67.4 million. Connecticut, Delaware, Hudson (Upstate NY), Long Island, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland (minus W. Maryland and E. Shore), Miami (S. Florida), New Jersey, New York (NYC and Counties north of city), Rhode Island, Susquehanna (E. Pennsylvania), Potomac (N. Virginia counties), Puerto Rico, Vermont, Washington, CL (no longer a district, the State abbreviation for Columbia is now CL).

The Confederate States of America (aka Dixie): Pop. 64.1 million. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida (minus S. Florida), Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia (minus N. Virginia, plus Eastern Shore of MD). I doubt they could resist bringing back the old name...

Deseret: Pop. 3.1 million. Utah, plus counties from Idaho, Wyoming and Nevada. Most added counties were majority Mormon but I gave them a few more due to their ability to organize well in some counties that were just under majorities of Mormons.

The Great Lakes Federation: Pop. 46.5 million. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan (minus Upper Peninsula), New Scandinavia (Upper Michigan Peninsula), Ohio, Wisconsin.

Heartland: Pop. 24.2 million. Colorado, Columbia (E. Oregon and E. Washington), Idaho (minus Mormon counties), Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada (many counties added and subtracted from California and Utah), North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming (minus Mormon counties). I decided to combine my original proposal for Heartland with Big Sky because I couldn't see why they would need to be separate. For purely political reasons many counties from W. Oregon and Washington broke off to join them, as did most of the conservative parts of Nevada. Since all this was handled peacefully via treaty with Pacifica, not all counties granted to each are necessarily more conservative or liberal. The in-place state structure still held sway unless the counties were very one way or the other politically (I went by the last Presidential Election as my basis). Also, an effort was made to keep everything contiguous, so again some counties might have been politically "lost in the shuffle." Very possible that Colorado would instead join with New Mexico instead of Heartland as they are both more liberal states.

Minnesota: Pop. 5.3 million. Very independant state decides to go it alone, while maintaining close relations to all its neighbors.

The Free Republic of New Hampshire: Pop. 1.3 million. Any state that has had an active secessionist movement for as long as New Hampshire has is just crying out to go it alone in this situation. They are very closely allied to Atlantica and pretty much completely integrated in all ways but for their government. It's hard to say how anything would be different if they were to join Atlantica, but they just don't want to do it that way.

New Mexico: Pop. 2 million. Would rather not go it alone, probably, but doesn't want to join Arizona and might not want to join Heartland either, though they might for convenience, especially if Texas starts to give them trouble. Alternately, could join Colorado if they do not join Heartland, and possibly Arizona if Arizona has a less extreme government.

Pacifica: Pop. 48 million. Hawaii, Mojave (includes San Diego, Inland Empire region and Las Vegas/Clark Cnty, NV), North California (coastal Cali from Oregon border to Monterey County), Oregon (minus E. counties), Sierra Nevada (includes most of the Central Valley region and the Sierra Nevada Mtns., Plus Carson City area of NV). South California (Greater L.A./Orange County up to San Luis Obispo), Washington (minus E. counties)

The Republic of Texas: Pop. 28.5 million. Texas plus their conquest of Oklahoma. C'mon, it's Texas they have to try and violently conquer someone! New Mexico better watch out...

Edit: Fixed/changed a couple of Pacifica states (Sierra Madre was supposed to be Sierra Nevada, changed San Bernardino to Mojave).

[jurble]

I believe you are deserving of some sort of award now. And Vermont has an active secessionist movement, more than New Hampshire, I'm pretty sure.

[Guest Raidne]

I am in awe.

So, yep, that seems about right to me. Down to pretty much every last detail, except that I could never get used to saying that I live in Columbia and DC's not big enough to be a state.

[Guardian of the North]

You understand that you're not the first person to realize that campaign finance reform and free speech are somewhat in conflict with each other, right?

And also that the Mormon Church enjoys a special tax-free status as a religion because they have asserted that engaging in that kind of speech is not a substantial part of their activities? Or does the fact that they are lying perpetrators of tax fraud also deserve our sympathies?

I don't even want to know what would happen if a mosque or a synogogue put that much effort and money into a ballot initiative.

Apparently you missed the whole point about people and organizations being perfect.....I'm not defending whether or not there are some financial violations by the Mormon church, it looks like there is some, but innocent until proven guilty right? As I said it is an exercise in futilety to defend every single action of a person or an organization because they are going to do something bad or be on the wrong side of something sooner or later.

The question I'm asking which no one who has been bashing the Mormons has been willing to address is why it is intolerant when Mormons say they believe marriage means between a man and a woman but it is ok to make blanket statements like Mormons are "backwards"? Saying Mormons are backwards to me implies Mormons have a lack of intelligence and therefore aren't as good as other Americans. Isn't that exactly why you disagree with the Mormons because you feel like they are saying homosexuals aren't equal to other Americans? I guess it is ok when you do it though right?

[tzanth]

California would be an utter disaster in that regard, probably fragmenting into a bunch of different warring factions if things started to get tight.

Why? I think California would be one of the most powerful new states to emerge out of any federal collapse. It already has the infrastructure, economy and military to basically go it alone, and would probably be big enough to establish some sort of hegenomy over neighboring states. Plus, I think californians generally have a pretty decent sense of group identity. Certainly less than a place like Texas, but more than many other states. In other words, if a puny little place like Utah tried to start some shit with California, I think they would be in a world of pain.

[TerraPrime]

Dunno about Atlantica. How's that work, skipping over N. and S. Carolina coastline? Pakistan-India-Pakistan didn't work out too well as I recall.

[DanteGabriel]

Brude, it wouldn't take much more effort to turn this into a pretty kick-ass board game. I humbly offer up my game design skills in service of this project. :commie:

GotN: "Sure the Mormon church took part in an organized and likely illegal effort to strip gay people of the civil rights that they had been granted by the state of California, a state in which they make up but 2% of the population, but that's no reason to say mean things about them." Is that roughly the message of your blinkered, long-winded apologia?