If the United States were to collapse

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Once freed of the U.S. Constitutional constraints, Utah is likely to develop into a Church-run state, like the old Tibet or the Taliban-era Afghanistan.

So you're saying the majority of people in Utah would support destroying any religious building that wasn't Mormon, would ban other religions, and would advocate the stoning of women? Do you actually know anyone who is Mormon?

It's a bit comical, actually, that you use "flying planes into buildings" as a retort in the same breath as you castigate others for classifying all Mormons as "those people.

No, it's not "comical" at all. Someone else deciding to divide people by religion in commenting that Mormons concerned them more than moslems. Well, if someone chooses to group people in such a manner, then it is perfectly appropriate to look at the nature of the actions committed by members of that religion. Mormons banned gay marriage. Moslems crashed into the WTC. To me, those two actions are not moral equivalents.

If you want comical, it's you making Harry Reid no better than a member of the Taliban.

[jurble]

But if the Fed gov. disappeared, there'd be no muslim theocracy being set-up, so it's really a moot point. A Mormon theocracy would occur. No one is saying it'd be violent, but it most certainly would be backwards on gay rights and other issues.

[Guest Raidne]

Wow. LDS fought an organized campaign to prevent gay marriage. LDS officially represents all mainstream Mormons. Al Qaeda organized an attack on the WTC. Al Qaeda is a nomially Muslim radical terrorist organization.

That's a good example of the total lack of integrity or respect for the subject being discussed I've come to expect from you lately.

Stop just trying to score points without caring what you're talking about.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But if the Fed gov. disappeared, there'd be no muslim theocracy being set-up, so it's really a moot point. A Mormon theocracy would occur.

I'm honestly curious as to how you know that. I keep asking if anyone here actually knows any Mormons, but it seems people have only read about them in their Little Red Books. Harry Reid is not the only Mormon who is a Democrat. The one Mormon guy I know best says that there are political disagreements among Mormons particularly on social welfare issues, and he says that with a bit of disappointment since he's pretty conservative. You guys all seem to characterize anyone who is Mormon as just a robotic member of a cult, and that's just not the case.

[

No one is saying it'd be violent

Actually, someone already said they'd be like the Taliban, and they're pretty damn violent guys.

but it most certainly would be backwards on gay rights and other issues.

If someone argues that the Independent State of Utah would be not support gay marriage or civil unions, I'd agree. But until recently, that was the law throughout all 50 states, so it's not like that is a whacked-out position. They probably would ban abortion in most instances too, but that also was the case in a fair number of states less than 50 years ago. I don't have a problem with characterizing an independent Utah as politically conservative. It's equating that theoretical country -- and by extension the people who live there -- with the Taliban, that I think is the result of prejudice and ignorance rather than fact.

Brude said this above:

Modern Mormons are not a violent sort, by and large. Oh, there were moments in the past that are pretty infamous, but now their overriding concern has to do with mass conversion, but there is no modern tradition at all in Mormonism of doing this through violence, none that I know of. They'd be very pleased to have their own Mormon state set up and in all likelihood it would be run very well and efficiently.

I think that's a pretty fair characterizations to which nobody has responded.

[DanteGabriel]

They probably would ban abortion in most instances too, but that also was the case in a fair number of states less than 50 years ago.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? There were plenty of laws on the books 50 years ago that are considered barbaric and retrograde now.

"The New Confederacy would prohibit interracial marriage, but that was the case in a number of states 50 years ago anyway."

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? There were plenty of laws on the books 50 years ago that are considered barbaric and retrograde now.

Do you think the U.S. prior to Roe v. Wade was no better than Taliban-ruled Afghanistan?

[Guardian of the North]

[quote name='好土同志' date='07 July 2010 - 11:48 AM'

I didn't say I was worried about violence from the new Utah. My worry stems from seeing a country run as a theocracy, particularly when that the germane religion in question is one that's hostile to women's independence and to gay people. I fear dogmatism and theocratical governments more than I fear xenophobia/nativism backed by guns.

[Guest Raidne]

Strictly speaking, with the whole Mormons are to LDS as Al Qaeda is to Islam thing there, I think it's the entire Muslim community that you've shown a profound lack of respect for. Like in the god I hope nobody can identify me via my ISP address if I decide to run for office kind of way.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I'm honestly curious as to how you know that.

Look at the current political landscape of Utah now. Extrapolate. It's not a big step. Mormon religious tradition affects large portions of the law there. The places it doesn't affect are typically those places subject to constitutional review. Now remove constitutional review.

Actually, someone already said they'd be like the Taliban, and they're pretty damn violent guys.

I would imagine a slightly more liberal Iran.

If someone argues that the Independent State of Utah would be not support gay marriage or civil unions, I'd agree. But until recently, that was the law throughout all 50 states, so it's not like that is a whacked-out position. They probably would ban abortion in most instances too, but that also was the case in a fair number of states less than 50 years ago.

I would imagine that homosexuality itself would become illegal. (although not just in Utah). The question would be, what penalties would they enact for homo-sex or having an abortion? I'm quite certain they would be severe.

[DanteGabriel]

Do you think the U.S. prior to Roe v. Wade was no better than Taliban-ruled Afghanistan?

Um, no. I still fail to see the relevance to anything useful here. You're drifting so far in your bizarre desire to keep alive your weird false equivalencies between global Muslims and the LDS church, I have no idea where to begin responding. Maybe you should try to make up some bullshit comparisons between Catholics and the LDS -- at least they do have a central command structure.

You seemed like such a promising, reasonable conservative at the beginning. But I fear you have looked too long into the Liberal Abyss, and are becoming the monster you seek to fight.

Oh I'm sure you can come up with counter-examples and I'm not saying there isn't cases of discrimination because there are just like everywhere else in the U.S.A. But implying Utah Mormons would create some sort of Talibanesque government where gays are stoned if they are caught kissing in public and women aren't allowed to leave the house is frankly hilarious.

No amount of anecdata really can be as meaningful as the LDS Church's organized effort to defeat gay marriage, and their stranglehold on state politics in Utah.

[Guest Raidne]

Utah has an extraordinarily high rape rate. Like, three times the size of New York's per 100,000 people. Not saying LDS advocates rape, but it advocates a view of women that is less than, and in the worst cases, nearly property, and that attitude fosters rape.

Just because something it doesn't look like war between men doesn't mean something can't perpetrate a war against women.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Strictly speaking, with the whole Mormons are to LDS as Al Qaeda is to Islam thing there, I think it's the entire Muslim community that you've shown a profound lack of respect for. Like in the god I hope nobody can identify me via my ISP address if I decide to run for office kind of way.

Actually, it was the "Mormons are the Taliban" approach that was advanced that I equated with moslems being members of AQ. But, you know what, you can have the "win" because I lost just by responding.

[TerraPrime]

So you're saying the majority of people in Utah would support destroying any religious building that wasn't Mormon, would ban other religions, and would advocate the stoning of women? Do you actually know anyone who is Mormon?

You're not even trying. Mormonism is not the same as the version of Islam that the Taliban adheres to, so a Mormon-run country would not advocate the destruction of relics of other religions, nor would it advocate the stoning of women, neither of which are tenets of the current mainstream LDS doctrine. The comparison here is that the new Utah will be like the Taliban-era Afgahnistan in that the government policies will be set by religious doctrines. That the religious doctrines of the two groups are different seem to be a point that you labor strenuously to ignore. I'm not saying Taliban-style Islam is similar in moral and ethics to LDS doctrines. I'm saying that both will be run as theocracies, and while the theology they support will differ, I find neither to be desirable.

No, it's not "comical" at all. Someone else deciding to divide people by religion in commenting that Mormons concerned them more than moslems. Well, if someone chooses to group people in such a manner, then it is perfectly appropriate to look at the nature of the actions committed by members of that religion. Mormons banned gay marriage. Moslems crashed into the WTC. To me, those two actions are not moral equivalents.

I didn't draw comparisons between Muslims and Mormons. I drew comparison between a Mormon-run country and a Tea Party-run country.

If you want comical, it's you making Harry Reid no better than a member of the Taliban.

Drawing comparisons between a known theocratically-run country and the hypothetical one that Utah would have become (under my prediction) is not an attempt to equate Mormonism to radical Islam. The sooner you drop that ridiculously stupid line of thinking, the faster you can rejoin the rest of us on the discussion.

And Harry Reid's deviation from the LDS is a red herring, anyway. Most American Catholics use contraceptives, but it should not make discussion of the RCC's policy on contraceptives irrelevant. The opposition to gay marriage is not from a fringe branch of the LDS. It was bankrolled by the main LDS. Arranging marriages for underaged girls is a fringe behavior of the LDS, and it would be unfair to paint all Mormons as people who favor marriages with underage girls. Criticizing the LDS for its actions in opposing civil rights for gays is more than fair.

Finally, you're not the only one who has friends belonging to the LDS. I've talked with a handful of gay people who either left the LDS over their sexuality or who live a double-live as closeted gay people within the LDS. Frankly, your credibility from having a good friend who is a Mormon does not trump my understanding of the LDS, gleaned over many years. I never claim that the LDS is a monolithic group with no splintering ideas, so your example of one doesn't really weaken what I argued. My speculation that Utah will become a theocratic country is based on what I know of their church organization and ideology. It is not because I dislike Mormonism. I dislike Catholicism just as much, but you don't see me predicting that MA will become Vatican-lite.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Um, no. I still fail to see the relevance to anything useful here.

Yes you do. You just don't want to admit it.

No amount of anecdata really can be as meaningful as the LDS Church's organized effort to defeat gay marriage, and their stranglehold on state politics in Utah.

You think that makes them equivalent to the Taliban, and I don't. It's really as simple as that.

[DanteGabriel]

You think that makes them equivalent to the Taliban, and I don't. It's really as simple as that.

No the fuck it isn't, as TP just explained in the post above, but I understand that these kind of horseshit dismissals and the "Never mind, it's not worth it" edit when you don't actually have a counterargument are the last strokes of paint around the corner you've created for yourself.

[Guest Raidne]

Actually, it was the "Mormons are the Taliban" approach that was advanced that I equated with moslems being members of AQ. But, you know what, you can have the "win" because I lost just by responding.

Are you speaking of this? "Once freed of the U.S. Constitutional constraints, Utah is likely to develop into a Church-run state, like the old Tibet or the Taliban-era Afghanistan."

Don't know, I read that and it says "Utah will be like Taliban-era Afghanistan in that both will be Church-run states." I'm sure he didn't mean it would be exactly the same, because the Utah Mormons don't have a competing ethnic tribe with a different regime to fight a bloody civil war against.

Unless you were trying to say that you think they're inherently more violent because of their religion? I guess I wouldn't be surprised.

I think the general point is that, yes, Mormons would form a theocracy. That theocracy would make it very unpleasant if not impossible to live there if you were gay. Or female. Now, does anyone disagree with that?

Also, it's fine to throw these little barbs about there about losing just because you're replying (world's smallest violin), except that the difference is that I am actually deeply offended by something you wrote that fundamentally disrespected a major world religion, whereas you're just telling me you have no respect for me because you feel insulted by me.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That the religious doctrines of the two groups are different seem to be a point that you labor strenuously to ignore. I'm not saying Taliban-style Islam is similar in moral and ethics to LDS doctrines. I'm saying that both will be run as theocracies, and while the theology they support will differ, I find neither to be desirable.

Oh, I don't find a theocracy desireable either, though I don't think Utah would actually become one. But I'm certainly not ignoring the difference in religious doctrines between Mormons and the Taliban at all. In fact, that's precisely my point. Comparing Mormons to the Taliban is a bad comparison precisely because the nature of their religious beliefs is so different. It's deliberately inflammatory because the Taliban has engaged in some well-known rather horrific acts of violence and repression. It's like comparing someone to the Nazis, then later qualifying the comparison by saying "minus the concentration camps, extermination of jews, homosexuals, Poles, and dissidents, of course."

So if it boils down to nothing more than "they're both technically theocracies, though one is admittedly not nearly as nasty as the other", then fine. But then, what's the point of the bringing up the Taliban bogeyman in the first place, if not to create a sinister inference?

[tzanth]

To be frank, I'd be more worried about the Utah Mormons than the Arizona Tea Party types.

Id be pretty worried about the internal policies of a Mormon run state as well. A sovereign Utah, however, would probably be fairly isolationist and would be unlikely to greatly antagonize its neighbors. The situation in the Southwest would be very different, since you would suddenly have several fairly weak nations containing sizeable subpopulations with considerable ties to stronger neighbors. Arizona tea-partiers would face the very difficult task of maintaining a white-majority nation while balancing their foreign relations with the new regional superpowers of California and Mexico. I think the probability of armed conflict would be fairly great. Or that failing, the new Southwestern states would quickly militarize, entrenching independant state instituitons and decreasing the likelyhood of any rapid (peaceful) reunion.

[Guest Raidne]

But then, what's the point of the bringing up the Taliban bogeyman in the first place, if not to create a sinister inference?

Plus, he also referred to Old Tibet in the same sentence, further reinforcing his clear intent to associate Mormons with all that is teh evil. :rolleyes:

[TerraPrime]

I'm sorry you feel that way but how many Mormons have you actually met?

I didn't keep count, but I'd guess that I've talked to 6 to 8 gay (ex)-Mormons, some more extensively than others, and I've known 3 families of non-gay Mormons.

The larger point here is not what some Mormons do, but what the central tenets of the Church are. Just as with the RCC and contraception, individual Catholics often ignore the rules, but the rules are there nonetheless.

I have cousin who served a Mormon mission and has since came out as being gay (he is one of my favorite relatives to talk to at family gatherings) and I don't recall any of my various Mormon relatives disowning or shunning him. My best friend (from an active Mormon family) has a gay aunt and a gay uncle, yet again I don't recall them being banned or outcast.

That stands in stark contrast to the stories I've heard from gay (ex)Mormons. In one case, J. was in college, and he was not allowed to go back home once he came out. He also had to find his own financial support to finish school (he didn't). In another case, B. is still in the closet. His wife found out (she caught him with pr0n), and she told the Elders in their congregation, and they gave B. the choice of leaving the community or go through aversion therapy. That was 10 years ago. To this date, B. gets a talk from the Elders if his wife suspects that B. is in lapse. In a third example, K. was told that if she insists on being a lesbian, she would no longer be able to go visit her nieces or nephews, and she could not show up when they're around.

In most cases, the reaction that they received is not that different from other conservative Chrisitan sects. So this is not unique to the LDS.

But yes, Mormons believe marriage is only between a man and woman, as stated by others before so does most of the rest of the country.

True or False: In the LDS doctrine, marriage is an essential component for salvation.

As for questions of women's rights are you serious? You can choose to believe any folktale or rumor you wish but that doesn't mean it is the reality. For instance, my same best friend I mentioned earlier, stays at home while his wife who is a physicians assistant works. And I have two sisters that make signifigantly more money than me.

I'm not talking about earning potential, or income. I'm talking about the Mormon view of salvation of women, wherein wives can be saved only if called to Heaven by their husbands. Is that not true? I'm also talking about abortion, aka a woman's autonomy over her own body. I'm also talking about the social expectation of the family hierarchy, where husbands are the heads of households. Income alone does not constitute independence.

But implying Utah Mormons would create some sort of Talibanesque government where gays are stoned if they are caught kissing in public and women aren't allowed to leave the house is frankly hilarious.

I suggested neither. You made the same mistake that FLoW did, which is to think that I believe Mormonism shares similar views on women and homosexuals as the Taliban. I don't think that they do. I do think that just like the Taliban was eager to enforce public policies based on their religion, so too, would the Mormons, even if the policies they'd enforce would be different.