Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Prop 8 Opponent Faces Possible Excommunication from LDS

Jim Burroway

September 25th, 2008

Andrew Callahan, a member of the LDS Church in Hastings, Nebraska is facing excommunication over his web site opposing California’s Prop 8.

Callahan’s blog at Signing for Something features a statement that he says that all members of the LDS church have been taught: “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government …” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:9).” But it appears that acting on that message may get Callahan in trouble with church leadership.

Callahan says he got a letter from his church stake leaders Monday night, which says, “…you are reported to have participated in conduct unbecoming a member of the church and have been in apostasy.” The LDS disciplinary hearing is tomorrow.

Update: The disciplinary hearing has now been put off until at least November, a move likely intended to keep this controversial issue out of limelight until after the elections.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Michigan-Matt
September 25th, 2008 | LINK

Let’s be fair here, Jim… the language of DC139:04 is “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.”

The Mormons are speaking about religious freedom for all, not, as implied by your quote, restricting the church members from engaging in public policy debate on secular issues of the day.

In doing so, the LDSers are simply reinforcing one of America’s great founding principles in the Bill of Rights and 11 other early colonial charters or constitutions: the right to free association, freedom OF religion -not freedom FROM religion.

Jim Burroway
September 25th, 2008 | LINK

Matt.

You have a mind-boggling capacity to read into something that isn’t there.

When someone writes:

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

I think it means: “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.”

Which just happens to conclude with the warning about “the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” Which appears to me to speak as much to the reality of deeply-felt Mormon history (remember Nauvoo, anyone?) as the potentiality to becoming someone else’s future.

Priya Lynn
September 25th, 2008 | LINK

Michigan matt, freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. Religious freedom means little, if for example Catholics aren’t free from the doctrine of Jews and vice versa.

Andrew Callahan
September 25th, 2008 | LINK

I’m pretty sure the folks who put that quote on Signing for Something meant something like this.

Mormon scripture tells us as Mormons that using religious influence to foster our own religious beliefs while proscribing the spiritual privileges and individual rights of others, e.g. Unitarians, Anglicans, United Church of Christ, etc. is not “just.” (And the reference is D&C 134:9)

Similarly D&C 134:4 tells us that men are amenable only to God for the exercise of their religion “unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others”

Clearly, we as Mormons, according to our own scripture, have no right to exercise our religion in a way that infringes on the rights and liberties of others, again, for example, Unitarians, Anglicans, United Church of Christ.

It is sad that our own church leadership refused to follow our scriptures. Why do we have them if we aren’t going to follow them?

Timothy Kincaid
September 25th, 2008 | LINK

How interesting that the Unitarians, the Episcopal Bishops, and the United Church of Christ all oppose Proposition 8. They feel it infringes on their rights and liberties to pronounce marriage on same-sex couples.

Michigan-Matt
September 25th, 2008 | LINK

Snide comments don’t help advance understanding and I doubt anyone would argue I read too much into dogmatic statements or major documents of the American Culture, Jim.

Both text fragments you take out of context are exactly about religious freedom, written in the 1830s, and are part of a larger construct that still guides LDSers today in the manner in which they should approach civic duty, religious freedoms and tolerance.

Mormon expert Gary Bryner could help instruct you on what those clear, concise words mean -and the folly you evince in trying to take them out of context.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/politics/Political_Teachings_EOM.htm

I think you might be getting caught up on the use of “whereby” but the main point of the text is that govt should not be used as a mechanism to advantage one religion over another (a concept our Founding Fathers were well acquainted with) because doing so would infringe or deny the rights of US citizens to be free from such coercion. That’s what I wrote.

Further both before and after the language you cite, the Mormon lexicon articulates that the church has the right to deal with its members for disorderly conduct… which is what they are doing with Andrew Callahan and Mr Callahan knows it.

There are more than a few gay blogs that have taken this very language out of context and tried to read into it some sort of stinging prohibition on Mormons in civic matters like Prop 8 or 102; you aren’t the first, Jim.

I used to hear gay activists try to quote Scripture in strategy sessions for our speakers’ bureau opposing Michigan’s 04 FMA… and it was usually a waste of time because the activists didn’t understand the context nor the broader meaning of that Scripture and, frankly, if one of our speakers got involved in quoting scripture to a proponent of Michigan’s FMA, we probably has lost the room and the votes. Not exactly what we want to do in a political discussion, eh?

I’m not reading anything into the Mormon text –as Bryner can show you. The ancient words are clear -except if people take the language out of context and try to make it into something it is not.

Priya Lynn, freedom of religion is about the right of religious observance to be free from govt coercion; just like the Mormons echo.

Freedom from religion is a secular cliche and a clever invention by people who don’t believe in God but want to force their beliefs of God’s non-existence upon all others in the public square -almost elevating atheism to a religion in its own right. The Jeffersonian concept of separation of church and state is all about religious observance and association being free from govt coercion.

At least that’s how I learned it in Constitutional Law classes.

a. mcewen
September 25th, 2008 | LINK

Matt,

It would seem to me that you are implying that as long as the government does not interfere, then any religion can infringe on an individual’s right to believe what he or she wants.

Doesn’t make sense on any standpoint, especially how this country was founded.

Jim Burroway
September 25th, 2008 | LINK

Matt

Take a really deep breath. Please, try to breathe. It’ll do you some good.

All I did was post about a guy who is about to be excommunicated. I quoted a statement he made on his web site.

If you want to get into a dang-blasted argument, go there. HE’s the one you have the beef with, not me.

You’re getting on my last nerve.

Timothy Kincaid
September 25th, 2008 | LINK

Matt,

In the midst of your defense of the Mormon position, I think you make a classic misunderstanding of both government and individual.

The purpose of the First Amendment is not to protect denominations from a central powerful institutionalized government, or not solely. Rather, the beauty is that it provides for the individual person to worship as they desire (or, more accurately, refuse to worship as they desire) against the collective will of their community.

The protection is to ensure that Local Community (or State or other collective governmental body) cannot establish an orthodoxy and impose it on Joe Citizen.

You seem confused in that you think that if “the people” (being Mormons in this particular case) want to entrench doctrine as law then they can do so, as long as they do so democratically. But that is precisely why there is a First Amendment – to stop the ability of “the people” (ie governments local, state, or national) to impose religion on the individual.

If the purpose and intent of any law or amendment or referendum is to establish “God’s Plan” or any other religious presript – whether it be Sunday worship or marriage or the length of a person’s hair – it is on the face of it in contradiction to the First Amendment.

Which is, of course, why you’ll not hear those who argue before courts in favor of discrimination do so in terms of religion. They discuss states’ interest or children’s best or other secular arguments.

That the Mormon Church is so very open about the reasons that they are pushing these amendments – and because the breakdown of sides is drawn on denominational lines – only gives argument to future legal challenges.

I wonder if perhaps your Constitutional Law class may have been at a religious university?

Captain Moroni
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Please come to our site –

http://www.lds4gaymarriage.org

and read our comprehensive essays on our supporting Civil Same Sex Marriage from an LDS perspective. We have a very thorough essay discussing D&C 134:4, 1 Cor. 10:29, etc…

Please email us regarding any questions of comments. Thanks.

Michigan-Matt
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Jim, I’m sorry if I’m getting on your last nerve by asking you to be truthful and factual. I didn’t know we were having a “dang-blasted argument”… I thought, given this website’s mission, goals and principles statement, we were having a civil discussion.

With all due respect, you didn’t just “quote someone else”, you were contradicting my point that the words are about insuring, preserving and protecting religious freedom –surely one of the 10 most important rights our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Bill of Rights. You implied the words were a prohibition against civil involvement of religion in the public square.

I breath just fine. I also sleep just fine, too. Thanks for the patronizing and condescending interest.

I am not defending the Mormon position on FMA ballot items; what is that charge all about, Timothy? Sort of like trying to cull out of the herd someone who isn’t toeing the line? Gheez, guys, refresh yourself on your website’s own principles and mission statement, will ya; treat others with the respect you expect for yourself.

I’m asking my gay brethern –with whom we share a great, grave concern over the potential passage of yet another 3 FMAs in the US– to be fair, honest, credible and authentic in the pursuit of our political interests.

The stakes are too, too great to continue the current 11 FMA count onward to 12, 13 or 14. I can tell you from Michigan’s experience, once the ballot issues pass, it’s like putting Humpty Dumpty back together again to go after marriage equality reforms.

Michigan-Matt
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

By the way, Timothy, to answer your question directly: my ConLaw class and other classes were at the University of Michigan; probably one of the world’s best secular higher ed institutions. I’m not some religious zealot.

I thought that snide remark was below you.

Priya Lynn
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Michigan matt said “Freedom from religion is a secular cliche and a clever invention by people who don’t believe in God but want to force their beliefs of God’s non-existence upon all others in the public square”.

Nonsense. No atheist has tried to force their non-belief onto any religionist. Once again, and read this slowly so you understand matt, without freedom FROM religion there can be no freedom of religion. I.E. Catholics must be free of the doctrines of the Islamic faith to practice their religion and vice versa. The founding fathers never intended that one must sign up to some religion regardless of what it was. You obviously didn’t learn much in your bogus constitutional law class.

Priya Lynn
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

I might add that its rather ironic and hypocritical of Michigan matt to insist there is no freedom from religion and then to wildly claim atheists are trying to foce non-belief on religious people – he just insisted that atheists are obligated to take up a religion, its he who’s trying to force his beliefs on others.

Son
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

I saw your blog that mentioned Prop 8. I feel the need to share my thoughts on this issue. Prop 8 isn’t an issue about “rights”. It is about preserving the definition of “marriage” as between a man and a woman. Gay people can do what they want, and they can even enjoy many civil benefits through civil unions and the such. But that isn’t marriage. Gay people should be treated with kindness and respect, like anyone. Gay people aren’t the issue here nor the problem. The problem is that 4 arrogant judges in black robes sitting in their ivory tower overturned the express will of a clear majority of California citizens when they ruled by fiat and illegally legislated from the bench when they unilaterally redefined marriage. Prop 8 allows the citizens of California to say no to Judicial Activism and Judicial Tyranny. There are elements of the judiciary that are way out of control and are endangering the balance of power in our republic by getting involved in “legislating”. This has got to stop. Voting yes on Prop 8 will help put those elitist judges back in their place and let them know they cannot arrogantly overule the will of the people in a matter as fundamental to the future of civilization as the bedrock institution of marriage. That is something important enough that it should not be left to 4 elitist judges to impose by fiat.

Here is what I have been saying to a few friends who are gay: May I speak a word to just those of you who are my gay friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow-countrymen. You are a minority and I’m sure you recognize that. And that is ok. But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman. I know you may not have any personal parochial interest in voting yes on Prop 8. But as your friend and neighbor, I’m asking for your vote to help preserve the definition of this institution that is so important. Thank you.

Timothy Kincaid
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Son,

You are misinformed.

The justices did not act out of arrogance of undue use of power. The State Senate and the Assembly both voted to provide equal marriage and the Governor deferred to the court before signing. The court (nearly all of whom are Republicans) carefully weighed the measure and determined that the constitution granted all citizens, gay or straight, the same access to the provisions of civil marriage. This is the right, the role, and the responsibility of Judges – to make certain that legal provisions are applied to all consistently and to remove special preferences that folks, such as yourself, like to give themselves.

As for the “will of the people”, you seem to be wrong. Polls are indicating that a strong majority of Californians disagree with you. And even were it not so, a majority does not have the right under a constitutional democracy to impose its will on the freedoms, rights, and equalities of a minority.

And let me speak for your gay friends, neighbors, and countrymen: No, we will not vote ourselves inferior, we will not choose second class citizenship, we will not allow you to claim superiority without challenge and we will not elect for ourselves inequality and discrimination.

And we stand confident that decent people, those who do not seek preference and special status and the subjegation of their neighbors, will stand with us.

Priya Lynn
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Son said ” But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman”

LOL, unbelievable. Son, gays getting married doesn’t deny a single opposite sex couple a marriage – those marriages are preserved regardless. Marriage is a profound life changing event, one of the most significant changes a person can make in their life. A gay couple getting married isn’t intolerance or unkindness to you in any way, however your desire to deprive them of this profound life changing event is most unkind and intolerant. Your ability to call black white and up down is truly phenomenal. Give your head a shake and acknowledge the hateful reality of your comment.

Ben in Oakland
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Son– so basically, you are admitting what we have known all along. This isn’t about marriage at all.

The three basic arguments of yes on 8– at least the public arguments– are ABC=– activist judges, benefits (DP and marriage have the same) and children, though children are no where mentioned in prop 8.

So, this isn’t about marriage, according to your own documents.

Hmmmm. what do you think– maybe its about how much the very existence of gay people annoys some straight people– and wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t people.

Ben in Oakland
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Son said ” But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman.”

Why? what’s in it for me?

Ben in Oakland
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

What you mean is: Let’s preserve heterosexual power and privilege, and the myth of heterosexual superiority

Timothy Kincaid
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Matt,

I am going to preface my response with some general remarks about your participation here.

Your reputation preceeds you. You do not come here a blank slate to be evalutated and valued for your contribution. Your behavior on other sites colors the way in which you are perceived as well as our response. The fact that you have been an active participant in flaming wars and trolling activity causes me to be less generous in what we will allow.

In short, we will not allow you to change the tone of our conversation here to one of animosity and attack. We will not allow comments to serve as a bouncing board to partisanship or right v. left idealogical wars. We will not allow comments that are contrarian rather than based on legitimate disagreement.

If you can constrain yourself to behave in the manner in which we expect, you are welcome to engage with us. But we will be the ones to determine what is and what is not acceptable.

OK, now to your content.

You attacked Jim for an interpretation that you felt was not in line with LDS theology. But that interpretation was one that you brought with you to the conversation. If you re-read Jim’s posting you will see that he provides no opinion whatsoever about whether Callahan is correct or apostate.

In fact, this posting could be placed on a vehemently anti-gay site with the exact same wording. Jim did not “imply”. Rather, you inferred.

If you disagree about the fact pattern as Jim presented it, well this would be the right place. But if you disagree with Callahan’s understanding of Mormon scripture, go argue with him at his site.

Timothy Kincaid
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Praya Lynn,

No atheist has tried to force their non-belief onto any religionist.

I disagree with that statement. I think that far too often the religious and the athiest seek to impose their views on the public square.

The religious seek to have their faith honored and respected and given preference. The athiests seek to ban any expression of faith from the public.

We’ve seen many many times that athiests seek to ban prayers by public officials, any civic inclusion of faith on government property, and the absense of all symbols of religion from the public sphere.

While Christians protested department stores that said “happy holidays”, athiests sued to remove any references to Christmas from schools even when the vast overwhelming majority of students identify as Christian.

Each seeks to impose their views on the other.

And lest we forget, unlike agnosticism or apathy, atheism is a religious position. It is a definitive statement about the nature of diety. And any policy that requires no mention of a diety is a religious policy.

Priya Lynn
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

I said “No atheist has tried to force their non-belief onto any religionist.”

Timothy replied “I disagree with that statement.”.

Your disagreeing with it doesn’t make it any less the truth.

Timothy said “The athiests seek to ban any expression of faith from the public.”.

No, atheists seek to prevent any government advocacy for religion. This in no way forces non-belief on any religious person.

Timothy said “We’ve seen many many times that athiests seek to ban prayers by public officials, any civic inclusion of faith on government property, and the absense of all symbols of religion from the public sphere.”.

The first part of your statement is correct, the last part is incorrect. Atheists rightly seek to prevent any government promotion of religion in keeping with the first amendment but do not seek to prevent private individuals from publicly expressing their religion.

Timothy said “And lest we forget, unlike agnosticism or apathy, atheism is a religious position. It is a definitive statement about the nature of diety. And any policy that requires no mention of a diety is a religious policy.”.

The absense of belief in religion is by definition not a religious policy. By your logic the policy on the economic bailout of failed banks is a religious policy because it requires no mention of a deity, your statement is thus falsified.

David Caster
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Egregious political activism from the pulpit, no matter what denomination, should be rewarded in the same way: loss of tax exempt status. Direct advancement of a political position by the LDS in a manner that essentially demands of its adherents specific performance at the polls in order to remain in good standing should be sufficient to cause loss of tax exempt status for the Church. This is now provable in court and the appropriate law enforcement should take place immediately.

Responsible authorities need to stop looking the other way as church leaders of whatever denomination break the law. Pull the LDS tax exempt status, and we can say good-bye to excessive meddling of religion in our system.

Jim Burroway
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

As I understand it, churches can advocate for issues and causes. They are not allowed to endorse political candidates. I believe that what the LDS is doing is allowable under their tax exempt status.

Whether it’s good for public policy is another question.

David Caster
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Thanks, Jim, for clarifying that a little. I should have known better I suppose. A little too much wishful thinking. Perhaps its time to work to change the law. It would be a good way to go toe-to-toe with the religious zealots and bigots that are working overtime at meddling across state lines to remake social policy in their image.

Andres Valloud
September 26th, 2008 | LINK

Hello, just my 2 cents here. My apologies in advance if it sounds a bit too harsh.

I think there’s plenty of more important stuff to vote on than proposition 8. I am having a hard time seeing the relevance of this topic when put in the context of the following items.

* How are we going to ensure that our standard of living and technological know how will be supported so that they are sustainable?

* What is the meaning of $700 billion?

* And oh by the way, we’re still at war. I am curious to hear what the LDS stance on that is.

To me, something like proposition 8 amounts to a distraction. What I see as most unfortunate from my subjective POV is that all this energy is spent (on both sides of the fence) on an issue that is much less important than, say, the kind of job we will have next year.

PS: I happen to disagree with the whole notion of a piece of paper regulating what at first glance may constitute a positive relationship between human beings. Let’s stop dividing ourselves into categories so we can nickel and dime ourselves as a whole to death.

Ben in Oakland
September 27th, 2008 | LINK

I both agree and disgree, Andres. It is an incredibly important issue, and mnot just to gay people. stopping the religious right from turning the country into The handmaid’s nightmare is important. And end to the prejudice is important for all citizens, gay and straight. the religious conservatives are spending $20 mill just by themselves– how many people could be fed for that.

And yes, i agree with you. Whom I marry should be of no interest to anyone but mysdelf and my husband.

cowboy
September 27th, 2008 | LINK

Again, we have a flitter…Son…much like kt was earlier this week. I don’t think he/she understand the concepts of the three branches of government. Their reaction is a shallow rationalization of what they know is discrimination in a republic that is founded on the rights that all men are created equal. They know Proposition 8 is not justifiable with their weak, false logic about protecting the “family”.

The LDS Church got itself into a hornet’s nest with this issue. I was flabbergasted when I read about the letter they read in their Ward Houses and Stake Houses. It set the Mormons up for ridicule for which they may never recover. It’s a war. Our livelihood versus theirs.

These Propositions are quite simply anti-gay and nothing about saying they know gay co-workers, friends, etc can change that fact.

Timothy Kincaid
September 27th, 2008 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

I see that my language may have been ambiguous. Let me be clearer.

I meant “any policy that requires that there be no mention of a diety is a religious policy”.

If, for example, one condition of the bailout is that no one prays about the economy or that there be no convocation for the Senate, then that would be a religious condition.

Also, you state

The absense of belief in religion is by definition not a religious policy.

This would be correct. But I find that seldom does atheism express itself as an absense of belief in a diety. Generally, that is agnostacism rather than atheism. Rather, in my experience, atheism presents itself as a strong dogmatic belief that there unquestionably is no diety.

Also, we all know that this site, like many sites, gets comments that are evangelical in nature. Some come here to tell us what their deity demands or to try and convince us to worship / obey / love their diety and his rules. Those comments from believers are religious in nature.

Others come here to try and convince us that there is no diety and that the stories and beliefs of religion are myths and imaginary. Those comments from athiests are also religious in nature.

I don’t find either to be useful to the conversation. But at least the religious folks know that they are preaching. I wish the athiests were as aware of their own evangelical efforts.

cd
September 27th, 2008 | LINK

“But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman. I know you may not have any personal parochial interest in voting yes on Prop 8. But as your friend and neighbor, I’m asking for your vote to help preserve the definition of this institution that is so important. Thank you.”

As a straight person, what I read here is a fetishizing of heterosexual marriage for reasons you cannot or refuse to explain. My guess is a difficulty of imagination is what you mean to supply as reason, but that’s not acceptable.

There is no such reason that deserves any respect or authority. I say that having considered the matter for a long time. There is no loss of integrity of the institution by opening it to same sex couples; there is only gain in integrity.

The LDS Church will pay a price in social standing and viability for its opposition and its long history of effort to suppress gay rights in California. It’s not one I exact, it’s the predicament they have created for themselves. The dogma of metaphysical genderism they have as tenet without evidence- and whose usefulness is lost in Modern society- is obsolete.

Priya Lynn
September 27th, 2008 | LINK

Timothy said “I meant “any policy that requires that there be no mention of a diety is a religious policy”. ”

That’s not how I’d put it. I’d say any policy that requires that there be no mention of a deity is a policy ON religion. A religious policy is one that explicitely accepts and requires religion, atheism is a non-religious policy because its policy is that there be no religion.

Ultimately I suppose were debating niggling words but there’s my take on it.

Jim Burroway
September 28th, 2008 | LINK

Update: The disciplinary hearing has now been put off until at least November, a move likely intended to keep this controversial issue out of limelight until after the elections.

Ben in Oakland
September 28th, 2008 | LINK

I’m wondering how many more mormons will stand up and say ‘this isn’t right’

cowboy
September 28th, 2008 | LINK

Ben,

It is tearing some families apart. The members who have gay relatives are pulled from two sides. How do you think I can look my Mother in her eyes and know that she goes to her Mormon Church each Sunday and be told her son is a depraved, influenced by Satan, sinner (on a grand scale) and an enemy to the Church of Jesus Christ.

Mormonism is not just a religion. It’s a culture. It’s a lifestyle. It’s not easy for someone to take the courage to leave the Mormon Church and become ostracized and eliminate a lifetime of traditions. There is an angst with Mormons who simply want to leave the LDS Church…it’s not as easy as you think. The simple removal of your name from LDS membership records is full of major considerations that is unlike any other membership in another Church.

I can’t go into detail here, right now, because it pains me. I can’t live up to the expectations of what my family feels I should do. I have a career to consider and it goes with the territory where I live. (sigh) I can’t explain.

I applaud the brave Saints who are forging ahead and actively working to build a better world for gay Mormons. They risk a lot…and it’s not just membership in a Church.

Ben in Oakland
September 28th, 2008 | LINK

I wouldn’t think it would be easy. standing up for what is right is never easy, especially when your source for ‘what’s right’ tells you what’s wrong.

Scott Porter
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Stop spreading misinformation regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints jeopardizing its tax-exempt status because of its involvement in the Yes on 8 campaign. The IRS regulations that prohibit political activity by 501(c)(3) organizations (like churches) apply to supporting or opposing a specific candidate. The regulations do not apply to support for or against propositions such as Prop 8. The regulation that does apply in that situation only kicks in when its lobbying activities (as measured by time, effort, expenditures and other relevant factors) constitute more than an “insubstantial” part of its total activities during a particular year.

See http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=281#q5 and following questions.

Timothy (TRiG)
August 18th, 2009 | LINK

Athiests sued to remove any references to Christmas from schools even when the vast overwhelming majority of students identify as Christian.

Do you not understand that this is even more important when “the vast overwhelming majority of students identify as Christian” than it would be otherwise?

One would imagine that a person immersed in queer theory would understand how oppressive positions of privilige can be, but Timothy Kincaid obviously has a rather large blind spot.

TRiG.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.