Comments on: Australia Now; Canada Tomorrow or Muslims Now; Your Faith Tomorrow

By: rick

rick — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:04:33 +0000

“If a person is LDS (Mormon) it is mentioned more often than not”

…as is the case of when it’s a midget or any other curiosity not generally seen in the public eye.

Mormons not been seen as crime-committers is a good thing, no?

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:39:13 +0000

Karen

That’s not entirely true. If a person is LDS (Mormon) it is mentioned more often than not, when a crime is committed. Most other Christian religions aren’t mentioned though. And I have seen Wiccanism mentioned in relationship to crimes as well.

But yes, I agree with you. A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, etc and everything else.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:03:29 +0000

Here’s the thing – If a crime is committed by someone who is Christian, their religion does not come into the discussion. If, however, a crime is committed by someone who is Muslim, their religion becomes the focus of the crime. This is similar to what happens when crimes are committed by Hispanics or Blacks or members of various other minorities.

A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Criminals should be punished for the crimes they commit. They should only be punished for committed crimes and only the criminal should be punished. To say “You share a characteristic with a criminal and therefore deserve to be punished” would land us all in jail.

The true questions that we need to ask ourselves when faced with situations such as this are, “What WOULD Jesus do? Am I acting in a manner that promotes my religious values? On judgement day, will I stand proud in defense of this behavior, or will I hide my face in shame?”

Personally, if I were to act in support of the original article – if I were to stand by and not voice my dismay and sadness at those sentiments – I would have to hide my face in shame.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:43:32 +0000

The Church has an extensive history of seeking to change or overturn laws that we perceived as unconstitutional, or unfair, or both. As a matter of general policy, however, once such efforts fail we still encourage our members to follow the laws as interpreted by the courts. This has mostly worked all right, becuase for the most part, the laws have not required morally repugnant conduct (unless you count—as I do—the forced severing of family ties and abandonment of wives and children as morally repugnant).

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:38:38 +0000

"Itâ€s far likelier the courts would simply have declared the order unconstitutionalâ€”which it clearly was" Ah, there is the key. Some laws are unconstitutional, or in other words, just plain wrong. Do we uphold these just because they are the law? Or do we try to change them to make it fair for everyone?

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:39:52 +0000

…Maybe I should explain where my info comes from:

I visited the center in independence in 1983 and saw the Lieutenant Governor’s rescinding order displayed there. It wasn’t particularly prominent and would have been easy to miss, but it was there.

I visited the center again in about 1995 and couldn’t find the order displayed any more.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:09:19 +0000

I don’t think Gov Boggs’s extermination order would have been upheld as a defense if, for example, someone had tried to claim it after murdering a Mormon in Missouri in 1940. It’s far likelier the courts would simply have declared the order unconstitutional—which it clearly was.

The proclamation of Missouri’s Lieutenant Governor resciding the order in 1976 used to hang in the Church’s visitor center in Independence, Mo., but I think it’s been moved away.

By: Jeff Milner

Jeff Milner — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:22:16 +0000

“It lasted until 1976”

I should have said, it was on the law books until 1976, after the Mormons fled Missouri, I don’t think many people even knew it was still on the books. Hence the reason it took so long to rescind it.

By: Jeff Milner

Jeff Milner — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:19:15 +0000

“The LDS PR department does a good job of [presenting] a story. A little bit of truth can go a long ways.”

Ok, I’ll bite.

Actually George, there was an extermination order. It lasted until 1976, and I had direct relatives that were murdered because of it.

As for the Church’s public relations with regard to this subject, I have been taught in church and by my parents that we downplay this incident because we like to keep a low profile.

I was taught, don’t make waves, don’t draw a lot of attention to the fact that the United States Army considered Mormons an enemy to the country. As far as the Church’s PR is concerned, I think they want to downplay the incident, not hype it up.

By: Jeff Milner

Jeff Milner — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 06:05:15 +0000

“You missed the part about the actual assaults on the lifeguards.”

I don’t know many of the details, but as I stated, “They should be justly convicted of any crimes they commit.”

Do you know the details as to why they attacked the lifeguards? I really don’t know, I only ask because I’m wondering how the religion aspects plays into this assault. Was it because the lifeguards were sticking up for someone’s right to wear a two piece bathing suit?

Actual assaults need actual police work. I applaud the shopkeeper for releasing his videotape. Whether or not it’s a hate crime is another question, hopefully someone can shed some light on that.