*WAY* OT: Pete Ashdown for Utah Senator in 2006
mike at halcrow.us
Tue Jul 12 15:11:59 MDT 2005
Hey, Josh; nice to hear from you. :-) Down the bunny trail we go......
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:21:00PM -0600, Josh Coates wrote:
> > it fought civil liberty lawsuits (i.e., Douglas Wallace) before
> > caving in to civic pressure in 1978
> if the church was going to cave under pressure, it would've done it
> in the 60's when there *was* pressure, not after it had all blown
> over in the late 70's.
From what I have read of the matter, the pressure mounted steadily
from both external and internal sources right up until 1978; from that
point, pressure has been mounting for an official apology. Society
just shook its head as the church held obstinately to its policy of
racial exclusion almost into the 1980's! Wallace was just one
example. There were numerous lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, a
steady stream of criticisms from the press, threats of NCAA boycotts
against BYU, pressures from civil liberties groups with respect to the
BSA leadership/priesthood requirements, and so on. Internal expansion
pressure, culminating in the opening of the Sao Paulo, Brazil temple,
also contributed to the eventual policy change. The civic pressure was
constant, real, and influential.
> of course, there have been many words printed on this matter, but i
> just wanted to point out that there isn't any supporting evidence
> for the 1978 revelation being caused by civic pressure. there just
> isn't. sorry. :-(
I agree with you 100%. There is no evidence that it was a revelation;
you have to take that entirely on faith.
> > Should the Mormon church consider an issue to be moral in nature,
> > it will generally attempt to influence public policy according to
> > its own moral opinion.
> yes, kind of like every other person and institution in the
> country. ;-) this has been discussed before on plug - the whole
> "laws are simply institutionalized morality, the majority of people
> decide whats moral, blah blah" and that's just the way it is. so if
> the church thinks that it's immoral not to have your dog on a leash,
> there is nothing wrong with them trying to influence their members
> to pass a leash law. right? no big deal.
Right. At this point we get into the happy fun debate regarding the
influence of religious institutions over public policy.
> oh, and libertarians and statists? what have you been reading lately..?
The newspaper. ;-)
Collect call from Cthulhu, do you accept the charges?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20050712/086f98cf/attachment.bin
More information about the PLUG