Ad defends Mormons from gay "violence and intimidation"

[sparklehead]

I get weekly emails from a law firm called the Becket Fund which was formed to fight for global religious freedom . They have weekly updates on worldwide religious freedom issues. Last week I got a more controversial email from them:

Becket Fund Launches Defense of Mormons

Dec 8, 2008
No Mob Veto, a project of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, was launched today (Dec. 5, 2008) with a full-page advertisement in the New York Times.

The ad deplored "The violence and intimidation being directed against
the LDS or 'Mormon' church, and other religious organizations-and even against individual believers-simply because they supported Proposition 8," California's ballot initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The full ad can be viewed at www.NoMobVeto.org.

It is signed by over a dozen religious leaders, lawyers, civil rights activists, and theologians, spanning religious and political lines:

• Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson - The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
• Nathan J. Diament - Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
• Rich Cizik - National Association of Evangelicals
• Ronald J. Sider - Evangelicals for Social Action
• Chuck Colson - Prison Fellowship
• Chris Seiple - Institute for Global Engagement
• Dr. Alveda C. King - civil rights activist
• William A. Donohue - Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
• Robert Seiple - Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom
• Douglas Laycock - University of Michigan Law School
• Marvin Olasky - The King's College, New York City
• Roger Scruton - writer and philosopher
• Armando Valladares - former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission

Describing this group, the ad notes, "We're a disagreeable lot. We differ about a great many important things. Most, but not all of us, are religious believers. We likewise differ on important moral and legal questions, including the wisdom and justice of California's Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage."

But, the ad continues, "When thugs...terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous. Those who fail to condemn or seem to condone that intimidation are at fault as well."

The ad solicits signatures from readers who believe that religious people have the right and duty to participate in the electoral process without fear and intimidation from anti-religious bigotry.

"This is a lesson America had to learn the hard way, overcoming bigotry against Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities," said Becket Fund founder Kevin "Seamus" Hasson, "and we are committed to not letting the country forget it."

The ad makes clear that although anti-religious propaganda is not illegal, it is wrong: "Religious groups can't claim some sort of special immunity from criticism," but "violence and intimidation are always wrong, whether the victims are believers, gay people, or anyone else."

The Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a nonpartisan, interfaith, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.

[Grimmlok]

Your free expression takes away the rights of others. Fuck you and your victim mentality bullshit.

You started this war. You can end it. If you don't, we will and count your fucking lucky stars we have been this civil up to now.

If this had been about taking away the rights of blacks, jews, or some other group you wouldn't be saying SHIT and your "places of worship" would be burnt to the fucking GROUND.

Dr. Alveda C. King - civil rights activist

and a special fuck you to you, stupid shitbag. How about we transport your ass back to the 1930's and see how you like it. Historical amnesia retard *kicks*

[Fluffy]

Violence? When has violence been directed at Mormons recently?

[sparklehead]

I wasn't sure about the violence part either. A quick google search turned this up:

"Scott Walter, executive director of the Becket Fund, insists his nonpartisan, interfaith group is not taking a stand on same-sex marriage.

'We're only about religious liberty,' he said. 'When houses of worship are being attacked, we're concerned. We're against violence against anyone.'

In recent weeks, national bloggers have called for boycotts of businesses owned by LDS members, but Becket Fund officials said lines were crossed when LDS churches were vandalized and envelopes containing white powders were sent to temples in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles...

Many protests and demonstrations against the proposition's passage were "more nearly mobs, seeking not to persuade but to intimidate," read the ad, which encouraged others to add their names to the letter at www.nomobveto.com.


Holland said he's familiar with several of the people who signed the ad. While they have their differing opinions about same-sex marriage, their joint ad is a 'patch-work quilt' that paints a 'compelling story about how fair-minded people from different orientations feel there's some injustice being done and decided to speak up for the church,' he said.

'What they're asking is that both sides treat each other with respect and dignity,' Holland said."

MormonTimes - N.Y. Times ad denounces violence against LDS

[Grimmlok]

yeah, so one douche sends some foundation through the mail and suddenly protests are "mobs".

No offense, but anybody who voted or used money to strip people of their rights SHOULD be intimidated. You don't kick an animal and then get pissed when it bites you. Idiot.

You treated NOBODY with dignity when you stripped them of their rights. You removed their dignity by force. Fuck you. Stupid asshat.

[RevellingInSane]

Since when do Mormons need protection except from their own rogue groups? If you are not female and under the age of consent, you should be safe in the LDS.

No one should face persecution for voting the way one feels is right. Those who voted for Bush have not been exiled. Regardless of how a ballot is marked, someone will be pissed.

Why so much hatred for the civil rights activists who supported proposition 8 and similar state proposals? The issues aren't the same.

[Grimmlok]

Voting to strip rights from a group should come with consequences.

Yes, the issue is the damn same. Keeping equal rights from a group of people (or in this case, stripping it from them after the fact) because of religion or arbitrary bigotry OR 'tradition' (which again is just a cover for religion) is the same as keeping it from a group of people because of their skin color, and using their fairytale book to justify THAT.

Civil rights activists voting to have rights taken from people is an anathema, it's a traitorous action against civil rights activism.

Again, for the slower members of the audience, voting to strip rights away from people means you are not a civil rights activist. It means you're a bigoted asshole.

IF they want to keep "biblical marriage" then, by all means they should really live it. Until that happens, all their bitching about "tradition" is absolute unsuported nonsense, and since that is the case, stripping gays of the right to marry is sheer bigotry.

This isn't complicated.

Civil rights are civil rights.

There is no special, segregated, exclusionary quest for them. Nobody is special. Black people don't get to claim civil rights as their own, just like heteros don't get to claim marriage as their own. Sorry that some black people get pissy when gays try to "horn in" on civil rights issues, but grow the fuck up. It's all one big civil rights issue.

[january]

What offends me most though is that I am not for censorship. I don't give a shit if a person is a bigot or has hateful views, they have the right to speak them just as everybody else without fear of persecution, as long as they aren't inciting a riot. I will defend the rights of even the most heinous, racist people to say what I find morally reprehensible because I am 100% against any kind of censorship. I find it wrong that anyone is fired or forced to resign, period, based upon how they voted. I find that morally reprehensible. And Revelling is right, if that guy hadn't been "forced to resign", lets say he had been fired (all semantics here) he would have had a pretty damn good discrimination case. And I would have backed them up. How you vote is your own deal, whether I'm for it or against it. This guy wasn't spreading ill-will at his workplace, he wasn't inciting a riot, he voted - and because people didn't like the way he voted, he was forced to resign? Oh, hell no. I'm sorry, whether his vote was right or wrong, that is not representative of the country that I am proud of. I honestly am astounded that anyone would get behind such a mentality. Even though I dislike his method of thinking, in no way shape or form would I have supported him getting fired or being bullied to resign.

[sparklehead]

And Revelling is right, if that guy hadn't been "forced to resign", lets say he had been fired (all semantics here) he would have had a pretty damn good discrimination case

Even though he wasn't fired, he may still have a case for constructive discharge.

[ymeman]

great, finally a group of people banding together to fight the 'god hates fags' people. heartening.

[Grimmlok]

What offends me most though is that I am not for censorship. I don't give a shit if a person is a bigot or has hateful views, they have the right to speak them just as everybody else without fear of persecution, as long as they aren't inciting a riot. I will defend the rights of even the most heinous, racist people to say what I find morally reprehensible because I am 100% against any kind of censorship. I find it wrong that anyone is fired or forced to resign, period, based upon how they voted. I find that morally reprehensible. And Revelling is right, if that guy hadn't been "forced to resign", lets say he had been fired (all semantics here) he would have had a pretty damn good discrimination case. And I would have backed them up. How you vote is your own deal, whether I'm for it or against it. This guy wasn't spreading ill-will at his workplace, he wasn't inciting a riot, he voted - and because people didn't like the way he voted, he was forced to resign? Oh, hell no. I'm sorry, whether his vote was right or wrong, that is not representative of the country that I am proud of. I honestly am astounded that anyone would get behind such a mentality. Even though I dislike his method of thinking, in no way shape or form would I have supported him getting fired or being bullied to resign.

No, because he supported stripping a group of people of their rights. That is spreading ill will. He thought he could strip people of their rights, and then work without a problem in the very industry those people then to flock to.

Again, if this was stripping blacks or jews of their right to marry, none of you would be arguing it.

Look in a mirror.

[Fluffy]

What offends me most though is that I am not for censorship. I don't give a shit if a person is a bigot or has hateful views, they have the right to speak them just as everybody else without fear of persecution, as long as they aren't inciting a riot. I will defend the rights of even the most heinous, racist people to say what I find morally reprehensible because I am 100% against any kind of censorship. I find it wrong that anyone is fired or forced to resign, period, based upon how they voted. I find that morally reprehensible. And Revelling is right, if that guy hadn't been "forced to resign", lets say he had been fired (all semantics here) he would have had a pretty damn good discrimination case. And I would have backed them up. How you vote is your own deal, whether I'm for it or against it. This guy wasn't spreading ill-will at his workplace, he wasn't inciting a riot, he voted - and because people didn't like the way he voted, he was forced to resign? Oh, hell no. I'm sorry, whether his vote was right or wrong, that is not representative of the country that I am proud of. I honestly am astounded that anyone would get behind such a mentality. Even though I dislike his method of thinking, in no way shape or form would I have supported him getting fired or being bullied to resign.

Is it for sure that he was forced to resign? Or that he felt like resigning after all the commotion and people speaking to him? I haven't heard anything definite about anyone being forced to resign.

[Grimmlok]

Being a bigot is hard. Boohoo.

[RevellingInSane]

Good gawd. I love how race is always thrown up as a defense in gay issues. It isn't the same, even though many gays will say it is...blah blah blah. It's not. The civil rights movement was to give the descendants of people brought to this continent against their will, and enslaved for centuries, equal rights after having been freed when slavery was abolished. Do tell how that correlates to being gay. For the members who are determined to demonstrate a similarity, here is a hint: It isn't working.

While there is an argument for legal gay unions, the civil rights movements isn't it.

Civil rights activists are not traitorous just because they don't support the word marriage being used for gay unions. I love how everyone is thrown into the bigot pool if they don't agree with everything the gay rights movement sees as civil rights. Civil rights in the case of legal binding would be civil unions.

Funnily enough, bigotry works both ways. I have seen enough bigotry, towards religious and others who support or understand those who supported prop 8, in these threads to prove their are bigots on both sides.

[Gangsta Love Dog]