What's Utah REALLY like?
T & J Carlock
coming from Southern California though. Big Difference?
I have searched high and low in the internet to find out the cost of living,
the average price of electricity, gas (utility), water/trash/sewage, rent,
groceries etc before making a decision. If anyone out there has any idea of
some good links for me to look at I would appreciate it.
What's the weather like in January? How much snow? I hear so many "things"
about the Mormons and that it is going to be a problem for me being Roman
Catholic there, basically that I will not have an easy time being accepted
because of it? BS or some truth there? Sounds like 1950's prejudice BS
segregation talk to me.
Anyway, thanks if someone can offer some insight.
J.C.
Bob Devine
>
> I've just been offered a job in Utah and am considering accepting it. I am
> coming from Southern California though. Big Difference?
A world of difference, but many of the differences are positive.
Look at:
http://www.cc.utah.edu/~joseph/geography/UAlmanac.html -- Utah Almanac
http://www.utahpages.com/ -- Utah Pages
http://www.utah.com/ -- Utah site
http://www.slachamber.com/ -- Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce
http://www.homefair.com/homefair/cmr/salcalc.html
Salary calculation based on location
Bob Devine
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>I hear so many "things" about the Mormons and that it is going to be a problem
for me being Roman Catholic there, basically that I will not have an easy time
being accepted because of it?
I live in Florida now, but lived in Utah for a long time in Salt Lake City.
I am also a Catholic. I attended the Cathedral of the Madeline near downtown
Salt Lake. I can say I NEVER had anything even close to a problem. I doubt you
will either. The closest
thing I encountered to a problem was not from the Mormons, but from the
fundamentalist Christian fanatics that seem attracted to attack Mormonism.
Being accosted on the street by them. Telling me I was going to hell because I
revered Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.. And when you tell them; "I am a
Catholic not a Mormon" they tell you well you are still going to hell for idol
worship..... Just avoid the central city during conference week
and the folks handing out tracts. It is a GREAT place. The bad stuff you hear
is from social misfits. It is beautiful and a tremendous place to raise a
family. The scenery can be breathtaking. You'll love it!
The people who have lived there and don't want to come back are nuts!
TJ Miller jr
T & J Carlock wrote in message <7jngrc$and$1...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>...
>I've just been offered a job in Utah and am considering accepting it. I am
>coming from Southern California though. Big Difference?
I've just moved up here myself, and have lived here before. If it helps, I
can compile the following general experience for you:
tax-wise, you'll pay a bit more (even coming from Calif.), but not by too
much. Them Olympics is expensive, you understand ;-)
Housing will actually seem reasonable to you (if all the rumors about
housing in Calif. are true...)
Water/sewer/etc. depends on area, but seems reasonable. Same with
electricity and groceries.
>What's the weather like in January? How much snow?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaa...err, umm, sorry :-)
Get used to the sight of snow... there is still quite a bit of it on the
mountaintops right now, as I look out from my home office window near Ogden.
Snow starts in late October (usually), and continues to mid/late April
(usually.) Temperatures at night in January have been known to plunge well
below Zero deg. F.
It also gets hot in the summer, with temperatures soaring towards 100+
routinely. OTOH, there is little to no humidity, so it will feel somewhat
comfortable, compared to the same temperature in, say, The Deep South. Do
be careful out here if sunbathing, though... the higher altitude will assist
the sun in burning your skin much quicker... give it 30-45 minutes for an
average beachcomber, and he's tomato-red. Seriously.
> I hear so many "things"
>about the Mormons and that it is going to be a problem for me being Roman
>Catholic there, basically that I will not have an easy time being accepted
>because of it?
There are a few Catholic churches in the area, and as a Southern Baptist
myself, I have yet to encounter any problems from the LDS (mormon) community
because of it. For the most part, the mormons are a very kind and gentle
people, and are not going to gang up at your door to convert you in any way.
You will find an LDS church an average of one every three blocks or so, but
you'll have to go looking for your local parish, as I had to go find a
Baptist church. There is a huge dominance of LDS news and such, but only
because the vasy majority of folks living here are Mormon.
However, be advised - all bets are off if you find yourself in some of the
smaller rural communities. This is more to my lack of contact with these
communities than from any actual experience.
> BS or some truth there? Sounds like 1950's prejudice BS
>segregation talk to me.
Most of it is indeed BS. Even in Provo, no one is going to hate or hurt you
for praying differently.
GZ
>I've just been offered a job in Utah and am considering accepting it. I am
>coming from Southern California though. Big Difference?
>the average price of electricity, gas (utility), water/trash/sewage, rent,
>groceries etc before making a decision. If anyone out there has any idea of
>some good links for me to look at I would appreciate it.
>about the Mormons and that it is going to be a problem for me being Roman
>Catholic there, basically that I will not have an easy time being accepted
>segregation talk to me.
>
>Anyway, thanks if someone can offer some insight.
>
>J.C.
>
>
are most welcome here. Shouldnt take what you hear from people like denise
Rodman (No not a mispelling!) as what you know about the LDS religion.
Jas
is under construction, and there's constant detours and traffic
jams/accidents.
I'm sure that you won't have any trouble with the mormons. They're always
polite to your face. If you'd like to meet friends who aren't going to try
and convert you, there's a few bars/private clubs in the area. (If you don't
mind the $25 membership fees)
It is a beautiful state, and has a lot of opportunity available. The media
makes Utah look far worse than what it is.
T & J Carlock wrote in message <7jngrc$and$1...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>...
Steven J. Kile
centered, loving, devoted, happy people. I would guess that if you drink like a
fish, like to smoke in public facilities, like to rent or go to porno flicks,
are homosexual, pro abortion, or a card carrying liberal, you might feel a bit
stifled. On the other hand, if your only concern is that you are Catholic, you
won't have any problems.
David Peterson
I've been here in Utah for about a year, and it so far seems like a
pleasantville. The people are snobby, drive fast, and don't give a crap
about anybody else. They drive big huge cars that pollute this beautiful
place, and push around their religion like its a pill all Utahans should
take. The cost of living is high, Don't expect to pay less than $1000 a
month for a decent house. The utilities are negligible. Kindof like CA,
huh?
This last winter it didn't snow hardly at all. Also, I don't know this for
a fact (clear this up for me LDS folks) but you WILL live in an area that
the "THE" Church considers a ward where they control the social activites
of that particular area. Translation: other Mormons will try to
incorporate you into their style of living. Granted, this varies from area
to area, so use your best judgement. Another fact about this state is that
the Government Sector is 95% controlled by Mormons. In fact, the LDS church
just recently bought up a huge area of downtown Salt Lake and are going to
make it a huge walking plaza. The transformation has just begun, and
ALREADY there are rumors flying about the prohibition of all things on that
Walking plaza that the LDS despises.
I may anger many Utah residents with this information, but as an outsider
who has been around the U.S., this portrayal of Utah life really is the Andy
Rooney gist of it all here in the state of "Zion".
dd
T & J Carlock <car...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote in message
news:7jngrc$and$1...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us...
> I've just been offered a job in Utah and am considering accepting it. I
am
> coming from Southern California though. Big Difference?
> I have searched high and low in the internet to find out the cost of
living,
> the average price of electricity, gas (utility), water/trash/sewage, rent,
> groceries etc before making a decision. If anyone out there has any idea
of
> some good links for me to look at I would appreciate it.
> What's the weather like in January? How much snow? I hear so many
"things"
> about the Mormons and that it is going to be a problem for me being Roman
> Catholic there, basically that I will not have an easy time being accepted
> because of it? BS or some truth there? Sounds like 1950's prejudice BS
> segregation talk to me.
>
pigo
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <375FE685...@sisna.com>...
>Mormons are good,
Some yes, some no. My educated guess (20 years in Utah) is that there are
not as many "good" as they would like you to believe. Look to the high rates
of spouse/child abuse and the fact that Utah is the "scam" capitol of the
USA.
>honest,
Again, some are. The ones that really buy into the propoganda that the cult
feeds them. They honestly believe it an are generally honest people.
Unfortunatly since the whole cult is a scam in the first place, the "rules"
change to fit the mood or need, the whole premise is dishonest and those
that spew it are, likewise, dishonest.
>moral,
In their own warped sense of moral. Make shit up to get what you want, go to
church with your wife on Sun. and drink like a fish the rest of the week.
"Council" the young girls in your neighborhood (ward) when your sister wives
have spewed out so many kids that they are so fat an gross that you can't
stand it.
> hardworking,
I'll give you that one. There's an extra 10% tax to pay, ya know.
>friendly,
As long as they think that you are still convertable.
>family oriented,
Oh great! So much so that Utah is #50 in the amount of money spent per
student, and #1 in the % of it's budget spent on schools. There are so many
crotch fruit around here that it's next to impossible to go out for a decent
dinner without some screeching bag'o'shit or 5 all around you.
>Christ centered,
Oh good. Can anyone think of a war that was not caused by religion?
> loving, devoted, happy people.
Brainwashed
I would guess that if you drink like a
>fish, like to smoke in public facilities, like to rent or go to porno
flicks,
>are homosexual, pro abortion, or a card carrying liberal,
In other words: If you enjoy any civil liberties or protection for
minorities (non-mormons) or many other constitutional rights................
It's actually gotten to be a source of amusement. There are irritants like
the cult buying up a city street to expand their empire, as the latest
example of the complete lack of separation of church and state. There is
also the plus that so many (most) of them are so naive, brainwashed, and
gullible, that manipulating them is pretty easy.
There's my $.02, for what it's worth.
Oh yeah, there are lot's of mutants here too from the gene pool pollutants.
Dad's/daughters, brother/sister.......
pigo
Raptor
>
> coming from Southern California though.
Which part of Utah? My comments are constrained to the SLC area. Other
places WILL be subtly but unmistakably different. SLC is more diverse,
more liberal and more cosmopolitan than the rest of Utah.
> Big Difference?
Except for heavy traffic and crime problems, yes. (The heavy traffic
should go away in a few years.)
> I have searched high and low in the internet to find out the cost of living,
> the average price of electricity, gas (utility), water/trash/sewage, rent,
> groceries etc before making a decision. If anyone out there has any idea of
> some good links for me to look at I would appreciate it.
I'd say it's a 10% difference (lower here). But don't bank on it. :-)
> What's the weather like in January? How much snow?
In the city, some, not a ton most years. Several days are troubled by
heavy snowfall each winter. High temps 30-ish.
I hear so many "things"
> about the Mormons and that it is going to be a problem for me being Roman
> Catholic there, basically that I will not have an easy time being accepted
> because of it? BS or some truth there? Sounds like 1950's prejudice BS
> segregation talk to me.
SOME truth there. I'm a happy agnostic, live in a condo, and do not
pursue an active social life, so friendly neighbors are irrelevent to
me. But I have heard that some people notice a big difference between
their associations as non-LDS and the associations they see among the
LDS. I have heard that others can't tell the difference.
Few LDS people are rude to non-members. Most are perfectly fine people.
Having lived here for 15 years, I usually can't tell the LDS from the
normal Utahn, who tends to live a pretty "clean" lifestyle.
There is an unmistakable religious and conservative overtone to the
culture here. The government doesn't do anything the Church doesn't
want, and does much that the Church wants. The commentary and views you
get from the population is completely consistent with that. The US and
Utah Constitutions defend us gentiles well enough however.
If you are a party animal, you won't like it here. If you are a social
partier, you will be okay on that count.
In conclusion: If you like outdoor recreation and stunning scenery,
move here. But don't bring anyone else with you. :-)
> Anyway, thanks if someone can offer some insight.
I've had 10% raises offered to me for S. CA., and turned them down. At
this point, I doubt if I'd move for 20% more. I also love mountains,
and these are the most accessible in the world I think. Living in
downtown SLC, I can be at 8000 feet in 25 minutes by car, or 90 minutes
by bike.
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I cannot help it if I think you're funny when you're mad.
B. Naked Ladies
PHOTO RESTORATION DONE WELL AND CHEAP!
http://www.xmission.com/~lawall/PhotoIndex.html
Raptor
>
> J.C.
>
> I've been here in Utah for about a year, and it so far seems like a
> pleasantville. The people are snobby, drive fast, and don't give a crap
> about anybody else. They drive big huge cars that pollute this beautiful
> place, and push around their religion like its a pill all Utahans should
> take. The cost of living is high, Don't expect to pay less than $1000 a
> month for a decent house. The utilities are negligible. Kindof like CA,
> huh?
> This last winter it didn't snow hardly at all.
Yes it did, just late. There were at least three days where enough snow
fell that it snarled traffic. But as usual, it generally
melted/evaporated within two days.
Also, I don't know this for
> a fact (clear this up for me LDS folks) but you WILL live in an area that
> the "THE" Church considers a ward where they control the social activites
> of that particular area. Translation: other Mormons will try to
> incorporate you into their style of living. Granted, this varies from area
> to area, so use your best judgement. Another fact about this state is that
> the Government Sector is 95% controlled by Mormons. In fact, the LDS church
> just recently bought up a huge area of downtown Salt Lake and are going to
> make it a huge walking plaza. The transformation has just begun, and
> ALREADY there are rumors flying about the prohibition of all things on that
> Walking plaza that the LDS despises.
>
> I may anger many Utah residents with this information, but as an outsider
> who has been around the U.S., this portrayal of Utah life really is the Andy
> Rooney gist of it all here in the state of "Zion".
> dd
I was an outsider once.
Your comments are not inconsistent with my experience. They are
negatively weighted however. If you grow to love the backcountry, then
contrast Utah with other places, and are like me, you will find the
thought of spending the rest of your life here acceptable.
In recent years, I have spent time in the LA area, Oklahoma and
Memphis. I must admit that I love living in Utah, the Mormon government
notwithstanding.
Darrell Fuhriman
> take. The cost of living is high, Don't expect to pay less than $1000 a
> month for a decent house.
*snort* that's the funniest statement I've heard in a long time.
People in most any other city would laugh at that statement as
well.
Try SF if you want to see high cost of housing. You'd be lucky
to get a studio apt. for that amount.
Darrell
Steven J. Kile
ills on the Mormons, how pathetic can one get? Well folks, pigo shows us how!!
Your drivel is just that, nothing more, nothing less, just plain old drivel. I
hope you used a big bib around your neck, to catch all the slobber that foamed
out of your mouth as you wrote this?
Steven J. Kile
mazu...@localhost.localdomain
>Yep, another inept soul, who blames all of the ills of society, and all of his
>ills on the Mormons, how pathetic can one get? Well folks, pigo shows us how!!
>Your drivel is just that, nothing more, nothing less, just plain old drivel. I
>hope you used a big bib around your neck, to catch all the slobber that foamed
>out of your mouth as you wrote this?
I agree that his tone could use some work, but I agree with a lot of
he said. My take on this is that despite how many of them feel, Mormons
are really not that different than anybody else. They're certainly no
worse than most other groups. On the other hand, they're no better
either. They're just people.
Mike
--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@atmos.met.utah.edu
TJ Miller jr
Darrell Fuhriman wrote in message ...
>Raptor <law...@xmission.com> writes:
>
>> Except for heavy traffic and crime problems, yes. (The heavy traffic
>> should go away in a few years.)
[snip]
>Sorry, I'll have to go for the "it's only going to get worse"
>viewpoint. It's exacerbated by the fact that Utah has the worst
>drivers I've ever seen.
True, true, but this brings up a question:
Having seen the mess that we like to call I-15, I wonder why it is that no
one has thought of making a true commuter rail system (obviously not that
fake "light rail" version in downtown SLC)?
A true commuter rail would use existing railroads to move passengers between
points ranging from, say, North Ogden all the way to South Provo or
so...with a possible spur going to Park City.
This would certainly ease the burden we see on the roads (after all, who
wants to sit in a car going 2 mph, watching a train whiz by at 70 mph
alongside the road? )
Dave Andersen
> I've just been offered a job in Utah and am considering accepting it. I am
Quite a difference. As Bob Devine mentioned, there are both good and
bad differences.
> I have searched high and low in the internet to find out the cost of living,
> the average price of electricity, gas (utility), water/trash/sewage, rent,
> groceries etc before making a decision. If anyone out there has any idea of
> some good links for me to look at I would appreciate it.
Utah's quite a bit cheaper. I spend about $1500 / month to rent a
rather nice four-bedroom home here, which, at least when I was looking
around last year, is pretty much par for the course. I'm not sure how
utilities compare. We're around 7.5c/kwh for power, but that's all I tend
to pay attention to.
> What's the weather like in January? How much snow? I hear so many "things"
> about the Mormons and that it is going to be a problem for me being Roman
> Catholic there, basically that I will not have an easy time being accepted
> because of it? BS or some truth there? Sounds like 1950's prejudice BS
> segregation talk to me.
Weather:
It's variable. Some years we get feet in the valley, other years we get
piddle. This was a pretty bad snow year, though we ended up getting a
fair bit later in the season. Last year we were up to our ears in snow.
One bright side is that Salt Lake (I can't speak for other cities in Utah)
has a very good infrastructure for snow removal. The undercarriage of
your car will have hell to pay from the salt, but it's not too bad.
Mormons:
<puts on asbestos>
As an adult in Utah, it's pretty much fine. There are some weirdos
here, but there are weirdos everywhere. Growing up here, however, was a
bit different - until you reach the age at which you can pick your social
circle instead of the other kids in the block, you're likely to experience
quite a bit of pressure from the mormon children around. (In my
experience, of course. I was frequently told things like, "If you're not
mormon, you'll go to hell" (paraphrased)). I imagine the situation keeps
getting better each year, however.
Politics in Salt Lake tend towards moderate republican; politics in
rural Utah are best represented by the "Cowboy Caucus", a group of
conservative legislators who still wield a bit too much power here.
I think my colors are showing, though. :)
If you like the outdoors, Utah is a marvelous place. Despite its
faults, I really love it here; there are few other places I can meander
off and get in a beautiful evening hike, bike ride, or rock climb as
conveniently. :)
-Dave
Jas
washed or picked on for not believing in the 150 year old religion.
Raptor
>
> Raptor <law...@xmission.com> writes:
>
> > Except for heavy traffic and crime problems, yes. (The heavy traffic
> > should go away in a few years.)
>
> other large city in the country.
Wow, they HAVE!? :-)
I must admit that I've become so adept at avoiding heavy traffic that I
don't have a good feel for how bad SL's is. And the new I-15 will help
a great deal.
> Sorry, I'll have to go for the "it's only going to get worse"
> viewpoint. It's exacerbated by the fact that Utah has the worst
> drivers I've ever seen.
>
> Darrell
My recent experience in Memphis puts drivers there as the worst I've
seen. Utahns are dangerous because they're clueless; Tenneseeans are
dangerous because they're aggressive. YMMV.
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>My recent experience in Memphis puts drivers there as the worst I've
>seen. Utahns are dangerous because they're clueless; Tenneseeans are
>dangerous because they're aggressive. YMMV.
Ah you ain't seen nothing. Come to Clearwater Florida in January. Watch all
the 200 year old Canadians... The snowbirds flock between November and May. 75%
of the traffic accidents in the area happen in that period of time. In Pasco
county to the north of Clearwater, in some years 100% of the traffic accidents
involved at least ONE elderly Canadian. Talk about BAD drivers?
If you see a Michigan or Ontario plate here, you RUN for shelter!
Graham Allen
of the nicest cities I have ever visited on my travels, it is almost as nice
as my home city of Kingston-upon-Hull in England. The people were very
friendly, I don't know wether they were Jewish, Christian, Catholic or
Mormon neither do I care as I take people as they come not which religious
label they go under. The city is so clean and the restaurants are great, I
would love to go back there some day.
regards
Graham.
T & J Carlock wrote in message <7jngrc$and$1...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>...
>I've just been offered a job in Utah and am considering accepting it. I am
>coming from Southern California though. Big Difference?
>I have searched high and low in the internet to find out the cost of
living,
>the average price of electricity, gas (utility), water/trash/sewage, rent,
>groceries etc before making a decision. If anyone out there has any idea
of
>some good links for me to look at I would appreciate it.
>What's the weather like in January? How much snow? I hear so many
"things"
>about the Mormons and that it is going to be a problem for me being Roman
>Catholic there, basically that I will not have an easy time being accepted
>because of it? BS or some truth there? Sounds like 1950's prejudice BS
>segregation talk to me.
>
>Anyway, thanks if someone can offer some insight.
>
>J.C.
>
>
Falling Rock
PangK wrote in message <19990612082316...@ng-xa1.aol.com>...
, in some years 100% of the traffic accidents
>involved at least ONE elderly Canadian. Talk about BAD drivers?
>If you see a Michigan or Ontario plate here, you RUN for shelter!
I hope they took the license away from that one elderly Canadian.
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
> in some years 100% of the traffic accidents involved at least ONE elderly
Canadian
> I hope they took the license away from that one elderly Canadian.
Funny thought that just ONE could create havoc, but they ARE terrible
drivers!
pigo
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <3760A3E3...@sisna.com>...
>Yep, another inept soul, who blames all of the ills of society, and all of
his
>ills on the Mormons, how pathetic can one get? Well folks, pigo shows us
how!!
>Your drivel is just that, nothing more, nothing less, just plain old
drivel. I
>hope you used a big bib around your neck, to catch all the slobber that
foamed
>out of your mouth as you wrote this?
Judging from the number of my points that you can actually dispute, I take
that as a compliment!
All and all, concerning your interest in moving here, as annoying as it can
be, it can also be damn amusing.
pigo
pigo
mazu...@localhost.localdomain wrote :
>I agree that his tone could use some work, but I agree with a lot of
>he said. My take on this is that despite how many of them feel, Mormons
>are really not that different than anybody else. They're certainly no
>worse than most other groups. On the other hand, they're no better
>either. They're just people.
I guess that I can agree that my tone might get a bit harsh sometimes. The
people that _know_ me, know that, if nothing else, I am honest. Sometimes
brutally so. You will always know what I _really_ think. Maybe I should work
on that?
I think that; even if they are "no worse" than other groups, the fact that
they TRY to put such a rosy face on everything, and deny so many of their
shortcomings, *that* makes them worse. My feeling is that they actually are
worse in many cases because of the culture in which they are raised. The
blindly following, without questioning, the inbreeding, the *young*,
*large*, families. The subservient nature of their relationships (not
restricted to family, but church, business...).
The church control of the government here is defiantly worse than anywhere
else. It's so obvious too, I don't understand why the justice dept. doesn't
step in on that score. I know of a middle school that keeps a list of the
non-mormon people in their district.
pigo
TJ Miller jr
pigo wrote in message <7k0mmm$ip6$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>The church control of the government here is defiantly worse than anywhere
>else.
You've never been in (or near) Saudi Arabia; though I do agree that it is as
pretty obvious around here.
>It's so obvious too, I don't understand why the justice dept. doesn't
>step in on that score.
One has to prove it... also IIRC, most of the state government and
politicians are LDS members around here (AAMOF, I recall that in 1989, only
two of the state legislators were not LDS members.)
So long as personal liberties aren't infringed in any way by the church, I
really couldn't care less what happens vis-a-vis the Church and State.
Special interests are special interests, and the LDS isn't any worse than
the AARP is in Washington DC.
>I know of a middle school that keeps a list of the
>non-mormon people in their district.
Speaking of which, is it true that LDS-ran companies automatically deduct
10% of your paycheck for tithing, and that you have to ask for it to be
stopped? Lots of rumors abound, but evidence is short (though I suspect that
far too much of it actually is true.)
TJ Miller jr
Lucas Vogel wrote in message <3763019F...@home.com>...
> I am also glad, however, that the Church is involved with the state
>government. I am glad that they are very strict with things like alcohol
>and pornography. I hope they make those things even tougher to obtain.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-- Amendment 1 - US Constitution.
This goes for state governments as well, since they had to ratify the
Constitution before gaining statehood.
Alcohol in moderation (which I partake of) is not only non-evil, but is
shown to be part of a healthy diet. Porn is rather useless to me, but if an
adult wants a nude picture of another consenting adult, it is no business of
mine, or yours.
Neither should be accessed by children, this I agree with. OTOH, you're
doing what the liberals are doing - making the government do the job that
parents are supposed to be doing. I prefer that individual liberties be as
free as possible, so long as they do not infringe on the liberties of
another person.
Lucas Vogel
converted after about a year of being in the state. As much as I love
Utah, I am REALLY glad to not be there anymore. Let me throw in my 2
cents on the whole Wasatch experience, if I may.
I transfered into Utah through the Air Force. I wanted to be there
because I would be closer to family. I did not like Mormons, although I
have to admit I knew absolutely NOTHING about them either. I jsut
thought that everyone in Utah was Mormon, and because of the way they
drove, I thought they were all a bunch of assholes.
Eventually I met a girl and fell in love. She taught me about the
church, and the philosophy and beliefs of the church. I found it to be
acceptable and much more clearheaded than I have ever been taught by any
secular branch of ANY church before, and believe you, I've been around
the block church-wise. I accepted the church, got married and was
baptized less than a month later.
While I find the church to be the source of inspiration in everything
that I do, and although I find the most spirituality in the state of
Utah, I find it also to be very stifling. I can understand the things
that non-Mormons complain about-the pressures, etc. There isn't much to
say about it, it isn't going to go away, but I understand how that can
be a pain.
I also find the politics in Utah to be a terrible hypocrisy, even for
church standards. I do not approve or condone of the ridiculous things
those morons are doing in office, and in fact they sort of 'converted'
me into being a Democrat, which is a kind of rarity in that state-a
Mormon Democrat? No way! The politicians in that state are doing a lot
of terrible things, from the Legacy Highway project to destroying the
Attorney General's office-some of it they do, they proclaim, because of
their priesthood. When you hear thing like this, I can only hope that
people won't hear those buffoons spouting all that nonsense-they do it
for their own political gain, not as part of church policy.
government. I am glad that they are very strict with things like alcohol
and pornography. I hope they make those things even tougher to obtain.
to the idiots in the last paragraph, not the Church. Down here in
Phoenix I like the state gov't just fine, could be better but it's
better than UT gov't unfortunately, but the one thing that really is bad
down here is all the pornography and the alcohol. This whole city is
saturated with strip clubs, liquor stores and the like. I found it quite
a culture shock walking into the Smith's down here and seeing the huge
liquor section. The exclusion of these things in the state of Utah
should be warmly welcomed, and should be a welcome change in any
society, not criticized. You are still able to buy liquor up there. You
just have to go to the state-run store. Get over that.
My last comment-this pigo guy talked of Mormons that go to church and
drink all week. This is hypocrisy; however this kind of hypocrisy can be
found in any religion. Unfortunately for us, it is no exception in the
Mormon Church. I know that this is the true Church of Christ. I hope
that anyone who would criticize it would pray about it first and know
what they're talking about before they do. The Mormon church, like any
church is only as good as its worst member, but you can't judge a church
or any other body of people by its worst members; if that were the case
then we are truly a sorry nation, given some of our poor excuses of
citizens.
Lucas Vogel
Lucas Vogel
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
> -- Amendment 1 - US Constitution.
>
> This goes for state governments as well, since they had to ratify the
> Constitution before gaining statehood.
religion? Why is okay for Baptists or Catholics to run for President,
but the Mormon church can't have its religious influence in the
happenings in its own state? Doesn't the Catholic Church control most of
Europe? Since the Mormons are the ones who settled most of this region
anyway, shouldn't they have a say in how it's run?
>
> Alcohol in moderation (which I partake of) is not only non-evil, but is
> shown to be part of a healthy diet.
Alcohol has NEVER, and will never be, part of a healthy diet. I
guarantee it. And even if it had ANY kind of benefit, the gains are
minute.
>Porn is rather useless to me, but if an
> adult wants a nude picture of another consenting adult, it is no business of
> mine, or yours.
>
> Neither should be accessed by children, this I agree with. OTOH, you're
> doing what the liberals are doing - making the government do the job that
> parents are supposed to be doing. I prefer that individual liberties be as
> free as possible, so long as they do not infringe on the liberties of
> another person.
If you've noticed anything lately, you'll see that parent's aren't doing
the job that they should be doing. Lack of standards and morals being
enforced and upheld is the number one cause of the moral decay that
we've been having for the last 4 or 5 decades. And when I say morals, I
don't necessarily mean Mormon standards. Christian standards in general.
Granted, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, I don't have a
problem with that. But the insistence of the seperation of church and
state has become such an overboard affair that people aren't even
allowed to talk about God during a high school Baccalaureate. And the
baccalaureate was INTENDED for that very purpose! What happened to
prayer groups? What happened to Christian rights in general? Aren't
Christians free to practice wherever they choose? Wasn't this country
founded on God?
Individual liberties are still there-everyone is free to do as they
choose. However, allowing people to do whatever they want is never a
good thing. Welcome to the 90's-people don't care about ANYTHING
anymore. Even the simple task of expecting parents to raise their
children doesn't really work anymore. Now more than ever children are
being killed, molested, abused, and neglected, and instead of worrying
about their upbringing we are more concerned about the rights of the
very people that abuse them. We are more concerned with keeping religion
completely out of schools than we are about the children's personal
welfare. I'm not necessarily saying that in order for children's welfare
to be looked after there has to be a church there. But unfortunately
they seem to be the only ones that really CARE about our children
anymore. Our teachers now have to worry about the next Columbine
shooters taking them and their pupils out. Our teachers have to so
tightly watch what they say to the children that they don't even get an
education anymore. The schools are BAD. Nobody wants to help, they just
want to make sure that the first amendment is being strictly enforced
regardless of what's going on. Regardless of what our children are being
taught. God forbid that God himself have any sort of presence at any
government institution.
It has gotten so out of hand anymore than there HAS to be someone
watching over everyone's shoulder. The very things that Republicans
fight for, small government that stays out of their way, has backlashed
into a backwoods country that is suspicious and untrusting of his
neighbor and letting the innocents of this country become its victims.
This is why I am in church, this is why I'm a Democrat. We don't deserve
to be left to ourselves, not anymore. I think that kind of freedom is
something we should take a long, hard look at and work towards EARNING
instead of using as an excuse for when we're in the spotlight.
Steven J. Kile
inbreed, blindly follow, nor are we brainwashed, nor does the Church or the
Prophet pull the strings of elected officials (the Church has no lobbyists), and
the Temples are not used for secret sexual orgies, and last but not least, we
don't practice plural marriage.
Steven J. Kile
Steven J. Kile
nicely. You can preach your hate and prejudice all that you want, but any
person with any common sense will see it for what it is. While your at it, you
might as well be telling everyone that the moon is made of green cheese, I'm
sure that there are some that will believe you.
Steven J. Kile
PangK
>Organization: @Home Network
>Alcohol has NEVER, and will never be, part of a healthy diet. I guarantee it.
And even if it had ANY kind of benefit, the gains are minute.
Try telling that to the French or Italians.
Hate to break the bad news, but it DOES seem that medical science has the proof
that modest use of WINE .. IS actually beneficial. Up to 8 oz with the evening
meal. Sorry if it offends your religious beliefs. But I think the reason for
the prohibition has more to do with prudence for the ABUSE of alcohol than the
idea that moderate use is harmful. Much less ALL use. If the alcoholic beverage
industry depended on me, they'd be screwed.
I think I have had 8 oz in say the last
5 years????
PangK
>the Temples are not used for secret sexual orgies, and last but not least, we
>don't practice plural marriage.
DAMN!!!!!!! And those were the biggies tht made me think of converting. My
wife said I could even have a second wife to help with the housecleaning too!
DAMN DAMN DAMN!
<g>
GMAN
causes. Such as liver disease, ceriasis (sp?), loss of motor skill and
judgement. Moderation usually at first leads to abuse , seems that very few
know when to quit when it comes to alchohol and drugs. Theres always a
boundary that you just keep stratching till you go over the line.
mazu...@localhost.localdomain
>>From: Lucas Vogel <luc...@home.com>
>>Organization: @Home Network
>
>>Alcohol has NEVER, and will never be, part of a healthy diet. I guarantee it.
>And even if it had ANY kind of benefit, the gains are minute.
>
> Try telling that to the French or Italians.
>Hate to break the bad news, but it DOES seem that medical science has the proof
>that modest use of WINE .. IS actually beneficial. Up to 8 oz with the evening
>meal.
Actually, it goes further than that. The original studies were only on
wine, but since then the benefits have been shown to hold for any
alcoholic beverage. There have also been studies where they compared
death rates from any cause for non-drinkers, moderate drinkers, heavy
drinkers, etc. The moderate drinkers had the lowest death rate. It is
true that alcohol use did increase risk for some diseases, but the
decreases in other diseases offset those.
Darrell Fuhriman
> Alcohol has NEVER, and will never be, part of a healthy diet. I
> guarantee it. And even if it had ANY kind of benefit, the gains are
> minute.
I dunno, all those people who didn't get Cholera because they
were drinking beer instead of the water would probably disagree.
> allowed to talk about God during a high school Baccalaureate. And the
> baccalaureate was INTENDED for that very purpose! What happened to
> prayer groups? What happened to Christian rights in general? Aren't
What, pray tell, are Christian Rights? They have the right to
worship as they see fit, in a non-publicly funded forum, just
like everyone else, nothing more, nothing less.
As to prayer groups (at least in schools), well, they were banned
by the legislature in a fit of homophobia -- ironic, isn't it? ;)
> Christians free to practice wherever they choose? Wasn't this country
> founded on God?
Christians are free to practice the no more and no fewer
restrictions than anyone else. As to whether this country was
founded on God, well, no, it wasn't. Many of the founding
fathers were not Christians per se, indeed, Thomas Jefferson
himself was at best a Deist, and possibly an atheist.
> taught. God forbid that God himself have any sort of presence at any
> government institution.
I can agree with that statement, though not in the spirit you
meant it. :)
Darrell
Darrell Fuhriman
> loss of motor skill and judgement. Moderation usually at first
> leads to abuse , seems that very few know when to quit when it
> comes to alchohol and drugs.
Hooey. Millions of people know when to quit when it comes to
alcohol and (other) drugs. The worst offenders I ever saw WRT to
alcohol abuse were those who weren't taught any sort of
responsible behavior, but instead just got "Just don't touch the
stuff!" their whole lives.
Is there any wonder that these people aren't responsible? (Or
rather, have to learn it the hard way.)
Darrell
pigo
TJ Miller jr wrote in message ...
>You've never been in (or near) Saudi Arabia; though I do agree that it is
as
>pretty obvious around here.
I was refering to the US and perhaps other places that profess to *have*
seperation of C & S. Saudi Arabia doesn't pretend to have it.
>One has to prove it... also IIRC, most of the state government and
>politicians are LDS members around here (AAMOF, I recall that in 1989, only
>two of the state legislators were not LDS members.)
You mean like the fact that many critical votes are split exactly along
"membership" lines?
>So long as personal liberties aren't infringed in any way by the church, I
>really couldn't care less what happens vis-a-vis the Church and State.
You mean like turning a public thourofare into a private (lds) park. Voted
on along membership lines (5-2 in favor)? Can I purchase my street and
extend my yard? Based on importance, and # of vehicles I should get mine for
about $10.
With such a dominate presence here, the cult should have to go the extra
mile not to have even a perceived conflict of interest (aka. non
seperation). Much like a sibling has to do when working for a supervising
parent, or white people have to do when dealing with a minority.
>Special interests are special interests, and the LDS isn't any worse than
>the AARP is in Washington DC.
Except that they are not a cult/church.
>>I know of a middle school that keeps a list of the
>>non-mormon people in their district.
>
>Speaking of which, is it true that LDS-ran companies automatically deduct
>10% of your paycheck for tithing, and that you have to ask for it to be
>stopped? Lots of rumors abound, but evidence is short (though I suspect
that
>far too much of it actually is true.)
No it's not true that they take $$.
I have that list, directly from a student "employee" in the attendance
office that ran across it. We're in the process of investigating it and
going public with it. You might want to keep an eye out for it.
pigo
TJ Miller jr
Lucas Vogel wrote in message <376494B7...@home.com>...
>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech,
>> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>> petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>>
>> -- Amendment 1 - US Constitution.
>>
>> This goes for state governments as well, since they had to ratify the
>> Constitution before gaining statehood.
>
>So where's the state of Utah making laws respecting an establishment of
>religion?
You said:
"I am also glad, however, that the Church is involved with the state
government."
Any church that gets involved with any part of government would be doing so
illegally. No church is (or rather, should be) allowed to interfere with any
part of government, or vice versa.
>Why is okay for Baptists or Catholics to run for President,
No one said that it is not okay for a Mormon to run for president.
The Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, was a baptist preacher and pastor
before he ran for office. However, he is not allowed in any way to act in
his capacity as a preacher while holding public office.
>but the Mormon church can't have its religious influence in the
>happenings in its own state?
Happenings, yes. Laws, no.
> Doesn't the Catholic Church control most of
>Europe?
While that may have been true in, say, 1502 AD, that is definately not true
today. Most governments are very secular in nature, especially in Europe,
where agnosticism seems to be the majority religion.
>Since the Mormons are the ones who settled most of this region
>anyway, shouldn't they have a say in how it's run?
The majority, no matter their religion, certainly have a say in how the area
is run, but it cannot conflict with the US Constitution, it cannot
explicitly reflect religious dogma, nor can it deny rights to any minority
or individual without due process or just cause.
>> Alcohol in moderation (which I partake of) is not only non-evil, but is
>> shown to be part of a healthy diet.
>
>Alcohol has NEVER, and will never be, part of a healthy diet.
Look up the benefits of wine and beer on digestion and longevity...any
search engine query will do. A single glass of wine daily is very healthy,
and contains trace minerals that cannot be found outside of a pill or
artificial supplement. I usually have a small glass of red wine after dinner
each night, or a beer or two (two maximum) with friends at weekend dinners.
OTOH, forty glasses of wine or beer each day is highly destructive. I do not
recommend or condone binge drinking, or any of the alcohol abuse that
creates many of the evils we see today.
> I
>guarantee it. And even if it had ANY kind of benefit, the gains are
>minute.
They are small, but where is the sin in moderation?
>> Porn is rather useless to me, but if an
>> adult wants a nude picture of another consenting adult, it is no business
of
>> mine, or yours.
>>
>> Neither should be accessed by children, this I agree with. OTOH, you're
>> doing what the liberals are doing - making the government do the job that
>> parents are supposed to be doing. I prefer that individual liberties be
as
>> free as possible, so long as they do not infringe on the liberties of
>> another person.
>
>If you've noticed anything lately, you'll see that parent's aren't doing
>the job that they should be doing.
...because the government keeps stepping in and offering to do it for them,
or restricts them in some aspects from raising their child as they see fit.
> Lack of standards and morals being
>enforced and upheld is the number one cause of the moral decay that
>we've been having for the last 4 or 5 decades.
And why do you think that is? Serious question here.
> And when I say morals, I
>don't necessarily mean Mormon standards.
Granted.
> Christian standards in general.
>Granted, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, I don't have a
>problem with that. But the insistence of the seperation of church and
>state has become such an overboard affair that people aren't even
>allowed to talk about God during a high school Baccalaureate.
I agree that the schools have become an atheist dogmatic playground, and
that the ACLU does indeed go a bit too far.
OTOH, churches still do not have a right to dictate secular law.
>What happened to
>prayer groups?
They still exist, even in schools.
> What happened to Christian rights in general?
I wasn't aware that Christians had any special rights.
> Aren't
>Christians free to practice wherever they choose?
Last time I looked, yes...but Christianity cannot dictate secular law, much
as you'd like to see it happen.
> Wasn't this country
>founded on God?
Yes, it was. The answer given by non-christians is "Whose God?"
...they have a small point, in that in order to keep the peace in a
multi-cultural society, one must keep the laws secular in nature.
> Individual liberties are still there-everyone is free to do as they
>choose. However, allowing people to do whatever they want is never a
>good thing.
Why not? So long as the restriction is there as per respecting the liberties
of others is in place and enforced, where's the bad thing you envision?
> Welcome to the 90's-people don't care about ANYTHING
>anymore.
Liberalism has done much to bring about this fact. OTOH, the blame still
lies solidly on the parents, and the culture they brought about (and
practiced) collectively.
> Even the simple task of expecting parents to raise their
>children doesn't really work anymore.
Then have the government stop caring for them, playing nanny when all else
fails. If parents realize that their kids (and themselves) are at risk of
starvation if they can't find a job, they'll go to work. If kids discover
that shooting their students might put them in the gas chamber, then all the
sudden being a killer isn't such a cool idea anymore. (This stems from my
belief that a murderer of any age should be executed if convicted.)
> Now more than ever children are
>being killed, molested, abused, and neglected, and instead of worrying
>about their upbringing we are more concerned about the rights of the
>very people that abuse them.
Instead of worrying about their upbringing, we are feeding them (and their
parents) an ever-increasing pile of sewage from the television set, the
theater screen, and the radio. Parents, raised on the early democrat/liberal
concept of godlessness, are reaping what they have sown. However, there is
no way a government can legislate morality. Period. That is what you seem to
be wanting.
> We are more concerned with keeping religion
>completely out of schools than we are about the children's personal
>welfare.
I'm all for allowing religion in the schools - all of the religions
practiced by all families.
[school shootings - snipped for brevity]
> Nobody wants to help, they just
>want to make sure that the first amendment is being strictly enforced
>regardless of what's going on.
I hate to say this, but it is not the fault of the 1st Amendment that
Columbine saw shooters there. And no legislated morality would have
prevented it from happening.
>The very things that Republicans
>fight for, small government that stays out of their way, has backlashed
>into a backwoods country that is suspicious and untrusting of his
>neighbor and letting the innocents of this country become its victims.
????
As a card-carrying Republican, I can certainly tell you that of the two
parties, the GOP values are the closest to those espoused by Christianity.
>This is why I am in church, this is why I'm a Democrat.
All the anti-school prayer, atheism, and anti-religion you deplore is right
there - _In_The_Democrat_Party_!
> We don't deserve
>to be left to ourselves, not anymore.
Liberty is nothing if it is not responsibility. If you aren't willing to
take that responsibility, then kindly pronounce yourself a slave, and bind
yourself and become fully subservient to someone that will take care of you.
If your master is a church, then it is a church...but beware that such
actions only reinforce the atheist argument that your bishop does all of
your thinking for you.
I prefer to love God not as a slave would love his master, but as a child
would love his father. I only hope that you will eventually see the
difference.
TJ Miller jr
GMAN wrote in message <7k32ul$qfc$1...@news.xmission.com>...
>You added the good that some alchohol will bring, but you left out the bad
it
>causes. Such as liver disease, ceriasis (sp?), loss of motor skill and
>judgement.
I think "Cirrhosis of the liver" is what you were looking for.
>Moderation usually at first leads to abuse ,
"usually" isn't quite right. Much of it has to do with culture - kids here
learn that booze is for 'parties' and binge drinking. European kids can
drink alcohol from the time they can reach the bar and ask for it - yet the
majority do not become drunks...they are usually raised to think of alcohol
as something that goes with dinner.
> seems that very few
>know when to quit when it comes to alchohol and drugs.
The latter half I can agree with - drugs do things to the mind (most of
them, anyway) that destroys judgement completely. Alcohol OTOH, in
moderation, doesn't do any such thing to the average man.
TJ Miller jr
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <37649D68...@sisna.com>...
>Unequivocally No, No, No, and Mormons don't have "horns" either,
I was just curious about the rumors (some of which has occurred in the
past.) There are numerous urban legends I hear about (and no, I know you lot
don't have horns), and many sound quite convincing. I also wanted to hear
the rest of these rumors and UL's.
> nor does the Church or the
>Prophet pull the strings of elected officials (the Church has no
lobbyists),
in 1989, only two legislators in the Utah Legislature were not mormon...and
most were bishops or better...who needs lobbyists in that environment? ;-)
OTOH, I like Hatch. (I like my former House representative from Arkansas
better though... Asa Hutchinson.)
> and
>the Temples are not used for secret sexual orgies,
<kidding>
Really? Well, there goes the only argument I had for joining up...
</kidding>
Okay, on a serious note - I've sat through a few Sunday meetings in the
wards (okay, so I got curious), and it's pretty run-of-the-mill. What goes
on in the Temples isn't any bother of mine, so long as no one gets hurt...
whatever makes you feel spiritually better.
> and last but not least, we
>don't practice plural marriage.
Much as I hate to say this, polygamy still does occur around here (that part
I mentioned about far too much of it being true...)
Yes, I know that official LDS policy is that plural marriages are now
verboten, but newspaper stories keep cropping up (like the Kingston trial)
of plural marriages (mostly of the abuses that occur in a plural marriage.)
pigo
>Alcohol has NEVER, and will never be, part of a healthy diet. I
>guarantee it. And even if it had ANY kind of benefit, the gains are
>minute.
Do you live in a cave? There are plenty of studies that prove that it is
benificial in moderation. Would you (try to) argue that alchohol is
responsible for more deaths than religion?
>If you've noticed anything lately, you'll see that parent's aren't doing
>the job that they should be doing. Lack of standards and morals being
>enforced and upheld is the number one cause of the moral decay that
>we've been having for the last 4 or 5 decades. And when I say morals, I
>don't necessarily mean Mormon standards. Christian standards in general.
Christian standards are only better in that they were at least thought up
over the course of thousands of years as a *guideline*. As way that we might
want to live our lives so that we might have a certain amount of comfort and
reliability, as opposed to a situation where; only the strong survive, get
what you can get, murder for minor grievances and so on.
The mormons on the otherhand were just thought up 150 yrs. ago, to make a
guy rich and make ulimited numbers of young girls available to him (and
other men that would sign on to the scam for 10% of their income). I
garauntee that if the mormon lawyers could come up with a case for polygamy,
and why it was illegal for the US govt. to insist on the mormons dropping it
from their religion to gain statehood, the godphone would be ringing off the
hook with the message that it was again ok to practice.
BTW: How do you square dropping one of the foundations of your religion to
get what you want?
>Granted, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, I don't have a
>problem with that. But the insistence of the seperation of church and
>state has become such an overboard affair that people aren't even
>allowed to talk about God during a high school Baccalaureate.
Is the school in question public? Where views on god might differ from
person to person, or even taxpayer to taxpayer. Or private, where they are
free to do what they want? For my tax dollars I prefer that young mind are
taught reality rather than fantasy. They are free to talk about whatever
they want amoung themselves, however.
And the
>baccalaureate was INTENDED for that very purpose! What happened to
>prayer groups? What happened to Christian rights in general? Aren't
>Christians free to practice wherever they choose? Wasn't this country
>founded on God?
Maybe. Might as well have been founded in the name of gnomes, fairies, or
leprechans!
(childcentric rant snipped)
The answer is simple. There are too many people on the planet. Do you think
"Columbine" would have happened if there were 300-600 students there with
the same amount of adult attention? The problem in this country, as I see
it, is that having a herd of yardapes has been blown into some save all,
cure all, must do, and has been subsidized by the govt. to maintain a growth
economy.
It's too bad, but my reaction to the problem is to "not give a shit". I
haven't contributed to the problem. People tell me to save H20, recycle for
their childruuuuuns future, have a rock lawn, close off "wilderness areas"
and so on. Bullshit, have less kids! It will take care of itself!
How do you pick who, you ask? Simple, make the childed bear the majority of
the burden. If morals and parental involvement are the key to raising
responsible adults(and I believe they are) then so be it. Morals don't have
to be enforced by the threat of burning in hell, for the intelligent at
least, but as a way for us all to get along. Present child rearing as the
pain in the ass that it is, and make it clear that once you spawn, it's your
problem. Those that want to band together on their own and donate charity
work are welcome, LEAVE ME OUT OF IT!
OK. That's enough from me for now :-)
pigo
pigo
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <3764A0D6...@sisna.com>...
>I don't have to dispute them, the absurdity of your points, will do quite
>nicely. You can preach your hate and prejudice all that you want, but any
>person with any common sense will see it for what it is. While your at it,
you
>might as well be telling everyone that the moon is made of green cheese,
I'm
>sure that there are some that will believe you.
>
>Steven J. Kile
As for the moon I couldn't tell you. I believe that an associate of Joseph
Smith and early church leader did publish a paper detailing his visit to the
moon and described it's inhabitants and their clothing. Maybe you should ask
him!
pigo
TJ Miller jr
pigo wrote in message <7k3f4i$fnb$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>You've never been in (or near) Saudi Arabia; though I do agree that it is
>>pretty obvious around here.
>
>
>I was refering to the US and perhaps other places that profess to *have*
>seperation of C & S. Saudi Arabia doesn't pretend to have it.
ah.
>>One has to prove it... also IIRC, most of the state government and
>>politicians are LDS members around here (AAMOF, I recall that in 1989,
only
>>two of the state legislators were not LDS members.)
>
>You mean like the fact that many critical votes are split exactly along
>"membership" lines?
Votes in which political body?
>>So long as personal liberties aren't infringed in any way by the church, I
>>really couldn't care less what happens vis-a-vis the Church and State.
>
>You mean like turning a public thourofare into a private (lds) park.
Who owns the property surrounding the street (as in, all of the property?)
If closing it doesn't interfere with anyone getting to their property (I'm
fairly sure it doesn't), then where's the gripe?
How much are they paying for it? If it is consistient with property values
in that part of town, and the money is given directly to the city budget,
then where's the gripe?
Is it truly a private, no-tresspassers type of park, or will it be like
Memory Park, a quiet place where anyone can walk about and enjoy a natural
setting?
> Voted
>on along membership lines (5-2 in favor)? Can I purchase my street and
>extend my yard?
Actually, yes you can in most states - so long as:
1) You own all of the real property (and all rights - water/mineral/etc -
attached to that property) surrounding the section of street you want to
buy.
2) The closing of that street does not interfere with right-of-way or the
access rights of any properties adjoining yours. (IOW - no one needs that
particular road to get to his or her own property.)
3) You can pay the township/city/whatever a fair and consistent purchase
price for that bit of property (IOW - pay the fair city-assessed value per
acre for that neighborhood.)
> Based on importance, and # of vehicles I should get mine for
>about $10.
Your neighbors would probably get a bit angry though, depending on the need
to access their own driveways.
>With such a dominate presence here, the cult should have to go the extra
>mile not to have even a perceived conflict of interest (aka. non
>seperation).
I agree, but legally, they don't have to make any such appearance. They only
have to follow the laws, much like the rest of us do.
>>Special interests are special interests, and the LDS isn't any worse than
>>the AARP is in Washington DC.
>
>
>Except that they are not a cult/church.
An organization is an organization. I don't much like HCI lobbying lawmakers
to restrict my rights as a law-abiding gun owner. I would be equally
appalled at anyone else trying to restrict the rights and freedoms of any
law-abiding citizen, for whatever reason. If the LDS church tries doing such
a thing, then I would actively oppose them...as it is, they are not, at
least to my knowledge...and I keep rather current on the news these days.
[middle schools keeping lists]
>I have that list, directly from a student "employee" in the attendance
>office that ran across it. We're in the process of investigating it and
>going public with it. You might want to keep an eye out for it.
I will. It should be interesting to see how that would come about, if the
school is a public one.
pigo
TJ Miller jr wrote in message ...
(snip)
>Votes in which political body?
The one to "sell the street", SLC city council.
>>You mean like turning a public thourofare into a private (lds) park.
>
>Who owns the property surrounding the street (as in, all of the property?)
>If closing it doesn't interfere with anyone getting to their property (I'm
>fairly sure it doesn't), then where's the gripe?
They own the property on both sides of the street, they own the mall on one
corner of one end of the street but not the other. It's a MAJOR downtown
street, used every day by loads of non-mormons and mormons alike. We're not
talking about a back alley here.
>How much are they paying for it? If it is consistient with property values
>in that part of town, and the money is given directly to the city budget,
>then where's the gripe?
$ 8 million I think. It's a public street, again, A MAJOR ONE. Being gobbled
up by a non-tax paying entity, included now are restrictions that are not
imposed on any other public park. I would rather the city close the street
and maintain an actual public park there.
>Is it truly a private, no-tresspassers type of park, or will it be like
>Memory Park, a quiet place where anyone can walk about and enjoy a natural
>setting?
Supposedly public as long as you toe the line. The mormons know how to bide
their time. I give it 10 to 15 years to be completely assimilated. I also
feel an attempt at cornering the olympic park market angle coming on.
Without living in the middle of it, you cannot know how coniving and
deceiving they can be.
>Your neighbors would probably get a bit angry though, depending on the need
>to access their own driveways.
You mean like the people that need to access downtown? I could fit a fairly
large chunk in between driveways. They'ld just have to go around. That's
what they're doing downtown.
>An organization is an organization. I don't much like HCI lobbying
lawmakers
>to restrict my rights as a law-abiding gun owner. I would be equally
>appalled at anyone else trying to restrict the rights and freedoms of any
>law-abiding citizen, for whatever reason. If the LDS church tries doing
such
>a thing, then I would actively oppose them...as it is, they are not, at
>least to my knowledge...and I keep rather current on the news these days.
You've got to be kidding. They actively try to restrict everyday life. The
liquor laws are probably the most blatent. They have their [brown} noses in
just about everything we do here.
>I will. It should be interesting to see how that would come about, if the
>school is a public one.
It is.
pigo
Steven J. Kile
I will have a wife for every occasion, one to do the cleaning, one for cooking,
one for every day of the week to make love to, and several to go out and earn
money". He then asked her, "honey which wife do you want to be?" Her reply was a
beauty, "I'll be your ex-wife!" He never brought the subject up again.
Steven J. Kile
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>He then asked her, "honey which wife do you want to be?" Her reply was a
beauty, "I'll be your ex-wife!" He never brought the subject up again.
The nmere thought of paying 200 EX-wives ALIMONY and child support is
too gruesome to contemplate!
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>You added the good that some alchohol will bring, but you left out the bad it
causes. Such as liver disease, ceriasis (sp?), loss of motor skill and
judgement.
Well the thing is that those problem with the liver etc occur ONLY when
alcohol is abused.
>Moderation usually at first leads to abuse, seems that very few know when to
quit when it comes to alchohol and drugs.
No I think the drunk is rare. Most people know when to quit.
>Theres always a boundary that you just keep stratching till you go over the
line.
Well, let's see, I am over 50. I haven't gone over that line yet. Neither
has my wife. NONE of my kids drinks.My parents didn't drink. My brother and his
family don't drink. I think it depends. If you can't handle alcohol don't drink
it./ Drugs are another matter.
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>Actually, it goes further than that. The original studies were only on
>wine, but since then the benefits have been shown to hold for any
>alcoholic beverage.
And alcohol is even prescribed by some doctors for certain intestinal
problems.
Darrell Fuhriman
> family don't drink. I think it depends. If you can't handle
> alcohol don't drink it./ Drugs are another matter.
Drugs aren't another matter, as I personally don't see the
difference between say marijuana and alcohol. Alcohol is
physically addictive, whereas many other popular recreational
drugs are not. Not to mention the impossibility of overdosing on
pot as opposed to alcohol.
Darrell
Steven J. Kile
TJ Miller jr wrote:
> in 1989, only two legislators in the Utah Legislature were not mormon...and
> most were bishops or better...who needs lobbyists in that environment? ;-)
>
You have to put it into perspective, people vote for people, who represent their
viewpoints. If I lived in South Africa, I doubt very seriously that I would get
elected because I am white. Contrastingly, I doubt very seriously that an
individual who is pro abortion, pro homosexual, and liberal through and through
would get elected in Utah. Massachusetts, most definitely, Utah very unlikely.
> Okay, on a serious note - I've sat through a few Sunday meetings in the
> wards (okay, so I got curious), and it's pretty run-of-the-mill. What goes
> on in the Temples isn't any bother of mine, so long as no one gets hurt...
> whatever makes you feel spiritually better.
>
Let's put it this way, I've never been to a more spiritual place than inside a
Temple.
> Much as I hate to say this, polygamy still does occur around here (that part
> I mentioned about far too much of it being true...)
>
> Yes, I know that official LDS policy is that plural marriages are now
> verboten, but newspaper stories keep cropping up (like the Kingston trial)
> of plural marriages (mostly of the abuses that occur in a plural marriage.)
I'm sure that there is polygamy still being practiced, but not by Mormons. The
Lord has made it perfectly clear that plural marriage is not to be practiced,
and if there were a Mormon who did, well, he or she wouldn't be a Mormon very
long.
Steven J. Kile
nothing short of total and complete disarmament of the people.
The shooting at the Family History Center and at the high school in Littleton
rattled the Church leadership somewhat, but they are very cautious to not do
anything that is contrary to the law or to the Constitution or to violate the
civil liberties of individuals. As a matter of fact, I wrote President Hinckley
expressing my concerns and views on this exact issue.
Steven J. Kile
the mind when you don't!
Steven J. Kile
religion. If the grain that was used in the production of alcohol was used to
feed people, that food alone would sustain three to four times as many people as
the number currently on the world. More people have died from starvation, than
the combined totals of all the wars of the world!
GMAN
>
>TJ Miller jr wrote in message ...
>
>(snip)
>>Votes in which political body?
>
>The one to "sell the street", SLC city council.
>
>
>>>You mean like turning a public thourofare into a private (lds) park.
>>
>>Who owns the property surrounding the street (as in, all of the property?)
>>If closing it doesn't interfere with anyone getting to their property (I'm
>>fairly sure it doesn't), then where's the gripe?
>
>
>They own the property on both sides of the street, they own the mall on one
>corner of one end of the street but not the other. It's a MAJOR downtown
>street, used every day by loads of non-mormons and mormons alike. We're not
>talking about a back alley here.
Well SLC screwed up main street up the second they put in light rail, so i
find nothing wrong with capping off the top of the street with a green area
since noone is gonna be driving up between 4th south and south temple anyways.
If you do, then you are crazy and playing chicken with rail cars.
>>How much are they paying for it? If it is consistient with property values
>>in that part of town, and the money is given directly to the city budget,
>>then where's the gripe?
>
>
>$ 8 million I think. It's a public street, again, A MAJOR ONE. Being gobbled
>up by a non-tax paying entity, included now are restrictions that are not
>imposed on any other public park. I would rather the city close the street
>and maintain an actual public park there.
Actual the LDS chuched owned the land long before they sold it to the city
long ago. Hmm, wait a minute, if there hadnt been a LDS church present here,
there wouldnt be a city.... HHHMMMM.
>>Is it truly a private, no-tresspassers type of park, or will it be like
>>Memory Park, a quiet place where anyone can walk about and enjoy a natural
>>setting?
>
>
>Supposedly public as long as you toe the line. The mormons know how to bide
>their time. I give it 10 to 15 years to be completely assimilated. I also
>feel an attempt at cornering the olympic park market angle coming on.
>Without living in the middle of it, you cannot know how coniving and
>deceiving they can be.
Whats the matter, are you one of those hippy wannabee drummers from liberty
park? Dont have enough places to go and bang a bong????
>
>>Your neighbors would probably get a bit angry though, depending on the need
>>to access their own driveways.
>
>
>You mean like the people that need to access downtown? I could fit a fairly
>large chunk in between driveways. They'ld just have to go around. That's
>what they're doing downtown.
>
>>An organization is an organization. I don't much like HCI lobbying
>lawmakers
>>to restrict my rights as a law-abiding gun owner. I would be equally
>>appalled at anyone else trying to restrict the rights and freedoms of any
>>law-abiding citizen, for whatever reason. If the LDS church tries doing
>such
>>a thing, then I would actively oppose them...as it is, they are not, at
>>least to my knowledge...and I keep rather current on the news these days.
>
>
>You've got to be kidding. They actively try to restrict everyday life. The
>liquor laws are probably the most blatent. They have their [brown} noses in
>just about everything we do here.
Get over it, California actually has stricter laws when it comes to smoking.
Less on drinking but you act like utahs laws are the most strict.
try living in the deep south.
GMAN
>
>Steven J. Kile wrote in message <3764A0D6...@sisna.com>...
>>I don't have to dispute them, the absurdity of your points, will do quite
>>nicely. You can preach your hate and prejudice all that you want, but any
>>person with any common sense will see it for what it is. While your at it,
>you
>>might as well be telling everyone that the moon is made of green cheese,
>>sure that there are some that will believe you.
>>
>>Steven J. Kile
>
>
>Smith and early church leader did publish a paper detailing his visit to the
>moon and described it's inhabitants and their clothing. Maybe you should ask
>him!
>
Your a freaking idiot!!!!!!!!!!
>pigo
>
>
Lucas Vogel
> Do you live in a cave? There are plenty of studies that prove that it is
> benificial in moderation. Would you (try to) argue that alchohol is
> responsible for more deaths than religion?
Show me the numbers-they probably match.
> >If you've noticed anything lately, you'll see that parent's aren't doing
> >the job that they should be doing. Lack of standards and morals being
> >enforced and upheld is the number one cause of the moral decay that
> >we've been having for the last 4 or 5 decades. And when I say morals, I
> >don't necessarily mean Mormon standards. Christian standards in general.
>
> Christian standards are only better in that they were at least thought up
> over the course of thousands of years as a *guideline*. As way that we might
> want to live our lives so that we might have a certain amount of comfort and
> reliability, as opposed to a situation where; only the strong survive, get
> what you can get, murder for minor grievances and so on.
> The mormons on the otherhand were just thought up 150 yrs. ago, to make a
> guy rich and make ulimited numbers of young girls available to him (and
> other men that would sign on to the scam for 10% of their income). I
> garauntee that if the mormon lawyers could come up with a case for polygamy,
> and why it was illegal for the US govt. to insist on the mormons dropping it
> from their religion to gain statehood, the godphone would be ringing off the
> hook with the message that it was again ok to practice.
> BTW: How do you square dropping one of the foundations of your religion to
> get what you want?
Puh-leeze.
> >Granted, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, I don't have a
> >problem with that. But the insistence of the seperation of church and
> >state has become such an overboard affair that people aren't even
> >allowed to talk about God during a high school Baccalaureate.
>
> Is the school in question public? Where views on god might differ from
> person to person, or even taxpayer to taxpayer. Or private, where they are
> free to do what they want? For my tax dollars I prefer that young mind are
> taught reality rather than fantasy. They are free to talk about whatever
> they want amoung themselves, however.
>
> And the
> >baccalaureate was INTENDED for that very purpose! What happened to
> >prayer groups? What happened to Christian rights in general? Aren't
> >Christians free to practice wherever they choose? Wasn't this country
> >founded on God?
>
> Maybe. Might as well have been founded in the name of gnomes, fairies, or
> leprechans!
>
Okay...?
>
> The answer is simple. There are too many people on the planet. Do you think
> "Columbine" would have happened if there were 300-600 students there with
> the same amount of adult attention? The problem in this country, as I see
> it, is that having a herd of yardapes has been blown into some save all,
> cure all, must do, and has been subsidized by the govt. to maintain a growth
> economy.
> It's too bad, but my reaction to the problem is to "not give a shit". I
> haven't contributed to the problem. People tell me to save H20, recycle for
> their childruuuuuns future, have a rock lawn, close off "wilderness areas"
> and so on. Bullshit, have less kids! It will take care of itself!
> How do you pick who, you ask? Simple, make the childed bear the majority of
> the burden. If morals and parental involvement are the key to raising
> responsible adults(and I believe they are) then so be it. Morals don't have
> to be enforced by the threat of burning in hell, for the intelligent at
> least, but as a way for us all to get along. Present child rearing as the
> pain in the ass that it is, and make it clear that once you spawn, it's your
> problem. Those that want to band together on their own and donate charity
> work are welcome, LEAVE ME OUT OF IT!
I think the Columbine thing is going to happen, again and again and
again. It's probably going to get to the point to where it's as common
as the other crimes we have going on nowadays. I agree with your
'morals' sentence, but if you look at the Mormon religion in particular(
and I can tell by what you're writing in here, you're REALLY on to us,
*oh my heck* ) you'll see that the morals given to us by the Church are
the same morals that Christianity as a whole has adopted from day one.
The part I think you don't understand is, it took an act of God for God
to start showing his people what he expected from them. In the course of
the last two centuries, it seems as though our 'ancient' religions seem
to forget now and then.
But back to the child rearing part. What do we do? How do we solve this
mess? How do we all come to agreement on it? How do we find common
ground? Morals would be a good start, we at least agree on that, I
think. There is no easy solution. Only a lot of work that nobody seems
willing to do, that's about all I see.
Lucas
Lucas Vogel
TJ Miller jr wrote:
>
> Lucas Vogel wrote in message <376494B7...@home.com>...
> >> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> >> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech,
> >> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> >> petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> >>
> >> -- Amendment 1 - US Constitution.
> >>
> >> This goes for state governments as well, since they had to ratify the
> >> Constitution before gaining statehood.
> >
> >So where's the state of Utah making laws respecting an establishment of
> >religion?
>
> You said:
>
> "I am also glad, however, that the Church is involved with the state
> government."
>
> Any church that gets involved with any part of government would be doing so
> illegally. No church is (or rather, should be) allowed to interfere with any
> part of government, or vice versa.
Show me how the church interferes. The only interference I see are the
idiot antics of the governor and his cronies. I did see something where
the church was paying for a lawyer to argue for stricter alcohol
regulation in the state. But the church, just like so many other
organizations in this country, has become a special interest group, just
like the NRA, the Christian Coalition, etc.. And just like any other
special interest group they do what's best in their own special
interests.
> >Why is okay for Baptists or Catholics to run for President,
>
> No one said that it is not okay for a Mormon to run for president.
> The Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, was a baptist preacher and pastor
> before he ran for office. However, he is not allowed in any way to act in
> his capacity as a preacher while holding public office.
He may not act out as a preacher, but I'm pretty sure the Baptists in
general can look forward to having their best interests in mind when he
does his job. That should sound pretty familiar by now.
> >but the Mormon church can't have its religious influence in the
> >happenings in its own state?
>
> Happenings, yes. Laws, no.
Why not?
> > Doesn't the Catholic Church control most of
> >Europe?
>
> While that may have been true in, say, 1502 AD, that is definately not true
> today. Most governments are very secular in nature, especially in Europe,
> where agnosticism seems to be the majority religion.
Take a look at what they own in Europe. I'd say that Catholicism is very
secular in nature as well, but they still have a lot of
wealth/power/influence in Europe.
> >Since the Mormons are the ones who settled most of this region
> >anyway, shouldn't they have a say in how it's run?
>
> The majority, no matter their religion, certainly have a say in how the area
> is run, but it cannot conflict with the US Constitution, it cannot
> explicitly reflect religious dogma, nor can it deny rights to any minority
> or individual without due process or just cause.
I'll agree to that, the only problem is the will of the majority. But
overruling the majority's decision and making supermajorities( wasn't it
Prop 13 with the wilderness bill?) isn't exactly fair either, though I
don't think you were implying that.
You're right. There HAS been such a surge in government parent agencies
springing up all over the country, hasn't there.
If that is liberalism, then I agree with you, it really IS wrong.
> > Even the simple task of expecting parents to raise their
> >children doesn't really work anymore.
>
> Then have the government stop caring for them, playing nanny when all else
> fails. If parents realize that their kids (and themselves) are at risk of
> starvation if they can't find a job, they'll go to work. If kids discover
> that shooting their students might put them in the gas chamber, then all the
> sudden being a killer isn't such a cool idea anymore. (This stems from my
> belief that a murderer of any age should be executed if convicted.)
>
> > Now more than ever children are
> >being killed, molested, abused, and neglected, and instead of worrying
> >about their upbringing we are more concerned about the rights of the
> >very people that abuse them.
>
> Instead of worrying about their upbringing, we are feeding them (and their
> parents) an ever-increasing pile of sewage from the television set, the
> theater screen, and the radio. Parents, raised on the early democrat/liberal
> concept of godlessness, are reaping what they have sown. However, there is
> no way a government can legislate morality. Period. That is what you seem to
> be wanting.
Couldn't agree more. With the moral legislation, however, I don't
necessarily agree that the government should be governing morality. I
don't think they should let it backslide either. And nobody else seems
to be exactly volunteering either.
> > We are more concerned with keeping religion
> >completely out of schools than we are about the children's personal
> >welfare.
>
> I'm all for allowing religion in the schools - all of the religions
> practiced by all families.
>
> [school shootings - snipped for brevity]
>
> > Nobody wants to help, they just
> >want to make sure that the first amendment is being strictly enforced
> >regardless of what's going on.
>
> I hate to say this, but it is not the fault of the 1st Amendment that
> Columbine saw shooters there. And no legislated morality would have
> prevented it from happening.
>
> >The very things that Republicans
> >fight for, small government that stays out of their way, has backlashed
> >into a backwoods country that is suspicious and untrusting of his
> >neighbor and letting the innocents of this country become its victims.
>
> ????
>
> As a card-carrying Republican, I can certainly tell you that of the two
> parties, the GOP values are the closest to those espoused by Christianity.
>
> >This is why I am in church, this is why I'm a Democrat.
>
> All the anti-school prayer, atheism, and anti-religion you deplore is right
> there - _In_The_Democrat_Party_!
The bigotry, homophobia(a whole other topic I won't go into detail
about), hypocrisy and all-around abuse of power is right there -
_In_The_Republican_Party! Anti-school prayer I can live with, atheism
and anti-religion isn't so great either. I don't even think much of a
lot of the Democratic leadership either. But the local leaders are
terrific-especially in Utah. The Utah Democrats are who I'm rooting for;
nationally both sides look pretty sorry. But in Utah I REALLY think the
Dem party is quality. Maybe its' only because the Republicans make them
look so GOOD. Who knows.
> > We don't deserve
> >to be left to ourselves, not anymore.
That was a dumb thing for me to say, but I was on my own little mental
roll and kind of went crazy.
> Liberty is nothing if it is not responsibility. If you aren't willing to
Good comment.
> take that responsibility, then kindly pronounce yourself a slave, and bind
> yourself and become fully subservient to someone that will take care of you.
> If your master is a church, then it is a church...but beware that such
> actions only reinforce the atheist argument that your bishop does all of
> your thinking for you.
My bishop doesn't do my thinking for me.
> I prefer to love God not as a slave would love his master, but as a child
> would love his father. I only hope that you will eventually see the
> difference.
I'm already there, and very close to him too. I could be a better child,
but we're close.
Lucas
PangK
>>Smith and early church leader did publish a paper detailing his visit to the
>>moon and described it's inhabitants and their clothing. Maybe you should ask
>>him!
Yeah who was that?
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>Drugs aren't another matter, as I personally don't see the difference between
say marijuana and alcohol. Alcohol is
physically addictive, whereas many other popular recreational drugs are not.
Not to mention the impossibility of overdosing on
pot as opposed to alcohol.
Well you have a point on POT. BUT..
it still has a horrid chemical effect on the body as does Tobacco. Pot IS
addictive.
TJ Miller jr
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <37657331...@sisna.com>...
>That's a no-brainer, of course alcohol is responsible for more deaths than
>religion.
You must be kidding...
```````````````````````````````
Roman Imperialism
The Jewish revolt of 75AD
The Crusades
The Inquisition
The Jihads
The Protestant Revolutions
The Thirty Years' War
The Hundred Years' War
WWI
WWII
The Holocaust (or 'Shoah')
Stalin's purges
Mao's "Cultural Revolution"
Various terrorist activities
Waco and David Koresh
...shall I go on?
I defy you to produce any statistic that proves alcohol to be anywhere close
in producing the number of fatalities.
>If the grain that was used in the production of alcohol was used to
>feed people,
...they'd most likely not see much improvement. Only a small fraction of US
grain produce actually gets fermented and distilled into alcohol.
>that food alone would sustain three to four times as many people as
>the number currently on the world.
Statistics and sources, please.
> More people have died from starvation, than
>the combined totals of all the wars of the world!
Again, cite your sources.
pigo
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <37657331...@sisna.com>...
>That's a no-brainer, of course alcohol is responsible for more deaths than
>religion.
I think not. You have to add up all the people from just about every war
ever fought, and all the people from the ethinic cleansings over the
centuries. Then the ones from almost every terrorist act and movement,
that's alot of people.
If the grain that was used in the production of alcohol was used to
>feed people, that food alone would sustain three to four times as many
people as
>the number currently on the world.
So what. Even if true, I chose to spend my $ on alchohol. I don't try to
limit your desire to feed "starving" people. That's the whole point! I could
argue that if mormons didn't have so many kids, they could be of much more
help to the disadvantaged.
Here, I'll respond for you.............."Yeah, but......."
pigo
mazu...@localhost.localdomain
>That's a no-brainer, of course alcohol is responsible for more deaths than
>feed people, that food alone would sustain three to four times as many people as
>the combined totals of all the wars of the world!
You're an idiot. The same reasoning says that beef production kills
people, simply since the resources to produce a pound of beef can produce
many more pounds of grain, etc.
And having lots of kids kills people, since they consume the food that
would keep others alive.
So we need to outlaw beef and excessive procreation. And millions of other
things as well.
Mike
--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@atmos.met.utah.edu
pigo
Lucas Vogel wrote in message <3765C078...@home.com>...
(snipped)
>> BTW: How do you square dropping one of the foundations of your religion
to
>> get what you want?
>Puh-leeze.
Please expand that thought. I don't get what you mean.
>I think the Columbine thing is going to happen, again and again and
>again. It's probably going to get to the point to where it's as common
>as the other crimes we have going on nowadays. I agree with your
>'morals' sentence, but if you look at the Mormon religion in particular(
>and I can tell by what you're writing in here, you're REALLY on to us,
>*oh my heck* ) you'll see that the morals given to us by the Church are
>the same morals that Christianity as a whole has adopted from day one.
>The part I think you don't understand is, it took an act of God for God
>to start showing his people what he expected from them. In the course of
>the last two centuries, it seems as though our 'ancient' religions seem
>to forget now and then.
>But back to the child rearing part. What do we do? How do we solve this
>mess? How do we all come to agreement on it? How do we find common
>ground? Morals would be a good start, we at least agree on that, I
>think. There is no easy solution. Only a lot of work that nobody seems
>willing to do, that's about all I see.
I agree with you there. I do think it will become more common too. We
probably agree on lots of things. I just don't need, what I am convinced is
made up to make some people rich and others subservient, the threat of a
pissed off god hanging over my head to make me do the right thing. Sometimes
I might even do things that aren't the right thing (NO!), but I am going to
the same place you are; In the ground to be eaten by worms. Our actions
might get us there sooner or later, but that's it.
Where I really differ is in inflicting what I believe on others. I argue the
points but would never try to force or legislate what you should do. IMO,
your weaknesses give me an advantage (not trying to be combative, just the
way I see it). Just because I don't like kids, I would never advocate forced
abortions (maybe as part of the penal system) , I wouldn't try to legislate
that YOU ski most days in the winter and fish most days in the summer just
because that is what I like to do. I wouldn't even try to force you to
travel the world (well all of N. America and alot of Europe at least), it's
just not for some people. So why can't the mormon church do the same. Power
is a seductive mistress, isn't it?
I'm not sure what to do in the child rearing part. A good start would be to
admit and teach the fact that there are probably more people that should not
have than have children. Morals (personal responsibility and accountability
would be my choice of words) would be a good thing to start with; first to
the parents then to there children. Take all this single parenthood,
daycare, whoa is me crybaby shit and tell them "Hey! It's a civilized
society, and we can try to help, but we don't owe you anything. You made
your bed.........". If people like you and Kile want to take that on, more
power to you....if you think it's you "moral" responsibility.
This is getting kinda long. I don't want to give you too much to digest. I
am enjoying the conversation though!
pigo
pigo
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <37656FBA...@sisna.com>...
>You know you really should quit smoking that whacky weed! It does wonders
for
>the mind when you don't!
Your not liking it doesn't make it not true. Check around, if your bishop
will let you, you'll find out. It's alot like the Meadows Massacre and the
Salamander Letter. They'ld rather those things not get out to the flock.
pigo
pigo
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <37656BA8...@sisna.com>...
(snip)
>Let's put it this way, I've never been to a more spiritual place than
inside a
>Temple.
OHHhhhh!!!! You should try a drunk mormon 18 yr. old on her first night away
from her bishop. Makes it damn hard to find a virgin but it's pretty damn
spiritual I can garauntee you!!!!
pigo
Steven J. Kile
into the production of alcohol around the world. 18 children under the age of
five die in this world from starvation every minute, that is 9,460,800 young
children every year. That does not include people older than five who die of
starvation. Contrast that to WWI which had less than 9,000,000 service
casualties during the entire war, which by the way was not a religious war,
along with others that you listed. Last I counted 9,000,000 people were not the
victims of religious death last year. If 9,460,800 children were fed by the
wasted produce that went into the production of alcohol for one year, that is a
substantial number of lives saved.
If we could shrink the Earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people.
With all existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look like this:
There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western Hemisphere (North
and South) and 8 Africans.
51 would be female; 49 would be male
70 would be non-white; 30 white.
70 would be non-Christian; 30 Christian.
50% of the entire world's wealth would be in the hands of only 6 people and all
6 would be citizens of the United States.
80 would live in substandard housing.
70 would be unable to read.
50 would suffer from malnutrition.
1 would be near death, 1 would be near giving birth
Only 1 would have a college education.
No one would own a computer
If you want the sources go do a search, I'm not going to do the work for you.
TJ Miller jr wrote:
> Steven J. Kile wrote in message <37657331...@sisna.com>...
> >That's a no-brainer, of course alcohol is responsible for more deaths than
> >religion.
>
> You must be kidding...
> ```````````````````````````````
> Roman Imperialism
> The Jewish revolt of 75AD
> The Crusades
> The Inquisition
> The Jihads
> The Protestant Revolutions
> The Thirty Years' War
> The Hundred Years' War
> WWI
> WWII
> The Holocaust (or 'Shoah')
> Stalin's purges
> Mao's "Cultural Revolution"
> Various terrorist activities
> Waco and David Koresh
>
> ...shall I go on?
>
> I defy you to produce any statistic that proves alcohol to be anywhere close
> in producing the number of fatalities.
>
> >If the grain that was used in the production of alcohol was used to
> >feed people,
>
> ...they'd most likely not see much improvement. Only a small fraction of US
> grain produce actually gets fermented and distilled into alcohol.
>
> >that food alone would sustain three to four times as many people as
> >the number currently on the world.
>
> Statistics and sources, please.
>
> > More people have died from starvation, than
> >the combined totals of all the wars of the world!
>
> Again, cite your sources.
pigo
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <37669BB7...@sisna.com>...
>Actually, a staggering amount of grain, grapes, corn, etc., etc. finds it
way
>into the production of alcohol around the world. 18 children under the age
of
>five die in this world from starvation every minute, that is 9,460,800
young
>children every year.
Me first! Me first! You are such a fucking moron (intended spelling; fyi).
Do you think the rest of the world is gonna fall for the same double talk
that you cultists do? The topic was _killed by alchohol_ ;accidents,
poisoning, etc. If you want to manipulate the debate that way, I could
probably come up with a reason that you are the cause of aids.
> That does not include people older than five who die of
>starvation.
The death of a person over 5 is no less tragic than that of one under.
Actually moreso in my opinion, but that's not the point.
Contrast that to WWI which had less than 9,000,000 service
>casualties during the entire war, which by the way was not a religious war,
>along with others that you listed.
The jews would probably disagree.
The rest of your argument is so far in left field (that's baseball talk in
case you didn't know) that your figures mean nothing.
pigo
John E. Castasus
<kc7...@sisna.com> wrote:
> The shooting at the Family History Center and at the high school in Littleton
> rattled the Church leadership somewhat, but they are very cautious to not do
> anything that is contrary to the law or to the Constitution or to violate the
> civil liberties of individuals.
What was the deal with the LDS church wanting legislation banning
concealed weapons in churches? Churches are private property. If the
church decides that it doesn't want pistol-packing parishoners, they sure
as hell don't need to pass a law. Go stick a sign up front that says "No
Guns." I've spent some time in Texas, and almost every piece of private
property I've stepped on made it quite clear that all weapons are to be
left outside.
Or is the church deciding to flex their muscles on this one?
--
Cordially,
John E. Castasus
Deck 36, Section 52
jcast144 at mindspring dot com
Steven J. Kile
mazu...@localhost.localdomain
>Actually, a staggering amount of grain, grapes, corn, etc., etc. finds it way
>into the production of alcohol around the world.
How much? How many people could it feed? How many people could you
feed by outlawing beef production? Moderate alcohol consumption is
probably more healthy than beef consumption. Do you advocate doing
away with beef?
>18 children under the age of
>five die in this world from starvation every minute, that is 9,460,800 young
>children every year.
If you're concerned about starving children, I'm sure you promote the
use of contaception?
>If 9,460,800 children were fed by the
>wasted produce that went into the production of alcohol for one year, that is a
>substantial number of lives saved.
Do you have any proof about how many people you could feed this way?
How would you distribute the food to such people?
>If you want the sources go do a search, I'm not going to do the work for you.
Put up or shut up.
You are a perfect example about what the originator of the thread can
expect if he moves to Utah. Luckily, idiots like you are a minority
even here (though a very vocal and powerful minority).
Kelly Hall
> Well you have a point on POT. BUT..
>it still has a horrid chemical effect on the body as does Tobacco. Pot IS
>addictive.
What orifice are you pulling this drivel out of? Are you making this up,
or can you point to some evidence that THC is addictive? FYI: "my bishop's
golf partner's son got addicted to pot" isn't evidence. Neither is "my
little sister's DARE officer said THC is addictive."
I'll agree that smoking pot is probably as bad for you lung-wise as smoking
cigarettes. But a good water pipe will remove a lot of the tar. But nicotine
is some nasty stuff.
While I was at BYU, one of my roommates was telling me why he moved to Utah
from Florida. He said that living with his mom and stepdad in Florida was a
bad influence on him because his dad dealed (dealt?) cocaine and meth for a
living. He wanted to get away from the drugs.
So he was going to school at Timp View in Provo, and said he kept getting
hit on to buy dope there, worse than at his school in Florida. The thing
that made him stop going to (LDS) church, though, was that the dope clique
at school happened to also be his priest's quorum at church.
He was a real trip to share a room with...
Kelly
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>What orifice are you pulling this drivel out of? Are you making this up, or
can you point to some evidence that THC is addictive? FYI: "my bishop's golf
partner's son got addicted to pot" isn't evidence.
If you want a FLKAME war forget it! I have a coulpe whackos I am dealing with
NOW.
Usenet = CB radio circa 1969.
I am CATHOLIC... And work in the legal field. If THC wre the ONLY ingredient
in Pot you might have a point. It isn't and you don't and you are just looking
for a fight. Find somebody who gives a shit.
> But nicotine is some nasty stuff.
That's why I no longer smoke.
>While I was at BYU, one of my roommates was telling me why he moved to Utah
from Florida. <snip> He wanted to get away from the drugs.<snip> The thing
that made him stop going to (LDS) church, though, was that the dope clique at
school happened to also be his priest's quorum at church.
You know, living in Florida I really MISS all the Mormon HORROR stories. How
the LDS have those BIZARRE sex orgies in their temple. (Almost wanted to JOIN
the church when I heard that! <g>) Then I found out all those horror stories
were bullshit so I stayed Catholic. DAMN!!!!!! No polygamy,
NO sex orgies. Those Mormons are DULL!!!!! And the people who go to such
lengths to attack them are DIM! But then I listen to the same kind of crap
about Catholics too. No WE don't have sex orgies either! But if you have a few
spare women, maybe I could personally work something out for them. <wink>
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>Me first! Me first! You are such a fucking moron (intended spelling; fyi). Do
you think the rest of the world is gonna fall for the same double talk that you
cultists do?
I will again preface by saying I am a Catholic not LDS. And for the years I
lived in SLC and even now, what staggered me then as it does today is the empty
little lives so OBSESSED with the beliefs of others what don't suit them.
YThere are people in San Francisco that worship some traffic barricades in a
park because a pidgeon took a crap on one. WHO CARES? Christ man GET A LIFE!
Find some SHRED even a TINY one of a life, and man if ya can't get laid, maybe
I should come and hire you a hooker? You know after 5 years of listening to sht
SHIT of dimwit BIGGOTS like you in SLC who spent all day and all night bicthing
about the flipping Mormons it WORE OLD! It STILL wears old!
Mountain Meadow... How many Mormons do you think don't know about that?
You think you have a NEWS FLASH there? Early in the game listening to all the
anti-mormon tyrades made me read a bit of history. Just out of curiosity. What
I discovered about Mormons is that they were just a group of people who wanted
to live their own way and be left alone. But they always seemed to find an
abundance of ASSHOLES who didn't they they should be allowed to. To the point
that those clowns would use violence to stop the Mormons from being Mormons. I
founf of particular interest a diary of a Methodist Minister who was also an
officer in the Missouri militia. He spoke glowingly of his raids on Mormon
farms and his part in getting trhe "Extermination Order" sort of Hillbilly
genocide or what we today would call "ETHNIC CLEANSING." And they fled to
Illinois to be left alone. Built a city in the middle of nowhere. Were they
left alone? NO! Then they came to Utah to get away from loudmouth jerks who
had a life ambition of attacking them. And THERE YOU ARE!
If you don't like Utah and the Mormons. There are 49 other states! I
managed to get along with them just fine, even went a few times to their
churches. I also went to Jewish synagogues and the local Episcopal church once.
I have friends that are Moslem and may other religions. I find beauty in them
all, even if they aren't for me.
Man you have a REAL PROBLEM! I know better than to suggest you get help for
it. But PLEASE find another hobby!
Mormon bashing is so LAST YEAR!
TJ Miller jr
Lucas Vogel wrote in message <3765CA58...@home.com>...
> But the church, just like so many other
>organizations in this country, has become a special interest group, just
>like the NRA, the Christian Coalition, etc.. And just like any other
>special interest group they do what's best in their own special
>interests.
I have said as much earlier. However, there is one glaring caveat: The NRA
and the CC pay taxes on all of their income. LDS does not.
>> >Why is okay for Baptists or Catholics to run for President,
>>
>> No one said that it is not okay for a Mormon to run for president.
>
>> The Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, was a baptist preacher and
pastor
>> before he ran for office. However, he is not allowed in any way to act in
>> his capacity as a preacher while holding public office.
>
>He may not act out as a preacher, but I'm pretty sure the Baptists in
>general can look forward to having their best interests in mind when he
>does his job.
Not at all, if it conflicts with secular law - therein lies the rub. You're
also confusing the church management with the churchgoers in general... The
Baptist churches themselves often find themselves at oods with the
Governor - but he has to uphold secular law. The pople OTOH see their needs
met.
>> >but the Mormon church can't have its religious influence in the
>> >happenings in its own state?
>>
>> Happenings, yes. Laws, no.
>
>Why not?
Separation of Church and State.
>> > Doesn't the Catholic Church control most of
>> >Europe?
>>
>> While that may have been true in, say, 1502 AD, that is definately not
true
>> today. Most governments are very secular in nature, especially in Europe,
>> where agnosticism seems to be the majority religion.
>
>Take a look at what they own in Europe.
Sure - but how much influence do you think they actually have in the legal
systems of Europe? Very little. There is only one religious soverign state
in the whole Continent - Vatican City.
> I'd say that Catholicism is very
>secular in nature as well, but they still have a lot of
>wealth/power/influence in Europe.
The Curia has been into banking since the 1400's. Today, they probably own
quite a few Swiss banks, OTOH, they have very little influence in
government. (Evidence laws allowing and condoning contraception, abortion,
assisted suicide, etc...all very much against Vatican dogma.)
>> >Since the Mormons are the ones who settled most of this region
>> >anyway, shouldn't they have a say in how it's run?
>>
>> The majority, no matter their religion, certainly have a say in how the
area
>> is run, but it cannot conflict with the US Constitution, it cannot
>> explicitly reflect religious dogma, nor can it deny rights to any
minority
>> or individual without due process or just cause.
>
>I'll agree to that, the only problem is the will of the majority. But
>overruling the majority's decision and making supermajorities
The original majority is still intact... you merely have to convince 25%
more than usual to get certain things done.
> ( wasn't it
>Prop 13 with the wilderness bill?) isn't exactly fair either, though I
>don't think you were implying that.
Supermajorities (66 or 75% of the vote minimum) as regards to such things as
taxation, wilderness use, or anything of a permanent nature is actually not
a bad thing - besides, the mormons still have that kind of majority anyway.
Arkansas for instance requires a supermajority in both houses for proposed
tax increases, else the issue goes to the voters on a ballot initiative that
November.
>> >If you've noticed anything lately, you'll see that parent's aren't doing
>> >the job that they should be doing.
>>
>> ...because the government keeps stepping in and offering to do it for
them,
>> or restricts them in some aspects from raising their child as they see
fit.
>
>You're right. There HAS been such a surge in government parent agencies
>springing up all over the country, hasn't there.
Indeed... the GOP has been fighting that for quite some time.
>> Liberalism has done much to bring about this fact. OTOH, the blame still
>> lies solidly on the parents, and the culture they brought about (and
>> practiced) collectively.
>
>If that is liberalism, then I agree with you, it really IS wrong.
Look at the '60's and what it brought - drugs, sexual revolution... it
further went on with a "me first" attitude - all in the name of intellectual
enlightenment.
Instead of going theourgh the entire history here, Refer to
http://www.spark.org/essays/liberal.html
and see a more thourough copy of my opinion on the matter. In short,
liberalism was ocne a good thing, but has gone bad in recent times.
>> Instead of worrying about their upbringing, we are feeding them (and
their
>> parents) an ever-increasing pile of sewage from the television set, the
>> theater screen, and the radio. Parents, raised on the early
democrat/liberal
>> concept of godlessness, are reaping what they have sown. However, there
is
>> no way a government can legislate morality. Period. That is what you seem
to
>> be wanting.
>
>Couldn't agree more. With the moral legislation, however, I don't
>necessarily agree that the government should be governing morality.
The impression I got was that you were for the government banning alcohol
and porn from the general public. I'm sorry if that isn't what you were
wanting to convey.
> I
>don't think they should let it backslide either.
The government, sadly, has no say-so in what happens to the morality of its
body politic, since trying to do so violates or restricts someone's liberty,
somewhere.
> And nobody else seems
>to be exactly volunteering either.
That's where you and I come in...as well as anyone else worried about things
as they are. It has to happen on a grass-roots level, or it cannot happen at
all.
>> As a card-carrying Republican, I can certainly tell you that of the two
>> parties, the GOP values are the closest to those espoused by
Christianity.
>>
>> >This is why I am in church, this is why I'm a Democrat.
>>
>> All the anti-school prayer, atheism, and anti-religion you deplore is
right
>> there - _In_The_Democrat_Party_!
>
>The bigotry, homophobia(a whole other topic I won't go into detail
>about), hypocrisy and all-around abuse of power is right there -
>_In_The_Republican_Party!
Ah, so that's the crux of it. Personally, I just don't see where this
bigotry is, since the only instances of it are found in the extreme elements
(David Duke, for instance) , which the rest of the GOP abhors and rejects on
a regular basis.
I agree that there are disagreements over the subject of homosexuality. The
"Defense of MArriage Act" (which I oppose, BTW), was signed into law by
members of both parties, and by a Democrat president.
I suspect that homophobia is rather common to both sides of the fence. The
Library of Congress (online) can provide you with the voting records for the
DOMA and any other law you disagree with, and have a rather efficient search
engine to do it.
>Anti-school prayer I can live with, atheism
>and anti-religion isn't so great either. I don't even think much of a
>lot of the Democratic leadership either. But the local leaders are
>terrific-especially in Utah.
Really? How so?
You must understand, I just mvoed to Utah from a state which is seeing the
exact opposite - a corrupt democrat leadership being tossed out, and a new
GOP leadership being elected in droves. My former US Representative, Asa
Hutchinson (R- Arkansas), was elected to office with 80+% of the vote -
twice. After democrat Jim Guy Tucker was led away in handcuffs, Republican
Mike Huckabee and his Murphy commission (formed of citizens and unpaid)
cleared out a virtual ocean of entrenched corruption. AAMOF, the only GOP
candidate to lose an election in Ark. since 1995 was Fay Boozman, who rather
deserved it after bungling his campaign to the point where even a yellow dog
wouldn't support him.
>The Utah Democrats are who I'm rooting for;
>nationally both sides look pretty sorry. But in Utah I REALLY think the
>Dem party is quality. Maybe its' only because the Republicans make them
>look so GOOD. Who knows.
It's a whole different picture outside the state. Once I get fully settled
in here, I intend on having a look at what the local GOP is all about. If
they don't live up to my expectations, I'll either try to change things, or
I'll switch parties on a local level... one of the two.
>
>> > We don't deserve
>> >to be left to ourselves, not anymore.
>That was a dumb thing for me to say, but I was on my own little mental
>roll and kind of went crazy.
'sokay - I know exactly where you were coming from.
>
>> Liberty is nothing if it is not responsibility. If you aren't willing to
>Good comment.
>> take that responsibility, then kindly pronounce yourself a slave, and
bind
>> yourself and become fully subservient to someone that will take care of
you.
>> If your master is a church, then it is a church...but beware that such
>> actions only reinforce the atheist argument that your bishop does all of
>> your thinking for you.
>My bishop doesn't do my thinking for me.
I agree - hence my stipulations.
>
>> I prefer to love God not as a slave would love his master, but as a child
>> would love his father. I only hope that you will eventually see the
>> difference.
>
>I'm already there, and very close to him too. I could be a better child,
>but we're close.
We can all be better children, truth be known.
TJ Miller jr
gotten rational again, I'm glad I did.)
PangK wrote in message <19990616064544...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
> Mountain Meadow... How many Mormons do you think don't know about
that?
I'm an Arkansan, most of the victims there were also Arkansan (travelling
from Ft. Smith, IIRC.)
It's history, nothing more. there is nothing that can be done about it
today, and I'm very sure that quite a few mormons dies at the hands of
non-mormons in Missouri and Illinois, which should settle up the Butcher's
Bill in any case.
> Man you have a REAL PROBLEM! I know better than to suggest you get help
for
>it. But PLEASE find another hobby!
>Mormon bashing is so LAST YEAR!
Agreed, in whole.
pigo
>>Newsgroups: utah.general
>
>>Me first! Me first! You are such a fucking moron (intended spelling; fyi).
Do
>you think the rest of the world is gonna fall for the same double talk that
you
>cultists do?
>
(bullshit snipped)
You couldn't be more wrong. I agree with alot of the advertised mormon
traits. I don't agree with the hypocrisy of inflicting them on others,
especially when one doesn't try to live up to the one's self. "Do as I say
not as I do" comes from the book of mormon, doesn't it? I think it's too bad
that one needs the (false) threat of going to hell, or (false) promise of
going to heaven, to act like a decent human being.
Do your pigeon worshippers make laws that affect your life? Do their
trivialities dominate the evening news? Or do they just worship their birds
and let you go on with your day?
I threw him the massacre bone because he hadn't heard of (or wouldn't
admit it) of the joseph smith/visit to the moon association-story.
I live next door to a mormon couple, moved here from
Germany 40 years ago. They're fine people. They never try to inflict their
shit on me. It's the intrusion of the cult into MY everyday life through
their meddling into govt. that I object to.
Not that it's any of your business, but if you object to my pitiful, 45
year old, semi-retired, 25 year old working wife, travelling, skiing,
fishing life, that's fine with me! Stick to your wonderful life, we don't
need people like you crowding things up during the week too!
pigo
Steven J. Kile
bother me. The hate that so permeates his soul, is pickling him from the inside
out. Then all that will be left is a shell of a man, with anything that can be
called good, having been long consumed by the slow fire of hatred.
Steven J. Kile
Steven J. Kile
Twit filter engaged,
PLONK!!!!
Mike Zulauf
>Well I was going to answer your points, until I got to the last one.
>
>Twit filter engaged,
>
>PLONK!!!!
Awww, gee, such a shame. I was looking forward to whatever twisted
logic you were going to march out this time.
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>
>I'm an Arkansan, most of the victims there were also Arkansan (travelling
>from Ft. Smith, IIRC.)
Yeah but quite a few were from Missouri as well, and managed to regail some
folk along the way with what they did with Mormons in Utah. The reaction was
paranoid to be sure. A rational person wouldn't have done it. But, I kinda got
a feeling that if *I* had been driven from my home in western New York, started
over in Ohio and was driven from that home, and went to Missuori and was driven
from that home, and then endured shelling from the Missouri side of the
Mississippi River on occasion, and then was driven from Illinois,
and then went all the way to the desert of Utah thinking now this is land
NOBODY would kill me for.. And then I hear there is another mob from Missouri
on the way..
Well, *I* just might not act all that well either.
>I'm very sure that quite a few mormons dies at the hands of non-mormons in
Missouri and Illinois, which should settle up the Butcher's Bill in any case.
It'n not even balancing scales, it is just understanding humans, after a
while the most timid will strike back. And if you read what was done, that
Methodist minister who led the Missouri milita sacking Mormon farms and
settlements, and his boasting of riding up on his horse and decapitating an 8
year old Momorn boy and the sheer JOY he took in it, get some feel for the
savagry of those times... And the anger at Mormons because they opposed
slavery..... And were even know to help a few black folk escape... Well I don't
know that I would have the room to point accusing fingers if I were in their
shoes.
> But PLEASE find another hobby!
>>Mormon bashing is so LAST YEAR!
>Agreed, in whole.
WHen I lived in the avenues, I was never bothered by the Mormons. In all
the years I lived in SLC, but the ANTi_Mormons darn near drove me to join the
LDS church just in spite! Some folks just cannot find a life. They can't even
go to State street and RET one!
The guy reminds of of that line in Good Morning Vietnam.. "He) is the white
man most desperately in need of a blow job in history!"
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>I don't agree with the hypocrisy of inflicting them on others, especially when
one doesn't try to live up to the one's self.
Are you REALLY dull enough NOT to uderstand that is true of EVERY religion on
the face of the Earth? The Mormons have nothing special in that. Hell I saw a
Mormon Bishop buying beer at the Smith's grocery one day. I think he also had
some coffee! REVERENED Jim Bakker was porking hiss secretary and stealing
millions of dollars. REVEREND Jimmy Swaggart was boffing a hooker and BEGGING
her to bring her 9 year old daughter to join the "fun." I'm catholic, want to
know how many priests molest 12 year old altar boys?????
>"Do as I say not as I do" comes from the book of mormon, doesn't it?
Oh save this shit! Can't you RENT a life?
>Do your pigeon worshippers make laws that affect your life?
Well not MY life because I am not in San Francisco. But they have affected
others lives, one was a member of the city council. SO now do we FORBID anyone
who holds ANY religious belief from public office? Lutherans? Methodists? And
in a way isn't even Athiesm a form of religious belief? WHO do you propose we
actually have pass laws??????
>Do their trivialities dominate the evening news?
Ever been in Rome?
You know I grew up in Milwaukee. On their local newsgroup I have to read
the crap from all the people who bitch about the Catholic church. Down in the
south I have to listen to people constantly bitch about the Baptists....
SECHHHESCH GET A LIFE! Like I said, I am Catrhloic I managed to ignore 99% of
the Mormon stuff. it is you idiot ANTI-Mormons that were the REAL pain in the
ass and made me want to leave..
> Not that it's any of your business, but if you object to my pitiful, 45
year old, semi-retired, 25 year old working wife, travelling, skiing, fishing
life, that's fine with me!
I am obver 50, can only THINK of retirement YEARS away. My wife works for a
major insurance company in an executive position. So? I mean WHY am I supposed
to be upset at Mormons here? You don't like their beliefs, their beliefs aren't
for me. I'm a Catholic. WHO CARES?????????
For the past 15 years when I have looked at the Utah discussion groups on Fido,
and here on the net, there is always that small band of die hars BITCHING
constantly about the Mormons.. DOn't you people EVER shut up? PLEASE take you
wife on a skiing vacation. I am SURE there is snow somewhere!
PLEASE????
PangK
>You are absolutely right!! I don't know what his problem is, but I refuse to
let it
bother me. The hate that so permeates his soul, is pickling him from the inside
out. Then all that will be left is a shell of a man, with anything that can be
called good, having been long consumed by the slow fire of hatred.
You are wrong. THAT kind of hate is FAST BURNING. It's the same idiotic crap
we saw in Beirut, in Northern ireland, and now in Kosovo.... It kills all life
in miles. WHO CARES what somebody else wants to believe????????? Well,
apparently HE does.... There is so much BEAUTIFUL about Utah, I just can't
believe the constant bitching.
He's what I'd call a "SNY-OP" A snyop is the kind of person who comes
accross a brown paper bag with $25 million in it, who turns it into the Police,
who wait the proper amount of time for the owner to claim it,
and then give it to the guy who found it when nobody else does, and he starts
bitching about all the TAXES he's gonna have to pay on it...... The mountains
the manby great things there to be thankful for and all he can find is to
gripes incessantly about the Mormons.... ENOUGH ALREADY!
It's like kids arguing.. "My pastor has a bigger penis than your bishop!!!"
Nyah nyah nyah!
SANDBOX TIME!
pigo
PangK wrote in message <19990616132603...@ng-fn1.aol.com>...
>>From: "pigo" <pigop...@yahoo.com>
>>Newsgroups: utah.general
>
>>I don't agree with the hypocrisy of inflicting them on others, especially
when
>one doesn't try to live up to the one's self.
>
> Are you REALLY dull enough NOT to uderstand that is true of EVERY
religion on
>the face of the Earth? The Mormons have nothing special in that.
Exactly why I think all religion is a farce. As I have said before, at least
some were made up thousands of years ago, when there was no explaination for
things that today science can explain. The mormons happen to be the ones
affecting my life, and are the ones make up 150 years ago when there was
much less of an excuse to believe in hocus-pocus.
Hell I saw a
>Mormon Bishop buying beer at the Smith's grocery one day.
I think he also had
>some coffee!
If ever you go fishing with a mormon, take two. If you take one, he'll drink
all your beer.
REVERENED Jim Bakker was porking hiss secretary and stealing
>millions of dollars. REVEREND Jimmy Swaggart was boffing a hooker and
BEGGING
>her to bring her 9 year old daughter to join the "fun." I'm catholic, want
to
>know how many priests molest 12 year old altar boys?????
Ahhhh, ain't religion wonderful!
> >"Do as I say not as I do" comes from the book of mormon, doesn't it?
>
> Oh save this shit! Can't you RENT a life?
Don't rent, own, paid for. You?
>>Do your pigeon worshippers make laws that affect your life?
>
> Well not MY life because I am not in San Francisco. But they have
affected
>others lives, one was a member of the city council. SO now do we FORBID
anyone
>who holds ANY religious belief from public office? Lutherans? Methodists?
And
>in a way isn't even Athiesm a form of religious belief? WHO do you propose
we
>actually have pass laws??????
Well let's stretch things just for a second and see if I can make my point.
Did they pass a law restricting the sale of chicken in restaraunts (being
fellow birds and all)?
Is there a reason that restaraunt owners here can't decide how they regulate
their alchohol? Why do I have to walk around the bar to serve a customer
from his side? Why do they make me put up a 12" screen on the bar between me
and my customers. What's with a law that says that I can't ask a customer if
they would like a glass of wine until THEY mention alchohol? "Join a club"
to be allowed to go to a bar?
I have no problem with the mo's operating restaraunts that don't serve
alchohol, because there are people that want it should they be required to
sell it?
Alchohol is just a very public and easy to refer to complaint here. The ABC
is 100% mormon. It is an accurate representation of the society here IMO.
>>Do their trivialities dominate the evening news?
>
> Ever been in Rome?
I thought we were talking about America and Utah. I am not a citizen of
other countries and am not protected by, subject to, or concerned with their
laws. Unless I am visiting there of course.
> You know I grew up in Milwaukee. On their local newsgroup I have to
read
>the crap from all the people who bitch about the Catholic church. Down in
the
>south I have to listen to people constantly bitch about the Baptists....
>SECHHHESCH GET A LIFE! Like I said, I am Catrhloic I managed to ignore 99%
of
>the Mormon stuff. it is you idiot ANTI-Mormons that were the REAL pain in
the
>ass and made me want to leave..
>
>> Not that it's any of your business, but if you object to my pitiful,
45
>year old, semi-retired, 25 year old working wife, travelling, skiing,
fishing
>life, that's fine with me!
>
> I am obver 50, can only THINK of retirement YEARS away. My wife works
for a
>major insurance company in an executive position. So?
My point is that I have worked hard and have, and have had, a life that many
people envy. I have been told that I should write a book more than once.
Your lack of argument regressing to personal attack, magnifies your weak
position. That's my point.
I mean WHY am I supposed
>to be upset at Mormons here? You don't like their beliefs, their beliefs
aren't
>for me. I'm a Catholic. WHO CARES?????????
Then don't read it.
I didn't get where I am by letting people walk all over me, whether they
were a majority or not. They are free to do as they please as long as they
don't inflict it on me. I should be allowed to do the same. If I drink and
drive drunk, it affects public safety, arrest me. If I am in a restaraunt
and have too much to drink, and become offensive to others, kick me out,
arrest me. Please do the same to the legions of crotchfruit that wail and
fling boogers all over everything and make it nearly impossible for us
non-burdened to enjoy an evening out. Sounds fair to me.
>For the past 15 years when I have looked at the Utah discussion groups on
Fido,
>and here on the net, there is always that small band of die hars BITCHING
>constantly about the Mormons..
Soooo...are you chained to your computer with only one newsgroup? Why would
someone force you to read MY messages?
DOn't you people EVER shut up? PLEASE take you
>wife on a skiing vacation. I am SURE there is snow somewhere!
>PLEASE????
No I ski in the winter. I boat and fish in the summer. We're going to Lake
Powell for a few days soon.
I'm going to go into the backyard, have a few beers, and plant some flowers.
I'll come in later when I get too hot and see if you have responded. Maybe
earlier if there is some wierd law against what I am doing, and they chase
me inside.
pigo
pigo
Mike Zulauf wrote in message ...
>In article <3767C5E9...@sisna.com>, Steven J. Kile wrote:
>
>>Well I was going to answer your points, until I got to the last one.
>>
>>Twit filter engaged,
>>
>>PLONK!!!!
>
>Awww, gee, such a shame. I was looking forward to whatever twisted
>logic you were going to march out this time.
>
>Mike
If the pattern holds true, it would be name calling and references to your
daily life and sexual frequency. Make perfect sense to me !?!
Like I have said in the past. They ARE a source of amusment, and before I
was married, their [naive, uneducated, unrealistic] daughters were also a
source of "amusement".
Did you hear the one about the brother and sister (or is it elder and
sister?) going at it in the shed? She says, " boy brother, your pretty good
at this!" He answers, " Yeah, that's what dad says!"
pigo
Myles Reilly
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>Exactly why I think all religion is a farce. As I have said before, at least
>some were made up thousands of years ago, when there was no explaination for
>things that today science can explain. The mormons happen to be the ones
>affecting my life,
They only affect your life because you ALLOW them to! In fact YOU
manufacture their influence over your life.
>150 years ago when there was
>much less of an excuse to believe in hocus-pocus.
Here's a hint....
"SO DON'T believe in hocus pocus!"
>> Oh save this shit! Can't you RENT a life?
>Don't rent, own, paid for. You?
Married to the greatest woman on the planet,. have FOUR great kids.. 3 are
adults.
TJ Miller jr
way
>into the production of alcohol around the world.
A staggering amount also finds its way to becoming methanol, too (up to 10%
of current US-distilled and mixed gasoline)... Should we go back to using
pure crude oil in our gasoline?
>18 children under the age of
>five die in this world from starvation every minute, that is 9,460,800
young
>children every year.
And that's supposedly my fault, because I happen to enjoy a beer on
occasion?
In case you didn't know, alcohol was originally brewed and distilled because
it was the best way to preserve excess grain, which would otherwise spoil,
causing the farmer to lose his profits for a given crop (See historical
information on the whiskey wars, which lead to the founding of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.)
> That does not include people older than five who die of
>starvation. Contrast that to WWI which had less than 9,000,000 service
>casualties during the entire war,
Plus over 6 million Jews, plus over 20 million Soviets, plus nearly 30
million Chinese (due to Japanese incursion)... The most conservative
estimates place the WWII casualty figures at around 50 million...some
estimates climb up to 100+ million.
> which by the way was not a religious war,
Funny, that's not how the Jews saw it...
Steven J. Kile
TJ Miller jr wrote:
> A staggering amount also finds its way to becoming methanol, too (up to 10%
> of current US-distilled and mixed gasoline)... Should we go back to using
> pure crude oil in our gasoline?
Yes, Yes, and Yes again!! Methanol is one of the biggest scams that has ever
been perpetrated on the American people. Not only does methanol ruin car
engines, but American taxpayers subsidize the Archer Daniels Company to the tune
of millions of dollars to produce a product that doesn't work.
>
> >18 children under the age of
> >five die in this world from starvation every minute, that is 9,460,800
> young
> >children every year.
>
> And that's supposedly my fault, because I happen to enjoy a beer on
> occasion?
>
No, it's not your fault, I never said it was. I drink Coors nonalcoholic brew,
have been for some time and will continue to drink it. The point of my post was
to show that there are many ways in which higher world populations could be
sustained.
>
> In case you didn't know, alcohol was originally brewed and distilled because
> it was the best way to preserve excess grain, which would otherwise spoil,
> causing the farmer to lose his profits for a given crop (See historical
> information on the whiskey wars, which lead to the founding of the Bureau of
> Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.)
>
I appreciate the history lesson, but we don't have the problems of grain
spoilage in modern countries with modern silos.
>
> > That does not include people older than five who die of
> >starvation. Contrast that to WWI which had less than 9,000,000 service
> >casualties during the entire war,
>
> Plus over 6 million Jews, plus over 20 million Soviets, plus nearly 30
> million Chinese (due to Japanese incursion)... The most conservative
> estimates place the WWII casualty figures at around 50 million...some
> estimates climb up to 100+ million.
>
> > which by the way was not a religious war,
>
> Funny, that's not how the Jews saw it...
Contrary to what you may think, W.W.II was not a religious war, plain and
simple. Hitler's desire was to create an Aryan race that would live forever. It
just so happened that the Jews lived in his neighborhood. The same fate would
have happened to Blacks, Orientals, and Hispanics if they would have resided in
and around Germany.
TJ Miller jr
PangK wrote in message <19990616125647...@ng-fn1.aol.com>...
>>From: "TJ Miller jr" <her...@spark.org>
>>Newsgroups: utah.general
>
>>
>>I'm an Arkansan, most of the victims there were also Arkansan (travelling
>>from Ft. Smith, IIRC.)
>
> Yeah but quite a few were from Missouri as well, and managed to regail
some
>folk along the way with what they did with Mormons in Utah.
Missourians were good for that. The fighting and terrorism between
Missourian 'red legs' and bands of guerilla Confederate troops operating out
of Northern Arkansas didn't really die down until the mid 1870's. The fact
that the two states were represented in the same band of travellers was a
miracle unto itself.
I seriously doubt that anything this travelling band would have said would
have got to Utah in time - news travelled very, very slowly in those days.
Also, there is no historical evidence of any such braggartry - though there
was plenty of evidence of "mormon hunting" in general by rogue bands at that
time.
> The reaction was
>paranoid to be sure. A rational person wouldn't have done it. But, I kinda
got
>a feeling that if *I* had been driven from my home in western New York,
started
>over in Ohio and was driven from that home, and went to Missuori and was
driven
>from that home, and then endured shelling from the Missouri side of the
>Mississippi River on occasion, and then was driven from Illinois,
Most of the mormons joined up in Missouri or Illinois, many came from far
and wide, but the largest population increase occurred after Smith left New
York, IIRC.
>and then went all the way to the desert of Utah thinking now this is land
>NOBODY would kill me for..
I dunno - after seeing a ton of empty desert, the Wasatch region looks
damned good...
>And then I hear there is another mob from Missouri
>on the way..
>Well, *I* just might not act all that well either.
135 people vs. thousands of mormons...there was no threat. Brigham Young
even ordered the troops in the area to not molest the band in any way. The
killing was purely the fault of one or two local leaders, who were driven by
a mix of paranoia and revenge... two purely human traits that everyone has
experienced at one time or another.
> It'n not even balancing scales, it is just understanding humans, after a
>while the most timid will strike back. And if you read what was done, that
>Methodist minister who led the Missouri milita sacking Mormon farms and
[etc...]
Yes, there were atrocities committed on both sides of the issue - which was
my original point.
There is one important point to inject, however - mormons weren't the only
ones who felt the pain of town raids and outright murder - Kansas was awash
in it during the slave/free state decision. as mentioned earlier, Missouri
and Arkansas (whose battle at Pea Ridge, Ark. was the largest Civil War
battle west of the Mississippi river) , were constantly sniping, killing,
and raping one another, even after Appomattox.
In all cases, even women and children were not safe, because as one
Missourian red-legger put it: "Nits make lice."
>> But PLEASE find another hobby!
>>>Mormon bashing is so LAST YEAR!
>
>>Agreed, in whole.
>
> WHen I lived in the avenues, I was never bothered by the Mormons.
I'm not bothered by 'em up here in Layton.
> In all
>the years I lived in SLC, but the ANTi_Mormons darn near drove me to join
the
>LDS church just in spite! Some folks just cannot find a life. They can't
even
>go to State street and RET one!
There are, as someone mentioned elsewhere, 49 other states just as suitable
for habitation.
(PS: can't rent a life on State Street anyway - anti-cruising laws, you know
:) )
TJ Miller jr
pigo wrote in message <7k8rra$4if$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Is there a reason that restaraunt owners here can't decide how they
regulate
>their alchohol? Why do I have to walk around the bar to serve a customer
>from his side? Why do they make me put up a 12" screen on the bar between
me
>and my customers. What's with a law that says that I can't ask a customer
if
>they would like a glass of wine until THEY mention alchohol? "Join a club"
>to be allowed to go to a bar?
Speaking of which, where in hell (or rather, why in hell) are there these
falsehoods posted at every bar and establishment that serves liquor, saying:
(paraphrased)
"The State of Utah has determined that alcohol is a substance hazardous to
your health, etc etc..."
My question is - ...what hazard? Alcohol in moderation is a very healthy
part of one's diet.
TJ Miller jr
Steven J. Kile wrote in message <37685CE2...@sisna.com>...
>
>
>TJ Miller jr wrote:
>
>> A staggering amount also finds its way to becoming methanol, too (up to
10%
>> of current US-distilled and mixed gasoline)... Should we go back to using
>> pure crude oil in our gasoline?
>
>Yes, Yes, and Yes again!! Methanol is one of the biggest scams that has
ever
>been perpetrated on the American people.
We're using 10% less gasoline. We only have so much crude oil to go around,
you know.
> Not only does methanol ruin car
>engines, but American taxpayers subsidize the Archer Daniels Company to the
tune
>of millions of dollars to produce a product that doesn't work.
Doesn't work? How so?
While it is true that the early versions of methanol (MBTF) were damaging to
older car engines, even that is no longer true. (Older engines required Lead
Tetraethylene in regular doses, which pure gasoline (even though it says
"Unleaded") still has in copious amounts. Ethanol acts as a solvent,
reducing lead to the point where it simply doesn't exist anymore. Some newer
engines also had problems with the earlier MBTF formulas, Jeeps being
notable examples.)
>No, it's not your fault, I never said it was. I drink Coors nonalcoholic
brew,
>have been for some time and will continue to drink it. The point of my post
was
>to show that there are many ways in which higher world populations could be
>sustained.
Perhaps we shouldn't be trying to sustain a higher world population?
Much as I hate to say it, the population is probably the reason why we have
all of these problems in the first place... Rats and mice bunched up in a
cage will fight each other, killing until the population reaches a
'bearable' level. I suspect that people would, too (Columbine comes to
mind...)
Starvation and disease are natural population controls, the same controls
which keep deer and other animals from becoming too numerous for their
habitat to support.
Sure, it would be nice to eliminate them everywhere, but you do so at the
peril of postponing said disaster to the point that when disaster finally
does overcome the barrier you put before it, things go bad on a very
mind-staggering scale.
But, instead of simply breeding our way into all of these problems, why not
send contraceptives overseas, along with all this grain?
>> In case you didn't know, alcohol was originally brewed and distilled
because
>> it was the best way to preserve excess grain, which would otherwise
spoil,
>> causing the farmer to lose his profits for a given crop (See historical
>> information on the whiskey wars, which lead to the founding of the Bureau
of
>> Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.)
>>
>
>I appreciate the history lesson, but we don't have the problems of grain
>spoilage in modern countries with modern silos.
Actually, yes we do. Each harvest produces far more than we can store within
silos. A drive through Iowa in October or November will show you where corn,
by the ton, is literally dumped into a pile on the ground next to the co-op
silos and covered with a huge set of tarps to keep out the rain. I've seen
these piles as tall as thirty feet or more.
>> > which by the way was not a religious war,
>>
>> Funny, that's not how the Jews saw it...
>
>Contrary to what you may think, W.W.II was not a religious war, plain and
>simple. Hitler's desire was to create an Aryan race that would live
forever.
It just turned out that way. Anti-semitic terrorism within Germany went
hand-in-hand with local politics during the Weimar republic's days.
Hitler's vision was of a Protestant race that would dominate Europe, and
possibly the world. This included getting rid of the Jews, the Catholics
(unless they toed the Nazi party line), and anyone else who didn't like the
Aryan ideal.
Religion played a huge part in Hitler's persecutions, because the Jews were
seen exclusively as the money powers that were supposedly strangling
Germany.
> It
>just so happened that the Jews lived in his neighborhood. The same fate
would
>have happened to Blacks, Orientals, and Hispanics if they would have
resided in
>and around Germany.
Blacks were simply expelled (what few there were), Germany made an alliance
with Japan, and IIRC, The Nazis tried negotiating with Mexico to create a
front against the US' southern border, as the Kaiser had tried to do in WWI.
Also, The Nazis supported Franco during the Spanish Civil War, supplying
aircraft and troops to his cause... Spain in return declared themselves
neutral during the war.
pigo
TJ Miller jr wrote in message ...
(snip)
>There are, as someone mentioned elsewhere, 49 other states just as suitable
>for habitation.
The original question here was from someone considering moving to Utah. My
contribution was that he would have to deal with interference from the
presiding cult that runs the govt. in these parts.
In response to the signage at bars; it says that alchohol is dangerous to
your health and that of others. More lies.
pigo
pigo
TJ Miller jr wrote in message <1W7a3.178$uo1....@news.uswest.net>...
(snip)
>Much as I hate to say it, the population is probably the reason why we have
>all of these problems in the first place... Rats and mice bunched up in a
>cage will fight each other, killing until the population reaches a
>'bearable' level. I suspect that people would, too (Columbine comes to
>mind...)
Didn't I say that already?
>Starvation and disease are natural population controls, the same controls
>which keep deer and other animals from becoming too numerous for their
>habitat to support.
>
>Sure, it would be nice to eliminate them everywhere, but you do so at the
>peril of postponing said disaster to the point that when disaster finally
>does overcome the barrier you put before it, things go bad on a very
>mind-staggering scale.
>
>But, instead of simply breeding our way into all of these problems, why not
>send contraceptives overseas, along with all this grain?
Why not start here. Let them over populate until we get our own house in
order. If we have a manageable population, "they" won't be any threat to us.
Of course we would have to let them sleep in the bed once they made it.
>>> Funny, that's not how the Jews saw it...
>>
>>Contrary to what you may think, W.W.II was not a religious war, plain and
>>simple. Hitler's desire was to create an Aryan race that would live
>forever.
>
>It just turned out that way. Anti-semitic terrorism within Germany went
>hand-in-hand with local politics during the Weimar republic's days.
>
>Hitler's vision was of a Protestant race that would dominate Europe, and
>possibly the world. This included getting rid of the Jews, the Catholics
>(unless they toed the Nazi party line), and anyone else who didn't like the
>Aryan ideal.
Naziism was as much a religion as any other. It had all the characteristics
of one.
As they did with Russia, any aliance the Nazi's had was was around as long
as it was benificial to them. Once it no longer suited them, they disposed
of it..............HEY! Wait a minute! That sounds alot like the mormons and
their rules!
pigo
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>Missourians were good for that. The fighting and terrorism between Missourian
'red legs' and bands of guerilla Confederate troops operating out of Northern
Arkansas didn't really die down until the mid 1870's. The fact that the two
states were represented that the two states were represented in the same band
of travellers was a miracle unto itself.
Well the popular anti-mormon view was of a band of innocent travellers
moving west with their kids. In reality there is more than ample reoom to
suggest that a band of Missouri thugs was hsung the wagon train much in the
same manner Saddam Huseein used civilians to shield his weapons. There is NO
doubt that the Mormons went wild. That it was savage.
BUT... do we condemn the Jews for some of their excesses in defending their
country?
>I seriously doubt that anything this travelling band would have said would
have got to Utah in time - news travelled very, very slowly in those days.
Oh you forget, wagon trains moved VERY slow, often covering less than 20
miles in a day. A horse rider could relay stuff and they could cover a couple
hundred miles in a day. Also remember that at about this time was when the US
sent the ARMY to invade Utah.
>Also, there is no historical evidence of any such braggartry - though there
was plenty of evidence of "mormon hunting" in general by rogue bands at that
time.
Oh yes there was evidence. I can't recall the name of the book it was so
many years ago. I think Bridger carried the news back to Utah.
>I dunno - after seeing a ton of empty desert, the Wasatch region looks
damned good...
Yeah NOW! You gotta remember there wasn't su much as a SCRUB where Salt Lae
City now is. Not a tree. Ground as hard as the granite in the Waasatch. It
looks VASTLY different today. I saw some photos from the 1860's of SLC, and it
looked FORBIDDING even then!
>135 people vs. thousands of mormons...there was no threat.
Ever hear an Israeli say.. "NEVER AGAIN?" I agree that the reaction wasn't
reasonable. Just understandable. A whole community was paranoid, and with damn
good reason.
>Brigham Young even ordered the troops in the area to not molest the band in
any way.
<wink wink>
>The killing was purely the fault of one or two local leaders, who were driven
by
a mix of paranoia and revenge... two purely human traits that everyone has
experienced at one time or another.
19th century ROAD RAGE!
>There is one important point to inject, however - mormons weren't the only
ones who felt the pain of town raids and outright murder - Kansas was awash
in it during the slave/free state decision. as mentioned earlier, Missouri and
Arkansas (whose battle at Pea Ridge, Ark. was the largest Civil War battle west
of the Mississippi river) , were constantly sniping, killing, and raping one
another, even after Appomattox.
Yep, killing went on for almost 50 years after the civil war.
>There are, as someone mentioned elsewhere, 49 other states just as suitable
for habitation.
If not more so.
>(PS: can't rent a life on State Street anyway - anti-cruising laws, you know
>:) )
DOn't cruise, just spot a likely fish, toss out the hook and grab her. :-)'
TJ Miller jr
pigo wrote in message <7kb8ra$hov$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>TJ Miller jr wrote in message ...
>
>(snip)
>>There are, as someone mentioned elsewhere, 49 other states just as
suitable
>>for habitation.
>
>
True - and the debate generated has been wonderful, and will hopefully
continue to be.
> My
>contribution was that he would have to deal with interference from the
>presiding cult that runs the govt. in these parts.
I really don't know if the term 'cult' would apply in this case.
I do agree that there is some interference by the Mormon church at the local
and state government levels, but I also know that most communities (Except
SLC itself), are smart enough to not alienate the non-LDS residents, since
that is where a lot of the new business and new revenue is coming from.
SLC itself OTOH seems hell-bent on destroying itself (though hopefully that
light rail crap will dry up and blow away, as it looks to be doing if
today's news is any indication.)
I say screw SLC - let 'em dry up to the point where it relies on the other
communities for its survival.
>In response to the signage at bars; it says that alchohol is dangerous to
>your health and that of others. More lies.
I know it's a lie, but I was wondering why it couldn't be removed,
especially in light of facts confirming otherwise.
pigo
TJ Miller jr wrote in message ...
(snip)
As I understand it, a cult is one that has living god or worships one here
on earth. Like the mormon profits, you ask? It's not something I have looked
up myself and really dug into, but as far a I am concerned, the definition
is close enough for me. Not to mention in practicle terms. They seem more
cult like that religious to me (self serving, out of the mainstream, money
is their real god).
>>In response to the signage at bars; it says that alchohol is dangerous to
>>your health and that of others. More lies.
>
>I know it's a lie, but I was wondering why it couldn't be removed,
>especially in light of facts confirming otherwise.
It's SLC! We're used to lies around here. You know why they're there. The
govt./church wants them there.
pigo
Andrea Williams
cult \Cult\ (k?lt) n .[F. culte, L. cultus care, culture, fr.
colere to cultivate. Cf. Cultus.] 1. Attentive care;
homage; worship.
Every one is convinced of the reality of a better self, and
of. the cult or homage which is due to it. --Shaftesbury.
2. A system of religious belief and worship.
That which was the religion of Moses is the ceremonial
or cult of the religion of Christ. --Coleridge.
According to definition - every religion on earth is a cult :)
L Ron Hoover
>You added the good that some alchohol will bring, but you left out the bad it
>causes. Such as liver disease, ceriasis (sp?), loss of motor skill and
>judgement. Moderation usually at first leads to abuse , seems that very few
>know when to quit when it comes to alchohol and drugs. Theres always a
>boundary that you just keep stratching till you go over the line.
Your garments are showing again, Zabriskie... We've been over this
countless times before in this forum, but still you just refuse to
face the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of adults who consume alcoholic
beverages do so responsibly and without any negative effects
whatsoever. Quit generalizing about things that, as a Mormon, you
know NOTHING about.
Some people who try alcohol are going to become alcoholics, just as
I'd wager that there are a few obese folks in your ward who just don't
"know when to quit" when it comes to eating.
To be honest, I felt the same way you do until I left the church in
1990. After I shed some of the brainwashing and went out into the
real world, I quickly discovered that there were LOTS of poeple who
enjoy alcoholic beverages without becoming slobbering drunks. After
hearing of recent findings on the health benefits of red wines, I
often have a glass of cabernet or merlot with my dinner. I'll have a
beer or two on the golf course or in the clubhouse afterwards, and
sometimes I'll stop by the bar after work to have a couple of drinks
and conversation with my co-workers. I can count the total number of
times I've been "drunk" on one hand. I never get behind the wheel
after having had more than 3 drinks in an hour, but then again, I
rarely have three drinks in one sitting, anyway.
I've seen NO negative effects from my alcohol consumption. I'm in
great physical condition (probably in better shape than 98% of those
pudgy, "clean-living" RM's coming in from the mission field, and a
decade older, too). I exercise vigorously for an hour a day/4 days a
week. My blood pressure is normal, my cholestorol is under 150, I'm
not overweight. I don't beat my wife, I don't drive drunk.
I'll admit that alcohol abuse causes much pain and suffering in
America, and gun abuse probably causes MORE. Are you as firmly
against guns as you are against alcohol? Or maybe since the LDS
church considers the 2nd amendment to be the unofficial 14th Article
of Faith, guns just don't bother you as much as the demon drink?
L Ron Hoover
> I am CATHOLIC... And work in the legal field. If THC wre the ONLY ingredient
>in Pot you might have a point. It isn't and you don't and you are just looking
>for a fight. Find somebody who gives a shit.
You're right, THC (more correctly, delta-9-THC) is not the only
"ingredient" in marijuana. However, it is one of only two
PSYCHOACTIVE compounds found in pot. The other is cannabidiol (or
CBD), which is responsible for the increased drowsiness caused by some
varieties of marijuana.
Neither of these compounds are physically addictive, so maybe he was
correct in his allegation that you are talking out of your back
orifice. That is, unless you are in possession of some secret
knowledge regarding the addictive potential of one of the other 400+
non-psychoactive chemicals found in marijuana...
Not looking for a fight, just trying to figure out if there is any
validity to your statement that pot is addictive, or if you're just
another dumbass regurgitating tired, old DARE propaganda.
PangK
>Newsgroups: utah.general
>You're right, THC (more correctly, delta-9-THC) is not the only
>"ingredient" in marijuana. However, it is one of only two
>PSYCHOACTIVE compounds found in pot. The other is cannabidiol (or
>CBD), which is responsible for the increased drowsiness caused by
>Neither of these compounds are physically addictive, so maybe he was
>correct in his allegation that you are talking out of your back
>orifice.
Are "PSYCHOACTIVE: ingrediatens the ONLY ocmpounds in pot? Nope. Many of the
other ingrediats aren't psychoactive, but deadly. Were you aware that ther was
also a traceable amount of Arsenic in it?