Paul Mero Whines about What's In The Scriptures

So, Sutherland Institute President Paul Mero wrote a post titled "Confused Mormons whine about ‘Zion curtain’" and this is an attempt to answer his post.

The basis for Mero's whining is a Facebook group called "Utah Mormons Against The Zion Curtain". I know the person who started the group. He started the group under a fake Facebook account, because his employer does not like him getting involved with politics.

From the post:

The “Zion curtain” is what Utah’s pro-liquor lobby – and now, it seems, confused Latter-day Saints – calls the physical partition in some eating establishments between the mixing of alcoholic drinks and the serving of them. Not quite a cause worthy of the ominous “iron curtain” metaphor, but a serious subject for some people.

Actually, since the sponsor of the bill used the term in his interview on X96, and lacking a better term for it, this is now what it is called. I agree that it is a little strong of a metaphor. However, "The wall to hide alcohol like it's pornography" doesn't exactly roll of the tongue.

And, I wish to know why he calls Latter-Day Saints who use the term "confused."

Rather than arguing alcohol-sales policies – which it looks like Sutherland will be forced to do if state legislators move to “privatize” liquor stores during the 2012 legislative session – I think it’s worth discussing right now why this libertarian claptrap is, much like a drunken driver’s judgment, the result of clouded thinking.

I can't wait to see Sutherland argue with themselves on alcohol next year. After all, it says right on their web site "every Utahn should support public policies that keep our markets free from unnecessary government regulation, prevent governments from competing with the private sector, encourage private-sector solutions to community problems, create incentives to work, and protect against fraud and unfair practices." Let's keep that in mind as we continue here.

Mero then quotes from the information page of the Facebook group:

“We do not believe it just to amingle [sic] religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (D&C 134:9)

We feel like the new requirement that Utah Restaurants hide all of their alcohol is against free-market principles that Utah supposedly espouses. We feel that if Utah residents don’t want their children seeing alcohol being served, then those residents shouldn’t patronize those businesses.

We also recognize that the Zion Curtain harms the image of our state and our religion.

Then quotes a "friendly posting" that was written by me:

From Utah Constitution, Article I Section 4: “There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions”

And now, Mero makes the giant leap of interpretation:

Doctrinally, based on their interpretation of Latter-day Saint scripture, it seems this group is under the presumption that religious-minded people shouldn’t be involved in politics. Or at least Mormons shouldn’t be involved in Utah politics – probably the most immature, least realistic, least constitutional, least democratic-oriented thought in this Facebook group.

Actually, that is so far from the truth that it borders on being a lie. However, what the scripture that is being quoted here is saying is that if you are passing laws solely to benefit one religion, you are setting a dangerous precedent. What's to stop a state from banning dancing? Or Ice Cream? R-rated movies?

"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;" -D&C 134:4

Mero then goes on to whine about libertarians, like they have anything to do with it. Most of the people in that group that I know are far from libertarians. However, they do understand a very important doctrinal point:

God "has given us this experience on the earth so we can learn and grow. We can show our love for Him through our choices and our obedience to His commandments." (Preach My Gospel p. 31) "When we obey God, we follow the influence of the Spirit and choose to conform to His will. Obedience to the commandments brings us peace in this life and eternal life in the world to come" (Ibid. 72) "Part of the experience of this life is to learn to overcome temptation and to choose right over wrong." (lds.org Study by Topic -- temptation)

If you hide the sin from view, you hide the temptation. You hide the temptation, you hide the opportunity for people to grow by avoiding the Temptation.

Again, Sutherland claims that "every Utahn should support public policies that keep our markets free from unnecessary government regulation." If Paul Mero truly believed that, then he would join our group. After all, the Free Market should decide if alcohol should be mixed/poured in front of children (and adults who might be tempted). If Mormons don't want to see it, they shouldn't go there. I don't like breathing cigarette smoke while I shop. Rather than trying to get my Representatives to ban smoking at Gateway, I choose not to shop at Gateway. Nobody has become a better person by watching reality TV. Rather than wanting the Legislature to outlaw Reality TV, I choose not to watch it (except for The Amazing Race -- I'm not perfect). I wouldn't want my children to see the scantily-clad women at Hooters. I'm not going to ask the Legislature to require servers in restaurants to cover cleavage and wear knee-length shorts. I'm going to not take my business there. That's how the free market works.

In fact, I understand from people who have been to Hooters in multiple states that Utah's Hooters girls wear more clothes than they do in other states. Because that's what the market dictates.

If businesses are apt not to locate here because of anti-free-market principles, that is wrong. If local people who want to open restaurants fear that they are going to have to follow nonsensical regulations, that is bad for Utah.

And, by imposing regulations that favors one religion over the activities of those not in the religion, that makes Utah look like a Theocracy. Which is bad for Utah, and paints the LDS Church in a bad light. The church has recognized this in their not-to-subtle push to loosen liquor controls during the Huntsman administration. Hopefully, they don't need to get involved again.

-Bob

Maybe I don't get the joke.....

From Jesse Fruhwirth at City Weekly:

As I reported first via my Twitter feed, the press conference calling for a ballot initiative to remove homosexuals from Utah was fake. At best, the organizers put together improv theater that punked the Utah press corps and maybe got people to think about gay rights for a moment. It's fashionable to make fools of news media folk such as myself, so, touche. But at its worst, it was an offensive attention-grabbing play on Holocaust-like imagery and language that does little to advance the argument for gay rights in Utah.

The phony press conference is a play out of the Yes Men play book. For example, The Yes Men once punked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by announcing a press conference, then posing as representatives of that group while calling for climate change legisation. It was funny, you see, because the Chamber opposes such legislation. Ha. Zinger. Got 'em.

I'm not sure what Ha-Ha we were supposed to get from today's action, but I think the point they must have been trying to make is that it is somewhat believable that Utah could foster such a movement of concerned citizens that would openly and publicly call for Nazi-like solutions to the "homosexual problem?"

And a response from the group who held the "press conference," Patriots for a Moral Utah:

Because of the intense anti-lgbt climate in Utah, and because our voices have been silenced by recent statements and deals made on the hill, we felt a creative solution would be to highlight just how outlandish some of their claims are. It is amazing that Utah has reached a point where even something as crazy as the "Utah Fair Solution" has legitimacy and is believable.

The goal of this political satire was purely a play off of the many groups, legislators, organizations and religions who speak against the LGBT community. As a community we hear constantly from people like Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute who tell us that our families and love are an illusion, or Senator Chris Buttars who says that we have no morality and are the biggest threat to America.

The point was not to "punk" anybody, but to push people to continue the discussion of LGBT rights, and are thrilled at the conversations and public input that flew when news of the Patriots came out.

We love our community, and hope that our political farce has helped in highlighting what we feel is the ridiculousness and cruelty of some in our legislature and groups like The Eagle Forum, the Patrick Henry Caucus and America Forever. Thank you to all those who caught the big picture of our attempt and who have supported the efforts of all those who made this a reality. Also a very special thank you to each of the protesters who attended at the capitol, who were aware of the satire and helped to make it such a great event. This was another step in our multi-faceted campaign to achieve equality, and we're all in this together.

OK, great. I still don't get it. With Sutherland, Buttars, Ruzika, and America Forever, do we really need parody? After all, the best comedy to come out of Saturday Night Live the last couple of years was Tina Fey repeating Sarah Palin's words.

And, instead of pointing out how ridiculous they are, you made some of us think "hmm, Makes Mero not seem so bad."

Yes, you got people talking. But they are talking about your stunt, not the need for more gay rights.

-Bob

LDS Church to Issue Comment on Non-Discrimination

And, from the sounds of it, Paul Mero and company aren't gonna like it....

from KTVX:

Numerous sources are now telling ABC 4 that the LDS Church is poised to extend an olive branch of sorts to the gay community.

These sources say the Church is expected to - both through spoken and written statements - to offer its support for proposed Salt Lake City ordinances extending protection to gays in the areas of employment and housing.

Reportedly, the Church has been in quiet discussion with members of Utah's gay community.

This announcement from the Church is expected sooner rather then later.

Mero: Making up history to prove his point

This is from a couple of weeks ago. I have meant to post it, but with a death in the family and a few other things, blogging has taken a back seat.

However, I just wanted to point out how the Conservative Agenda will re-write history to prove their point. From Sutherland INstitute's Paul Mero, in a comment to this post:

Utah does have Amendment 3, thank goodness. But a constitutional amendment can be repealed. What would that process look like? Well, what did that similar process look like in CA? It looked like a court amassing mountains of state and local code and ordinances and concluding 1) that a constitutional amendment could very well be unconstitutional and 2) the track record throughout the state in regards to gay rights seemed clear enough for the Justices to wonder out loud why gays shouldn’t be afforded the status of legal marriage.

There was no logical fallacy of a “slippery slope” in play. The precedents were all very logical to the Justices, so much so they were baffled why the status of marriage shouldn’t be bestowed on same-sex couples.

First, for the love of Pete, can we stop calling it "Amendment 3?" That is not it's name. It's name is Article I Section 29 of the Utah Constitution.

Secondly, California did not have a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting marriage until November 2008. In 2000, California residents passes Proposition 22 (2000) which, in the same 14 words used in Proposition 8 (2008), prohibited California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

However, Prop 22 (2000) amended California Code, not the California Constitution. So, therefore, you are wrong, Mr Mero. It was not the Constitution that was found to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, had it been the Constitution that was unconstitutional, what difference would Prop 8 (2008) had? It, too, would be struck down by the courts, pretty quickly,too.

-Bob

source:
wikipedia: California Proposition 22 (2000)

Open Letter to GOP Chair Dave Hansen

Dear Mr Hansen-

I read in the papers that you oppose the two initiatives making the rounds for 2010.

And I just wanted to say thank you.

Thanks you for continuing to prove that Utah Republicans move contrary to the will of the citizens of Utah.

Thank you for thinking that these maps are logical.

Because, really, the more I talk to my Republican friends, the more they are telling me they are fed up with you.

And, not only are they willing to not blindly vote for local Republicans, some of them are pondering runs for the Legislature.

As Democrats.

Because they are ready for a change in our state. They have looked past the slick advertising and realized that the problems this state has are not the fault of Democrats, because we have been in the minority for so long.

Yes, you'll pull out the twin pillars that Republicans always pull out when they are about to lose somebody: gay marriage and abortion.

However, more and more people are realizing that unless there are major shifts, these are really non-issues in their lives, because nothing will change in our laws.

They are only major issues because You and Paul Mero tell them it is.

So, go ahead. Oppose the will of the people. Eventually, the people will wake up.

-Bob Aagard
Former Republican
Holladay

My Take On Big Love

Back before Comcast robbed me of HBO, I loved watching Big Love. The only time I've missed HBO has been when Big Love was on.

But I haven't really wanted to see it. Until this week.

Because I wanted to see for myself what the uproar was over.

I watched it illegally on YouTube. And, frankly, the uproar was misdirected.

After all, as LDS Scholar Hugh Nibley said (H/T KVNUftp):

“Even though everyone may discover what goes on in the temple, and many have already revealed it, the important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated whether or not anyone else in the room has the remotest idea what the situation really is… No matter what happens, it will, then, always remain secret: only I know exactly the weight and force of the covenants I have made - I and the Lord with whom I have made them - unless I choose to reveal them. If I do not, then they are secret and sacred no matter what others may say or do. Anyone who would reveal these things has not understood them, and therefore that person has not given them away. You cannot reveal what you do not know!” (The Temple and the Cosmos, p. 64)

One thing that killed me was how many people made it sound like the full Endowment Ceremony was going to be portrayed. In fact, only a small portion was shown.

And, there were two glaring mistakes. I won't mention what they were, but they were obvious.

And, the Temple wasn't the only secret thing portrayed. In the end of the episode, the head wife gets excommunicated from the LDS Church. I'm not sure how accurate the proceedings were to reality, but I'm sure you can't find that on YouTube like you can the Temple ceremony.

And, it should clear up any rumors that they are trying to paint mainstream Mormons as polygamists.

But what should really trouble us was something the LDS Church pointed out in their press release:

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creators and HBO executives assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons. However, Internet references to Big Love indicate that more and more Mormon themes are now being woven into the show and that the characters are often unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous.

And the problem isn't that they are portraying tus that way. It's the Mormons who are portraying themselves as unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous.

I'm talking to you, Gayle Ruzika. Chris Buttars. Paul Mero.

I'm guilty of it, too, on occasion.

However, it's usually what my non-LDS friends mean when they tell me I'm not like other Mormons they know.

As a missionary, I was always nervous when someone informed me they once lived next to/worked with/knew a Mormon. Was the person they knew a "good guy" or narrow and self-righteous?

And, I think City Weekly hit it on the head a few weeks ago with their cover story:

Utah is bisected along religious, cultural and ethnic lines. But Utah doesn’t like to show its two faces. Every effort is made to wear just a good face for our visitors, to smile for the cameras, to promote our wholesomeness and to otherwise let the world know that Utah is normal. Except it isn’t. And it’s getting worse.

The death of former LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley marked a transitory time in Utah’s perception of itself and of its residents’ willingness to cooperate with one another. Beloved on one side and highly regarded on the other, Hinckley may have been the last finger in the dike, holding back what is becoming a bloodbath of ill will toward each side of Utah’s cultural divide. Since Hinckley's death in late January 2008, a slew of angry influentials have grown so powerful and outspoken that, to persons outside the LDS faith, they appear not only to speak for the LDS faith but are tacitly allowed to do so.

Thus, to non-Mormons and outsiders, state Sen. Chris Buttars—who frequently cites LDS scripture—is the face of Mormonism, not current LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson. We can’t imagine this is a good thing. Nor can a growing number of formerly silent Mormons. If people like Buttars—and his hatemates on Capitol Hill—are ever to change or decline in influence, that change will have to come from pressures within the Mormon community itself.

Liveblogging HB 267 hearing

I'm listening to the committee hearing on HB 267 on discrimination.

1500: the bill does not care about what you think your sexuality is. It's about discrimination based on what others perceive your sexuality to be. Rep Johnson cites the case of a LDS Temple Recommend holding father of 5 being fired because he was perceived to be gay because he spoke in an effeminate manner.

1519: sorry. connection went out. rep morley has concern with creating protected class, because it would then discriminate against people not in a class.

1520: public comment period begins.

1524: LaVarr Christensen taking the stand.

1526: LaVarr -- empathy and compassion, blah blah blah.... counters that he never said that amendment 3 would not exclude rights for gays.

1527: lavarr says common ground is goundbreaking. claims that this would be the basis for further rights declared by the courts.

1529: lavarr syas that we can't use civil rights, that that is a protected term.

1530: sue rice gets a turn. small business owner. supports the bill.

1532: bill duncan. attorney. bill has exemption for employers of under 15 employees. concerned about litigation costs, training (isn't this usually covered in sexual harassment). costs of restroom arrangements. religious liberty concerns.

1536: Rev shawn dennison. has seen the effects of discrimination in workplace and housing. "should my landlord learn that I am here and transgendered, I could be evicted in 30 days" (near exact quote). in every religious tradition, leaders are asked to care for the downtrodden, the despised. quotes mosiah 4 from book of mormon.

1541: paul mero's turn. i'll have to transcript it, it was so full of crap. (Paul- if you want to send the text for me, please do so.)

1544: brian horn, lds rm who is gay. jan 10, 2008 -- fired from large credit union. in privately asking if partner could get benefits, got fired because they did "not want his type around."

1547: Gayle Ruzika: my dang internet cut out on me, and I've missed most of her statement. I'll have to transcript it tomorrow, too.

1552: shanna (?): director of hr. discrimination is discrimination. a non-discrimination workplace allows employees to work without fear of being let go for reasons other than their job. this culture also allows them to recruit the best and brightest. if you vote against the bill, you are giving employers permission and endorsing discrimination.

1555: last one is sandra rodriguez, america forever. apologizes to those who think they are hateful. if america ceased to be righteous, america would cease to exist. if you pass bill, you will be endorsing homosexuality. 267 will lead to reading books lke heather has 2 mommies.

1559: rep hansen: people are different. as a government, we are either going to do thing to people, or for people. bill protects him as a heterosexual. two hetersexual men who lived together were targeted as gay in his neighborhood. relates discrimination to mitt romney's problem during election.

1604: rep Jackie Biskupski: if protected classes were a problem, there would be a movement for removal of all protected classes (race, religion, etc)

1606: rep johnson summation: burden of proof is on employee. you can still fire someone, as long as you don't say "you're fired because you're queer." when we create a tolerant work environment, we create a productive work environment. This is not an endorsment of alternative lifestyles. no vote is endorsment of discrimination.

fails 5-8

Paul Mero is NOT a conservative

You want proof, just look at The transcripts of the conversation about alcohol between him and Tyler over at KVNU. It's full of big-government regulation.

And, me being me, I have some real issues with some of the things said there.

[14:52] Tyler: Here’s what’s frustrating about this Paul, and I don’t mean to go to the lowest common denominator here. An 80 percent LDS government is legislating its morals on a 60 percent LDS state. That 20 percent representation gap there is what’s making this a problem for everyone. That’s the bottom line.
[14:52] Tyler: It’s flown since 1896 because the gap was far less defined
[14:53] Tyler: but it’s going to become more pronounced and more problematic, in things not just limited to booze, as this state’s LDS population becomes more and more diluted.
[14:54] PTM: sorry, I was on the phone
[14:54] PTM: what you’re talking about is only a problem if there is a problem with LDS values, culture, and behavior. Is there?
[14:56] Tyler: There is a problem anytime value set A is imposed on people with value set B, C, D…
[14:57] Tyler: By government, that is.
[14:58] PTM: That’s life man.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:4 -- "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;"

And THAT s the problem I have with the way the Utah legislature, especially those members who share my faith, handle alcohol.

We are punished for our own transgressions.

[23:33] PTM: and, btw, I don’t think serius drinkers (drunks) go out to get drunk…but people having fun, losing track of time, socializing, get drunk
[23:34] PTM: and, at Chilis and Applebees, kids see it happening right in front of them

Let's not forget Jazz games. Maybe we should hide the children at Jazz games, too. And concerts. Especially by country artists. Let's ban country music.

[23:35] PTM: well, good then, our laws work…so whatcha bitchin about?
[23:35] Tyler: I can’t speak for the data outside of Cache County, but since 1995, not one DUI has been found as a result of drinking at a restaurant
[23:35] Tyler: I’m not complaining about restaurant laws as they’re presently constituted.
[23:35] PTM: and how, may I ask, you could know if someone drank at a restaurant?
[23:36] Tyler: The private club membership law is horrific and ineffective and the assertion that restaurants should have to hide their liquor is small minded. If you as a parent don’t want your kid to see the liquor, you have a right not to go to the restaurant
[23:36] Tyler: The restaurant absolutely, positively, unequivocally has more of a right to operate business as they choose under the law than you do to be offended at their business practices.
[23:36] PTM: orrrrr…the restaurant could separate their bar from the food part…like Market Street does out where I live
[23:37] Tyler: When a DUI arrest is made the location where the person drinking is recorded.
[23:37] PTM: good law, bad law?
[23:37] Tyler: That’s a decision Market Street can make, but each business should be allowed to operate as they choose.

Go figure, Paul Mero isn't the "free market" guy we all thought he was.

-Bob

New Holliday Reading List

The SideTrack sends us this from DailyKos:

The Washington Post has an op-ed from Donald Rumseld on, "The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez." Yes, because when you're looking for advice on foreign policy, you always want to go to the man who predicted the war in Iraq could:

...last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

Coming up next week: Michael Vick and, "The Care And Feeding Of Your Dog."

And, it got me to thinking of some other books I could recommend for people, maybe the PoliSci students I work with, to read on their Holliday Break:

-The Political Brain by James Evans
-How to Win Friends and Influence People by Patrick Byrne (Sequel to How to Run a Prophet-Making Company)
-A Brief History of Time by Paul Mero
-Where's Waldo? by George W Bush
-Flop: How John Kerry Became President of the United States by Mitt Romney
-If I Did It by Larry Craig
-How To Be Funny by Rob Miller
-Where the Wild Things Are by Condi Rice
-The Scriptures by Chris Buttars
-Get Others to Pay for Your Mistakes by Greg Curtis
-No Mud on Me by Hillary Clinton

$4520 rebuttal, without being a smart alack

I'm going to try really hard not to be a smart alack on this post. I may get kicked out of my family for it, but I need to do it.

Last Thursday, I posted a rebuttal to the Sutherland Institute's math on vouchers. Paul Mero of Sutherland rebutted in the comments, and the Senate Site rebutted on their blog.

Mr. Mero states that they took out schools with tuition greater than $10,000. Therefore for the press release to be honest, it would need to state that the average tuition of private schools with tuition below $10,000 is $4520. I firmly believe the purpose behind the fuzzy math was to make the pro-education people like myself look like liars for putting up the $8000 figure.

Secondly, both rebuttals speak to affordability. Assuming that a parent puts their kid in an "average" school, and that family gets the full $3000, that still puts the parent's tab at $1520. And that doesn't account for transporting the children, uniforms for the children, nor any of the other costs associated with a change in schools.

To qualify for the $3000, a family of 4 must make $30,000 or less (according to the voter information pamphlet from the Lt Governor's office). 5% of their net income would go towards tuition.

And all of this is assuming that tuition doesn't see a jump for 2008-2009. Simple supply and demand would indicate that it could. However, I'll get to that in another post.

-Bob

Sutherland's New Lies on Vouchers

The Sutherland Institute has released a new press release (Hat Tip: KVNU) regarding vouchers. This one has many tasty morsels for us this evening. To begin with:

Independent research conducted by the non-profit Sutherland Institute shows the average tuition among the majority of voucher-eligible private schools in Utah is $4,520.

"Independent" research? Are you freaking kidding me?!? The Sutherland INstitute is so far removed from being independant that it defys description. It's like asking a Hostess employeewhich tastes better: Carrots or Twinkees. It's like letting Greg Curtis be the independant arbiter in the RSL stadium debate It's like letting Bill O'Reilly moderate the Hannity/Rocky debate. It's like letting Rob Miller count the posts to see who gets to 1000 first. It's like letting Jerry Sloan be the Ref of the Finals.

("How many aalogies are you going to use? As many as it takes to convince you!")

OK, enough of that. ON to our good part:

Of the 88 voucher-eligible schools contacted, 64 responded. The responding schools reported annual tuition charges from $1,600 to $52,200. Only six private schools are clearly unaffordable for low-income families the new voucher law is primarily intended to serve. Those six were omitted from Sutherland’s results.

You gather data. then you eliminate the 10% of your data that hurts your desired result?

If we're going to play with the numbers, then we might as well post the following "independent" survey results:

*67% of regestered voters in a recent poll found vouchers to be a bad idea. (Results based on an informal survey of people named Bob Aagard taken at the Salt Lake City Library on September 27, 2007. I voted bad idea twice, and the third time I was distracted by a cute girl sitting nearby and said "sure, it's a good idea for you to ask her out." I think my answer was misinterpreted.)

*100% of the girls in the library are cute. They are also married.

*62.5% of he voices in my head are allergic to redheads.

*4/3 of Utahns are bad with fractions and/or ratios.

*57% of BYU fans think Harline is still open in the end zone. The Other 43% wish it were still that easy.

*7.11% of the population likes slurpees. I buy enough for the other 82%.

*12.5% of Democratic First Lady Candidates are Mormon. Only 10% of Republican First Lady Candidates are, however. (This one's actually true....)

*2% of Senate Republicans havea wide stance when using the men's room. The number jumps to 7% in the House.

*85% stopped reading a long time ago. The rest of you can stop now.