The Gaytheist Agenda

Mormons are so intent on forcing their religion on others they aren’t content with making illegal (or at least very difficult to get) things they disapprove of like alcohol and same-sex marriage. They are engaging in grievous violations against freedom of religion by posthumously baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims despite repeated requests that they stop. They’ve even broken promises they made to stop. So much for honesty and trust.

Ernest “Ernie” Michel has had it. For 14 years, the now 85-year-old Holocaust survivor has been leading a quiet and cordial charge to ensure that victims of Nazi terror aren’t posthumously baptized by members of the LDS Church.
But on Monday, he and other survivors gathered at The Center for Jewish History in New York to publicly denounce what they said is an ongoing practice by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and, in doing so, end discussions. The group came together exactly 70 years after Kristallnacht, “the Night of Broken Glass,” a German pogrom during which Nazis ransacked Jewish synagogues, homes and businesses, killed more than 90 Jews and
Jewish representative Ernest Michel, right, meets LDS representative Elder Todd Christofferson during a 2005 meeting with LDS leaders to discuss the LDS ritual of baptism of the dead. (Paul Fraughton/The Salt Lake Tribune) deported up to 30,000 others to concentration camps.
…..
LDS Church officials, who met with Michel just one week ago, say they are sorry the relationship seems to have ended this way and feel the church’s work and intentions have been misunderstood.
Michel, of New York, is the honorary chair for the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, which he said has about 180,000 members.

His connection to this issue began as a fluke. He’d seen an article in a Jewish newspaper in the mid-1990s about one Holocaust victim who’d been posthumously baptized by Mormons. So he wrote to then-LDS Church President Howard W. Hunter, seeking an explanation.

He never did hear back from Hunter, but Sen. Orrin Hatch, whom Michel had copied, did respond. In a two-page letter, Hatch explained that this practice was “done out of love for Jewish people,” Michel remembered. “I got that, and then I got suspicious.”
…..
“My mother and father were killed in the Holocaust for no other reason than they were Jews,” he said earlier. “How can the Mormons victimize them a second time and falsely claim their souls for eternity?”
Over the years, Michel has had many meetings with LDS Church officials, all of them “very pleasant,” he said.
In 1995, he saw progress when the church promised to remove Holocaust victim names from its International Genealogical Index (IGI) and send out on First Presidency letterhead a reminder that proxy baptisms are intended for one’s own ancestors.
…..
“This has gone on year after year - names given, taken off the list, more names go in. I call it the ‘unstoppable revolving door,’ ” Radkey said from her New York hotel room. “Purging the names isn’t what the Jews want. They want the baptisms to stop.”
…..
Radkey said hundreds of names, mostly Dutch Holocaust victims, have made the church’s master list in the past few months. Some recently discovered records used to do proxy baptisms even had the words “Auschwitz” or “Polish death camp” on them, she said.
…..

Respect our religious beliefs! the Mormons cry. Yet they refuse requests to stop forcing their religion on people–even after they’re dead. After spending $20 million on the Yes on 8 campaign and campaigning vociferously to eradicate our marriage rights the Mormons claimed, “We were only defending our deeply held religious beliefs–why are they being targeted?”. How do they not see the irony of legislating their religion on others then crying “persecution!”?

Why should any respect be shown to people (or to their beliefs) when they show not one iota of respect to others or to those people’s beliefs? When they go to such extensive lengths to impose their religion on others they simply go too far. The First Amendment promises Freedom of Religion, and these individuals are violating it in the worst possible way.

At tonight’s vigil my wife held a sign that said We Will Not Submit to a Mormon Divorce on one side. On the side that wasn’t facing the camera the sign said We’re All Mormons Now–Whether We Like It Or Not . And that seems to be their ultimate goal. To make us all Mormons–whether we like it or not.

 

People speak of Freedom of Religion quite a bit in our society, but when they do they’re usually speaking about their religion, and most often Christianity. Let’s face it, if you’re not Christian in America you really don’t count, nor do your rights as far as many are concerned. That’s where our current story comes in.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether a religious group must be allowed to put its monument in a city park near a similar Ten Commandments display.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal by the city, Pleasant Grove in Utah, arguing that a lower-court ruling for the religious group could affect whether cities around the nation must display privately donated monuments on public property.

The Summun religious group, founded in Salt Lake City in 1975, sought to erect a monument to the tenets of its faith, called the “Seven Aphorisms,” in a park where there are other monuments, including one dedicated to the Ten Commandments.

Pleasant Grove rejected the request, citing its requirement that park displays be related to city history or donated by groups with longtime community ties, like the Fraternal Order of Eagles that gave the Ten Commandments monument in 1971.

Interesting how they set up all of these rules and regulations for the park displays that aren’t Christian based. I’ll bet that if I were to go in as an atheist who has never lived in Utah they’d accept my donation of a 10-Commandments monument right now. But everything else must pass all sorts of arbitrary tests or they’re rejected.

“If government creates an open forum, it can’t pick and choose among religions,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

But attorneys for the city argued that the appeals court’s ruling will require cities and states to remove longstanding monuments or permit groups to display any monument in public places.

Well, fancy that concept. All groups are represented in public places or none are. Some can’t fathom the concept of equal access or think that it is a bad thing, but that’s just too darn bad. They either have to accept it or deal with no representation. Still some simply refuse to understand that. From the AP:

Pleasant Grove City Mayor Michael W. Daniels said the city’s objection is not with the content or placing of the monument, but with the precedent it could set.

“It’s about not letting just anyone walk in and say, ‘Because you have this, we have a right to put this up,’” Daniels said. “Summum was pretty much demanding — and by law, trying to sue us — to allow their particular monument to come into our park.”

Mr. Daniels, like many others, just doesn’t get it. Once one religious monument is put on public property it gives reign for others to be put there. Otherwise government is condoning and advocating one religion, which is simply unacceptable. Of course there are those who prefer to predict the worst.

In a dissent, Judge Michael McConnell warned of dire consequences if the appeals court decision was not overturned. “Every park in the country that has accepted a VFW memorial is now a public forum for the erection of permanent fixed monuments; they must either remove the war memorials or brace themselves for an influx of clutter,” he wrote.

Judge McConnell’s warning continued: “A city that accepted the donation of a statue honoring a local hero could be forced under the panel’s rulings, to allow a local religious society to erect a Ten Commandments monument – or for that matter, a cross, a nativity scene, a statue of Zeus, or a Confederate flag.”

Yes, all that plurality would just be horrific. We simply couldn’t find a way to deal with that so it’s best to go with the status quo, which is the Christian monuments and statues of war heroes. People who want monuments to other religions and other ideas can just suffer because, well, we just don’t have the room or the tolerance to deal with what you want.

Addendum. A comment has arrived. Ebon said:

I actually think this would be great. Let’s have a little “faith garden”: A 10 Commandments monument, a plaque of the Wiccan Rede, a statue of Buddha, a few verses from the Bhagavid Gita and so on. Not sure what you’d include for athiests (which I know isn’t a faith but I’m having fun with this one), a statue of Einstein perhaps?

I’m fine with that idea. Some claim that atheists are intolerant of religion/faith but I’m just intolerant of intolerance and inequality. If people want to put up a little equal-opportunity spirituality garden (so long as it isn’t supported by tax dollars) I certainly wouldn’t object to it. Atheists might put up the 10 Commandments offered by Ethical Atheist or Positive Atheism.

You know, the whole multi-faith/spirituality garden idea might help people realize that other belief systems aren’t as scary as they’ve been led to believe, but that they’re often more similar than they are strange. For example, The Golden Rule, aka The Ethic of Reciprocity, is very much universal, yet many people think it is found solely in Christianity/the Bible. It could be helpful for them to discover otherwise about that and other things.

 

Ebon also provided me a link to the following video which applies to the theme of this post. Enjoy!