Wait – did Equality Utah make any of those “theocracy” statements themselves or vehemently criticize LDS “groupthink”? (To use a harsh term I don’t agree with.)

The SL Trib =/= Equality Utah.

It seems that Equality Utah is just pointing out that the Church doesn’t oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships as an attempt to persuade Church members that they’re not obligated by their faith to take an opposing stance on the issue.

Sen. Waddoups called out Will Carlson of Equality Utah at the committee hearing on the wrongful death bill. He said the exact same thing about church and state. Carlson stuttered and then provided no real response. Not only is EU using Church statements, it’s also twisting them for its own benefit. It implies that because of those statements made regarding California, the Church supports their CGI in Utah.

I think Church and State ought to mix considering that the Church is a huge constituent. With that said, the Church ought to also pay tax as any other business. Without paying taxes, religious organizations should take the back seat when it comes to public policy like a minor does.

Why is it hypocritical to quote a religious group? I’m happy for them to say what they want on political issues. And when they do, they should be regarded as the PACs that they are, and pay taxes like other PACs. Otherwise people will be able to hide political money by funneling it to churches.

If we’re talking hypocrisy, why not mention the $190,000 that the LDS Church ‘forgot’ they paid out to promote Prop 8. Oh, wait. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s lying. Different thread.

It rather seems to me that Equality Utah is capitalizing upon a couple of quotes that work in their favor, after they and their like-minded cohorts have spent months and years complaining about the cross-contamination of (LDS) Church and state.

See, I can’t really disagree with “like-minded cohorts.” I’ve been a cohort before and I’m glad that phase of my life is over.

Looks like I may have had it wrong. Sincere thanks for correcting me.

Well, Just, how should I have responded to President Waddoups about the link between the LDS Church and the state legislature? His shock that I suggested the church’s non-opposition might be relevant comes off as insincere since he had brunched with LDS leadership less than a week before to discuss the legislative session.

Well, I think it’s pretty clear that any official statement from the LDS Church will also be taken up by much of the LDS population, and pretty much guarantee a vote in that particular direction for Utah (meaning something even more “official” than an LDS NewsRoom release). Acknowledging such carries no inherent criticism unless it’s added.

Likewise, it seems just as valid to attempt to correct possible miconceptions about Church policy that may arise among an LDS population, particularly in Utah where a bill won’t pass if people think the Church is against it. The private feelings of the gay and gay rights community (admittedly not very rosy after Prop 8′s passing, frankly speaking) are hardly relevant unless we’re petty enough to let hurt feelings influence our votes and opinions.

It follows, then, that we have here a classic case of hypocrisy—something quite common among folk not founded upon principle or reason.

Well, if you want to talk about logic, there is a common fallacy, known as “Tu Quoque,” (“and so are you!”). This refers to the fact that though a person may not actually follow the principle or position they are arguing, it does not mean that their position is invalid. A hypocrite can still make a nonetheless valid argument.

In his last paragraph, Otterson uses a similar, faulty argument to dismiss Walsh [the editor of the Tribune], decrying her use of “overstated language.”

It’s true that legally, any individual or group of individuals has the right to a closed door meeting with a state senator or representative. But I dare you, Connor, the humble taxpayer, to try to do so on an annual basis. You may meet with less luck than, for example, Roc Arnett, or James Faust.

Separation of church and state is (arguably) a Moral Imperative. The practical difficulty of doing this in the real world, does not make it any less of an Imperative.

If the church were interested in “avoiding the appearance of evil” I would argue, they should either make such meetings (reasonably) public and allow public input, or else refrain altogether and act only though lobbyists. They should not be seen to exercise undue privilege, merely by their status in the church.

This begs the tongue-in-cheek question; “what would Jesus do, if he were a Utah senator”

Well, if you want to talk about logic, there is a common fallacy, known as “Tu Quoque,” (”and so are you!”). This refers to the fact that though a person may not actually follow the principle or position they are arguing, it does not mean that their position is invalid. A hypocrite can still make a nonetheless valid argument.

Better not repeat this. . . it’s easier to attack Al Gore and RFK Jr. than environmentalism. . .