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. . .

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”

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 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.

It’s hypocritical when a group of people constantly whine about the Church saying political things, yet turn it into a political advantage when what they’re saying is something they agree with. Or perhaps it’s just a lack of consistency.

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.

::: sounds buzzer :::

Nice try, but that’s not the correct answer. Thanks for playing!

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.

Indeed. This wasn’t mean to peg any specific outlet such as the Trib or even Equality Utah, but merely to illustrate the general actions and feelings of those who oppose Church political action.

The theocracy sentiments were spelled out in Walsh’s Trib article I referenced, quoting a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State as saying:

“It is a clear violation of American democratic principles,” he says. “It not only looks like theocracy, it suggests there is a theocracy.”

In the same article, Will Carlson of Equality Utah made an indirect reference to this belief by saying:

“The overwhelming majority of legislators are LDS,” says Will Carlson, public policy manager for Equality Utah. “If the LDS Church made a statement of opposition, the [Common Ground] bills would have no chance.”

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.

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.

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.