Big loving apology
Tom Hanks, producer of HBO's "Big Love," has apologized for his comments about the LDS Church's involvement in the Prop 8 campaign.
In an exclusive with People magazine, Hanks said he should not have called that involvement "un-American."
In an exclusive with People magazine, Hanks said he should not have called that involvement "un-American."
57 Comments:
Yea, but what is really American is to change your beliefs and cave in to public pressure like Hanks just did.
Of course, I guess everyone has blurted something out that they didn't really mean.
WC
No offense, but I'm a little confused.
Hanks called the LDS involvement in Prop 8 "un-American." Meaning that their lobbying to prevent gay marriage is an affront
to what America is about which is tolerance.
Following that logic, if the LDS lobbied against polygamy, Hanks would call them again un-American.
So, in a way, he's backtracking from a position that is beneficial to polygamy.
So, I guess my question to you is should he have backtraced or not?
When did you change your position, Ron? I mean on America being about 'tolerance'?
Well, if you read the letter that was read to California LDS congregations, it says that the church had joined a "broad based coalition of churches" against the proposal. And that is typical LDS way of doing things, go with the conservative majority. I'm not sure why the LDS church caught most of the heat after it failed.
Should he have backtracked or not? Well, if that is what he meant, then the answer is no. I don't completely agree with this piggy-backing on the gay rights issue by the polygamists. To me, it kinda puts the polygamists in a "category" as gays, but polygamy is ordained of God, wheras homosexuality will never be. I understand the political and social reasoning of using that logic of saying it's similar to gay rights, but to me it seems abit of a compromise of the belief
Of course, when your under multiple felony indictments for living your religion, I'm sure the pig's back becomes a little easier to ride.
When I say "polygamists", the only one I have heard of so far to imply that defense is Blackmore in Canada.
be back later
Cheese
I oppose 52 year old "prophets" thinking their religion allows them to knock up 14 year old girls.
Outside of those things which (I personally) define as child abuse, I believe that we need to be tolerant.
America was founded on a principle of tolerance. The tolerance issues were smaller in prior years but in recent years have become much larger.
Ron, Tom Hanks doesn't want to lose ratings or people who watch his show "Big Love" and im assuming many mormons watch it.
I can see why he gave the remark in the first place. Here he is promoting polygamy, and mormons are trying to Stop gay marriage from being passed.
So, bascially he is promoting a show which codones One man and many women in marriages, and also beleive in same sex marriage, but Mormons don't.
It all boils down to ratings Ron!
Tom Hanks was an adherent of a number of different Christian denominations while growing up (including Catholic, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Nazarene, and a Fundamentalist Christian group. Hanks joined the Greek Orthodox Church when he married his wife, Rita Wilson.
Which is surprising.
Last time I checked, Greek Orthodox doctrine condemned homosexuality.
"I oppose 52 year old "prophets" thinking their religion allows them to knock up 14 year old girls."
Hey carolyn where did you get that BULL? I mean Ron. ya go ahead regurgitate all your filth!
The sin is in the imagination of the beholder!
mhojho,
It doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are, the Sexual Assault of a Child is a felony in Texas.
Since it is not legal for the 14 year old to marry without a court order, if she became pregnant, you have the evidence of Sexual Assault.
Religious beliefs are not a defense to the violation of criminal laws.
TxBluesMan said:
"Religious beliefs are not a defense to the violation of criminal laws."
D&C 98
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
"9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn."
Or prop themselves up with anti-depressants. Is Utah still prescribing those at twice the rate found in the rest of the US?
Oh, and here's one for you to ponder...
"Book of Mormon
Jacob 2:24: Joseph, the "Shepherd," speaks:
"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. 2:26: Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. 2:27: Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 2:28: For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 2:29: Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes."
Jacob 2:31: Joseph, the "Shepherd," speaks again:
For behold, I the Lord, have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. 2:32: And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts."
Rebeckah, I could explain it to you but you're hopeless.
Cheese,
"Rebeckah, I could explain it to you but you're hopeless."
Right back atcha, Cheesy-boy. ;)
Rebeckah, I am completely clueless as to what you think you are accomplishing.
Cheese is right. In fact I have done so (explained it) several times, you interestingly skip vs 30; how convenient.
Blues
There you go again throwing out the constitution to justify cruelty towards children,maybe you should go practice in east berlin we don't want you here, sound familiar?
Rebeckah
some people study scripture because they love the truth.
some people like you, study scripture to prove thier hatred
towards truth!
Blues
"Religious beliefs are not a defense to the violation of criminal laws."
unconstitutional laws are not a defense against violating the constitution!
"Rebeckah
some people study scripture because they love the truth.
some people like you, study scripture to prove thier hatred
towards truth!"
If you say so it MUST be true.
People study scripture to invent truth. Like, "Hey, I'm the prophet and God told me I can have sex with 14 year old girls."
mhojho
Yes, I just imagined that filthy indictment.
Are you even remotely plugged into reality?
Ron
not your reality, an indictment is an accusation not a fact, are you even remotely plugged into reality?
Look what the cat dragged in!!!!!
Bluesman!!!! I see you're still pot stirring!!!!
mhojho-
Don't get sucked in by Rebeckah's ramblings. Sadly, she's an unresolved ego playing out her own needs.
Pliggy-
Mornin'!!!!
Tom Hanks was right to make the statement he did. Each of us has a responsibility to help move our country past the horrific divisivness we have been caught up in for so long....
He didn't say the LDS Church was right in what they did. I doubt that he has changed his opinion that their involvment was ugly. But it was not unamerican.
I personally think that the show "Big Love" has done a great deal to 'normalize' polygamy in the minds of many. It clearly is not factually correct, but never the less, it has taken polygamy out of the closet and made it less onerous and part of mainstream discussion. I wish Tom Hanks, et al, would reach out to the FLDS for input. Perhaps there is a way to facillitate that happening.
mhojho
And when the prove those allegations by DNA evidence will it be a lie then?
TxBluesMan said...
Religious beliefs are not a defense to the violation of criminal laws.
---------
Nor are religious beliefs justification for throwing out the bill of rights. And just because some group practices a religion you don't like, doesn't justify abusing their children.
Maybe I'm crazy...well, there are those who would argue that I am crazy...so maybe that's beside the point....
Anyway, I find enclaves of the "religious right", the followers of Rush Limbaugh et al, to be far scarier than any community of FLDS. I find the "brain washing" of their followers, to be more insidious and dangerous than anything I've seen, to date, coming out of any fundamentalist community. In fact, it is out of THOSE communities that flow the lawmakers and other bureaucrats that make and sustain the kinds of laws that erode the fundamental underpinings of our nation.
It is from their ranks that Jim Crow laws came and stayed for so long...it is out of their ranks that the changes to Texas laws came...
It is from their ranks that laws and regulations came that have kept science and discovery in the back rooms for so long....
It is from their ranks that we have had national governance that has allowed us to be enmeshed in an illegal war, the practice of torture, the evisceration of any checks and balances on Wall Street...
Hell, I don't care what scriptures folks like the FLDS follow, or how they dress, or who they choose to give their money to....they can't hold a candle to the hurt that the "religious right" has done to all of us!!!!!!!
rericson said...
Maybe I'm crazy...well, there are those who would argue that I am crazy...so maybe that's beside the point....
Anyway, I find enclaves of the "religious right", the followers of Rush Limbaugh et al, to be far scarier than any community of FLDS.
-------------
The fear that some of these Westerners have of the FLDS, even of FLDS grandmothers, is pitiful. I also agree that people like Limbaugh are the scary ones. Limbaugh puts his ego higher than America, and would have Obama and America fail rather than be proven wrong.
There may be a few folks "out there" in the world, the universe, whatever...a few folks who actually believe they have died, seen the other side of death, and come back...so for those few, my comments don't apply...
For the rest of us, we don't really know...it is a leap of faith that many make to believe any given doctrine, or lack of doctrine....
Not a one of us knows, positively, absolutely, which, if any, of us are "right"...or if what is 'right' may be an amalgam of lots of beliefs...
And I guess I'm one of those die hard agnostics who is willing to believe that any one of these beliefs could be right....
So I'm not going to try to interpret the bible or other doctrines or writings or beliefs...not my place to do so...
Thing is....I have yet to hear, in all these monts, a single member of the FLDS community tell any one of all the folks coming in and out of this blog that they are wrong...or the FLDS is right....
I hear "This is what I, or we, believe." or, "This is how I, or we, interpret such and such."
They don't bash any one of us for believing differently. I have never once heard any one of them call anyone else names for believing something different.
If someone tries to say what they believe and they are wrong, like me at times, someone will step up and correct the wrong interpretation. But that is only because it was being ascribed to them. If I said , "I believe....", even if it was absolutely contrary to their interpretation of the same scripture, they would mind their own business....
Why is it so impossible for others to afford them that same courtesy?????
The FLDS are perfectly willing to practice what they preach, "Live and let live."
They actually do walk the walk of tolerance they ask of us.
Ron, you've gotten better at it...but you do need to qualify your schtick...because if you are really tolerant, you shouldn't care if a fifty year old BELIEVES having sexual relations with a twelve or fourteen, or any age, female is okay. Your objection should be to acting on the belief.
I wonder how people would had responded if indeed Tom had made a general statement that intolerance is Un-American right from the get-go? Would the result be the same?
Would he had apoligized for it if people from specific institutions took it personally? I know I wouldn't.
Ruby, I think you're right...but it sounds like his original statement was made "from the hip", so to speak, and his appology was for his own intolerance....
Too bad he got boxed into that particular corner....but better that he took the high road and said something that to let it get all twisted up into a monster it isn't...we know how that can happen!!!
To me, it kinda puts the polygamists in a "category" as gays, but polygamy is ordained of God, wheras homosexuality will never be. - WC
========
These people are not looking to be ordained by God through any church they are seeking "civil rights and protections".
If we truly had seperation of church and state, all this would be moot....
More and more I am coming around to sharing the thinking of the proponents of "civil unions"...do away with the word 'marriage' on the secular side, all together...
Leave marriage and ordination, and all that to whomever wants those functions as part of their theology.....
We can set limits on numbers of civil unions any one individual may have at a time...but that keeps us out of the bedrooms and private decisions of individuals, and it keeps us from making judgments about religions...
and if we have laws allowing civil unions that are not gender specific, then it takes the wind out of all the other sails, as well...because it really does level the playing field for everyone....
Rericson, I must say that I don't understand the logic of polygamists not wanting to allow homosexuals civil rights and protections.
It appears to me they are biting their own foot.
r said: "...do away with the word 'marriage' on the secular side, all together...
Leave marriage and ordination, and all that to whomever wants those functions as part of their theology....."
r, I think you're getting the picture! See, I don't think I'm married because some cow (judge) mooed over me. It's a religious obligation altogether. It's the secular worlds view of 'marriage' that we have to contend with. That's why I always scratch my head over why we are chased around and prosecuted for living what we know is and obligation to God, and loving and nurturing our wives and children, while at the same time there are so many people around this country just 'shacking up' feeling no moral obligation to each other or to God and the secular authorities just turn a blind eye to that.
"r, I think you're getting the picture! See, I don't think I'm married because some cow (judge) mooed over me."
No Regina, the FLDS NEVER namecall or use demeaning terminology. Not in ALL the months you've been coming here.
"while at the same time there are so many people around this country just 'shacking up' feeling no moral obligation to each other or to God and the secular authorities just turn a blind eye to that."
And you know they feel no "moral" obligation to each other or God ---- how? Oh, yes, someone told you that your way is morally superior and everyone else's way is inferior.
Cheese. I don't see marriage as a "religious" obligation.
There is pair of geese that come to a local pond every single year. Each year they mate and I watch with joy each year as to how dedicated they all are to one another. Just because they don't belong to some religious institution doesn't make them any less obligated to each other and their little ones.
Ruby, geese aren't the same intelligence as people. The Lord said that he created man in his own image. All else was created 'for the use of man'. At least that's what I read.
Ruby, I see it as a priveledge granted from Heavenly Father and I'm obligated to him through obedience.
I see marriage as a spiritual obligation not a religious obligation. Lord knows there are all kinds of unions in nature and I don't comdemn none of them. In my mind they are all connected to the Great Spirit.
http://search.live.com/video/results.aspx?q=Crow+and+kitten&docid=273141465209&FORM=VIVR12
One of my favorite videos
Ruby, geese aren't the same intelligence as people. The Lord said that he created man in his own image. All else was created 'for the use of man'. At least that's what I read.
------
I honor the intelligence of animals...in fact sometimes I respect the intelligence of animals more so than human beings.
Personally, they have taught me quite a lot.
Regina
Which really is the source of the problem, the belief or the action? Seems to me that there would be no action without the belief.
Ron in Houston said...
"Regina
Which really is the source of the problem, the belief or the action? Seems to me that there would be no action without the belief."
Which is why you have a problem with the FIRST AMENDMENT! (I'm specifically refering to the "free exercise clause")
cheese
I'd say it's the exact opposite of your comment. I DON'T have a problem with the First Amendment or how it's been interpreted. You're the one who seems to have your underwear tied in a knot about it.
Ron...
No, belief does not necessitate action. I don't care if every third male in the world believes sex with five year olds is ideal. On the other hand, I'd personally try to castrate any one of them that acted on his beliefs.
I don't think you care one iota what Warren Jeffs, or any other member of the FLDS believes. On the other hand, you care deeply about the idea of consumated relationships between young teens and older me. So your objection is not to the belief. It is to acting on the belief.
Would you care if I believed gold was buried in your back yard? Probably not. On the other hand, if I walked into your yard with a shovel and set to digging it up, well, you might have a problem with that....
That's where I'm saying you need to adjust your schtick.....
Ruby, Here's an interesting article from The New Yorker, recently, on bird/animal intelligence...with a focus on language and communicating...
It's interesting...
animal intelligence
Cheese, As much as you want us to understand that within the FLDS community there are broad differences between individuals...
Well, the same is true of the rest of the world. Not everyone who chooses to be in a relationship without a ceremony is just "shacking up" without commitment or obligation to one another....
I know several couples who have been together in excess of twenty years, who are very much "married" although they never went through any kind of ceremony, secular or religious...
"I know several couples who have been together in excess of twenty years, who are very much "married" although they never went through any kind of ceremony, secular or religious..."
Isn't that an Illegal marriage?
...just somethin to think about
LOL
My point exactly, pliggy. "Shacking up" is "purporting"!
Interesting: the word verification for this post is "wheding"
They probably aren't doing it in the great state of Texas.
"My point exactly, pliggy. "Shacking up" is "purporting"!"
Actually, most of the people I know in committed releationships who do not marry are pretty clear about the fact that they aren't married. They generally are making a statement about the fact that they CAN be faithful to each other without a state-issued license. Of course in many states they would be considered married anyway after a number of years.
Blues
"if she became pregnant"
so your admitting you don't know?
I think that proves your bigotry!
"so your admitting you don't know?
I think that proves your bigotry!"
Admitting to not knowing something equals bigotry? Is the sky blue in your world?
Rebeckah
try reading all the posts that pertain and then you will understand.....IF you can get past your biggotry, wich I doubt.
Post a Comment
<< Home