For those people who agree with Groucho Marx that they would never want to be in a club that would have someone like them for a member, your wishes have been answered. Utah has made a major change that has beer drinkers raising a glass around the world. Utah has long required that anyone who wants a drink would have to fill out an application to join a bar as a “private club.” This is a bit of an barrier for casual drinkers and certainly a barrier for inebriates. Now, bars will be open their doors to the drinking public, admittedly a small percentage in Morman-dominated state.
The elimination of 40-year-old system is designed to boost the state’s $6 billion-a-year tourism industry and was requested by the Utah Travel Industry Coalition.
Under the prior rule, the bar would charge $4 for a new member with a membership that would last three weeks or they could pay $12 for an annual membership.
Roughly 60 percent of the state’s population belongs to the Mormon church and roughly 90 percent of the legislature are Mormons.
40 thoughts on “Utah Embraces Marxism: Utah To Allow Citizens Simply to Walk Into Bars and Order Drinks”
Hey. I like weights. You know where you stand with them. Well, sometimes you’re lying under them, trying not to let them crush you, but you see, you KNOW they’d crush you if they could. There’s honesty. Help me! Need information about: Trading share stock maket trading. I found only this – share trading strategies. Price stock is agreement that pays a hope of options which you take to be make of, share trading. President’s day weekend of the functioning trading, share trading. Thanks for the help :-(, Ronald from Sierra.
“You drip disingenuous tactics and skirt around evidence offered.”
You said the church funded the effort. It didn’t. It asked others to participate. That is all that you links provide. That is not commensurate with the notion of the “church” doing the funding. Period. Whatever conspiracy you subscribe to, there is no tenable conclusion that the Church funded the effort. Say it a thousand times, and scream all you’d like. The word “fund” doesn’t give you the flexibility you wish it did, and to continue to promulgate that position is disingenuous. Beyond that, I am content to let the readers decide.
“I’m sure your esteem for Jews rests squarely on what they will become again, in the same sense the Fundamentalists Christians await our purification after the rapture.”
No, not at all. I’m talking of Jews…not Jews turned Christian.
“Admittedly, I as one with Deist tendencies find the smugness of “Knowing God’s Plan” of any religion immature and blasphemous.”
Your problem judging others is your own. But it is circular and begs the question. Your whole objection is predicated on the notion that they do not, indeed, have such knowledge. For if they do, then it is neither immature and blasphemous. The only thing we can be certain is that you believe them to be presumptuous…as you are in taking it beyond that. You’ve got your panties in the proverbial twist.
“You attacked me for my statement and accused me of being disingenuous and dishonest.”
It was. You can’t prove any such “funding.”
“ I replied to you with links that I believe backed up my statement and then accused you of being disingenuous in turn.”
And you were wrong. The links prove nothing of funding, but encouragement to support…which was never disputed.
Also, Nazi’s did what they did through stereotypes and using them for fear-mongering and taking it to the extreme. Those are Nazi tactics…and that’s how you built much of your case (i.e. the Church values wealth almost as much as eternity and “controls Utah” with intentions to spread that control, etc.).
I’m sorry if that offends you.
Good job on the heavy lifting (as always), but now you see why I cut bait. Also, I picked up a copy of Cryptonomicon today. I’d start it tonight, but I made the mistake of starting “Blue Light” by Walter Mosley last night. I’m a big fan of his Easy Rollin’s mystery novels. This is one of a couple of S/F title’s he’s written and the only one I’ve read. All I can say is “WOW!” It’s set in the Summer of Love San Francisco and I’m betting it would be your literary cup o’ tea. It’s hippie friendly. 😀 I don’t think it’s in print anymore, but I had no problem finding it used. I bought it on a lark, forgot that I had it until last night and oh, lucky me! But it’s a short book I’ll probably finish tonight. The guys who specialize in S/F should be thankful Walter seems to like mystery. He’d be tough regular competition, but it’s squarely sociological S/F and not hard S/F. I’ll let you know what I think of Stephenson, but with all my other project related reading it may take a couple of weeks to finish that chunk o’ book. Thanks again for the suggestion.
You would have made a great press secretary, especially for George W. Bush. You drip disingenuous tactics and skirt around
evidence offered. There are many books and articles written from which I’ve drawn the statements I’ve made. We are in deep disagreement and it is probably not resolvable. You believe your way, I’ll believe mine.
However,you skirted around the LDS letter from the Presidency and the response of $1,000+ donors, half of which were Mormons, that I provided links for. It is disingenuous of you to pretend that the LDS leadership doesn’t exercise considerable primacy among the faithful.
“If you knew anything about LDS, you’d be particularly aware of our tremendous esteem for Jews, who they are, and what they will again become.”
I’m sure your esteem for Jews rests squarely on what they will become again, in the same sense the Fundamentalists Christians await our purification after the rapture. That’s the point you guys don’t get. Jews find this smugness insulting. Admittedly, I as one with Deist tendencies find the smugness of “Knowing God’s Plan” of any religion immature and blasphemous.
“You need desperately to do your homework. Odd, how playing the victim you turn to Nazi tactics of fear-mongering and stereotyping for promulgating blatant falsehoods for self-justification.”
Finally we come to this little end piece of yours. Let’s go back over how our dispute began on the other thread. You attacked me for my statement and accused me of being disingenuous and dishonest. I replied to you with links that I believe backed up my statement and then accused you of being disingenuous in turn. You never responded on that thread so when I saw you expounding here I re posted. The worst I’ve said about you is that you’re disingenuous and that was in response to your accusations.
This last little piece though by you is quite an interesting parry in that you use victim and Nazi in the same sentence. You are smart enough to know the thrust of this gambit and from your use of it you apparently are not the reasonable soul you pretend to be.
“I’ll give you this you’re artful but still disingenuous, since I believe you know better but are defending your deeply held beliefs…”
I’m not sure how you come up with “defending [my] deeply held beliefs.” Defending one’s beliefs and the legitimate actions of one’s Church, for me, are mutually exclusive.
“You parse words in defending this by saying that LDS didn’t directly fund the campaign. I didn’t say they did, but they organized a campaign under LDS members to raise funds.”
1) You said they waged well-funded campaigns. They didn’t! The encouraged individual participation, but did NOT “organize[d] a campaign.” That is completely, and wholly erroneous. Your conspiracy theory of “that’s how it operates” is untenable conspiracy theorism. They encouraged participation, but made no attempt to organize anything themselves. There’s nothing mystic going on, and no evidence of it. I’m baffled that your conflation is so extreme.
“Aaron, honestly, this is as disingenuous as one can get. An announcement from the Presidency about the moral necessity of taking some action would of course be immediately followed by Church Members, who are nothing if not overwhelmingly pious.”
Really? Then what happened when I didn’t donate? Before you continue on this conspiracy puppetry idea, give a shared of evidence that supports it. You are so far in left field, it’s incomprehensible to me. Your attribution of blind fidelity to its membership is curious, yet your authority and persuasive evidence is lacking. To cast everything on stereotypes is intellectually dishonest—and that’s what you’re doing.
“Does the LDS run Utah openly, of course not, but woe be to the politician that runs afoul of LDS, or its’ leaders.”
Like the Governor, pushing for civil equality for gays and alcohol openness, whom is STILL in great standing with the church? You have an unnecessary presumption that the Church has a totalitarian agenda, which they surely do not (evidenced by the fact that they have done a very poor job of advancing it).
“Does LDS have the right to try to sway Utah politics, of course they do, but that doesn’t justify it, nor does it mean that non LDS citizens of the US shouldn’t be upset about it.”
I don’t see the need for justification, and you have yet to show it.
“It is also the case though that anti-Prop 8 people like myself, have every right to decry the substantial LDS participation to pass Prop 8.”
Decry all you want, but you haven’t any base to “decry” other than your dislike.
“I deeply resent missionaries of any kind because in my opinion they are blasphemous in their certainty that they know God’s purposes.”
That’s your problem. Don’t be offended because you fabricated their intent or knowledge. What if they’re right?
“Aaron I’ll give you that as a Mormon, or Christian you find this touchiness hard to understand. View this perhaps from a Jew’s point of view:”
Understand, I don’t want to minimize the issue. If you knew anything about LDS, you’d be particularly aware of our tremendous esteem for Jews, who they are, and what they will again become. The history of victimization is one of the few that is actually real. But I don’t find a sensitivity to that history as justifying hard feelings to a well-meaning 3rd party who in all other situations have been staunch defenders and allies. Again, on substantive archaeology, there are other forums which we can engage in substantial subjects. I’m not particularly patient w/ ad nauseum approaches to every jot and tittle of skepticism and question.
“Mormons are in general an industrious and entrepreneurial group who value wealth almost as much as eternity.”
Wholly inflammatory and inappropriate! Your presumptions are far beyond arrogant, and woefully desperate of substance. I have very little tolerance for one, like you, who hopes to be understood, and pass judgment and execution on such pernicious comments.
“That was how plural marriage got outlawed and how black men could suddenly attain the priesthood. Good business practice often informed LDS policy.”
Says who? You? That rather shaky sources continues to boggle me as an authority.
“The vicarious Baptism that took place in the Tabernacle.”
??? Do you know what you’re talking about? There’s never been such a practice in the very open and public “tabernacle.” You give yourself much credit.
“…is viewed as just another attempt to appropriate Jews in the service of another religion and as such is offensive.”
Except vicarious work has ALWAYS been predicated on the individual ACCEPTING the service. How that is offensive, again, is beyond me.
You need desperately to do your homework. Odd, how playing the victim you turn to Nazi tactics of fear-mongering and stereotyping for promulgating blatant falsehoods for self-justification.
I’ll give you this you’re artful but still disingenuous, since I believe you know better but are defending your deeply held beliefs, even if that defense requires disingenuous activity. What I said and what I linked to was:
“The LDS on its’ own news site admits to around $190,000 in in-kind contributions. However, LDS organized a fund raising campaign for Mormons to give between $22 million and $39 million in cash.”
You parse words in defending this by saying that LDS didn’t directly fund the campaign. I didn’t say they did, but they organized a campaign under LDS members to raise funds. The
Letter from the Presidency of LDS to be Read at all LDS congregations and linked below says it all:
It was of course done that way because you and I know that’s how LDS operates, with deniability. Some of their activities annoy me, but I have a great respect for the intelligence of the LDS hierarchy and membership
Simply put, the Church has no compelling sway over those voluntary contributions. They were encouraged (w/out strings attached) and voluntary.”
Aaron, honestly, this is as disingenuous as one can get. An announcement from the Presidency about the moral necessity of taking some action would of course be immediately followed by Church Members, who are nothing if not overwhelmingly pious.
That piety is a strength of the LDS and is impressive.
“1- Your fear of an LDS establishment of religion is wholly unfounded. Despite any optimism we may have, that aint ever going to happen. And your line that “LDS runs Utah…” do you mean the membership, or the Church? If you mean the Church, then you’re simply ignorant.”
Does the LDS run Utah openly, of course not, but woe be to the politician that runs afoul of LDS, or its’ leaders. Does LDS have the right to try to sway Utah politics, of course they do, but that doesn’t justify it, nor does it mean that non LDS citizens of the US shouldn’t be upset about it. I’m also upset about the political activity of the Fundamentalist Right, but I’ve never felt that it could be legally inhibited,
except to remove its’ tax free status.
By the same token it bothers me that LDS is trying to spread its’ political reach beyond Utah, which I admit they have a right to do. It is also the case though that anti-Prop 8 people like myself, have every right to decry the substantial LDS participation to pass Prop 8.
“2- You are “offended” that people preach to you? I just don’t understand the offensive part. Do they stick a gun to your head?”
I’m 64 years old Aaron and I’ve given more than enough thought to what happens to me after death, especially having a condition that doesn’t bode well for a long life. I deeply resent missionaries of any kind because in my opinion they are blasphemous in their certainty that they know God’s purposes. Also the history of missionary work, even though some have provided assistance, is a very bad one and its’
underlying presumption of knowledge of truth is in my opinion ignorant.
“3- The vicarious baptism DID stop at the institutional level. It has not stopped altogether, and that was never the claim. Family members with direct ties have as much right to submit those names as you do complain about it. But again, why the offense?”
Aaron I’ll give you that as a Mormon, or Christian you find this touchiness hard to understand. View this perhaps from a Jew’s point of view:
Christianity has claimed to supplant Judaism and has appropriated our Torah, in the effort. Islam has also claimed to have replaced both Judaism and Christianity and has also appropriated Jewish Patriarchs and Jesus himself in their efforts. The Mosque of Omar was built on Temple Mount as a proclamation of the supplanting of Judaism by Islam and a non-Koranic Mythology about Mohammad’s ascent from that site was added to the Islamic Canon as justification. Mormonism has also done their share by inserting a mythology of Jews in North America in 600BCE, to add the cachet of Judaism and its’ replacement by Mormonism.
Finally, as an aficionado of Archaeology I know of nothing that indicates a Jewish presence in North America, much less as a putative empire in 600BCE. The story though certainly grounds Mormonism in the supplanting of Jews group. Your other point about if LDS controlled Utah, why are they allowing alcohol, is easily disposed. Mormons are in general an industrious and entrepreneurial group who value wealth almost as much as eternity. Tourism is a big business in Utah and so it was a good business move, with the LDS being predictably against it publicly, but not fighting against it behind the scenes. That was how plural marriage got outlawed and how black men could suddenly attain the priesthood. Good business practice often informed LDS policy.
The vicarious Baptism that took place in the Tabernacle is viewed as just another attempt to appropriate Jews in the service of another religion and as such is offensive. As to whether or not it has stopped is unknowable to those outside the inner circle of LDS since the Tabernacle is a sacrosanct location.
I didn’t realize you pasted it here. Sorry about that.
So, your position is that the Mormon Church waged “well-funded propaganda campaigns,” and you stand by it? That IS incorrect! In-kind donations are not “funding.” That’s why they are termed, “in-kind.” What, per your links, was “funded?” The Church gave no “funds.” It didn’t give a dollar. You’re making things up. Even more, it neither supported nor organized any particular campaign. It supported the initiative, encouraged people to get involved, facilitated dialogue, but stayed out of the management and declined to “fund” any particular campaign. Your proposition is wholly erroneous.
I am fully aware of the membership’s efforts to raise money, as well as the particular amounts they gave to support Prop-8. But to say that such volunteerism constitutes the ‘Church waging well-funded campaigns’ is simply incorrect; it conflates the pocketbooks of the membership with those of the Church and such IS either disingenuous or naïve. Simply put, the Church has no compelling sway over those voluntary contributions. They were encouraged (w/out strings attached) and voluntary. They were completely and utterly distinct from the Church itself—despite any conspiracy you may believe. If you know that already, then your conflation is disingenuous for purporting something that is blatantly untrue.
To your concerns:
1- Your fear of an LDS establishment of religion is wholly unfounded. Despite any optimism we may have, that aint ever going to happen. And your line that “LDS runs Utah…” do you mean the membership, or the Church? If you mean the Church, then you’re simply ignorant. Heck, I live on the East Coast and know that Utah’s alcohol restrictions are headed for a very mainstream application…and we both know that’s not the Church’s preference. But your inconsistency that one special interest group should not participate because it’s religious and another one can because it’s gay is rather odd. You’re hypocrisy is quite revelatory and bends your sense of equitable participation in the political process.
2- You are “offended” that people preach to you? I just don’t understand the offensive part. Do they stick a gun to your head? Did these “pimply faced teenagers” tell you you’re going to hell or call you names? That, I could see as “offensive.” (But FYI, we don’t couch our terms as the evangelicals… the idea that they said anything about “saving” you [or hell for that matter] is fabricated, and I’m calling you on it.)
3- The vicarious baptism DID stop at the institutional level. It has not stopped altogether, and that was never the claim. Family members with direct ties have as much right to submit those names as you do complain about it. But again, why the offense? From your perspective, someone’s doing some hocus-pocus non-sense out of good-will which has absolutely no bearing on the individual at all. Why’s that offensive? [And the implication that you know where any distinct group of Jewish migrants was NOT 2600 years ago is…intriguing.]
P.S. Just so others don’t get the wrong idea, there was no monetary donation nor organized support on behalf of the Church; although it clearly made in-kind donations in facilitating discussions and encouraged membership to get involved.
I’m generally pretty good about following up on threads, but I now do not remember what our conversation was. Let me know, and I’ll go back and offer a response. Sorry about that.
It seems that again you’ve avoided the opportunity to counter my rebuttal to your calling me wrong, naive and disingenuous albeit on another thread. Could it be that your statement that LDS had in effect not supported Prop 8 was unfounded? If you recognize then that your statement was unfounded did you make it out of ignorance, or out of an attempt to be disingenuous?
If you had read my comments on other threads at this site you might have been aware that I’ve been rather outspoken in my contempt for the right wing Israeli government. In one I traced it back to Begin taking power and called him a thug. I have also traced the history of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the terrible mistake that allowing Israeli settlements there has become, stating that it should never have happened. I’ve also decried AIPAC, etc. and have categorically stated that I’ve never donated money to those types of organizations.
However, you too lack some insight in your use of the statement: “theocratic Zionist government” as a question of whether I’m comfortable seeing the issue from other than a Jewish perspective. As you see from the paragraph above I am comfortable in criticizing Israel. However, guess what, I am a Zionist. Zionism is the belief in the need for a Jewish homeland and I not only hold that belief, but I believe in the maintenance of Israeli existence as a Jewish State. Why is that not a dichotomy, I’ll explain:
As a Jew and as a native born 3rd generation American I am patriotic and have no plans to move anywhere. I support Israel though, in the same manner that Irish Americans for years supported Ireland’s revolt and the revolt in Ulster.
However, also as a Jew I know that the abatement of anti-
Jewishness in the US only began in the late 50’s and I have even experienced anti-Jewishness in my schooldays. I am also cognizant of Jewish history and within it there are more than numerous instances where Jews have felt comfortable in a country, with seeming acceptance, only to become subjects of expulsion, inquisition, extermination and forced conversion.
As recently as WWII, Jews on ships fleeing extermination were turned away from all Country’s including the US, only to find themselves back in the Nazi’s hands. I am born and I assume I will die an American, but I have children and grandchildren that might one day need refuge because it is possible that zealotry can take over the US government in the same way it has come in other lands, in other times.
You conflate my belief in US church/state separation as implicitly antithetical to Israel’s existence as a Jewish State. I see no dichotomy. My belief is based on the US Constitution which I strongly support. Other countries do not hold our truths as self-evident. Saudi Arabia,Iran,The UAE,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia, to name a few all are Islamic States, with religious freedoms running from slim to none. Israel, say what you will, does allow the free practice of one’s religion, yet it is surrounded by Countries that not only don’t, but that consider themselves Islamic. Isn’t that really the crux of the ME problem? Islamists consider it an affront that a Jewish State can exist in their midst.
You are probably not aware that after the 1967 war a PR campaign was launched, paid for by the Saudi’s, to equate Zionism with Racism. This has been a very effective campaign
when you consider that before 1967 Israeli’s were called Palestinians by ME countries and the rest of the world and the indigenous, displaced people were called Arabs. After the 1967 PR campaign they now had an identity and could portray themselves as a people wronged by “Fascist Zionism.”
I use the last because that was the genius and insidiousness of the PR campaign, which was to equate Jews with Nazi’s thereby negating any sympathy towards Jews due to the Shoah.
I’m sorry to have run on like this but for so many people this very complex and distressing issue has become little more that soundbites uttered on both sides, without the relevant context. There is a context you know, that makes this conflict a far broader issue than one of, those big bad Israeli’s, backed by Neocons are picking on those poor Arabs.
that is what my coworker believed and he was a very pious Mormon. I think what KM wrote is believed by many, but you say it is askew. where is the skew?
Your grasp of Mormonism is askew. Your language is particularly imprecise and sloppy. No surprise, however, that for turning to an antagonist’s shop your receive a shoddy product.
It’s clearly better to leave one to represent his/her own beliefs, particularly if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mormons believe that being created in the image of God, inherently means that they will become gods, create worlds, and other little gods. It’s a synthesis between puritanism and freemasonry, although the indoctrinated are only recently becoming aware of the connection.
exmormon.org Recovery from Mormonism
MIke Spindell: I hope that shoe fits on the other foot, and you speak out against the abuses of the theocratic Zionist government, which, ironically incites anger and resentment against Israel, and Americans of all religions.
The mixing of the drinks must take place in a separate room our of sight of children. My guess is so that they aren’t mesmerized by the alchemy and made vulnerable to the influence of evil spirits.
There must be a glass partition between the bartender and the customer. This undoubtedly is to protect the men from those loose women working there.
In the words of the Spaniard: “I do not think that means what you think it means.”
Internet Troll: One who “posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response.”
I think you’re throwing rocks at a glass house, my friend. But that’s OK.
P.S. I insulted you? Wow. I’m sorry. I feel terrible that you must go through life so victimized.
You’re a bit off…at best on your facts. The Mormon church gave no money to Prop 8. Moreover, the anti-Prop 8 supporters actually had MORE money than their counterparts. To thus conclude that the Mormon Church waged “well-funded propaganda campaigns” is either naivety, disingenuous…or both.”
I was waiting for your return it seems you never responded to my post totally refuting your facts. Here it is below so you can have your chance to refute it or to show yourself as being dishonest and disingenuous:
It is you who doesn’t have the facts, or are being disingenuous as shown by the following which just took me a few minutes to google, with far much more related material to link to that disproves your contention. The LDS on its’ own news site admits to around $190,000 in in-kind contributions.
However, LDS organized a fund raising campaign for Mormons to give between $22 million and $39 million in cash.
LDS was significantly in the fight against Gay Marriage in California, even by their own admission and statements. Do they have a right to express what they feel, of course they do. however, once doing so then they also must suffer the consequences of their actions. I’m not particularly against
LDS except on three grounds.
1. It bothers me when a religion runs a State in that it threatens Church/State separation and LDS runs Utah. It is therefore disconcerting when LDS begins to venture out into running other States.
2. As a Jew the missionary work of LDS, Baptists and Catholics also offends me. I get very annoyed when approached on the street by bright-eyed pimply faced teenagers who are going to tell me how to be saved.
3. That LDS has had the effrontery to “baptize” Jewish Holocaust victims posthumously is highly insulting to other Jews and myself. Although it has been claimed to be stopped rumor has it that it continues in secrecy. Posthumous Baptism is actually an unwarranted continuation of the Shoah. Also please to those Mormons out there, I know more about Jews than did Joseph Smith. There were no legions of Jews in North America in 600 BCE, it is only your way of trying to usurp the history of Judaism to your own benefit.
When it comes to religious belief I’m a live and let live kind of person. However, many people of varying religious stripes fail to recognize the insults that other people, with strong though differing beliefs have to suffer, because of these zealot’s need to make others believers in their visions of the Creator. I’ll worry about my own salvation, thank you.”
And I thought you may not be a troll so I was playing nice until you resorted to insult. Seems we were both mistaken. However, the difference is you think you are harming me in some way and actually I just think your funny. In the pathetic sense of funny. So as long as you want to foam on, I’ll keep letting you expose yourself for what you are, trollboy.
I’ll keep on laughing.
Come on. Insult me some more.
It’s a hoot.
I thought you set me to “ignore?” Funny.
Thanks for continuing to confirm your nature.
Awwww, isn’t that cute.
Comments are closed.