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.
Former Fed,
If we’re picking preferred maxims, I’ve got to go with ‘you can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose…’
BIL,
Did you ever go to law school? And are you really green and fat? Just curious.
Aaron said:
“In short, your understanding is pretty close. The maxim is: “As man is God once was; as God is man may become.”
_______________________
I prefer Mark Twain: “Once a man, twice a child” likely a paraphrasing of the Italian proverb, “Old men are twice children”
blah blah blah troll boy
Bron,
So you know, as soon as the ‘swine trod the pearls,’ then I’m going to be done w/ the discussion. If in such an event your willing to continue elsewhere, let me know and we can meet up somewhere else. Again, I’m much more interested in a general civility of others’ beliefs (although my civility unfortunately acquiesces quickly in other forums).
In short, your understanding is pretty close. The maxim is: “As man is God once was; as God is man may become.”
If you’re a bible man, we could go through it sometime…but the easy reasoning comes down to 2 things: 1) Is God all powerful, and 2) Is God all loving? If both of those are true, why wouldn’t he permit that? What does He loose? Nothing. I think that’s what it means to become co-heirs w/ Christ, etc. It makes sense, and really only dependent on obedience.
Hope that helps,
Aaron
BIL,
“Attack” you? I didn’t expect the victim card to played…
“You’re the one trying hide behind not having a sense of humor to justify forcing “respect” for your religion. You don’t think it’s funny? Don’t read it.”
Two things:
1) Where there is no humor, one can have no sense of it.
2) If I don’t read it, how will I not know it’s not funny?
Again… strawman. Who said anything about “forcing” respect? You are highly disingenuous, and now I’m wondering about your reading comprehension. No one is being “forced” to do anything, and I certainly hope you’re not so sensitive to believe that a request is so intrusive.
“But there was nothing wrong with my logic other than it offended your delicate sensibilities. That’d be YOUR problem, ace.”
The problem with your logic is that it was completely irrelevant. Free speech was never at issue. I never suggested that anybody be forced to do anything, nor that they haven’t the right to say what they like. Your strawman was illogical, because it was wholly irrelevant and conjured.
“A responsibility is a duty that arises from the individual toward an institution either by ethical choice or legal obligation.”
Oh…kind of like ‘promoting the general welfare.’ You conflate my reason for calling something irresponsible as if it were a definition. Not at all. But thank you for proving my point.
“The only difference between request and demand is semantic. So go ahead. Attack me and not the message. I don’t give a damn what you think about me.”
So when the poor child asks you for a dollar, you treat him as the thug that makes his butterfly dance?
You take yourself much too seriously…and evidently woke-up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I’m sorry you’re such an unhappy person and so prone to virulent tirades.
“You’re a more sophisticated troll, I’ll grant you that…”
It’s true. I can use Elven bows and ride Rohanian horses.
“Now I know to just ignore you and your troll foam. And you can stuff the fake civility if you don’t like it, Mr. Ad Hominem. Someone says something you don’t like and that’s your first resort? Sad.”
“Fake” civility? Better to aspire to become a stallion than prove oneself a jackass.
CCD,
Your welcome…although I don’t think either you or BIL is nearly ugly enough to cause such intestinal weakness. Unless…you’re over 6’5 and 250 and think you’re menacing and intimidating for an in-person dialogue.
Cheers,
PacMan
“Wholly irresponsible and unnecessary. Grow-up.”
“I think you’re making a mountain out of a mole-hill.”
“I bet your mother’s proud.”
“Wholly erroneous … totally off the wall.”
The internet provides a medium for interpersonal exchanges that I doubt could EVER take place in person. Little intestinal fortitude is required when sheltered by this technology. Thanks for the affirmation Aaron.
Aaron:
If you are a Mormon I have a question for you, I used to work with a guy who was a Mormon and we were talking one day about his religion and he told me that in the Mormon religion God was once a human and I then asked so does that mean that any human could be God? He told me yes it did.
Is that correct or did he just not understand his religion?
I know nothing about your religion other than the few Mormons I have met seem like decent sorts and have a good work ethic.
Aaron,
Attack me all you want. I could care less about your critique of me. So put that in your strawman and smoke it.
You’re the one trying hide behind not having a sense of humor to justify forcing “respect” for your religion. You don’t think it’s funny? Don’t read it. But there was nothing wrong with my logic other than it offended your delicate sensibilities. That’d be YOUR problem, ace. Welcome to Free Speech. You didn’t refute squat either, rather ridiculed me in absence of a firm place to stand other than YOUR personal offense. Hmmm, where have I seen that before? On top of that your definition of “irresponsible” is flat wrong. “That’s why it’s irresponsible. It’s not constructive, not informative, wholly conclusory, and the world is a worse place because of it.” In your OPINION of a JOKE. A responsibility is a duty that arises from the individual toward an institution either by ethical choice or legal obligation. No more, no less. I even agreed it was a poor joke. My statements were based in the Constitution. Your’s are pulled out of . . . you get the idea. That definition you rely on presumes others have your same value system and if not, should be forced to adopt it. Some people find humor constructive while the humorless (and venal) hammerheads of the world find comfort in authoritarianism, neoconservatism, religious intolerance and hate speech. “I don’t agree so I’ll stomp them out!” Humorless people suck. The only difference between request and demand is semantic. So go ahead. Attack me and not the message. I don’t give a damn what you think about me. The personal opinions that matter to me about me are very, very limited and sorry, but you didn’t make the cut. You’re a more sophisticated troll, I’ll grant you that, but you are now revealed to be just that: a troll. Thanks for revealing your true nature. Now I know to just ignore you and your troll foam. And you can stuff the fake civility if you don’t like it, Mr. Ad Hominem. Someone says something you don’t like and that’s your first resort? Sad. Try and sound as rational as you like, but if that’s your best/only/preferred tactic, well that says all I need to know about you too. Just like the other trolls I have set to “ignore”. So ciao, skifu. Enjoy your bunched up panties, because I think it’s even funnier than the joke you protested.
So you keep foaming and I’ll keep laughing.
That’s also a potential price of Free Speech.
BIL,
One other thing:
“You are well within your rights to defend your religion even if it, like ANY religion, has no place in politics or as a rational basis for civil governance.”
As long as you realizes that’s your opinion…and that it finds no support in the text. The Constitution prohibits the ‘establishment’ of religion by the state…not religious participation in state matters. Your “no place in politics” is wholly erroneous.
Cheers,
PacMan
BIL,
Umm…I think you’re making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I don’t know where I’ve defended Mormonism. Whether it’s Mormonism, Judaism, Buddhism, or atheism, I find it wholly “irresponsible and unnecessary” to name-call. Put any belief system in the context of being called ‘moronic,’ and I’d say the same. The defense is not religious one, but principled civility.
Now, also understand that I’m not calling for JoeRT to be flogged, beat, abused, or thrown in prison. This is not a debate of Constitutional rights. It’s rather a general request for substantive understandings and “tolerance.” A jackass can certainly prove his breed, but it doesn’t mean he should.
And your argument that it was poor because there is other thing easier to poke fun of, is lacking. Why do so in the first place? Because it’s funny? Why? What value is there in demeaning others? Everything we teach kids to practice on the school yard looses meaning once someone reaches the age of majority? I bet your mother’s proud.
That’s why it’s irresponsible. It’s not constructive, not informative, wholly conclusory, and the world is a worse place because of it.
Again, your strawman response defending his “right” to offend is totally off the wall. Never was my argument that because one shouldn’t do something, he hasn’t the right. You’ve grossly misinterpreted the request, and the motivation…not do infringe on your right to do so, of course.
Best,
Aaron
Thank you, kind sir. One live to be of service.
“That’s the price of Free Speech,” and,of course, its value, too. Bravo Buddha.
Aaron,
You came here and defended Mormonism and got little or no flack simply because you were polite. You are well within your rights to defend your religion even if it, like ANY religion, has no place in politics or as a rational basis for civil governance. The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, one of those important rights just like the Establishment Clause and Freedom of Religion, is what allows this freedom. It is also these same freedom that allows JoeRT to joke about Mormonism. Or Fundamentalists (of any flavor). Or Muslims. Or Jews. Or Catholics. Or Wiccans. Organized religion is an easy target for humor or scorn for so many reasons.
Freedom of Speech comes with a price just like Freedom of Religion – others that disagree with you and your choices have the same rights too. Personally, I didn’t find it funny either, but for technical reasons. Why do a simple play on words when you have magic underwear to make fun of or Mitt’s Plastic Miracle Hair? Those are wells of near infinite comic material, but I digress. The very same Freedom of Speech that allows you to defend your faith of choice means that others are free to criticize it. This includes JoeRT. This includes bad jokes as well as a reasoned critique should he choose to present one.
He was not irresponsible, however. Unless he’s a Mormon, he has no ethical duty to defend your faith let alone a legal duty. One cannot be irresponsible when one has no responsibility.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion don’t mean freedom from hearing speech you don’t like about the religion you are free to choose. It means everyone can say what the want and worship as they choose. Your perception of “poor taste” notwithstanding. I should also add that Freedom of Speech comes with a very important feature that is an unwritten corollary. You are free to not listen. Freedom of Religion means that should you too decide Mormonism isn’t the path for you, you are free to change that. Or do you favor a more Sharia like system where apostasy is punishable by death and you can’t have a religion that isn’t state approved let alone talk about alternatives?
You don’t like him making fun of the Mormons? Fine. You’ve said so and civilly so. For that I give you credit. But if you want to be adult about it, he’s as within his rights to insult Mormonism as much as you are to defend it despite any reservations you may have about the character of the speaker and his maturity. In America, people are allowed to say all manner of things even if you don’t like them. That’s the price of Free Speech.
Poor taste JoeRT. Wholly irresponsible and unnecessary. Grow-up.
And for Turley: The one thin that JoeRT DID get right was the spelling.
I think I’ll drink a toast to Moronism…er,..Mormonism.
“Let there be dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons, and necking in the parlor!”
Groucho Marx; A Night At The Opera
lol gnome.
They have a similar joke in the South about Baptists.
Why can’t a Baptist go to a Catholic Church?
All that kneeling and standing is a lot like dancing.
The Mormons do not recognize the Pope.
The Pope does not recognize the Mormons.
The Mormons do not recognize each other at the liquor store on Saturday night.
Eat, drink and be merry!
For tomorrow …
you may be inb UTAH!
……what?? I was completely unaware that such a policy even existed in Utah to begin with! Crazy. Glad it was reversed.