White powder sent to Moron temples in Utah, LA

[spdirty]

White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA
Email this Story

Nov 13, 10:08 PM (ET)

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. The clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour, said Scott Freitag, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department.

None of the writing on the envelope was threatening, and the church received no calls or messages related to the package, Freitag said.

Protests in recent days have targeted the Mormon church, which encouraged its members to fight the recently passed amendment banning gay marriage in California.

Authorities are looking into several theories on who sent the letters and why, Pack said.

Anthrax mailed as a white powder to Washington lawmakers and media outlets killed five people and sickened 17 just weeks after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Periodic hoaxes modeled on the anthrax mailings have popped up since then but usually prove harmless.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081114/D94EEP9O2.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Betcha they were sent by that same guy who carved the 'B' in that McBush campaign worker's face.

[Drek]

Nice thread title.

White powder sent to Moron temples in Utah, LA

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by Drek

Nice thread title.

I'm split on whether it was intentional or not.








not really.

[Kaylore]

There were some burned scriptures found at a few churches yesterday. Apparently its angry backlash against the gay marriage ban.

[Bob]

Obviously the "backlash" against the majorty of those who voted is real, and the claim of hate, when no hate was shown, but rather a vote of the people. Blacks voted at 70% against gay marraige, but easier targets are found, for photo opps created for a sympathetic media. The flipside are those protesting the results though legal and now illegal means, are showing their true colors, and unwillinesss/inability to be governed by the voice of the majority.

If Gay marraige were passed, you would not see the majority showing this level of hate, you were get rumblings, and folks would move on...

What they should think about besides attempting to intimidate old ladies with crosses, is to frame a better augument. I know that any action is ok LA, if it is the side you agree with, but that may reflect something course and partisan about you, and those willing to go to these levels when they dont get thier way at the ballot box.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Bob

Obviously the "backlash" against the majorty of those who voted is real, and the claim of hate, when no hate was shown, but rather a vote of the people. Blacks voted at 70% against gay marraige, but easier targets are found, for photo opps created for a sympathetic media. The flipside are those protesting the results though legal and now illegal means, are showing their true colors, and unwillinesss/inability to be governed by the voice of the majority.

If Gay marraige were passed, you would not see the majority showing this level of hate, you were get rumblings, and folks would move on...

What they should think about besides attempting to intimidate old ladies with crosses, is to frame a better augument. I know that any action is ok LA, if it is the side you agree with, but that may reflect something course and partisan about you, and those willing to go to these levels when they dont get thier way at the ballot box.

You have almost zero understanding of what this country is about.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

You have almost zero understanding of what this country is about.

And you have almost zero ability to articulate aurguments suggesting why the majority position should be over-turned. If you dont like the result, explain why instead of buring scriptures, knocking crosses out of old ladies hands, and mailing white substances to those you disagree with...

Those that want to protest legally I'm ok with, but those that have crossed the line are the real idiots inis debate, as they are hurting the end game augument. They are showing, that they are not willing to be governed by the rule of law, and 4000 years of history.

[Bob]

There is some irony here in my mind -- if you could transport those that killed and raped LDS folks 150 years ago (based on the notion that LDS folks were perverse and their stance against slavery) could see why some folks are getting close to the level of hate again. They might reconsider, and see their bigotry was misplaced.

When plural marraige was practiced outside the boundries of the USA -- it was seen in a simular context, so I am not without some empathy, but when Christains had a problem with Plural marrage, they ignored Abraham, Isaaic and other OT prophets who did it with God's appearent blessing. Sodom did not fair quite so well.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Bob

And you have almost zero ability to articulate aurguments suggesting why the majority position should be over-turned. If you dont like the result, explain why instead of buring scriptures, knocking crosses out of old ladies hands, and mailing white substances to those you disagree with...

Those that want to protest legally I'm ok with, but those that have crossed the line are the real idiots inis debate, as they are hurting the end game augument. They are showing, that they are not willing to be governed by the rule of law, and 4000 years of history.

I'll tell you what. I'll ignore your inflammatory bs linking me to people who take the above ignorant actions and instead post my argument from the other thread. I think it shows a better than "zero" ability to articulate my "aurgument" [sic].

The whole argument falls apart unless it's based on religion. On a strictly secular basis, the government has no right to offer the protections and benefits of law to one group while denying them to another. So what could possibly be the secular reason for denying the rights of marriage to one group that another group enjoys? There is none. And don't tell me, "It's because the majority wants it that way." The Bill of Rights exists to bar the tyranny of the majority. In other words, denying marriage to gays is a discriminatory decision written into our laws and based on one groups' religious views.

Why does that make me uncomfortable? Just one more example of how our rational, secular form of government is under constant attack from the superstitions and fallacies of the religious.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'll tell you what. I'll ignore your inflammatory bs linking me to people who take the above ignorant actions and instead post my argument from the other thread. I think it shows a better than "zero" ability to articulate my "aurgument" [sic].

[I]The whole argument falls apart unless it's based on religion. On a strictly secular basis, the government has no right to offer the protections and benefits of law to one group while denying them to another. So what could possibly be the secular reason for denying the rights of marriage to one group that another group enjoys? There is none. And don't tell me, "It's because the majority wants it that way." The Bill of Rights exists to bar the tyranny of the majority. In other words, denying marriage to gays is a discriminatory decision written into our laws and based on one groups' religious views.
I]

How about the tyranny of the minority, as that seems to be the case here? How about the breaking of laws by the bigoted minority? I guess that is ok, because they believe as you do? Your one dangerous dude...Stalin and Hitler would give you a big kiss, and you would like it?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Bob

And you have almost zero ability to articulate aurguments suggesting why the majority position should be over-turned.

That's very simple, the majority decision (ban gay marriage) is oppressive and discriminatory against people for reasons uncontrollable by them. Being gay is no more a choice than skin color. Also, it is unconstitutionally applying a restriction because it has not secular justification but only a religious one.

Conversely, the minority opinion (keep gay marriage legal) does not oppress or discriminate against anyone and does not violate any law or the Constitution.

Furthermore, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is designed specifically to limit the power of the majority. The majority will is only valid if it does not come in conflict with the Constitution. When it does, the courts are doing their jobs when they strike down laws as I believe this one will be.

How about the tyranny of the minority, as that seems to be the case here?

There can be no tyranny when people are not being forced to do something. Gay mariage is not forced upon anyone.

How about the breaking of laws by the bigoted minority?

That some choose to address their grievances in criminal ways in no way affects whether or not the law should be made or not.

I guess that is ok, because they believe as you do? Your one dangerous dude...Stalin and Hitler would give you a big kiss, and you would like it?

I call Godwin's Law.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Bob

How about the tyranny of the minority, as that seems to be the case here? How about the breaking of laws by the bigoted minority? I guess that is ok, because they believe as you do? Your one dangerous dude...Stalin and Hitler would give you a big kiss, and you would like it?

You dope, Hitler sent Homosexuals to the gas chambers. You are the
one Hitler would be giving a big kiss to.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Bob

How about the tyranny of the minority, as that seems to be the case here? How about the breaking of laws by the bigoted minority? I guess that is ok, because they believe as you do? Your one dangerous dude...Stalin and Hitler would give you a big kiss, and you would like it?

I give up. Your silliness quotient is beyond my capacity to endure.

[Spider]

The Mormon church is wrong on this , look I dont know if you are born a rump ranger or if it is a learned behavior , but what i do know is marriage is nothing more then a contract , you can enter into a contract about everything else and with any one you choose , even the Mormon church has contracts , see Willie and martins cove for examples ...........But attacking the Church is even more wrong ...........

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Drek

Nice thread title.

wondered how long it would take till someone noticed it. Maybe I shouldnt talk about em like that. My favorite aunt is a mormon. And the ones Ive come across are extremely nice people. Just wrong on a lot of things.

BTW, when the **** is Big Love coming back? I miss that show.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Spider

The Mormon church is wrong on this , look I dont know if you are born a rump ranger or if it is a learned behavior , but what i do know is marriage is nothing more then a contract , you can enter into a contract about everything else and with any one you choose , even the Mormon church has contracts , see Willie and martins cove for examples ...........But attacking the Church is even more wrong ...........

You can also enter into contracts with more then one person. Using your argument you could then argue that if 2 women want to consent to marry one man that is also ok. Or the other way around 1 man and 2 women. Or 1 man and 6 other men. As long as they are all adults and enter into the contract.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

You can also enter into contracts with more then one person. Using your argument you could then argue that if 2 women want to consent to marry one man that is also ok. Or the other way around 1 man and 2 women. Or 1 man and 6 other men. As long as they are all adults and enter into the contract.

To be honest I don't see what the problem with polygamy is either as long
as all the parties are consensual and it's not some kids isn't being forced into
an arranged marriage. I suppose someone will eventually bring up bestiality,
but until some way is found to prove the sheep entered into the relationship
willingly, that ought to remain taboo. The hard criteria should be are all
partied of legal age and are all partied entering the relationship of their
own free will. Everything else the state should just bug out of.

[NYBronco]

I'm not a Mormon and living amongst them in Pocatello Idaho while I was earning my degree I found them to be far from moron's.

I really don't care what people do as long as no one gets hurt and my beliefs are respected as I respect others.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

You can also enter into contracts with more then one person. Using your argument you could then argue that if 2 women want to consent to marry one man that is also ok. Or the other way around 1 man and 2 women. Or 1 man and 6 other men. As long as they are all adults and enter into the contract.

why not ?

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Spider

why not ?

I'm not arguing pro or con, I'm just pointing out your argument that it's a contract between people, nothing more nothing less, could be used to support polygamy. I would imagine only about 15% of the country would support polygamy, maybe even less.

[Los Broncos]

Talked to my mother today she lives in Utah.

She got a kick out of the story for some reason, funny because shes Mormon.

When I first moved out there in 91, members from the church kept asking me "are you LDS"? over and over, finally I told them "no I'm LSD"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

To be honest I don't see what the problem with polygamy is either as long
as all the parties are consensual and it's not some kids isn't being forced into
an arranged marriage. I suppose someone will eventually bring up bestiality,
but until some way is found to prove the sheep entered into the relationship
willingly, that ought to remain taboo. The hard criteria should be are all
partied of legal age and are all partied entering the relationship of their
own free will. Everything else the state should just bug out of.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I'm not arguing pro or con, I'm just pointing out your argument that it's a contract between people, nothing more nothing less, could be used to support polygamy. I would imagine only about 15% of the country would support polygamy, maybe even less.

I know you are not arguing for or against , hell I am up here on the mesa cant believe I am on the net
moving unit drilling rig 328 .....

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Spider

I know you are not arguing for or against , hell I am up here on the mesa cant believe I am on the net
moving unit drilling rig 328 .....

I remember once you getting mad about some oil or fule you dripped in a forest or something? and these guys made a big deal out of it etc? do you remember that story?

Get ready for more of that!!!!