Reader comments
Utah's 'private clubs' on way out?
143 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Church and State | 1:39 p.m. July 31, 2008
I am deeply concerned about some of these commenst. many LDS choose to drink.
Many non LDS choose not to drink. I don't care how many LDS and non-LDS
there are in Utah. The point is our constiution is based on speration of church
and state. The LDS church has a right to voice their opinion. The LDS church
does not have a right to call in the Governor or Legislators and threaten their
spriritual after life or the standing of their membership if they don't do
whathe church tells them to do. We do not l;ive in a theocracy. The LDS Church(
and all other chirches)needs to not unduly affect public policy and politics.
Again this is supposed to be a democracy not a theocracy.
Bartender | 2:01 p.m. July 31, 2008
Somebody up there said tourists come to Utah mostly to visit Temple Square, ski
and to see our national parks. That's probably true, but it does leave out
a big segment of visitors, those coming for conventions. The fill the Salt
Palace all the time and they are not your typical tourists--they come to party.
The writer up there implied that people who come for the first three reasons
aren't here to drink. But, first hand, that's not all the way true:
Our busiest nights, are during the Outdoor Retailers convention AND during
annual conference.
Roger | 2:10 p.m. July 31, 2008
Those who complain about the LDS Church influencing state government in Utah
have not lived in cities like Dallas, Texas and Boston, Massachusetts. In
Dallas, for example, Baptist congregations are very powerful and always
influence the making of government rules and regulations. Boston has the largest
per capita Catholic population in the country, and Catholic officials always
have a say in what the city and the state governments do.
In Utah, the difference is that those who are not LDS complain much louder about the dominant religion than those who are not of the dominant faith in Dallas or Boston. There, the "nons" just get along with the Baptists and the Catholics, seeming to understand that that's just how things are in the world of government and politics: majority interests always get a bigger say. Why it is so different in Utah, heaven only knows.
In Utah, the difference is that those who are not LDS complain much louder about the dominant religion than those who are not of the dominant faith in Dallas or Boston. There, the "nons" just get along with the Baptists and the Catholics, seeming to understand that that's just how things are in the world of government and politics: majority interests always get a bigger say. Why it is so different in Utah, heaven only knows.
Comments continue below
I don't get Huntsman | 2:08 p.m. July 31, 2008
Is this the most important thing he can be doing for our state? It seems he has
a strange agenda, changing lots of (antiquated) liquor laws, forcing his green
campaign down our throats, and whatever pet projects he dreams up. Who are his
advisors? Who's running against him this fall? Anyone with more than half a
brain and a name with a lot of money?
Balmforth | 2:38 p.m. July 31, 2008
Madam Balmforth should be kicked off the commission. She sounds like a
colloquial misfit.
to: Roger | 2:10 p.m | 3:05 p.m. July 31, 2008
"In Utah, the difference is that those who are not LDS complain much louder
about the dominant religion than those who are not of the dominant faith in
Dallas or Boston. There, the "nons" just get along..."
One of the reasons is because we are called "NONS."
Prettydegrading, isn't it?
One of the reasons is because we are called "NONS."
Prettydegrading, isn't it?
HEY ROGER | 3:17 p.m. July 31, 2008
I sure hope I never live in a city where Muslims are the majority - I would hate
to have to wear a burka here in the USA!
re why not | 3:31 p.m. July 31, 2008
i dont think the governor is going to meet with me to hear my opinion, so why
should he for the church........
Carl | 4:34 p.m. July 31, 2008
This is an election year. The governor has not made a definite proposal, nor has
he drafted a law to present to the legislature. All he has done is make a
statement that perhaps now is the time to do away with the private club rules.
He did not make his proposal during the most recent legislature, nor the one before, and the next legislature does not meet until January, two months after the election.
This tactic is very similar to his proposal during the election four years ago to move the state prison away from Draper. At that time, polls showed that he had less support in the populous areas of Salt Lake County than other candidates. After the election, a brief study by the state revealed that the costs of moving the prison from Draper were high, something everyone already knew, and the governor dropped his proposal without any further consideration.
He did not make his proposal during the most recent legislature, nor the one before, and the next legislature does not meet until January, two months after the election.
This tactic is very similar to his proposal during the election four years ago to move the state prison away from Draper. At that time, polls showed that he had less support in the populous areas of Salt Lake County than other candidates. After the election, a brief study by the state revealed that the costs of moving the prison from Draper were high, something everyone already knew, and the governor dropped his proposal without any further consideration.
To CP: | 4:37 p.m. July 31, 2008
The are not "increasing the amount of liqour" all they are doing is
making it so that you don't have to stop when going into a Private Club and
fill out a form giving all of your information and then paying a fee to be able
to come back again and again. Drunk driving will NOT go up because the private
club fee is repealed. I would bet that the majority of drunk drivers had been
drinking at home or at a friend's home before they got behind the wheel.
If they had been at a private club and had been that obviously drunk then the
club bouncers would've stopped them. By taking away the club requirements
it will free up the bouncers to be more aware of underage drinkers trying to
sneek into the club and they can also focus on the patrons leaving and make sure
that the drunks DONT get behind the wheel. Right now, they are forced to do
paperwork and data entry to input the memberships. How stupid!!
magnus | 4:44 p.m. July 31, 2008
@ Church and State
Nice work there going from A to B to Z.
Why would you think that the church is "threatening their spiritual lives and church membership"?
Nobody mentiones such a thing and in fact they expressly said exactly the opposite of that.
You clearly didn't read the Post on page 1 about the origins of the term "Separation of Church and State" and moreover you clearly don't understand the constitution because even if that was in there (which it isn't) it would hardly be one of the "founding principles".
Are you deeply concerned because everyone isn't buying into your paranoid "Mormon Big Brother" conspiracy theories or is it because you really want better liquor laws?
Nice work there going from A to B to Z.
Why would you think that the church is "threatening their spiritual lives and church membership"?
Nobody mentiones such a thing and in fact they expressly said exactly the opposite of that.
You clearly didn't read the Post on page 1 about the origins of the term "Separation of Church and State" and moreover you clearly don't understand the constitution because even if that was in there (which it isn't) it would hardly be one of the "founding principles".
Are you deeply concerned because everyone isn't buying into your paranoid "Mormon Big Brother" conspiracy theories or is it because you really want better liquor laws?
re:re: Anonymous3:35 and others | 4:45 p.m. July 31, 2008
The majority make the laws and rules we live by.
That the way it is.
The minority has voice and can try and attempt influnce the making of laws.
And if they believe they unconstutuional may chanllenge them in court.
That's how it works.
However, no matter how add it up the majority will always make the rules and the laws.
NO jehovah witness is forced medicare on them without a court order.
NO one is forced wo wear not ear a head scarf unless yu live in courry that muslim, where they are the majority and make the laws.
The majority of the people in Utah will vote the majority representation who make the laws.
Thaht's just how it works.
You can try change the laws, or influence how they made, but by and large you will fail.
OR you live in place that has the population and laws you like.
It is free country, you are not chained to one spot.
Of couse you will say you shouldn't to have move,
well then, you will have put up with and live under laws the majority wants.
Do you get it now?
That the way it is.
The minority has voice and can try and attempt influnce the making of laws.
And if they believe they unconstutuional may chanllenge them in court.
That's how it works.
However, no matter how add it up the majority will always make the rules and the laws.
NO jehovah witness is forced medicare on them without a court order.
NO one is forced wo wear not ear a head scarf unless yu live in courry that muslim, where they are the majority and make the laws.
The majority of the people in Utah will vote the majority representation who make the laws.
Thaht's just how it works.
You can try change the laws, or influence how they made, but by and large you will fail.
OR you live in place that has the population and laws you like.
It is free country, you are not chained to one spot.
Of couse you will say you shouldn't to have move,
well then, you will have put up with and live under laws the majority wants.
Do you get it now?
Ridgerunner | 6:43 p.m. July 31, 2008
Why do some many people defend drinking alcohol? Eveyone knows the price we pay
as individuals and as a society for consuming alcohol! I understand individual
choice, but what I will never understand is why anyone with a brain would choose
to drink alcohol! Why not hit yourself in the head with a hammer everyday for
the rest of your life, the results are about the same! I guess the only reason
is because it feels so good when they stop!
dave | 7:38 p.m. July 31, 2008
Ridgerunner, You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about.
I am sitting here enjoying a 1993 Sonoma Valley Cabernet. It is a shame that you choose not to expose yourself to something as beautiful as this wine. You are missing one of the most incredable olfactory and taste experiences available to humans. Wine is truly a gift from God.
I am sitting here enjoying a 1993 Sonoma Valley Cabernet. It is a shame that you choose not to expose yourself to something as beautiful as this wine. You are missing one of the most incredable olfactory and taste experiences available to humans. Wine is truly a gift from God.
Re: Dave | 7:57 p.m. July 31, 2008
Thanks for your comment. To each his own! I prefer a clear head and enjoying a
fine beautiful cold glass of fresh orange juice with my breakfast each morning!
Having said that, if God made anything better than fresh mountain spring water,
He must have kept it for Himself, any wine in the world included! Have a great
evening!
MJ | 8:02 p.m. July 31, 2008
in the Utah constitution it states "There shall be no union of Church and
State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions.
No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any
religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of any
ecclesiastical establishment." it is this breach that bothers many people
although with 58 % population being LDS there views should be respected but more
often it seems that the state is asking for an ok rather than input
Henry Drummond | 10:52 p.m. July 31, 2008
My grandfather ran a "speakeasy" here in Utah during prohibition. He
never had to worry about getting arrested. Every once in awhile the police
would close places down for half a day to impress the media. (We have a nice
picture of my grandfather at one of these "surprise" raids)
If we're honest about it, nothing has changed. The "private club" membership is just a ruse. We have liquor by the drink. Its just tied up with a lot of silly regulations don't stop anyone from drinking and do nothing to curb abuse.
It is just another attempt to make believe we are a "dry" state to keep one group happy while still supplying a drink to those who want it. Since I don't drink anyway, I really don't care much what happens here. I would just suggest we keep pretending. If you want to go back to prohibition go ahead. If you are not willing to do that, that quit pretending and get rid of these silly memberships.
If we're honest about it, nothing has changed. The "private club" membership is just a ruse. We have liquor by the drink. Its just tied up with a lot of silly regulations don't stop anyone from drinking and do nothing to curb abuse.
It is just another attempt to make believe we are a "dry" state to keep one group happy while still supplying a drink to those who want it. Since I don't drink anyway, I really don't care much what happens here. I would just suggest we keep pretending. If you want to go back to prohibition go ahead. If you are not willing to do that, that quit pretending and get rid of these silly memberships.
Mahershalalhashbaz | 11:33 p.m. July 31, 2008
Funny but you all think it's bad for the LDS to want to outlaw alcohol
(which they don't, they just want to make it safer) while at the same time
Govermother Schwartzeneggar just outlawed transfats in California. Because
they're dangerous. Ahhh hahahaha! THe irony. He's just forcing his
religion (health gyms) on everyone else. No debate on that one huh. Mormon
Church evil, Government angelic.
American | 12:23 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
One thing is certain, especially after reading these posts. Alcohol and the
laws governing it don't seem to be the problem in Utah. It certainly
appears that education is. I'm very sorry folks. You certainly appear to
have a bit of a civil war going on there. I don't intend to be mean, but
your inability to express yourselves is a little overwhelming for this outsider.
Utah just does not get it | 12:55 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
Plain and simple, most of Utah are STUPID when it comes to alcohol, they are
taught to not drink, which is fine, but stop imposing your beliefs on everyone
else. Gov. Huntsman does not drink, he is Mormon, but he does not let his
religion rule his position. He is moving to more reasonable laws. Changing the
Private Club laws will not increase drunk driving. Its like saying if we
charged a door fee at every restaurant it would stop people from getting FAT.
Charging a Private Club Fee would really be the same as charging people to eat
at a restaurant. Neither is reasonable or makes any sense.
Clubs | 1:50 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
The clubs are going to be against this change more than anyone since they are
the ones who are making money off of these memberships. Who cares if one group
or another is for or against drinking. We all have our right to choose whether
we go into these clubs/bars or not. Get over it.
Paul in MD | 7:49 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
To Church and State @ 1:39 PM 7/31
What article did you read??? As I and several other posters have said, the governor's office contacted many groups, including the LDS church, for their input on the issue. And there is no mention anywhere of the church threatening the governor or members of the legislature with church membership actions, except in your post.
As an LDS member for over 30 years, I can tell you the church does NOT involve itself in politicians' decisions, and only gives opinions, usually after being asked.
If you don't believe that, can you please explain to me how Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid (political polar opposites) can both remain active members in good standing???
What article did you read??? As I and several other posters have said, the governor's office contacted many groups, including the LDS church, for their input on the issue. And there is no mention anywhere of the church threatening the governor or members of the legislature with church membership actions, except in your post.
As an LDS member for over 30 years, I can tell you the church does NOT involve itself in politicians' decisions, and only gives opinions, usually after being asked.
If you don't believe that, can you please explain to me how Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid (political polar opposites) can both remain active members in good standing???
Paul in MD | 7:53 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
To Church and State @ 1:39 PM 7/31
I'm sorry, I don't mean to go on and on, and I'm not picking on Church and State, but there is a comment I forgot to make in my last post.
The Constitution was not based on separation of church and state. It was one of the principles it was designed around and protections it was written to give the people, but you (and millions of others) completely misunderstand it.
The separation of church and state in the US Constitution is there to keep the government from dictating a religion, not to keep religion from influencing government. Every founding father made arguments and writings supporting our need as a free and democratic people for the influence of a supreme being and the guidance of moral principles.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to go on and on, and I'm not picking on Church and State, but there is a comment I forgot to make in my last post.
The Constitution was not based on separation of church and state. It was one of the principles it was designed around and protections it was written to give the people, but you (and millions of others) completely misunderstand it.
The separation of church and state in the US Constitution is there to keep the government from dictating a religion, not to keep religion from influencing government. Every founding father made arguments and writings supporting our need as a free and democratic people for the influence of a supreme being and the guidance of moral principles.
US History Teacher | 8:54 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
Paul, you are overly general when it suits you:
"Every founding father made arguments and writings supporting our need as a free and democratic people for the influence of a supreme being and the guidance of moral principles."
The "Founding Fathers" were not a homogenous group who all thought the same. Indeed, a great majority of them were Deists, which is about as close to being an atheist as you can come without actually being an atheist. But they were certainly NOT CHRISTIAN, and didn't "share" what YOU and many Christians believe are "the guidance of moral principles."
John Adams, for instance, is often MISquoted as being a believer and lover of religion. But if you really read Adams you discover he agreed with Marx that religion was the "opiate of the masses" and thought that was a good thing to pacify the people so government leaders would have an easier time governing. That is not a sincere endorsement of religion; it is a utilitarian, expedient exploitation of religion. Also, he and other "Founding Fathers" wrote extensively about the evils of religion influencing government! The citations are too many to list. Suffice it to say you are 180degrees wrong.
"Every founding father made arguments and writings supporting our need as a free and democratic people for the influence of a supreme being and the guidance of moral principles."
The "Founding Fathers" were not a homogenous group who all thought the same. Indeed, a great majority of them were Deists, which is about as close to being an atheist as you can come without actually being an atheist. But they were certainly NOT CHRISTIAN, and didn't "share" what YOU and many Christians believe are "the guidance of moral principles."
John Adams, for instance, is often MISquoted as being a believer and lover of religion. But if you really read Adams you discover he agreed with Marx that religion was the "opiate of the masses" and thought that was a good thing to pacify the people so government leaders would have an easier time governing. That is not a sincere endorsement of religion; it is a utilitarian, expedient exploitation of religion. Also, he and other "Founding Fathers" wrote extensively about the evils of religion influencing government! The citations are too many to list. Suffice it to say you are 180degrees wrong.
Re "Anonymous | 9:59 a.m." | 9:06 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
[Anonymous | 9:59 a.m.] says, "The reason to change the private club law is
because it doesnt do any good and only causes confusion and
consternation".
I'd be willing to bet that ISN'T the reason Anonymous is so loud mouthed on this issue. What other laws do we do away with "Because it doesn't do any good"?
Anonymous doesn't really care about Utah liquor laws (he doesn't live here and promised never to come here). This is just another chance for him to get on the soap-box about 2 of his top 3 topics to rant on (Mormons and Utah).
If he could have made this into a Republican issue, He could have had the whole trifecta... Mormons, Utahns and Neocons!
I'd be willing to bet that ISN'T the reason Anonymous is so loud mouthed on this issue. What other laws do we do away with "Because it doesn't do any good"?
Anonymous doesn't really care about Utah liquor laws (he doesn't live here and promised never to come here). This is just another chance for him to get on the soap-box about 2 of his top 3 topics to rant on (Mormons and Utah).
If he could have made this into a Republican issue, He could have had the whole trifecta... Mormons, Utahns and Neocons!
READ | 9:12 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
Read the Utah Constitution. There is separation of church and state in that
document and it is that the church will NOT influence the state government. It
is different here is UT. OUR STATE Constitution says that the church CANNOT
influence laws.
Paul in MD | 11:06 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
To History Teacher @ 8:54 AM 8/1
Thank you for correcting me in the facts. In this case, I did over-generalize. I usually try hard to avoid that, as it undercuts any point I may be trying to make.
I think your characterization of me (over-general when it suits me) is a bit unfair, however. Just as I have admittedly not studied the writings of all of the founding fathers as much as you have, I would have to argue that you have not read mine. As I said, I usually try to avoid such generalizations, but I erred earlier.
Had ALL of the founding fathers written and argued against religion's influence on government, then I would agree that I was 180 degrees wrong.
I would also argue that it is incorrect to assume that Christians and non-Christians can't agree on a base set of moral principles, if they can at least agree on a general definition of the word "moral".
Thank you for correcting me in the facts. In this case, I did over-generalize. I usually try hard to avoid that, as it undercuts any point I may be trying to make.
I think your characterization of me (over-general when it suits me) is a bit unfair, however. Just as I have admittedly not studied the writings of all of the founding fathers as much as you have, I would have to argue that you have not read mine. As I said, I usually try to avoid such generalizations, but I erred earlier.
Had ALL of the founding fathers written and argued against religion's influence on government, then I would agree that I was 180 degrees wrong.
I would also argue that it is incorrect to assume that Christians and non-Christians can't agree on a base set of moral principles, if they can at least agree on a general definition of the word "moral".
Paul in MD | 11:16 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
to READ 9:12 AM 8/1 -
The territory of Deseret (as Utah was known before becoming a state) had to jump through many hoops to gain statehood. No, I don't know this for a fact, but I would guess that putting that language regarding church and state in the Utah constitution was one of them. As a side question, does anyone know how many other territories did not get to pick their state name? Utah's application/petition requested that the state be named Deseret, but they didn't get that (obviously).
READ, your comment seems to indicate that you think the LDS church is exerting direct influence on the state government. Looking only at this article, that seems to be a hard conclusion to draw. If the church were trying to do that, they'd be pushing for Utah to become completely dry, and they aren't.
I attended BYU after growing up in New Jersey, and frankly at the time I thought Utah's liquor laws were extremely liberal. My first night at BYU I wandered over to 7-11 and was surprised to find alcohol there. In Jersey, 7-11 couldn't even sell beer.
The territory of Deseret (as Utah was known before becoming a state) had to jump through many hoops to gain statehood. No, I don't know this for a fact, but I would guess that putting that language regarding church and state in the Utah constitution was one of them. As a side question, does anyone know how many other territories did not get to pick their state name? Utah's application/petition requested that the state be named Deseret, but they didn't get that (obviously).
READ, your comment seems to indicate that you think the LDS church is exerting direct influence on the state government. Looking only at this article, that seems to be a hard conclusion to draw. If the church were trying to do that, they'd be pushing for Utah to become completely dry, and they aren't.
I attended BYU after growing up in New Jersey, and frankly at the time I thought Utah's liquor laws were extremely liberal. My first night at BYU I wandered over to 7-11 and was surprised to find alcohol there. In Jersey, 7-11 couldn't even sell beer.
DR Don | 11:17 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
"if God made anything better than fresh mountain spring water, He must have
kept it for Himself, any wine in the world included!"
Then why did He change water into wine as noted in John 2:1-11?
Then why did He change water into wine as noted in John 2:1-11?
READ | 11:53 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
"READ, your comment seems to indicate that you think the LDS church is
exerting direct influence on the state government."
I think that because 90% of the legislature is Mormon and will do whatever the Church says, the Church holds all the power. What it says re this issue will be law.
I think that because 90% of the legislature is Mormon and will do whatever the Church says, the Church holds all the power. What it says re this issue will be law.
Paul in MD | 12:43 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008
To READ @ 11:53 AM 8/1
Would you be as upset if 90% of the legislature were Baptist and outlawed dancing? Or if 90% were Catholics and outlawed condoms or divorce? How about if 90% were atheist and outlawed church?
I know, my examples are extreme, but I'm trying to make a point, which I've made before. Anytime you have a large portion of the population belonging to the same group (religion, race, national origin, professional team supporters, whatever) you'll have laws that reflect their interests.
If LDS legislators all did what the Church said all the time, how do you explain Orrin Hatch and Harry Ried (political polar opposites) both being LDS members in good standing?
Would you be as upset if 90% of the legislature were Baptist and outlawed dancing? Or if 90% were Catholics and outlawed condoms or divorce? How about if 90% were atheist and outlawed church?
I know, my examples are extreme, but I'm trying to make a point, which I've made before. Anytime you have a large portion of the population belonging to the same group (religion, race, national origin, professional team supporters, whatever) you'll have laws that reflect their interests.
If LDS legislators all did what the Church said all the time, how do you explain Orrin Hatch and Harry Ried (political polar opposites) both being LDS members in good standing?
dave | 1:59 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008
Ditto DR DON!!!
Holdin the floor | 3:39 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008
I tell you water into wine... its the democarats and those Utah... You cant just
decide that I'm drunk, you cant decide. I make that decision. That
decision is between me and the lord. I'm not even making that decision...
the apostoles drank wine. I havent...I dont even hurt nobody. Were in the
future the millenium......not past
Anonymous | 8:23 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008
Paul,
Your "extreme" examples do not support your stance.
YES a thousand times, I would be just as upset if:
"90% of the legislature were Baptist and outlawed dancing? Or if 90% were Catholics and outlawed condoms or divorce? How about if 90% were atheist and outlawed church?"
Yes! Yes! Yes! Such corruption should be stamped out regardless of the religion!
So what is your point again?
Your "extreme" examples do not support your stance.
YES a thousand times, I would be just as upset if:
"90% of the legislature were Baptist and outlawed dancing? Or if 90% were Catholics and outlawed condoms or divorce? How about if 90% were atheist and outlawed church?"
Yes! Yes! Yes! Such corruption should be stamped out regardless of the religion!
So what is your point again?
Tommie | 9:44 a.m. Aug. 2, 2008
To ALL OF YOU THAT OPPOSE THE LDS CHURCH GETTING INVOLVED:
Just remember this, we got forced here because you forced out from the other side of the country, you don't like that they are involved, then don't live here. You move here for the good values and family stuff, well where do you think we get that? from the tainted water? Come on and back off! The church has a right and thats not going to change.
Just remember this, we got forced here because you forced out from the other side of the country, you don't like that they are involved, then don't live here. You move here for the good values and family stuff, well where do you think we get that? from the tainted water? Come on and back off! The church has a right and thats not going to change.
Paul in MD | 6:51 a.m. Aug. 4, 2008
To Anonymous @ 8:23 PM 8/1
Anywhere you have 90% of the legislature holding one point of view on a particular issue, that point of view will prevail. I'm glad you'd be upset with the extreme examples I gave - so would I.
My point is this - representative government works by giving voice and power to the majority of the governed. Our representative government gives protection to the minority by providing checks and balances to keep the majority from going too far. In this situation, the majority can restrict the sale of alcohol, but the protection given to the minority will keep the majority from banning it completely.
The LDS church doesn't tell LDS legislators how to vote. It tells members to get involved in the political process. Some just vote, some become politicians. If the church dictated politics to its members, there wouldn't be any LDS Democrats. I know several personally, I know there are some in Washington, and I've seen posts on this site from many others.
Anywhere you have 90% of the legislature holding one point of view on a particular issue, that point of view will prevail. I'm glad you'd be upset with the extreme examples I gave - so would I.
My point is this - representative government works by giving voice and power to the majority of the governed. Our representative government gives protection to the minority by providing checks and balances to keep the majority from going too far. In this situation, the majority can restrict the sale of alcohol, but the protection given to the minority will keep the majority from banning it completely.
The LDS church doesn't tell LDS legislators how to vote. It tells members to get involved in the political process. Some just vote, some become politicians. If the church dictated politics to its members, there wouldn't be any LDS Democrats. I know several personally, I know there are some in Washington, and I've seen posts on this site from many others.
Dave is here | 10:22 a.m. Aug. 4, 2008
Paul,
It seems pretty simple to me. I like to have a drink once in a while. I don't want to have to become a "member" of a private club to do so. Whether I am in the majority or the minority doesn't matter. Upon what basis should anyone be able to hinder me from my freedom to have a drink?
You can tell me all about drunk driving, but I have never driven under the influence, so restricting me because of what others do is finding me guilty and restricting my liberties before I have done anything wrong!
Seems to me a person who has alcohol and want to sell it to me, and a person like me who wants a drink, should be free to conduct a mutually agreeable social and business transaction without any religious freaks poking their noses into our business!
Am I missing something?
It seems pretty simple to me. I like to have a drink once in a while. I don't want to have to become a "member" of a private club to do so. Whether I am in the majority or the minority doesn't matter. Upon what basis should anyone be able to hinder me from my freedom to have a drink?
You can tell me all about drunk driving, but I have never driven under the influence, so restricting me because of what others do is finding me guilty and restricting my liberties before I have done anything wrong!
Seems to me a person who has alcohol and want to sell it to me, and a person like me who wants a drink, should be free to conduct a mutually agreeable social and business transaction without any religious freaks poking their noses into our business!
Am I missing something?
Paul in MD | 11:32 a.m. Aug. 4, 2008
To Dave is Here @10:22 AM 8/4
I'm not arguing for or against this specific law. I don't know enough about it to form an opinion either way.
My discussion regarding majority/minority representation was intended to illustrate the point that on any given issue, we could find ourselves on either side of that equation depending on how the rest of the voters in our area feel about it.
The aspect of this that a lot of folks have latched on to is that the LDS church provided an opinion. The point many folks have missed or chosen to ignore is that the governor's office ASKED for that input, and not just from the LDS church.
I think it is unfairly judgmental, and possibly prejudiced, of you to label folks who don't agree with your position on drinking as "freaks." I don't think people should drink alcohol. I will teach my children they should not drink, ever.
However, I don't believe the government should do anything more than protect society from the dangers of alcohol abuse, like drunk driving. Beyond that, education is the appropriate avenue for reducing alcohol consumption, not laws.
I'm not arguing for or against this specific law. I don't know enough about it to form an opinion either way.
My discussion regarding majority/minority representation was intended to illustrate the point that on any given issue, we could find ourselves on either side of that equation depending on how the rest of the voters in our area feel about it.
The aspect of this that a lot of folks have latched on to is that the LDS church provided an opinion. The point many folks have missed or chosen to ignore is that the governor's office ASKED for that input, and not just from the LDS church.
I think it is unfairly judgmental, and possibly prejudiced, of you to label folks who don't agree with your position on drinking as "freaks." I don't think people should drink alcohol. I will teach my children they should not drink, ever.
However, I don't believe the government should do anything more than protect society from the dangers of alcohol abuse, like drunk driving. Beyond that, education is the appropriate avenue for reducing alcohol consumption, not laws.
Ello | 4:14 p.m. Aug. 4, 2008
The LDS church should not be granted special visits with the Governor of any
state.
This state pretends to be capitalist and it's "conservative" constituents do not know the meaning of conservative.
This state is a theocracy with hints of capitalism and democracy peppered in for window dressing.
In a true democracy every voice would count and our voices could not be drowned out by some men in suites that sit in the LDS church office building.
I want America back, all you fake patriotic utahns that wave your flags and "support the troops" should want it back too, this country is at a crossroads, and we need to hold on to freedom and human rights.
Human rights include drinking alcohol in this country.
This state pretends to be capitalist and it's "conservative" constituents do not know the meaning of conservative.
This state is a theocracy with hints of capitalism and democracy peppered in for window dressing.
In a true democracy every voice would count and our voices could not be drowned out by some men in suites that sit in the LDS church office building.
I want America back, all you fake patriotic utahns that wave your flags and "support the troops" should want it back too, this country is at a crossroads, and we need to hold on to freedom and human rights.
Human rights include drinking alcohol in this country.
Dan | 4:57 p.m. Aug. 4, 2008
It seems to me that the church is living in the future, eventually society
catches up to it, sometimes it takes many decades. I believe someday society
will catch up to the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ. Just like smoking
and how society eventually caught on. We will see the same thing for other
principles that the church has been teaching forever. It is nice to be part of
a religion that sees the future and helps us in that regard.
Calling Dan's Bluff | 10:34 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
D&C89 says wine or strong drink is not good EXCEPT in
�assembling yourselves together to offer up your
sacraments.� This means wine is OK ON OCCASION. But the
Prohibition-era Church leaders misinterpreted D&C 89 so they could
�fit in� with everyone else, and
prohibited wine completely, even for sacrament.
Recent medical research shows the antioxidant properties of wine (a glass a day) and tea and coffee (up to 4 or more cups a day) reduces risk of cancer, aids digestion, and helps people live longer.
�Not good�? Joseph was wrong.
�flesh of beasts and of the fowls of the air� (red and white meat) are �to be used sparingly:� they should NOT be used EXCEPT �in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.�
Do you get your temple recommend taken away if you eat a steak at a Sunday BBQ? Why not? Either Joseph was wrong, or those �prophets� after him were wrong.
�barley �for mild drinks, as also other grain.� That means beer is OK, according to D&C 89! Again, the Prohibition-Era Church leaders went along with what everyone else was doing to interpret the vagueness of D&C89. Either they were wrong, or Joseph Smith was.
Recent medical research shows the antioxidant properties of wine (a glass a day) and tea and coffee (up to 4 or more cups a day) reduces risk of cancer, aids digestion, and helps people live longer.
�Not good�? Joseph was wrong.
�flesh of beasts and of the fowls of the air� (red and white meat) are �to be used sparingly:� they should NOT be used EXCEPT �in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.�
Do you get your temple recommend taken away if you eat a steak at a Sunday BBQ? Why not? Either Joseph was wrong, or those �prophets� after him were wrong.
�barley �for mild drinks, as also other grain.� That means beer is OK, according to D&C 89! Again, the Prohibition-Era Church leaders went along with what everyone else was doing to interpret the vagueness of D&C89. Either they were wrong, or Joseph Smith was.
Dave is here... | 12:34 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Paul,
If you don't know enough about this law to form an opinion either way, aren't you "off topic" and poking your nose where it doesn't belong by commenting at all?
Few people have missed or chosen to ignore the fact that the governor's office ASKED for input from the LDS Church. But they DO know what YOU seem to want to ignore: Our Governor is LDS. He should keep his religion out of his political office. The fact that he doesn't is exactly the "cult"-like influence on its members that makes people fear (hate) the LDS Church.
And by the way, I didn't "label folks who don't agree with [my] position on drinking as 'freaks.' I simply refered to "religious freaks poking their noses into our business." If you are not one of them, don't worry about it. If you are one of them... well, let's just say you are not my friend.
If you don't know enough about this law to form an opinion either way, aren't you "off topic" and poking your nose where it doesn't belong by commenting at all?
Few people have missed or chosen to ignore the fact that the governor's office ASKED for input from the LDS Church. But they DO know what YOU seem to want to ignore: Our Governor is LDS. He should keep his religion out of his political office. The fact that he doesn't is exactly the "cult"-like influence on its members that makes people fear (hate) the LDS Church.
And by the way, I didn't "label folks who don't agree with [my] position on drinking as 'freaks.' I simply refered to "religious freaks poking their noses into our business." If you are not one of them, don't worry about it. If you are one of them... well, let's just say you are not my friend.
William Craig Lowe | 1:46 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008
Let's be MATURE here. As a person who earns my (very good) living in the
hospitality industry, all that is being asked is that Utah's arcahic laws
reflect what WE ALREADY DO: Responsibly serve a patron the drink they ask for,
without looking like we live in the dark ages. (I.e. the 'but you have to
do this' attached.) Tourists AND locals alike don't need to jump
through hoops! We still won't promote underage, or allow, overdrinking. AND
we are STILL not asking the LDS to drink!! We ARE asking to continue, business
as usual, without acting like niave fools.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Campaign to help finances of elderly 9:27 p.m.
- Jazz Extra: Coming attractions 9:27 p.m.
- Just can't wait to wait in long lines 9:24 p.m.
- Swap site for strapped shoppers 9:24 p.m.
- Tips for holiday value hunters 9:23 p.m.
- Utes won't respond to Hall 9:17 p.m.
- Jazz notes: Injuries mounting 9:10 p.m.
- Society celebrates 350 years 9:10 p.m.
- Photo: Sunny glide 9:07 p.m.
- Blog posting 'news yule 9:06 p.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- BYU is champion of the state
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- Credit Coug defense for win
- Field goals, penalties doomed Utes
- Cougar defense rose to occasion
- Marriage definitions vary widely
- Banged up Jazz get best of Blazers
- Jones' joy for life remembered
- Fantasy is reality for BYU professor
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
844 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime471
- BYU is champion of the state136
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies117
- Cave to be sealed with body inside116
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Rivalry Week is highly profane90
- Hall's legacy measured today79
- Y. focused on 10-win season74
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
Ute fans hated Max Hall long before he returned the favor Saturday night. My...
This whole thing is so laughable. It's hilarious to me how much press this...
Nice institution of higher learning. Not. Please Max, go to class.
I still agree with Max Hall's first comments. Too bad he apologized.
I have always been a Utah, BYU and MWC/former WAC fan (I am a Utah grad and...
Get real. They couldn't get to their car because Utes fans were assaulting...
"...Last year at RES my family was spit on, had beer dumped on them, and were...
This is why few people read your column.
I am happy to see an actual apology (and clarification) rather than the...
I am disapointed that so many have excused or worse condoned the hateful...
Advertisements