Why Does Tom Hanks Single Out Mormons?
by Michael van der GalienTom Hanks may be one of the best actors in history, but the real Tom Hanks is an entirely different man altogether. He made headlines today calling Mormons “un-American” because they actively supported Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Although this statement may make perfect sense to Hanks, the reality of the matter is that amending a constitution is perfectly American. What’s un-American is legislating from the bench – liberal judges forcing their personal views on the rest of us, as those did who overruled a law banning gay marriage also supported by a majority of Californians.
It is “un-American” to refuse to debate an issue and, instead, to vilify and demonize the other side. Furthermore, it is also distinctly “un-American” for Hanks to call those who dare disagree “un-American.” Lastly, it is even more “un-American” to single out a specific group solely because of their religious views.
Why isn’t Hanks calling African Americans, who voted in large numbers for Prop. 8, “un-American?” Why isn’t Hanks taking aim at Hispanics who also voted against legalizing gay marriage? Is it, perhaps, because liberals like Mr. Hanks only dare attack easy victims like white men, white Christians and white Mormons?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
268 Comments
“The truth is this [his series] takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop 8 happen. There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them. I
Des states:
Again, before everyone goes sideways, can we please look at the actual words Hanks used? The word that, clearly shows he meant the act of Prop 8 (or possibly the support of it, but there’s no way to be sure) was un-American. I disagree with either interpretation, but it’s not the same thing as calling Mormons un-American.
————————————————————
I think the first part of the quote is very relavant to what is being infered by the statement. While the specific in the one sentence state that it is voting against prop 8 that is considered un american one cannot ingnore the obvious attack on the Mormon church to begin with. The point of the statement is to degrade Mormons by linking the entire religion to this cult that has been rejected by the Church of Latter Day Saints. Then it discusses "Mormons" giving money to the church to fight Prop 8. This is slander has two points. One is to somehow link the entire church to vote and th second is to make an accusation that could affect their status as a 501-C-3 organization.
The tone itself is belligerant and disrespectful and there is no question in my mind he is trying to play on perceived Mormon bigotry because he thinks that this will somehow convince people to change their minds on the issue. Not for the merits of whether gay individuals can hav a marraige but by demonizing some group that supports it.
So I have to respectfully disagree. Painting the Mormon church in this way as un-american is the point of this statement. It is calculated to have this effect. Denigrate Mormons as monsters, tie their entire church as the lead reason for the result of the vote and if they are successful then maybe these other groups that support it might change their minds.
Not that I ever sought out poli-sci (or any other for that matter) advice from Tom Hanks, but upon learning he contributed money to Al Franken’s Senatorial campaign, he’s pretty much made the “I’m sorry, did he say something?” list for me. So much for avoiding Hanks’ “un-American” list, eh?
Great points, too, about Hanks not-so-suspiciously failing to mention the overwhelming black and Hispanic support of Prop 8. The day I see church protests in Compton or East LA, again, “Did Hollywood say something?”
and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop 8 happen. There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America
Again, before everyone goes sideways, can we please look at the actual words Hanks used? The word that, clearly shows he meant the act of Prop 8 (or possibly the support of it, but there’s no way to be sure) was un-American. I disagree with either interpretation, but it’s not the same thing as calling Mormons un-American.
The issue about Liberals refusing to address the fact that Prop 8 passed only because of the Obama turnout among minorities (who voted in far higher numbers than whites) in favor of Prop 8. It’s a sad fact of life that Liberals don’t feel that they can tell the truth (or even see it), if it takes away from their bigger argument (that minorities are all victims of the evil corporations and Republicans). Unfortunately, I don’t know how anyone is going to get that to change.
Came across a great description of people like Hanks: “situational patriots”.
By his logic, we can hold him accountable for the views and actions of other actors. That’s the problem with collectivist thinking.
Judge by individual actions.
Couple things. First, it’s nice to see a conservative complain about people calling people they disagree with un-American. It would also be nice if this policy was applied across the board. Second the African-American vote myth has been proven to be just that, a myth. Prop 8 votes were far more likely to be influenced by religiosity and party I.D. The black vote legend was based on an outlier exit poll. Keep up!
As for Democracy, the Founding Fathers would have been appalled, and I mean appalled, by the whole nutty Proposition process. They believed in both representative and constitutional democracy for many reasons, among them a keen diligence to moderate the tyranny of the majority.
Uh, yeah. “Legislating from the bench”, or as we folk like to call it “interpreting the Constitution” is 100% American. Better go back and re-take those courses on the separation of powers.
Steve, does Schoolhouse Rock count?
The legislature makes the law, judges determine the Constitutionality of the law.
It doesn’t make it less Constitutional just because you disagree with such rulings. In fact, it makes it more.
The spirit of the Constitution is to guarantee as many rights to as many people as possible. Interpreting as such is upholding the spirit of the Constitution, the spirit of America.
First, I voted in favor of Prop 8. Second, there is no use arguing this point with “liberals.” They simply do not frame the issue as we do, and they will refuse to change their frame of reference.
What is their frame? “Civil rights.” As far as they are concerned, opposing same sex marriage is PRECISELY the same as opposing interracial marriage – PRECISELY the same – morally, ethically, factually, and legally. And you or I will never convince them otherwise.
They believe that opposition to same sex marriage is the moral, ethical and legal equivalent of supporting “slaveholders rights to their property.” They will gleefully point out that the US Constitution supported slavery (technically, it didn’t – prior to the Civil War, it didn’t prohibit it). Therefore, in their view, Republicans and conservatives would have used the exact same logic to support slavery, de jure segregation, and interracial marriage bans – all perfectly legal in the past.
These “arguments” are bankrupt, of course, but since they refuse to change their frame of reference, they will never see that.
The legally, factually, and ethically correct frame of reference is this: ALL LAWS, without exception, must apply equally to all adults, regardless of race, creed, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
Gay men say they are being discriminated against because they cannot marry another man. This is incorrect. As a straight man, I cannot marry another man either. The truth is, the law does not care if an applicant for a marriage license is straight or gay. A man cannot marry another man, regardless of their sexual orrientaions. A gay man is legally permitted to marry a woman – the SAME RULE that applies to straight men like me. Likewise, gay women are covered under the exact same laws as straight women – they are permitted to marry a man.
American is one of the most tolerant societies that has ever existed. The purpose of same sex marriage initiatives is not to end “discrimination” – no one is being discriminated against – it is to create special laws that give “special rights” to “special groups.” That is exatly the sort of tyranny that America has been fighting against for over 200 years.
“What’s un-American is legislating from the bench – liberal judges forcing their personal views on the rest of us”
OH – you mean like when the super liberal Supreme Court stopped the Florida presidential recount and named their guy to the White House??? THOSE liberal activist judges??
Steve said-
“The spirit of the Constitution is to guarantee AS MANY RIGHTS to as many people as possible.”
Thanks for the laugh Steve. I declare that I-pods are a universal right. Now give me one!
What, pray tell, do you see the role of the Judicial branch as, then? Figureheads who get to wear robes and decide Presidential elections?
If the legislative branch passed a law stating that only white males can vote, it is the court’s responsibility to rule that unConstitutional.
The same applies to any other law, whether that law is made by the legislature or through popular vote.
Fortunately, we don’t have a system of democratic majority rule. If we did, we’d still own slaves, and women wouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Jason:
Ahh, yes. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ is just like iPods. Totally.
GEEEENIUS!
By the way, if anyone was wondering what the “activist judges” are up to lately, just this week they weakened the 4th amendment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html?_r=3&hp
and affirmed warrantless wiretapping:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?hp
I realize those aren’t liberal rulings, though, and therefore, a-ok per this blog.
I always thought Tom Hanks had the common sense to keep most of his political statements to himself but lately he has been changing his tune. The liberals can judge us all they want and call conservatives like us un-American, but when they basically call our troops baby killers, we can’t call them Un-American. Now I know Tom hasn’t been one that said that but his buddies have. I have no use for most of Hollywood. Rarely do I see a movie or watch TV anymore because their liberal stupidity ruin my ability to enjoy the show. In the back of my mind I’m remembering what ignorant thing they said on a red carpet.
I will just have to add Tom to my boycott list. Overall, I’m sure he’s a nice guy but ignorant remarks like that ruin the movie experience for me. I consider most of Hollywood as “followers” not leaders. I guess Tom just became more of a follower. Hollywood- Just one big high school crowd.
Steve and REPS4BRKFST missed the news: Al Gore never won ANY count in Florida. Even the media recounts. He lost every count but 1: if you counted only Democratic counties and threw out ALL the military votes. Not even he had the stones to ask for that one. He lost pure an simple.
The US supreme court did not “stop the counting” or “decide the winner” either. The decision in Bush v Gore simply said the counting could continue until Florida’s statuatory end date. The Democrats were trying to move that date thru the courts – after the fact.
Liberals will always wail about the US Supreme court. The fact is it was evenly divided at the time. As a resident of Florida I was more interested in the Florida supreme court and it’s shennanigans. That court was 7 democrats, but libs NEVER whine about any bias there.
It was with much satisfaction that in the following years myself and my fellow Floridians voted them out – except the Chief Justice, who said all along that the FLSC decisions were – quote – nonsense – unquote.
No worries, guys…we Mormons are getting used to the insults.
Des,
That argument isn’t going to fly. He singled out Mormons: “And the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop 8 happen. There are a lot of people who feel THAT is un-American and I am one of them.”
The sentence describes GIVING MONEY TO MAKE PROP-8 HAPPEN. –> THAT is un-American.
I remember during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal when Tom Hanks came out and said he was VERY disappointed with Clinton and his conduct. And that it besmirched the United States.
Less than a day, his buddies, namely Speilberg, gave him a talking too and later Tom came out and said that this was all just a Republican witch hunt and we should just move on.
I don’t think Mr. Hanks really has any core convictions. He has to check with his other liberal Hollywood friends and Speilberg, who is the keeper of his manhood.
Steve said-
“Ahh, yes. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ is just like iPods. Totally”
You originally said: “The spirit of the Constitution is to guarantee AS MANY RIGHTS to as many people as possible.”
I assume free ipods, free housing, free gas, free food, all fall under “as many rights as possible.” I mean if i declare them a right…they must be then.
you said: “Interpreting as such is upholding the spirit of the Constitution, the spirit of America.”
There sure are alot of spirits floating around.
And we care about what Tom Hanks says, because? Just another hollyweird liberal running his suck.
He’s a transplant from Canada isn’t he?
What a waste…..
You are annoying.
Jean Valjean – January 16th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
You are annoying.
By far MY favorite comment of the night.
Random, undirected, and adds nothing to the discussion.
Jean, you win “comment of the week” for that effort.
To get your prize, meet me at 3am tomorrow morning in the alley behind the “manhole” bar (near Bryant Park). I’ll be the one in the giant bunny suit.
Imposting a tyranny of the majority has always been un-American.
Of course the others, regardless of race or religion, who voted to deny other American citizens their rights are un-American as well. Don’t imagine any true patriot would think otherwise.
Imposing a tyranny of the majority has always been un-American.
Of course the others, regardless of race or religion, who voted to deny other American citizens their rights are un-American as well. Don’t imagine any true patriot would think otherwise.
The rulings from so called “activist” judges actually serve the purpose of protecting us from laws that are unconstitutional.
For example the good people of CA can vote to disallow woman from voting but that law would be deemed by the courts as unconstitutional.
A question that I have is why a government should concern itself with any aspect of marriage. Government should keep out of our personal lives altogether. If people want to engage in a financial contract then the government should support those and let people get married by the church, witch doctor, etc.
Steve, so you are saying that you won’t mind if GWB gets to appoint 9 judges of his choice to the supreme court?
Well Mormon’s are called non-Christian, why not un-American too.
See in the eyes of liberals, Mormons are the perfect scape goat. Mormons are a small percentage of the populace and although they have people of all cultural backgrounds, most are white. Dems would never say that it was un-American for Latinos and Black Americans to support marriage between a man and woman. Why? Because unlike saying Hanks saying that about Mormons and people ignoring him, folks would call Hanks a racist for saying it about the other cultural groups.
To most Dems lip service and appearances are very important, intentions more important than results.
Trent,
<<>>
I still don't understand the ire over the money that individual members of the church, not the church itself, chose to donate. All their money did was level the playing field for both sides and make the money available for both sides to get their message out equal. If the no on prop 8 message failed to get out properly, that is the fault of the people running the campaign and creating the message, not the mormons sending in donations. Even so, if people against prop 8 had donated more, in and out of the state, as is their right, would it still have made a difference? Are you implying that money buys elections? Then you have to concede that the outrageous amount of money Obama's campaign team had at their fingertips compared to McCain helped him win? Are you upset about that? No? Huh, funny how that works. And I think the bizarre ad with the missionaries tearing up the marriage license is a perfect example of fear-mongering.
<<<I>>>
You mean the fact that Mormon women in the Utah territory had to give up their right to vote, which they'd had since around 1870? Or that Mormon women were sent back east from Utah in the early days of the church to become educated, and some of the first female surgeons out West were Mormons? Or that Joseph Smith said that slavery was a curse and taught that families exist on into eternity? Yeah, a really backward, anti-family group, those Mormons.
(Eliza R. Snow in particular was a fascinating Mormon woman; married to two Mormon prophets, a celebrated poetess, a lynchpin in establishing the church out West. Would love to see a movie about her life made one day.)
But I digress. If you are going to post ignorant comments, do research first. Better yet, stick to the topic of the original post and don't make those kinds of comments at all. We're discussing Hanks' statement and what it means, not the validity of the LDs religion and its doctrines. Unless you are trying to disintegrate the dialogue on puropse?
Wilson,
Just because Hanks went to church with his step-mother doesn’t mean he had accepted LDS theology and was baptized. That would in fact mean he was not a former LDS member.
Saying that a person attended church with their mother as a young child wouldn’t necessarily make them a member in any congregation that required baptism for membership.
It is merely stretching the truth to say that.
Uh, that’s Laffing at Lefties and ‘his suck’ is his mouth just thought I’d clear it up.
Mr. Hanks’ self-congratulatory “tolerance” of the CA Supreme Court’s “codified discrimination” against traditional marriage (and its creation of special “rights” for same-sex couples/groups) belies his intolerance for the “discrimination” of which he judges “un-American”. How convenient!
The Modern Liberal double-standard of repressive “Liberating Tolerance” is, one trusts, something regular Americans have gotten used to enough to simply ridicule it as what it in fact is: childish/insecure ‘Liberal Fascism’.
**
Two useful references for same-sex “marriage” arguments:
1.) The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
2/17/04
“what state interest [do same-sex] marriages serve.”?
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
**
2.) Excerpt from the August 1, 2003 telecast of HBO’s “REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER”:
[BILL] MAHER: Okay, let me ask you this Congressman, if gay people were allowed all the rights and privileges that anybody else could have, in other words, they could get the insurance and they could get everything else, but you couldn’t get the name “marriage,” would you go for that?
[REP. BARNEY] FRANK: Oh, I would, yeah. If there were all the legal rights – remember, gay and lesbian people pay taxes and what we’re saying is, we should be eligible for all the benefits that are supported by the taxes we pay. If people want to create a situation which there is the full legal rights that go with being married, and the price of that was to call it something else, I’m not big on what you call things. And so that would not concern me at all.
What I’m looking for is the right, as I said, two people in love who want to join to their emotional commitment a legal and moral financial responsibility for each other, and if you wanted to call it something else, we can even have a contest.” [...]
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_080103.htm (link expired)
**
Rep. Frank sings a different tune:
Barney Frank, On Gay Marriage [2008]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y-YXkesp_o
**
Remember:
“American people don’t care about statements that people make that may not be totally accurate.” — Sen. Harry Ried (D-NV), 6/9/05
Des,
That argument isn’t going to fly. He singled out Mormons:
I agree, his statement was still pretty ignorant. I just wanted to try to head off some of the, “He’s calling Mormon’s un-American” stuff, because he didn’t. The next thing you’ll hear is him clarifying his statement, then all of this will be dismissed as a misunderstanding by a lot of people. I’d really like to see Big Hollywood remain a place where the truth is sought out first, and we can all express our opinions about it.
I understand his rhetoric (as I’m sure many here do). I’ve had gay friends and a lot of Liberal friends. They are convinced that being gay is the same thing as being a minority. It doesn’t matter how you argue it, that’s where they’re coming from and you aren’t going to see it change. Because they believe that, it would be against what we believe here (you could even say, un-American) for someone to be denied the same rights as the next person. The fact that getting married isn’t a right, that being gay is different than being born black, hispanic, white, asian, or any other ethnicity….these are the places that fundamentally solid arguments need to be formed from.
It’s not just the Liberals who need to be convinced. As a Christian, I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I also know what it says about adultery, divorce, and sodomy. It’s disappointing when people ignore all but one of those categories, then becomes fixated on the other as if our entire society depended on it.
1) Activist judges weave new law out of the language of existing state or federal constitutional law. Strict constructionism means interpretting the law as literally as possible from how it is written. There is a genuine philoshophical difference.
2) All those who are so enamored of courts interpreting constitutionality should be aware that they are shooting themselves in the foot for purposes of the Prop 8 discussion. The courts ruled the original CA traditional marriage legislation was unconstitutional and struck it down. The voters of CA responded with Proposition 8 – which amends the state constitution to include the traditional definition of marriage. Once the constitution is changed the courts can no longer “interpret” it as unconstitutional. That is the whole point of Prop 8.
The federal govt works the same way. Ultimately the people, thru the legislative branch, trump the other branches. The legislature alone has the power to amend the constitution. The judicial branch can only interpret law in the context of the constitution, and the legislature can change the terms of that if it has the votes.
Tom hanks can just kiss my ass.
is hollywood full of rock hudsons………sad but looks like it.
Yeah, back off Tom Hanks! Do you make fun of retarded kids also? I bet you make funny faces at blind people and spin cats around in swivel chairs until they puke! Screw you, you’re history’s greatest monster!
Did you know that a majority of Americans supported segregation when those laws were ruled unconstitutional? No, I bet you didn’t
Why did he single out Mormons? Because Mr. Hanks is only brave when it’s in the script.
As a soon to be attorney (and already Mormon), I am sick of the liberal argument parroted by Don:
“The rulings from so called “activist” judges actually serve the purpose of protecting us from laws that are unconstitutional.
For example the good people of CA can vote to disallow woman from voting but that law would be deemed by the courts as unconstitutional.”
This argument-by-analogy fails for a number of reasons and I will only state one. In the “marriage cases” last summer, the CA Supreme Court ruled that the CA Constitution’s equal protection clause mandated the legality of same-sex marriage (query whether it would also mandate the legalization of group marriage/polyandry etc). In doing so, they were interpreted a broad clause in the Constitution. The passing of Prop 8 inserted a specific clause in the CA Constitution. As a matter of statutory construction, the specific always trumps the broad. Thus, the people effectively said, “no, you read that broad clause incorrectly.”
This is in no way analogous to the 19th Amendment which is a specific (not broad) statement concerning the right of suffrage.
Liberals: please stop using faulty reasoning in your arguments for the legalization of same-sex marriage.
This is the very reason I rarely go to the movies anymore-because of uninformed, liberal actors running off at the mouth instead of just acting, which is what they make a very good living at. No matter, they just won’t get any of my money. I’m no longer a Tom Hanks fan, among many others I used to go see.
Tom Hanks mainlines the kool-aid just like the rest of them. He never was nasty, now he has crossed the line like the rest of the mad dogs. You can’t be fooled by these smiling facis with the pretty wives. They hate anyone and anything that doesn’t agree with them…. Sieg Heil Tom… you tell me the difference.
[...] Mr. Hanks only dare attack easy victims like white men, white Christians and white Mormons? FROM: Big Hollywood Blog Archive Why Does Tom Hanks Single Out Mormons? __________________ Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you’ll [...]
Hanks said the polygamist are a bizarre off shoot of the Mormons. If they are bizarre because they are polygamist then would Hanks also say that Muslim polygamist in the Arab world or Africa are bizarre. Don’t hold your breath on that one and we know why.
Why did Hanks single out Mormons? Two words. Mitt Romney.
“…and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them.”
Des – January 16th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
“I agree, his statement was still pretty ignorant. I just wanted to try to head off some of the, “He’s calling Mormon’s un-American” stuff, because he didn’t.”
The way I read it, it’s un-American to give money to support the cause you believe in, as long as someone disapproves of it, or feels discriminated against because of it. Since Mormons gave the money, they are un-American. No misunderstanding there.
I really want to be a conservative and still be open to social and personal liberty for all. It is a slippery slope. Even if I don’t care one way or another if gays can marry, I must. The reason is this: wherever the laws have changed to include gay marriage, lawsuits have abounded and the rights of people, religious groups, businesses and parents and been usurped to appease the gay community. These are religious groups, businesses and people who have always managed to have differing views but have respected each other and never felt the need to impose their beliefs on each other. Rather, in many ways they helped each other flourish. But now, for example, a local Catholic Charity has shut its doors and the many children who used to be adopted through this noble institution are no longer here. Why? Because they were sued and they in all good conscious could not change their rules based on their religion to acquiesce to the demands of gays who wanted the right, not necessarily to adopt, but to have the right to adopt regardless of the hundreds of years of tradition of Catholic Charities. As if there are no other alternatives.
If you have noticed, the founder of e-Harmony, a Mormon, whose labor of love was the uniting of couples in the traditional marriage, no longer does the commercials of his company now that he has been ordered, after a suit brought by gays who apparently could not find a single other matching group in the world, to offer non traditional couples the same e-Harmony program. And in Massachusetts, parents who objected to the new manuals in their children’s school showing the nudes bodies of gay men couples , gay female couples and man/woman couples, are in deep trouble. The list goes on. Therapists who don’t feel they have the expertise to counsel gays – sued. A photographer who didn’t want to do a gay wedding – sued. On and on.
So I must ask myself, is it really that gays want to have traditional marriage or are they looking for a deeper, moral acceptance. Moral acceptance is an inside job. It can’t be forced by taking away the rights of others. It may seem like it is working but if it was, there wouldn’t be such dogged ranting and suing. It would be a gentle, peaceful acceptance of each others differences, such as that between these groups prior to all the suits.
Tom Hanks is one of the greatest actors in history?
I stopped reading there.
Can someone help be out here? Was Hanks Turner or Hooch?
Can someone help me out here? Did Hanks play Turner or Hooch?
If you have noticed, the founder of e-Harmony, a Mormon, whose labor of love was the uniting of couples in the traditional marriage, no longer does the commercials of his company now that he has been ordered, after a suit brought by gays who apparently could not find a single other matching group in the world, to offer non traditional couples the same e-Harmony program.
Well, you have a point with the rest of your comments, but I can promise you as a member of eHarmony, the founder’s “labor of love” is anything but uniting couples. After 30 days when I realized I was being ripped off, I tried everything humanly possible (including paying them for 6 months I wouldn’t use) to get out of it. Columbia House has nothing on the leeches of eHarmony (and I just love the way the play it as some higher purpose with their advertising).
He’s an actor people. He pretends for a living. Why does it matter what his political views are? He has his opinions, respect them and move on. People get too caught up in what the “stars” think.
I am LDS.
And when the opportunity came for me to vote for the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman here in Texas, I did so gladly.
My church did not tell me how to vote. As I recall, the subject never even came up. Similar laws have been passed in 30 states and the LDS Church had nothing to do with it.
According to an ongoing Pew Research study, Mormons make up 2% of the population of the United States. There is no way Mormons are responsible for the passage of similar laws in 30 states. In many of these states the laws passed with a solid majority.
It seems there are a lot of un-American Americans living in America, voting to preserve traditional marriage. I bet a lot of them even donated to the cause. Someone ought to tell them Tom Hanks thinks they’re all Mormon. I’m sure they’ll be surprised…
Texas Mormon here again…eHarmony is not an LDS site. It’s evangelical Christian.
Mr Hanks makes a useful point. The Mormons, chiefly from out of state, chose to meddle in a California Proposition. They did so with a great deal of money, a good deal of fear-mongering, and no small amount of hypocrisy.
They have become a target because they made themselves so, in a disciplined, organized and — frankly — rather vicious way. They did so by appealing to low and backward values, and that is what is so un-American about the political position they took.
I have always thought that Mormons were just about the last group to be taken seriously when talking about ‘family values’ and the ’sanctity of marriage’. The latter was not the view of their founder, nor is it to be located in the Book of Mormon. Everyone knows the price they agreed to pay in order that Utah be admitted to statehood.
It is un-American to discriminate, to exclude, to hold as less worthy any of our citizens. We have known — or should — these truths for generations. The Mormons led the fight and tried to turn back the clock. They may be relatively few in numbers, but the patriarchal nature of their internal discipline, their practices of excommunication and shunning, and the clannish nature of their business practices in combination amplify a small voice into a noisy one.
The Mormons chose to act like a political party. Now they have their wish. Mr Hanks simply told the truth.
I’m pretty sure that Tom Hanks has hurt Mormons far worse than anything he perceives they have done to ‘civil rights’. Big Love has spawned more anti-Mormon bigotry and the gay dude who writes it knows that very well and said so when he claimed to have come up with the idea. He wanted to take a shot at somebody back during the whole Massachusetts gay marriage-by-judicial-fiat days. So he decided to target the Mormons.
While people who are familiar with Mormons (or LDS as they call themselves) know that the whole polygamy thing is heresy to Mormons even though it was promoted 100 years ago, the gay community in California wouldn’t admit that the ‘gay pride’ parades and all of their perversity are actually far, far more of the current mainstream within the gay community and not some kind of embarrassing minority who would be hidden if suddenly gay marriage were adopted with 90% of the vote and a Presidential proclamation.
Hanks and his friends write a cute story in Big Love but let’s be honest – the Mormons didn’t start this. And I’ll take Major Tom a lot more seriously when he takes a walk down to the First AME in Los Angeles about 11am on Sunday morning (the crowd should just be getting out around then) and hold up a sign calling them all bigots for denying Rosie ODonnell her ‘civil rights’.
And while Tom is at it, he can publicly denounce the McCarthyism (libtards think it’s a bad thing) involved in putting maps of all the people who gave money to the Prop 8 initiative. Tom can’t be dumb enough to not know what GLAAD would do it an anonymous website showed up with all of the households, names and addresses with maps of every gay person in Hollywood. Tom would claim it was a precusory to a modern Kristalnacht and he’d be close to being correct.
But because it is happening against his enemies, he is willing to wait until the violence ensues. Hanging Sarah Palin for Halloween wasn’t enough of a warning apparently. I guess Major Tom is going to wait for the first Mormon kid to get shot or a Mormon church to get firebombed.
The 70% African American vote for Prop 8 has been revised to 57% in some studies/analyses, but the affect of the African American vote on the passing of Prop 8 is still significant.
Our Founding Fathers would have had little to say about how the State’s determined to implement their legislation. They were Federalists, after all. They would not, I repeat, they would not have been appalled by California’s referendum/proposition component. That is just a liberal’s not so dry dream.
Does the fake anthrax sent to two LDS temples count? How about the LDS church that was vandalized? How about the LDS people in California pressured to resign from their jobs over their Prop 8 contributions?
Any perceived intolerance will not be tolerated.
Trent1280:
Your comments are reminiscent of 19th Century bigotry against Mormons. Are you a progressive or an inclusive or a diversity-tolerant?? Or a hopeychangey?
Trent,
“They have become a target because they made themselves so, in a disciplined, organized and — frankly — rather vicious way. They did so by appealing to low and backward values, and that is what is so un-American about the political position they took.”
What values would you say are backwards? That we wanted to preserve family values? That we believe that the destruction of the traditional family is a detriment to society? How is that low and backward? What was the viciousness of which you speak? I saw no cars parked in front of gay homes proclaiming them gay or degenerates. I saw no protests of screaming Mormons stalking gay church buildings and trying to disrupt the proceedings there.
“I have always thought that Mormons were just about the last group to be taken seriously when talking about ‘family values’ and the ’sanctity of marriage’. The latter was not the view of their founder, nor is it to be located in the Book of Mormon. Everyone knows the price they agreed to pay in order that Utah be admitted to statehood.”
Mormon is the equivalent to family values. One of the main church teachings in the last 25 years was “The Proclamation to the World”, which was nothing if not completely about the importance of family, and protecting it. Yes, Mormons paid a price to be admitted into the union. They were forced to give up some First Amendment rights in order to be in compliance with the bigotry and hatred coming from Washington and the states. But, they did it. And they have been in compliance with that law ever since. (No. There are no polygamous members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If they practice polygamy, they are excommunicated)
“It is un-American to discriminate, to exclude, to hold as less worthy any of our citizens.”
There is no one being held as less worthy. Gays are not being discriminated against. The ones that are under attack are those that profess a Christian religious belief.
“We have known — or should — these truths for generations.”
What truths? That democracy is the will of the majority? That law should be made by the Legislature and the people and not the judges?
“The Mormons led the fight and tried to turn back the clock. They may be relatively few in numbers, but the patriarchal nature of their internal discipline, their practices of excommunication and shunning, and the clannish nature of their business practices in combination amplify a small voice into a noisy one.”
What clock? “Patriarchal nature” has to do with what in this fight? Do you think that Mormon women are so brainless and spineless that their husbands have to do all their thinking for them, and that’s why Prop 8 was voted in?
“The Mormons chose to act like a political party. Now they have their wish. Mr Hanks simply told the truth.”
Wrong. The Mormons chose to act like a religion, and defend their religious beliefs. The gay marriage movement is choosing to act like spoiled brats when they didn’t get their way. It’s not the Mormons alone who did this. Such a small minority of people, but such a big victory for Prop 8. How does that work again? The battle was actually on three fronts, by the way. Or did you forget about Florida and Arizona? Bringing the total of states to oppose gay marriage or to define marriage as between one man and one woman to 30. Sounds like a majority to me. Mr. Hanks has no concept of being an American if he thinks that you are not allowed to voice your own opinion, even if it’s in conflict with someone else’s.
What do elite Hollywood people believe?
From what I have seen, they pray at the alter of Oprah, Enviromentalism, GLAAD, PETA, Self Importance. Let them bow down at those alters.
I am glad that people like Tom Hanks are opening thier mouths and telling us what they think. It takes the shine off their stars.
I will continue to bow down to my Lord and Savior…Jesus Christ.
Wow what’s with all the black suits and just all the black these libs wear? I went to a website that McPherson was kibitzing about the Nielson ratings dumping on ABC and BAMM, he’s wearin black! Nolte,Tom,Penn,and ect. What gives? I mean I like black but do ya’ll notice it?
Just a ps on my behalf, I BOYCOTT all Hollyweird and Tom Hanks is not the greatest actor in history, ughhhh, rewrite this drivel!
JUST A THING THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID ABOUT THE AMERICAN THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAW…. THEY WERE VERY CAREFUL TO AND CLEAR TO SET-UP A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOROCY OR WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO CALL WHAT WE HAVE NOW A OUR OPERATIONG GOVERNMENT…..
THAT IS CORRECT A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC!!!! ALL OF THEM ORE ROLLING OVER IN THE GROUND AT WHAT HAS BE COME OF THE BLODD OF THEM AND ALL OF OUR FOREFATHERS WHO LAID OUT THE IMPERFECT PLAN OF THE REPUBLIC….
WHAT IS EVEN MORE OF A WONDERING POINT FOR ME IS MR. HANKS AND HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SERIES ABOUT J.Q. ADAMS ON HBO LAST YEAR. DID HE NOT LEARN ANYTHING FROM THAT HISTORY LESSON WHICH APPEARED TO BE MOSTLY HISTORY CORRECT???
Let’s see if I understand this — saying gays cannot marry is discriminatory, but polygamy is bizarre? Seems like I’m being discriminated against if I’m in love with two women and can’t marry both of them. And Hanks’ refusal to see my point of view must, by his own admission, make him un-American.
The liberal elite say that the recognition of only “traditional marriage” of a man to a woman is oppressive and must be overturned. With that logic, it should stand that “traditonal marriage” is oppressive to the rights of polygamists. For that matter, shouldn’t marriage to animals by a man or a woman (bestiality) be accepted?
The 70% African American vote for Prop 8 has been revised to 57% in some studies/analyses, but the affect of the African American vote on the passing of Prop 8 is still significant.
Our Founding Fathers would have had little to say about how the States determined to implement their legislation. They were Federalists, after all. They would not, I repeat, they would not have been appalled by California’s referendum/proposition component. That is just a liberal’s fantasy.
first DES:
giving money to a cause is not un-American.the anti-8 crowd raised more money than the pro-8 people did.you’re just pissed off because your side lost.so if those who gave on the pro-8 side are un-American,than so are those who gave on the other side.so you are un-American yourself.was it not Hillary Clinton that said “dissent is the greatest form of patriotism”.people like you bitch and whine because you can’t win legislatively,you rely upon activist judges to force your will on the people. you are nothing but an angry gay liberal that hates Christians.eharmony was and is based on finding matches for hetero-sexual couples period.he did not discriminate against you in any shape,way,matter,or form.his service was made for a man and woman.why in the world would you expect to find the eharmony program any other place than eharmony.that’s like byingba pc and getting pissed that it’s not a mac.this just proves the point that you don’t and never did want equality and acceptance.you want submission from everyone that doesn’t believe your beliefs.you are the real HATER.
hey Steve,you need to go back to writing for the daily kos and huffpo if you expect to get we applauded for your comments.isn’t it ironic that the same courts,same activist’s,and same liberals like yourself demonized and villified George w. bush for his wiretapping program.saying it was in constitutional are now saying hey it’s okay.what,it’s only okay when a democrat does it.what convenient timing don’t you think.right before Obama takes office.what about gitmo,for years we’ve heard nothing about how bad these people are that are there.only poor them,innocent victims of an evil republican government.they didn’t have their rights read to them,no chance for a trial,etc.that place should have been. loses a long time ago,he’ll it never should have opened in the first place.George bush has been lying to us all this time about who these people really are.here comes Obama,well…I won’t shut down gitmo right away,you know…uh…there are some dangerous people being held there.we just can’t send them back home or someplace else.it’s not that easy.so yes it is the same activist judges,now making things easy for their guy.
This is just the start. After they get Prop 8 overturned, the anti-prop 8 people will try and push it to every state in the union. Once that is done they will walk into a church and demand to be married and if the church says no, they sue. It is a round about way of getting rid of religion. But they will try. I know to think this way must be un-american, but I can not help it. It is the future that I fear is coming.
Those trying to assert that Mormons do not want to turn back the clock fail to acknowledge how hard they try to stop it altogether.
In 1978 (yes, 1978), the Mormons finally agreed to admit blacks to their ‘priesthood’. Why did it take them so long? Well, here’s what leading Mormons said about African-Americans. These are the ‘family values’ they have long attempted to uphold. Ready?
“The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, …but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their First Estate [the pre-existence].” Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 – 528, 1966 edition
Or, consider Mormon Apostle Mark E. Petersen in an address at Brigham Young University on “Race Problems as They Affect The Church” (August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 307):
“Now, we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves.”
What do these documents suggest? Simply this. The Mormons have a long history of backward and un-American views which, like polygamy, they grudgingly abandoned ONLY when social pressures — and political advantage — proved too massive to withstand.
That said, it is no longer fashionable to practice polygamy (regardless of their Founder’s views) and overt racism (at least, after 1978). That said, no one in her/his right mind would ever consider the Mormons a progressive force in the American nation.
In California, they spent millions to defeat a finding of our state Supreme Court. They did so in the guise of ‘family values’. They did so by appealing to fear and base hatreds. “Some of my best friends are black/gay/Jewish” has become a sick joke, and Mormons have been rightly criticized for their hypocrisy in this.
I happen not to be gay, but as an American I value the first principles of our great democracy. “We hold these values to be self-evident…” has never, evidently, been self-evident to Mormons.
One final contradiction. For years, the Mormons have protested the ways their minority status has been devalued. Fair enough. But when they get a chance to defend another minority? They go running back to bias, fear and politics.
They are acting as a political party, advocating political interests. Pretending their views have anything to do with ‘family values’ is an absurd joke. Their own history (1978!!) has made it so.
Why does he single them out? Because he’s been drinking KoolAid out of Spielberg’s refrigerator. Thank God no one hates the Jews for their faith, right Steve?
Hanks…yawn…every bit of acting he does is the same…same same same same…from philadalphia to you’ve got mail…to his search for private ryan to forrest gump to sleepless in seatle…to unamerican mormons… just a lot of sappy drivel coming from a whiney actor, whose politial views are no more informed or valid than those paying to see and hear such cliches…..
>Prop 8 votes were far more likely to be influenced by religiosity and party I.D.
Prop 8 passed in CA, which went overwhelmingly Democratic on Nov 5.
California DEMOCRATS, the same people who gave all those electoral votes to Obama, also passed Prop 8. Are THEY un-American?
JIM R – January 16th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
No worries, guys…we Mormons are getting used to the insults.
Jim, come down here in steerage with us irish Catholics, after a 17 centuries of insults, persecution, slavery and murder, one grows thick skin when an idiot insults a christian religion. Hanks is a coward, the catholics, the jews, the blacks, protestants, the catholic hispanic and more supported prop 8. Hanks is an atheist, he is against all religion but his religion which is liberalism.
The Bill of rights were written to keep government in check, there is no ’spirit’ to the constitution, it isn’t a ‘living’ document, this is all leftist re-barb. The constitution, bill of rights and dec of indie are all legal documents.
The insane leftist SC judges ruled in favor of Al Gore who was trying to steal the election, just as the Dems have with that freak show Al Franken. If you remember, which you refuse too, Gore wanted only to count democratic votes in Dem area and not count republicans in those same area. The FL insane freak show court ruled in favor of AL Gore and the US SC said you can’t do that and all votes must be counted according to FL law. The liberals lost what was left of their minds and the Bush Derangement syndrome kicked in.
The only way Dems can win elections is to steal them and blame the republicans as the crooks. Its all a phony shell game with wannabee fascist nazis lite
The judges were not ‘liberal’ judges. The court is actually majority conservative Republican. They were just ruling on the idea that people deserve equal rights. Makes plenty of sense. If you believe in equal rights.
Anyone who would deny another the same rights is UN-American.
For those who might question the facts:
“Seven in 10 African Americans who went to the polls voted yes on Proposition 8.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html
Celebrity status means you get media attention. It says nothing about your brains or intelligence.
The judges were not ‘liberal’ judges. The court is actually majority conservative Republican. They were just ruling on the idea that people deserve equal rights. Makes plenty of sense. If you believe in equal rights.
Anyone who would deny another the same rights is UN-American.
Unfortunately, pretty much none of that is true (I’m sensing a pattern here). The judges are not “Conservative Republican.” Just because someone is appointed by a Republican, does not mean they themselves are Republican or Conservative (does the name Sutter ring a bell?).
Second, “they” weren’t ruling on equal rights, 4 of the 7 voted to expand marriage (based amazingly enough on the people of California trying to make sure homosexuals had the same rights for domestic partnerships….so no good deed goes unpunished). The 3 that voted against it had a brilliant dissenting opinion that everyone should read (because if judges can impose their will, that means it will go against you sometimes too).
As for your sweet tag line about equal rights, gays already had equal rights. Marriage isn’t a right (if someone wants to make it one, then I claim Emmy Rossum). Neither is health care, housing, or any of the other nonsense that Liberals try to pretend it is. Our economy crashed because people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisted that poor people with bad credit had a “right” to get a home loan, regardless of their ability to pay it back. How’s that working out so far?
What is unAmerican is browbeating, chastising, and persecuting a minority that is exercising its civil rights because of religious conviction. Tom Hanks needs to quit pontificating.
Ouote “Why isn’t Hanks calling African Americans, who voted in large numbers for Prop. 8, “un-American?” Why isn’t Hanks taking aim at Hispanics who also voted against legalizing gay marriage? Is it, perhaps, because liberals like Mr. Hanks only dare attack easy victims like white men, white Christians and white Mormons?”
BINGO!!
So you’re saying gay white men can’t be victims? Wow dude, that’s harsh.
Tom Hanks like all the other “crafters” in Hollyweird suprises no one with his comments. The Left leaning entertainment egoists (remember these people make a living by WANTING to be looked at all the time) feel that Democracy and freedom means we can do what we want as long as it’s o.k. with them.
Leave the Mormons alone. It’s their right to stand behind what they believe in and VOTE the their choice.
But don’t worry folks the entertainment industry – especially in CA – is starting to IMPLODE. Those big buck movies will be a thing of the past as DOUGH DRIES UP. It’s a Good Thing!
BECAUSE HE ONLY WANTS TO ALIENATE THE MORMONS.
Tom Hanks, I used to like you. No longer. You phony Hollyweird libs make me want to hurl. Hollyweirdos are always standing up for the those they perceive are being persecuted – gays (who have the rights all Americans do – just aren’t able to use the term marriage), Palestinians who wish for all Jews to be dead (hey Tom, don’t you do business with a lot of Jews?), etc.
AMERICANS ARE SICK OF HOLLYWEIRDOS GIVING THEIR POLITICAL OPINIONS/SPEECHES IN PUBLIC. WE DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!!!
I have a friend who flies a G-4 jet. He once took Tom Hanks and Stephen Speilberg from L.A. to Las Vegas. They ORDERED over $2500 worth of food for the one hour flight. It included cracked crab, lobster and other assorted entrees for a BREAKFAST flight.
These prima donnas ate little, if any, of the food and left it for the crew to either eat or dispose of. You see, when you are that rich and pampered, it makes it easy to criticize anyone who stands in your way, or disagrees with what they consider to be, the popular point of view.
Stick to playing acting Tom, you’re better suited to be someone else, and leave the real Hanks mouth in the privacy of your home…where it belongs.
Hollywood does not live in the real world, no matter how much they try to play that they do.
If you want to get informed about what Mormons really believe, go to http://www.mormon.org – an official LDS source of information.
Tom Hank’s comment is about “free speech” – “Stupid is – Stupid does” comes to mind from one of his previous movies…my opinion…my observation…
Hollywood is simply “make believe” and its actors seem to forget there is a real world beyond the boundaries of Hollywood…
Have a nice day folks and please be friendly to one another – even if they think differently…
Tom Hanks is an idoit. He thinks that someone who disagrees with two men prancing around and pretending they are Ozzie and Harriet is akin to hate speech. Hollywood can sanction it but no nation in human history has survived the plague of permissive sexual mores. The problem is that the average citizen is so dumbed down that they are incapable of seeing past emotional arguments that Hollywood so succesfully sells: Ironically, we pay to be decieved.
America is finished: Illegitimacy has created an army of future criminals who till rein terror on destruction on the middle class. Greed has made us addicted to money like a crack head needing another rock and the government no longer has any tricks to keep the economy going except to print more money. Get your guns while you can.
I see that Mormons on this board have not even attempted to defend their group’s past views on the alleged inferiority of blacks. They have not even tried to explain why it took until 1978 to admit blacks to their version of heaven and the priesthood.
But they continue to pretend that they have always believed, because God told them so, that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, conceived to procreate and to last all eternity. Gay people need not apply.
This ludicrous proposition completely ignores the Mormon history of polygamy, one still practiced in distant reaches of Utah. Their views conveniently overlook a logical fallacy: was Joseph Smith right about polygamy, but later became wrong? Or did God change his mind? Or did some mischievous force rewrite Moroni’s plates of gold?
Mormonism, like most political institutions, has evolved over the years. Where once they were a small sect talking about Lamanites (the nautical Hebrews who settled in North America), today they control Utah, Bonneville media, Marriot, and numerous other enterprises. (Mitochrondrial DNA has completely undermined their Founder’s absurd claims about the Lamanites, and most smart Mormons will no longer discuss it.)
Mr Hanks pointed out their un-American ways, and correctly so.
That others share their homophobia is beyond dispute. But the prime subject of this posting is that of Mr Hanks and his claim that these Mormon views are un-American.
Any group that practices discrimination against blacks, gays or whomever is — by definition — un-American. Mormon views have evolved, to be sure, although where that leaves the ‘eternal’ ideation of their God is not clear.
Polygamous Mormons were wrong about the family in the 19th C. They were wrong about blacks in the 20th C. They are wrong about gays in the 21st C. Luckily for real Americans, our country is greater than their backwardness. If it were not so, we would still be huddled in shacks on the shores of News England, singing ‘Rule Britannia’.
Is there, even today, a black woman serving on the Quorum of Twelve?
When there is, most Americans would be pleased to hear it. Until then? Mormonism remains the backward force that Mr Hanks, and millions of others, have seen it to be.
Marriage is NOT “a right”. Marriage licenses are not “a right.” Drivers licenses are not “a right”. Each of these things must be qualified for and how they’re qualified for differs per the licensing and procedure involved (granting that marriage, however, exists in a more profound realm than the others, one referencing both societal protections but also religious dedications for most).
And civil rights are not (at all) the same thing/s as “human rights”.
Issues the “‘gay’ marriage” people blur and seem to intentionally confuse and obfuscate inorder to create an emotional confusion they then exploit.
I’m curious if Tom Hanks has donated any money to any political cause or individual (or both)…I’m SURE he has.
Thus, it’s as American as Apple Pie to support within the limits of the law the politics you chose to support, as a citizen.
What I find dubious and decidedly “un-American” is the Obama campaign accepting donations from people in other nations. Which is also illegal but who is Obama to play by the legal rules.
It’s ok to single out a group and disparage them…as long as it is white Christians.
Facts: Disagreement is not hate speech. I simply do not believe that homosexuality is genetic and by the time the biological arguments for it are falsified it wont matter; the LGBT community will have won the culture wars and it will be a moot point. For the sake of argument, let’s assume homosexuality is genetic. Let’s also assume bi-sexual behavior is also genetic as well as attraction to children under the age of 10. DNA DOES NOT HAVE SOCIAL MORES ATTACHED TO ITS HELIX!! So if one type of sexual behavior is genetic then why not allow all sexual expression since the genes make it so? One last thing: If the genetic argument is true why arent pre-puberty children clamouring to date 40 and 50 year old men and women? Their genes should give them that desire…
JIM P:
A person wrote a letter to the editor of the local Palo Alto rag and suggested that homosexuals call their civil unions “pairrage.”
Love and pairrage, love and pairrage,
Go together like a horse and carriage,
Dad was told by
motherfatherYou can’t have one without the other.
Well it’s pretty easy: Mormons are considered “acceptable targets”, which means that it is okay for you be an open hater of them.
The truth is that Tom Hanks is a vile miscreant who is in the service of the devil to defame Jesus Christ. His movies, regardless of subject, will never be viewed by anyone in this household of faith. It is no surprise that he is also a COWARD. Just as the liberals rant against the “oppressive” Christianity everywhere, while studiously ignoring the ISLAMIC RADICALS who would BE-HEAD them just for BEING liberals, he is true to form. Remember when all the rappers were making anti-gay statements and the libs were too afraid to call them on it? Or remember when Mike Tyson was calling everyone he could a “Faggot”? Nary a peep outta GLAD or ACT-UP! These people NEVER confront anyone who would call them what they are and tell them to go suck eggs! They only bother the poor MIS-GUIDED Christians who suffer their nonsense out of some misplaced idea of “tolerance”. The reality is that the first guy who proposed homosexuals getting married should have been stoned and his bloody corpse should have been dragged through the street as an example to all those who would live such ungodly lives.
2Pe 2
4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
Now of course, WE are no longer in the former testament, Christ will judge the homosexuals and everyone else that offends him and will destroy them with the brightness of His coming. Don’t think I’m advocating the stoning of anyone. I’m just saying that their ungodly proposals should have been met with much less “tolerance” and a whole lot more, “ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRIGGIN’ MIND GET OUT OF HERE YOU IDIOT!!!”
******DAN THE MAN – January 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
If Jesus were on Earth right now, he would be friends with gay people and he would have no problem at all with allowing them to marry. Actually, he would most likely perform or at least attend the ceremony, and he would also drink wine and get down and have a good time celebrating the love shown by two people.
According to the Gospels, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
Let’s hear it for hate-filled bigotry in the name of God, Christianity, and right-winged politics.
Go America!”*****
Perhaps no other post on this thread can be used to show the stunning ignorance as it relates to Jesus Christ! Notice how Dan the Man says that “According to the Gospels, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” This is a typical liberal LIE spouted by people that want you to THINK they actually read the bible but in reality they just copy these quotes from some liberal nutbag website. Here is your bible study Dan, be thankful, people pay lots of money for this….
EVERY word of the old and new testament that says “THE LORD SAYS” or that “God said to Moses” or whatever was referring to JESUS CHRIST. He is God not some third leg on a stool.
1 Peter 1:10-12 (King James Version)
10Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
As you can see Dan the Prophets WHICH WOULD INCLUDE MOSES “prophesied” by the SPIRIT OF CHRIST who would not make his earthly appearance for another thousand or so years! That doesn’t really square with the false doctrine of most so called churches but it’s truth anyhow. Not enough for ya? Well, when the Lord spoke he used WORDS didn’t he? And guess who IS the WORD OF GOD? Hint: His name is Jesus.
JOhn 1:1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And, are you paying attention Dan? The WORD which was with God which in fact WAS God, did something special, know what it is? HE became FLESH. The incarnation of Jesus CHrist. See DAn the only “Spirit” in the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the HOLY SPIRIT! I realize this will trip up some of my trinitarian friends but that’s what they get for believing in phrases that don’t come from the bible like, “trinity”. The bible doesn’t support that. THe bible declares Christ to be the WOrd of God which spoke life into existence (John 1:3, Colossians1:15 etc)
COLOSSIANS 1:12-19
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
See, Dan, contrary to the opinions of many false churches, the bible is not confused as to who Jesus is! He is the IMAGE of the invisible God. Which is what you would expect if God clothed himself in flesh, right? Which means that JEsus is the ONE who DESTROYED SODOM AND GOMORRAH, Danny boy! And your statement that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality? Why would he “mention” something he utterly despises? Why mention something that he destroyed two cities for practicing? While he didn’t “mention” particular sins, it doesn’t mean that they AREN’T SINS. Christ’s earthly visitation was to save that which is lost, (Jewish people) to be rejected according to prophecy (Isaiah 53) and to open a fount of salvation to all who would forsake their lives and follow Him, ( acts 1:4,8, Acts 2:4, acts 2:38)! But that doesn’t mean that He is not judging and condemning! All in due time for instance, those who go to false churches that teach that “all you have to do is call on the name of the Lord and you’ll be saved” will certainly be surprised to find that quote was WOEFULLY taken out of context because Jesus who did NOT come to bring peace on earth (Matt 10:34-36) will have none of it, read ( Matt 7:21-23)! Oh and about Jesus hanging with the gays, probably, but only to tell them to REPENT. Because Jesus most certainly DID tell you the order of things and what he will or WON’T be “tolerant” of! And by the by dan, Jesus did offer His opinion on marriage! Want to hear it?
Matthew 19:3-5 (New International Version)
3. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4. “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Notice how it’s MALE and FEMALE, ADAM and EVE not ADAM and STEVE? He didn’t think he had to warn you against the sin he reduced cities to ashes for! Gave you more credit than you deserved methinks. So in the end, you and all who seek to slander and defame Christ as some “acceptor” of homosexuality are SADLY MISTAKEN.
As a Mormon and a Filmmaker, I’m actually more offended at the “un-American” comment in the context of Mr. Hanks lack of understanding of our country, rights, laws, Constitution and founding. It is clearly stupid, the comment that singles out Mormons, but it tells much more about Mr. Hanks. It is personally a shame. I love his acting and have respected him for years. Unfortunately he has been blinded my the bubble he lives in. I wish actors would not use their celebrity as a platform to share their bizarre views. Just act please. I don’t think Tom Hanks is un-American for opposing Prop 8. But I do think he is un-American for his comments.
What’s un-American is calling someone or a group of people un-American simply because you don’t agree with them.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and entitled to support whatever cause they wish to support without being publicly branded as something by some Hollywood actor. Tom Hanks is now near the top of the Hollywood idiot list and it’s too bad since I like his acting.
Why do actors keep thinking they know more than the rest of us? They are just actors, not a bunch of Einsteins.
It’s difficult for me to understand what thought process goes through an actors mind making these sorts of political pronouncements. Actors venturing onto this ledge use up the very currency they spent their careers trying to amass, their likeability of “Q” factor. It is perhaps noteworthy the only actors “brave” enough to insult 50% of their viewing public are the ones who now have enough actual currency that they can afford to alienate people.
Alas, add Hanks to a growing list of entertainers who felt insulting me was not important to their bank accounts and on whom I will no longer feel any obligation to further enrich.
[...] Why isn’t Hanks calling African Americans, who voted in large numbers for Prop. 8, “un-American?… [...]
Dan the Man,
Before you post something so inane as what you wrote could you please start with ‘I think’? Then I could ignore it as the ramblings of a fringe lunatic. You actually took it upon yourself to tell us exactly how Jesus would behave if he were here today.
I won’t repeat your idiocy. I will quote ‘the man’ you misrepresented:
” ‘Haven’t you read’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate’ “.
Regardless of your political squabbles, Jesus saw marriage as the uniting as a man and a woman ‘Male and female he created them’. Man’s laws are just that. You say he would have had ‘no problem at all’ with allowing gays to marry. Why did he not take that opportunity to expand the definition of marriage? If we’re going to quote scripture then we need to deal with the writings of Jesus’ hand-picked apostle, Paul. Those really aren’t very supportive of your speculation.
You have every right to govern yourself the way you choose. Don’t drag Jesus in to support an argument that he clearly wouldn’t.
You must be logged in to post a comment.