User blog comment:Ty Rezac/Best states to live/@comment-7559950-20130515013204/@comment-32656-20130523072544

Your refusal to see reason, and continued defense of obvious falsehoods, is what makes you biased and bigoted. The extent may be somewhat debatable, but that it is there is no question. Don't expect you to be able to see that, but it's the truth.

I and other have proven you to not be telling the truth already.

You quote the Portland article twice. Doesn't help your case.

Your source does not offer proof that Mormons are bigoted, or "run" the state.

The first point in that article is a simple recognition of reality, one which schools and other religious groups recognize elsewhere, though the timing varies. There's no point in being open or hosting events if no one will show up. This is wholly legal under US law, and the ACLU isn't considering a challenge for good reason. You see virtually the same thing across the country, just with different parts of the week. There hasn't been any dissent from the move, even by non-Mormons.

The second point in it has nothing to do with "Mormon control." The city sold some property to the Mormon Church, as it is allowed, and it put conditions on it. The church then imposed restrictions on speech there, without cause, and was eventually told by a court that they could not do it. Again, other churches have tried this and lost too - it is irrelevant. And a significant number of Mormons did, it fact, oppose this move by their Church, as an fyi.

The second part of that point is the same idea, and for the same reason. It, however, seems to have went the other way. Unlike the first case, the courts ruled that this one was not a "public space" - something that seems to be accurate - so they were allowed to do it. Again, a similar ruling to others made with other churches, who have the same rights. Think of it as being like your parents barring cursing in your house.

The next one was settled out of court, though it is fairly obvious as to why that happened, and why he was fired. If someone publishes such an inflammatory book, it is very likely that they weren't quiet about their beliefs - the man is, from a quick search, a former Mormon and hates the Mormon Church, so this is probable. Similar things have caused firings many times - harassment, insults, verbal abuse, etc. would be the cause. As to why they settled, most likely because it was just easier and cheaper - or, why settlements like that are made more or less every time they are. Rather obvious.

Past that is things against LGBT people - cases that have propped on by the dozen over the last few decades in the USA, especially in more "conservative" areas like Utah. The rulings are obvious, and the Church had nothing to do with any of them. The Mormon Church, while opposed to gay marriage, is not opposed to LGBT in general, something that has been stated multiple times. So that has no role like you claim.

Next is the "release time" offered in some areas of Utah - again, court-approved so long as done right, which is how they do it. And more or less the same thing done by other churches in other parts of the country. Nor is anyone forced into it. So no, not the LDS "running the state."

Then we have the "missionary discounts" offered by some restaurants in Utah. You can see similar discounts offered elsewhere in the country - nothing wrong there, and wholly up to the individual restaurant owner. Heck, I know of one not 500 feet from where I sit that does the same thing for churchgoers. Nothing wrong with it.

And lastly, something against Mormons, that the Army apologized for.

So no - there is nothing there that even remotely shows that they run the state. The title of that article is, at best, misleading and does not represent the actual content of the article.

And then, your expelled atheist claims. Sorry, but that is bull. That school is non-denominational, run by irreligious people and even some atheists, with no policies whatsoever on religion - and for that matter is a liberal arts school. Even more so, in happened in a so-called "liberal" city. For that matter, it states the ACLU was contacted. Her story has so many problems and even some logic holes that it is simply ridiculous.

There is no stories about this after December 1st of 2006 - slightly more than a week after the story first came out. This alone means that the ACLU didn't do anything about it. Thus, this implies that she lied, and the school is telling the truth. She was disruptive in class, taken to the principal about it, and had some kind of blowout there, leading to a suspension. Not only that, but the student had some sort of track record of such actions. Heck, a session or six with a shrink would not be out of line in such a case.

DI, do research - as in do not latch onto the first thing that you think supports your opinion and hold it to the world as fact.