This is not news. This requirement for online "pre-registration" for visa-waiver countries has been around for a while now. And what's the big fuss anyway? Every country has it's requirements for entry by foreign nationals, and the USA is no different.
If you don't like the entry requirements, don't go - simple as that. Visit another country whose entry requirements suit your ideology better.
I for one live in one the visa-waiver countries, and am required to go the USA on occasion for business purposes. I really find the entry requirements to be no more onerous than for any other country I visit that does not require me to obtain a visa first.
Let's get real here. Every sovereign country can set it's own rules. If you don't like them, don't go there. Seems most of the bitching about this is coming from Americans themselves. So "the system is screwed". Why does this surprise you? When do governments not screw up important things like this? It's really not so different where I live, although we're not quite so paranoid about letting in foreigners. Our government just harasses the ones that are already here, and making useful contributions to our country.
This is what I love about/. - you can always be assured that the conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat brigade will come out charging when these little pseudo-journalistic turds appear.
Here was a church leadership which injected its organization voluminously and inappropriately into a contemporary political issue. They turned an institution of private religious belief into public political party.
That last statement is simply untrue. What was inappropriate about the Mormon church (or any of the other churches involved for that matter) involving itself in this issue? It was not a purely political issue. The church did not present itself either officially or unofficially as a political party in this matter. The Mormon church does not involve itself as an institution in American (or any other country's) party politics, or specifically endorse any political candidates.
Prop 8 was seen by many as a moral issue that goes beyond simple politics, and moral issues are well within the domain of churches. Religious organisations such as the Catholic church and the LDS church have strong and definite beliefs on marriage, and I believe under American law and constitutional guarantees, have every right to be involved in these type of moral issues on a public basis.
It should also be noted that whilst the Mormon church and other religious groups were vocal in this matter, it is my understanding that members of the black and hispanic communities in California represented a significant percentage of the majority voted against legalising gay marriage. Are these demographics bigoted towards gays?
Personally, I would be more worried by the fact that the Governor of California is determined to overturn the voice of the people. Twice in the last eight years this issue has been voted upon in California, and twice the people have decided by the established democratic process to not support the legalisation of gay marriage. Despite this, the Governor is determined to overturn the will of the people. That should be of greater concern, as that is more likely to damage the political freedoms of Californians that are so cherished by Americans in general.
For the record, I am a member of the Mormon church. I know for a fact that the church is not bigoted towards homosexuals. Like the rest of Christianity, we see the practice of homosexuality as sin, as taught in the Bible. We also see extra-marital sex (adultery) and pre-marital sex (fornication) as sin, and that too is according to biblical teachings. Just because a person or organisation views these practices as sinful, it does not mean that they are automatically bigoted towards the individuals involved. Quite the opposite in fact. Are parents bigoted towards their children because the child behaves in a manner that is unacceptable to the parents? No, they still love the child notwithstanding they might deplore the behaviour.
Bigotry is defined as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." The Mormon church's position towards homosexuality is not bigotry. I would point you to the transcript of an interview on the LDS Church's position on homosexuality. This lengthy interview was given by two very senior leaders of the Church, and is found here. Make of it what you will, but this is not a bigoted position.
Those that choose homosexuality (and it is purely by choice) are still free to live that lifestyle according to the laws of the land. The fact that this minority wanted to make a change to the law, and the majority opposed it doesn't change the fact that they are still free to live the way they choose.
I do agree with you however that if a person strongly disagree's with the teachings of the church or religious group to which they have associated themselves, then by all means they should probably discontinue that association. Staying to merely avoid social difficulty, and not living according the principles upon which membership of that church is based in nothing
Slashdot Mirror
This is not news. This requirement for online "pre-registration" for visa-waiver countries has been around for a while now. And what's the big fuss anyway? Every country has it's requirements for entry by foreign nationals, and the USA is no different.
If you don't like the entry requirements, don't go - simple as that. Visit another country whose entry requirements suit your ideology better.
I for one live in one the visa-waiver countries, and am required to go the USA on occasion for business purposes. I really find the entry requirements to be no more onerous than for any other country I visit that does not require me to obtain a visa first.
Let's get real here. Every sovereign country can set it's own rules. If you don't like them, don't go there. Seems most of the bitching about this is coming from Americans themselves. So "the system is screwed". Why does this surprise you? When do governments not screw up important things like this? It's really not so different where I live, although we're not quite so paranoid about letting in foreigners. Our government just harasses the ones that are already here, and making useful contributions to our country.
This is what I love about /. - you can always be assured that the conspiracy theorists and tinfoil hat brigade will come out charging when these little pseudo-journalistic turds appear.
That last statement is simply untrue. What was inappropriate about the Mormon church (or any of the other churches involved for that matter) involving itself in this issue? It was not a purely political issue. The church did not present itself either officially or unofficially as a political party in this matter. The Mormon church does not involve itself as an institution in American (or any other country's) party politics, or specifically endorse any political candidates.
Prop 8 was seen by many as a moral issue that goes beyond simple politics, and moral issues are well within the domain of churches. Religious organisations such as the Catholic church and the LDS church have strong and definite beliefs on marriage, and I believe under American law and constitutional guarantees, have every right to be involved in these type of moral issues on a public basis.
It should also be noted that whilst the Mormon church and other religious groups were vocal in this matter, it is my understanding that members of the black and hispanic communities in California represented a significant percentage of the majority voted against legalising gay marriage. Are these demographics bigoted towards gays?
Personally, I would be more worried by the fact that the Governor of California is determined to overturn the voice of the people. Twice in the last eight years this issue has been voted upon in California, and twice the people have decided by the established democratic process to not support the legalisation of gay marriage. Despite this, the Governor is determined to overturn the will of the people. That should be of greater concern, as that is more likely to damage the political freedoms of Californians that are so cherished by Americans in general.
For the record, I am a member of the Mormon church. I know for a fact that the church is not bigoted towards homosexuals. Like the rest of Christianity, we see the practice of homosexuality as sin, as taught in the Bible. We also see extra-marital sex (adultery) and pre-marital sex (fornication) as sin, and that too is according to biblical teachings. Just because a person or organisation views these practices as sinful, it does not mean that they are automatically bigoted towards the individuals involved. Quite the opposite in fact. Are parents bigoted towards their children because the child behaves in a manner that is unacceptable to the parents? No, they still love the child notwithstanding they might deplore the behaviour.
Bigotry is defined as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." The Mormon church's position towards homosexuality is not bigotry. I would point you to the transcript of an interview on the LDS Church's position on homosexuality. This lengthy interview was given by two very senior leaders of the Church, and is found here. Make of it what you will, but this is not a bigoted position.
Those that choose homosexuality (and it is purely by choice) are still free to live that lifestyle according to the laws of the land. The fact that this minority wanted to make a change to the law, and the majority opposed it doesn't change the fact that they are still free to live the way they choose.
I do agree with you however that if a person strongly disagree's with the teachings of the church or religious group to which they have associated themselves, then by all means they should probably discontinue that association. Staying to merely avoid social difficulty, and not living according the principles upon which membership of that church is based in nothing