First Amendment protects God-given moral agency

[Scott Lloyd]

As we have observed Constitution Day in the United States, I herewith post a link to the Church News "Viewpoint" editorial of last weekend, which pertains to the First Amendment and religious freedom.

Some excerpts:
 

Quote

 

While the Lord has declared that He established the Constitution itself, it is the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment, that most directly addresses His stated purpose that everyone may act “according to the moral agency” which He has given each individual.

The concepts enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights by no means are limited thereto. They are embodied in the constitutions of other nations as well. To the extent that documents and institutions, wherever they are found in the world, protect these divinely bestowed liberties, they may be seen by extension as being covered under the Lord’s approbation as expressed in Doctrine and Covenants 101. For He said they are “for the rights and protection of all flesh.”

 

 

 

Quote

 

At its essence, the First Amendment guarantees liberty to engage in activities by which we can ascertain and convey truth: freedom of religion, speech, the press and assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances when these liberties are violated.

The First Amendment guarantees are vital to the protection of our God-given moral agency, for, without knowledge of truth, we are hindered in our ability to exercise our agency responsibly in a manner that blesses ourselves and others. In recent years, the Brethren have deemed it needful to emphasize anew the Constitutional principle of religious freedom.

To this end, they have directed the creation of an internet site, “Religious Freedom,” found at www.lds.org/religious-freedom.

 

I will here add parenthetically that religious freedom is not the only First Amendment liberty under assault. Through their lawlessness, Antifa protestors are endeavoring to shut down free speech on college campuses, particularly Berkley, ironically the so-called "birth of the free-speech movement of the sixties. That, of course, is not the fault of government except to the extent that officials fail to enforce laws against the violence and oppression perpetrated by these Antifa thugs.

 

[thesometimesaint]

My dad flew in one of these during his Antifascists days.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#/media/File:North_American_B-25_Mitchell_Góraszka_2007.jpg

[The Nehor]

Some of Antifa's activities are lawless. Antifa is a difficult organization to pin down as it is not really an organization. It is a bunch of independent groups. Their objectives are equally varied but most do not want to destroy the constitution though many violate it

I do question why you single out Antifa as the problem when they are fighting literal Nazis whose open goal is the destruction or perversion of the Constitution. I think of the arguments over Amlici and Paanchi in the Book of Mormon where there was fighting before and after the election. You seem to favor those analogous to the king-men in the modern scenario. Why?

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Some of Antifa's activities are lawless. Antifa is a difficult organization to pin down as it is not really an organization. It is a bunch of independent groups. Their objectives are equally varied but most do not want to destroy the constitution though many violate it

The rhetoric is different. What about the tactics?

Most people protesting do not want to destroy the constitution, but many do not seem to understand that it is for everybody.

Glenn

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The rhetoric is different. What about the tactics?

Most people protesting do not want to destroy the constitution, but many do not seem to understand that it is for everybody.

Glenn

Sadly true. The defense of rights often means defending reprehensible people to protect those rights. I am, however, not going to pretend that I feel sorry for Nazis who get punched in the face for being Nazis and Nazi sympathizer sand supporters and I hope we find lots of other ways to legally ruin their lives.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Some of Antifa's activities are lawless. Antifa is a difficult organization to pin down as it is not really an organization. It is a bunch of independent groups. Their objectives are equally varied but most do not want to destroy the constitution though many violate it

I do question why you single out Antifa as the problem when they are fighting literal Nazis whose open goal is the destruction or perversion of the Constitution. I think of the arguments over Amlici and Paanchi in the Book of Mormon where there was fighting before and after the election.

I am every bit as opposed to Nazis as I am to Antifas.

I single out the Antifas because they have been in the news lately in their efforts to shut down free speech through violence on college campuses and elsewhere (as I expressed in the OP).

Quote

You seem to favor those analogous to the king-men in the modern scenario. Why?

This is an outlandish falsehood incorporated into a loaded question of the "Are-you-still-beating-your-wife?" variety. As such, it does not deserve a response.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

My dad flew in one of these during his Antifascists days.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#/media/File:North_American_B-25_Mitchell_Góraszka_2007.jpg

I honor people like your dad. I would not dishonor them by comparing them to today's lawless Antifas.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

I will here add parenthetically that religious freedom is not the only First Amendment liberty under assault. 

 

Scott...can you help me understand exactly which specific religious freedom is under assault and which specific belief do you personally hold that you can no longer believe in?  I guess I ask because I am unaware of any religious freedom that is under attack...so I'm hoping that you can enlighten me. Thanks in advance. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am every bit as opposed to Nazis as I am to Antifas.

And that is the problem. The sense of equivalence between the two.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And that is the problem. The sense of equivalence between the two.

No sense of equivalence intended. That is your own false reading.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Scott...can you help me understand exactly which specific religious freedom is under assault and which specific belief do you personally hold that you can no longer believe in?  I guess I ask because I am unaware of any religious freedom that is under attack...so I'm hoping that you can enlighten me. Thanks in advance. 

https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom/examples

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sadly true. The defense of rights often means defending reprehensible people to protect those rights. I am, however, not going to pretend that I feel sorry for Nazis who get punched in the face for being Nazis and Nazi sympathizer sand supporters and I hope we find lots of other ways to legally ruin their lives.

Does your animus extend to people who are in no way Nazi, who don't even come close, but have been subject to attempts to cut off their freedom of speech because what they had to say was controversial? People like Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos? Does it extend to Trump supporters?

Such have been targets of the Antifa movement, far more often than white supremacists or neo-Nazis.

[Scott Lloyd]

I hadn't intended for this thread to get off into the weeds in a discussion about Antifa protestors (I recognize that is my fault).

Does anyone have anything to say about the primary subject of religious freedom, especially as it pertains to the Church (I appreciate Johnnie Cake's sincere question)?

Otherwise, I'm afraid the thread is destined for an early closure.

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am every bit as opposed to Nazis as I am to Antifas.

 

I'm much more opposed to Nazis than I am to Antifa. Probably because the two aren't remotely equivalent.

https://www.ushmm.org/

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm much more opposed to Nazis than I am to Antifa. Probably because the two aren't remotely equivalent.

https://www.ushmm.org/

Be that as it may, it is hardly a justification for minimizing the behavior of Antifa.

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hadn't intended for this thread to get off into the weeds in a discussion about Antifa protestors (I recognize that is my fault).

Does anyone have anything to say about the primary subject of religious freedom, especially as it pertains to the Church (I appreciate Johnnie Cake's sincere question)?

Otherwise, I'm afraid the thread is destined for an early closure.

 

Yes, but when I bring it up, I always get a lot of push back. I do believe there are certain groups entering this country, and trying to get citizenship which have little to no true regard for the religious liberties of others, and are actually entering this country as part of a concerted effort to try to stamp out the "evils" of democracy and capitalism. While they may be in the minority, determined minorities can cause major problems. They are sent from countries which are not militarily powerful, so this is plan B. I don't believe it any coincidence that the rise of Antifa coincides with the appearance MSAs on college campuses - although delayed about a decade. I can't prove it because Antifa is largely a secret society, but I am quite sure that many Antifa members are MSA members. Their extreme militant stance against the principles of the Bill of Rights is a dead give away. Nazi's are easy to pick out. Antifa members are whoever the group can stir up. Right now they don't care about ethnic background,  or other affiliation so long as you are willing to act violently against whatever they don't like. It will be a rising and continuing problem so long as this country has a semi-open immigration policy.

[strappinglad]

Actually the goons in the early 1930s and the current antifa rioters , have many characteristics in common. That the early actions of the Nazi goons eventually led to the election/rise to power of a party that the vast majority of the world despises , should be of concern to all who see the violent actions of Antifa and the apparent inaction of elected officials and the police to quell the behavior. When police are told to stand down as in  the Berkley  riots and has been suggested in the Charlottesville mess, one has to wonder whose agenda in being advanced. Berkley claims a $ 600,000 security cost to hold the Ben Shapiro speech. What group were they using the security against? Was it against those who were for free speech or those against it?

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yes, but when I bring it up, I always get a lot of push back. I do believe there are certain groups entering this country, and trying to get citizenship which have little to no true regard for the religious liberties of others, and are actually entering this country as part of a concerted effort to try to stamp out the "evils" of democracy and capitalism. While they may be in the minority, determined minorities can cause major problems. They are sent from countries which are not militarily powerful, so this is plan B. I don't believe it any coincidence that the rise of Antifa coincides with the appearance MSAs on college campuses - although delayed about a decade. I can't prove it because Antifa is largely a secret society, but I am quite sure that many Antifa members are MSA members. Their extreme militant stance against the principles of the Bill of Rights is a dead give away. Nazi's are easy to pick out. Antifa members are whoever the group can stir up. Right now they don't care about ethnic background,  or other affiliation so long as you are willing to act violently against whatever they don't like. It will be a rising and continuing problem so long as this country has a semi-open immigration policy.

MSA: Medical Savings Account? Metropolitan Statistical Area?

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Actually the goons in the early 1930s and the current antifa rioters , have many characteristics in common. That the early actions of the Nazi goons eventually led to the election/rise to power of a party that the vast majority of the world despises , should be of concern to all who see the violent actions of Antifa and the apparent inaction of elected officials and the police to quell the behavior. When police are told to stand down as in  the Berkley  riots and has been suggested in the Charlottesville mess, one has to wonder whose agenda in being advanced. Berkley claims a $ 600,000 security cost to hold the Ben Shapiro speech. What group were they using the security against? Was it against those who were for free speech or those against it?

In reality, I don't recognize a lot of difference between groups, regardless of political stripe, whose common characteristic seems to be to oppose the Bill of Rights (to take this back to the thread topic).

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In reality, I don't recognize a lot of difference between groups, regardless of political stripe, whose common characteristic seems to be to oppose the Bill of Rights (to take this back to the thread topic).

So you see tactics and history as irrelevant or you see tactics and history are generally similar with all such groups?  Or something else?

Just as an FYI, I interpret comments such as "don't recognize a lot of difference" as saying groups are equivalent.  "Every bit as opposed" leans that way as well.  If you don't mean to have people interpret them that way, perhaps you need to explain where they are not equivalent in your eyes because at least I am having a hard time seeing how you think they are not equivalent if you don't think there is much difference between them. I take your word above you weren't drawing an equivalency, but that leaves me with a big question mark on what you mean.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

MSA: Medical Savings Account? Metropolitan Statistical Area?

Muslim Student Associations?

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you see tactics and history as irrelevant or you see tactics and history are generally similar with all such groups?  Or something else?

Just as an FYI, I interpret comments such as "don't recognize a lot of difference" as saying groups are equivalent.  "Every bit as opposed" leans that way as well.  If you don't mean to have people interpret them that way, perhaps you need to explain where they are not equivalent in your eyes because at least I am having a hard time to see how you think they are not equivalent if you don't think there is much difference between them. I take your word above you weren't drawing an equivalency, but that leaves me with a big question mark on what you mean.

I'm saying what is important to me is whether the group, whatever it is, supports or opposes the principles embodied in the Constitution or Bill of Rights (see the CN editorial). If it opposes those principles, there's not much left to recommend it, imo.

[Calm]

So they are equivalent if they do that or not?

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom/examples

Thanks Scott...yes I can see where some of those points are under attack

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does your animus extend to people who are in no way Nazi, who don't even come close, but have been subject to attempts to cut off their freedom of speech because what they had to say was controversial? People like Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos? Does it extend to Trump supporters?

Such have been targets of the Antifa movement, far more often than white supremacists or neo-Nazis.

Yeah, but they mostly use physical violence on white supremacists and Nazis. Free Speech does not mean you have a right not to have your speech protested against.