Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rain

Sealings can be done right away now!

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, USU78 said:

"Discriminate" is the virtual linguistic twin of "discern."  Its primary meaning historically and presently has to do with being able to make distinctions between things.  "You have disciminating taste in draperies, Mrs Schwartz!"  You are using "discriminate" in its tertiary meaning having but a very few decades' currency as a specialized sociopolitical weapon word in applying it to religious institutions.  In Mormonese, "to discern" is a special spiritual talent given as a gift by G-d to certain individuals.   See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/discernment-gift-of

While you are largely correct in a very limited legal sphere that states and nation states have had the tendency to make certain activities in the financial marketplace illegal:  some choices [which is what discrimination really is] are prohibited and/or bear a social or legal onus.  This is all, however, in a sphere wholly separated from religious institutions and religious individuals' inner life and religious practices.  The state has no business there, and its specialized vocabulary is unuseful in discussing such matters.

Moreover, "equal protection" is likewise wholly irrelevant, as the contours of when it comes into play is in the sphere of, for example, employment law, as the Deseret Gym's long gone policy on requiring its employees, all of them, to be endowed temple recommend holders.  The Court found that there is no reasonable connection between being an endowed temple recommend holder and mopping up.  Now, of course, this court case ended up a contributing factor in the Deseret Gym becoming a bath house, in the worst sense of that term, back in the '70s/early '80s, but that court wasn't concerned with a Church's concerns for the patrons of its facilities' safety and wellbeing.  Quare:  what would today's SCOTUS make of that case?

Now, if a legal ruling helps turn a Church facility into a homosexual hookup joint by accident, how are we to trust that an unfriendly judiciary (and there are plenty of antireligionist judges out there) coupled with antiMormon virulence expressed by legal attacks (and there are plenty of antiMormons, antiMormon virulence, and antiMormon legal attacks out there, and more expected every week), how are we to trust a judiciary whose rulings WRT religious liberties seem to change with this season's politics?  I don't believe you when you say "there's no danger" that the abomination of desolation won't be forced through our temples' doors and into our temples' sealing rooms and onto our temples' altars.  My liberties are constantly in jeopardy.

This is paranoia, a bunker mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is paranoia, a bunker mentality.

More bombthrowing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

More bombthrowing.

Good thing you're already in the bunker!

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Gray said:

Good thing you're already in the bunker!

And the bombs just keep a-comin'!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And the bombs just keep a-comin'!

Good thing you stalked up on supplies 😛

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post

If the government in the future says it is illegal for any church prohibiting SSM in their church, then the government will, once again, have entangled state and church affairs together.  It doesn't matter if the benefit of that entanglement goes to the state or to the church. It doesn't matter if the reasoning was secular (e.g. discrimination) What it does show, that it has happened in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. Those who posit that never will the government force SSM upon a church or prevent the church free exercise of their beliefs are simply wrong. It has happened and will continue to happen.

I use the term state here as a catch all term for government whether local, state, or federal, and the term church as a catchall phrase for religion.

The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment has been in many SCOTUS cases and no doubt will be in many cases in the future. The expressed text is:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Here are a few notable SCOTUS cases. You can look them up if you want, but I put the gist of the case and to whom went the benefit of the ruling to save you time:

Everson v Board of Education: in a 5-4 vote the court upheld a state law that reimbursed parents for the cost of bussing their children to private parochial schools. Note; here, the parents not the parochial school was reimbursed. If the school were to be reimbursed, it is my opinion that would have endorsed religion and would have violated the establishment clause. Benefits both state and church

McCollum v Board of Education: in a 8-1 vote the practice of inviting religious instructors into public schools to give optional religious instruction (think seminary or institute) violated the Establishment Clause. This was so often practiced in our country's past of teaching a voluntary religious class. After this case, voluntary religious classes have been unconstitutional. This is a little weird because I have taken many religious classes (university level)  since this ruling. These classes usually fell under a History rubric. The ones I took were on Islam, Bah Vegeta, Quran. Bahai, Bible, and Judaism. The only difference was they were done by the PhD professors employed and not by an invited instructor. My class on the Bahai religion was basically the professors semester long testimony of its truth. Benefit to the state.

Zorach v Clauson: a 6-3 vote on the issue of religious instruction off the schools premises.  This case gave students of public schools "release time" so they could spend part of their school day to attend class in their church or synagogues. Note: in the dissent Justice Jackson argued that the public schools were used as "a temporary jail" for the students who chose not to attend release time. Benefit to both church and state.

Engel v Vitale: a 6-1 vote that took out prayer from the public schools. This ruling makes it so that the public schools cannot hold any type of prayers, even if participation is not required or the prayer is not tied to a particular religion. Kind of a double standard, the exact same argument and defenses were used but allowed prayers in congressional meetings.

Zelman v Simmons-Harris: the court voted 5-4 to allow government assistance  to help aid parents whose children were going to private religious schools. My guess is this ruling would allow for aide to private Muslim students, but in today's litigious society a Christian student might still be sued. Note; I am for all students, no matter what religion to get government assistance (privet religious high school level is used often). However, right now, at the college level Most are required to pay back all their student loans, but Muslim refugees get government assistance that currently asks for no repayment. IMO that should go for all religions or none or it would violate SCOTUS's Lemon Test (see next case).

Lemon v Kurtzman: a 8-1 vote that said laws that allow direct funding for non-public-use schools or non=secular schools violated the Establishment Clause. The famous Lemon Test came out of this case.

Lemon Test: (1) The statute must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

Reynolds v United States: 9-0 unanimous decision,  the Court ruled that Congress has the power to Prohibit polygamy. The defense of it was his religious belief and the practice of the church he was a member of did not matter. One reason I believe that the government should stay out of marriage in general. Thus, we can see if congress can outlaw a religious belief they certainly can make laws that punish any person that violates law even if the law goes against one's religious belief. They day will come, I'm afraid, that there will indeed be legal action to make the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be mandated to have SSM within our temples.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...