KevinG Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Daniel 2 shared on another thread:Mormons' beliefs don't operate in a vacuum. Your beliefs influence my family (who remain devoutly LDS--and whom I love and value, very much), my neighborhood, the schools my children attend, and the government that operates in the city, state, and even nation where I reside.I will always defending all of our ability to believe, worship, and retain the same, shared, equal access of the religious freedoms that we all enjoy--whether LDS or not.Insofar as Mormons will continue to seek to influence our shared government to reflect their values, and inasmuch as those governmental laws and rights impact (and, especially, restrict) my and my family's ability to worship "how, where, and what" I may, or be viewed as equal in the eyes of our shared government, I will continue to associate with, dialogue with, and influence Latter-day Saints (as I expect and accept that they will continue to associate with, dialogue with, and influence me).Jeff K responded:Tell a man adultry is bad, and he will argue your morality is impugning his. Well does anyone think adultry is good? Or do we bury it in euphemisms? To turn it around, why do some people think "they" and their groups exist in a vacuum and that they can do what they want without an impact on the community? Is undermining those things that make a community stable somehow considered a vacuum while other mores are not?Daddy G respondedI understand your position Daniel. I wonder are you a Utah citizen or were you referring to our country in general as our shared government?Our government is indeed shared and Gays and Mormons alike have a right to express their political will throgh speech, money and action.Who do you suppose has more influence over public policy in our country today. Homosexual interest groups or Mormons?Jeff K respondedLeverage of the courts to force acceptance through liberal judges versus a community that wants to set the bar of acceptable morality?
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Under the law individuals can hold any religious beliefs they want. However they can not use the government to force their beliefs on others. 1
KevinG Posted February 9, 2012 Author Posted February 9, 2012 Under the law individuals can hold any religious beliefs they want. However they can not use the government to force their beliefs on others.The right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Agreed, but beside the point.Ps; All of Christendom believes that Human Sacrifice is necessary. We just happen to believe that it happened once two thousand years ago. Edited February 9, 2012 by thesometimesaint
KevinG Posted February 9, 2012 Author Posted February 9, 2012 Agreed, but beside the point.It was actually meant to echo your point.
Daniel2 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) My respose, pasted from the other thread:I understand your position Daniel. I wonder are you a Utah citizen or were you referring to our country in general as our shared government?I am a Utah citizen living in Utah county, seeking to co-parent my children in Utah county schools and in a deeply LDS culture, and helping my elderly (and devoutly LDS) mother care for my terminally ill father in his final days/years in a neighborhood where I am the sole non-member.Our government is indeed shared and Gays and Mormons alike have a right to express their political will throgh speech, money and action.I completely agree.Who do you suppose has more influence over public policy in our country today. Homosexual interest groups or Mormons?Depends on where one lives--different areas of the country clearly are more influenced by either, depending on the geography in question.(As a side note: I wish you had simply said, "gays and lesbians," instead of "homosexual interest groups," just as I personally would simply say, "Mormons," instead of "Mormon interest groups." "Mormons" seems to acknowledge the shared humanity of people--"Mormon interest groups" sounds demeaning/demonizing to the inherent humanity of Mormons, as people).Adding: I fully support the right of members of all religions, as well as those of none, to seek to influence our communities through religion, or beliefs (whether religious or non-religious)--the right to seek to influence others through our freedom of speech, freedom of association, the free exchange of ideas, and the ability to act according to the dictates of our consciences are all part of the foundational principles that makes American great.Also: though I am comfortable no longer self-identifying as a "Latter-day Saint" (a term I perceive to describe religious affiliation), I believe I will always be comfortable self-identifying as "Mormon" (as a term to describe both my culture and heritage). Like others, I love and appreciate the rich and beautiful and strange and unique aspects of my Mormon identity, culture, heritage, family, and self. In fact, I often share LDS culture, history, and beliefs with friends and new acquaintances. I refer frequently to "what I learned on my mission." The music of LDS hymns reverberate through my head whenever I hear the song of a bird, or look at the blue, blue sky... I continue to take comfort in many of the warm memories of my childhood and past. The stories of the scriptures continue to inform and shape the metaphors I use to relate to my (now agnostic) word-view. Mormonism is and always will be part of the story of "me." Dunno if that's relevant or not--but there ya go.Daniel2 Edited February 9, 2012 by Daniel2
KevinG Posted February 9, 2012 Author Posted February 9, 2012 Gays and Lesbians works for me... I was trying not to be offensive and lump them all together as a unified political movement. I ended up doing just the opposite. Sorry.
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Daniel2:Utah county wouldn't be my first choice of places to live if I was homosexual. Heck it isn't/wasn't my first choice as a heterosexual. .
Daniel2 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Gays and Lesbians works for me... I was trying not to be offensive and lump them all together as a unified political movement. I ended up doing just the opposite. Sorry.I didn't take offense at ALL, DaddyG--and I hope I didn't sound as if I did. The dialogue is always worthwhile, IMO, because it highlights small issues exactly like this. I appreciate your efforts to avoid offense. Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Daniel2:Utah county wouldn't be my first choice of places to live if I was homosexual. Heck it isn't/wasn't my first choice as a heterosexual. .It certainly isn't my first (or second, or third...) choice, either---but sometimes, one has to sacrifice one's own "first choice" in deference of fulfilling family responsibilities. My parents and children are all FAR worth the challenges/frustrations I experience.Daniel2
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I came back to California to help my parents, but I stay for the weather.
frankenstein Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 One question that has no acceptable answer, is Why is one person morality superior in all respects to another persons morality?
KevinG Posted February 9, 2012 Author Posted February 9, 2012 One question that has no acceptable answer, is Why is one person morality superior in all respects to another persons morality?Because its mine. Duh!Serious answer: on an individual level the default position of our representative government is that no morality is superior to another in our private practices. There are such things as community standards which are the result of a lot of debate, cultural norms and traditions.It is the arena of community standards where the debates and battles over who is allowed to do what resides. There are no easy or simple answers in that arena.
LeSellers Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 One question that has no acceptable answer, is Why is one person morality superior in all respects to another persons morality?There is an acceptable answer: The person whose morality inhibits his harming other people has a superior morality. The person whose morality allows him to harm others without their permission has an inferior one.The person whose morality impels him to help others according to their desires, without infringing on third parties, has a superior morality. He who feels he must "help" others without their desiring that help, or who compels third parties to contribute to his methods has an inferior morality.Lehi
Jeff K. Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Under the law individuals can hold any religious beliefs they want. However they can not use the government to force their beliefs on others.That is not quite accurate. You can indeed influence government to maintain your beliefs, and your beliefs need not be religious since belief systems come in all kinds of packages. What you cannot do is use the government to promote your religion. That is entirely different.To quote Barack ObamaSecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King—indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history—were not only motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.The adversary wants us to say our beliefs should have nothing to do with our votes, this is false.Consider that New York which recently chose to accept gay marriage, the gay community sent out letters from various religoius leaders in support of gay marriage? It seems to me that there is an inconsistent hypocrisy being exercised by one group that wishes to quell debate when backed by religion but another chooses to use religion in order to justify gay marriage.President Obama agrees that our law by its nature is the codification of morlaity. I see reason to counter him on that note.The very base of the argument that somehow we cannot in a religion protest what is immoral to be disengenuous
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Lehi:I wouldn't take that too far. A persons attempt at suicide is nearly always a plea for help. The ones that succeed are beyond our help. No child likes to get vaccinations, but we would be remiss as parents to not get them vaccinated.
LeSellers Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I wouldn't take that too far. A persons attempt at suicide is nearly always a plea for help. The ones that succeed are beyond our help. No child likes to get vaccinations, but we would be remiss as parents to not get them vaccinated.Boiling a concept down to a sound bite insures that marginal cases are ignored: "hard cases make bad law."Children are always a special case (although I have evidence that vaccinations are not helpful, at best, so I dispute your assumption there). Parents have an affirmative duty to do for their children what they, the parents, believe to be in the best interests of the child. It's others, acting against the wishes of the parents who have an inferior morality.Suicides are also a corner case. If we assume the person calls out for help, even indirectly (calling a suicide prevention line is an example), then any help offered is not against that person's will. But in cases of "successful' suicide, where the person dies at his own hand and does not wish intervention, then an attempt to stop him would be immoral because he had freely chosen that option. Agency is an eternal principle. Any attempt to thwart it in adults is satanic. No one makes an irrational choice. The scales always tip toward the thing the person decides to do; if not, he'd do something else.That person who sets himself up as being wiser, more compassionate, more intelligent than the person who will live with the consequences of the first's decision is immoral, no matter his motivation, his "wisdom", or his "compassion". Further, that person also must, by necessity, trammel the rights of the person over whom he presumes to rule. Freedom is a much higher virtue than anything the pompous imagines he is giving the other. And, worse still, when the arrogant determines he's better at making decisions for the one, he rarely stops there: others, too, should "benefit" from his "superiority". Thus all are less free, and all will suffer the outcome of that "wise" man.Lehi
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Jeff K.:It's a mixed bag. We do have a Separation of Church and State. Meaning that I can't use the power of the State to compel you to believe. Nor can my Church dictate the laws of the State. As a State we have the power to define crime and impose its punishment. In liberal societies such as ours and western Europe, religious beliefs are not considered crime until some demonstrated harm is cause to a third party. For instance I can believe in sacrificing humans to my God, but until I actually sacrifice another human to my God the state Should not be involved.
Jeff K. Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 While religious beliefs are not considered a crime, it is amazing how other groups treat it as such and decide they can indeed issue reprisals to those who disagree with them, as if their beliefs were a crime.
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Lehi:No you don't have any right to impose your beliefs to the detriment others including your children. You can not refuse them medical care, including vaccinations, food, shelter, clothing, and education without serious legal consequences. Believe me when I tell you I'd be the first to vote for conviction if you neglected your children.
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Jeff K.:Unrighteous dominion is rather common.
Recommended Posts