Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 This tread in meant for respectful discussion and debate:Many issues have made their way into public debate that can and will have an effect of "Religious Conscience". Churches who provide healthcare serves being forced to provide services in direct violation to their beliefs.Redefinning of marriage that could lead to churches performing ceremonies in direct violation to their cherished and documented (Revealation) or providing adoption services.There have already been Pharmacist having issue with "morning after pills".In D&C 134 Joseph taught the following...We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold their respective Goverments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such Goverments; and that sedition and rebellion and unbecoming of every individual thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all Goverments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgements are best calculated to serve the public interest; at the same time "holding sacred the freedom of conscience". Please respectful comments and do not seek to have this shut down for inappropriate political comments.Thank you in advance..
KevinG Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 In the past I was more likely to think our government moving from neutrality into prescriptive actions in the case of morality was a "slippery slope" argument. However recent decisions just like forcing Catholic run businesses to provide abortive and contraceptive health services against their beliefs has changed my mind.This is a frightening line to cross - the government telling private groups what they must do in cases of conscience.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 In the past I was more likely to think our government moving from neutrality into prescriptive actions in the case of morality was a "slippery slope" argument. However recent decisions just like forcing Catholic run businesses to provide abortive and contraceptive health services against their beliefs has changed my mind.This is a frightening line to cross - the government telling private groups what they must do in cases of conscience.If you were the one making the decision for Catholics...what would you do, provide abortions or close your doors.
thesometimesaint Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Businesses have no freedom of conscience.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 Businesses have no freedom of conscience.They are not in business as a form of worship.
rpn Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 businesses, at least sole proprieterships and business entities that are wholly privately owned by individuals most certainly have consciences. Otherwise the law couldn't put business owners in jail for violating EPA laws, or for fraud, etc. 2
thesometimesaint Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 Pa Pa:There is an exception for actual churches, not for businesses associated with a Church. Further a church can not dictate the health care choices of its nonmember employees. Plus several states all ready require that health care insurance companies to provide a variety of health care choices to their policy holders, and have for years.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 19, 2012 Author Posted August 19, 2012 Pa Pa:There is an exception for actual churches, not for businesses associated with a Church. Further a church can not dictate the health care choices of its nonmember employees. Plus several states all ready require that health care insurance companies to provide a variety of health care choices to their policy holders, and have for years.We are talking about something that violates conscience, such as killing healthy children on the altar of convience. Truly even the mostunriteous could see how a faith could be at odds with this...please don't try to have this shut down.
thesometimesaint Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 (edited) Pa Pa:What are you talking about? I could claim that serving blacks in my restaurateur violates my conscience, as it was done most notably in the American South. Or not allowing black school children to attend a public school. Or not allowing Jews to buy a home in my neighborhood as was done here in southern California. Or claiming blacks would never be anything more than servants to whites in the Celestial Kingdom. The list is practically endless of things that could violate someones conscience. However as long as I don't violate the law as currently written. I can be as stupidly bigoted as I want.We don't have forced abortion in this country, and no federal dollars are used for abortions. Look I'm as opposed to abortion except as a rarity as is the Church's position on it. If you don't want an abortion then don't have one. Teach your kids not to have an elective abortion. But you have no authority to impose your morality on anyone else. That is what freedom of conscience means. Edited August 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint 1
rpn Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 When we require that religious org provide insurance that includes birth control they believe is sinful, RU486 (or sometimes Part B) that they believe is abortion, and that religious orgs who sponsor services to require their hospitals provide abortions and place children with other than married men and women, which they believe to be the divine right of children and the best circumstances for children, then that is a problem. Just like it is a problem if they tell a pharmacist or doc that they have to participate in abortions or dispense medication they believe to be wicked. Just like if government were to tell you that you have to rent a room in the rooming house you live in and manage that is also your home, to unmarried couples or gay couples. If government were to tell you that you had to participate in gay weddings providing services for them, if you were going to provide services for any wedding, that is in the same realm. Yes the line has to be drawn somewhere in public accommodations (and with other types of discrimination it is generally at the level that it is no longer directly involving the person's life --- like living in an apt building would not invoke the personal protection, but renting out rooms in your home would not come under the statute.. The LDS church even supports anti-discrimination ordinances protecting those with same gender attraction in housing and employment, so long as religious institutions are allowed to practice their faith freely. (See the SLC ordinance that the lds church specifically spoke in support of).
DH Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 (edited) Redefinning of marriage that could lead to churches performing ceremonies in direct violation to their cherished and documented (Revealation) or providing adoption services.Um, no. Nobody is trying to force churches to perform same-sex marriages if they don't believe in them.But there are churches that believe same-sex marriage is just fine, and would like for the marriages they perform to be recognized by the state. Who are we to deny them their religious liberties? Edited August 19, 2012 by DH 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 19, 2012 Author Posted August 19, 2012 Pa Pa:What are you talking about? I could claim that serving blacks in my restaurateur violates my conscience,I never suggested that and it is an insult to blacks to always have their cause attached to gay issues...I brought up to issues of conscience that now are on stage and threaten the faith of many. What am I talking about...what the OP stated. I would however mention here that as a demographic black churches oppose these more than most.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 19, 2012 Author Posted August 19, 2012 Um, no. Nobody is trying to force churches to perform same-sex marriages if they don't believe in them.But there are churches that believe same-sex marriage is just fine, and would like for the marriages they perform to be recognized by the state. Who are we to deny them their religious liberties?Have you watched this thopi here and elsewhere, in some countries you cannot teach the "Proclimation on the Family" without it being hate speech.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 19, 2012 Author Posted August 19, 2012 But there are churches that believe same-sex marriage is just fine,For us what others think is not the issue...which is why we cannot change.
KevinG Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 If you were the one making the decision for Catholics...what would you do, provide abortions or close your doors.Get a lawyer... (and probably continue to provide insurance)
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 19, 2012 Author Posted August 19, 2012 Get a lawyer... (and probably continue to provide insurance)The States already did...
thesometimesaint Posted August 19, 2012 Posted August 19, 2012 Pa Pa:I'm old enough to remember the Blue Laws where non essential businesses were required by law to close on Sunday. Can't you see how that might offend the consciences of Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, Muslims, and even Atheists? As a Church we have no authority to impose our morality on others not of our faith, and it is wrong to do so.See Articles of Faith#11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 19, 2012 Author Posted August 19, 2012 Pa Pa:I'm old enough to remember the Blue Laws where non essential businesses were required by law to close on Sunday. Can't you see how that might offend the consciences of Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, Muslims, and even Atheists? As a Church we have no authority to impose our morality on others not of our faith, and it is wrong to do so.See Articles of Faith#11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.TSS...do you realize that current events and issue cause people to fear that compliance will offend God and threaten their salvation?
thesometimesaint Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Pa Pa:Then let them answer to their God. As long as I don't violate the law as it currently stands. I have nothing to fear from the law. We can speculate all we want about what some future law may say. Heck there are enough silly laws on the books that aren't enforced to keep us laughing for days.
rpn Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 The fact that we claim the right to worship as we please, doesn't change the value of our civic society adopting ancient patterns that have societal good, that just so happened to come out of the ten commandments (which are honored by all the abrahamic religions as scripture). A day of rest (just like the monthly day of fasting that recent evidence suggests is the reason LDS members get less heart disease and cancer) for our communities makes all of our lives better, and certainly our relationships.So to with opposition to same sex marriage.
thesometimesaint Posted August 20, 2012 Posted August 20, 2012 rpn:There are mild positive health effects from the moderate consumption of alcohol. Why do the LDS, Protestant Christians and Muslims avoid the drinking of alcohol?There is an easy solution to the SS marriage issue. Get the state out of the marriage business all together. Make them all Domestic Partnerships first , and allow the churches marry whomever they want.BTW There are only two of the Ten Commandments that have any bearing on currant US law. The US is a secular state that has a separation of church and state. If the US Constitution is a divinely inspired document as the LDS claim. Then don't you think we should follow it?
Recommended Posts