Romney: First Clergyman Since Garfield In White House?

[DavidB]

Twelve years ago, a Mormon family and Catholic family sued their school district to stop school prayers. Were they wrong?

http://www.mormonstoday.com/000625/N1SchoolPrayer02.shtml

http://www.mormonsto...lPrayer02.shtml

Quote

SANTA FE, TEXAS -- This week's news that the Supreme Court had ruled against allowing the Santa Fe, Texas Independent School District to have "student-led voluntary prayers" before high school football games was disappointing to many conservative Mormons. It was also shocking for many that a the lawsuit had been filed by a Mormon family. But an analysis of the case history shows why a Mormon family might file such a lawsuit.

The case was originally filed in 1995, in response to the way that the Mormon family, and a Catholic family that joined them in the suit, were treated by teachers and other students in the school district. Both families felt that their children had been discriminated against and harassed for belonging to a minority religion in the majority Southern Baptist town, according to Mormon News' analysis of news reports and contacts with those involved in the case.

No the Mormons and.Catholics were not wrong. And good for those Mormons for standing up for themselves...And the evil of evils, the Mormons had ACLU lawyers.

[thesometimesaint]

You seemed to be in the minority then.

A wrong idea is still wrong no matter if a majority believes it.

[thesometimesaint]

I think you have it exactly backwards. The supposed LDS problems generated by polygamy wasn't about the government imposing religion (though anti-bigamy laws may have been influenced by religious beliefs), but rather with the perceived infringement by the government upon the "free exercise" of an LDS religious practice (which we both agree that there should be a high and wide wall limiting the government in doing such). It had nothing to do with "establishment" clause (where we disagree on how high or wide the wall should separate religion from influencing the government).

Even still, I don't have a problem with the government, in very rare and exceptional cases, legislating against certain practices that may for some people, though not all, be religious in nature, such as animal and human sacrifice and marijuana smoking, and even polygamy for that matter, etc.. In these rare and exceptional cases, the government isn't so much restricting religious freedom as it is generically legislating against certain practices that happen to be engaged in by certain religions.

In short, your polygamy example serves only to re-enforce what we agree on (i.e. high and wide wall limiting government getting into religious business), and doesn't speak to what we disagree about (i.e. whether or not the wall separating religions from influencing and being involved in governmental business should be low and narrow or high and wide).

Care to try again?

I am not sure why you are asking me this since nothing I have said could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting I think tax dollars should go to support any God(s).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It was both. Anti-bigamy laws have their genesis in the Western interpretation of the Christian religion. They are also an infringement on the "free exercise" clause of the Constitution. The establishment clause prevents the government from favoring or disfavoring any religion. I certainly don't care if people practice polygamy, as long as they give informed consent. I oppose all efforts by governments to impose any laws, favoring or disfavoring religion, beyond reasonable health and safety laws. IE; Members of a religious group can handle all the poisonous snakes they want. What they can not do is force others to handle those snakes. IMNTBHO It is not a wise idea, but they can do it. Moreover it is against reasonable laws to meet in buildings that are structurally unsafe, or contaminated.

I don't care if someone sacrifices animals in their religious practices, as long as the remains are safety disposed of. Personally smoke your bloody brains out for as far as I care. Smoke anything from pot to parsley. Just don't make me inhale the fumes, or make me responsible for what happens as a response to their use. As it is murder/homicide to unlawfully kill another human being, and we can not legally consent to being murdered. I oppose all efforts at human sacrifice. BTW All of Christianity is based on human sacrifice. Albeit the only one that counts is the one that happened almost two thousand years ago.

I firmly believe that wall should go as wide and as high as possible to protect both governments and religions. I sure as heck don't want or need Televangelists, Popes, Priests, Prophets, Ministers, or other religious figures making my laws. If a legislator, or any other governmental official, wants to pray to his God(s) let him/her do so in the privacy of their own closet/Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Temple/Tree/what have you. IMNTBHO anything else is rank hypocrisy that Jesus taught against. Just as I don't want or need any governmental official telling me how I must worship what, when, where, whom, and why I may.

[wenglund]

It was both. Anti-bigamy laws have their genesis in the Western interpretation of the Christian religion.

I am sorry, but I think you are flat out wrong. Even if you are correct about the alleged genesis of anti-bigamy laws (it is debatable--see below), we are at best talking about legislating something that is loosely related to a single religious belief, which is a far cry from "imposing religion." So, you are straining even at best.

Furthermore, even for your at best to not completely collapse, logically you would need to establish that anti-bigamy legislation was solely supported by religionists and justified solely on religious principles, and had no secular support or argumentation such as state interest.

As it turns out, in the federal bigamy case of Davis v Beason, the Supreme Court ruled that: "Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment" (Emphasis mine), thus evincing that Edmund Act (which was challenged in this case) had a secular basis--i.e. state interest. Also, according to Wikipedia: Edmund Act, the Edmond Act "...was passed in a wave of Victorian-era reaction to the perceived immorality of polygamy,^[3] or at least polygyny, which was often compared to slavery.^[1]" The impetus wasn't the Christian religion, but sensibilities inspired by the queen of England.

In short, the Edmund Act, which marked the beginning of bigamy laws in the U.S., wasn't "imposing religion" as you suggest (nowhere in U.S. jurisprudence was it argued that the act violated the Establishment Clause), but rather it was a secular law based on state interest that was inspired by English monarchy. It makes as little sense to consider anti-bigamy laws as "imposing religion" as it would laws against stealing and murder given their possible genesis in the 10 Commandments.

So, again, your polygamy example serves only to re-enforce what we agree on (i.e. high and wide wall limiting government getting into religious business), and doesn't speak to what we disagree about (i.e. whether or not the wall separating religions from influencing and being involved in governmental business should be low and narrow or high and wide).

Care to try yet again?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

Nope.

[USU78]

Uh . . . Blackstone reported in his Commentaries that bigamy was a crime under Common Law.

[Stargazer]

Well, the topic has moved from clergyman in the white house to polygamy. I think the discussion is complete.