Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...


Recommended Posts

Trying to understand what is non-responsive here.

What is unresponsive is you don't engage what others, like me, have said. You simply keep repeating your point of view over and over and over again in spite of it being logically dismantled. Your responses below are more of the same.

Normally when you speak of forcing conformity. You would be speaking of forcing an individual to conform to the beliefs of the majority. Are the LGBT community forcing me a married heterosexual male Mormon to believe that SSM is not a sin? No

Is anyone forcing the LGBT community to believe that SSM is a sin? No.

Are they forcing me to enter into such a relationship? No.

Is anyone forcing LGBT community to enter into traditional relationships? No.

If I weren't already married would they be trying to prevent me from marrying? No.

Is anyone trying to prevent them from entering into domestic partnerships? No.

There are Churches in the US which perform SSMs.

There are Churches that believe in smoking marijuana. There are churches that believe in handling poisonous snakes. There are churches that believe that creationism should be taught in schools, and not evolution. So? Just because a church believes and practices things doesn't mean that the state is therefore obliged to legally recognize and license it. Do you understand?

How is it that any majority of voters have the right under the Constitution to say they lack the right to do so simply because we think that sodomy is a sin. Bearing in mind that our SCOTUS with its current very conservative majority has ruled sodomy laws between consenting adults unconstitutional?

The sodomy laws were struck down, not because they were enacted on the basis that law-makers may have deemed it a sin, but because liberal judges and a couple of moderates, decided that those laws violated civil rights. Truly conservative judges ruled otherwise.

Be that as it may, laws against murder have been enacted on the basis that it is a sin, but not struck down. There are numerous other laws that have been enacted on the basis of sin, which also haven't been struck down (you have mentioned a few, yourself). The point being, the majority of voters have the constitutional right to enact any law they please and for whatever reason they wish. However, this doesn't guarantee that the law won't be struck down as unconstitutional, nor does it guarantee that it will be struck down. Whether it is struck down or not, has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was enacted on the basis of sin. Do you yet get this?

Even still, there is an important distinction between the sodomy cases and SSM. The sodomy laws made a certain sexual act illegal (regardless of sexual orientation), whereas DOMA legislation didn't make homosexual acts or relationships illegal. In fact, their relationships were sanctioned by the state and made legal through domestic partnership legislation. So, Prop 8 didn't make anything illegal, it just prevented the state from recognizing those relationships as marriages. It simply prevented the inane bastardization of legal definition of marriage. How many times will it take me saying this before you will finally get it? Will you ever get it?

God selected the US for the restoration of the Gospel not because we were somehow super righteous, but because this was the one country where real religious tolerance and freedom was sufficient that we wouldn't get snuffed out at inception...and even then it was a near thing and the Prophet Joseph's life was forfeit? Why? In substantial part because he revealed a vision that challenged the traditional views on marriage which had dominated Western Civilization since Constantine had Romanized Christianity. And we now argue that traditional marriage is so set in concrete that it defies all secular arguments to the contrary because our God has told us don't do it? And because the other major religion which is leading the opposition says no, when they don't even allow their clergy to even marry?

Here we go again. This isn't a religious rights issue. Let me repeat, this isn't a religious rights issue. You won't find a single lawyer on either side of the Prop 8 case claiming it is a religious rights issue, and that is because it isn't. Any religion that wants to, can, and they have, married same-sex couple. No law prevents them from doing so. All Prop 8 does is disallow the state from legally recognizing those marriages as marriages, though those marriages are legally recognized as domestic partnerships.

Are you starting to get it? Or, am I still wasting my breath?

Don't get me wrong I personally don't support or condone SSM, but that is strictly because of my religious beliefs which I hold dear and sacred. I want to continue to practice my beliefs, and because I hold that right dear, I must defend the right of others to hold differing views. And, not infringe upon their rights without a just and defensible secular basis for doing so otherwise I am exercising unrighteous dominion.

Again, Prop 8 doesn't deny anyone their right to believe whatever they wish. It doesn't even prevent them from doing as they believe and wish. All it does is prevent the state from bastardizing the definition of marriage. That is it. You have gotten it wrong from the beginning, and you keep getting it wrong. We'll see if you continue to get it wrong, and if so, I don't know that I will continue wasting my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

Trying to understand what is non-responsive here. Normally when you speak of forcing conformity. You would be speaking of forcing an individual to conform to the beliefs of the majority. Are the LGBT community forcing me a married heterosexual male Mormon to believe that SSM is not a sin? No. Are they forcing me to enter into such a relationship? No. If I weren't already married would they be trying to prevent me from marrying? No. There are Churches in the US which perform SSMs. How is it that any majority of voters have the right under the Constitution to say they lack the right to do so simply because we think that sodomy is a sin. Bearing in mind that our SCOTUS with its current very conservative majority has ruled sodomy laws between consenting adults unconstitutional? God selected the US for the restoration of the Gospel not because we were somehow super righteous, but because this was the one country where real religious tolerance and freedom was sufficient that we wouldn't get snuffed out at inception...and even then it was a near thing and the Prophet Joseph's life was forfeit? Why? In substantial part because he revealed a vision that challenged the traditional views on marriage which had dominated Western Civilization since Constantine had Romanized Christianity. And we now argue that traditional marriage is so set in concrete that it defies all secular arguments to the contrary because our God has told us don't do it? And because the other major religion which is leading the opposition says no, when they don't even allow their clergy to even marry?

Don't get me wrong I personally don't support or condone SSM, but that is strictly because of my religious beliefs which I hold dear and sacred. I want to continue to practice my beliefs, and because I hold that right dear, I must defend the right of others to hold differing views. And, not infringe upon their rights without a just and defensible secular basis for doing so otherwise I am exercising unrighteous dominion.

You have been very patient in laying out the issues that face the Supreme Court on Prop 8. Wade doesn't see the truth in what you say because he doesn't want to see it. Fortunately the Supreme Court will be deciding this case based on law and on logic that you have so carefully and patiently laid out. You don't have to convince Wade, the Supreme Court will, in the end spell out very carefully why his defense of Prop 8 is indefensible. By July, DOMA and Prop 8 will both be gone, and the United States will inch a little further to justice and equality even for it's gay citizens.

Link to comment

And, not infringe upon their rights without a just and defensible secular basis for doing so otherwise I am exercising unrighteous dominion.

Firstly, government is a monopoly of force. Chances are you believe you can force your views for at least one thing on someone else. In other words, you think 'infringing' on other people is right in certain scenarios. Otherwise you wouldn't support government. And I'd say all of us here support government, so that means we all support force in certain scenarios (any exceptions, speak up now =p).

Secondly, what is the difference between a secular and a non-secular basis? Secular just means non religious, and if your dismissing religious reasons for law simply because they aren't 'secular', that's begging the question kinda (circular logic in a sense). So I don't think whether it's 'secular' or not matters, tbh.

Understand, there are reasons out there for you to support removing gay mairrage bans, but I don't think you should use this one. You'll have to be more detailed about why you don't think force is justified here, but why it is justfied in other similar scenarios.

Edited by TAO
Link to comment

I don't want to be cause of this thread going off the rails on SSM. So let's take a different example of a law and subject where there has been a commingling of religious morality and politics which has become very murky and where our own, meaning Mormon, stance appears to be in transition, namely murder and the death penalty. Thoughts?

Link to comment

Firstly, government is a monopoly of force. Chances are you believe you can force your views for at least one thing on someone else. In other words, you think 'infringing' on other people is right in certain scenarios. Otherwise you wouldn't support government. And I'd say all of us here support government, so that means we all support force in certain scenarios (any exceptions, speak up now =p).

Secondly, what is the difference between a secular and a non-secular basis? Secular just means non religious, and if your dismissing religious reasons for law simply because they aren't 'secular', that's begging the question kinda (circular logic in a sense). So I don't think whether it's 'secular' or not matters, tbh.

Understand, there are reasons out there for you to support removing gay mairrage bans, but I don't think you should use this one. You'll have to be more detailed about why you don't think force is justified here, but why it is justfied in other similar scenarios.

I agree with you. A law passed by a majority, no matter what the reason, that infringes on the rights of another is wrong. And it is the courts duty to reverse such laws. For example there was a group in San Francisco that wanted to ban circumcision in the county of San Francisco. They felt that it was mutilation of the body of a non consenting minor. The law would not be allowed because it infringed on other peoples rights. Not everyone looks at circumcision as "cosmetic" surgery. Some people have other legitimate reasons for wanting circumcision performed on their children. They should have the right to do that no matter what the majority wants. I am not sure if this actual law was passed, but if it had, it would be the duty of the courts to toss it out.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be just as wrong for religious groups to require circumcision be performed on all newborns because they felt it was what God wanted them to do?

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
You have been very patient in laying out the issues that face the Supreme Court on Prop 8. Wade doesn't see the truth in what you say because he doesn't want to see it. Fortunately the Supreme Court will be deciding this case based on law and on logic that you have so carefully and patiently laid out.

Somebody is definitely living in an alternate universe. where up is down. white is black, pop cultural nonsense is truth, and vacuous opining is a carefully and patiently laid out case. Amazing!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

Taking this away from SSM, let's consider the topic in terms of the debate around murder and the death penalty. This is not a political abstraction for me because of an experience i had some 40 years back when I was both young in the Church and young in the practice of law. At the time I considered myself a pretty well read Mormon, although I had only been in the Church for about 3 years and had not served a mission. And at that time, if you did much reading of the writings of the GAs you would be lead to believe that Blood Atonement was still a valid doctrine of the Church, in fact you would have been lead to believe if you were in a position where you had some discretion as to whether to invoke the death penalty in a clear case of pre-meditated murder and failed to do so -- then some of the accountability fell on your shoulders. [i realize the Church may have moved away from that position now, but back then it was pretty much accepted as doctrine.] I had also just accepted a request from the new County Prosecutor to be his Chief Deputy Prosecutor and we were waiting for our appointments to become effective after the first of the year. Unfortunately, only days before our appointments became effective, a rather ghastly murder occurred at a local gas station.

The Prosecutor was at that time a devout Methodist in fact a Methodist ministers son. (He has since ironically converted to Mormonism) And the Methodist Church had just come out in opposition to the death penalty. So he asked me if I would participate in the case, I said I would have to see the confession videos. After viewing the confession videos, I said that I would participate on one condition, namely he had to seek the death penalty on the trigger person. He said he couldn't do that because of his faith, I said I couldn't participate because of mine -- and I didn't and he didn't.

Now the question is. Given the collision of the two religious beliefs at the time, was it appropriate for us to take into account religious beliefs (morality) in answering a political question, namely whether the death penalty was an appropriate punishment in the case of pre-meditated murder. Back then, I obviously thought yes. Now, I am not so sure -- although I still tend to support the death penalty, but not as rigidly as I would have back then.

Is it relevant what my God has to say about such a law? Is it more relevant than what his God had to say? Should it depend on what a majority of the people's God has to say about such a law? Is it appropriate in a democracy to provide for the death penalty because a majority of the people's God think that it is the appropriate sanction for a crime? Is it appropriate in a democracy to preclude the death penalty because a majority of the people's God thinks it is innappropriate? Does it harm the political system as a whole to even debate politically whether a law is or is not in conformity with their religious beliefs. I tend to think that it is not relevant in the political arena what any particular religion has to say on the subject, and that it in fact harms the political system when we seek to make decisions on the basis of religious beliefs. [There are secular arguments both pro and con on the subject -- and while the Courts have upheld the death penalty from Constitutional attack with respect to full-capacity adults, in the political legislative arena it has not fared as well. In both cases, the arguments have been primarily secular although one cannot doubt that the activists have frequently been religiously motivated.]

Link to comment

Taking this away from SSM, let's consider the topic in terms of the debate around murder and the death penalty. This is not a political abstraction for me because of an experience i had some 40 years back when I was both young in the Church and young in the practice of law. At the time I considered myself a pretty well read Mormon, although I had only been in the Church for about 3 years and had not served a mission. And at that time, if you did much reading of the writings of the GAs you would be lead to believe that Blood Atonement was still a valid doctrine of the Church, in fact you would have been lead to believe if you were in a position where you had some discretion as to whether to invoke the death penalty in a clear case of pre-meditated murder and failed to do so -- then some of the accountability fell on your shoulders. [i realize the Church may have moved away from that position now, but back then it was pretty much accepted as doctrine.] I had also just accepted a request from the new County Prosecutor to be his Chief Deputy Prosecutor and we were waiting for our appointments to become effective after the first of the year. Unfortunately, only days before our appointments became effective, a rather ghastly murder occurred at a local gas station.

The Prosecutor was at that time a devout Methodist in fact a Methodist ministers son. (He has since ironically converted to Mormonism) And the Methodist Church had just come out in opposition to the death penalty. So he asked me if I would participate in the case, I said I would have to see the confession videos. After viewing the confession videos, I said that I would participate on one condition, namely he had to seek the death penalty on the trigger person. He said he couldn't do that because of his faith, I said I couldn't participate because of mine -- and I didn't and he didn't.

Now the question is. Given the collision of the two religious beliefs at the time, was it appropriate for us to take into account religious beliefs (morality) in answering a political question, namely whether the death penalty was an appropriate punishment in the case of pre-meditated murder. Back then, I obviously thought yes. Now, I am not so sure -- although I still tend to support the death penalty, but not as rigidly as I would have back then.

Is it relevant what my God has to say about such a law? Is it more relevant than what his God had to say? Should it depend on what a majority of the people's God has to say about such a law? Is it appropriate in a democracy to provide for the death penalty because a majority of the people's God think that it is the appropriate sanction for a crime? Is it appropriate in a democracy to preclude the death penalty because a majority of the people's God thinks it is innappropriate? Does it harm the political system as a whole to even debate politically whether a law is or is not in conformity with their religious beliefs. I tend to think that it is not relevant in the political arena what any particular religion has to say on the subject, and that it in fact harms the political system when we seek to make decisions on the basis of religious beliefs. [There are secular arguments both pro and con on the subject -- and while the Courts have upheld the death penalty from Constitutional attack with respect to full-capacity adults, in the political legislative arena it has not fared as well. In both cases, the arguments have been primarily secular although one cannot doubt that the activists have frequently been religiously motivated.]

I know of no society that condones murder. What the penalty for murder is is open to discussion. However to use a religious argument either for or against Capital Punishment is a fallacious argument in a secular society such as ours.

Link to comment
I know of no society that condones murder. What the penalty for murder is is open to discussion. However to use a religious argument either for or against Capital Punishment is a fallacious argument in a secular society such as ours.

Please identify the fallacy, and give a real-life example, and demonstrate how it is fallacious.

Also, please realize that fallacious arguments are not prohibited in our so-called secular society, In fact, nowadays they tend to be the rule rather than the exception.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

I know of no society that condones murder.

You must mean general public society because there are plenty of societies that are subsets of the larger society that most certainly do condone or even require murder to be a part of that society. Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

You must mean general public society because there are plenty of societies that are subsets of the larger society that most certainly do condone or even require murder to be a part of that society.

General not specific. I think we can find oddities in any large group. However the oddities are never the norm.

Link to comment

Please identify the fallacy, and give a real-life example, and demonstrate how it is fallacious.

Also, please realize that fallacious arguments are not prohibited in our so-called secular society, In fact, nowadays they tend to be the rule rather than the exception.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

it is a Begging the Question logical fallacy.

I can't prohibit any from a logical fallacy. What I can do is point it out to them.

That is an Ad Populum logical fallacy. ;)

Link to comment

I know of no society that condones murder. What the penalty for murder is is open to discussion. However to use a religious argument either for or against Capital Punishment is a fallacious argument in a secular society such as ours.

Well I think we can take murder as pretty much a given that could be defended on secular grounds. Obviously the real question is the death penalty question. Does it really add anything to the political discussion by a person or a group arguing that the taking of life even as a penalty for murder is against their religious beliefs? or vice versa (bearing in mind that may no longer be the position of the Church)? I think the answer is that it doesn't, and not only doesn't it --since a religious belief is not something that can be rationally discussed it adds nothing to the dialog. Right now the three big secular arguments being made against capital punishment is 1) there has been too much evidence of people being wrongly convicted and you can't rescind a death sentence once the accused has beeen executed; 2) juries are more likely to acquit if they know the penalty is death; and 3) the actual cost of prosecuting and defending a death sentence through to the execution exceeds the cost of incarcerating for life without parole. So if you were of the religious belief that the death penalty violated your religious morals -- does presenting that argument actually add anything to the debate? And should someone's life, even the life of a murderer, hang in the balance of whether you or I have religious beliefs about the death penalty? Say for example the GAs were still being rigid about Blood Atonement and all that -- would it be right for a society which was predominantly Mormon to use that as an argument for requiring the death penalty? How exactly would a Methodist under those circumstances go about even having a political dialogue with us? Or if the society were predominantly one that believed that the death penalty was wrong as a religious matter, how would someone even enter into a political dialogue with you that, nevertheless, death should in pre-meditated murder still be the penalty?

The problem is you cannot have a political debate once somebody plays the religious trump card -- other than engaging in religious contention. And, breeding religious contention in public debate in a democratic society is something that it is hard to tamper down -- it almost always leads to harsh words, rash rhetoric, and frequently even violence. Once you insert the religious trump card into a political debate, it will almost inevitably devolve into name calling and the use of derogatory language.

My mother was something of a Victorian at heart and so she always felt that sex, religion and politics were taboo in polite conversation. I didn't necessarily agree with her, but as I age, I certainly have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible to have civil debate when you combine religion and politics. If you want to fire up a crowd, which many politicians are notoriously good at -- then you pick your audience and you mingle religion and politics, and wallah skyrockets in sight. That can't possibly be healthy for either religion or politics.

Link to comment

I believe he meant that an innappropriate argument is a false argument. But taking that position, by him, does beg the question -- because the question is whether a religious argument is an appropriate argument, that is the whole point. Nobody, at least I am not, saying that any particular religious argument is true or false. It may well be that God takes a dim view of the government killing people as a punishment for killing people, or He may well take the opposite view. The point is, is our belief that God has taken X as a position -- something that is of any value in an argument for a general law? It seems to me, that it may be something that would motivate us to look hard and long for a secular argument that would then support that positon -- but just to testify that God has said this is the way it is to be, even if we have a majority chorus -- just doesn't work in a free democratic society because it is a substitute for discussion. In fact it kills discussion. It brooks no debate, its an ultimatum. Democracies don't last long under such a system because eventually someone figures out -- hey, all I have to do is get a large number of people to believe I have a direct pipeline to God -- and everything becomes religious, and everything has a religious answer. Now in the last analysis, it may well be true that everything has a spiritual or religious answer -- but mankind really tried very hard to go that route several times, and it as far as we know, has always either ended badly or been a very near miss at ending badly. (Zion and Salem may have been exceptions, but we don't really know a lot about their political systems other than there was no poor among them.).

Link to comment

I believe he meant that an innappropriate argument is a false argument. But taking that position, by him, does beg the question -- because the question is whether a religious argument is an appropriate argument, that is the whole point. Nobody, at least I am not, saying that any particular religious argument is true or false. It may well be that God takes a dim view of the government killing people as a punishment for killing people, or He may well take the opposite view. The point is, is our belief that God has taken X as a position -- something that is of any value in an argument for a general law? It seems to me, that it may be something that would motivate us to look hard and long for a secular argument that would then support that positon -- but just to testify that God has said this is the way it is to be, even if we have a majority chorus -- just doesn't work in a free democratic society because it is a substitute for discussion. In fact it kills discussion. It brooks no debate, its an ultimatum. Democracies don't last long under such a system because eventually someone figures out -- hey, all I have to do is get a large number of people to believe I have a direct pipeline to God -- and everything becomes religious, and everything has a religious answer. Now in the last analysis, it may well be true that everything has a spiritual or religious answer -- but mankind really tried very hard to go that route several times, and it as far as we know, has always either ended badly or been a very near miss at ending badly. (Zion and Salem may have been exceptions, but we don't really know a lot about their political systems other than there was no poor among them.).

Hello wall.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Hello wall.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Keeping beating your head against it and you might find relief.

Link to comment

I don't disagree with any of that. The expression opinion is absolutely fine.

The question is whether it is fine to have religious expressions-sentiments become enforceable legislation. It is fine for all religious opinion to be expressed. It is not however, in keeping with the constitution for all expressed religious opinion to also be law.

I disagree I think mixing religion and politics is highly destructive to both and tends to inhibit the needed discussion of topics because it removes people from the discussion and in fact makes discussion impossible. When someone plays the religious trump card they make a declaration which say this is no longer debatable, hence killing discussion. And if that person is someone in authority in that religion he or she then tends to remove all adherents to that religion from actually engaging in frank discussion --the whole thing becomes a sort of "get behind me Satan sort of thing

Link to comment

I agree with you. A law passed by a majority, no matter what the reason, that infringes on the rights of another is wrong.

I'd actually disagree there.

Consider the idea of rights for a second. They are something which people view as a quality others should have by default. But people have different opinions on what those should be. That means there is no clear defining line between what is a right and what isn't a right.

I'd be guessing that you think it is okay for people to be taxed. A person may think they have a right not to be taxed. Thus, you'd be infringing on what they see as their rights by supporting laws mandating taxation. But I'm quite sure you don't think that is wrong. Nor do I.

This is why infringing on other people's rights isn't inherently wrong (nor is it inherently right). We justify infringing on what others view as rights, but we, do not.

And it is the courts duty to reverse such laws.

No, not necessarily. There's actually two ways courts can rule. One of them is based off of civil rights. The other is based off of social mandate. Both have been used in the past to justify certain laws, and neither is dominant over the other. As I mentioned, taxation is justified by social mandate. On the other hand, voting equality is based off of civil rights. Both are used in our government, and they oppose each other oftentimes. This is why I wouldn't say it's the court's duty.

For example there was a group in San Francisco that wanted to ban circumcision in the county of San Francisco. They felt that it was mutilation of the body of a non consenting minor. The law would not be allowed because it infringed on other peoples rights. Not everyone looks at circumcision as "cosmetic" surgery. Some people have other legitimate reasons for wanting circumcision performed on their children. They should have the right to do that no matter what the majority wants. I am not sure if this actual law was passed, but if it had, it would be the duty of the courts to toss it out.

The court could have easily ruled the other way on this one though. First off, they could have considered circumcision to be against the social mandate of the time (this is unlikely though considering that it isn't very controversial . The second thing they could have done is said that the children have a right to not be circumcised (since they don't make the choice themselves). Either judgement would have been just as valid as the one given (not that I'd agree with either one).

On the other hand, wouldn't it be just as wrong for religious groups to require circumcision be performed on all newborns because they felt it was what God wanted them to do?

Maybe in my opinion, but not necessarily in the opinion's of others. And as said, social mandate is often a justification in law. So it wouldn't be anywhere close to certainly wrong either way.

Edited by TAO
Link to comment

I don't want to be cause of this thread going off the rails on SSM. So let's take a different example of a law and subject where there has been a commingling of religious morality and politics which has become very murky and where our own, meaning Mormon, stance appears to be in transition, namely murder and the death penalty. Thoughts?

As far as I know, there isn't much of an opinion on the death penalty in the church. Some are for it, others are against it.

It's a very complex question, to say, nonetheless.

Link to comment

I believe he meant that an innappropriate argument is a false argument. But taking that position, by him, does beg the question -- because the question is whether a religious argument is an appropriate argument, that is the whole point. Nobody, at least I am not, saying that any particular religious argument is true or false. It may well be that God takes a dim view of the government killing people as a punishment for killing people, or He may well take the opposite view. The point is, is our belief that God has taken X as a position -- something that is of any value in an argument for a general law? It seems to me, that it may be something that would motivate us to look hard and long for a secular argument that would then support that positon -- but just to testify that God has said this is the way it is to be, even if we have a majority chorus -- just doesn't work in a free democratic society because it is a substitute for discussion. In fact it kills discussion. It brooks no debate, its an ultimatum. Democracies don't last long under such a system because eventually someone figures out -- hey, all I have to do is get a large number of people to believe I have a direct pipeline to God -- and everything becomes religious, and everything has a religious answer. Now in the last analysis, it may well be true that everything has a spiritual or religious answer -- but mankind really tried very hard to go that route several times, and it as far as we know, has always either ended badly or been a very near miss at ending badly. (Zion and Salem may have been exceptions, but we don't really know a lot about their political systems other than there was no poor among them.).

Stone holm, could you put some spacing in your paragraphs even if they aren't technically needed, please. It makes it much easier to read for some reason.
Link to comment

As far as I know, there isn't much of an opinion on the death penalty in the church. Some are for it, others are against it.

It's a very complex question, to say, nonetheless.

I remember quite well the arguments for the Death Penalty promulgated by the Church. Times change, and people in and out of the church change.ideas If we can't accept that. Well let's just say that we need to change our position.

Link to comment

I remember quite well the arguments for the Death Penalty promulgated by the Church. Times change, and people in and out of the church change.ideas If we can't accept that. Well let's just say that we need to change our position.

I didn't mean to suggest that Blood Atonement is currently considered good doctrine, the point was to try and get at the issue of this thread namely whether religious morality is an appropriate tool in political discourse. But, it appears people are more interested in SSM than in the actual issue of the thread, so it is hard to focus on the real issue and this attempt to pull things back on track isn't going to work

Link to comment

I didn't mean to suggest that Blood Atonement is currently considered good doctrine, the point was to try and get at the issue of this thread namely whether religious morality is an appropriate tool in political discourse. But, it appears people are more interested in SSM than in the actual issue of the thread, so it is hard to focus on the real issue and this attempt to pull things back on track isn't going to work

I think that religious morality should inform our political discourse, but never dictate it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...