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

[CASteinman]

If I had my druthers. No they would not start the legislative session with prayer. Something about praying in public to be seen of men.

It sounds to me that as if you had your druthers, our legislative bodies would be left entirely without any guidance by God at all.

[thesometimesaint]

So you say. But that is not the wisdom of God speaking.

If you had changed that to say "a particular establishment of religion" I would agree with you more on this point.

The Saints believe that God inspired the Founding Fathers of this country to write the US Constitution. That would include the First Amendment.

The First Amendment doesn't say "a particular establishment of religion".

It sounds to me that as if you had your druthers, our legislative bodies would be left entirely without any guidance by God at all.

In a secular nation, such as ours, which God should that be?

Edited March 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

How about posting comments in public to be seen of men?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't understand what you are asking by that question.

[CASteinman]

The First Amendment doesn't say "a particular establishment of religion".

It says "respecting an establishment of religion" which in its day meant "particular church". However, now days people get confused and think it means "respecting ANY method of establishing religion". That is not what it means.

In a secular nation, such as ours, which God should that be?

The God who set this nation apart to be a Chosen Land for His People.

[EllenMaksoud]

That would be a dictator and having a state sponsored religion. No one to my knowledge has argued for such. For instance, is having a prayer at the start of a congressional session the same thing has your example?

I don't know, these arguments can go on forever and no one agrees. I do not know if America was ever a "Christian" Nation. I would have no objection to prayers at the beginning of sessions of the government, the pledge of allegiance (the one with "Under God"), and so forth. However, just a casual read of the BoM and the Bible, and you can see how flawed even so called religious governments can be. I think the best we can do is to allow that which we believe to be reflected in our words and actions without forcing others to endorse our particular religious bent.

[thesometimesaint]

It says "respecting an establishment of religion" which in its day meant "particular church". However, now days people get confused and think it means "respecting ANY method of establishing religion". That is not what it means.

The God who set this nation apart to be a Chosen Land for His People.

The Founding Fathers would disagree with your assessment.

See Treaty of Tripoli: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen/Muslims

[wenglund]

I don't understand what you are asking by that question.

Sorry. Perhaps the question was a bit above your pay grade. The question, were it answered, was intended to eventually make the point that not all that is public (and thus seen of men) is done with the intent to be "seen of men." In other words, public prayers are not inherently problematic any more than public comments are inherently problematic. They become problematic if the intent behind the public action is to be "seen of men" (i.e. pride) rather than humility. Understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

The Founding Fathers would disagree with your assessment.

That is false.

See Treaty of Tripoli: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen/Muslims

That is irrelevant.

[Stone holm]

That is false.

That is irrelevant.

I disagree with your view on what the establishment of religion meant to the Founding Fathers. Jefferson and Madison were not just concerned that the Federal Government would say establish the Episcopal Church as the established Church of the United States. They were also concerned that the government not get involved in the establishment of any religious doctrine as such. It would have been as offensive to them had the government started establishing various Protestant doctrines to the point that the Catholics and Mormons were ousted even if they never established any particular Sect as the established Church. Your argument is untenable, unless I misunderstood it in some manner which is always possible. For Heaven Sake, Jefferson published his own edition of the Bible wherein he struck out every reference to the resurrection and the Divinity of Christ.

[CASteinman]

I disagree with your view on what the establishment of religion meant to the Founding Fathers. Jefferson and Madison were not just concerned that the Federal Government would say establish the Episcopal Church as the established Church of the United States. They were also concerned that the government not get involved in the establishment of any religious doctrine as such.

Which means exactly what? That if people have a religious objection to something it cannot be law? Baloney. They never said that.

For Heaven Sake, Jefferson published his own edition of the Bible wherein he struck out every reference to the resurrection and the Divinity of Christ.

Irrelevant.

But I assert: LIbertarianism (as viewed by Randians) is a stink in the nostrils of heaven.

[EllenMaksoud]

Do you believe then, that people who have strongly held religious beliefs should stay quiet and not participate in the making and executing of laws and the creation of policy in government?

Or do you believe that such people should temporarily ignore some of their most deeply held convictions regarding the source of rights and freedom and morality, as they seek to serve others through public office?

You know, I am retired, and there was noting notable about my life. How do you expect me to have some of these answers. In your query, you speak of two extremes. If, for example, the Mormons ran the government, would the First Presidency actually be the ruling force in the office of the President of the USA?

Some of you are Lawyers, and powerful business men, eating raw steak for breakfast. What would you do about Global Warming, the environment? How would you stop all the ice melting? Would you allow the rebuilding of the Eastern Seaboard where that storm just flooded so many people out? Would you allow people to constantly rebuild houses all over the country where spring flooding constantly ruins them. How about that huge copper mine in Utah? Would you have allowed them to muck up the air all over the Salt Lake valley? Would you allow fraking in spite of the fact that it often ruins the ground water? Would you allow rich powerful men to push our young men into wars overseas so they can get rich? That is precisely what happened in Vietnam, Iraq and why we pressure Iran.

Would you sit back and let pharmaceutical companies to make and sell drugs that ruin minds? would you allow soft drink companies to put things like Aspartane into their drinks. What would you do about the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup? What would you do about the use of toxic dyes in our food?

Would you have allowed special interest groups to destroy our urban rail and bus systems just so everyone could have a personal car?

Inquiring minds want to know how a religious government would make things better? Would you tax the non believer? Would you call them Kafir and steal their daughters for your harems?

You asked me what I felt was a hostile question, now "stand forth and deliver".

[CASteinman]

You asked me what I felt was a hostile question, now "stand forth and deliver".

Nothing hostile. But... I will "stand forth and deliver" when you do. After all, you have not done so with my questions. You asked many many more -- and I will answer them all, but I only asked you two.

[Glenn101]

If I had my druthers. No they would not start the legislative session with prayer. Something about praying in public to be seen of men.

Does that extend to General Conference also, "praying in public to be seen of men", that is?

Glenn

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know, these arguments can go on forever and no one agrees. I do not know if America was ever a "Christian" Nation. I would have no objection to prayers at the beginning of sessions of the government, the pledge of allegiance (the one with "Under God"), and so forth. However, just a casual read of the BoM and the Bible, and you can see how flawed even so called religious governments can be. I think the best we can do is to allow that which we believe to be reflected in our words and actions without forcing others to endorse our particular religious bent.

It never was, and I for one highly object to it becoming one.

Christians have 3 Gods in one Godhead. Which one should Congress be required to pray to? The Muslims pray 5 times a day. Should Congress be required to stop working and pray 5 times a day? The Hindu have hundreds of manifestations of God. Which one should Congress be required to pray to.

Interestingly The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Socialist, and originally made no mention of God. The "under God" was added in 1954 as a reaction to atheistic Communism.

Agreed. Show me your actions and I'll know what you believe.

[EllenMaksoud]

Nothing hostile. But... I will "stand forth and deliver" when you do. After all, you have not done so with my questions. You asked many many more -- and I will answer them all, but I only asked you two.

Do you believe then, that people who have strongly held religious beliefs should stay quiet and not participate in the making and executing of laws and the creation of policy in government?

Or do you believe that such people should temporarily ignore some of their most deeply held convictions regarding the source of rights and freedom and morality, as they seek to serve others through public office?

No, I do not believe that good men should remain silent. I don't think we need to turn governing sessions into Sacrement service, however. Our actions should be a reflection of our beliefs. For example, I do not support abortion. However, it is a personal choice, and neither the government nor the church should be involved. Good people how ever should be willing to provide options to abortion.

[Stone holm]

Which means exactly what? That if people have a religious objection to something it cannot be law? Baloney. They never said that.

Irrelevant.

But I assert: LIbertarianism (as viewed by Randians) is a stink in the nostrils of heaven.

Well I guess you agree with the lawyer for the Church in the Prop 8 case, because that is what was argued in it. I would say, of course laws may be passed or not passed or upheld as Constitutional because of the religious beliefs of the opponents or proponents. But, if the only justification for a law is strictly because of a religious doctrine, then it should be struck down as an establishment of religion. So I see religious beliefs as strong motivators for activists to try and support laws with secular foundations, but they should not expect that foundation to be solely religious. The Church in its brief basically acknowledges that as it tried, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to come up with a secular argument to support Prop 8. They may well be successful, a secular argument about culture after all was what resulted in polygamy being struck down as not being protected by the free exercise clause in U.S. v. Reynolds. We may well see an obtuse argument like that emerge in this case as well.

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry. Perhaps the question was a bit above your pay grade. The question, were it answered, was intended to eventually make the point that not all that is public (and thus seen of men) is done with the intent to be "seen of men." In other words, public prayers are not inherently problematic any more than public comments are inherently problematic. They become problematic if the intent behind the public action is to be "seen of men" (i.e. pride) rather than humility. Understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps it you had greater wit you could phrase your question without the implied answer. See we can trade barbs all day, but I see little point to it. Christ was willing to give public comment if it were necessary. However he was very critical of those who prayed in public. Something about hypocrites and street corners comes to mind.

[CASteinman]

A. You know, I am retired, and there was noting notable about my life.

B. How do you expect me to have some of these answers.

C. If, for example, the Mormons ran the government, would the First Presidency actually be the ruling force in the office of the President of the USA?

D. What would you do about Global Warming,

E. the environment?

F. How would you stop all the ice melting?

G. Would you allow the rebuilding of the Eastern Seaboard where that storm just flooded so many people out?

H. Would you allow people to constantly rebuild houses all over the country where spring flooding constantly ruins them.

I. How about that huge copper mine in Utah? Would you have allowed them to muck up the air all over the Salt Lake valley?

J. Would you allow fraking in spite of the fact that it often ruins the ground water?

K. Would you allow rich powerful men to push our young men into wars overseas so they can get rich?

L. Would you sit back and let pharmaceutical companies to make and sell drugs that ruin minds?

M. would you allow soft drink companies to put things like Aspartane into their drinks.

N. What would you do about the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup?

O. What would you do about the use of toxic dyes in our food?

P. Would you have allowed special interest groups to destroy our urban rail and bus systems just so everyone could have a personal car?

Q.Would you tax the non believer?

R. Would you call them Kafir and steal their daughters for your harems?

A. I did not know that.

B. I figure if you can give one opinion you can give 1 more related to it.

C. No, from scripture that seems too much a burden for them.

D. Buy an Air Conditioner.

E. What are you asking?

F. I like ice to melt. I find however it is not all melting. Hopefully later.

G. Yes.

H. Yes.

I. Maybe.

J. Yes.

K. I apparently did.

L. I apparently do.

M. Yes.

N. Stop consuming it.

O. It would depend. So far, I am unaware of any problems.

P. Apparently I did.

Q. Yes.

R. No.

there you go. Not sure how any of that mattered....

[thesometimesaint]

Does that extend to General Conference also, "praying in public to be seen of men", that is?

Glenn

No.

[CASteinman]

No, I do not believe that good men should remain silent. I don't think we need to turn governing sessions into Sacrement service, however. Our actions should be a reflection of our beliefs. For example, I do not support abortion. However, it is a personal choice, and neither the government nor the church should be involved. Good people how ever should be willing to provide options to abortion.

Let me point out that I also do not support murder.. but it is a personal choice.

[Glenn101]

No, I do not believe that good men should remain silent. I don't think we need to turn governing sessions into Sacrement service, however. Our actions should be a reflection of our beliefs. For example, I do not support abortion. However, it is a personal choice, and neither the government nor the church should be involved. Good people how ever should be willing to provide options to abortion.

Maybe havingan abortion is a personal choice, but the problem is that such choices also involve at least one other soul that has no voice and no protection from such choices. Of course, I am not the first person to voice this sentiment. The further we move away from religious morality the closer we come societal, cultural based morality, and that can lead to no real morality at all.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

Does that extend to General Conference also, "praying in public to be seen of men", that is?

Glenn

No.

Why not?

Glenn

[Stone holm]

Perhaps it you had greater wit you could phrase your question without the implied answer. See we can trade barbs all day, but I see little point to it. Christ was willing to give public comment if it were necessary. However he was very critical of those who prayed in public. Something about hypocrites and street corners comes to mind.

Dispite Wenglund's constant tendency to use barbs instead of answers and to demand citations even after they have been given, I tend to agree that not all public prayer came under Christ's condemnation. Being able to discern when it is done to be seen of men is pretty difficult. I would suspect that nearly all prayers given before the opening of governmental or school meetings are given to be seen of men -- but that is just my cynical opinion for which I have no citation.

[CASteinman]

Well I guess you agree with the lawyer for the Church in the Prop 8 case

Maybe. I have not read it.

if the only justification for a law is strictly because of a religious doctrine, then it should be struck down as an establishment of religion.

You are anti-democratic.

So I see religious beliefs as strong motivators for activists to try and support laws with secular foundations, but they should not expect that foundation to be solely religious.

Ok, that is what you think. Your views are unconstitutional and tyrannical People are allowed to hold beliefs and they are allowed to bring those beliefs into law. Their internal reasons are not a test.

The Church in its brief basically acknowledges that as it tried, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to come up with a secular argument to support Prop 8.

I hope that the Church did not try to come up with a secular argument to any degree larger than that required by court procedure.

[Stone holm]

I would have to caveat, I do remember one Notre Dame professor who always gave an eloquent prayer before he started an undergraduate class. When asked about the practice by us graduate students in a graduate colloquim he chaired, he said it was the only way he had ever been able to come up with to get the Freshmen and Sophmores to shut up and be quiet when he began a class. I guess that wouldn't have been to be seen of men.