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

[CASteinman]

No, I do not believe that good men should remain silent.

So its ok if those good men, using their religious convictions, establish laws based upon their religious morality?

[wenglund]

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.

Some people really need to learn the huge difference between "religious idea" and "religion." They keep conflating the two on this thread.

It is like confusing "oil warning light" with "car."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Maybe. I have not read it.

You are anti-democratic.

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.

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.

The brief is posted on another thread entitled Plaintff files Brief in Prop 8, or something like that -- it has the links. Judge for yourself, but it sounded to me that they were trying to build the secular argument which was appropriate because if the law was based solely on religious beliefs it would be struck down. Bear in mind, if you are not an attorney, that when they talk about the 14th Amendment it is because that is how you get to the 1st Amendment when it involves a challenge to State laws rather than Federal laws.

[thesometimesaint]

As a wise Jewish Rabbi once told "sure the fetus has rights, but those rights can't override the mothers rights".

IE; If a pregnant woman commits a crime. Does putting her in jail violate the rights of her child?

[thesometimesaint]

Why not?

Glenn

Because GC is a private gathering. Not funded or promoted by our government.

[CASteinman]

The brief is posted on another thread entitled Plaintff files Brief in Prop 8, or something like that -- it has the links. Judge for yourself, but it sounded to me that they were trying to build the secular argument which was appropriate because if the law was based solely on religious beliefs it would be struck down. Bear in mind, if you are not an attorney, that when they talk about the 14th Amendment it is because that is how you get to the 1st Amendment when it involves a challenge to State laws rather than Federal laws.

I am not very interested.

[wenglund]

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.

Yet, Christ prayed before a multitude of 5000 (see HERE). I doubt he had a problem with that. So, reason would suggest that it wasn't so much the public nature of the prayer that was problematic to Christ, but the "hypocritical" or prideful reason behind praying publicly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[EllenMaksoud]

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

I see your reason, and submit to it. These are difficult things to weigh. At one time, I wished I had had a choice about being born. I would have declined the offer. So, if we are going to cut off abortion, then we need to consider what sort of upbringing the person who wanted the abortion had. We need to assume the responsibility to care for those unwanted children we caused to be born. I was unwanted and heard a lot about it growing up.

At some point do we begin to interfere with the agency of others. How do we prevent children being so abused they wish they were dead? How do we keep a child from feeling such desperation that they attempt to murder their abuser? I took a hatchet to my perpetrator. How do we prevent that?

I'm good with legislating morality if those who do it are prepared for the consequences. This is not heaven, you know.

[CASteinman]

Because GC is a private gathering. Not funded or promoted by our government.

Things do not have to be funded or promoted by the government to be "public" and have "public accommodation" laws apply.

[thesometimesaint]

Things do not have to be funded or promoted by the government to be "public" and have "public accommodation" laws apply.

Churches, and private clubs, are not covered by the Public Accommodations laws. No private organization is required to accept anyone as a member. IE; The Jews don't have to accept a Mormon into their Synagogue.

[Nathair/|\]

I see your reason, and submit to it. These are difficult things to weigh. At one time, I wished I had had a choice about being born. I would have declined the offer. So, if we are going to cut off abortion, then we need to consider what sort of upbringing the person who wanted the abortion had. We need to assume the responsibility to care for those unwanted children we caused to be born. I was unwanted and heard a lot about it growing up.

You are very much wanted here.

At some point do we begin to interfere with the agency of others. How do we prevent children being so abused they wish they were dead? How do we keep a child from feeling such desperation that they attempt to murder their abuser? I took a hatchet to my perpetrator. How do we prevent that?

I'm good with legislating morality if those who do it are prepared for the consequences. This is not heaven, you know.

It's not a violation of the non-aggression principle to stop someone who is initiating aggression against another who is not strong enough to defend themselves. I'm not going to ask you to share such a highly personal and difficult story, but based on what you've described, I can't see anything wrong with what you've done.

[EllenMaksoud]

You are very much wanted here.It's not a violation of the non-aggression principle to stop someone who is initiating aggression against another who is not strong enough to defend themselves. I'm not going to ask you to share such a highly personal and difficult story, but based on what you've described, I can't see anything wrong with what you've done.

Thank you for your love and support.

I don't feel a lot of emotion about what he did to me any more. I thank Heavenly Father that he took the hatchet from me. To have buried it in his head would have been a life of guilt. After that, he did stop what he was doing to me. The most amazing thing about this story is that Heavenly Father used the Mormons to heal me in a way that no other belief system could. That alone is enough to compell belief in and adherence to Mormon beliefs.

[Ahab]

An ongoing conversation between me and Wade Englund on why religions, specifically my religion (the LDS church) should stop attempting to shape the legislative landscape on considerations of moral virture & vice:

I'd agree with you if you said religions (including the LDS Church) should shape the legislative landscape on considerations of moral virtue and vice by explaining our religous beliefs, rather than saying they should stop or shouldn't do it at all.

I also believe members of religous organizations can act as government legislators if duly elected into that government, such as we have members of the Church who are members of Congress and the House of Representatives.

[CASteinman]

Churches, and private clubs, are not covered by the Public Accommodations laws. No private organization is required to accept anyone as a member. IE; The Jews don't have to accept a Mormon into their Synagogue.

This is not true. If a Church has a property that is open to the public, it can fall under public accommodation laws.

[Ahab]

This is not true. If a Church has a property that is open to the public, it can fall under public accommodation laws.

It is open to the public only when we open it to the public, and even then under our guidelines. We can choose to refuse service to anyone, whether or not they wear shoes or shirts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Because GC is a private gathering. Not funded or promoted by our government.

GC is really not all that private in the general sense. And being fund by the goverment or not is compeletly irrelevant.

You really have not answered the question.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Churches, and private clubs, are not covered by the Public Accommodations laws. No private organization is required to accept anyone as a member. IE; The Jews don't have to accept a Mormon into their Synagogue.

True but totally irrelavant.

[CASteinman]

It is open to the public only when we open it to the public, and even then under our guidelines. We can choose to refuse service to anyone, whether or not they wear shoes or shirts.

I believe that there is a case in New Jersey where land owned by a Church and used by the public for weddings was not allowed to be used for a gay marriage.

The ruling of the court was that this was not allowed because it was a place where weddings had been allowed by the public before and it was unconstitutional under public accommodation laws to now exclude gay people from being married.

The Church in question mounted a defense somewhat along the lines you raised and failed.

There was also an issue of them taking money for the use of the facility, but in the end, this was not the primary issue that led to the result. It was that the place had been offered to the public and could not now be withdrawn from some segment of the public.

If you believe that the courts cannot reach out and grab things, you may not have been paying attention to some events over time.

[Ahab]

I believe that there is a case in New Jersey where land owned by a Church and used by the public for weddings was not allowed to be used for a gay marriage.

The ruling of the court was that this was not allowed because it was a place where weddings had been allowed by the public before and it was unconstitutional under public accommodation laws to now exclude gay people from being married.

The Church in question mounted a defense somewhat along the lines you raised and failed.

There was also an issue of them taking money for the use of the facility, but in the end, this was not the primary issue that led to the result. It was that the place had been offered to the public and could not now be withdrawn from some segment of the public.

If you believe that the courts cannot reach out and grab things, you may not have been paying attention to some events over time.

The courts often do a lot of things they don't have the right to do just because they think they have the right to do it, which is why they are often overruled by a higher court. In time, this act will be overruled, too, by some higher court, somewhere.

In the short run it would probably work out better if we just don't open things to the public without defining the guidelines, beforehand. I know some judges could still make some unrighteous rulings but we don't have to make it easy for them to do that.

[CASteinman]

The courts often do a lot of things they don't have the right to do just because they think they have the right to do it, which is why they are often overruled by a higher court. In time, this act will be overruled, too, by some higher court, somewhere.

In the short run it would probably work out better if we just don't open things to the public without defining the guidelines, beforehand. I know some judges could still make some unrighteous rulings but we don't have to make it easy for them to do that.

This is not the only case of its kind. There have been others. So far, no overruling.

[Stone holm]

I believe that there is a case in New Jersey where land owned by a Church and used by the public for weddings was not allowed to be used for a gay marriage.

The ruling of the court was that this was not allowed because it was a place where weddings had been allowed by the public before and it was unconstitutional under public accommodation laws to now exclude gay people from being married.

The Church in question mounted a defense somewhat along the lines you raised and failed.

There was also an issue of them taking money for the use of the facility, but in the end, this was not the primary issue that led to the result. It was that the place had been offered to the public and could not now be withdrawn from some segment of the public.

If you believe that the courts cannot reach out and grab things, you may not have been paying attention to some events over time.

It tends to be how connected the public use is to the religious purpose. If the public use is only tenuously connected to the religious use, for example I have heard rumors to the effect that the Church runs a big game hunting ranch -- I don't know how the Court might react to them excluding say gays from using that ranch. With regards to the use of Church facilities for religious rites such as marriage, the Court is not going to start ordering the Church as to who it must marry, etc. Just like the Court has recently ruled that it will not get involved with the hiring and firing of employees of Churches who even remotely have anything to due with religious activities, etc. That is one of the benefits of the Constitutional protection of religious freedom in the form of a shield which shelters religious organizations from interference from the government -- a shield, which I might add, we endanger when we start using religion as a political sword -- like we appear to be doing with Prop 8 to many observers.

[Ahab]

This is not the only case of its kind. There have been others. So far, no overruling.

I know. In some cases we may need to wait for the Final Judgment.

[CASteinman]

It tends to be how connected the public use is to the religious purpose. If the public use is only tenuously connected to the religious use, for example I have heard rumors to the effect that the Church runs a big game hunting ranch -- I don't know how the Court might react to them excluding say gays from using that ranch. With regards to the use of Church facilities for religious rites such as marriage, the Court is not going to start ordering the Church as to who it must marry, etc. Just like the Court has recently ruled that it will not get involved with the hiring and firing of employees of Churches who even remotely have anything to due with religious activities, etc. That is one of the benefits of the Constitutional protection of religious freedom in the form of a shield which shelters religious organizations from interference from the government -- a shield, which I might add, we endanger when we start using religion as a political sword -- like we appear to be doing with Prop 8 to many observers.

I believe you are incorrect as I have already pointed out in the case previously mentioned.

The historical use of a "Marriage Pavilion" for "Religious Marriages" is not "tenuous" in its attachment to the religious use. Yet because it was offered to the General Public, this became irrelevant.

[thesometimesaint]

This is not true. If a Church has a property that is open to the public, it can fall under public accommodation laws.

The Church is a private organization, and is not open to the public. The ceremonies and operation of the Church are by invitation to members only. We invite all whom want to attend our Sacrament Meetings, but outsiders have absolutely no say in what those ceremonies are. IE; We discourage nonmembers from partaking of the Sacramental offerings. Sunday School, Priesthood Meetings, and Relief Society meetings are for members only. Though we have no objections to nonmembers simply attending. The Temple is strictly by written invitation only.

Moreover the USSC has repeatedly affirmed that private organizations can not be forced to accept any one into membership.

[CASteinman]

The Church is a private organization, and is not open to the public.

On the outside of each Chapel is a sign: "Visitors welcome". We conduct marriages inside our Chapels and the people being married do not always have to be LDS.