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

[thesometimesaint]

I never stated otherwise. However not having religious morality a part of political discourse is removing from consideration the views of the people. I also believe that the Priest and the pagan, the Saint and the Sinner should all have their views present in the discussion without having the absence thereof being viewed as proper. Also, I believe that our system is such that we vote representatives into office, given this, we vote their position into office. They should exercise their authority in the manner they presented to the voters.

We're not an absolute democracy. The actions of our representatives are constrained by our Constitution.

[thesometimesaint]

Love that quote!!! Can you edit to include the source please.

Sure. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12002-it-does-me-no-injury-for-my-neighbor-to-say

[CV75]

I agree with the sentiment. I just think it describes reality as it is at present.

How is religion dictated to by govt. at present. Could you please give some examples?

I think specific examples would only be getting into the weeds without much value, since one's basic assumptions and philosophies drive whether one agrees that they are good examples or not. But if I can adress some of the issues that have been brought up:

Separation of church and state in matters of morality and regulation does not require a lack of focus or regard of things outside one or the other’s purported scope of interest or responsibilities, only self-control by the people and their representatives in the expression and execution of that focus. Extreme segregation is just as dangerous as extreme lock-step.

Bad behavior often has public health and safety ramifications and need to be addressed with frankness. If the church can represent the people in this regard, it is appropriate for this expression to be legislated. The same holds true with societal ramifications.

I take the Constitution as a granting of power by the people to its representative government to protect the already-acknowledged, pre-existing rights of the people, not a granting of rights to the people.

Religious freedom is not granted by the government—this is a dangerous paradigm. Religious freedom is an inalienable right, and in the sense of “common consent,” religious freedom in general as well as the freedom of churches to act is granted by the people (with the understanding that religious freedom is granted to the people by God). Religious freedom is properly protected by the government, whose power to do so is also granted by the people.

Negative attitudes toward religion often find expression in politcal dialogue and in the resulting legislation for the purpose of undermining the influence of religion and morality. In this case, government simply operates according to the immoral will of the people, which I think is a different subject than the simple question of government's proper role vis a vis religion.

[Bikeemikey]

If a right is granted by the government, the government has the right to take it away. On the other hand, if one believes that “all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” the government has no right to take them away.

BTW, in the US, at least, religious morality does not have to “make its way into public discourse.” It has always been there. The problem is that some people want to remove it from pubic discourse, essentially making religious people second class citizens.

The beauty of modern democracy is that the rights deemed permissible for the govt to administer are not given us by the govt. They are inalienable. The govt. does not give us rights... That is the point of the constitution. The point of govt. in modern democracy is to ensure that we all are permitted equal access to our preexisting rights!!

If that is what you are saying then I agree with you. If you are suggesting that US govt is dangerous because the govt. has given is our rights then I disagree. The govt. can not take any of our inalienable rights away. That is why govt. is limited.

As for your second point. If society wants to treat all religious believers as second class citizens then they can... However the govt. is never able to treat us a second class citizens in any way that restricts our access to our rights.

That can mean we enjoy equal freedoms as non-believer even while we live in a society that despise us for our beliefs.

[thesometimesaint]

If all men were angels no government would be necessary

If all men were devils no government would be possible.

[Tacenda]

Agreed. A religiously controlled state, no matter the religion or denomination, is in fact the enemy of the state and an enemy of the people.

Well, Utah must be an enemy to the state (itself). Because several people think it's a religiously controlled state. But still it's a pretty, great state. Edited March 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well, Utah must be an enemy to the state (itself). Because several people think it's a religiously controlled state. But still it's a pretty, great state.

People are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Utah is in no way a regions State...used to be to a large degree, but not today.

[Sleeper Cell]

The beauty of modern democracy is that the rights deemed permissible for the govt to administer are not given us by the govt. They are inalienable. The govt. does not give us rights... That is the point of the constitution. The point of govt. in modern democracy is to ensure that we all are permitted equal access to our preexisting rights!!

If that is what you are saying then I agree with you. If you are suggesting that US govt is dangerous because the govt. has given is our rights then I disagree. The govt. can not take any of our inalienable rights away. That is why govt. is limited.

I have some difficulty in understanding how this squares with one of your other posts:

I have recently been considering the idea that part of the obligation religious believers take on in exchange for the religious freedoms we receive in modern democratic countries, (religious freedoms that are unparalleled in the history of the world, religious freedoms that exist not because they are under the protectorate of the govt, but out of an unrestrained "right" to what ever religious belief we fancy), is the obligation to consciously circumscribe the fact that if we so attempted we could create legislative constraints specific to our moral edicts.

I think we owe it to ourselves and the freedoms we have been given to recognize that we could cross this boundary but, as religious communities be respectful enough of the importance of true democratic principles that we opt not to. Only in choosing to not cross this boundary do we allow the longevity of true religious and democratic freedom.

How can you say that religious freedom is an inalienable right if it is obtained in exchange for something? Would you say that freedom of speech or freedom of the press are granted to people in exchange for something? What is that “something?” Would you say that a newspaper has an obligation to “consciously circumscribe the fact that if …. [it] so attempted … [it] could create legislative constraints specific to … [its] moral edicts?”

As for your second point. If society wants to treat all religious believers as second class citizens then they can... However the govt. is never able to treat us a second class citizens in any way that restricts our access to our rights.

That can mean we enjoy equal freedoms as non-believer even while we live in a society that despise us for our beliefs.

So if society wanted to treat non-religious people as second class citizens, you would be OK with that?

I have an idea. Rather than intimidating religious people into imposing “prior restraint” on themselves, why not encourage each individual to bring his/her moral thinking into our political discourse -- whether religious based or secular. Then look at each morality-based legislative proposal on its merits and then decide, on a case by case basis, whether or not it would violate the establishment clause.

Isn’t saying that religious based morality should not be part of our political discourse simply a sophisticated form of “poisoning the well?”

[thesometimesaint]

How can you say that religious freedom is an inalienable right if it is obtained in exchange for something? Would you say that freedom of speech or freedom of the press are granted to people in exchange for something? What is that “something?” Would you say that a newspaper has an obligation to “consciously circumscribe the fact that if …. [it] so attempted … [it] could create legislative constraints specific to … [its] moral edicts?”

So if society wanted to treat non-religious people as second class citizens, you would be OK with that?

There are no absolute rights. You have a right to your own religion. You don't have a right to impose your religion on others without their permission, and in some cases not even that. IE; You can't claim a religious right to have someone murder you.

Same with the right to speech. You have no right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, unless there really is a fire. Even then it isn't a good idea.

IOW You have the right to swing your arm until it meets my nose.

No. I would not be fine with that. I would oppose any such efforts.

[Glenn101]

The problem with society basedmorality is that it shifts with the societal mores of the time. Unfortunately, religious based morality also has shiftedwith societal mores, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. Things which were immoral, legally, years ago are now acepted as the norm, such as adultery.

Yet, I daresay, that our current moral climate in this country has it roots in religion, mainly Christianity in all of its diversity. Taking religious morality out of the political equation would put us on a par with the Godless governments of say, Communism.

Should we leave our religious moral compass behind when contemplating allowing a person to marry an animal with which he is passionately in love?

Or when the dabte is about caring for the elderly who can no longer care for themselves and the burden on the taxpayers is becoming too much of a burden? All it would take is a little redefining of certain things, such as viability, etc to putthem on a par with an unborn fetus.

Glenn

[Calm]

Our laws are slowly becoming limited to that document.

I must not understand your point because it seems to me that 'limitation' is one thing that is not going on in respect to laws in relation to the constitution, the latter being about 6 pages more or less and the former being over 200,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code

[thesometimesaint]

The problem with society basedmorality is that it shifts with the societal mores of the time. Unfortunately, religious based morality also has shiftedwith societal mores, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. Things which were immoral, legally, years ago are now acepted as the norm, such as adultery.

Yet, I daresay, that our current moral climate in this country has it roots in religion, mainly Christianity in all of its diversity. Taking religious morality out of the political equation would put us on a par with the Godless governments of say, Communism.

Should we leave our religious moral compass behind when contemplating allowing a person to marry an animal with which he is passionately in love?

Or when the dabte is about caring for the elderly who can no longer care for themselves and the burden on the taxpayers is becoming too much of a burden? All it would take is a little redefining of certain things, such as viability, etc to putthem on a par with an unborn fetus.

Glenn

I seriously doubt that adultery will ever become the norm. Will there always be some? Yes, but never the norm.

Communism denies there is a God. Under our system of government the government is neutral on the subject of God.

That is why we(in the US) have Social Security Insurance. We pay a premium with every paycheck, at retirement age we collect those monies back with interest. It provides a floor which our elderly can survive on. My mom live 30 years on SS. It along with her other retirement funds allowed her to live with great dignity.

Viability is not the same thing as dignity. A living breathing person whom becomes nonviable soon ceases to be living and breathing. Dignity of our old is another question.

[Calm]

I seriously doubt that adultery will ever become the norm. Will there always be some? Yes, but never the norm.

Studies suggest around 30–40% of unmarried relationships and 18–20% of marriages are marked by at least one incident of sexual infidelity. Men are more likely than women to have a sexual affair, regardless of whether or not they are in a married or unmarried relationship

While adultery is not as common as fidelity according to these studies, it seems to me if these studies are close to accurate the incidence rate is high enough to label it "normal" at least.

http://en.wikipedia....e_of_infidelity

There is not much cost to the individual in committing adultery these days with regards to the greater society (there may be great costs among family and close friends, but hardly anywhere else it would seem to me). Very little social stigma seems to exists anymore...at least for any significant amount of time. It may hurt, but does not destroy many politicians' careers and it can at times even improve a celebrity's image.

Edited March 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Glenn101]

I seriously doubt that adultery will ever become the norm. Will there always be some? Yes, but never the norm.

Communism denies there is a God. Under our system of government the government is neutral on the subject of God.

That is why we(in the US) have Social Security Insurance. We pay a premium with every paycheck, at retirement age we collect those monies back with interest. It provides a floor which our elderly can survive on. My mom live 30 years on SS. It along with her other retirement funds allowed her to live with great dignity.

Viability is not the same thing as dignity. A living breathing person whom becomes nonviable soon ceases to be living and breathing. Dignity of our old is another question.

Calmoriah has already commented on the adultery as a "norm", so I will leave that lay.

The Social Security System is a wreck, as you probably are already aware. It is not self-sustainable, although, if it had been left alone and not been robbed so many times, it probably could be more easily fixed. As it is, it seems almost inevitable that the system will collapse sometime in the not too distant future and there will be a lot of elderly people will be left to the mercy ofthe taxpayers.

Hence, I noted that only a slight change to the viability doctrine as applied to unborn infants in the case of legal abortion could make elderly people who cannot survive without assistance, as unviable and hence, without some kind of religious morality declaring the sanctity of human life, be subjects for possible abortion (as in life).

Glenn

[thesometimesaint]

While adultery is not as common as fidelity according to these studies, it seems to me if these studies are close to accurate the incidence rate is high enough to label it "normal" at least.

http://en.wikipedia....e_of_infidelity

There is not much cost to the individual in committing adultery these days with regards to the greater society (there may be great costs among family and close friends, but hardly anywhere else it would seem to me). Very little social stigma seems to exists anymore...at least for any significant amount of time. It may hurt, but does not destroy many politicians' careers and it can at times even improve a celebrity's image.

Normal is a loaded word in Sociology.

Socially adultery is still frowned upon. But the American people are pretty forgiving when it comes to our politicians, and celebrity misdeeds. That can be a good thing and/or a bad thing. We no longer literally brand people with a scarlet "A". Thank Goodness. Thought there is a greater tolerance for fornication in today's world.

[Calm]

Socially adultery is still frowned upon.

Frowning at someone generally stops being much of an influence once they hit teenage years.

[Bikeemikey]

Posted Today, 01:47 PM

Bikeemikey, on 10 March 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

The beauty of modern democracy is that the rights deemed permissible for the govt to administer are not given us by the govt. They are inalienable. The govt. does not give us rights... That is the point of the constitution. The point of govt. in modern democracy is to ensure that we all are permitted equal access to our preexisting rights!!

If that is what you are saying then I agree with you. If you are suggesting that US govt is dangerous because the govt. has given is our rights then I disagree. The govt. can not take any of our inalienable rights away. That is why govt. is limited.

I have some difficulty in understanding how this squares with one of your other posts:

Bikeemikey, on 09 March 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

I have recently been considering the idea that part of the obligation religious believers take on in exchange for the religious freedoms we receive in modern democratic countries, (religious freedoms that are unparalleled in the history of the world, religious freedoms that exist not because they are under the protectorate of the govt, but out of an unrestrained "right" to what ever religious belief we fancy), is the obligation to consciously circumscribe the fact that if we so attempted we could create legislative constraints specific to our moral edicts.

I think we owe it to ourselves and the freedoms we have been given to recognize that we could cross this boundary but, as religious communities be respectful enough of the importance of true democratic principles that we opt not to. Only in choosing to not cross this boundary do we allow the longevity of true religious and democratic freedom.

How can you say that religious freedom is an inalienable right if it is obtained in exchange for something? Would you say that freedom of speech or freedom of the press are granted to people in exchange for something? What is that “something?” Would you say that a newspaper has an obligation to “consciously circumscribe the fact that if …. [it] so attempted … [it] could create legislative constraints specific to … [its] moral edicts?”

I can see how you may see these ideas that I have expressed as being in conflict. I think that is more due to the weakness of my expression rather than any inherent conflict between the concepts themselves.

A better expression my thinking is as follows:

We have rights to free speech. That does not mean that I should use my right to free speech to attempt to stop the speech of others.

We have rights to freedom of religion/moral conviction. That does not mean I should use that right to force others to adopt my religion or moral conviction.

So, assuming we agree that we have inalienable rights, it is not illogical or inconsistent to assume that I should use those rights in a way that provides the assurance that others are able to enjoy the same inalienable rights. It is also not inconsistent to assume that it would be a reasonable obligation for those with those rights to act in away that would not violate those same rights for others.

I am not saying the right comes in exchange for something. I am saying that with the right comes responsibilities.

Posted Today, 01:47 PM

As for your second point. If society wants to treat all religious believers as second class citizens then they can... However the govt. is never able to treat us a second class citizens in any way that restricts our access to our rights.

That can mean we enjoy equal freedoms as non-believer even while we live in a society that despise us for our beliefs.

So if society wanted to treat non-religious people as second class citizens, you would be OK with that?

I have an idea. Rather than intimidating religious people into imposing “prior restraint” on themselves, why not encourage each individual to bring his/her moral thinking into our political discourse -- whether religious based or secular. Then look at each morality-based legislative proposal on its merits and then decide, on a case by case basis, whether or not it would violate the establishment clause.

Isn’t saying that religious based morality should not be part of our political discourse simply a sophisticated form of “poisoning the well?”

My point was that society has no mechanism for treating people like second class citizens if they are unable to make the govt. complicit in the act. If society wants to not like religious people then, Yes, I am fine with that.

In such a society the only thing that could result would be people not being very nice to religious people. The second such "second class treatment" became physical it would be a rights violation. The second it impacts my personal property it would be a rights violation. The second it impacted to rights to representation it would be a rights violation. In all instances the govt. would be on my side, not societies side, even though those in society may also not like me for being religious, the govt. has a civic and constitutional duty to protect my rights.

I think one of the reasons this we may be talking past each other is that you may be assuming that if society will treat someone as a second class citizen then the govt would to. My whole point is that the value of modern democratic structures is that they allow for the separation of these two considerations.

The moral prejudice of broader society against me is fundamentally distinct from the duty of govt. to protect my rights. Even if society does not like me.

The govt does not have to make everyone like me or be nice to me. I have no right to be liked, but i do have rights to other things.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[thesometimesaint]

Calmoriah has already commented on the adultery as a "norm", so I will leave that lay.

The Social Security System is a wreck, as you probably are already aware. It is not self-sustainable, although, if it had been left alone and not been robbed so many times, it probably could be more easily fixed. As it is, it seems almost inevitable that the system will collapse sometime in the not too distant future and there will be a lot of elderly people will be left to the mercy ofthe taxpayers.

Hence, I noted that only a slight change to the viability doctrine as applied to unborn infants in the case of legal abortion could make elderly people who cannot survive without assistance, as unviable and hence, without some kind of religious morality declaring the sanctity of human life, be subjects for possible abortion (as in life).

Glenn

SS is not a wreck. We have a 2.5 Triilion dollar surplus. It is solvent for the next 15-17 years without any changes at. As the Boomers die out there will be more than enough money in the system after that. Midterm there is a slight decrease(less than 20%) in benefits. All that is needed to permanently fix any gap is to remove the income cap on SS taxes.

Apples and oranges. Life with dignity is not equal to no life at all.

[CV75]

While adultery is not as common as fidelity according to these studies, it seems to me if these studies are close to accurate the incidence rate is high enough to label it "normal" at least.

http://en.wikipedia....e_of_infidelity

There is not much cost to the individual in committing adultery these days with regards to the greater society (there may be great costs among family and close friends, but hardly anywhere else it would seem to me). Very little social stigma seems to exists anymore...at least for any significant amount of time. It may hurt, but does not destroy many politicians' careers and it can at times even improve a celebrity's image.

I think the costs of adultery and sexual sin are simply not recognized, or are disguised or hidden by yet other immoral attitudes or practices and their consequences that are difficult for an erstwhile healthier society to absorb and still retain its sense of normalcy, or that things are going well, or at least well enough.

A law against sin, or against acting on one’s sinful beliefs, could only be enforced if the sin is known (Alma 30:7-11), which is why secret combinations (large and small) have a niche (2 Nephi 26:22), and why worldly societies tend to uphold them (Ether 8:22).

“And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction...” (Mosiah 29:27; see also Alma 10:19—“…if the time should come that the voice of this people should choose iniquity, that is, if the time should come that this people should fall into transgression, they would be ripe for destruction.”).

I would say the same holds true if the people have been forced into a position where iniquity has been chosen for them, and especially because they did not properly exercise their God-given rights to self-govern (see Mosiah 29:18, 30-31 and other descriptions of the political dynamics under the reign of King Noah).

When people are lulled into thinking that the government will protect their religion, that is when those that have no interest in protecting religion, or those that have no interest in protecting the morality religion represents, will assert their voice to pass laws “against laws against sin” and promote laws that enable sin. They accomplish this by upsetting the balance that separation of church and state allows in order to place one at the disadvantage of the other.

[Deborah]

Can you please provide an example of laws that are violating innate rights of an individual.

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. As we speak there are those seeking to infringe on our rights guaranteed under this. Do you watch the news?

[CV75]

In such a society the only thing that could result would be people not being very nice to religious people. The second such "second class treatment" became physical it would be a rights violation. The second it impacts my personal property it would be a rights violation. The second it impacted to rights to representation it would be a rights violation. In all instances the govt. would be on my side, not societies side, even though those in society may also not like me for being religious, the govt. has a civic and constitutional duty to protect my rights.

Does this mean you are not supportive of the designation of "hate crime," which compounds the seriousness of the crime as it pertains to offended rights?

[thesometimesaint]

Frowning at someone generally stops being much of an influence once they hit teenage years.

And picks up again as we get past those dreadful teenage years. Acting 14 years old is understandable if we're 14. If we're 40 that is a whole different problem. We hopefully learn more internal controls as we grow older than we rely solely on external controls.

[CV75]

Socially adultery is still frowned upon. But the American people are pretty forgiving when it comes to our politicians, and celebrity misdeeds. That can be a good thing and/or a bad thing. We no longer literally brand people with a scarlet "A". Thank Goodness. Thought there is a greater tolerance for fornication in today's world.

Would the country have been better off had there continued to have been legal consequences to either adultery or fornication (with some refinement to the consequences)?

Edited March 10, 2013 by CV75

[wenglund]

If I understand Bikeemikey correctly, he seems to be suggesting that while the Constitution and our system of rights and laws may have been somewhat morally based or inspired by morals, the system is sufficiently developed at this point to no longer require morals, and thus morals, particularly religious morals, have no place in legislation.

To me, not only is this naive, but it strikes me as analogous to suggesting that since we have built an elaborate ship of state, we no longer have need of a compass or other guidance, calibrating, and orienting devices.

It also ignores the fact that the ship of state--i.e. the Constitution and the system of rights and laws, explicitly and implicitly grants people of faith their right to expressly vote according to the dictates of their moral/religious conscience--not just in terms of who they elect, but also in terms of what is legislated.

Granted, this constitutional right, like most other rights, is not unlimited. But, it is a right, whether people like Bikeemikey or the sometimesaint like it or not. And, thankfully, there is a Constitution and a system of rights and laws that prevent these misguided, though well intending souls, from deny people of faith their right to vote their conscience. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of their kind of secular religion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 10, 2013 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. As we speak there are those seeking to infringe on our rights guaranteed under this. Do you watch the news?

Would you please be able to provide an example. I do watch the news and I do not see this happening much at all. Post some links so I can understand more about the examples you are citing.