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

[wenglund]

It depends in part on the degree of "pro-active" philosophy you are willing to countenance if you take the view that people have little or no self-control then you would say that public nudity is bad because it leads to rape and molestation. We in America are considered especially lacking in self-control because of the Western nations we are the biggest prudes. Obviously, you can have civilization without such prudery -- Ancient Greece being one that comes to mind, apparently not all of Adam's children got the serpents memo

People can certainly disagree about what is prudish or not as well as on what reasons nudity may or may not be bad, and even whether or not Ancient Greece is a civilization worthy of aspiration in America.

The question of this thread, however, is whether those disagreements, particularly those involving religious morals, are deserving of a seat at the political discourse table, or whether religious morals should be silenced in this regard, and non-religious views privileged for whatever reason.

From my reading of the Constitution and my understanding of the law, I believe this issue, and religious morals, have every bit a right as anyone else or any other issue at that table, and depending upon whether they are in the majority or minority, they have every bit of right as anyone else to have their religious position enacted into law.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Glenn101]

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.

While I wish you were correct in your assertions the reports I have been reading on Social Security (and Medicare) paint a bleaker picture.

Here is an excerpt from the 2012 Summary Of Annual Reports that can be found here.

"Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086."

I do not understand your assertion of applesand oranges. There are people right now totally dependent on largesse from the government to keep them alive. Many people living nursing homes and the like are in that category. If their government funds were to be cut off, and barring not other aid being offered to them, they would starve to death. I have a developmentally retarded son who would fall into that category if I wereto die, and the odds of that happening in the next ten years are greater than I care to contemplate.

I was only arguing that absent any religious morality based attitude toward the santctity of life, viablility could be redefined so as to include such people. And as the Social Security tax load and the Medicare load rests more and more on the shoulders of a workforce decreasingin size and in religious sentiment, the possibility could exist at some future date.

Glenn

[Yep]

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

True. I never stated otherwise. However, the representative should work within the bounds of the Constitution using his personal beliefs in the manner he portrayed to the voters. I do at times vote for an individual because I want their religious views to influence our government and its laws.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

Nudity itself is rather boring. I wear clothing essentially for two reasons. For warmth, and not to scare the public.

We pay taxes to support/supply the things that we as individuals can not. To use the things that governments supply without paying for them is a form of theft.

[USU78]

The context is pretty simple. Keep them separate.

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 Gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".

Thomas Jefferson

That's no answer. That's a platitudinal regurgitation.

You have tended toward the socialist end of the Dem party in your views as expressed over the years; i.e., that the state is prior in right to the individual when it comes to such things, and not the other way around. If the state has the power to banish religious views from the public square, as you have advocated (if I understood you correctly in the past), it is a very sorry development indeed, as nobody but NObody ever claimed or advocated for such an extension of the police power until relatively recently.

We, my friend, are THE most likely target of such a banishment, with all that such a banishment entails, since we have been the subject of such a banishment in the past. Along with the RCs and Jews. In this here country. I for one will not suffer such another banishment again easily. Prop 8's opponents' actions in the Golden Bear State will surely be replicated and multiplied, since it's happening day by day.

We have long gone back and forth on such issues as whether the Feds will try to force our temples open to the profanity that is homosexual marriage, over our dead bodies. I fully intend to be one of those who hold out longest and loudest against such a profanation, at risk of my body and treasure.

Bottom line: if "separation of Church and State" means the state gets to anathamize the church and her membership, then it's a declaration of war on the Saints.

[thesometimesaint]

That's no answer. That's a platitudinal regurgitation.

You have tended toward the socialist end of the Dem party in your views as expressed over the years; i.e., that the state is prior in right to the individual when it comes to such things, and not the other way around. If the state has the power to banish religious views from the public square, as you have advocated (if I understood you correctly in the past), it is a very sorry development indeed, as nobody but NObody ever claimed or advocated for such an extension of the police power until relatively recently.

We, my friend, are THE most likely target of such a banishment, with all that such a banishment entails, since we have been the subject of such a banishment in the past. Along with the RCs and Jews. In this here country. I for one will not suffer such another banishment again easily. Prop 8's opponents' actions in the Golden Bear State will surely be replicated and multiplied, since it's happening day by day.

We have long gone back and forth on such issues as whether the Feds will try to force our temples open to the profanity that is homosexual marriage, over our dead bodies. I fully intend to be one of those who hold out longest and loudest against such a profanation, at risk of my body and treasure.

Bottom line: if "separation of Church and State" means the state gets to anathamize the church and her membership, then it's a declaration of war on the Saints.

It is much more than a platitude. It is a foundational position of our country. See 1st Amendment.

I have told you before I'm no democrat, nor do I belong to the Democratic Party. I support some of the goals of socialism, just as I support some of the goals of capitalism. Neither one is complete without the other. I rather enjoy living under a republican form of government, though not necessarily supporting the Republican Party. BTW The BoM describes the ideal as no rich nor poor among them.

I firmly believe in the fact that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. To wit I vote every opportunity I get. I write letters to my representatives informing them of my ideas concerning their governance, and how I think it can be improved. I've taught my children and those under my care to do the same.

I said nothing about banishing religion from the public square. But if you want my opinion. I'm all for everyone having a religious/nonreligious opinion and the freedom to express it. I just don't believe that any one religion, or some group of religions should have final say in what laws our cities, counties, states, and national government operate under. IOW keep them separate so that all may enjoy the blessings of liberty of conscience.

Yes we were, and that is a blot on this nations' history. Again if we, as a nation, truly believe the 1st Amendment, and for the Saints Article of Faith #11, applies to all. Many of those atrocities will never be repeated.

While I supported the idea behind Prop 8. I'm no lawyer but I see no way it can withstand the challenge to the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. As a purely practical matter I agree with the ideas behind the domestic partnerships law, that is also in California law. Further I think it is in everyone's interest to get the state out of the marriage business entirely by making them all domestic partnerships, and let the churches do the religious ceremonies as they want.

If the Feds were to do such, such would be an absolute violation of not only the 1st Amendment. It does violence to the very idea of keeping them separate.

Such a situation is anathema to the concept of keeping them separate.

Edited March 11, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[TAO]

TAO:

Nudity itself is rather boring.

It could be. But you can't create laws banning it without taking social interests over personal rights. My point was that government uses both social interests and personal rights to justify laws, and that neither reigns supreme over the other.

We pay taxes to support/supply the things that we as individuals can not. To use the things that governments supply without paying for them is a form of theft.

What about the people out there who think taxes are immoral. Your forcing your taxes upon them.

[Sleeper Cell]

It is wise to remember that the idea of "natural rights" or Inalienable rights is not necessarily embedded in the Constitution, although it was something dear to the Deists who helped inspire the "revolution", the Declaration of Independence was just that it is not a law and was certainly not considered such the or now. Rights exist because we have entered into a social contract which is binding so long as we choose to continue as a society to support and protect it. To say something exists in the abstract is fairly meaningless. If you say for example that men were endowed with certain rights by their Creator...I would respond, well then He didn't make them very self evident because it took thousands of years for them to be recognized and much blood was spilt to establish them and most would say they still really haven't been so established ... So let us not talk in such rhetorical flourishes, but in terms of reason and the possible that can be accomplished by men and women with the human intellect He has afforded them and with the compassion that he has admonished them.

Perhaps the phrase “self evident inalienable rights” does not explicitly appear in the constitution because the founding fathers considered them to be … well, self evident.

Rights exist because we have entered into a social contract which is binding so long as we choose to continue as a society to support and protect it. To say something exists in the abstract is fairly meaningless.

The entire concept of “morals” also exists only in the abstract. Ditto, the concept of “social contracts.” I don’t recall signing any such contract.

There is a difference between saying that the purpose of government is to “secure these rights” and saying that these rights exist only as long as the government says they do.

Incidentally this abstract concept wasn’t meaningless to our founding fathers. They were willing to die for it.

Rhetorical flourishes?

Let’s … talk … in terms of reason and the possible that can be accomplished by men and women with the human intellect He has afforded them and with the compassion He has admonished them.

Rhetorical flourishes, indeed.

[thesometimesaint]

It could be. But you can't create laws banning it without taking social interests over personal rights. My point was that government uses both social interests and personal rights to justify laws, and that neither reigns supreme over the other.

What about the people out there who think taxes are immoral. Your forcing your taxes upon them.

I'm more in favor of nudity among consenting adults as a contact sport.

The solution is easy, just find somewhere they receive no benefits from their government. No military. or public sector. No police, fireman, or first responders. No roads, bridges, highways, air or river ways. No air, water, food, clothing, or medicine testing for safety. No building codes. Neither gas nor electrical codes. Fire codes who needs them. No product safety codes of any type. No standardized weights and measures. Every man, woman, and child in it for themselves. A true libertarian paradise.

[Stone holm]

Perhaps the phrase “self evident inalienable rights” does not explicitly appear in the constitution because the founding fathers considered them to be … well, self evident.

The entire concept of “morals” also exists only in the abstract. Ditto, the concept of “social contracts.” I don’t recall signing any such contract.

There is a difference between saying that the purpose of government is to “secure these rights” and saying that these rights exist only as long as the government says they do.

Incidentally this abstract concept wasn’t meaningless to our founding fathers. They were willing to die for it.

Rhetorical flourishes?

Rhetorical flourishes, indeed.

Although rare, the Constitution and most State Constitutions are in fact social contracts entered into as directly as possible by the people. The agreement is that we will abide by the laws of this government but we have reserved certain rights which the government is bound to honor. These rights exist because we all have agreed they exist, and likewise they don't exist if we didn't agree. God did not make men slaves, men did and they preserved slavery in the Constitution. The right to "own private property" in the modern sense is not an absolute right of some mystical origin it a right that we have agreed upon. We could have agreed upon something else as have viable societies so agreed which lasted far longer than ours has. To refer for example to taxes as robbery is nonsense, because we only own property because we as a people have said we can

[Stone holm]

That's no answer. That's a platitudinal regurgitation.

You have tended toward the socialist end of the Dem party in your views as expressed over the years; i.e., that the state is prior in right to the individual when it comes to such things, and not the other way around. If the state has the power to banish religious views from the public square, as you have advocated (if I understood you correctly in the past), it is a very sorry development indeed, as nobody but NObody ever claimed or advocated for such an extension of the police power until relatively recently.

We, my friend, are THE most likely target of such a banishment, with all that such a banishment entails, since we have been the subject of such a banishment in the past. Along with the RCs and Jews. In this here country. I for one will not suffer such another banishment again easily. Prop 8's opponents' actions in the Golden Bear State will surely be replicated and multiplied, since it's happening day by day.

We have long gone back and forth on such issues as whether the Feds will try to force our temples open to the profanity that is homosexual marriage, over our dead bodies. I fully intend to be one of those who hold out longest and loudest against such a profanation, at risk of my body and treasure.

Bottom line: if "separation of Church and State" means the state gets to anathamize the church and her membership, then it's a declaration of war on the Saints.

The point is simply that when you invoke the coercive power of the state by means of legislation you must have a justification for it other than "God told me so." That being because we can't agree on whether God exists let alone what he says, and invoking God's name has allowed more tyrants to misbehave than anything else.

[TAO]

The solution is easy, just find somewhere they receive no benefits from their government.

That's my point though. No such places exist. Government monopolizes everything.

[thesometimesaint]

That's my point though. No such places exist. Government monopolizes everything.

There maybe some island somewhere on earth that has such a libertarian paradise. But as far as countries go. I know only of one such, and they are desperately trying to get a functional government.

[Sleeper Cell]

I supported the idea behind Prop 8. I'm no lawyer but I see no way it can withstand the challenge to the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. As a purely practical matter I agree with the ideas behind the domestic partnerships law, that is also in California law. Further I think it is in everyone's interest to get the state out of the marriage business entirely by making them all domestic partnerships, and let the churches do the religious ceremonies as they want.

To my great astonishment, as a practical matter, I pretty much agree with you. Even as far back as the days of the Prop 22 campaign, I advocated domestic partnerships for adults who were not legally eligible to marry.

A couples of nuances. First, Prop 8 is only a violation of Equal Protection if we change the fundamental definition of marriage. I have asked many times (on this board and elsewhere) for one (1) example of any civilization (until recently) which defined marriage as anything other than a union between members of two different genders. IIRC, even Sparta drew a distinction between “marriage” and the analogous gay relationships that were recognized as an integral part of their society.

The “gay rights movement” is controlling the debate because they have mastered the art of manipulating the definitions of words to suit their agenda.. (The very word “gay” being an obvious example). Yes, there have been many different forms of “non-traditional” marriage (polygamy, polyandry, brother-sister, etc.), but I can think of no example of marriage between members of the same gender. Until recently.

Prop 8 does not violate equal protection because marriage has always meant a relationship between members of two different genders, and any gay person is entitled to enter into marriage with a person of the opposite gender, regardless of their orientation. Furthermore, states also do not allow close blood relatives to marry, which is arguably more arbitrary and discriminatory because there have been civilizations that have recognized brother-sister marriages. Yet gay marriage advocates do not advocate that the any two adults be allowed to marry. So much for equal protection.

Nonetheless, I agree that we will lose that battle on equal protection grounds and should try to salvage what remains of the traditional sanctity of marriage. Rather than have the government institutionalize “gay marriage," we should get the government completely out of the marriage business.

I would go further than the California domestic partnership law. I would open it up to any two or more adults living in the same household, and eliminate any implication that domestic partnerships necessarily involve “marital relations.” Why not extend the benefits of domestic partnership to an adult living with and caring for an aged parent, for example?

For that matter, perhaps it is time for a debate on why should the state grant benefits and otherwise subsidize the private relationships between adults. Why, for example, should a single person subsidize two adults, each of whom is working and each of whom earns more than he does, simply because they have a private relationship?

[wenglund]

The point is simply that when you invoke the coercive power of the state by means of legislation you must have a justification for it other than "God told me so." That being because we can't agree on whether God exists let alone what he says, and invoking God's name has allowed more tyrants to misbehave than anything else.

While the last clause of your last sentence is arguably incorrect, it is good to see my opponents echoing my own sentiments that legislation "must have a justification."

And, while invoking God's name may not, in and of itself, be universally considered as justification, it cannot constitutionally be ruled out, nor for that matter can religious morals in general as justification be ruled out--as my case study above of public nudity and indecent exposure bears out. Religious moral are no less permissible as justification than the confused secular notion of "equality."

There is no law or constitutional precept which disallows legislation to be passed on even the most tissuey or inane justification. Democratic republics allow legislating stupidity--which, in my opinion, has become the rule of late, rather than the exception.

Granted, to my way of thinking, the best and preferred justification for legislation is to show that the legislation is pragmatically in the best interest of the people, but as evinced by opponents of traditional marriage, such rational justifications are to be ignored in deference to emotional and demonstrably inane appeals for letting certain culturally favorable classes of people have their self-centered and prurient way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

To my great astonishment, as a practical matter, I pretty much agree with you. Even as far back as the days of the Prop 22 campaign, I advocated domestic partnerships for adults who were not legally eligible to marry.

A couples of nuances. First, Prop 8 is only a violation of Equal Protection if we change the fundamental definition of marriage. I have asked many times (on this board and elsewhere) for one (1) example of any civilization (until recently) which defined marriage as anything other than a union between members of two different genders. IIRC, even Sparta drew a distinction between “marriage” and the analogous gay relationships that were recognized as an integral part of their society.

The “gay rights movement” is controlling the debate because they have mastered the art of manipulating the definitions of words to suit their agenda.. (The very word “gay” being an obvious example). Yes, there have been many different forms of “non-traditional” marriage (polygamy, polyandry, brother-sister, etc.), but I can think of no example of marriage between members of the same gender. Until recently.

Prop 8 does not violate equal protection because marriage has always meant a relationship between members of two different genders, and any gay person is entitled to enter into marriage with a person of the opposite gender, regardless of their orientation. Furthermore, states also do not allow close blood relatives to marry, which is arguably more arbitrary and discriminatory because there have been civilizations that have recognized brother-sister marriages. Yet gay marriage advocates do not advocate that the any two adults be allowed to marry. So much for equal protection.

Nonetheless, I agree that we will lose that battle on equal protection grounds and should try to salvage what remains of the traditional sanctity of marriage. Rather than have the government institutionalize “gay marriage," we should get the government completely out of the marriage business.

I would go further than the California domestic partnership law. I would open it up to any two or more adults living in the same household, and eliminate any implication that domestic partnerships necessarily involve “marital relations.” Why not extend the benefits of domestic partnership to an adult living with and caring for an aged parent, for example?

For that matter, perhaps it is time for a debate on why should the state grant benefits and otherwise subsidize the private relationships between adults. Why, for example, should a single person subsidize two adults, each of whom is working and each of whom earns more than he does, simply because they have a private relationship?

There is no perfect solution. We are talking about people after all. I think we run into trouble when we conflate the religious significance of marriage with the right to make contract. IE; I value my marriage, but stripped of its religious significance. It really is nothing more than a legally enforceable contract.

I think that history should inform our decisions but never control them. Sparta also had slaves, and women were less than second class citizens. We hopefully have recognized the folly of such practices.

While I believe homosexual acts are a sin. I don't believe they should be made illegal. Nor do I believe homosexuals should be discriminated against in housing, employment, hospital/medical access, or survival benefits. As a heterosexual I have the right to have my neighbor down the street make my medical decisions if I so choose, and am incapable. Also leave any or all of my estate to anyone I want. Why can't a homosexual?

We subsidize contractual agreements all the time. One is by the ability to take to public court contract disputes. Society also gains by the stability of long term relationships, particularly women are more likely to be at an economic disadvantage when not in a marriage. Also add in that any children, thus society, that result from marriage also benefit from that long term relationship. IE; The vast majority of young males in legal detention are of single parents in the home.

[TAO]

There maybe some island somewhere on earth that has such a libertarian paradise. But as far as countries go. I know only of one such, and they are desperately trying to get a functional government.

Which place is this?

[thesometimesaint]

Which place is this?

Somalia.

[USU78]

The point is simply that when you invoke the coercive power of the state by means of legislation you must have a justification for it other than "God told me so." That being because we can't agree on whether God exists let alone what he says, and invoking God's name has allowed more tyrants to misbehave than anything else.

Once again . . . this says nothing, if not "you religious people over there in the compound, shut yer mouths right now or you'll regret it."

Are you quite sure that's what you mean? No matter how badly you despise those who believe in Him, are you quite certain it's good policy to prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm for the absolute separation of church and state.

I am not and neither were the found fathers.

What I am against is a state run Church though or a state run organization that is trying to be athiestic. Note, that is different from Separation of church and state.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Seriously?

Ok I'll be nice. Have you heard or read anything on the proposed gun bills as of late? Just so you know those bills violate the 2nd amendment.

Do you know what the 2nd amendment states?

It might be useful to quote it.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Is telling some one that they cannot have a certain type of gun or restricting magazine size a type of infringment?

I would love to hear an arugment on how that is not an infringment.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is much more than a platitude. It is a foundational position of our country. See 1st Amendment.

Were in the 1st amendment is the phrase "Separation of church and state" found?

[Stone holm]

Once again . . . this says nothing, if not "you religious people over there in the compound, shut yer mouths right now or you'll regret it."

Are you quite sure that's what you mean? No matter how badly you despise those who believe in Him, are you quite certain it's good policy to prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest?

No not really, citizens are influenced by their religious beliefs and some religious beliefs have a rational bearing that can be agreed upon, however, when justifying a law you cannot play the religious trump card. That is what has plagued many of the opponents of SSM. Each argument has been refuted until they are eventually left with "Well god told me so". Which does not fly well under the Constitution. Religion in America is a subject that is somewhat peculiar as it has special treatment. We are free to believe that God has told us this and that, but we are not free to tell others that they have to believe and conform their actions to what we believe unless we can articulate another secular reason for it. It just means that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc have to frame their political discourse in non-religious grounds. Otherwise, you wind up forcing people to conform to strictly religious tenets to which they do not ascribe. Ultimately, this is in the best. Interest of religion which otherwise may tend to fossilize

[Deborah]

[quote name='Mola Ram Suda Ram' timestamp='1363038606' post='1209234369'

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Stone holm]

Repeating with emphasis.

and deleting the wording that preceded it which refers to well regulated militia which at the time were regulated by the State and the municipalities, but now the Supremes are interfering with the ability of the States and municipalities to regulate in the one area where they were actually specifically intended to do so.