Religious Freedom In America

[mfbukowski]

Not sure I understand what you are saying. Prop 8 was passed by the voters which indicates political clout, it got overturned by the Courts which decided it violated individual rights. With regards to protected individual rights, it is irrelevant what the majority decides -- that is why they exist to protect the individual from the so-called "tyranny of the majority".

So you think that we should take full credit for the passage of Prop 8, without help, it passed because of the LDS church's position on it and now all the voters who voted for it would do the same today? All this happened due to our clout which remains unabated still, despite massive opinion changes on gay marriage?

Just want to nail down your position.

[Scott Lloyd]

Last I looked the US Constitution was the supreme law of the US, and not the Declaration of Independence. What we do is circumscribe those unalienable rights through law. We bestow upon our government the power over life, liberty, and property as long it is not used in an arbitrary or capricious manner as voted for by our legal representatives, and ultimately by we the people. The Creator may well have inspired the Founders to write the US Constitution, but we the people get to decide how that document works.

But it would be folly to sever the Declaration of Independence from the founding of the nation. There is good reason it is enshrined at the National Archives and is at least as famous and revered as the Constitution itself. The Declaration provides a clear framework for the philosophy that guided the later drafting of the Constitution, and it acknowledges the Creator, not man or government, as the lawgiver.

Incidentally, what portion of the U.S. Constitution countenances excluding people of religious faith and thought from participation in the formation of public policy?

The only portion of the Constitution I can think of off hand that makes reference to religion at all is the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making any law respecting a particular establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. I would argue that any sentiment that would exclude people of religious faith from political dialogue would have the effect of prohibiting or limiting the free exercise of religion.

But perhaps I've missed a passage or two elsewhere in the Constitution that has the intent of keeping religious people from participating in the political process. Feel free to cite such a passage if I have.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

But it would be folly to sever the Declaration of Independence from the founding of the nation. There is good reason it is enshrined at the National Archives and is at least as famous and revered as the Constitution itself. The Declaration provides a clear framework for the philosophy that guided the later drafting of the Constitution, and it acknowledges the Creator, not man or government, as the lawgiver.

Is the Declaration of Independence still in effect? Are we still at war with Great Britain? I highly value the Declaration of Independence, but I am bound to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land, as per the Constitution itself.

No it doesn't. The Articles of Confederation are degrees of magnitude a closer fit than the US Constitution. The Preamble of the US Constitution makes no reference to God or any other deity. No does any of the Articles in the Constitution. It is "We The People" whom get to decide not God, Popes, Priests, or Minister of any religion. There is a bar to any religious test for any public office held in any state of the United States, and bars the Federal government from establishing one. There is but one oblique refer to any deity and that is but a standard writing convention of the late 18th Century, and that is at the very end of main body of the Constitution. There is also the First Amendment. The arguments of Thomas Jefferson against Patrick Henry in establishing a tax to support a specific religion in Virginia. Numerous USSC decisions against the government establishing any religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of. It is blight on our history that the Saints were persecuted and denied their basic civil rights by religious zealots using law to try to destroy the Church over polygamy.

Edited April 3, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

Is the Declaration of Independence still in effect? Are we still at war with Great Britain? I highly value the Declaration of Independence, but I am bound to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land, as per the Constitution itself.

No it doesn't. The Articles of Confederation are degrees of magnitude a closer fit than the US Constitution. The Preamble of the US Constitution makes no reference to God or any other deity. No does any of the Articles in the Constitution. It is "We The People" whom get to decide not God, Popes, Priests, or Minister of any religion. There is a bar to any religious test for any public office held in any state of the United States, and bars the Federal government from establishing one. There is but one oblique refer to any deity and that is but a standard writing convention of the late 18th Century, and that is at the very end of main body of the Constitution. There is also the First Amendment. The arguments of Thomas Jefferson against Patrick Henry in establishing a tax to support a specific religion in Virginia. Numerous USSC decisions against the government establishing any religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of. It is blight on our history that the Saints were persecuted and denied their basic civil rights by religious zealots using law to try to destroy the Church over polygamy.

I take it, then, since you evaded the question, that you found no passage in the Constitution that precludes people of faith from taking part in the political process, engaging in public discussion regarding government or participating in the formulation of public policy.

And you never responded to my point about prohibiting people of faith from engaging in the political process, in effect, amounting to limiting the free exercise of their religion, making such privilege of citizenship contingent upon them keeping their mouths shut about their religious faith.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

I take it, then, since you evaded the question, that you found no passage in the Constitution that precludes people of faith from taking part in the political process, engaging in public discussion regarding government or participating in the formulation of public policy.

And you never responded to my point about prohibiting people of faith from engaging in the political process, in effect, amounting to limiting the free exercise of their religion, making such privilege of citizenship contingent upon them keeping their mouths shut about their religious faith.

I've already responded at least twice to that question. Having a say in the political process is not the same thing as having the final say in the political process.

All laws must have a secular purpose and not an overtly sectarian one.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've already responded at least twice to that question. Having a say in the political process is not the same thing as having the final say in the political process.

All laws must have a secular purpose and not an overtly sectarian one.

And one of those secular purposes is protecting people in the free exercise of conscience -- including embracing and practicing a religious faith, if they so choose, without fear of having their privileges of citizenship abridged as a a consequence.

[thesometimesaint]

And one of those secular purposes is protecting people in the free exercise of conscience -- including embracing and practicing a religious faith, if they so choose, without fear of having their privileges of citizenship abridged as a a consequence.

I know of no efforts to exclude religious people from expressing their opinion. However I do oppose any effort to make any religion the consigliere in formulating public law.

[Scott Lloyd]

I know of no efforts to exclude religious people from expressing their opinion.

The essence of the OP, as I see it, is that religious people should be precluded from exercising rights that others enjoy, that is seeking to make their influence felt in politics and the formulation of public policy. I find that odious and patently unfair.

However I do oppose any effort to make any religion the consigliere in formulating public law.

Who here is arguing for that? Certainly not I.

[thesometimesaint]

The essence of the OP, as I see it, is that religious people should be precluded from exercising rights that others enjoy, that is seeking to make their influence felt in politics and the formulation of public policy. I find that odious and patently unfair.

Who here is arguing for that? Certainly not I.

I would oppose any such efforts.

You may not have however a member of the Utah state legislature sure did in requesting that the Church sign off on the proposed legislation.

[Stone holm]

I would oppose any such efforts.

You may not have however a member of the Utah state legislature sure did in requesting that the Church sign off on the proposed legislation.

I haven't heard anyone arguing that. Certainly some of us have suggested that people using religious arguments to deny others certain rights isn't a productive activity in a republic that values religious freedom, but I don't remember anyone arguing that religious persons should be denied their rights because they are religious. However, I sometimes question the "victim" status that some times people claim because their religious values are not being imposed upon others that do not share them.

[Scott Lloyd]

You may not have however a member of the Utah state legislature sure did in requesting that the Church sign off on the proposed legislation.

CFR that a legislator asked the Church to "sign off" on legislation.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR that a legislator asked the Church to "sign off" on legislation.

LDS Church reportedly in talks to write LGBT non-discrimination bill in Utah

March 11, 2013

By Scottie Thomaston

UPDATE 1:40PM ET: Another report says the language was finalized and the bill passed out of a Senate committee.

The Mormon Church is reportedly working on language for a statewide LGBT non-discrimination bill in Utah. The church supported a similar bill in 2009, according to a report:

The church actually endorsed a similar ordinance in 2009 in Salt Lake City.

This is momentous, surely, but the Mormon faith, whether real or done for politics, is changing. In December, Mormon leaders launched a website called mormonsandgays.org, and the church stressed that homosexuality is not a choice, that all the brothers and sisters need to be treated with compassion, that we all “need to love one another.”

The church is well-known for its efforts to pass Prop 8 banning marriage equality in California.

The Salt Lake Tribune first broke the news on Thursday. According to their story:

Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, opened a bill file on Thursday — the last day to request attorneys draft legislation — titled Housing and Employment Amendments and will sponsor the legislation should an agreement be reached.

The newspaper notes that talks have been ongoing for the past eight months and there is not a bill yet, though other sources suggest that all the parties to the negotiations are close to final language. The report suggests that if the LDS church signs on to the bill’s language, it’s likely to pass.

[Darren10]

I have always found the mantra that America is the land of religious freedom a little puzzling.

The treatment of the Mormons, the Waco incident, and the campaign against the FLDS are 3 cases that immediately spring to mind.

It is the land of freedom of religion. Unlike the Red Coats, Americans never did endorse one national religion. But rest assured Atheism is making its way to that spot. I agree with you on the unlawful treatment of Mormons, Waco Folks (even though they were lead by a phsycho), and the FLDS, particularly the Yearn for Zion Compound raid. But just because violations occur, does not mean that freedom is not real. In each case, steps were taken to not repeat such unlawful acts upon folks just for their religious beliefs. Each case also suffered from backlashed reprimands upon those responsible for the unlawful acts. Well, perhaps not so much for those who persecuted the Saints but I'm actualy OK with that. Let's move on.

[Darren10]

I don't know that it's accurate to compare the treatment of known criminal activities within a church to the treatment of the mormon church in earlier decades.

The FLDS were investigated for child rape and the Branch Davidians for weapons violations. The government does not always go about such investigations in the best way, but sometimes such investigations are necessary.

That's not to say that other religious groups have not legimitately been persecuted in America.

Nicely said.

[Stone holm]

It is the land of freedom of religion. Unlike the Red Coats, Americans never did endorse one national religion. But rest assured Atheism is making its way to that spot. I agree with you on the unlawful treatment of Mormons, Waco Folks (even though they were lead by a phsycho), and the FLDS, particularly the Yearn for Zion Compound raid. But just because violations occur, does not mean that freedom is not real. In each case, steps were taken to not repeat such unlawful acts upon folks just for their religious beliefs. Each case also suffered from backlashed reprimands upon those responsible for the unlawful acts. Well, perhaps not so much for those who persecuted the Saints but I'm actualy OK with that. Let's move on.

There seems to be this tendency to equate "secular" and "atheist". A person can be in favor of a secular approach to government and regulation and still be religious and Mormon. A person who is an atheist by definition is not religious, and cannot be a true Mormon. Secular has to do with what type of reasoning that you use or what something is based on, etc. not what one believes. Atheism has to do with disbelief. The PEW poll is showing basically that Americans are increasingly not identifying with any organized religion, that does not mean that they are becoming atheists. There is, however, a growing number that are getting weary of having religion thrown in their face with respect to politics which seems to be the case increasingly with certain vocal religious minorities.