CASteinman Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 The reasoning process surrounding standards, however, is similar.Not at all. A legislature does not need a single fact or any evidence of any kind to pass a bill. Whereas a court must look at evidences and laws.
CASteinman Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Incorrect. The courts are the independent third co-equal branch of government. They function of precedent, due process, and how they, at the USSC level understand the Constitution. The legislatures are also bound by the Constitution, and the USSC interpretation of it.Courts in addition to establishing what happened at the appellate level determine if the executive/legislative branch followed the Constitution.I was not talking about any particular legislature as you have imagined. I was speaking of legislatures abstractly. For example, legislature was not bound by any Constitution when creating the Constitution you describe.
Stone holm Posted April 11, 2013 Author Posted April 11, 2013 I was not talking about any particular legislature as you have imagined. I was speaking of legislatures abstractly. For example, legislature was not bound by any Constitution when creating the Constitution you describe.A legislature that passes laws without reference to facts or evidence while free to do so in theory, will in an educated free society soon have new members. Although occasionally ii wonder about some State legislatures from time to time, I do not believe that I know of any legislature that acts on such a basis.
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 I think I know what you mean.We here in California have a process where the regular citizenry can write and pass laws. If you think the legislature is a mess, and most the time it is, wait till you get a look at what the initiative process has given us.
CASteinman Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 I think I know what you mean.We here in California have a process where the regular citizenry can write and pass laws. If you think the legislature is a mess, and most the time it is, wait till you get a look at what the initiative process has given us. I believe in initiatives. Perhaps they should be a bit harder to get on a ballot, but I believe in them.
Stone holm Posted April 11, 2013 Author Posted April 11, 2013 I believe in initiatives. Perhaps they should be a bit harder to get on a ballot, but I believe in them.I don't have a problem with the normal ballot initiative, I do have a problem with ballot initiatives being able to amend a State Constitution in the manner that California seems to have initiated -- that really can make the State Constitution fairly meaningless and can create chaos. From what I have seen much of the economic chaos in California is attributable to the bizarre way they can hamstring their State legislatue with State Constitutional amendments.
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 I believe in initiatives. Perhaps they should be a bit harder to get on a ballot, but I believe in them.I'm not particularly fond of them. I think the legislature should do its job. I'll grant that a few times it is a good initiative. However as it is right now its all corporate special interests writing and deliberately miswriting the initiative so we end up voting yes on no.
CASteinman Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) I do have a problem with ballot initiatives being able to amend a State Constitution in the manner that California seems to have initiatedYou could start an initiative to change that. In fact, I think that there was one... and it was defeated. It seems the voters like it that way.I think its reasonable to point out that we are off track of the topic. Edited April 11, 2013 by CASteinman
Stone holm Posted April 12, 2013 Author Posted April 12, 2013 You could start an initiative to change that. In fact, I think that there was one... and it was defeated. It seems the voters like it that way.I think its reasonable to point out that we are off track of the topic.Yeah, I wonder what Maxwell would have thought about the contextual argument that the great and spacious building referenced the corrupt elite of the second Temple.
CASteinman Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 Yeah, I wonder what Maxwell would have thought about the contextual argument that the great and spacious building referenced the corrupt elite of the second Temple.We could only speculate -- but I speculate that unlike my thoughts, his would probably be interesting.
Stone holm Posted April 14, 2013 Author Posted April 14, 2013 We could only speculate -- but I speculate that unlike my thoughts, his would probably be interesting.It does put a different spin on the whole metaphor .
CASteinman Posted April 14, 2013 Posted April 14, 2013 It does put a different spin on the whole metaphor .I suppose. It does not seem to have much strength.
slamarwi Posted April 14, 2013 Posted April 14, 2013 Okay, let's back up and state the point another way. Let's hypothetically say that a Church has announced that it is going to be neutral in partisan politics, but reserves the right to express its opinion on moral issues. Then, let's say that hypothetical Church exists in a democratic society which is confronted with important issues A, B, C, D, and E. All five issues have very important consequences as to the standards the society will be governed by. This hypothetical Church then decides to be vigorously politically active on issue B, but not very active or completely silent on issues A, C, D and E. Now that has a variety of consequences. One it tends to consolidate and concentrate the political resources of the Church on that particular issue to an extent that would not be able to do if it tried to address all five issues. It also has other consequences. For example it may be more able to attract allies if it aims solely at one issue, who it might alienate if it addressed all of the issues. On the other hand, it can send a message to the ultimate target, namely the people who are actually in a position to affect the issue -- the message is, be with us on this issue and you can do as you please with respect to the others. It also is sometimes construed by the Church's faithful that the Church only views issue B as important and critical, so all I have to do in casting my vote is look to see whether to support a political or corporate leader who supports the Church on issue B and i don't have to fret about the other four issues or the leaders stance on them, in fact I can ignore them altogether. It may also be construed by a smaller group of the faithful, that since the leader is dead-on on issue B, he must be right on the other four issues -- and in fact, it may lead people to spin religious reasons why the leader is correct on the other four issues. There is, however, another possible consequence which I think goes directly to Elder Maxwell's complaint about the bus seating arrangement. It may be that people who are confronted with a bewildering range of issues on which the religion is providing no moral guidance that they start looking to other sources for making the moral judgment calls on the issues, and after awhile they cease to pay any attention to religion on issue B as well. If that happens, then the Church will eventually find itself at the back of the bus. Is my reasoning faulty here? If that is the case, yes secularization has occurred, but it is because religion has compressed its definition of morality into a very, very tight range of issues and outside that range everything is up for grabs.Sounds to me like someone is a bit overly sensitive about prop. 8
Stone holm Posted April 14, 2013 Author Posted April 14, 2013 Sounds to me like someone is a bit overly sensitive about prop. 8How so? I guess I am a little sensitive to some of the consequences of the political activism in the NE, because of its consequential loss of members and limitation on missionary work.
CASteinman Posted April 16, 2013 Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) How so? I guess I am a little sensitive to some of the consequences of the political activism in the NE, because of its consequential loss of members and limitation on missionary work.This sort of thing never really bugs me because I don't believe the Church is for everyone. "My Sheep Hear My Voice". Edited April 16, 2013 by CASteinman
thesometimesaint Posted April 16, 2013 Posted April 16, 2013 This sort of thing never really bugs me because I don't believe the Church is for everyone. "My Sheep Hear My Voice".But we don't get to decide whom that is.
CASteinman Posted April 16, 2013 Posted April 16, 2013 But we don't get to decide whom that is.OK... but I don't see how that relates to my comment.
thesometimesaint Posted April 16, 2013 Posted April 16, 2013 OK... but I don't see how that relates to my comment.While it is true that not everyone will accept the Gospel. It is also true that we are to preach the Gospel to every living creature. We don't get to pick and choose whom is in that "every".
CASteinman Posted April 16, 2013 Posted April 16, 2013 While it is true that not everyone will accept the Gospel. It is also true that we are to preach the Gospel to every living creature. We don't get to pick and choose whom is in that "every".Again, I don't see how that relates.
Stone holm Posted April 16, 2013 Author Posted April 16, 2013 Again, I don't see how that relates.Again, I don't see how that relates.Well I guess it doesn't matter if we want to have a politically unified Church, but we seem to go out of our way to try not offend the Evangelicals regarding our doctrine of Deity, but we don't seem to give a rip if we alienate progressive politically oriented people from even considering our Gospel message.
CASteinman Posted April 16, 2013 Posted April 16, 2013 Well I guess it doesn't matter if we want to have a politically unified ChurchSeems that the brethren have intentionally sought to avoid that and have worked to make it otherwise.but we seem to go out of our way to try not offend the Evangelicals regarding our doctrine of DeityI have never noticed this. At least, not on the part of the Church. Perhaps on the part of some members. It seems to me though that the Church testifies of Christ and the Father now as much as before.but we don't seem to give a rip if we alienate progressive politically oriented people from even considering our Gospel message.This is just your opinion -- a strange one at that. We have not adjusted our doctrines to make it particularly easier for Evangelicals or Catholics or Jews to join. Nor for other people including anyone in the "Social Progressive" religions.
Stone holm Posted April 17, 2013 Author Posted April 17, 2013 Seems that the brethren have intentionally sought to avoid that and have worked to make it otherwise.I have never noticed this. At least, not on the part of the Church. Perhaps on the part of some members. It seems to me though that the Church testifies of Christ and the Father now as much as before.This is just your opinion -- a strange one at that. We have not adjusted our doctrines to make it particularly easier for Evangelicals or Catholics or Jews to join. Nor for other people including anyone in the "Social Progressive" religions.So you are not in the camp that believe that Pres Hinckley purposely ducked the Snow couplet question from Larry King?
CASteinman Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 So you are not in the camp that believe that Pres Hinckley purposely ducked the Snow couplet question from Larry King?I don't think he did, but if he did, I don't think it would have anything to do with making it more palatable to some group.
Avatar4321 Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 How so? I guess I am a little sensitive to some of the consequences of the political activism in the NE, because of its consequential loss of members and limitation on missionary work.What's the point of knowing the truth if you aren't going to apply it in your life? How can people be converted to the truth if we cant tell them the truth?People will put politics over God. That doesn't change God's position on the matter. We werent called to be liked by everyone. We were called to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ. if some people wont do that because of some political position, or wont listen to the Gospel because of some political position, we weren't going to get through to them anyway.But regardless, God can get through to whomever He would like. The time will come when people will be angry with the Church because the testimony from the Spirit will be so powerful that they will have no choice but to believe it, but will still be in rebellion.We need to labor. We need to stand in Holy Places. We need to be living so the Power of the Priesthood will fall upon us. And so that we preach and testify with power and authority from on High. If the people reject the message. They will face the consequences. But we will just need to love them and testify to it more regardless. Because the Gospel is true. Jesus is our Savior and the Lord has Restored the Priesthood and the Church. What else can we do if we love the Lord and want to keep His commandments?
california boy Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 What's the point of knowing the truth if you aren't going to apply it in your life? How can people be converted to the truth if we cant tell them the truth?People will put politics over God. That doesn't change God's position on the matter. We werent called to be liked by everyone. We were called to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ. if some people wont do that because of some political position, or wont listen to the Gospel because of some political position, we weren't going to get through to them anyway.But regardless, God can get through to whomever He would like. The time will come when people will be angry with the Church because the testimony from the Spirit will be so powerful that they will have no choice but to believe it, but will still be in rebellion.We need to labor. We need to stand in Holy Places. We need to be living so the Power of the Priesthood will fall upon us. And so that we preach and testify with power and authority from on High. If the people reject the message. They will face the consequences. But we will just need to love them and testify to it more regardless. Because the Gospel is true. Jesus is our Savior and the Lord has Restored the Priesthood and the Church. What else can we do if we love the Lord and want to keep His commandments?I am sure forcing people to live the commandments through the political process was God's plan all along. Sounds like a much more efficient system of getting people to live the commandments. Forget this "let your light so shine before men" approach. If they are not going to live the commandments on their own. we will get the government to pass laws. Like you said, "People will put politics over God." I like it. Let's go with this plan. And like you said, if people get angry with the church for forcing them to follow our beliefs through the laws of the country, then they probably would have rejected the gospel anyway. We are the one's God will save, not them. We are doing what God wants us to do. Oh yeah, we gotta love and testify to them. If they can't feel our love because of our political actions, that is really their problem. Cause we love them are doing this because of that love for them.
Recommended Posts