Church Launches New Website On Preserving Religious Freedom

[Kenngo1969]

Mere Equal Protection. ...

Ah.  I see.  So the free exercise and disestablishment clauses in the First Amendment were actually superfluous.  Thanks for clearing that up!

[Kenngo1969]

I think you misunderstand Elder Oaks

"Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution."

He did not say the framers establish more freedom for religion than say speech or the 4th Amendment. He is giving his opinion.

What would be your reasoning that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not apply to business proprietor whose religious beliefs are that Mormons are of the devil?

OK.  If you want to read the clause, "Surely the [Framers intended] ..." in his speech to mean, "That's what they wanted, but they may or may not have actually have crafted the First Amendment to actually do that," that's your prerogative.  That's inconsistent with everything I've ever learned about legal construction and legislative intent, but to each, his or her own.

 

As for your hypothetical of my being denied service on religious grounds, the proprietor is welcome to believe whatever he likes about my religion.  He's even welcome to run his business accordingly.  You don't put a time frame on your hypothetical, so I'll assume these events occurred in the present day. (As I pointed out in another thread, anti-Mormonism seems to be the last remaining fashionable, socially acceptable prejudice.) 

 

In turn, I am welcome to "vote with my feet" and do business elsewhere, to go on every Web site I can find which posts business reviews and give him a justifiably extremely negative and harshly critical review.  I'll call my local consumer affairs news reporter and other news outlets and tell them about my experience.  I'll post an account of the experience on my Blog (and possibly elsewhere).  Consistent with the "3/11 Rule" (which says that if a [potential] customer has a positive experience at a business, on average, he's likely to tell three people, while if he has a negative experience at that same business, he's likely to tell eleven people), I'll tell everyone I can find (which will be much more than eleven people) about my experience. 

 

And if 99% of those people manifest indifference to my little "Anti-ACME Crusade," that's fine: whatever anyone else thinks, I'm likely to find much more receptive ears among my fellow Mormons, who are much more likely to heed my advice anyway.  

[Deborah]

Believe me religion is alive and well in this country. Of course any can decide to be offended. However as Brigham Young said. “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”.

 

So you think the GA's are wrong to be concerned. I wonder if they know something you don't.

[emarkp]

Too little, too late.  Church leadership congratulated Obama on reelection, after his (and Reid's) slander of Romney, just like they congratulated Hitler on his rise to power.

 

America is done, the majority have chosen wickedness.  Expect it to be destroyed quickly.  I just wish the prophets could have warned me not to raise children to see the collapse.

 

The wickedness of the left won't rest until temple marriages include same-sex couples.  If we shut it down, they'll just take over the building and do it themselves.

 

I'd suggest all righteous people flee, but where to?

[Deborah]

 just like they congratulated Hitler on his rise to power.

 

CFR.

 

I actually think this issue of religious freedom has been a concern for many years. I remember a case years ago where the church through its attorney (I believe it was Dallin Oaks) was supporting the rights of a small religious group to practice it's belief. I was in North Carolina at the time so it may have been just a local issue.

 

I disagree that the majority have chosen wickedness. I think at this point we are pretty evenly divided. I do think that the people have been fooled into choices that they now regret. I think we are seeing a resurgence of patriotism and love of freedom as it becomes more obvious that our rights are being destroyed. Look at what happened in Colorado.

[Stone holm]

I agree.  "Thou shalt not kill" is a ridiculous religious principle, and since there isn't much difference between that and, "Anyone who, intentionally and with malice aforethought, kills another human being is guilty of a felony ..." we should simply do away with both.

Murder may be proscribed in the Bible, but that does not make it strictly a religious proscription. Moses was the leader of a theocracy and much of the Old Testament is devoted to establishing the laws and ordinances of a theocracy. America, post revolution, specifically rejected the idea of a theocracy. Our criminal laws and civil laws are expected to be based on secular reasoning. That is why we find the imposition of Sharia law by groups like the Taliban distasteful, and why the attempted use of Christian Fundamentalism as the basis of legislation violates freedom of religion.

[Stone holm]

CFR.

 

I actually think this issue of religious freedom has been a concern for many years. I remember a case years ago where the church through its attorney (I believe it was Dallin Oaks) was supporting the rights of a small religious group to practice it's belief. I was in North Carolina at the time so it may have been just a local issue.

 

I disagree that the majority have chosen wickedness. I think at this point we are pretty evenly divided. I do think that the people have been fooled into choices that they now regret. I think we are seeing a resurgence of patriotism and love of freedom as it becomes more obvious that our rights are being destroyed. Look at what happened in Colorado.

Orrin Hatch attempted with bipartisan support to protect the right of the Native American Church to continue to use peyote in its sacrament, with the Native American Religious Restoration Act, but it got struck down as an establishment of religion.

[Damien the Leper]

The First Amendment provides that there be no laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I support both portions of this clause, and nowhere on this thread have I indicated otherwise, nor do I believe that the Brethren have done so in the newly launched set of Internet resources.

 

And yes, the concept of religious liberty does or should transcend partisan politics -- at least in the United States.

I have not implied that you did. I agree with you that the liberty should. However, religion doesn't belong in politics. Go ahead and vote based on your moral convictions but don't legislate in the name of God.

[Deborah]

Orrin Hatch attempted with bipartisan support to protect the right of the Native American Church to continue to use peyote in its sacrament, with the Native American Religious Restoration Act, but it got struck down as an establishment of religion.

 

How is that an establishment of religion? They have totally lost the meaning of the phrase.

[Tacenda]

Ok, I may be getting myself in hot water here, but some people have said they don't have a whole lot of freedom in the LDS church. Below is just a skim off the top.     

 

http://rationalfaiths.com/tattling-in-zion-shall-we-mend-or-shall-we-falter/

 

We need to stop the meddling into the lives of our own members freedom also. 

[Damien the Leper]

Meddling in the personal lives of the members is a means of control. I do not mean this negatively, but if you're looking for a religion that'll tell you what to do...the LDS church is a good place. Again, that isn't meant to be negative.

[Kenngo1969]

Murder may be proscribed in the Bible, but that does not make it strictly a religious proscription. Moses was the leader of a theocracy and much of the Old Testament is devoted to establishing the laws and ordinances of a theocracy.  Our criminal laws and civil laws are expected to be based on secular reasoning. That is why we find the imposition of Sharia law by groups like the Taliban distasteful, and why the attempted use of Christian Fundamentalism as the basis of legislation violates freedom of religion.

It's true that the proscription of murder is not strictly religious in nature in modern times, but since religious dictates predate civil law by millennia, even most all civil laws (that is to say, civil as opposed to religious, not civil as opposed to criminal) have their ultimate roots in some sort of religious proscription.

America, post revolution, specifically rejected the idea of a theocracy.

 

That's true, but it doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers saw no appropriate role for religion in civic or public life.  That's one reason why John Adams said that the Constitution "was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Our criminal laws and civil laws are expected to be based on secular reasoning. 

 

Again, traced to their roots, most all criminal and many civil laws had their genesis in some sort of religious principle.  You may believe what you like, but there's no escaping that fact.

[Kenngo1969]

Meddling in the personal lives of the members is a means of control. I do not mean this negatively, but if you're looking for a religion that'll tell you what to do...the LDS church is a good place. Again, that isn't meant to be negative.

Dang it, those Commandments are such constraining things, aren't they!

[Damien the Leper]

Dang it, those Commandments are such constraining things, aren't they!

I wouldn't say constraining. I would rather call them guide posts. After all, what is faith without some degree of obedience?

[Kenngo1969]

Too little, too late.  Church leadership congratulated Obama on reelection, after his (and Reid's) slander of Romney ...

 

I agree.  I think President Obama and Senator Reid played hardball during the election.  That's how many elections are won these days.  The truth doesn't matter as much as what a candidate and his or her machine can persuade the American electorate to believe. Governor Romney, lost, in part, because of his failure to grasp this.  You and I might not like it, but that's the way it is.  I suspect that there are some among Church leadership who feel the same way.  Nevertheless, they took the high road, and I think we're all better off for it.  (Would you rather have General Authorities pontificating publicly about the election [and reelection] of a "darkie"?  I sure wouldn't! )

 

... just like they congratulated Hitler on his rise to power.

 

 

I'll issue a second CFR on this.  But if they did, so what?  How do you know it wasn't simply a recognition of political reality rather than any genuine affinity for Hitler or his policies?  Church leaders befriended East German leaders who allowed the killing of anyone who tried to escape East Germany by scaling the Berlin Wall, too.  In the long run, East Germany and the Church were both better for it.

 

America is done, the majority have chosen wickedness.  Expect it to be destroyed quickly.  I just wish the prophets could have warned me not to raise children to see the collapse.

 

 

People have been prophesying such doom and gloom since long before you and I were born.  They'll probably continue to do so long after we're gone.  As concerned as I am about the current direction of the United States and its leadership, I'll still cast my lot here, thanks.  This is where the New Jerusalem is going to be built.

 

The wickedness of the left won't rest until temple marriages include same-sex couples.  If we shut it down, they'll just take over the building and do it themselves.

 

 

Perhaps you're right, and I do share your concern about where we're headed. See http://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/lds-polygamy-and-gay-marriage/, last accessed today.  Nevertheless, I'll continue to advocate, civilly and with kindness and longsuffering, for what I believe is right, even if doing so makes it seem as though I'm simply a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

 

I'd suggest all righteous people flee, but where to? 

 

 

I suggest we all flee to Zion for safety, and stand in holy places.  Fortunately, that means we don't have far to go.  If we can't find Zion where we are, all we have to do is make it.

[Kenngo1969]

I wouldn't say constraining. I would rather call them guide posts. After all, what is faith without some degree of obedience?

As Ted Koppel once so memorably said, they're more than simply The Ten Suggestions.

[Kenngo1969]

Meddling in the personal lives of the members is a means of control. I do not mean this negatively, but if you're looking for a religion that'll tell you what to do...the LDS church is a good place. Again, that isn't meant to be negative.

Nobody can "meddle" in my life without my consent, and I might, indeed, consider such involvement "meddlesome" ... if I lacked a conviction that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have my best interests at heart.  (Besides, I only follow them because of my conviction of Who leads them!)

[Damien the Leper]

Eschatology is of little concern to me. Searching for "signs of the times" is little better than a marijuana smoker who is paranoid about getting busted by the cops. There are more important things to worry about. I remember when I was in high school my seminary teacher friended over Bruce McConkie and the mess of "calling and election made sure". It was obsessive. It is more important to worry about acts of love, charity, mercy and redemption in the here and now and let God sort out all the rest when it is time.

[Damien the Leper]

As Ted Koppel once so memorably said, they're more than simply The Ten Suggestions.

True that. However, it is unfortunate that after they were given that there came exceptions to the rules. Or is it actually unfortunate...

[foster]

Kenngo I am interested in any legislative intent analysis you could provide that shows the framers intended religious persons to be in a position of higher protection than others. And in your analysis would you please distinguish between what the framers intended for Christians v Catholics, Muslim, and Hebrew?

Elder Oaks made a statement of his opinion, he did not discuss, beyond platitudes, legislative intent with his statement. That Freedom of Religion is the First Amendment does not mean religious individuals are to be exempt from laws which are neutral and of general application.

I do not doubt the Brethren are concerned. I do have reservations, as a LDS person who values the Constitution and respects freedom of worship and freedom of non-worship, that in the United States there is a trend of alarm any greater than rhetoric spewed forth from antagonists on either side of the US Political spectrum. I have reservations that religious people should be more protected than non-religious people; consider the irony of wanting special protections for the religious, not creating special rights is main canard used against anti-discrimination regarding sexual orientation; adding insult to injury creating special rights ONLY for religious people excludes everyone else, anti-discrimination regarding sexual orientation protects EVERYONE. Without more direct analysis and statements from the Church Leaders, this issue begs of confirmation bias.

[Damien the Leper]

Nobody can "meddle" in my life without my consent, and I might, indeed, consider such involvement "meddlesome" ... if I lacked a conviction that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have my best interests at heart.  (Besides, I only follow them because of my conviction of Who leads them!)

There is but one parakletos and that is Jesus Christ. To him alone do we confess and receive absolution and forgiveness of our sins. Only Jesus can gauge our worthiness and not a flesh and blood mortal.

[Kenngo1969]

Ok, I may be getting myself in hot water here, but some people have said they don't have a whole lot of freedom in the LDS church. Below is just a skim off the top.     

 

http://rationalfaiths.com/tattling-in-zion-shall-we-mend-or-shall-we-falter/

 

We need to stop the meddling into the lives of our own members freedom also. 

 

Hang on to your pants, Tacenda.  I'm about to surprise them off.    I largely agree with where this sister is coming from.  As a missionary, I was once "turned in" for allegedly swearing in a member's home (and the missionary who turned me in was A President's Pet : although I would have thought that being anointed A President's Pet is not unlike having one's calling and election made sure, last I heard, one of us is still "more active," while the other of us is "less active."  I'll leave it to you to determine who's who. )  For the record, I didn't say what he/they accused me of saying, and when we talked about some months later, he admitted to me that if he hadn't his emotions get carried away after hearing an allegation from members he was fond of, and if he'd known me as well earlier as he did then, he wouldn't have "turned me in."

 

Notwithstanding the old saying, "Every member ... and heck, in my case, every missionary ... a mission president," along with its apparent non-mission corrollary, "Every member a bishop," I believe in the old saying, "Praise publicly, reprove privately."  If I were concerned about what a member is posting on Facebook or elsewhere, I would speak with him or her privately about the matter.  If I still felt that there were cause for concern, I might speak to the Bishop about it.  But expressing a public opinion that (allegedly) runs contrary to the Church's position on an issue isn't (at least in my mind) the same as actively advocating and attempting to develop a following for one's position. 

[Kenngo1969]

There is but one parakletos and that is Jesus Christ. To him alone do we confess and receive absolution and forgiveness of our sins. Only Jesus can gauge our worthiness and not a flesh and blood mortal.

I'm sure this won't come as a shock to you, but I think there's still a role in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Judges in Israel when it comes to serious sins and/or sins which may impact the public perception of the Church.  Confession is meant to facilitate repentance, not to impede it; and its leaders have a responsibility to facilitate healing by those who have been hurt by another's conduct.  I know we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I'm sure we can do so agreeably ... cuz heck, I like you, Val!

[rockpond]

The wickedness of the left won't rest until temple marriages include same-sex couples.  If we shut it down, they'll just take over the building and do it themselves.

 

I love that pinnacle of wickedness that we're worried about is homosexual couples getting married.  Not despots killing people with chemical weapons.  Not poverty or the lack of clean water/food in many parts of the world.  Not a national debt that is unsustainable.  Let's worry about the gays making marital commitments.

 

FYI... We kept blacks out of the temple until OD2, I'm confident that we can keep gays out as long as we want though we might have to give up on having temple sealings recognized as civil marriages... not a big deal.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm sure this won't come as a shock to you, but I think there's still a role in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Judges in Israel when it comes to serious sins and/or sins which may impact the public perception of the Church.  Confession is meant to facilitate repentance, not to impede it; and its leaders have a responsibility to facilitate healing by those who have been hurt by another's conduct.  I know we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I'm sure we can do so agreeably ... cuz heck, I like you, Val!

I like you too, Kenngo. It's not that there isn't a place for "judges". But they do not exercise the authority to gauge worthiness in the same manner as Christ. To Him do we confess and receive forgiveness and there is no other. Confessing sins to a mortal does nothing. Confessing sin to God facillitates healing and other positive consequences.

Christ is not concerned with the public perception of any church. That is nonsense. Christ is concerned with our individual salvation and our willingness to respond to His calls.