Church Launches New Website On Preserving Religious Freedom

[Scott Lloyd]

Well I just reread every post you made on this thread.  I still do not see many examples of "threats to religious freedoms".  I am certainly one who passionately fight for religious freedom.  But so far, I have found little evidence of any threats.  As I have commented previously, the only examples I have found are people using "religious belief" to excuse their discrimination against gays. If this is indeed such a serious issue, there should be a ton of examples where religious freedom has been threatened.  So far I am only hearing crickets.  I am certainly willing to look at any evidence you wish to present.  In doing so, please provide the source material so I can read the context of what has happened.

 

Thanks for your help in increasing my understanding of this issue.

My purpose in starting the thread is to draw attention to the fact that the Church leaders have put up web resources on the topic. I have no doubt they feel there are abundant examples.

 

I have no time or inclination at the moment to research it for you. You are free to minimize it if you like.

 

Edited to add:

 

After posting the above, I repented and decided I could at least take a half-minute to do a Google search. This website was the first on a list of more than 7 million returned hits for the search term "threats to religious freedom."

 

I present it for what it's worth.

[rockpond]

Here's the latest Deseret News article...

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586460/LDS-join-growing-chorus-of-faiths-asking-followers-to-defend-religious-liberty.html

 

I still don't understand the constant references to same gender marriage.  How can we go out and fight for religious liberty while simultaneously saying that we don't support the freedom of churches who believe in same gender unions to have their marriages legally recognized in the same way that our marriages are.

[Analytics]

Let’s look at a specific example.  Let’s say that every Sunday, you go to your place of worship where you perform the rites of your religion and socialize with like-minded believers.  You give them 10% of your money, which is tax deductible.

 

I do the same thing.  Following the dictates of my own conscience, I go to my place of worship and perform the rites of my religion and socialize with like-minded people.  I give 10% of my money to my place of worship too, but it is not tax deductible.

 

Does the fact that the money you spend on your religion is tax deductible while the money I spend on mine is not constitute a flagrant violation of freedom of religion?

 

If I really have the freedom to worship “how, where, or what I may”, how come the money I contribute to the Deer Creek Golf Club isn’t tax deductible but the money you give to your church is? 

[california boy]

My purpose in starting the thread is to draw attention to the fact that the Church leaders have put up web resources on the topic. I have no doubt they feel there are abundant examples.

 

I have no time or inclination at the moment to research it for you. You are free to minimize it if you like.

 

Edited to add:

 

After posting the above, I repented and decided I could at least take a half-minute to do a Google search. This website was the first on a list of more than 7 million returned hits for the search term "threats to religious freedom."

 

I present it for what it's worth.

I respectfully read the link you provided and like most of the hysteria about this subject, there was no actual cases presented.  It did "allude" to the recent firestorm about Catholic employers being required to provide birth control coverage.  But as yet, I have never read a case where any Catholic was forced by the government or any other organization to take birth control pills.  They seem to have been allowed to practice their own personal religion according to their beliefs.  

 

I don't quite understand why those that want to whip up this frenzy of persecution of religion can not understand the difference between practicing one's religion and being required as an employer to provide services to their employees.  Is religious liberty threatened when a Mormon is required to serve coffee to patrons of a restaurant they work at?  is religious liberty threatened when a Muslin is forced to ring up a can of ham at the grocery store?  Is religious freedom threatened when a Catholic has to ring up a box of condoms?  

 

Religious freedom means you can practice your religion freely.  When you own a business that serves the public or employs the public, it does not mean you can decide what principles of your religion others should be forced to practice.

 

The other "religious attacks" in the link provided no actual source material and as I Googled them for more information, they all seemed to be simply quoting from other right winged blogs without ANY of them providing the actual source that they make their assertions from.

 

While Google can get you quotes from somewhere on the internet, it does not mean that those quotes have any accuracy.  Most of the time it is people just venting or quoting from other people who make some claim.  Prove me wrong and provide some actual examples of religious persecution.  Your Google comment was just a lazy way of you not actually answering my question.  If you have no interest in answering such a basic question on a thread you started, then why the heck did you bother starting this thread?

 

As far as the church setting up a web site on this issue, I support them in doing that very thing.  It does not mean however that there is currently a real threat to religious freedom.  The complete lack of examples on this thread point more strongly to the position that no such threat exists.  But hey, if I am wrong on this subject, I would love for anyone to provide at least a handful of examples that justify this attitude with some actual source reference rather than blogged opinions.  Still nothing but crickets.

[Analytics]

I respectfully read the link you provided and like most of the hysteria about this subject, there was no actual cases presented.  It did "allude" to the recent firestorm about Catholic employers being required to provide birth control coverage.  But as yet, I have never read a case where any Catholic was forced by the government or any other organization to take birth control pills.  They seem to have been allowed to practice their own personal religion according to their beliefs.

 

The top example of a threat to religious liberty at www.firstamericanfreedom.com is "the HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortioninducing drugs. The mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services forces religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching.”

 

First, it is flat-out false that the HHS mandates “contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.”  It’s true that such things need to be included as benefits in health plans in order for those health plans to receive preferred treatment from the government, but it doesn’t force anybody to actually use those benefits, and if an organization doesn’t want to offer them, it doesn’t have to.

 

If an employer chooses to offer health insurance to their employees, is it a violation of religious freedom to require that the coverage includes benefits for contraceptives?  The argument is that it is forcing these organizations to facilitate and fund something they morally disagree with.  If you make that claim, I’ll start taking you seriously as soon as you say it is a violation of religious freedom to force pacifists to pay taxes that are used to fund the military.

[Analytics]

If you'll indulge me fleshing this out a little more, the actuarial consulting firm Milliman recently released a report where they say that under the Affordable Care Act, the total benefit cost of contraception will be about $2.55 pmpm (per member, per month). A couple of things should be remembered:

 

1. If a Catholic organization self-insurs, it will only be paying for the contraception benefits that its employees actually use. So if they only hire good Catholics who don't take the pill, the total cost will be zero.
    
2. If their employees actually do use contraception, the $2.55 pmpm they will be paying will be offset by savings associated with fewer pregnancies. So, assuming that their employees are bad Catholics who use these benefits, the net cost will actually be less than $2.55.

 

So Catholics think their religious liberties are being jepordized because they might have to pay for about $30 worth of contraceptives a year.

 

In contrast, if you divide the $680 billion U.S. defense budget by 300 million citizens, we spend over $2,000 a year on the military for every man, woman, and child in the country.

 

Which is a bigger grievance to religious freedom? Making a Catholic pay on average $30 a year for birth control, or making a Quaker pay on average $2,000 a year for the military?

 

Likewise, if two people make $100,000 each, but one spends $10,000 a year on his Christian religion and the other spends $10,000 a year on his golf religion, the Christian's taxes will be about $2,000 less than the golfers.  Tax professionals would agree that this constitutes a $2,000 a year government subsidy for the Christian and his religion. Which is a bigger grievance to religious freedom? Making a Catholic pay $30 a year for birth control, or making a non-religious tax payer subsidize people with tax-deductible religions to the tune of $2000 a year?

[Deborah]

I do the same thing.  Following the dictates of my own conscience, I go to my place of worship and perform the rites of my religion and socialize with like-minded people.  I give 10% of my money to my place of worship too, but it is not tax deductible.

 

So why not get a receipt and declare it as a deduction. Even contributing to something like Good Will you can get a receipt for what you think the value is and claim it as a deduction.

[Analytics]

So why not get a receipt and declare it as a deduction. Even contributing to something like Good Will you can get a receipt for what you think the value is and claim it as a deduction.

 

Because that would be breaking the law.  In the United States, some religions (such as Mormonism) receive favorable tax treatment, while others (such as Golf) do not. 

 

If I deducted my golf expenses on the grounds that golf is my religion and then had a big legal battle with the IRS, would you expect the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to file a friend-of-the-court brief on my behalf about how true religious freedom implies that all religions and non-religions should receive the same tax treatment and benefits from the government?

[thesometimesaint]

All you have to do is get golf to be listed as a recognized religion with a tax number.

[Deborah]

I know people who donate to their churches. Their donations are tax exempt if you are donating to a tax exempt entity. Golf isn't tax exempt.

[Analytics]

All you have to do is get golf to be listed as a recognized religion with a tax number.

 

 

I know people who donate to their churches. Their donations are tax exempt if you are donating to a tax exempt entity. Golf isn't tax exempt.

 

That's my point--getting the IRS to recognize golf as a religion is unlikely.  That being the case, golf-worshipers belong to a second-class religion which is financially penalized by society at order of magnitude more severe that the Catholic businesses that are whining about paying insurance premiums for birth control against their will.

[Scott Lloyd]

Because that would be breaking the law.  In the United States, some religions (such as Mormonism) receive favorable tax treatment, while others (such as Golf) do not. 

 

If I deducted my golf expenses on the grounds that golf is my religion and then had a big legal battle with the IRS, would you expect the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to file a friend-of-the-court brief on my behalf about how true religious freedom implies that all religions and non-religions should receive the same tax treatment and benefits from the government?

It's not up to the Church of Jesus Christ to help you in your frivolous and meritless litigation just because its members receive the tax breaks to which they are entitled by law.

[Analytics]

It's not up to the Church of Jesus Christ to help you in your frivolous and meritless litigation just because its members receive the tax breaks to which they are entitled by law.

 

I am surprised that you call this frivolous. After all, the disfavored tax treatment to which golf worshipers are subjected harms them financially an order magnitude more than the $30 a year Catholics have to pay for the unwanted contraception benefit of their mandated health insurance, and that issue is one for which the Mormon Church is willing to go to the mat.

 

Anyway, I never implied that standing up for people with second-class religions was the Mormon Church's responsibility. However, if they were serious about defending religious liberty for everyone, it is a cause they would eagarly take up. Of course since they are the ones benefiting from the way the law favors their religion over mine, I wouldn't expect them to. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here's the latest Deseret News article...

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865586460/LDS-join-growing-chorus-of-faiths-asking-followers-to-defend-religious-liberty.html

 

I still don't understand the constant references to same gender marriage.  How can we go out and fight for religious liberty while simultaneously saying that we don't support the freedom of churches who believe in same gender unions to have their marriages legally recognized in the same way that our marriages are.

Ah there in lies the rub. When does your religous beliefs trump mine? I am for government getting out of hte marriage business all together. Would you support such a measure? IF not why not? I would it would be "fair". No one would recieve special treatment from the government for their marriage.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's my point--getting the IRS to recognize golf as a religion is unlikely.  That being the case, golf-worshipers belong to a second-class religion which is financially penalized by society at order of magnitude more severe that the Catholic businesses that are whining about paying insurance premiums for birth control against their will.

We sould outlaw discrimination in all its forms. Can you imaging what a freaking nutty world that would look like?

[rockpond]

Ah there in lies the rub. When does your religous beliefs trump mine? I am for government getting out of hte marriage business all together. Would you support such a measure? IF not why not? I would it would be "fair". No one would recieve special treatment from the government for their marriage.

 

Why do one's beliefs have to trump another's on this issue?  Churches that believe in only man/woman marriage can perform and recognize those marriages.  Churches that believe in both opposite & same gender marriages can perform and recognize those marriages.

 

I still don't understand how fighting to prohibit some churches from performing legally binding gay marriages gels with fighting to protect religious liberty.

[thesometimesaint]

That's my point--getting the IRS to recognize golf as a religion is unlikely.  That being the case, golf-worshipers belong to a second-class religion which is financially penalized by society at order of magnitude more severe that the Catholic businesses that are whining about paying insurance premiums for birth control against their will.

 

More Church members worship at the Church of the NFL. Particularly on Super Bowl Sunday.

[cdowis]

Ah there in lies the rub. When does your religous beliefs trump mine? I am for government getting out of hte marriage business all together. Would you support such a measure? IF not why not? I would it would be "fair". No one would recieve special treatment from the government for their marriage.

 

 

That would be the end of marriage in society.  Marriage status is pervasive in our legal system -- ownership, inheritance, taxes, employer benefits.  There would be utter chaos.

[thesometimesaint]

Ah there in lies the rub. When does your religous beliefs trump mine? I am for government getting out of hte marriage business all together. Would you support such a measure? IF not why not? I would it would be "fair". No one would recieve special treatment from the government for their marriage.

 

I support getting governments out of the marrying business altogether. Make them all Domestic Partnerships(A legally enforable contract). Then let the churches marry whomever they want.

[Damien the Leper]

Marriage is a religious rite and the government has no role to play on that field. They do control civil unions and they can allow those for whomever they choose. 

 

So religious institutions say. The government as the actual entity with any real power can dictate whether or not it will allow for marriages based on the vote of citizens. Religion no more owns the rite of marriage any more than the gays own rainbows.

 

I see no reason why we don't allow religion, any and all religions, in schools, business, and government. If people want it I see no problem with it. If someone has a problem with it; don't listen to the bloody 2 minutes it takes to say a prayer.

 

Secular institutions are to remain as such. I know of schools that have Bible clubs that are organized by and for students. That is sufficient enough.

 

That prayer can and should be a Muslim, Hindi, any Christian church/denomination, or any other religion that wants to pray. The prayer should be open to any group that wants it and no one gets to limit who does it.

 

I agree.

 

This is how a puny minority is literally dismantling our social structure; preventing any form of religion form being practiced in schools, on government property, and any where else. All because some twit does want to hear a Christmas carol, see a Star of David, or God forbid, hear that prayer. Oh yeah, let's ride this buggy down into hell for the sake of ...oh, I better step off the ole soap box before I start spitting.

 

Perhaps, then, you would like for governmental officials to come into churches and perform legislative work as it seems that you don't much care for an actual separation of church and state. And no, I'm not talking about the separation we have in place at this time.

 

If a student wants to wear religious emblems then so be it. If a student wants to wear atheist apparrell then so be it. It doesn't matter.

 

The social structure isn't being dismantled by secular society. That is merely crying wolf or playing victim. It will get no sympathy from me.

 

I did see a video of some evangelical nut who called the LGBT activists "homo fascists" simply because they oppose his pseudo-conservative perspective on marriage. Apparently gay marriage is infringing on religious liberty and all that mess. Such silly childishness. The ilk who buy into this kind of propaganda are a sad and unfortunate group.

[Damien the Leper]

I support getting governments out of the marrying business altogether. Make them all Domestic Partnerships(A legally enforable contract). Then let the churches marry whomever they want.

 

But if the couple has a religious ceremony then the government is not required to recognise it as a valid ceremony and therefore can withhold rights granted to those whose marital statuses it does recognise. Again, no one gets to have their cake and eat it too.

[foster]

Stormride you are not familiar with religion in public schools in the United States are you? Have you ever read about the Mormon "twit" (your word) who got prayer banned from public school activities in the United States?

[thesometimesaint]

The case against school mandated prayer is dated at least to 1962.

https://www.au.org/resources/publications/prayer-and-the-public-schools

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Murray+v.+Curlett

Edward L. Schempp was a Unitarian

[foster]

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe ~ 2000

[california boy]

Prayer has never been outlawed in schools.  I prayed regularly all through school right before every test and many times in between.  No one ever stopped me from doing so.  I never felt the necessity to have any of these prayers vocally or for the enjoyment of my other classmates.  Anyone who feels that a prayer in school has to be vocal is forgetting that they are praying to God and not the classroom.  To make this issue some kind of religious persecution is ridiculous and only shows a complete lacu of understanding about what prayer is about.