Church Launches New Website On Preserving Religious Freedom

[Sleeper Cell]

 

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.

If hospitals owned by pacifist churches were being forced to pay money that was specifically earmarked to support the military, you might have a point. But you are talking about an income tax on individuals which is not specifically earmarked for any particular use.. Nobody is arguing that Catholic individuals shouldn’t have to pay income taxes into the general fund, because some of that money might be used for birth control.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

This is the propaganda the pseudo-conservatives are using to try and instill fear. It's truly a silly tactic bought and sold in ignorance. We "homo fascists" are persecuting Christians. Purely unmitigated and utter rot.

[california boy]

This is the propaganda the pseudo-conservatives are using to try and instill fear. It's truly a silly tactic bought and sold in ignorance. We "homo fascists" are persecuting Christians. Purely unmitigated and utter rot.

My feelings exactly.

 

We have been talking about religious persecution for 7 pages now.  Yet not a single post on anyone not being allowed to practice his religious beliefs, only posts where individuals could not impose those beliefs on another person or could not discriminate against under the federal laws which have been in existence since the 60's.

 

Just how real is this religious persecution that you and others seem to be clamoring about?  The evidence so far has been religion trying to claim some kind of victim hood without any examples on why they can legitimately claim such persecution.  Yet there are many examples of instances where religion is being used to discriminate against others.

[telnetd]

Here's a new array of Internet resources just launched by the Church on preservation of religious freedom.

 

Clearly, the slow erosion of religious liberties, both in the United States and abroad, is weighing heavily on the minds of the prophets and the apostles. This is a matter that transcends partisan politics and gets at the very core of what we profess and do as Latter-day Saints. It behooves each of us to learn what the Brethren are saying and to do what we can in the effort to protect our liberties in this regard.

 

Maybe its part of the destiny Jesus spoke about - "Nevertheless when

the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

 

Gail

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe its part of the destiny Jesus spoke about - "Nevertheless when

the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

 

Gail

I believe the answer to that question is yes. The church of the Lamb of God will be upon all the face of the earth, but its numbers will be relatively few due to the influence of the church of the devil, just as Nephi beheld in vision.

 

In the midst of it all, the faithful will find safety by standing in holy places, which places will be accessible to all who seek them through personal righteousness.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

Agreed that the State isn't required to recognize as valid any religious ceremony not conducted under its authority. So have the State out of the relgious ceremony business all together. Make them all just a legally enforceable contract. Then allow the churches to any religious cereemony they want.

[Damien the Leper]

Agreed that the State isn't required to recognize as valid any religious ceremony not conducted under its authority. So have the State out of the relgious ceremony business all together. Make them all just a legally enforceable contract. Then allow the churches to any religious cereemony they want.

And again, religion doesn't own the rights to determine what is or what is not a marital union nor does it have exclusive rights on the term marriage itself. Its a self defeating game.

The religions can have religious marriages and the government can perform civil marriages. Religious right that continually nags about the use of the word marriage to define a couple's union is ridiculous. They want to legislate that marriage, the word, can be only applicable to male/female relationships. But heaven forbid if the government were to legislate that ceremonies performed by them are marriages and any other is merely a religious union that is not recognised by the government. It's all rather silly still.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

The government doesn't recognize any religious ceremony as valid. What it does do is authorize a variety of people to solemnize a contract to marry.

[Damien the Leper]

The government doesn't recognize any religious ceremony as valid. What it does do is authorize a variety of people to solemnize a contract to marry.

That's fine. Then the religions need to get off their soap box about the word and who is entitled to use the word to define their relationship. It's not that difficult. Again, religion doesn't own the copyright or legal details to the term marriage and they need to get over it.

[thesometimesaint]

My feelings exactly.

 

We have been talking about religious persecution for 7 pages now.  Yet not a single post on anyone not being allowed to practice his religious beliefs, only posts where individuals could not impose those beliefs on another person or could not discriminate against under the federal laws which have been in existence since the 60's.

 

Just how real is this religious persecution that you and others seem to be clamoring about?  The evidence so far has been religion trying to claim some kind of victim hood without any examples on why they can legitimately claim such persecution.  Yet there are many examples of instances where religion is being used to discriminate against others.

 

I don't feel persecuted, but I probably would have felt differently if I lived in Utah of the mid to late 1800's.

 

We are allowed to believe of not believe as we choose. Actions OTOH may be circumscibed by law. IE; All Christrians believe in Blood Atonement. They just limit it to the one that happened some 2000 years ago.

 

I guess you'd have to ask the Muslim communities here in America about that.

 

Religions by defintion are allowed to descriminate. IE; They don't have to allow a nonbeliever to join their religion. What the law must do, here in America, is show an overriding public good in curtailing any religious activity. IE; Church buildings must meet certain fire code, water, code health, occupancy code, and structural demands in order for the members to safely meet.

[thesometimesaint]

That's fine. Then the religions need to get off their soap box about the word and who is entitled to use the word to define their relationship. It's not that difficult. Again, religion doesn't own the copyright or legal details to the term marriage and they need to get over it.

 

Why do they have to get off their soap boxes? They, as every one else, has the right to pontificate on any idea they so choose. Making any religious idea a function of law is a different question.

[Damien the Leper]

Why do they have to get off their soap boxes? They, as every one else, has the right to pontificate on any idea they so choose. Making any religious idea a function of law is a different question.

Meh, whatever. Nag and complain all they want. It won't make a difference in the end.

[cdowis]

 

We have been talking about religious persecution for 7 pages now.  Yet not a single post on anyone not being allowed to practice his religious beliefs, only posts where individuals could not impose those beliefs on another person or could not discriminate against under the federal laws which have been in existence since the 60's.

 

 

 

I have a feeling this is going to get political.  For example, giving a prayer in an open meeting -- is that freedom of speech and exercise of my religion, or is that "imposing" my belief on someone else.

 

Is not forbidding me to give a prayer imposing your secularism on me?  Am I not offended by your denial for opening a meeting with pray.

 

"The two women who brought the lawsuit against the Town of Greece allege that hearing Christian prayers at town board meetings hurt their feelings and offended them." 

http://aclj.org/public-prayer/assault-public-prayer-supreme-court-town-greece-v-galloway

 

Look, I am offended by many things -- I am offended by chewing gum, short skirts and shorts, by tatoos.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

It will come down to court battles. This really is not that hard to see. Only if some one is purposely not looking will they not see it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

No it wouldn't.  I think I am inagreement with TSS. I think you could call it a domestic partnership to handle those things. But there are not additional benefits employed to those that enter into a domestic partnership. It would be for legal things only.

[rockpond]

It will come down to court battles. This really is not that hard to see. Only if some one is purposely not looking will they not see it.

 

I agree that it will come down to court battles.  But I'm not sure what you are saying is hard to see.  My point was this:  

 

"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]

Meh, whatever. Nag and complain all they want. It won't make a difference in the end.

 

Never said it would or even should. Anyone(group) should be able to voice any opinion on what they believe is sin. Functions of law are another question.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree that it will come down to court battles.  But I'm not sure what you are saying is hard to see.  My point was this:  

 

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

 

It doesn't as far as I can tell. Though we might get into trouble with requiring churches to perform legally binding gay marriage.

[rockpond]

It doesn't as far as I can tell. Though we might get into trouble with requiring churches to perform legally binding gay marriage.

 

I can't speak to every church but the Catholics, for example, have been restricting who they will and won't marry since our nation was born, and I'm not aware of them being forced to perform marriages outside of those parameters.

 

Our bishops are restricted (by our own arbitrary policies) in what marriages they can perform and I don't think that has been challenged.

 

And, of course, our we have all kinds of restrictions in place as to who can be married in our temples... since Nauvoo.  Never successfully challenged.

[toon]

I have a feeling this is going to get political.  For example, giving a prayer in an open meeting -- is that freedom of speech and exercise of my religion, or is that "imposing" my belief on someone else.

 

Is not forbidding me to give a prayer imposing your secularism on me?  Am I not offended by your denial for opening a meeting with pray.

 

"The two women who brought the lawsuit against the Town of Greece allege that hearing Christian prayers at town board meetings hurt their feelings and offended them." 

http://aclj.org/public-prayer/assault-public-prayer-supreme-court-town-greece-v-galloway

 

Look, I am offended by many things -- I am offended by chewing gum, short skirts and shorts, by tatoos.

 

I have a feeling this is going to get political.  For example, giving a prayer in an open meeting -- is that freedom of speech and exercise of my religion, or is that "imposing" my belief on someone else.

 

Is not forbidding me to give a prayer imposing your secularism on me?  Am I not offended by your denial for opening a meeting with pray.

 

"The two women who brought the lawsuit against the Town of Greece allege that hearing Christian prayers at town board meetings hurt their feelings and offended them." 

http://aclj.org/public-prayer/assault-public-prayer-supreme-court-town-greece-v-galloway

 

Look, I am offended by many things -- I am offended by chewing gum, short skirts and shorts, by tatoos.

 

The Greece v. Galloway case is not about an individual's ability to give a prayer at an open meeting.  And it's definitely not about whether someone is offended by a prayer, Christian or not.

 

As the law currently stands, there's no question that a member of the public is free, during an open comment portion of a town or city council meeting, to offer a public prayer instead of or in addition to commenting on need for a traffic light at a particular intersection.  And there's no question that an individual member of the town or city council, during the council member comment portion of that meeting, can also offer a prayer.

 

I don't believe there's a restriction on the ability of the town or city to open its meetings with an insiprational thought, which from time to time depending on who has been asked to offer the thought, may take the form of a prayer.  (This may be a problem if this is really a subterfuge for prayer, such as a situation where the only people ever asked to give the insprirational thought just happen to be local pastors and the understanding is that whoever asked will give a prayer.)

 

Rather, it seems the issue was that town council meetings were regularly opened with prayers.  The people invited to give the prayer were not always Christrian.  The only common thread was that they were always prayers.  In other words, the issue was not whether the polikcy favored the religion of those invited to pray -- it was instead that the policy favored the religious practice of invoking divine guidance for the meeting, etc.

 

It's certainly an interesting case.

 

I have a hard time seeing, however, how this policy/practice, if held unconstitutional, infringes on anyone's religious liberties. Again, people would still be free to pray in such meetings, just not part of a formal policy or practice of beginning such meetings with a prayer.

[california boy]

I have a feeling this is going to get political.  For example, giving a prayer in an open meeting -- is that freedom of speech and exercise of my religion, or is that "imposing" my belief on someone else.

 

Is not forbidding me to give a prayer imposing your secularism on me?  Am I not offended by your denial for opening a meeting with pray.

 

"The two women who brought the lawsuit against the Town of Greece allege that hearing Christian prayers at town board meetings hurt their feelings and offended them." 

http://aclj.org/public-prayer/assault-public-prayer-supreme-court-town-greece-v-galloway

 

Look, I am offended by many things -- I am offended by chewing gum, short skirts and shorts, by tatoos.

You can pray in any meeting you want.  There are no laws about not praying anywhere or any time.  Just do it silently.  As far as I know every Christian church teaches that silent prayers still reach God's ears.  As Brigham Young counseled church members  "Pray in your heart all of the time, and on your knees some of the time."

 

You can't use a public meeting to impose your prayer on others.  Are you praying to God?  Then pray away, to Him only, and not to those attending the meeting.  Is the purpose of the prayer so that others can hear your prayer or is it so God can hear your prayer?  In public places, your prayer should be between you and your God.  Are you praying on behalf of those attending the meeting so they can hear your prayer as well?  Then the meeting should be at your church where everyone wishes such an invocation.

 

Freedom of religion has never met imposing religious beliefs on others.  This is a long held legal and constitutional view on public prayer.  It is not in any form some kind of persecution of Christians.  Now if the government prohibited vocal prayers in own home or at your own church and dragging you to a lions den, then yes, that would be religious persecution.

[toon]

You can pray in any meeting you want.  There are no laws about not praying anywhere or any time.  Just do it silently.  As far as I know every Christian church teaches that silent prayers still reach God's ears.  As Brigham Young counseled church members  "Pray in your heart all of the time, and on your knees some of the time."

 

You can't use a public meeting to impose your prayer on others.  Are you praying to God?  Then pray away, to Him only, and not to those attending the meeting.  Is the purpose of the prayer so that others can hear your prayer or is it so God can hear your prayer?  In public places, your prayer should be between you and your God.  Are you praying on behalf of those attending the meeting so they can hear your prayer as well?  Then the meeting should be at your church where everyone wishes such an invocation.

 

Freedom of religion has never met imposing religious beliefs on others.  This is a long held legal and constitutional view on public prayer.  It is not in any form some kind of persecution of Christians.  Now if the government prohibited vocal prayers in own home or at your own church and dragging you to a lions den, then yes, that would be religious persecution.

 

It's not merely a matter of praying in slience.  As I posted above, you can pray out loud.  It just depends upon the underlying circumstances.

 

On one end, it's clear that a member of the public during a public comment portion of a city council meeting can choose to spend his or her allotted time praying that a Christian God (or any other higher power) to guide and inspire the elected leaders and other officials during the meeting.

 

On the other extreme, it's clear that a city cannot reserve an exclusive spot on the agenda of a city council meeting for a Christian prayer.

 

It's the cases in the middle where it gets interesting, at least in part because that's where there are competing interests and arguably overlapping rights.

 

The Town of Greece case mentioned above seems to be an attempt to push the line a little closer to allowing an official prayer, with the hope that the current Supreme Court will be receptive to that agenda.  That said, I don't think the current Supreme Court has the votes to allow the extreme where a spot on the agenda was set aside for an exclusively denominational prayer.

[california boy]

It's not merely a matter of praying in slience.  As I posted above, you can pray out loud.  It just depends upon the underlying circumstances.

 

On one end, it's clear that a member of the public during a public comment portion of a city council meeting can choose to spend his or her allotted time praying that a Christian God (or any other higher power) to guide and inspire the elected leaders and other officials during the meeting.

 

On the other extreme, it's clear that a city cannot reserve an exclusive spot on the agenda of a city council meeting for a Christian prayer.

 

It's the cases in the middle where it gets interesting, at least in part because that's where there are competing interests and arguably overlapping rights.

 

The Town of Greece case mentioned above seems to be an attempt to push the line a little closer to allowing an official prayer, with the hope that the current Supreme Court will be receptive to that agenda.  That said, I don't think the current Supreme Court has the votes to allow the extreme where a spot on the agenda was set aside for an exclusively denominational prayer.

A more basic question is why in the world do we need a city council meeting to begin with a prayer?  It just seems to me that the only reason for beginning a public meeting with prayer os so that Christians can insert their belief into the meeting.  It is kind of a control issue, telling others that they are not really a part of this meeting, it is only for "God fearing" citizens.  

 

Is a prayer really necessary to conduct city business?  I would love to hear from someone who thinks opening a city council meeting with prayer is a good idea to explain why.  And explain how if a city council meeting does not start with a prayer, then that is proof that Christians are being persecuted.

[Kevin Christensen]

After all, does not the constitution proclaim freedom from speech? Or just freedom from religious speech? Or is it freedom of politically correct speech? Freedom from being disapproved of by people whose beliefs and attitudes offend my personal values and the values of those Supreme Court Justices who give me power to enforce my freedom to suppress others? After all, how can anyone truly be free if exposed to the opinions or beliefs of others?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[california boy]

After all, does not the constitution proclaim freedom from speech? Or just freedom from religious speech? Or is it freedom of politically correct speech? Freedom from being disapproved of by people whose beliefs and attitudes offend my personal values and the values of those Supreme Court Justices who give me power to enforce my freedom to suppress others? After all, how can anyone truly be free if exposed to the opinions or beliefs of others?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

It is these kinds of statements that make religious people think that they can do whatever they want and to heck with anyone else.  Where did you get the idea that free speech means you can say WHAT ever you want WHERE ever you want WHEN ever you want.  Freedom of speech means you can indeed say just about anything you want without the fear of being thrown in jail for what you say.  It does NOT mean you can say anything you want where ever you want when ever you want.

 

Can a sales representative from WalMart go into Macy's and take hold of the PA system to announce sales events at their store?  Can a citizen go into the senate chambers when they are in session and preach a sermon on the Adam-God theory when ever they want?  Can a Catholic priest walk into General Conference while it is being broadcast and preach about baptizing infants?  Can a Christian interrupt a television sitcom to read their own dialogue?  Can you stand up in the middle of a movie theater with a bullhorn to deliver a prayer when a couple kisses on screen?  Do you need more examples or do you now understand the principle of free speech.  No one is persecuting Christians just because they can not say whatever they went when ever they want where ever they want.  Sorry.

 

 

 

And you still did not answer my question on why it is absolutely necessary to have a prayer in order to conduct city business.  And if you do feel like city business should always be prayed over, why not just stand out in front of the building and pray as long as you want.  God will hear your prayer whether you are inside the meeting or standing outside.  You could pray for 24 hours and no one would arrest you.  Now that is free speech and is what makes America a land of liberty.  Forcing your beliefs on others is not liberty.