Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[Stone holm]

I think what has the Brethren worried is efforts to prevent people of faith -- or faith groups themselves -- from participating in the public dialogue or in the political process. "Freedom of worship" has become a crafty code phrase with a more limited meaning than the broader "freedom of religion." To some people, "freedom of worship" communicates that I can observe whatever religious rituals I want within my own community, so long as I keep it within closed doors. By their thinking, it does not grant me participation in the broader community if that participation is drawn from or related to the religious values I cherish.

 

There is a difference between using religion as a shield, and using religion as a sword.  The Constitution protects us when we are using religion as a shield to protect our right to believe, practice our beliefs, and worship as we choose, and to keep others from foisting their religious beliefs upon us.  The Constitution does not protect us when we are using our religious beliefs to justify legislation which imposes our beliefs and practices upon those who do not believe as we do.  That is the basic concept of the two religion clauses in the First Amendment as applied via the Fourteenth.

[california boy]

There is only one type of person that won't find place in Heaven. It is only those that refuse to repent.

You bring up a very interesting point.

 

Do you think all repentance occurs here on earth? or will there be repentance even after we die? 

 

What if a person had the opportunity to repent in this life but didn't?

 

Do you think many members fully repent of all of their sins in this life?

 

If a gay person repents after he dies, what will be his reward?

[Scott Lloyd]

There is a difference between using religion as a shield, and using religion as a sword.  The Constitution protects us when we are using religion as a shield to protect our right to believe, practice our beliefs, and worship as we choose, and to keep others from foisting their religious beliefs upon us.  The Constitution does not protect us when we are using our religious beliefs to justify legislation which imposes our beliefs and practices upon those who do not believe as we do.  That is the basic concept of the two religion clauses in the First Amendment as applied via the Fourteenth.

I would argue that your (hypothetical) government-enforced attempt to prohibit me from faith-motivated participation in public dialogue and the political process is an infringement upon the free-exercise clause, not to mention an unconstitutional abridgment of my personal freedom of speech (or of the press, as the case may be).

 

That's also what I perceive to be the perspective of the Brethren based upon speeches I have heard.

 

Incidentally, "separation of church and state" is a phrase not found in the Constitution.

 

Moreover, the government does not "respect an establishment of religion" merely by allowing a religious person his First Amendment rights.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

Setting aside your confused sense of irony, in your hasty and unapologetic PC nannying, you continue to misjudge the intent and deliberateness of my comments and my use of the word "perverse."

 

Again, my intent wasn't to inflame or offend, but practical categorization.

 

If people, such as yourself, are inflamed and offended by my practical categorizations, then that is your problem. Not mine. It is this kind of manipulative hypersensitivity and lack of humility that creates the real barriers to receiving the gospel of Christ.

 

Having said this, you have been corrected twice now on your mistaken judgments. If you are genuinely concerned with not inflaming and offending people, then you won't repeat the mistaken judgments yet again.

 

In other words, don't hate me because I don't genuflect to your pop cultural bullying. (And, yes, I am being intentionally ironic).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade loves gays.  Some of his best friends are gay.  He would never say anything to offend them.  He means perversion in the very loving Christ-like way.  Come on Wade, let me give you a hug.  I am sure you met no offense.  

 

Some may find my comments sarcastic, but they are not.  

[california boy]

I think what has the Brethren worried is efforts to prevent people of faith -- or faith groups themselves -- from participating in the public dialogue or in the political process. "Freedom of worship" has become a crafty code phrase with a more limited meaning than the broader "freedom of religion." To some people, "freedom of worship" communicates that I can observe whatever religious rituals I want within my own community, so long as I keep it within closed doors. By their thinking, it does not grant me participation in the broader community if that participation is drawn from or related to the religious values I cherish.

 

It seems lately that there is an increasing cry from the religious right of religious persecution and a "war on christianity"  Yet, when asked, there seems to be little evidence of that.  Churches can engage in as much hate speech as they would like. Westboro Baptist church is a perfect example.  Has the government done anything to curb their language and hate?  If the government wanted or were allowed to silence their remarks don't you think they have ample reason already?  Do you ever in your right mind think that the LDS church would ever come even close to the kind of hate speech spewing out of Westboro?  I think the church is pretty safe for now.

 

As far as political activity, prop 8 was about as active of participation in a political cause any church could possibly do.  The only problems the church had with the government was in breaking some of the tax laws required of all churches in order to keep their tax exemption.  They were fined and the church agreed to pay those fines.  If the church wanted to give up their tax exemption, they would be allowed to be as politically active as they want to be.  

 

In both instances I have mentioned, while the government has done nothing to silence ANY church, public opinion has indeed brought considerable pressure on both organizations.  The public is well within their rights to do so.  It is how our democracy works. Hysteria about the sky falling is of no value.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I understand the Brethren are concerned about the erosion of religious liberties not just in the United States but globally as well.

 

Indeed, though due both to the legacy of freedom in the US and the numbers of Saints and likeminded people there, the Church in America is better placed to do something than it is many other places.

 

It may already be too late then. That the Brethren are raising a call of alarm is enough for me to pay attention.

Yep.

[Rivers]

I think term "hate-speech" is over-used. There is no question that the LDS church preaches love for all people. I can understand that people find some of our teachings to be detestable or even harmful. But hatred and bigotry are false accusations. The church should not take these accusations seriously. However, it wouldn't hurt to hear more talks in conference about love and acceptance.

[wenglund]

Wade loves gays.  Some of his best friends are gay.  He would never say anything to offend them.  He means perversion in the very loving Christ-like way.  Come on Wade, let me give you a hug.  I am sure you met no offense.  

 

Some may find my comments sarcastic, but they are not.  

 

I don't know about sarcasm, but your comments are full of proverbial straw. I used the word "perversion" in a non-emotive way (i.e. as a practical categorization). You and others are mistakenly imposing emotions onto the word. It is little different, in principle, to practically classifying cigarette smoking as a "carcinogenic." The intent isn't to emotionally inflame or offend or as a show of love. It is simply to differentiate cigarette smoking from non-carcinogenic behaviors.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems lately that there is an increasing cry from the religious right of religious persecution and a "war on christianity"  Yet, when asked, there seems to be little evidence of that

 

 

Seems like you make this same claim whenever this topic comes up. And within less than a minute, I can find documentation of instances in which religious liberties are being eroded or infringed upon.

 

Here are some from a Catholic website.

[california boy]

Seems like you make this same claim whenever this topic comes up. And within less than a minute, I can find documentation of instances in which religious liberties are being eroded or infringed upon.

 

Here are some from a Catholic website.

This only confirms what I continually say.  I read through the link you provided.  And once again the Catholic church is crying a "threat to religious freedom".  When asked to provide examples, NONE of the examples listed anything that the Catholic church was prohibited from doing.  If the Catholic church wanted to have a mass or even a meeting at the 9/11 site, there is nothing in the article that said they were prohibited from doing so.  What the Catholic church was using to cry "threat to religious freedom" was not being asked to participate in the GOVERNMENTS commemoration of that event.  Are you really saying that the Catholic church has a constitutional right to speak at any government commemoration?  That is what you call "attack on religion".  

 

All the other examples followed the same PRESUMED right when NONE were a violation of any of their rights.  Does a church have a RIGHT to meet in a government building? I was unaware that the Vatican has any rights on how San Francisco governs.  Is it a threat on religion when a church is not allowed to set up a nativity scene on property that IS NOT THEIRS?  Give me a break.  

 

Not a one of these examples is nothing but a cry of wolf.  If you have a real example of religious persecution by the government, you have YET to provide it.

[california boy]

I don't know about sarcasm, but your comments are full of proverbial straw. I used the word "perversion" in a non-emotive way (i.e. as a practical categorization). You and others are mistakenly imposing emotions onto the word. It is little different, in principle, to practically classifying cigarette smoking as a "carcinogenic." The intent isn't to emotionally inflame or offend or as a show of love. It is simply to differentiate cigarette smoking from non-carcinogenic behaviors.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.  We clearly get that you use preversion in a non-emotional way.  That is why I made the statement about you using it in a Christ-like way.  Not sure how you could miss that from my post.  It is a very righteous way of defining same sex relationships.

[wenglund]

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.  We clearly get that you use preversion in a non-emotional way.  That is why I made the statement about you using it in a Christ-like way.  Not sure how you could miss that from my post.  It is a very righteous way of defining same sex relationships.

 

I see you are going from strewing straw to now feverishly back-peddling. Perhaps in some world views the term "Christ-like" is equated with "matter-of-fact" or "practical categorizations," but not in mine--particularly not if the term "Christ-like" is preceded by the markedly emotive qualifier of "very loving," and couched in the markedly emotive context of "love" and "best friends" and "hugs." Not sure who you think you are fooling.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

I see you are going from strewing straw to now feverishly back-peddling. Perhaps in some world views the term "Christ-like" is equated with "matter-of-fact" or "practical categorizations," but not in mine--particularly not if the term "Christ-like" is preceded by the markedly emotive qualifier of "very loving," and couched in the markedly emotive context of "love" and "best friends" and "hugs." Not sure who you think you are fooling.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well maybe you are right in asserting that your comments were not Christ-like or loving at all.  I guess only you can be a judge of that.  I was giving you the benefit of doubt and hoping they were.  Sorry.

[slamarwi]

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.  We clearly get that you use preversion in a non-emotional way.  That is why I made the statement about you using it in a Christ-like way.  Not sure how you could miss that from my post.  It is a very righteous way of defining same sex relationships.

There are so many words that could be used to describe SSM and homosexuality that really would be hate speech, perversion however, is not one of them.

 

I realize it may be offensive since the goal for LGBT community is to be seen as "sexually normal."  It's unfortunate that George Orwell's "newspeak" has become a reality and that we can't use the proper terminology to describe factual behavior.

 

I'm hopeful "thick-skinned" hasn't been removed from the dictionary. We could all benefit from it.

[Stone holm]

I would argue that your (hypothetical) government-enforced attempt to prohibit me from faith-motivated participation in public dialogue and the political process is an infringement upon the free-exercise clause, not to mention an unconstitutional abridgment of my personal freedom of speech (or of the press, as the case may be).

 

That's also what I perceive to be the perspective of the Brethren based upon speeches I have heard.

 

Incidentally, "separation of church and state" is a phrase not found in the Constitution.

 

Moreover, the government does not "respect an establishment of religion" merely by allowing a religious person his First Amendment rights.

No problem with faith motivated participation, problem is with faith based legislation. Much of our faith can be translated into secular justifications for legislation like has happened in the area of abortion, and might eventually happen with SSM. Unfortunately, that was not the approach with Prop 8.

[Scott Lloyd]

No problem with faith motivated participation, problem is with faith based legislation. Much of our faith can be translated into secular justifications for legislation like has happened in the area of abortion, and might eventually happen with SSM. Unfortunately, that was not the approach with Prop 8.

Everyone, religious or not, votes or supports or opposes political causes as they are motivated by their personal values. That is especially the case with the liberal/progressive penchant for government-compelled income redistribution, for example.

What you in effect are advocating is that people of religious faith be deprived of the right to do that. I, for one, will vigorously resist such tyrannical discrimination.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Maybe, but I will not start worrying until the canaries in the coal mine start dying off. Westboro maybe?

 

Religious speech is protected by the First Amendment, so unless there's been some effort to repeal the Bill of Rights, the church is safe legally for the foreseeable future. Where there may be a problem for the church is in the way such speech is accepted or not by the broader society. That suggests to this inveterate anti-Mormon that the church may have to be more careful about the way it expresses its beliefs about homosexuality. It is possible to be firm in defending one's beliefs and doctrines without being hostile towards anyone. There will always be gay people in and out of the church, and treating them with kindness and respect does not require abandoning doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Religious speech is protected by the First Amendment, so unless there's been some effort to repeal the Bill of Rights, the church is safe legally for the foreseeable future. Where there may be a problem for the church is in the way such speech is accepted or not by the broader society. That suggests to this inveterate anti-Mormon that the church may have to be more careful about the way it expresses its beliefs about homosexuality. It is possible to be firm in defending one's beliefs and doctrines without being hostile towards anyone. There will always be gay people in and out of the church, and treating them with kindness and respect does not require abandoning doctrine.

Some would say you do not respect them unless you concede that their sexual behavior is lawful in the eyes of God. Yo do so would amount to abandoning doctrine and forsaking conviction.

[jkwilliams]

Some would say you do not respect them unless you concede that their sexual behavior is lawful in the eyes of God. Yo do so would amount to abandoning doctrine and forsaking conviction.

 

Can you provide some examples of people saying that? I'm not saying no one has argued that, but I'd like to see some examples. In my view, legalizing same-sex marriages has no effect on whether religious institutions have to perform or recognize same-sex marriages and does not require churches to concede that same-sex relations are valid in the eyes of God.

 

The difference between the LDS church and mainstream Christian religions on this issue is significant, IMO. Christians rely on the Bible, which clearly condemns homosexuality in the OT. In the LDS church, humans cannot be exalted if they do not enter into heterosexual marriages, meaning that homosexuality has no place in the Plan of Salvation.

[california boy]

This doesn't look good.  Was anyone aware this was going on?

 

NOM and The Mormon Church May Be In Violation of Hawaii's Lobbying Laws

 

Edit:  Here is an article on this issue

 

 

Mormon Church And NOM Accused Of Violating Hawaii Election Laws

 

From the article:

The Mormon Church and NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, are being accused once again of violating state election laws by Fred Karger, the gay Republican political activist and consultant. Karger, who last year became the first openly-gay republican to run for president, on Friday sent an eleven-page document to the Hawaii state Ethics Commission detailing his complaint.

 

Edited October 30, 2013 by california boy

[wenglund]

Well maybe you are right in asserting that your comments were not Christ-like or loving at all.  I guess only you can be a judge of that.  I was giving you the benefit of doubt and hoping they were.  Sorry.

 

You seem stuck in the tar pit of confused bifurcation, For the last time, I used the term "perversion," like "carcinogen" in an emotionally neutral way. It was neither Christ-like nor un-Christ-like, neither loving or un-loving. It was matter-of-fact, a practical categorization.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Do you regard condemnation of what one regards as sinful behavior as "acting against others"?

 

Would you consider condemning someone playing football a good thing? It does in the OT. That old touching pig skin thing. How how about selling your daughter/son into slavery? The OT says it's OK. How about putting to death your teenage son because he argues with you. That too is right in the OT. If you plant two different crops side by side in your garden. Do we get to stone you to death? Must you get the whole city, or can it be a private ceremony, to stone your mother to death when she wears different materials in the same outfit? I can provide more if you want.

Edited October 30, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[slamarwi]

This doesn't look good.  Was anyone aware this was going on?

 

NOM and The Mormon Church May Be In Violation of Hawaii's Lobbying Laws

 

I hope it's true. Makes me proud to know we have leaders that are willing to take a stand against "perversion."

 

Of course it will eventually be legalized throughout the US and churches will necessarily exit all political arenas, but at least we can say we did what we could honor our principles and impede the spread of evil.

[thesometimesaint]

No problem with faith motivated participation, problem is with faith based legislation. Much of our faith can be translated into secular justifications for legislation like has happened in the area of abortion, and might eventually happen with SSM. Unfortunately, that was not the approach with Prop 8.

 

I too think there needs to be a well thought out overriding secular justification for imposing faith based legislation on the American people. I'm for an near absolute separation of Church and State.

[Storm Rider]

It is only hate speech to the extent that we use "hateful" words in doing so, such as calling their relationships a "perversion."  Why not simply express it in the term you used -- "contrary to the commandments of God"?  I think that succinctly and fairly sums up our objection without adding undue derision and scorn.  After all, most people in America don't abide by the commandments of God in terms of the Word of Wisdom.  However, we don't go around calling these people "perverts" for perverting God's laws of health.  And if we did, how effective do you think we'd be in spreading the Gospel?

 

I just don't see any reason why we must be cruel to be right.

 

Are you implying that before God there is nothing that is a perversion of his teachings or laws? Just curious.