Jump to content

Church Has No Right In Political Discourse?


cdowis

Recommended Posts

Its called silencing the input of those that disagree with you.  When they agree with you its OK. When they don't its "religions shouldn't have a voice in a democracy", otherwise known as denying "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Link to comment

Funny, the same people who trash conservative religious input, are comfortable with Pope Francis talking about social justice and other issues that suit their agenda.   This argument isn't about influencing legislation by standing up for long standing moral principles, it is about a desire to have sin redefined or undefined and/or to squelch those who disagree. 

 

In my lifetime this has played out on both ends of the partisan political agendas too.  Both parties and all sides try to do this.   Though admittedly some sectors are more historically reflective of the importance that religious faith places in civic things, than others.

Link to comment

You would deny the church a voice in political affairs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-fMWK6EQrg

Speaking for myself (as well as reflecting the views of many I associate with, on my end of the spectrum), we've reached a tipping point, for sure.

Given how events have unfolded, many of us hope the LDS church and its members get FAR MORE vocally involved in politics! The effects have been fantastic!!!! More "Proclamations" and letters from the pulpit, and canvasing the public, please!!! We definitely don't want to silence you, given how helpful you're being.

Should it reach SCOTUS, Can anyone arrange for the church to file a brief before the Supreme Court in support if overturning marriage equality for same-sex couples in Utah.. ? Thanks!!!! :-)

D

Link to comment

Funny, the same people who trash conservative religious input, are comfortable with Pope Francis talking about social justice and other issues that suit their agenda.   This argument isn't about influencing legislation by standing up for long standing moral principles, it is about a desire to have sin redefined or undefined and/or to squelch those who disagree. 

 

In my lifetime this has played out on both ends of the partisan political agendas too.  Both parties and all sides try to do this.   Though admittedly some sectors are more historically reflective of the importance that religious faith places in civic things, than others.

There does not seem to be a way to stay out of this discussion, even when there are members of both sides expecting to pull you to their side. It is a very uncomfortable position.

Link to comment

Just watched the video. Hogwash. Have Latter-day Saint leaders or members acting in an official capacity encouraged members to protect and defend MY religious liberty as a Unitarian Universalist to marry same-sex couples and have equal governmental recognition thereof? I think not. Hard to view the video as anything less than self - serving propaganda.

Funny that "gay" or "same-sex" was never mentioned in the video when discussing cake bakers and wedding photographers. Actually.... not really "funny." Actually more revealing.

If you truly value and promote "religious liberty," you must start protecting everyone's-----not just those that a agree with you.

Link to comment

I am also in full support of the church having a political voice.  I have often said that the church has done more to advance SSM than any other organization.  

 

The churches involvement in politics is not without risk however.  If laws are not followed to the letter, the church risks loosing it's tax exempt status.  Probably more important is the risk of engaging in the typical mud slinging and demonization that occurs in politics on a regular basis.  Those on the loosing side of politics tend to aggressively attack the winning side.  If the church is willing to risk the downside of American politics, then hey who would stand in their way?

Link to comment

Just watched the video. Hogwash. Have Latter-day Saint leaders or members acting in an official capacity encouraged members to protect and defend MY religious liberty as a Unitarian Universalist to marry same-sex couples and have equal governmental recognition thereof? I think not. Hard to view the video as anything less than self - serving propaganda.

Funny that "gay" or "same-sex" was never mentioned in the video when discussing cake bakers and wedding photographers. Actually.... not really "funny." Actually more revealing.

If you truly value and promote "religious liberty," you must start protecting everyone's-----not just those that a agree with you.

 

 

Here is what Joseph Smith had to say

 

We can cultivate harmony in our communities by respecting the freedom of all people to believe according to their own conscience.

Articles of Faith 1:11: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”11

“We deem it a just principle, and it is one the force of which we believe ought to be duly considered by every individual, that all men are created equal, and that all have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience. Consequently, then, we are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive any one of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts.”12

“I have the most liberal sentiments, and feelings of charity towards all sects, parties, and denominations; and the rights and liberties of conscience, I hold most sacred and dear, and despise no man for differing with me in matters of opinion.”13

“The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.

“It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul—civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race. Love of liberty was diffused into my soul by my grandfathers while they dandled me on their knees. …

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”14

“We ought always to be aware of those prejudices which sometimes so strangely present themselves, and are so congenial to human nature, against our friends, neighbors, and brethren of the world, who choose to differ from us in opinion and in matters of faith. Our religion is between us and our God. Their religion is between them and their God.”15

“When we see virtuous qualities in men, we should always acknowledge them, let their understanding be what it may in relation to creeds and doctrine; for all men are, or ought to be free, possessing unalienable rights, and the high and noble qualifications of the laws of nature and of self-preservation, to think and act and say as they please, while they maintain a due respect to the rights and privileges of all other creatures, infringing upon none. This doctrine I do most heartily subscribe to and practice.

 

Teachings: Joseph Smith

Chapter 29: Living with Others in Peace and Harmony

Link to comment

 

 

You would deny the church a voice in political affairs?  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-fMWK6EQrg

 

 

No I wouldn't. I just deny them the final word.

 

Ps; Sorenson presents a fallacious argument. The State is the one that grants permission to operate a business, and to practice Medicine. So it can legally force you to do something. IE; It can require you to serve a black person at a lunch counter. It can also require you to sell drugs at your pharmacy. Would she be thrilled if her boss were to convert to a Christian Scientist then require her to just pray for her sick child? Simply put, you can not use your right to practice your religion how you want onto others.

Link to comment

Yes. But that isn't what I said. I think everyone should have a say but no one person, religion, corporation, union should have the final word.

 

You may be on to something.  If no one has the final word then nothing can be accomplished.  In political terms "gridlock".  The absolute best that a citizen could hope for.

Link to comment

You may be on to something.  If no one has the final word then nothing can be accomplished.  In political terms "gridlock".  The absolute best that a citizen could hope for.

 

Under our form of government we all get a say. But laws must be passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, and if challenged in court upheld by the USSC. Without getting too far into politics what we have now is gridlock, and that isn't working out very well.

Link to comment

Under our form of government we all get a say. But laws must be passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, and if challenged in court upheld by the USSC. Without getting too far into politics what we have now is gridlock, and that isn't working out very well.

 

Thanks for the very elementary lesson on government.  You do have a very strange definition of gridlock.

Link to comment

No. I believe a church is and should remain free under the Constitution to tell, teach, or ask, without penalty, it's members how to vote .  Our Church has done it recently.  Other churches do it constantly.  It can also be done subtly.  Simply see if the policies/platforms match the doctrine and vote accordingly.

 

(Didn't see the duplicate thread at first so I'll post this in the more active thread too).

Link to comment

If churches can't be involved in politics or the making of laws, should corporations and unions be denied it also?

 

I would say if we are going to go that way we should include special interest groups, including environmental groups and sexual orientation groups.  Shucks lets just go all the way and turn it into a dictatorship.

Link to comment

 

You are really full of hyperbole.  Nobody is advocating turning over the reins of government to them.  What is being said is they have the right to be part of the discourse.  Are you so afraid of the weakness of your own position that you have to muzzle any opposition?

Link to comment

This article seems all the more timely:

Our great blessing was to live in a society that understands where knowledge comes from: not from political authority or personal revelation, but from a public process of open-ended debate and discussion, in which every day millions of people venture and test billions of hypotheses. All but a few of those theories are found wanting, but some survive and flourish over time, and those comprise our knowledge.

The restless process of trial and error does not allow human knowledge to be complete or perfect, but it does allow for steady improvement. If a society is open to robust critical debate, you can look at a tape of its moral and intellectual development over time and know which way it is running: usually toward less social violence, more social participation, and a wider circle of dignity and toleration. And if you see a society that is stuck and not making that kind of progress, you can guess that its intellectual system is not very liberal.

The critical factor in the elimination of error is not individuals’ commitment to the truth as they see it (if anything, most people are too confident they’re right); it is society’s commitment to the protection of criticism, however misguided, upsetting, or ungodly. America’s transformation on gay rights over the past few years is a triumph of the open society. Not long ago, gays were pariahs. We had no real political power, only the force of our arguments. But in a society where free exchange is the rule, that was enough. We had the coercive power of truth.

...

I can think of quite a few reasons why boycotting Ender’s Game is a bad idea. It looks like intimidation, which plays into the right’s “gay bullies” narrative, in which intolerant homosexuals are purportedly driving conservatives from the public square. It would have little or no effect on Card while punishing the many other people who worked on the movie, most of whom, Hollywood being Hollywood, probably are not anti-gay (and many of whom almost certainly are gay). It would undercut the real raison d’être of the gay-rights movement: not to win equality just for gay Americans but to advance the freedom of all Americans to live as who they really are and say what they really think. Even if they are Orson Scott Card.

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-case-for-hate-speech/309524/

Link to comment

You are really full of hyperbole.  Nobody is advocating turning over the reins of government to them.  What is being said is they have the right to be part of the discourse.  Are you so afraid of the weakness of your own position that you have to muzzle any opposition?

 

While I disagree that those ambassadors of hate should be disenfranchised I disagree that wanting twisted people out of government is proof of the weakness of my position. It is simply the sober reality that right does not always equal political might.

 

In a good society they would be muzzled by public shame (and to a degree they are). In an ideal society they would have no political voice at all and when Jesus returns I expect him to disenfranchise them. We allow moral reprobates and intellectually vacuous weaklings a say in government not because we think they have anything worth listening to nor because they should have a voice; we give them it because the dangers of totalitarianism are too dangerous to mess with and those dangers are more heinous then anything your garden-variety pastor of hate can conjure up.

Link to comment

While I disagree that those ambassadors of hate should be disenfranchised I disagree that wanting twisted people out of government is proof of the weakness of my position. It is simply the sober reality that right does not always equal political might.

 

In a good society they would be muzzled by public shame (and to a degree they are). In an ideal society they would have no political voice at all and when Jesus returns I expect him to disenfranchise them. We allow moral reprobates and intellectually vacuous weaklings a say in government not because we think they have anything worth listening to nor because they should have a voice; we give them it because the dangers of totalitarianism are too dangerous to mess with and those dangers are more heinous then anything your garden-variety pastor of hate can conjure up.

 

I have no argument with what you say, however, I think it is wise to wait for Jesus to decide who gets disenfranchised.  Left to anyone else it becomes problematic.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...