Church Has No Right In Political Discourse?

[Damien the Leper]

Legislating morality is not the place of government. Churches can have their opinions on moral matters but should not be regarded any further where politics are concerned.

[thesometimesaint]

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).

I believe in an near absolute separation of Church and State. The last thing would ever do is countenance the Church telling me whom/what to vote for. Simply put if its keeps their religion out of my politics, I'll keep my politics out of the its religion.

 

Not even all Church members agree(d) with all the policies/platforms of candidates/platforms for political office. IE; While I believe Romney is a good Church going man. If he were running for political office again on the same ideas he had in the 2012 election. I wouldn't vote for him even then.

[urroner]

I believe in an near absolute separation of Church and State. The last thing would ever do is countenance the Church telling me whom/what to vote for. Simply put if its keeps their religion out of my politics, I'll keep my politics out of the its religion.

 

Not even all Church members agree(d) with all the policies/platforms of candidates/platforms for political office. IE; While I believe Romney is a good Church going man. If he were running for political office again on the same ideas he had in the 2012 election. I wouldn't vote for him even then.

 

I've never been told by the Church whom to vote for or against.  Now on moral issues, the Church has advised me how it would like me to vote, but the advise was never given as a command to vote one way or the other.

I think where a problem creeps in is where the Church decides that a certain issue is a moral issue and those on the other side decide that it isn't and that the Church is getting involved in politics.

 

I remember this happening during the Prop 8 furor in California.  The Church deemed that it was a moral issue and those who opposed Prop 8 cried that it wasn't a moral issue and that the Church was inserting itself into a purely political issue.

[The Nehor]

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.

 

I agree but I like to think I have a heads up on some of the people.

 

 

Legislating morality is not the place of government. Churches can have their opinions on moral matters but should not be regarded any further where politics are concerned.

 

The whole "not legislating morality" thing makes a great sound byte but is insane if examined. On what basis should we legislate? I would think justice and for the good of the governed are good (thought incomplete) places to start but those of course fall under morality. What other basis is there? Whim? Self-Interest? I think I would prefer the dictates of some of the nastier pagan gods. While their morality was horribly flawed it was at least to a degree moral.

 

What the person is really saying is that do not legislate any morality I personally disagree with or find too invasive. That is a fair stance but let's not pretend churchs have a monopoly on those kinds of "morality". I can think of many lobbying groups I find morally repugnant. Should we excise them too?

 

 

I believe in an near absolute separation of Church and State. The last thing would ever do is countenance the Church telling me whom/what to vote for. Simply put if its keeps their religion out of my politics, I'll keep my politics out of the its religion.

 

I have to disagree. The day may come when the Church steps in and takes a stance on political issues. It's too late for that separation anyways. It has been a longstanding American tradition that churches get involved in political issues from abolitionism (and slaveholding) to how to deal with the Great Depression to the Civil Rights movement. The genie is not going back into the bottle.

[ERayR]

I agree but I like to think I have a heads up on some of the people.

 

 

I have a list of people that I think are in real trouble when they go for their PPI.

[thesometimesaint]

I've never been told by the Church whom to vote for or against.  Now on moral issues, the Church has advised me how it would like me to vote, but the advise was never given as a command to vote one way or the other.

I think where a problem creeps in is where the Church decides that a certain issue is a moral issue and those on the other side decide that it isn't and that the Church is getting involved in politics.

 

I remember this happening during the Prop 8 furor in California.  The Church deemed that it was a moral issue and those who opposed Prop 8 cried that it wasn't a moral issue and that the Church was inserting itself into a purely political issue.

 

I have, and I have not been shy about stating my opinion(s) about it either. I want a free flowing discussion of whom and what I'm going to vote for. Just not during Church meetings. The potential for misunderstandings, and hard feelings is just too great.  Invite me to your home, I'd love to come. I'll even bring the "Mormon Champagne" Martinelli's. .

 

I have no problem with is the Church making "X" a sin. More power to them. What I reject is their authority to make "X" a crime punishable by law.

 

I agreed with the Church in saying SSM was a sin(Still do). What I can't support is in making it a crime.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You would deny the church a voice in political affairs?  

 

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

The Church, every Church is the people. Does this mean that only the irreligious can be involved in making law?

[thesometimesaint]

I agree but I like to think I have a heads up on some of the people.

 

 

 

The whole "not legislating morality" thing makes a great sound byte but is insane if examined. On what basis should we legislate? I would think justice and for the good of the governed are good (thought incomplete) places to start but those of course fall under morality. What other basis is there? Whim? Self-Interest? I think I would prefer the dictates of some of the nastier pagan gods. While their morality was horribly flawed it was at least to a degree moral.

 

What the person is really saying is that do not legislate any morality I personally disagree with or find too invasive. That is a fair stance but let's not pretend churchs have a monopoly on those kinds of "morality". I can think of many lobbying groups I find morally repugnant. Should we excise them too?

 

 

 

I have to disagree. The day may come when the Church steps in and takes a stance on political issues. It's too late for that separation anyways. It has been a longstanding American tradition that churches get involved in political issues from abolitionism (and slaveholding) to how to deal with the Great Depression to the Civil Rights movement. The genie is not going back into the bottle.

 

Eventually Christ is going to come back and make an end to ALL nations. I would hazard a guess that would include the US.

 

The US Constitution provides for slavery, and the Bible has been used as a justification for it. So I don't believe that using the moral argument is necessarily the winning argument. I think it can be opposed on strictly Capitalistic grounds. Person "X" has slaves. Person "Y" doesn't. Person "Y" is at a competitive disadvantage because he pays his employees. While person "X" does not.

 

During the Great Depression the store shelves were full. Enough people just couldn't buy enough to maintain the economy. We burnt wheat, and poured milk into the streets just to try to keep the farmers from going bankrupt.

 

In a functioning democratically elected republic like ours. We need as many citizen inputs through the ballot box as possible. When we arbitrarily prevent peaceful citizen participation we encourage the violent kind.

 

I don't expect it willingly go back into its bottle. But unless we seek to put it there we run the risk of religiously based internecine warfare.

[The Nehor]

I don't expect it willingly go back into its bottle. But unless we seek to put it there we run the risk of religiously based internecine warfare.

 

I really do not see this as a threat. I do worry about the possibility of warfare or social strife tearing the United States apart but I REALLY doubt it will be over religious differences.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know exactly how Christ is going to put an end to all nations. But we do know that the world will not go up against Zion because it is terrible.

 

The 1860's and 1960's weren't my idea of a fun time.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

How are we "helping" Daniel?

[california boy]

How are we "helping" Daniel?

Because of  the churches successful efforts to pass Prop 8, we have had 6 years of debate in this country over this issue.  Both sides have presented their views on gay marriage regularly in the media throughout this country.  When people have heard the arguments against SSM, they see how weak they really are.  

 

Probably even more important, we have also had judicial testimony where reasons have to be supported by facts.  When no such facts materialized to support those opposing gay marriage, then the public opinion further leaned towards extending this civli right to gays even when they disapprove of their orientation.  Probably the most stark question from the Prop 8 court case was when asked exactly how gay marriage will affect marriage negatively, the answer from those defending Prop 8 said "I don't know"  This was their cornerstone on defending Prop 8.  In a court of law, they couldn't even say what harm gay marriage would have on the institution of marriage.  If Prop 8 had not passed, then the legal arguments would have never been vetted.

 

If Prop 8 had not passed (largely because of the financial and man hours of the Mormon church) than California would have been just another wacko state that had gay marriage.  Because of Prop 8, peoples opinions have shifted from being against gay marriage to now the majority of Americans now support gay marriage.

 

So the thanks that Daniel gives the church for helping gay marriage is well deserved.

[thesometimesaint]

Because of  the churches successful efforts to pass Prop 8, we have had 6 years of debate in this country over this issue.  Both sides have presented their views on gay marriage regularly in the media throughout this country.  When people have heard the arguments against SSM, they see how weak they really are.  

 

Probably even more important, we have also had judicial testimony where reasons have to be supported by facts.  When no such facts materialized to support those opposing gay marriage, then the public opinion further leaned towards extending this civli right to gays even when they disapprove of their orientation.  Probably the most stark question from the Prop 8 court case was when asked exactly how gay marriage will affect marriage negatively, the answer from those defending Prop 8 said "I don't know"  This was their cornerstone on defending Prop 8.  In a court of law, they couldn't even say what harm gay marriage would have on the institution of marriage.  If Prop 8 had not passed, then the legal arguments would have never been vetted.

 

If Prop 8 had not passed (largely because of the financial and man hours of the Mormon church) than California would have been just another wacko state that had gay marriage.  Because of Prop 8, peoples opinions have shifted from being against gay marriage to now the majority of Americans now support gay marriage.

 

So the thanks that Daniel gives the church for helping gay marriage is well deserved.

 

Sometimes we are inadvertently our own worst enemy. 

[california boy]

Sometimes we are inadvertently our own worst enemy. 

It was not a very well thought out position to take.  Especially since stopping gay marriage does not change any immorality.  Unfortunately, the church is viewed less kindly by many people, which is sad.  Hardly the reputation one wants for Christ's church.

[thesometimesaint]

It was not a very well thought out position to take.  Especially since stopping gay marriage does not change any immorality.  Unfortunately, the church is viewed less kindly by many people, which is sad.  Hardly the reputation one wants for Christ's church.

 

Agreed.

[ERayR]

It was not a very well thought out position to take.  Especially since stopping gay marriage does not change any immorality.  Unfortunately, the church is viewed less kindly by many people, which is sad.  Hardly the reputation one wants for Christ's church.

 

Christs Church is not about being popular.  Isn't there something about a large and spacious building in the Book of Mormon?

[california boy]

Christs Church is not about being popular.  Isn't there something about a large and spacious building in the Book of Mormon?

Christ's Church should be about charity, love and leading people back to Him.  It shouldn't be known as a church that tries to stop people from legaling marrying and discriminating against gays..

[urroner]

Christ's Church should be about charity, love and leading people back to Him.  It shouldn't be known as a church that tries to stop people from legaling marrying and discriminating against gays..

How many times have I heard the logic, if it was Christ's church, then it would do X because of Y.

Sometimes CB, what we as humans define as "kindness" or "charity" is our own definition and not the Lord's.  I have seen parents who were so "kind" and "loving" to their kids that the kids grew up to be almost totally worthless individuals.  The parents wanted the kids to have as many experiences as possible and they put very few limits on what they would let the kids experience.

[california boy]

How many times have I heard the logic, if it was Christ's church, then it would do X because of Y.

Sometimes CB, what we as humans define as "kindness" or "charity" is our own definition and not the Lord's.  I have seen parents who were so "kind" and "loving" to their kids that the kids grew up to be almost totally worthless individuals.  The parents wanted the kids to have as many experiences as possible and they put very few limits on what they would let the kids experience.

Well if preventing gays from marrying made them or anyone else more moral, then I might agree with you.  But it doesn't.  Since the church views gays living together and gay being married as being just as immoral, preventing gays from marrying only turns people away from the church because the church is viewed as an institution that discriminates against gays.   

[urroner]

Well if preventing gays from marrying made them or anyone else more moral, then I might agree with you.  But it doesn't.  Since the church views gays living together and gay being married as being just as immoral, preventing gays from marrying only turns people away from the church because the church is viewed as an institution that discriminates against gays.   

 

CB, I view sex outside of marriage as immoral and if something that I view as immoral is legalized doesn't make it moral.  Should the Church view recreational pot smoking in Utah as immoral, but deem it moral in Colorado?

 

I have no problem, from a legal POV of the US government getting out of marriage and going to civil unions for everybody who wants one.  It's the way it's done in Mexico and, from what I understand, in Great Britain.

The problem I have with the government ruling over who can and can't get married is then the government, especially in today's political environment, will insert itself into the churches who oppose SSM and saying that if the church doesn't perform SSM, it will be taken to court.

I hear lots of people boohooing about the danger of the Church poking its nose into politics, yet, for some cryptic and enigmatical use of logic, many of these people don't have the slightest problem with government poking its nose, face, and sometimes its whole body into dictating what churches can and can't do.

[The Nehor]

It was not a very well thought out position to take.  Especially since stopping gay marriage does not change any immorality.  Unfortunately, the church is viewed less kindly by many people, which is sad.  Hardly the reputation one wants for Christ's church.

It is actually the normal default reputation. We are actually told to worry if our reputation is too good. We obviously should not seek infamy but a fear of it will be paralyzing. The gospel is a standing rebuke to the entire world and we should not be offended when it is treated as such.

[The Nehor]

Christ's Church should be about charity, love and leading people back to Him.  It shouldn't be known as a church that tries to stop people from legaling marrying and discriminating against gays..

Can't it be both?

[thesometimesaint]

Christs Church is not about being popular.  Isn't there something about a large and spacious building in the Book of Mormon?

 

I don't think we should be part of that large and spacious building. But I do believe that well thought out ideas do a better job of convincing than poorly thought out ones.

[Avatar4321]

Christ's Church should be about charity, love and leading people back to Him.  It shouldn't be known as a church that tries to stop people from legaling marrying and discriminating against gays..

 

And how do we lead people back to Christ when we encourage the laws of the land to steep them in sins that keep them away from Christ?

 

There is no law that stops anyone from marrying. But by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. You can call a square a circle all you want. It's not going to magically become round.

 

My question is, why is satisfying lust and encouraging people to do so, more important than submitting to Christ? We all have sexual desires. And the Lord requires we all submit our desires to live according to the laws He has given us. The Lord has told us that sexual relationships outside of marriage are not appropriate. He has also told us that sexual relationships with people of the same gender aren't appropriate.

 

Why exactly should we be encouraging anything contrary? The Gospel is true. The Lord has given us the ability to born again through His Atonement. And the process of HIs Atonement has the ability to change our very natures. Why should we encourage people to remain in sin? Why should we legally recognize relationships we don't believe in? Why should we accept that human nature cannot be changed when the scriptures clearly tell us the Atonement can change our hearts?

 

I don't understand why we should need to deny the power of the Atonement or why doing so is going to bring those who are sexually attracted to the same gender to Christ. And how is it charitable to pretend sin isn't sin? or how is it mean to call sin sin?

[thesometimesaint]

Thomas Jefferson said it best.

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
― Thomas Jefferson