Are Our Values Under Attack?

[thesometimesaint]

Which is a completely different question:  we religionists had such things sorted and did a more than creditable job relieving true suffering . . . governments got in the mix and fouled the whole thing up:

 

Scrooge's questions posed to the philanthropists engaged in a bit of fundraising for the poor, and later thrown in his face by the Ghost of Christmas Present, are the crux of the government/private charity question.

 

Paying taxes, whether imposed directly or through minimum wage laws, never saved anybody's soul . . . and never did the poor much long-term good.

 

Come with me to Welfare Square the next time I'm boxing cheese or schlepping pallets, and you'll see what helping the poor in a meaningful way looks like.

 

Our friend sss is of the opinion, and I pray you are not, that only the gov't does such things in an ideal world, apparently.

 

IF you religionists did what your religion taught there would be no need for government period. Governments got in the mix because you religionists have adopted the Gospel of Prosperity as a Scripture, and its parent in the story of the two religionists in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. I personally have had the HONEST DAYS WORK shouted to me over the LDS pulpit while the for an honest days pay part is whispered, at best.

 

Simply because you religionists have adopted Scrooges philosophy.

 

Tell that to the government paid brave firemen that ran into the The Twin Towers on 11 September 2001.

 

I've done much the same in my life. There is still the need for government to help build the roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc., etc., etc., you religionists can't or won't do.

 

This is formal CFR. Where have I EVER said that?  As a matter of fact in my ideal world there would be no poverty, sickness, disease, disability or death. Where all would be contributing their all to the benefit of all. But that is not how this world is right now. So I do what I can, tell other people what I think can be done, hopefully inspire them to also do what they can without fear or compulsion.

Edited April 11, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[MiserereNobis]

Around the time that the young Sam Walton opened his first stores, John Kennedy redeemed a presidential campaign promise by persuading Congress to extend the minimum wage to retail workers, who had until then not been covered by the law. Congress granted an exclusion, however, to small businesses with annual sales beneath $1 million -- a figure that in 1965 it lowered to $250,000.

Walton was furious. The mechanization of agriculture had finally reached the backwaters of the Ozark Plateau, where he was opening one store after another. The men and women who had formerly worked on small farms suddenly found themselves redundant, and he could scoop them up for a song, as little as 50 cents an hour. Now the goddamn federal government was telling him he had to pay his workers the $1.15 hourly minimum. Walton's response was to divide up his stores into individual companies whose revenues did not exceed the $250,000 threshold. Eventually, though, a federal court ruled that this was simply a scheme to avoid paying the minimum wage, and he was ordered to pay his workers the accumulated sums he owed them, plus a double-time penalty thrown in for good measure.

Wal-Mart cut the checks, but Walton also summoned the employees at a major cluster of his stores to a meeting. "I'll fire anyone who cashes the check," he told them.

 

Yikes.  Kinda looks like defrauding laborers of their wages...

[thesometimesaint]

Is not secularism based on values too?  Either way you are forcing your values on others.

 

Yes it is. No it is not forcing my values on you. It is saying your values while they may different than mine are of equal value to mine to this society. IE; We don't make fire code laws because one value is better than the other, but because without physical safety neither one of us can express our values concerning fire code laws.

[MiserereNobis]

Which is a completely different question:  we religionists had such things sorted and did a more than creditable job relieving true suffering . . . governments got in the mix and fouled the whole thing up:

 

The problem is if you study the history of the industrial revolution, there was TERRIBLE injustice that was mainly relieved through government intervention and, dare I say, labor unions.

 

Yes, religion offered services (think of all the Catholic hospitals and orphanages, etc.).  But that didn't stop people from blatantly and unfairly taking advantage of the poor.

 

 

Scrooge's questions posed to the philanthropists engaged in a bit of fundraising for the poor, and later thrown in his face by the Ghost of Christmas Present, are the crux of the government/private charity question.

 

I guess I don't see prisons and workhouses as relevant to a discussion of raising the minimum wage.

 

 

Paying taxes, whether imposed directly or through minimum wage laws, never saved anybody's soul . . . and never did the poor much long-term good.

 

Gosh, I'm so tempted to do a CFR that the lowest paid factory workers in the industrial revolution were better off before there were minimum wage laws.  But I made a self-imposed rule not to do that, so I'll just say that I am quite dubious of this claim, having studied 19th century industry.

 

 

Come with me to Welfare Square the next time I'm boxing cheese or schlepping pallets, and you'll see what helping the poor in a meaningful way looks like.

 

I'm very happy that you help out.  Kudos!  Of course, that is only short-term help for the poor, fixing an immediate need for food or whatnot, but it is help.  It would be more beneficial to help the poor get out of poverty and become self-sufficient, yes?  A family that works full-time should be paid enough to live and not need Welfare Square regularly, but only in emergencies.  Otherwise, we are saying that our economic system requires that people who work some jobs that are necessary for our system are not paid enough to live.  That is injustice and I do not believe God is pleased with such things.

 

Luckily, in Catholicism, we have not wed ourselves to free-market capitalism.  There are a handful of intriguing Papal Encyclicals dealing with economics and labor.  Here are two: 

 

Rerum Novarum (Pope Leo XIII, 1891).  Here is a brief summary and outline. 

Quadragesimo Anno (Pope Pius XI, 1931).  Here is a brief summary and outline.

 

Ok, this might be derailing the thread and is probably wandering onto the political scene, so I will bow out with this post.

 

ETA:  I will end with this quote from Qadragesimo Anno (paragraph 71):  Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately.

Edited April 11, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[pogi]

Yes it is. No it is not forcing my values on you. It is saying your values while they may different than mine are of equal value to mine to this society. IE; We don't make fire code laws because one value is better than the other, but because without physical safety neither one of us can express our values concerning fire code laws.

 

It absolutely is forcing your values on me.  The irony of secularism is that it tries to create equality of values by making it's own values supreme.   What if they aren't supreme?  I still MUST submit to the values of secularism above all others, even if I don't believe that secular values trump my own.  Secularism is based in-part on the values of equality and fairness for example.  What if I don't believe in equality and fairness in everything?  Especially where marriage is concerned?  How are my values viewed as equal to secular values in this regard?  They are not.  Where is the equality of values there?

 

Stoneholm thinks that welfare has a solid secular argument.  Well, these arguments and secular values may be contrary to other citizen's values.  Why should they win out and I be forced to live secular values of welfare? Secularism reigns supreme as far as values go.  We are all forced to submit to it, or else. 

Edited April 11, 2014 by pogi

[Stone holm]

Which is a completely different question:  we religionists had such things sorted and did a more than creditable job relieving true suffering . . . governments got in the mix and fouled the whole thing up:

 

 

 

 

Scrooge's questions posed to the philanthropists engaged in a bit of fundraising for the poor, and later thrown in his face by the Ghost of Christmas Present, are the crux of the government/private charity question.

 

Paying taxes, whether imposed directly or through minimum wage laws, never saved anybody's soul . . . and never did the poor much long-term good.

 

Come with me to Welfare Square the next time I'm boxing cheese or schlepping pallets, and you'll see what helping the poor in a meaningful way looks like.

 

Our friend sss is of the opinion, and I pray you are not, that only the gov't does such things in an ideal world, apparently.

 

Yeah, exactly when was that period when the religionists were doing such a great job of it?

[pogi]

We don't make fire code laws because one value is better than the other, but because without physical safety neither one of us can express our values concerning fire code laws.

 

It suggests that the value of physical safety is better then injury or death.  That is values based.  What if I believe in life after death, unlike many secularists? Why is this life more valuable than the next?  What if I value the thrill of risk over the secure life?  Why should I have to pay for a fire-alarm or wear a seat-belt, etc.? 

Edited April 11, 2014 by pogi

[Stone holm]

It absolutely is forcing your values on me.  The irony of secularism is that it tries to create equality of values by making it's own values supreme.   What if they aren't supreme?  I still MUST submit to the values of secularism above all others, even if I don't believe that secular values trump my own.  Secularism is based in-part on the values of equality and fairness for example.  What if I don't believe in equality and fairness in everything?  Especially where marriage is concerned?  How are my values viewed as equal to secular values in this regard?  They are not.  Where is the equality of values there?

 

Stoneholm thinks that welfare has a solid secular argument.  Well, these arguments and secular values may be contrary to other citizen's values.  Why should they win out and I be forced to live secular values of welfare? Secularism reigns supreme as far as values go.  We are all forced to submit to it, or else. 

 

Secular arguments are the only ones which can be the basis for legislation in a country that really values religious freedom.  That does not mean that secular values are supreme, it just means that they are the only ones that can be the basis of legislation in a country which has a Constitution with a bill of rights and the 14th Amendment like we have.  If you live in a country like say Iran, then you would have the Koran based values as Supreme.  But the irony of our Divinely Inspired Constitution is that for us Mormons at least, we know that God doesn't want us living in a theocracy because then false religion could get forced down our throats. 

[The Nehor]

In dealing with the problem of poverty there are plenty of roles to fill. Governments have a role, churches have a role, charities have a role, individuals have a role, businesses even have a role.

[Stone holm]

It suggests that the value of physical safety is better then injury or death.  That is values based.  What if I believe in life after death, unlike many secularists?  What if I value the thrill of risk over the secure life?  Why should I have to pay for a fire-alarm or wear a seat-belt, etc.? 

 

Nice libertarian argument.

[Stone holm]

In dealing with the problem of poverty there are plenty of roles to fill. Governments have a role, churches have a role, charities have a role, individuals have a role, businesses even have a role.

 

True.  Did not mean to suggest that religion didn't have a role, just that religion did not have a role in establishing the basis for legislation.  It surely should inspire people to seek out and find the secular arguments for legislation regarding welfare.

[pogi]

Nice libertarian argument.

 

Which is also values based.  In any kind of system, values are forced on others.  You can't escape it.  That is why the argument that we shouldn't force our values on others isn't realistic. 

[pogi]

Secular arguments are the only ones which can be the basis for legislation in a country that really values religious freedom.

 

Not necessarily.  I think that the LDS could make an equally good religious argument for religious freedom.  I don't think that the idea of religious freedom was born from secular argument, but religious values.

 

Also, what happens when the country stops valuing religious freedom and views it more as a threat?  Secular ethics can vary and change within societal norms of specific time periods.  Take gay marriage for example.

Edited April 11, 2014 by pogi

[Stone holm]

Which is also values based.  In any kind of system, values are forced on others.  You can't escape it.  That is why the argument that we shouldn't force our values on others isn't realistic. 

 

Yes all systems are value based.  And I would agree that there is a danger in people being overly ideological in their value system as well.  But the term "secular" is not ideological in that same sense.  One might well for example argue against seatbelts as being too restrictive on personal freedom, for that reason they are not required in New Hampshire for adults.  New Hampshire is noted for the strength of its libertarian politics.  But if the only reason for a seatbelt law that was articulated was that it was a commandment of God -- no that would not be legitimate.  Safety, however, has for a long time been considered a proper element for basing laws in the United States.  But you are right it has not always been so, for example the Courts in the late 19th Century and beginning of the 20th Century felt that the right of contract trumped safety, and struck down railroad safety laws because they interfered with the workers right to contract his services for dangerous work.  Teddy Roosevelt railed against this type of thinking.  But even back then, it was not a religious argument that was put forward, it was a secular argument.   We have for several decades been living under an economic theory known as "trickle down economics", there are secular arguments that are being made for and against it.  There could be religious arguments made -- BC Space makes them all the time (not very sound arguments but still arguments), but you do not see those being used as a basis for legislation because it is simply not in accordance with our system.  Now in Iran, they would be perfectly acceptable arguments.

[thesometimesaint]

It absolutely is forcing your values on me.  The irony of secularism is that it tries to create equality of values by making it's own values supreme.   What if they aren't supreme?  I still MUST submit to the values of secularism above all others, even if I don't believe that secular values trump my own.  Secularism is based in-part on the values of equality and fairness for example.  What if I don't believe in equality and fairness in everything?  Especially where marriage is concerned?  How are my values viewed as equal to secular values in this regard?  They are not.  Where is the equality of values there?

 

Stoneholm thinks that welfare has a solid secular argument.  Well, these arguments and secular values may be contrary to other citizen's values.  Why should they win out and I be forced to live secular values of welfare? Secularism reigns supreme as far as values go.  We are all forced to submit to it, or else. 

 

Up is down, left is right, war is peace, ignorance is strength. So says the Ministry of Love in the book "1984". What if my morals say it is good to murder my family? Should society saying it is not good be able to compel me, or make laws that say to not murder them?

 

With Loving v Virginia we as a society have established a secular value in allowing people of different races to marry. This society doesn't require you to marry a person of a different race. With regards to SSM I oppose it, and I have no desire to marry a person of my sex. No one is saying I have to marry a person of my sex, but I can find no legally consistent way to keep it illegal for others. Every state, so far that has attempted it, has failed in the legal court system in this country.

[Stone holm]

Not necessarily.  I think that the LDS could make an equally good religious argument for religious freedom.  I don't think that the idea of religious freedom was born from secular argument, but religious values.

 

Also, what happens when the country stops valuing religious freedom and views it more as a threat?  Secular ethics can vary and change within societal norms of specific time periods.  Take gay marriage for example.

 

Religious freedom has been seen as a threat, it was viewed as such in the French revolution, and the Russian Revolution -- and some would argue in the American Revolution as well.  On the other hand, we have two sides to religious freedom in America which is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.  Gay marriage, I don't know of anyone that has been trying to force me to marry somebody of the same sex, or even force me to have homosexual sex.  The question isn't whether the Gays want us to behave like them, the question is whether we have the right to force them to behave like us.  The answer to that is yes we can if we can come up with a non-religious reason for doing so, if not and the only viable reason is that it is offensive to our religious beliefs -- then no we don't have that right.  And if a Muslim would come forward and say that we shouldn't prevent him from taking more than one wife because of our religious beliefs -- then I would agree with him as well, unless they could come up with a good secular reason why he shouldn't.  If the government were to ban eating pork -- well that would be fine if they based it upon it containing too much fat or GMOs or whatever, but if they said it was simply because it violated the Law of Moses, then I would say no that doesn't work.  If the Christian Right were to get enough people elected so that they started adopting fundamentalist laws which were consistent with their view of the Bible, and then started passing laws against religions that believed that Christ and Heavenly Father were two totally separate beings -- I would have a problem with that.  I would have a problem with atheists saying that Mormons couldn't conduct sealing rituals in the Temple as well (although the government could say that marriages which were recognized as carrying civil rights and privileges with them had to be conducted by government officials).  Whether we like it or not, religion under our Constitution is in a category by itself -- yes we believe in freedom of religion, unlike in some European countries where it may be more of an attitude of freedom from religion.  But we did not suffer under the burden of being suffocated by State established religions as long as they did.

[Stone holm]

Up is down, left is right, war is peace, ignorance is strength. So says the Ministry of Love in the book "1984". What if my morals say it is good to murder my family? Should society saying it is not good be able to compel me, or make laws that say to not murder them?

 

With Loving v Virginia we as a society have established a secular value in allowing people of different races to marry. This society doesn't require you to marry a person of a different race. With regards to SSM I oppose it, and I have no desire to marry a person of my sex. No one is saying I have to marry a person of my sex, but I can find no legally consistent way to keep it illegal for others. Every state, so far that has attempted it, has failed in the legal court system in this country.

 

Well some religious traditions have suggested it was good to murder family members, am thinking of the so-called "honor killings", and some religions offering up their first born children, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

Not necessarily.  I think that the LDS could make an equally good religious argument for religious freedom.  I don't think that the idea of religious freedom was born from secular argument, but religious values.

 

Also, what happens when the country stops valuing religious freedom and views it more as a threat?  Secular ethics can vary and change within societal norms of specific time periods.  Take gay marriage for example.

 

I think any and all religions can make a religious argument for religious freedom. The arguments over religious freedom go back millennia, in practically every culture on earth. Actually in this country it was born of secular argument, pushed along by religious wars and violence. Rhode Island is a perfect example of it, before the US ever existed as a country. The LDS are another example of after the forming of the US as a country.

 

It is true that secular ethics can and do change. The US Civil War is a perfect example of it. But imposition of any particular religious sect doesn't have a stellar record either. Unless you like burning people at the stake for their religious values.

[pogi]

Yes all systems are value based.  And I would agree that there is a danger in people being overly ideological in their value system as well.  But the term "secular" is not ideological in that same sense.  One might well for example argue against seatbelts as being too restrictive on personal freedom, for that reason they are not required in New Hampshire for adults.  New Hampshire is noted for the strength of its libertarian politics.  But if the only reason for a seatbelt law that was articulated was that it was a commandment of God -- no that would not be legitimate.  Safety, however, has for a long time been considered a proper element for basing laws in the United States.  But you are right it has not always been so, for example the Courts in the late 19th Century and beginning of the 20th Century felt that the right of contract trumped safety, and struck down railroad safety laws because they interfered with the workers right to contract his services for dangerous work.  Teddy Roosevelt railed against this type of thinking.  But even back then, it was not a religious argument that was put forward, it was a secular argument.   We have for several decades been living under an economic theory known as "trickle down economics", there are secular arguments that are being made for and against it.  There could be religious arguments made -- BC Space makes them all the time (not very sound arguments but still arguments), but you do not see those being used as a basis for legislation because it is simply not in accordance with our system.  Now in Iran, they would be perfectly acceptable arguments.

 

Right...which demonstrates that even secular values evolve according to the predominant values of society.  The right of religion, like the right of contract in your example, is only safe so long as it remains the predominant value in society.  Gay marriage is one chip off the block in regards to religious values.

 

The constitution is not protected by secularsim.  It is just as vulnerable as any contract to the evolving values of society and secularism.  In fact, we have revelation which suggests that the constitution itself will be in threat in the last days because of the weakening values of society...I presume in the name of secularism.

Edited April 11, 2014 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Well some religious traditions have suggested it was good to murder family members, am thinking of the so-called "honor killings", and some religions offering up their first born children, etc.

 

Yep. A good reason to keep our laws secular and not sectarian.

[thesometimesaint]

Right...which demonstrates that even secular values evolve according to the predominant values of society.  The right of religion, like the right of contract in your example, is only safe so long as it remains the predominant value in society.  Gay marriage is one chip off the block. 

 

The constitution is not protected by secularsim.  It is just as vulnerable as any contract to the evolving values of society and secularism.  In fact, we have revelation which suggests that the constitution itself will be in threat in the last days because of the weakening values of society...I presume in the name of secularism.

 

How is SSM a chip off that block?

 

The writers of that Constitution would disagree. The Amendments to it have, and so have the courts disagreed with you. Sure we can at anytime change it. But it's not an easy process. There is only two choices this country has. Number #1 Is secularism by allowing all citizens the right to believe anything they want, along with you the right to practice your religion as you please as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of other citizens of practice their religion as they please. Number #2 is sectarianism where one religion controls what is allowed to be believed, along with forcing through violence,or intimidation, that sects values.

Edited April 11, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

Yep. A good reason to keep our laws secular and not sectarian.

 

Why?  Because secularism can never be misguided?  I'm not suggesting that secularism is corrupt.  I do think it has it's place in our society and laws.  I am simply suggesting that we need to vote according to our personal religious values, and not our secular values when they are in conflict.  Otherwise, we become prone to the gradual erosion of religious values in society.  That endangers us all.

[AZ in GA]

What I find most interesting about the more liberal responses to this thread are the ones saying we cannot as a people force our morality on people who don't agree with it or believe the same way.

Yet these same people are more than willing to legislate morality when it comes to things like "Obamacare" or welfare, or state funded abortions, or contraceptive requirements. If you believe that it is the moral thing to do to find these things, why not fund them yourselves? Why require people who don't agree to labor and work for a cause they don't agree with? Why are you subjecting them to forced labor in order to fit your version of morality?

Like it or not, almost every law we pass is in some way legislating morality. The only time you will ever feel like that though is when you disagree with the morality being legislated at the time.

[pogi]

How is SSM a chip off that block?

 

I edited it to clarify.  It is one storm of erosion.  It may not seem like much, but one storm after another can turn a mountain into a sand hill.  It will not be long before the legality leads to the morality of it in the public eye.  I am not too conserned that this will lead to a gay epidemic or anything.  Again, it may not seem like much, but...  By voting for our secular views over our religious views, we only add to that erosion.

 

The writers of that Constitution would disagree.

 

It's too bad they arent around to defend it.  We are only bound to it by our loyalty to it.  It will change as soon as our values do.

 

Sure we can at anytime change it. But it's not an easy process.

 

Yep, but where there is a will, there is a way.

[thesometimesaint]

What I find most interesting about the more liberal responses to this thread are the ones saying we cannot as a people force our morality on people who don't agree with it or believe the same way.

Yet these same people are more than willing to legislate morality when it comes to things like "Obamacare" or welfare, or state funded abortions, or contraceptive requirements. If you believe that it is the moral thing to do to find these things, why not fund them yourselves? Why require people who don't agree to labor and work for a cause they don't agree with? Why are you subjecting them to forced labor in order to fit your version of morality?

Like it or not, almost every law we pass is in some way legislating morality. The only time you will ever feel like that though is when you disagree with the morality being legislated at the time.

 

What I find most interesting about the more conservative responses to this thread are the ones saying they can as a person force their morality on people who don't agree with it, or believe the same way.

 

The Affordable Care Act has little to do with morality. It is about opening up the private medical insurance market so those insurance companies can make even more money. The little morality that is involved is in having citizens pay for their own insurance so the rest of us don't have to pay the medical bills. Very much like Arizona's mandatory automobile insurance. State funded abortions are not permitted under the Affordable Care Act. In fact they specifically excluded from coverage. Contraceptives are a legal medicine when prescribed by a physician. They provide a level of control over reproduction some 97% of all US Women will at some point in their lives use. They actually cost less, and have fewer adverse side effects than live birth. Not to mentions the added expense of another child.

 

BTW I like kids I have 3 of my own, and my professional life was spent serving their psychological needs.

 

I have already discussed welfare, and my liberal ideas as to how to deal with it.

 

I kinda like the idea of having my input on the formulation of our laws. But I don't demand that others live by my morality. Which BTW are more straight laced than any Mormon, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, or Jew I've ever known of, or about.

Edited April 11, 2014 by thesometimesaint