Religious Freedom Forum Fireside

[rockpond]

Our stake is having a "Religious Freedom Forum" fireside this month.  Keynote speaker is a lobbyist for the Catholic Church with additional remarks by our stake president and a local Catholic bishop.  The announcement encouraged us to show the two videos (below) to our ward and said that the fireside will focus on the issue of how we can get involved to protect religious freedom in our state.

 

I was wondering if any other areas of the country are doing this?

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2015 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

It is always a question as to when a private religious belief motivates a person to an illegal public action. IE; Your religious right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

[Kenngo1969]

It is always a question as to when a private religious belief motivates a person to an illegal public action. IE; Your religious right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Sigh.  Largely, I agree with your broader point, but I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to come up with a less strained analogy.   After all, what religion has, as one of its central tenets, assault and battery?  C'mon, Sometimesaint!  You can do it! I know you can!!!

[Kenngo1969]

 

... I was wondering if any other areas of the country are doing this?

 

If they're not, they ought to be.

[tonie]

Sigh.  Largely, I agree with your broader point, but I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to come up with a less strained analogy.   After all, what religion has, as one of its central tenets, assault and battery?  C'mon, Sometimesaint!  You can do it! I know you can!!!

 

Read D&C Section 98, ask yourself your question again.

[tonie]

"The reason why Democracy works is not because government was designed to oversee what everybody does, but rather Democracy works because most people, most of the time voluntarily choose to obey the law..."

 

 

Voluntarily choosing to obey the law for the betterment of self and society is why Democracy works. I question whether fear of God is what causes most people in a Democracy, most of the time to voluntarily choose to obey the law.

[tonie]

Our stake is having a "Religious Freedom Forum" fireside this month.  Keynote speaker is a lobbyist for the Catholic Church with additional remarks by our stake president and a local Catholic bishop.  The announcement encouraged us to show the two videos (below) to our ward and said that the fireside will focus on the issue of how we can get involved to protect religious freedom in our state.

 

I was wondering if any other areas of the country are doing this?

 

 

I changed to bolding, for discussion.

 

In your view, would you opine on whether you believe religious is under attack in your state?

[rockpond]

"The reason why Democracy works is not because government was designed to oversee what everybody does, but rather Democracy works because most people, most of the time voluntarily choose to obey the law..."

 

 

Voluntarily choosing to obey the law for the betterment of self and society is why Democracy works. I question whether fear of God is what causes most people in a Democracy, most of the time to voluntarily choose to obey the law.

 

Very good (and relevant) question.  But I don't know the answer.  I know that there are a large contingent of atheists who believe in being law-abiding moral people for reasons that have nothing to do with God.

 

But I also don't want to discount the important role of religion in our country and democracy.

Edited January 12, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I changed to bolding, for discussion.

 

In your view, would you opine on whether you believe religious is under attack in your state?

 

I'm not aware of anything that is happening specifically in our state.

[Kenngo1969]

Read D&C Section 98, ask yourself your question again.

I read it.  I don't see anywhere in which it says that assault and battery is one of the central tenets of the faith of the Latter-day Saints. Thanks for playin'!

[tonie]

I read it.  I don't see anywhere in which it says that assault and battery is one of the central tenets of the faith of the Latter-day Saints. Thanks for playin'!

 

Maybe you should read it again:

 

Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified

 

Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

[tonie]

Very good (and relevant) question.  But I don't know the answer.  I know that there are a large contingent of atheists who believe in being law-abiding moral people for reasons that have nothing to do with God.

 

I agree. Which is why I find it insulting when others suggest that only a religious people can maintain society. History teaches that religions have been ver distructive to societies and governments.

 

 

 

 

But I also don't want to discount the important role of religion in our country and democracy.

 

What "important role" would you say religion has (in the past or current) in our country and democracy.

Edited January 12, 2015 by tonie

[Rob Osborn]

We would not have our freedom in this country without a basic belief in God. It was founded upon God- it is He who grants us power and also He who has delivered us from all other nations. If we continue to serve God we shall be protected.

[ERayR]

It is always a question as to when a private religious belief motivates a person to an illegal public action. IE; Your religious right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

 

But the relgious and non-religious left are bloodying Christian noses with abandon.

[thesometimesaint]

Sigh.  Largely, I agree with your broader point, but I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to come up with a less strained analogy.   After all, what religion has, as one of its central tenets, assault and battery?  C'mon, Sometimesaint!  You can do it! I know you can!!!

 

Given the history of EVERY religion(and anti-religion) and their various sects ACTIONS.   It shouldn't be too hard for someone of reasonable intelligence to come up with a few examples.

[thesometimesaint]

We would not have our freedom in this country without a basic belief in God. It was founded upon God- it is He who grants us power and also He who has delivered us from all other nations. If we continue to serve God we shall be protected.

 

This country was not founded on belief in God.

SEE Treaty of Tripoli

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

[ERayR]

This country was not founded on belief in God.

SEE Treaty of Tripoli

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

 

I am sorry but all that says is that the two countries would let religion get in the way of harmony.  It does not address the founding principles. 

 

Read from writings of the founding fathers.

Edited January 12, 2015 by ERayR

[The Nehor]

"The reason why Democracy works is not because government was designed to oversee what everybody does, but rather Democracy works because most people, most of the time voluntarily choose to obey the law..."

 

 

Voluntarily choosing to obey the law for the betterment of self and society is why Democracy works. I question whether fear of God is what causes most people in a Democracy, most of the time to voluntarily choose to obey the law.

I refuse to believe that limiting myself to 65 mph while driving down an empty highway betters me or society. It is a controversial and unpopular stand but I do not decide my moral values based on what is popular.

[ERayR]

I read it.  I don't see anywhere in which it says that assault and battery is one of the central tenets of the faith of the Latter-day Saints. Thanks for playin'!

 

Maybe you should read it again:

 

Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified

 

Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

 

This is speaking of self defense and not speaking of assault and battery.

[rockpond]

What "important role" would you say religion has (in the past or current) in our country and democracy.

 

For many people, I think religion does provide their moral compass.  I also think that churches often serve as the charitable arm in our society.

 

But, that's not to say that non-religious organizations don't also do those things... because they do.

[Calm]

I agree. Which is why I find it insulting when others suggest that only a religious people can maintain society. History teaches that religions have been ver distructive to societies and governments

So have the lack of religions, iow some people will use whatever is at hand to control and oppress others whether it is religion or its denunciation.

[mormonnewb]

I find it amazing that the Church could produce BOTH of those videos, since they make exact opposite points.  The first video says that, without religion, there can not be a stable society because religion infuses citizens with a desire to obey the law.  The second video then says that religious freedom means that citizens should be able to disregard the law based on their religious beliefs (the same religious beliefs that are supposed to give people a desire to OBEY the law).  Huh?

 

The second video gives the example of the pharmacist who wishes to exercise his/her "religious freedom" to not dispense certain drugs, despite the legal obligation to do so.  But the first video tells us that religion should make this pharmacist not only obey the law (to dispense birth control) but to WANT to do so.  So which is it?

 

Or is it that religion only makes people want to obey JUST laws?  And if so, who gets to decide which laws are just?  Currently, we have a democratic process and judicial oversight to make these determinations.  However, the proponents of "religious freedom" want to turn that power over to people of faith so that "we can do whatever seems right in our own eyes"; provided, of course, that those eyes are "spiritual eyes."  Certainly, no one is suggesting that, say, a pharmacist should be able to withhold dispensing medication to a patient because of a personal animus or just on a whim.  In fact, no one is even suggesting that the pharmacist should be able to withhold, say, heart medication if he/she has a good faith belief that the patient beats his wife and children and therefore, society would be much better off without such a person.

 

However, if the pharmacist has a religious belief that taking birth control is wrong, then the pharmacist should be able to withhold such medication from the patient.  As a result, the pharmacist doesn't just have the freedom to abstain from using birth control herself, but she has the right to impose her religious beliefs on another person.

 

And what if those beliefs fall far outside the mainstream Christianity?  What about the JW surgeon who refuses to do blood transfusions?  Or what about the Mormon waitress who refuses to serve coffee to patrons?  Does religious freedom require that she be allowed to withhold coffee from the customers in her section or that some other waiter must come over to serve her customers?  Of course not.  If you can't stand the fresh brew, stay out of the diner.  And the same applies to pharmacists, wedding photographers, bakers and candlestick makers.  You have perfect religious freedom to abstain from getting into any of these businesses.  However, when you enter into the MARKETPLACE, you are subject to the rules of the marketplace.

 

And that should be just fine, because after all, religion makes citizens obedient to the laws, doesn't it?

Edited January 13, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Rob Osborn]

This country was not founded on belief in God.

SEE Treaty of Tripoli

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

All I can say is "wow". You really should get out more and do some research.

[Buckeye]

I find it amazing that the Church could produce BOTH of those videos, since they make exact opposite points.  The first video says that, without religion, there can not be a stable society because religion infuses citizens with a desire to obey the law.  The second video then says that religious freedom means that citizens should be able to disregard the law based on their religious beliefs (the same religious beliefs that are supposed to give people a desire to OBEY the law).  Huh?

 

The second video gives the example of the pharmacist who wishes to exercise his/her "religious freedom" to not dispense certain drugs, despite the legal obligation to do so.  But the first video tells us that religion should make this pharmacist not only obey the law (to dispense birth control) but to WANT to do so.  So which is it?

 

Or is it that religion only makes people want to obey JUST laws?  And if so, who gets to decide which laws are just?  Currently, we have a democratic process and judicial oversight to make these determinations.  However, the proponents of "religious freedom" want to turn that power over to people of faith so that "we can do whatever seems right in our own eyes"; provided, of course, that those eyes are "spiritual eyes."  Certainly, no one is suggesting that, say, a pharmacist should be able to withhold dispensing medication to a patient because of a personal animus or just on a whim.  In fact, no one is even suggesting that the pharmacist should be able to withhold, say, heart medication if he/she has a good faith belief that the patient beats his wife and children and therefore, society would be much better off without such a person.

 

However, if the pharmacist has a religious belief that taking birth control is wrong, then the pharmacist should be able to withhold such medication from the patient.  As a result, the pharmacist doesn't just have the freedom to abstain from using birth control herself, but she has the right to impose her religious beliefs on another person.

 

And what if those beliefs fall far outside the mainstream Christianity?  What about the JW surgeon who refuses to do blood transfusions?  Or what about the Mormon waitress who refuses to serve coffee to patrons?  Does religious freedom require that she be allowed to withhold coffee from the customers in her section or that some other waiter must come over to serve her customers?  Of course not.  If you can't stand the fresh brew, stay out of the diner.  And the same applies to pharmacists, wedding photographers, bakers and candlestick makers.  You have perfect religious freedom to abstain from getting into any of these businesses.  However, when you enter into the MARKETPLACE, you are subject to the rules of the marketplace.

 

And that should be just fine, because after all, religion makes citizens obedient to the laws, doesn't it?

 

Excellent points. It should also be noted that religion often leads to disobedience of the law. Sometimes civil disobedience (MLK). Sometimes not (John Brown).

[thesometimesaint]

I am sorry but all that says is that the two countries would let religion get in the way of harmony.  It does not address the founding principles. 

 

Read from writings of the founding fathers.

 

The Founders wanted a secular government. Like this?

 

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible...Some books on Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared much stronger than the refutations; in short I soon became a thorough deist."

-Benjamin Franklin, "Toward the Mystery" (autobiography)

"When the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice....he never did say a word of it in any of his public papers...Governor Morris has often told me that General Washington believed no more of that (Christian) system than he himself did.

-Thomas Jefferson, diary entry, 2/1/1799

"As the government of the United States of America is not on any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of of Musselmen (Muslims), - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by John Adams

"I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten...The delusion...on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favourite hope of an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own...the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion of their hopes and they (the preachers) believe that any portion of power confided to me (such as being elected president), will be excerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: FOR I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD, ETERNAL HOSTILITY AGAINST EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN."

-Thomas Jefferson, personal letter to Benjamin Rush (all-caps are also on Jefferson memorial)

"Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's question why the Ten Commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England we may say they are not because the never were."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length,...that Christianity is part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is inconrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed...What a conspiracy this, between Church and State. Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all. Sing Tantarara, rogues all!"

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, 6/5/1824

 

Thomas Paine was the philosophical father of our country.

See Common Sense

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm