Religious Freedom Forum Fireside

[california boy]

I am not too worried. A little real persecution is good for the soul and we have been liked by the world at large far too much lately for my taste. Jesus's counsel that the world loves its own has bothered me for some time.

I think the world loving Mormons has disappeared in the aftermath of Prop 8.  It is about to get ratcheted up a little more.  Unfortunately the church will not be hated for its compassion and service to others but for discrimination and bigotry.  Be careful what you wish for.  

[CV75]

Marriage began as a religious rite. And since then has been defined and redefined by governments and churches. But I think you and I both agree that, at its core, marriage remains a religious institution.

Your counter to what I've said, assuming I've understood you correctly, is that gay marriage does violence to the public interest and therefore can be restricted. So, how does the legal recognition of a gay union do violence to the public interest?

No, you continue to misunderstand through the lens of coveting that which the Church prohibits. Read and re-read my post (#65) until you can see what I am saying, and then hopefully you can say something pertinent.

[CV75]

"The LDS believe it is not just to mingle religion with civil government. As one who believes in the importance of the United States Constitution, I believe the wall separating Church and State is intended keep each out of the other business - to the extent that every man does not become a religious law unto himself."

 

Perhaps you should Reynolds v. US before you accuse me of something.  I do not believe a legal entity, which can does not possess a thinking mind of its own, has a role to play in self-government; individuals which have membership in the entity have a voice. As stated above, according to the LDS that voice is only just as it does not mingle religion with civil government to proscription of others in their religious beliefs.

 

Could you provide some examples pertaining your statement "[T]hat governments have also succeeded in providing legally sufficient public interest for restricting certain expressions/manifestations of  some religions / "religions" to protect religious freedom."

Religious duty is no defense to a criminal indictment, which is what I’ve been saying more than once)…Whether this principle is practiced within a particular legal jurisdiction has nothing to do with separation and church and state; it can exist and be practiced (or not) regardless of such separation. Seems like it’s not just a legal entity that isn’t thinking here LOL!

Let's see; depends on the country but in the USA... some extant restricted religious practices include snake handling by minors, human and animal sacrifice (especially those which involve torture and corporal punishment), religious imposition of death penalty, marriage and sex with minors, a parent refusing life-sustaining treatment of a child.

[The Nehor]

I think the world loving Mormons has disappeared in the aftermath of Prop 8.  It is about to get ratcheted up a little more.  Unfortunately the church will not be hated for its compassion and service to others but for discrimination and bigotry.  Be careful what you wish for.

In the last dispensation they were hated for blood feasts and treason. I admit the false accusations against us in this dispensation are tepid by comparison. We have a ways to go.

[rockpond]

No, you continue to misunderstand through the lens of coveting that which the Church prohibits. Read and re-read my post (#65) until you can see what I am saying, and then hopefully you can say something pertinent.

I've re-read it. Can you explain how legally recognizing the marriage of a gay couple does violence to the public interest? Edited January 14, 2015 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

My belief in gay marriage is based in my religious practice.

 

So religious freedom should be bound by what is damaging to the "public interest"?  Setting aside the issue of how gay marriage would damage the public interest, what happens if the broader society decided that believing in the tenets of Mormonism was damaging to the public interest -- would we just lose our religious freedom?  And you would, apparently, be okay with that.

 

They'll run into the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the US Constitution.

[Rob Osborn]

Watch the second video.  What is the message you get?

That we should defend religious freedom. I dont know where you got your ideas but nowhere in the video did it even mention gays.

[CV75]

I've re-read it. Can you explain how legally recognizing the marriage of a gay couple does violence to the public interest?

But that wasn’t what my post (or any other of mine for that matter) was addressing so I don’t see any relevance to your question. And I doubt it is what your stake fireside is about, either!

 

Are you going to perseverate at asking the same irrelevant question over and over? and/or by re-reading and re-reading my posts? LOL

[california boy]

That we should defend religious freedom. I dont know where you got your ideas but nowhere in the video did it even mention gays.

Watch the second video at 3:30.  There the speaker advocates that Photographers and innkeepers should be allowed to discriminate and calls that religious freedom as the excuse to discriminate.

 

The example of the 'christian" wedding photographer was in fact fined for breaking the civil right laws, not because she was a christian who felt she had the right to discriminate against a gay couple.

[rockpond]

But that wasn’t what my post (or any other of mine for that matter) was addressing so I don’t see any relevance to your question. And I doubt it is what your stake fireside is about, either!

 

Are you going to perseverate at asking the same irrelevant question over and over? and/or by re-reading and re-reading my posts? LOL

 

Okay... so if it isn't about "violence to the public interest" (something you brought up to support your position) then why do we curtail the religious freedoms of those who believe that God affirms gay marriages by preventing marriage equality under the law?

[rockpond]

They'll run into the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the US Constitution.

 

True.  So let me make a more specific example -- say that a group decided that it was contrary to the public interest to allow LDS temples to perform civil marriages because they excluded unworthy family members and friends from witnessing the marriage.  Let's say that they began lobbying to prevent LDS temples from performing such legally recognized marriages.  Is that an issue of religious freedom?

[thesometimesaint]

True.  So let me make a more specific example -- say that a group decided that it was contrary to the public interest to allow LDS temples to perform civil marriages because they excluded unworthy family members and friends from witnessing the marriage.  Let's say that they began lobbying to prevent LDS temples from performing such legally recognized marriages.  Is that an issue of religious freedom?

 

Yes. It is one thing to exclude all religions from performing state sanctioned marriages, and quite another to exclude just one religion from performing state sanctioned marriages. IE; England allows for marriages first performed in front of a civil magistrate then any religious ceremony the couple wants.

[rockpond]

Yes. It is one thing to exclude all religions from performing state sanctioned marriages, and quite another to exclude just one religion from performing state sanctioned marriages. IE; England allows for marriages first performed in front of a civil magistrate then any religious ceremony the couple wants.

 

Right.  So if that is an issue of religious freedom, then how is it NOT an issue of religious freedom to fight against other churches (who believe in gay marriage) from being able to perform those marriages and have them legally recognized?  In my hypothetical, the LDS Church would still be able to perform marriages in their temples, just not have them legally recognized.  Legal recognition of a religious rite becomes the religious freedom issue.

[thesometimesaint]

Right.  So if that is an issue of religious freedom, then how is it NOT an issue of religious freedom to fight against other churches (who believe in gay marriage) from being able to perform those marriages and have them legally recognized?  In my hypothetical, the LDS Church would still be able to perform marriages in their temples, just not have them legally recognized.  Legal recognition of a religious rite becomes the religious freedom issue.

 

You are missing the point. I want to get the civil governments out of the religion business altogether. If one religion is excluded for having its ceremonies legally recognized ALL of them should be. IE; As a civil government states don't recognize Catholic, or any other, baptism as legally binding. States don't get to tell just the Catholics that only their baptisms are not legally binding.

[rockpond]

You are missing the point. I want to get the civil governments out of the religion business altogether. If one religion is excluded for having its ceremonies legally recognized ALL of them should be. IE; As a civil government states don't recognize Catholic, or any other, baptism as legally binding. States don't get to tell just the Catholics that only their baptisms are not legally binding.

 

I would support that.

[Rob Osborn]

Watch the second video at 3:30.  There the speaker advocates that Photographers and innkeepers should be allowed to discriminate and calls that religious freedom as the excuse to discriminate.

 

The example of the 'christian" wedding photographer was in fact fined for breaking the civil right laws, not because she was a christian who felt she had the right to discriminate against a gay couple.

People in private business should be able to discriminate based on their own beliefs. People shouldnt be forced to accommodate and support causes/people and practices that go against their religious beliefs. Religious freedom/freedom of religion is manifest in all aspects of peoples lives. If a photographer doesnt want to photograph a gay couple then under their religious freedom they shouldnt have to. Find someone else. This is precisely how our religious freedom is getting destroyed.

[tonie]

This ignores that governments have also succeeded in providing legally sufficient public interest for restricting certain expressions/manifestations of  some religions / "religions" to protect religious freedom.

 

CFR that US governments have also succeeded in providing legally sufficient public interest for restricting certain expressions/manifestations of  some religions / "religions" to protect religious freedom.

Edited January 14, 2015 by tonie

[CV75]

Okay... so if it isn't about "violence to the public interest" (something you brought up to support your position) then why do we curtail the religious freedoms of those who believe that God affirms gay marriages by preventing marriage equality under the law?

Read. The. Post. Without reading way more into it than is there.

 

I clearly stated the principle that the expression of religious freedom must be restricted in those instances where it does violence to the public interest so that religious freedom can thrive.

 

Jurisdictions determine why and how that is done.

 

As far as supporting “positions” go, my post only gets into how you’ve failed to support your position that the Church is a threat to religious liberty, by not understanding those two principles.

[tonie]

Religious duty is no defense to a criminal indictment, which is what I’ve been saying more than once)…

 

This is first time you have asserted posted, in this thread, that religious duty is no defense.

[CV75]

CFR that US governments have also succeeded in providing legally sufficient public interest for restricting certain expressions/manifestations of  some religions / "religions" to protect religious freedom.

What is it with you two? Read. Post. #78.

 

 

This is first time you have asserted posted, in this thread, that religious duty is no defense.

Well, you asked me to comment on "Reynolds v. US"... look it up! http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0 and Wikipedia as well.

 

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES

Question: Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

 

Conclusion: No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.

 

This gets to the whole idea I've mentioned all along, that some religious practices are restricted in the public interest. See. Post. #44. where I first mentioned it.

Edited January 14, 2015 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

Should a market be forced to be open on Sundays?

Should a market be forced to sell beer and cigarettes?

[thesometimesaint]

Should a market be forced to be open on Sundays?

Should a market be forced to sell beer and cigarettes?

 

Should a market be forced by law to be closed on Sundays? My family doesn't shop on Sunday's. My Seventh Day Adventist neighbors don't shop on Saturday. Which should the law require to close?

 

Should a market be forced by law to not sell beer and cigarettes? I live in California booze and tobacco products are available for sale to any shopper who wants them. If those industries depended upon me to keep them in business they wouldn't last long.

[rockpond]

Should a market be forced to be open on Sundays?

Should a market be forced to sell beer and cigarettes?

 

No and no.

 

Should a gay couple be forced to create all kinds of extra contracts and legal documents to have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple?

[rockpond]

I clearly stated the principle that the expression of religious freedom must be restricted in those instances where it does violence to the public interest so that religious freedom can thrive.

 

From post #65 that you asked me to re-read, you similarly wrote:  "The expression of religious freedom must be restricted in those instances where it does violence to the public interest so that religious freedom can thrive. The public interest is defined by the free society at large, and churches by definition must have a voice in that. A tenet is not a practice, so I am not OK with doctrines and creeds being proscribed for any religion."

 

I agree with these two statements that you've made.

 

Do you agree that marriage is an expression of religious freedom?

[Rob Osborn]

No and no.

 

Should a gay couple be forced to create all kinds of extra contracts and legal documents to have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple?

My religious beliefs say that a gay couple should not have the same rights as a marriage between a man and a woman.