Ahab Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) I think the church is facing a conundrum here. First, they claim the right to express themselves (no problem). Second, they also "claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience...” (also no problem).The problem arises in that the church is utilizing their right to express themselves to try and prohibit the God-given Constitutional right that others have to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, which they claim to support.Let me explain. There are religions, even Christian religions, which support SSM and include it as part of their religious practices. Does voicing our opposition to the religious practice and conscience of others make us hypocrites when "we claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience"? Are we not seeking to prohibit the religious rights of others just as our religious rights were prohibited in regards to polygamy?Let me make this clear, I do not support SSM, but I do see how this may appear to be a hypocritical stance. Don't know what the answer is.The answer is to allow or shall we say tolerate it when people don't do what we think they should do. To disagree without being disagreeable, as they say. To even look people in the face when they do something we don't agree with, even when we feel or "know" that what they are doing is wrong.The only socially acceptable time to try to use physical force to try to stop someone from doing something which someone else thinks it is wrong is when a police officer is trying to do kill or maim or similarly assault someone physically, even though there are some people in society who think that is wrong too. Edited January 27, 2015 by Ahab
Danzo Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Well, I'm not saying that. You can and I can have any definition of marriage we want. We can preach it to our hearts content. But to attempt to deny people their rights because we have our own definition of the word is problematic.However the concept of marriage, In a legal sens,e is something created by the government. Our particular government, at least, claims to involve the people, at least sometimes, in the creation of laws. Since I am a citizen of this country, I sometimes get a silly feeling that I might contribute somewhat to to how the laws are made, on many topics from tax law to business law, and sometimes even to family law. (I recently successfully settled a case that challenged a 9th circuit opinion on an aspect of Oregon family law, so much for court opinions being written in stone). What bothers me is when, somehow, when I wish to contribute something to how family law defines marriage, I become some monster, unworthy of being a citizen, unworthy of existing. Almost every change in law either gives or takes something away. Why is my input on this aspect of law forbidden? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Especially a private youth group that is closely affiliated with so many religious organizations. A back door in??Yes. The California Supreme Court has just made it more difficult for an active and faithful Latter-day Saint to serve as a judge in that state. Certainly seems like religious oppression to me. 1
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) And if you acknowledge that there was religious oppression before, then you know that the precedent has been set and in the minds of quite a number of people, it's quite OK with them. That's a fair point. My question is however, if we as a church want nothing more than religious freedom, are we not doing a disservice to the cause by voicing political opposition to the religious freedoms of others to practice according to the dictates of their own conscience? It seems like we only want religious freedom when it applies to us. Would it not be a stronger stance for the cause of religious freedom to publicly voice our disapproval of a practice while supporting the religious rights of others? Edited January 27, 2015 by pogi 2
ERayR Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 However the concept of marriage, In a legal sens,e is something created by the government. Marriage is a religious concept preempted by government but that was a long time ago.
ERayR Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Yes. The California Supreme Court has just made it more difficult for an active and faithful Latter-day Saint to serve as a judge in that state. Certainly seems like religious oppression to me. As well as a faithful Catholic.
Brian 2.0 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Public Officials can't be associated with just any group they want correct? There are restrictions I think. What is the legal phrasing of it? Is it that they can't be associated with groups practicing racial or sexual discrimination? But if that group is a religion it is exempt and allowed for the official to be a part of? Trying to see the legal precedent or policy here.
Rob Osborn Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 I think the church is facing a conundrum here. First, they claim the right to express themselves (no problem). Second, they also "claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience...” (also no problem). The problem arises in that the church is utilizing their right to express themselves to try and prohibit the God-given Constitutional right that others have to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, which they claim to support. Let me explain. There are religions, even Christian religions, which support SSM and include it as part of their religious practices. Does voicing our opposition to the religious practice and conscience of others make us hypocrites when "we claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience"? Are we not seeking to prohibit the religious rights of others just as our religious rights were prohibited in regards to polygamy? Let me make this clear, I do not support SSM, but I do see how this may appear to be a hypocritical stance. Don't know what the answer is. the message I got was that we as a church, as a body, should be able to voice our opinions and doctrines and teach them and put them into practice without the fear of being called a bigot, without the fear of the government forcing us otherwise to do practices against our religious beliefs (such as the cited instance of a Catholic Priest who works at a pharmacy and refuses to sell the morning after pill). The church stance on SSM is that we forbid it and actively teach against such practice. As such, we should have that constitutionally protected freedom to continue to teach against SSM without fear of being called bigots, without fear of government penalty or them forcing us to change our views or pressure us into changing our doctrines. 3
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) the message I got was that we as a church, as a body, should be able to voice our opinions and doctrines and teach them and put them into practice without the fear of being called a bigot, without the fear of the government forcing us otherwise to do practices against our religious beliefs (such as the cited instance of a Catholic Priest who works at a pharmacy and refuses to sell the morning after pill). The church stance on SSM is that we forbid it and actively teach against such practice. As such, we should have that constitutionally protected freedom to continue to teach against SSM without fear of being called bigots, without fear of government penalty or them forcing us to change our views or pressure us into changing our doctrines. Right, I understand the fears and concerns of the church, but again, how do we protect ourselves while protecting others as well? That is the conundrum. If we do not stand up for the religious rights of other faiths, then we are putting our own religious rights at risk. If one religion is threatened, we all are threatened. Read what he said: “We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience...” Do we really claim the right for everyone, or just for us? Edited January 27, 2015 by pogi
Brian 2.0 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 the message I got was that we as a church, as a body, should be able to voice our opinions and doctrines and teach them and put them into practice without the fear of being called a bigot...So you're asking for free speech for the church but not for others? On this point you are out of luck. You should be allowed to believe what you want to believe (as a citizen, maybe not as a public official) and others can believe whatever they want about your beliefs (as a citizen, maybe not as a public official)
thesometimesaint Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Should a Mormon Priest who happens to be a pharmacist in a business open to the public be determining what your medical needs are? Say he's a WoW fanatic and doesn't believe in pain killers. Should he be allowed to by law prevent you from getting those drugs? 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 So you're asking for free speech for the church but not for others? On this point you are out of luck. You should be allowed to believe what you want to believe (as a citizen, maybe not as a public official) and others can believe whatever they want about your beliefs (as a citizen, maybe not as a public official) Not saying that at all. I am saying that the church should be allowed to teach against things like SSM, abortion, etc, without fear and persecution form others, especially government encroachment. Free speech is just that- let us freely speak according to our own dictates and conscious. You can do the same. We may disagree but we can debate and discuss civilly. Thats the message
ERayR Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Should a Mormon Priest who happens to be a pharmacist in a business open to the public be determining what your medical needs are? Say he's a WoW fanatic and doesn't believe in pain killers. Should he be allowed to by law prevent you from getting those drugs? This is the mind set that causes so much over reach. There is a big difference between a pharmacist and a baker of wedding cakes or a youth ministry providing day camp. 3
Rob Osborn Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Should a Mormon Priest who happens to be a pharmacist in a business open to the public be determining what your medical needs are? Say he's a WoW fanatic and doesn't believe in pain killers. Should he be allowed to by law prevent you from getting those drugs? taking, or not taking pain killers, is not a WoW issue. Addiction is another matter. try again. 1
ERayR Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 So you're asking for free speech for the church but not for others?On this point you are out of luck. You should be allowed to believe what you want to believe (as a citizen, maybe not as a public official) and others can believe whatever they want about your beliefs (as a citizen, maybe not as a public official) Free speech s not the issue. Finding a workable public policy is. Setting public policy is always accompanied by friction between the stakeholder groups.
Rob Osborn Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Right, I understand the fears and concerns of the church, but again, how do we protect ourselves while protecting others as well? That is the conundrum. If we do not stand up for the religious rights of other faiths, then we are putting our own religious rights at risk. If one religion is threatened, we all are threatened. Read what he said: “We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience...” Do we really claim the right for everyone, or just for us? Sure we do. We do not hinder the Jews who wish to celebrate Hanukkah. Neither do we hinder upon the Catholics who worship the trinity and their other beliefs. We do not picket in front of their churches nor do try to have laws passed that prohibit things like midnight mass. If we teach against SSM then that is what we teach. If another religion teaches SSM as a just and holy principle then we acknowledge their right to believ and worship such. But, that does not mean we accept their beliefs and keep hush about it. Thats what religious freedom is all about- let everyone worship what they will without physically hurting and imposing our or others wills upon others. It gets tacky obviously with things like SSM because so much is at stake that effects freedom and society. We thus actively protest SSM because it is our right to religiously have expression in the publics eye. 2
Brian 2.0 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Free speech s not the issue. Finding a workable public policy is. Setting public policy is always accompanied by friction between the stakeholder groups.Agreed. I just felt that portion of Rob's statement was over reaching... People should have the right to call someone a bigot... and the other person should be able to be a bigot, or try to convince the other person why he's not being a bigot. This particular point starts getting into "hate speech" territory which is a different, yet related issue.
thesometimesaint Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 This is the mind set that causes so much over reach. There is a big difference between a pharmacist and a baker of wedding cakes or a youth ministry providing day camp. I agree. If I were a pharmacist or a cake baker open to the public it would be unethical and potentially illegal to refuse service based on my religious preferences. By the same token youth ministries providing a day camp are not generally open to the general public. They are in essence private clubs and can refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever whether I consider it ethical or not.
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Should a Mormon Priest who happens to be a pharmacist in a business open to the public be determining what your medical needs are? Say he's a WoW fanatic and doesn't believe in pain killers. Should he be allowed to by law prevent you from getting those drugs? Haven't met too many pharmacists in the priest quorum, but point taken. taking, or not taking pain killers, is not a WoW issue. Addiction is another matter. try again. How 'bout a JW MD refusing to give you a blood transfusion? Edited January 27, 2015 by pogi 1
ERayR Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Agreed. I just felt that portion of Rob's statement was over reaching... People should have the right to call someone a bigot... and the other person should be able to be a bigot, or try to convince the other person why he's not being a bigot.This particular point starts getting into "hate speech" territory which is a different, yet related issue. If you are going to call someone a bigot you better be sure the are because if they are not you are guilty of libel (legally) and bearing false witness (morally). 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 taking, or not taking pain killers, is not a WoW issue. Addiction is another matter. try again. It may not be an issue for you or me, but I guarantee it is for some. I said not one word about addiction. Addiction is a side issue at best. Try again.
Rob Osborn Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Haven't met too many pharmacists in the priest quorum, but point taken. How 'bout a JW MD refusing to give you a blood transfusion? If I went to get a cake and I was at the store and they voiced their hate and distrust towards Mormons, I would probably not do business with them and find another cake maker. Should the government force me to have to buy a cake through him? Different side of the same coin but the same point. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 It may not be an issue for you or me, but I guarantee it is for some. I said not one word about addiction. Addiction is a side issue at best. Try again. I have a sister in law who kept going to different doctors and getting prescriptions because of her addiction to them. The pharmacy stopped filling them and called the doctor. Should the government enforce and demand they still sell her the prescription anyway? You need to rephrase your point because it doesnt make any sense. 1
pogi Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) If I went to get a cake and I was at the store and they voiced their hate and distrust towards Mormons, I would probably not do business with them and find another cake maker. Should the government force me to have to buy a cake through him? Different side of the same coin but the same point. I don't understand your question in red.The point is the government should intervene if they are refusing to give you service based on your religious beliefs, color of your skin, etc. It is called discrimination and we should fight against it, even if it would be easier to go to a different cake store. Are you going to find a different doctor when you urgently need a blood transfusion and no other doctors are available at that time? Edited January 27, 2015 by pogi 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Agreed. I just felt that portion of Rob's statement was over reaching... People should have the right to call someone a bigot... and the other person should be able to be a bigot, or try to convince the other person why he's not being a bigot. This particular point starts getting into "hate speech" territory which is a different, yet related issue. I get called a bigot all the time. I even get kicked out of these forums posts fairly often because I express my religious opinion. Am I a bigot? No. But the far left is sure trying to redefine bigotry as any sign of intolerance for immorality or voice against immorality.
Recommended Posts