Church And State

[Rob Osborn]

That isn't what the First Amendment says. It not only prevent the government from establishing a state religion it prevents the state from determining what church beliefs/doctrines are law, and the church from determining what are the laws.

 

The separation of Church and State is based on the principle that We the People rule, not God, not Popes, not Archbishops, not Ministers of religion, not Prophets. The bloody history of Europe gave even them pause.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Hum...you seriously need to get a Constitution and read it. Our forefathers who wrote up the Constitution realized it was the Almighty God that gives us our freedom.

[KevinG]

Hum...you seriously need to get a Constitution and read it. Our forefathers who wrote up the Constitution realized it was the Almighty God that gives us our freedom.

 

There is also enshrined in the Constitution (and reflected in Mormonism) the right of the individual to interpret religion or morality and live by the dictates of their own conscience.  Agency is a large factor in my own sensitivity to involving government in the affairs of people.  This includes the right of private organizations to discriminate in membership.  Even if I find their reasons morally repugnant, is it up to me to dictate to them who they can and cannot admit by force of law?

[thesometimesaint]

Well then, what is violence?

 

If a religious group sincerely professes that contraception within

the womb constitutes "violence" against a newly conceived "person"

or, to a "person" God intends to immediately bring to life, if the

interfering "violence" is not enacted -- then what?

 

In Guatemala such sincerely professed religious doctrines resulted

in the enactment of very strict civil legislation. And, it seems that

very, very few folks there protested that limitation placed upon the

nation as a whole (because the vast majority of citizens were RCC).

 

Food for thought...

 

UD

 

In the US they can believe anything they want. I have no desire to enforce my beliefs on them. They should not and are not required to use contraception.  In fact I encourage them to give their best arguments why they feel I should agree with them. I don't, but I'm willing to listen. As defined by medical science contraception isn't killing a new conception. As defined by the USSC contraception isn't killing a new conception. As defined by my religion contraception isn't killing a new conception. By profession I tend to agree with the science. So I have facts, law, and religion on my side. But as I said I want them to give me their best arguments. They just haven't done that yet.

[Rob Osborn]

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” - George Washington

“The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” - United States Congress 1782

“In God We Trust” - United States Congress 1864

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial

“And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust’” - USA National Anthem, Third Verse

“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth…” - US Constitution, Before signature text declaring our Christian Nation

Note: “Year of our Lord” means Jesus Christ is Lord of the USA.

[KevinG]

That our founding fathers were religious, Christian or at least Deist, and guided by that in their establishment of our laws, is not in question...  What is in question is when two groups sacraments or expressions of religion are in conflict with each other, who arbitrates and to what extent?

 

That has been the debate since before 1776 and will continue to be the debate going forward, as reflected in individual cases and points of law.

 

Precedence of Sharia, Talmudic, New Testament, or civil statutes in various jurisdictions is one potential conflict.  The Jewish school for special needs students denied funding in New York is a great illustration.

 

Religious belief should not be a cover for denying civil rights, but civil rights cannot be an excuse for dictating to a religious body either.

[Rob Osborn]

That our founding fathers were religious, Christian or at least Deist, and guided by that in their establishment of our laws, is not in question...  What is in question is when two groups sacraments or expressions of religion are in conflict with each other, who arbitrates and to what extent?

 

That has been the debate since before 1776 and will continue to be the debate going forward, as reflected in individual cases and points of law.

 

Precedence of Sharia, Talmudic, New Testament, or civil statutes in various jurisdictions is one potential conflict.  The Jewish school for special needs students denied funding in New York is a great illustration.

 

Religious belief should not be a cover for denying civil rights, but civil rights cannot be an excuse for dictating to a religious body either.

The government is squashing our first amendment. Take the Boy Scouts of America for instance- there are more and more restrictions place don them and laws being passed to disallow government affiliation/participation of government funds to the BSA all because someone got their feelings hurt that the BSA doesnt allow gay leaders out of a moral conviction.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Rob Osborn

[rpn]

There is caselaw about this.   The answer is regulation is permissible ONLY when there is a compelling state interest, and no other way to resolve the concern than infringing.

 

Examples ,might include:  You can't kill people, even if your faith believes that child sacrifice requires it.

 

You cannot sacrifice animals without some controls over where and disposal.

 

You cannot mutilate your female children's genitals (interestingly, circumcision doesn't generate the same outcry, though NY attempt to regulate that parents had to receive written notice that it could lead to malformations and death if infection ensued.

 

You cannot deprive your children of medical care because you think prayer should be enough.

 

You can use a controlled substance --- peyote--- in ceremonies.

 

You do not have to serve in combat when you are drafted if you are a conscientious objector.

[JLHPROF]

And yet JS and BY organized their versions so that people could opt out and leave if they so desired.

These days leaving a particular federal government can be impossible for many, at least legally.

 

This is always true.  Even in premortality we had our agency to opt out and leave.

However, the ruling government was still the "Church".  There was no separation of the Church and the State.  In God's Kingdom how could there be?

And Joseph and Brigham wanted to hasten the establishing of God's political Kingdom.  There is always agency, but there won't always be a government that is separate from the religious authority.

[KevinG]

The government is squashing our first amendment. Take the Boy Scouts of America for instance- there are more and more restrictions place don them and laws being passed to disallow government affiliation/participation of government funds to the BSA all because someone got their feelings hurt that the BSA doesnt allow gay leaders out of a moral conviction.

 

Yes.  The BSA cases give me more pause on the rights of the church to define marriage than any other example.  That is a great example of the slippery slope being an actual slippery slope.  A compromise was given at the price of much of the BSA membership, and advocacy groups immediately positioned for further interference in the organizations governance.

[CV75]

Good clarification...  The law of our Land say we neither establish or prevent free exercise of religion.  

 

So the question becomes what is governments role (if any) when your free exercise of religion interferes with something I feel should be a right of the people?

I think that generally, government’s role is to exercise authority, in this case, as an arbitrator whose decision is binding upon the parties. To do this, the rights of the people, including the free exercise of religion, have to have been defined and translated into law.

What someone feels should be a right of the people may not be recognized as such by the people or by the government.

If one or the other or both rights are not recognized, pressure can build to the point of revolution or other means of change.

The USA has recognized the free exercise of religion as a right and has established laws to protect it. Because its authority and laws are subject to the voice of the people, this can change with regards to the balance between natural and legal rights. I think the Church is making an appeal to the sense of freedom to worship and to discuss matters affecting worship as a natural right. In lands where the voice of the people holds some sway, this would translate into an appeal to establish fair laws that protect everyone's freedom to worship as they please.

[stemelbow]

Religious belief should not be a cover for denying civil rights, but civil rights cannot be an excuse for dictating to a religious body either.

Nobody is really disagreeing with that. The disagreement in the current issue is not that civil rights is dictating to a religious body--it's that the religious body has worked to deny civil rights from LGBT.

[KevinG]

Nobody is really disagreeing with that. The disagreement in the current issue is not that civil rights is dictating to a religious body--it's that the religious body has worked to deny civil rights from LGBT.

 

The "current issue" is all of the above.  Activists dictating to the BSA who they should affiliate with, government dictating to privately owned businesses in conflict with their owners beliefs, LGBT seeking government recognition of marriage equal to that offered heterosexuals...  

 

This thread is the broader issue of how to resolve those inevitable conflicts.

[The Nehor]

Hum...you seriously need to get a Constitution and read it. Our forefathers who wrote up the Constitution realized it was the Almighty God that gives us our freedom.

Buddy, you really need to read it. The Constitution has one mention of God in it and that is the standard "year of our Lord" bit giving the date which is hardly a religious sentiment.

[stemelbow]

The "current issue" is all of the above.  Activists dictating to the BSA who they should affiliate with,

huh?

government dictating to privately owned businesses in conflict with their owners beliefs,

huh?

LGBT seeking government recognition of marriage equal to that offered heterosexuals...

You mean granting civil rights to everyone? Well that only seems fair.

 

This thread is the broader issue of how to resolve those inevitable conflicts.

I don't think there is conflict so much as a framing of issues in way that make it appear there is such conflict.

[KevinG]

I can't help "huh?"  Majority/Minority dynamics in defining community standards has been an ongoing issue since before the founding of our republic.  

 

Moving on...

Edited February 3, 2015 by KevinG

[stemelbow]

I can't help "huh?"

 

Moving on...

Sorry. when you say " Activists dictating to the BSA who they should affiliate with" what do you mean?

When you say, "government dictating to privately owned businesses in conflict with their owners beliefs" what do you mean?

I think I know what the issues you are alluding to but what I know about them conflicts with what you say about them. So, for the sake of clarity and conversation if you would expand I'd appreciate it.

[The Nehor]

Hum...you seriously need to get a Constitution and read it. Our forefathers who wrote up the Constitution realized it was the Almighty God that gives us our freedom.

Many (though not all) acknowledged that but also knew something of the tyranny men can perpetuate while claiming to represent God.

[KevinG]

1. Barring judges from serving if they affiliate with the BSA with the support of the California supreme court.

 

2. Hobby Lobby being forced to pay for abortifactants against the owners religious beliefs.  All income and business taxes being subject to use providing abortions.

 

The Heart of Atlanta hotel vs. the US Government when they advocated segregated facilities is a great case.  I think their position was repugnant but I also question if their right of free association was violated.  The FedGov used interstate commerce as their justification.  

 

The anti-polygamy statues against adults freely entering into marriages they desired are another overreach of government into the arena of morality I have an issue with.

 

By the way - I am a supporter of equal protection under the law for gays when it comes to marriage.  I have been since prop. 8.  It was one of the few times I found myself at odds with the church as an institution on a political stance.  Yet despite my personal beliefs I was never once chastised, corrected or criticized by my line of authority.  

Edited February 3, 2015 by KevinG

[stemelbow]

1. Barring judges from serving if they affiliate with the BSA with the support of the California supreme court.

Thanks. I was pretty sure you had this in mind. The question is can a judge affiliate with an organization that discriminates against others based on their sexual orientation? If say a Judge joined a an organization or created an organization that discriminated against Mormons, would that be appropriate? Makes sense to me. Not sure this ammounts to activists dictating to the BSA, just as, as if the hypothetical were true, one could not argue that activists would be dictating to the LDS Church.

 

2. Hobby Lobby being forced to pay for abortifactants against the owners religious beliefs.  All income and business taxes being subject to use providing abortions.

I thought Hobby Lobby won on appeal?

 

The Heart of Atlanta hotel vs. the US Government when they advocated segregated facilities is a great case.  I think their position was repugnant but I also question if their right of free association was violated.  The FedGov used interstate commerce as their justification.  

 

The anti-polygamy statues against adults freely entering into marriages they desired are another overreach of government into the arena of morality I have an issue with.

By the way - I am a supporter of equal protection under the law for gays when it comes to marriage.  I have been since prop. 8.  It was one of the few times I found myself at odds with the church as an institution on a political stance.  Yet despite my personal beliefs I was never once chastised, corrected or criticized by my line of authority.

As it turns out, me either.

[KevinG]

As it turns out, me either.

 

What terrible apostates are we?  I suppose I must take a harder stance on allowing women to show their shoulders, or perhaps drink more Coke before anyone takes me seriously.  

[KevinG]

OK for your substantive point.  We have lots of Baptist and Evangelical judges in Georgia.  I'm pretty sure some of them hold discriminatory views about Mormons to the extent that I cannot go into their church sponsored men's clubs (covenant keepers, etc.) and preach the restored gospel.  Yet I'm comfortable they can exercise jurisprudence from the bench.

 

The boy scouts has only come down against open advocacy and expression of sexuality in their ranks.  

 

The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and abide by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

Yet there are groups very actively opposing their right to associate under those conditions by force of law and social pressure.

[stemelbow]

OK for your substantive point.  We have lots of Baptist and Evangelical judges in Georgia.  I'm pretty sure some of them hold discriminatory views about Mormons to the extent that I cannot go into their church sponsored men's clubs (covenant keepers, etc.) and preach the restored gospel.  Yet I'm comfortable they can exercise jurisprudence from the bench.

 

The boy scouts has only come down against open advocacy and expression of sexuality in their ranks.  

 

The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and abide by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

Yet there are groups very actively opposing their right to associate under those conditions by force of law and social pressure.

Alright. I can agree. I think the California Supreme has gone too far on this. Fair enough.

[CV75]

Nobody is really disagreeing with that. The disagreement in the current issue is not that civil rights is dictating to a religious body--it's that the religious body has worked to deny civil rights from LGBT.

for the record, that was KevinG's post #30, nothing I ever posted... how did my quote name and post information get attached to it?

Edited February 3, 2015 by CV75

[CV75]

This thread is the broader issue of how to resolve those inevitable conflicts.

By defining them as "inevitable," they would have to do with "inalienable" rights and would call for an appeal to natural rights and all the risks that entails.

[KevinG]

for the record, that was KevinG's post #30, nothing I ever posted... how did my quote name and post information get attached to it?

 

Neat trick...  Does that mean I can make you say what I want?  Bwahahahaha!