Church And State

[Uncle Dale]

...stance on allowing women to show their shoulders...

 

Probably meant in a light-hearted way...

 

But I'm left to wonder why I hear so much talk about "letting women"

do this or that? I expect to hear such things when people talk about

how to manage little children -- but it has always seemed strange to

me when the same mindset gets applied to the females in our midst.

 

I recall being in the Navy -- and being told that even admirals were

"not permitted" to do certain things. I wondered who it might be that

had the authority to observe such high officers, over their shoulders,

so to speak, and admonish them, if they did something "not permitted."

 

Today I was reading through some late 1820s popular literature on

the American Freemasons -- since it was written by dissenters and

ex-masons, it would probably (even today) be challenged as being

untruthful by defenders of the Craft.

 

But one concept caught my attention, and still puzzles me. The claim

that the Royal Arch Mason literally gave his life away, when being

inducted into that particular august degree -- that he thus permitted

fellow brethren to take his very life, if he transgressed. And not just

in relation to the instruction he was given at that time, but in relation

to all future obligations as well.

 

Under such a system, the member of the sect (not sure I can call it a

religion) "permitted" his masonic brothers to take his life, for a knowing

"sin" against the Institution -- and by granting that permission, his

executioners were free from any possible guilt arising from breaking

the civil law.

 

How that would play out in court (should such a case come to trial) I have

no idea. Today a patient can grant his/her physician permission to end

life in a terminal health situation -- legal in some places; illegal in others.

But in the case of a Royal Arch executioner, he could never present his

exculpatory evidence in a court of law (for his own oath forbade any such

profane admissions). It appears that his only "out," in such a trial, would

be to lie (and perhaps somehow be supported by the lies of others).

 

Yet -- in his own mind, at least -- he had been granted "permission." And

the civil authorities had thus been denied "permission" to punish the act.

 

I've strayed far from the topic of "letting women" do this or that -- but, then

again, I've been told that some women expect their fathers and husbands

to set moral limits, in accord with rightful "authority" in an obedient family.

 

So, maybe my little intrusion here was not totally off-base.

 

UD

Edited February 4, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[stemelbow]

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?

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm not sure how I got that mixed up. Sorry about that.

[thesometimesaint]

Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

 

Guess who wrote and signed the Treaty of Tripoli

Many of those same founders like John Adams, and Joel Barlow

[tonie]

A couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head...

 

Rastafarian-ism and use of marijuana during ceremonies.

 

Catholic owned businesses forced to provide abortifactants to employees.

 

Taxpayer funds used to provide abortion services.

 

The BSA being denied use of public parks and facilities unless they admit atheist or gay scouts/scout leaders.

 

 

could you please identify the specific cases/instances with links?

 

What do you consider a "Catholic owned business"?

 

As for tax payer monies used for abortion, I do not mind. And more importantly I do not believe God will hold accountable for rendering to Ceasar the things that are Ceasars; Furthermore, I do not believe  I will be held accountable for what Ceasar does with those things.

[Danzo]

could you please identify the specific cases/instances with links?

 

What do you consider a "Catholic owned business"?

 

As for tax payer monies used for abortion, I do not mind. And more importantly I do not believe God will hold accountable for rendering to Ceasar the things that are Ceasars; Furthermore, I do not believe  I will be held accountable for what Ceasar does with those things.

 

I don't know what country you live in, but in the United States, our government is elected and we have power and influence to change the laws.  We, as Citizens are, in some ways Caesars and I think we will be accountable, like Caesar was.

 

If we lived in a country with a dictator, we could just say that whatever Caesar does, Caesar does, and Caesar will have to account for it.  I don't think we have that luxury here in the United States.

 

Once Caesar (the people through their representatives) has decided, we must render, however we must still use our power (as part of Caesar) to do what we can to make sure that Caesar is asking for the right things to render unto him.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Danzo

[tonie]

I don't know what country you live in, but in the United States, our government is elected and we have power and influence to change the laws.  We, as Citizens are, in some ways Caesars and I think we will be accountable, like Caesar was.

 

If we lived in a country with a dictator, we could just say that whatever Caesar does, Caesar does, and Caesar will have to account for it.  I don't think we have that luxury here in the United States.

 

Once Caesar (the people through their representatives) has decided, we must render, however we must still use our power (as part of Caesar) to do what we can to make sure that Caesar is asking for the right things to render unto him.

 

 

As the LDS Church position is that some circumstances justify abortion, I am just fine with tax payer money being used for abortions. I am not so out of touch to think that the justifiable circumstances only happen to who can pay out-of-pocket.

[KevinG]

Probably meant in a light-hearted way...

 

But I'm left to wonder why I hear so much talk about "letting women"

do this or that? 

 

Yes it was sarcasm.  And I agree wholeheartedly with eliminating the error of thinking we as organizations or individuals "let" women do anything.  They are daughters of their Father in Heaven with all the agency that comes with it.  

[KevinG]

could you please identify the specific cases/instances with links?

 

 

 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1355714.html Guam vs. Guerrero

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/170977-california-require-catholic-universities-cover-elective-abortions-employees/  Catholic Universities and Abortion Coverage

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/956230/posts  BSA and public land use

[Uncle Dale]

Yes it was sarcasm.  And I agree wholeheartedly with eliminating the error of thinking we as organizations or individuals "let" women do anything.  They are daughters of their Father in Heaven with all the agency that comes with it.  

 

Of course there are fundamentalist Evangelicals who take very

seriously the allegation that The Almighty has placed the husband

at the head of his family, in order to rule it properly and to prevent

disorder and iniquity.

 

I've met and conversed with such folks for years, and sooner or later

these guys get around to telling me that Adam should have kept a

closer watch on Eve, and not allowed her out of the house to converse

with serpents in the first place (his duty as head of the family, etc.)

 

Good to hear you're not one of those fellows.

 

UD

[KevinG]

Of course there are fundamentalist Evangelicals who take very

seriously the allegation that The Almighty has placed the husband

at the head of his family, in order to rule it properly and to prevent

disorder and iniquity.

 

I've met and conversed with such folks for years, and sooner or later

these guys get around to telling me that Adam should have kept a

closer watch on Eve, and not allowed her out of the house to converse

with serpents in the first place (his duty as head of the family, etc.)

 

Good to hear you're not one of those fellows.

 

UD

 

If fathers are to preside over our families as the Savior presides over the church, to me that means we are to strive to be Christlike, counsel with our families, and even be willing to give up our lives if necessary for their sake.  There is nothing about unrighteous dominion in Christlike leadership.

[CV75]

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

If you say so ...

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm not sure how I got that mixed up. Sorry about that.

KevinG made me say it.

[Rob Osborn]

Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

 

Guess who wrote and signed the Treaty of Tripoli

Many of those same founders like John Adams, and Joel Barlow

Please get educated on the matter-

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

[Danzo]

As the LDS Church position is that some circumstances justify abortion, I am just fine with tax payer money being used for abortions. I am not so out of touch to think that the justifiable circumstances only happen to who can pay out-of-pocket.

Funding for the abortions in those circumstances?

 

or all abortions?

[thesometimesaint]

Please get educated on the matter-

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

 

I've consistently said that the US is a secular nation. That a man's(woman's) religion is between them and their God(s) not the governments' under which we live . That our government was not, is not, and IMNTBHO ever to be a sectarian one. IE; ""A "Christian" Nation"". Unlike our not so good friends at the AFA.

SEE http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/religious-bigotry-haunts-group-hosting-rnc-391259203818

[thesometimesaint]

Funding for the abortions in those circumstances?

 

or all abortions?

 

There it becomes debatable. The US still has the Hyde Amendment for taxpayer funded elective abortions. But there is a disconnect with privately funded ones. As a church we don't use Church funds for elective abortion, but it becomes a bit of a sticky wicket for medically necessary ones. More of a case by case basis, and letting private insurance do the funding.

[Rob Osborn]

I've consistently said that the US is a secular nation. That a man's(woman's) religion is between them and their God(s) not the governments' under which we live . That our government was not, is not, and IMNTBHO ever to be a sectarian one. IE; ""A "Christian" Nation"". Unlike our not so good friends at the AFA.

SEE http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/religious-bigotry-haunts-group-hosting-rnc-391259203818

You were saying our country wasnt founded on Christianity. But, it actually was. Thats all.

[LOSTONE]

~ I am very strongly passionate about keeping state ( government ) out of people’s religious practices and freedoms. I believe God comes before all including governments.

*As you wrote “When and where it is appropriate (healthy, moral, right, or other synonyms) for the state to step in and regulate, limit, or require a religious institution to abide by laws that may be contrary to it's own doctrines and practices?”
My reply to this is when there are innocent children or people getting expose to harmful things or life being put in danger beyond typical normal life or when there is a situation of active fraud.

* “Are these government interventions ever right?”
My reply is yes if it is based on when there are innocent children or people getting expose to harmful things or life being put in danger beyond typical normal life or when there is a situation of active fraud.

* “Do they apply equally to religions that reflect a majority population than they do to minority religions or traditionally marginalized groups?”
My reply is no, they are not applied equally. The government / laws are made by man and are subject to being bias and favoring one side over another. We have seen this countless times over history in every government including into today’s world.

* “When two minority groups (LDS, LGBT advocates) are in conflict over their rights of free association, who arbitrates or mediates their differences?”
My reply is it depends on what is believed. If true faith is involved, the arbitrates or mediates is God, but if faith is not they than it would be the world or the devil.

* “Where is the balance between anarchy and tyranny, that still respects individual rights?”
My reply is if I am not hurting innocent children or people getting expose to harmful things or life being put in danger beyond typical normal life or when there is a situation of active fraud than government needs to stay the [bleep] out of my religion and life.

~ I see the practical need and use for government and I am not knocking it or the laws to which they come up with. However, they have constantly over stepped their place and into our lives. There is too much government control and when it comes to my faith and my family, enough is enough.

[thesometimesaint]

You were saying our country wasnt founded on Christianity. But, it actually was. Thats all.

 

No it was not. It was and is secular. We are free to believe or not believe as we choose as individual citizens.

SEE http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_--_and_has_never_been_--_a_christian_nation

 

Ps. And as our not so good friends at AFA say YOU PERSONALLY don't have the same rights as Christian citizens. YOU because YOU are Mormon must be forced to convert to Christianity in order to be a citizen.

Edited February 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[tonie]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1355714.html Guam vs. Guerrero

 

 

Point of clarification.

 

This case from Guam, does not seem to support the notion that a Rastafarian is prohibited from using marijauna. This case was about, I believe, "importation with intent to distribute".  If I understood correctly, the 9th Circuit states possession on small amounts of marijuana for religious purposes is protected. The terrority of Guam even admitted that its "possession" law against marijuana might violate a Rastafarians religious practice.  What I get from the case is that religious freedom to practice (smoke marijauna) is (very likely protected) but engaging in conduct that amounts to drug dealing is not protected. (Though, a different case would need to arise wherein an officiator of a marijuana religious rite was charge with distribution, that officiator would need to argue that "passing the marijuana pipe" amount to a Priest given the eucarist or a deacon passing the bread and water.)

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/170977-california-require-catholic-universities-cover-elective-abortions-employees/ 

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/170977-california-require-catholic-universities-cover-elective-abortions-employees/'> Catholic Universities and Abortion Coverage

 

I would say that the Hobby Lobby case covers this. Though it could depend on if the law that applied to Hobby Lobby, also applies to actions of the State.

[Rob Osborn]

No it was not. It was and is secular. We are free to believe or not believe as we choose as individual citizens.

SEE http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_--_and_has_never_been_--_a_christian_nation

Ps. And as our not so good friends at AFA say YOU PERSONALLY don't have the same rights as Christian citizens. YOU because YOU are Mormon must be forced to convert to Christianity in order to be a citizen.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909

We were founded upon as a Christian nation.

BTW, I see you are still linking to atheists (Rob Boston) to prove your points.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909

We were founded upon as a Christian nation.

BTW, I see you are still linking to atheists (Rob Boston) to prove your points.

 

The first Constitutional Convention debated the issue of religious liberty. Their response of Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate, later reported that some felt it “would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” But, as Martin noted, the article’s language was approved “by a great majority . . . without much debate.” The Christian nation argument just wasn’t persuasive.

 

James Madison who wrote much our Constitution also wrote “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever.” wasn't an Atheist.

 

George Washington who wrote the letter to Touro Synagogue (1790). In this letter, Washington assures America’s Jews that they would enjoy complete religious liberty—not mere toleration—in the new nation. He outlines a vision not of a Christian nation but of a multi-faith society where all are free to practice as they will. The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. He wasn't an Atheist.

 

John Adams In February of 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a man named Major Greene. Greene was a devout Christian who sought to persuade Adams to adopt conservative Christian views. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus. When questioned on the matter, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for human understanding.

Adams was not impressed. In his diary he writes, “Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” He also signed the Treaty of Tripoli. He wasn't an Atheist,

 

Thomas Jefferson who wrote

An Act for establishing religious Freedom. Virginia Statue for Religious Liberty,

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.wasn't an Atheist.

Alexander Hamilton who wrote in “Federalist No. 69,” religious duties of the U.S. president: There aren’t any. In this essay, Hamilton explains how the American president would differ from the English king, outlining several key differences between the two. He writes: “The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church!” He wasn't an Atheist.

 

And BTW another Founder Thomas Paine was an Atheist. He just wrote the philosophical justification for the American Revolution

 

All of them argued for the separation of Church and State. The US Constitution itself prohibits ANY religious test for public office/service. It also prohibits congress from making any law RESPECTING an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

The Founders were well aware of the religious wars and persecutions that had rocked Europe for hundreds of years, add in the Divine Right of Kings. They wanted no part of that. Further more I've used the Founders own statements. Believe me I've got plenty more.

Edited February 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[KevinG]

Point of clarification.

 

This case from Guam, does not seem to support the notion that a Rastafarian is prohibited from using marijauna. This case was about, I believe, "importation with intent to distribute".  If I understood correctly, the 9th Circuit states possession on small amounts of marijuana for religious purposes is protected. The terrority of Guam even admitted that its "possession" law against marijuana might violate a Rastafarians religious practice.  What I get from the case is that religious freedom to practice (smoke marijauna) is (very likely protected) but engaging in conduct that amounts to drug dealing is not protected. (Though, a different case would need to arise wherein an officiator of a marijuana religious rite was charge with distribution, that officiator would need to argue that "passing the marijuana pipe" amount to a Priest given the eucarist or a deacon passing the bread and water.)

 

 

 

 Catholic Universities and Abortion Coverage

 

I would say that the Hobby Lobby case covers this. Though it could depend on if the law that applied to Hobby Lobby, also applies to actions of the State.

 

Regardless of the outcomes or details, there is precedent that government can limit or require people to take actions in opposition to their personal belief systems.  If 9 cases out of 10 affirm individual liberty, the 10th is still cause enough for me to worry about abuse of the majority, or tyranny.  

[Calm]

TSS, you need to post a link.

[thesometimesaint]

TSS, you need to post a link.

 

I did in my next to last response SEE #68 The rest is my own.

[Ahab]

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.

To this list we should add:

People who choose to bake some wedding cakes have a right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding or any other event they object to.

And prostitutes can refuse to trade their services/products to anyone they don't want to serve, too.

Interesting that war isn't considered a compelling interest for the state, allowing a conscientious object to refuse to serve in times of war. Maybe that will get reversed sometime later.