"the Faithful Won't Yield On Religious Liberty"

[pogi]

Feminism has been a mixed bag. I applaud the increased ability of women to escape abusive marriages and their increase in economic opportunities. The idea that they do not need a man to be complete is, of course, wrong. Both genders need each other to be complete.

 

I am not sure how that constitutes rose-colored glasses. I do not look back at the last century as some kind of golden age like many do.

 

I agree with this. 

 

The idea of feminism, like agency, should not be discredited because some use it to stray from the right course.  People will inevitably take advantage of freedom, fairness, and equality to further their selfish and blind purposes, but that does not diminish from the principles at all, it only diminishes from the individuals who abuse the principles.  We are a stronger society for protecting the rights of women in my opinion. 

Edited April 6, 2015 by pogi

[Calm]

Feminist movements are bad news for society.

So the whole women getting the vote was bad for society in your view?

[The Nehor]

Feminist movements are bad news for society.

I disagree. Asia, for example, desperately needs feminism.

Feminist movements can be bad for entrenched interests in society just as many of them benefit from racism which is why it is so hard to get rid of it.

Unfortunately it is a sad truth that almost every movement has some within it that go too far. Such is life. Our BYU football coach offering to beat up those who opposed the sustaining comes to mind.

[JLHPROF]

I disagree. Asia, for example, desperately needs feminism.

Feminist movements can be bad for entrenched interests in society just as many of them benefit from racism which is why it is so hard to get rid of it.

Unfortunately it is a sad truth that almost every movement has some within it that go too far. Such is life. Our BYU football coach offering to beat up those who opposed the sustaining comes to mind.

 

Feminism is a spectrum, like almost every belief and ISM.

 

SOME Feminist movements are bad news for society.  SOME Feminist movements have brought about much needed blessings and changes.  But as with most "ISMs", the more radical, the worse it gets.

[california boy]

Call it what you will and adorn it in all the high-sounding progressive language you like, in the end it's the adversary's program of compelling the souls of men and it won't end up in a good place. Mark my words. 

 

Well I call it following the Savior's example.  Charity, service to others no matter if they are sinners or not are the hallmarks of His life here on earth.  I stand behind that.  Others of course can choose to stand for whatever they want.  Just don't pretend discriminating against others based on their sins something Christ.

[california boy]

If someone loses their business, how is that not forcing them to accept your viewpoint? 

 

Not discriminating against the public is a condition of being open to the public.  If you choose to not follow the law, you shouldn't have expectations of your business continuing.  No one is forced to follow the law.  But that doesn't mean there are not consequences when one chooses to disobey the law.  

 

Not following the teachings of Christ doesn't mean you can still expect others to consider you a Christian either.

[teddyaware]

Well I call it following the Savior's example.  Charity, service to others no matter if they are sinners or not are the hallmarks of His life here on earth.  I stand behind that.  Others of course can choose to stand for whatever they want.  Just don't pretend discriminating against others based on their sins something Christ.

 

You call using the compulsory power of government to force someone to do that which is against his religiously informed conscience "following the Saviour?" Who's following the Saviour? Is it the government who is doing the compelling who's following the Saviour? Or is it those who are being compelled to do participate in celebrating something they honestly believe to be an abomination who are following the Saviour?

 

The more you say the more it appears you're actually advocating the adversary's counterfeit compulsory plan of salvation that was the cause of the great war in heaven. I wonder why more Christian charity wasn't shown to the 1/3 host of sinners who were cast out of heaven? Perhaps the progressive movement hadn't yet come to heaven?  

[california boy]

You call using the compulsory power of government to force someone to do that which is against his religiously informed conscience "following the Saviour?" Who's following the Saviour? Is it the government who is doing the compelling who's following the Saviour? Or is it those who are being compelled to do participate in celebrating something they honestly believe to be an abomination who are following the Saviour?

 

The more you say the more it appears you're actually advocating the adversary's counterfeit compulsory plan of salvation that was the cause of the great war in heaven. I wonder why more Christian charity wasn't shown to the 1/3 host of sinners who were cast out of heaven? Perhaps the progressive movement hadn't yet come to heaven?  

 

 

I am only calling upon all Christians to follow the example of the Savior.  I am calling upon those that follow Christ to stand against discrimination.  Read my post you quoted.  It is pretty clear what I stand for, and what Christ stood for.

 

If you are against the civil rights laws passed 50 years ago, then try and have them appealed.  But don't use Christ as the reason.  He never taught a gospel where charity and service was exclusive to those without sin.  

[danielwoods]

Not discriminating against the public is a condition of being open to the public.  If you choose to not follow the law, you shouldn't have expectations of your business continuing.  No one is forced to follow the law.  But that doesn't mean there are not consequences when one chooses to disobey the law.  

 

Not following the teachings of Christ doesn't mean you can still expect others to consider you a Christian either.

 

Forcing someone to act against their conscience is what is happening and what the law protects against. 

 

It's analogous to the abortion situation, where a doctor isn't forced to do abortions if they don't want to (for what ever reason). 

 

The net result of your position is that what one believes to be wrong, is no longer respected. 

 

ETA:  http://video.lauraingraham.com/Rick-Santorum-Should-Gay-Printers-Be-Forced-to-Make-God-Hates-Fags-Signs-for-Westboro-Baptist-Church-28852405?utm_content=buffer5c633&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

"Should a print shop owned by a gay be forced to print 'God hates gays!' for Westboro Baptist?"

Edited April 7, 2015 by danielwoods

[teddyaware]

I am only calling upon all Christians to follow the example of the Savior.  I am calling upon those that follow Christ to stand against discrimination.  Read my post you quoted.  It is pretty clear what I stand for, and what Christ stood for.

 

If you are against the civil rights laws passed 50 years ago, then try and have them appealed.  But don't use Christ as the reason.  He never taught a gospel where charity and service was exclusive to those without sin.  

 

I believe in living by all the same Christ-centered principles of Gospel living you advocate, consciously striving to be kind and respectful to everyone I meet because I know I also am but a sinner who can only rightfully approach the throne of God's mercy and grace as a contrite beggar. But that being said, I also believe the Constitution of the United States specifically denies government the power to force people of faith to participate in events that celebrate behaviors they sincerely believe are contrary to the will of God.

 

I also honestly believe that if the progressive fanatics of this nation continue to give in to the totalitarian impulse and ultimately succeed in their quest to empower government to limit the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, they will most assuredly come to rue the day of their triumph, for they too will eventually be made slaves to spiritually dead men who will have converted a government that once honored the principle of divine unalienable rights into a raging idolatrous beast that arrogantly and without mercy tramples upon the God-given rights of all men.

 

You believe in Christ, but do you also believe there is a cunning and deceitful devil? The scriptures tell us he's the ultimate ringleader in the quest to destroy religious freedom of conscience and, as always, he finds and uses sincere dupes and Marx's useful idiots (in this case the naive and overly idealistic progressives) to advance his sworn mission to destroy the agency of man. You may ignore the most solemn warnings of scripture as overwrought alarmism, but I don't and won't.

 

 

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up (the prophesied great worldwide conspiracy of the wicked in the last days) seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

 26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved. (Moroni 8: 25-26)

Edited April 7, 2015 by teddyaware

[SmileyMcGee]

I believe in living by all the same Christ-centered principles of Gospel living you advocate, consciously striving to be kind and respectful to everyone I meet because I know I also am but a sinner who can only rightfully approach the throne of God's mercy and grace as a contrite beggar. But that being said, I also believe the Constitution of the United States specifically denies government the power to force people of faith to participate in events that celebrate behaviors they sincerely believe are contrary to the will of God.

I also honestly believe that if the progressive fanatics of this nation continue to give in to the totalitarian impulse and ultimately succeed in their quest to empower government to limit the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, they will most assuredly come to rue the day of their triumph, for they too will eventually be made slaves to spiritually dead men who will have converted a government that once honored the principle of divine unalienable rights into a raging idolatrous beast that arrogantly and without mercy tramples upon the God-given rights of all men.

You believe in Christ, but do you also believe there is a cunning and deceitful devil? The scriptures tell us he's the ultimate ringleader in the quest to destroy religious freedom of conscience and, as always, he finds and uses sincere dupes and Marx's useful idiots (in this case the naive and overly idealistic progressives) to advance his sworn mission to destroy the agency of man. You may ignore the most solemn warnings of scripture as overwrought alarmism, but I don't and won't.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up (the prophesied great worldwide conspiracy of the wicked in the last days) seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved. (Moroni 8: 25-26)

Despite all the political nonsense and doom and gloom you spout i would bet you've never seen a single legitimate infringement on your religious rights in your life and probably never will. People may mock your religion and think it's stupid, but stop acting like you're a martyr and start realizing that your interpretation of the constitution is not the only interpretation. You're just one in 350 million.

[teddyaware]

Despite all the political nonsense and doom and gloom you spout i would bet you've never seen a single legitimate infringement on your religious rights in your life and probably never will. People may mock your religion and think it's stupid, but stop acting like you're a martyr and start realizing that your interpretation of the constitution is not the only interpretation. You're just one in 350 million.

 

I take my cue from a prophet of God named Ezra Taft Benson. When you see him in the spirit world, take up the argument with him as he's a much more convincing proponent of my point of view than I am. I'll watch from the sidelines while he gives you a good verbal thrashing.

 

"I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world." (See Ether 8:18–25.) (from President Benson's last General Conference address entitled "I Testify")

 

Edited to add:

 

So I can watch other people's religious freedom's being abridged, but as long as it isn't happening to me personally I can just fatuously sit back and relax as if it culd never happen to me? As bugs bunny would say: "What a Maroon..."

Edited April 7, 2015 by teddyaware

[SmileyMcGee]

I take my cue from a prophet of God named Ezra Taft Benson. When you see him in the spirit world, take up the argument with him as he's a much more convincing proponent of my point of view than I am. I'll watch from the sidelines while he gives you a good verbal thrashing.

"I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world." (See Ether 8:18–25.) (from President Benson's last General Conference address entitled "I Testify")

Edited to add:

So I can watch other people's religious freedom's being abridged, but as long as it isn't happening to me personally I can just fatuously sit back and relax as if it culd never happen to me? As bugs bunny would say: "What a Maroon..."

Exactly. No infringement, just the imagined threat and etb's conspiracy theories.

[Gray]

I take my cue from a prophet of God named Ezra Taft Benson. When you see him in the spirit world, take up the argument with him as he's a much more convincing proponent of my point of view than I am. I'll watch from the sidelines while he gives you a good verbal thrashing.

 

"I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world." (See Ether 8:18–25.) (from President Benson's last General Conference address entitled "I Testify")

 

Edited to add:

 

So I can watch other people's religious freedom's being abridged, but as long as it isn't happening to me personally I can just fatuously sit back and relax as if it culd never happen to me? As bugs bunny would say: "What a Maroon..."

 

What does Communism have to do with gay marriage?

[Gray]

Forcing someone to act against their conscience is what is happening and what the law protects against. 

 

 

 

Some people have a religious belief against seeking medical treatment for illnesses. The law still compels them to provide medical treatment for their children, even if they abstain for themselves. 

 

Sometimes religious beliefs run up against the law. Where the two conflict, the law must win out. 

[danielwoods]

Some people have a religious belief against seeking medical treatment for illnesses. The law still compels them to provide medical treatment for their children, even if they abstain for themselves. 

 

Sometimes religious beliefs run up against the law. Where the two conflict, the law must win out. 

 

Right. In our system we have instances where constitutional rights have exceptions. Those exceptions have solid reasons why they exist. Free speech is abridged by prohibiting yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for example. 

 

Each situation is different. The abortion example is one where a doctors religious or personal conscience is able to exempt him from doing something he feels is wrong. 

 

So, why must a person violate their conscience in these cases? If they refuse service, will someone possibly die or be physically harmed (as in your cited example)? Obviously no. So, what is the compelling reason to disrespect their beliefs and force them to violate their conscience and potentially put them out of business? 

Edited April 7, 2015 by danielwoods

[JLHPROF]

Sometimes religious beliefs run up against the law. Where the two conflict, the law must win out. 

 

Which is very wrong.

 

“I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God, but whenever they do I shall invariably choose the latter.” - Rudger Clawson

Edited April 7, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

Right. In our system we have instances where constitutional rights have exceptions. Those exceptions have solid reasons why they exist. Free speech is abridged by prohibiting yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for example. 

 

Each situation is different. The abortion example is one where a doctors religious or personal conscience is able to exempt him from doing something he feels is wrong. 

 

So, why must a person violate their conscience in these cases? If they refuse service, will someone possibly die or be physically harmed (as in your cited example)? Obviously no. So, what is the compelling reason to disrespect their beliefs and force them to violate their conscience and potentially put them out of business? 

 

Summary of the 1964 Civil Rights act:

 

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

 

The problem with allowing discrimination by businesses that serve the general public is that it creates a hostile environment for those citizens who happen to be in a minority group that is considered to be lesser in some way by the community. It's important that all citizens have equal access to services regardless of their personal attributes. Why is that important? It's an undue hardship. Imagine not being able to buy bread in your town because you're the wrong color, religion or sexual orientation. 

 

While the civil rights act doesn't apply to gay Americans, I think similar protects will be applied to them soon.  

[Gray]

Which is very wrong.

 

So what if I start a religion tomorrow that says I should be able to shoplift wherever and whenever I want. Are you going to infringe on my religious freedoms by calling the cops on me? 

 

There have to be limits. 

[JLHPROF]

So what if I start a religion tomorrow that says I should be able to shoplift wherever and whenever I want. Are you going to infringe on my religious freedoms by calling the cops on me? 

 

There have to be limits. 

 

So you would rather a man violate the laws of God (as he understands them) to follow the laws of Babylon?

I know whose wrath I'd rather incur. 

 

I am not saying that "starting a religion" that breaks the law is justified.  I'm really not.  But if a man truly believes that God wants us to keep a specific command, that has to trump a law created by men.

[Gray]

So you would rather a man violate the laws of God (as he understands them) to follow the laws of Babylon?

I know whose wrath I'd rather incur. 

 

I am not saying that "starting a religion" that breaks the law is justified.  I'm really not.  But if a man truly believes that God wants us to keep a specific command, that has to trump a law created by men.

 

Yes. If your religion thinks that following certain rules is more important than following the law, you can always break the law, but there will of course be consequences. 

 

Do you think honor killings should be legal? Or should "Babylon" prevail over that religious belief?

 

At the end of the day, the US is home to many religions with many different religious rules. We have to have laws in place that maintain basic rights and safety for all, even if that occasionally contradicts some religious beliefs. 

 

If your religious beliefs put you at odds with certain laws, you can probably live your life in such a way that you won't be compelled to break those laws or compromise your beliefs. For instance, if you're from the Orthodox Jewish tradition, no one can force you to put up a hot dog stand that sells pork-based products. If you think selling wedding cakes to gay people violates your religious beliefs, no one can force you to sell cakes at all, even if ultimately you must serve the general public in order to stay in business. 

Edited April 7, 2015 by Gray

[california boy]

I believe in living by all the same Christ-centered principles of Gospel living you advocate, consciously striving to be kind and respectful to everyone I meet because I know I also am but a sinner who can only rightfully approach the throne of God's mercy and grace as a contrite beggar. 

 

I am encouraged that you believe and follow the Saviors example.  I think that pretty much solves all of your issues with what you are expected to do under the laws of this country.  So I don't see you ever being asked to do something against your religious principles.

 

It seems like the favorite hobby these days that some christians have taken up is to discriminate and persecute gay Americans.  They feel self righteous and once again unrighteously use the banner of religion to fight their own prejudices.  We have seen this time and time again throughout history.  It is frankly one of the ugly sides of religion.  I would hope that those who have the gospel in their lives would be the very ones who would be teaching others to follow Christ and to treat others, as you have so eloquently expressed with kindness and respect.  I would hope that members of His church would be gently persuading others to let go of the ugly blinding curse of prejudice and bigotry.  

 

As you have stated, follow the teachings of the Savior, do good to those who have offended you, serve those sinners who need your love and kindness more than anyone.  Lead others to a path of happiness and turn away from the evil road that some christians have decided to walk.  Can you imagine the power for good the church could be in this country in healing the raw wounds that have been caused by these unkind acts?  Can you imagine the hearts that would be turned to Christ by calling for a more charitable approach to those who sin?  The image of the church has been severely damaged in the past by bigotry and prejudice.  What an opportunity to change that image to more Christ like behavior.  No the church should not be involved in forcing anyone to be Christ like, but it is their calling to shout from the hilltops a more compassionate life of service to all, even sinners. 

 

 

 

But that being said, I also believe the Constitution of the United States specifically denies government the power to force people of faith to participate in events that celebrate behaviors they sincerely believe are contrary to the will of God.

 

I also honestly believe that if the progressive fanatics of this nation continue to give in to the totalitarian impulse and ultimately succeed in their quest to empower government to limit the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, they will most assuredly come to rue the day of their triumph, for they too will eventually be made slaves to spiritually dead men who will have converted a government that once honored the principle of divine unalienable rights into a raging idolatrous beast that arrogantly and without mercy tramples upon the God-given rights of all men.

 

You believe in Christ, but do you also believe there is a cunning and deceitful devil? The scriptures tell us he's the ultimate ringleader in the quest to destroy religious freedom of conscience and, as always, he finds and uses sincere dupes and Marx's useful idiots (in this case the naive and overly idealistic progressives) to advance his sworn mission to destroy the agency of man. You may ignore the most solemn warnings of scripture as overwrought alarmism, but I don't and won't.

 

 

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up (the prophesied great worldwide conspiracy of the wicked in the last days) seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

 26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved. (Moroni 8: 25-26)

 

Now let me comment on the government issues you have brought up.  I have kept these two issues completely separate because they are completely separate issues.  Were the civil rights laws passed 50 years ago unjust?  Should the government pass laws on how its citizens should treat fellow Americans?  Well the answer to that question may be up for debate, but there are countless laws that dictate civil behavior in this country.  We have long ago decided that the people of this country can pass laws that cover civil behavior amongst it's citizens.  And in this particular set of civil rights laws, the Supreme Court has ruled that such laws are within the framework of the Constitution.  So certainly the government has such rights because it's citizens have given them that right.  

 

Those that feel we should be a country that legally allows it's citizens to discriminate should fight for those Civil Right laws to be overturned.  Period.  Change the law.  How much more clear can I be.  But don't cry some satanic plot as a guise to treat others unrighteously.  And don't claim that some people should be required to follow the law and others not.  How unjust would that be?  We are all equally required to follow the laws of this country.  Period.  So change the law if you think it is unjust.  

[JLHPROF]

Yes. If your religion thinks that following certain rules is more important than following the law, you can always break the law, but there will of course be consequences. 

 

Do you think honor killings should be legal? Or should "Babylon" prevail over that religious belief?

 

At the end of the day, the US is home to many religions with many different religious rules. We have to have laws in place that maintain basic rights and safety for all, even if that occasionally contradicts some religious beliefs. 

 

Not disagreeing on specifics, but on the general principle.  In Daniel's day the law forbid prayer.  He prayed anyway.

Nebuchadnezzar required by law that everyone worship his idol.  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused.

Polygamy has always been illegal to varying degrees in the US.  The first 7 prophets of the LDS Church lived it anyway.

So yes, to quote Rudger Clawson again:

“I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God, but whenever they do I shall invariably choose the latter.”

 

 

If your religious beliefs put you at odds with certain laws, you can probably live your life in such a way that you won't be compelled to break those laws or compromise your beliefs. For instance, if you're from the Orthodox Jewish tradition, no one can force you to put up a hot dog stand that sells pork-based products. If you think selling wedding cakes to gay people violates your religious beliefs, no one can force you to sell cakes at all, even if ultimately you must serve the general public in order to stay in business.

 

Agreed.  It is NOT necessary to put oneself in conflict with the law of the land very often for religious reasons.  There are usually ways to avoid it.  But when unavoidable, religious convictions should take priority.

[danielwoods]

Summary of the 1964 Civil Rights act:

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with allowing discrimination by businesses that serve the general public is that it creates a hostile environment for those citizens who happen to be in a minority group that is considered to be lesser in some way by the community. It's important that all citizens have equal access to services regardless of their personal attributes. Why is that important? It's an undue hardship. Imagine not being able to buy bread in your town because you're the wrong color, religion or sexual orientation. 

 

While the civil rights act doesn't apply to gay Americans, I think similar protects will be applied to them soon.  

 

In the example of the photographer, the gay person liked the way a particular photographer took her photos, and wanted that for her gay wedding. The photographer informed her that she couldn't participate because it would violate her own core beliefs. The "undue hardship" was having to find another photographer. However, the complaint lead to the photographer losing in court and probably losing her business unless she's willing to violate her own conscience. And even then the style of photographs that she took wouldn't be found in a gay wedding, because the artist was motivated by her inspiration of the event, and if one is forced to violate their conscience, that person certainly isn't feeling inspired, but violated.

 

Is that what everyone wants? Disrespected beliefs and violation by force? 

 

If she had a photo booth, where the public was invited to sit and get photos of themselves, then sure, her refusal to give them service would be a violation of the law. But, these cases are instances that require not just service, but a special type of service that involves participation. Should a gay print shop be forced to print signs for Westboro Baptists demonstrations? 

[Gray]

Not disagreeing on specifics, but on the general principle.  In Daniel's day the law forbid prayer.  He prayed anyway.

Nebuchadnezzar required by law that everyone worship his idol.  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused.

Polygamy has always been illegal to varying degrees in the US.  The first 7 prophets of the LDS Church lived it anyway.

So yes, to quote Rudger Clawson again:

“I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God, but whenever they do I shall invariably choose the latter.”

 

 

Agreed.  It is NOT necessary to put oneself in conflict with the law of the land very often for religious reasons.  There are usually ways to avoid it.  But when unavoidable, religious convictions should take priority.

 

Well there is nothing so restrictive in current US law. You can choose to disregard law as a matter of conscience. Or you can find ways around them. The choice is yours, of course. 

 

But when unavoidable, religious convictions should take priority.

 

That would make every religion a law unto itself. Laws would be meaningless if there were religious exemptions.