Elder Oaks Speaks On "the Boundary Between Church And State" (merged)

[jwhitlock]

Not just a cheap shot but a false dichotomy.  Chastity and charity are not either/or in the Gospel.  They are AND. 

 

The Latter-day Saints have spent significantly more time, talent, and treasure on service and poverty relief than they ever have on issues about sexuality and marriage.  Even when you include the years of polygamy.

 

Absolutely.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Not just a cheap shot but a false dichotomy.  Chastity and charity are not either/or in the Gospel.  They are AND. 

 

The Latter-day Saints have spent significantly more time, talent, and treasure on service and poverty relief than they ever have on issues about sexuality and marriage.  Even when you include the years of polygamy.

 

I didn't say anything about chastity. Let's see, there is a flood of topics about gay marriage and religious freedom here in the MDDB. 

How many topics about service, charity, and the poor? 

[Scott Lloyd]

Since when has poverty been a religion? Last I heard poverty isn't sin, but get rid of it as fast as you can. BTW "Promote the general welfare is in the US Constitution". I don't know what you mean by "promoting the poor class". Please explain.

 

Exactly; The government giving money to a religion is giving money being given for what it is design for. To promote a particular religion over all others. I beleive That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; I don't want government money going to any church, mosque, synagogue, temple, shrine, kingdom hall, etc., etc., etc..

 

You seem to me to be saying that you want a curtain between Church and State so "holey" that money flows through it. If I am misunderstanding, please forgive me, and please explain./

This conversation seems to be drifting afield of the thread topic.

 

This is a thread about separation of church and state, specifically Elder Oaks's speech on that topic this week.

 

I have provided a link to the verbatim transcript of the speech. Please point out the portion, if any, where Elder Oaks advocates churches receiving money from the government.

 

This is a CFR.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say anything about chastity. Let's see, there is a flood of topics about gay marriage and religious freedom here in the MDDB. 

How many topics about service, charity, and the poor? 

Doesn't mean you are entitled to commandeer this one.

 

I recognize you can't start threads because you are on limited status. Just say the word and I'll start one for you dedicated to discussing poverty and humanitarian service. But please cease trying to hijack this one.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

Doesn't mean you are entitled to commandeer this one.

 

I recognize you can't start threads because you are on limited status. Just say the word and I'll start one for you dedicated to discussing poverty and humanitarian service. But please cease trying to hijack this one.

 

There aren't many threads because they'd be short:

 

"Mormons are supposed to give service and help the poor."

 

"Yep, that's what we do."

 

End of thread.

[thesometimesaint]

This conversation seems to be drifting afield of the thread topic.

 

This is a thread about separation of church and state, specifically Elder Oaks's speech on that topic this week.

 

I have provided a link to the verbatim transcript of the speech. Please point out the portion, if any, where Elder Oaks advocates churches receiving money from the government.

 

This is a CFR.

 

As per the Link, Elder Oaks is advocating for a curtain instead of a wall of separation between Church and State. I don't agree with that idea, or at least the negative implications of that idea. The idea of a curtain is that it allows for more interactions between those on both sides of that curtain than a wall can. I want less interactions and not more. I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to religions. If for no other reason that once our Church accepts governmental money our Church accepts the strings that go along with it.

 

Ps; CFR answered.

Edited October 23, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[jwhitlock]

Since when has poverty been a religion? Last I heard poverty isn't sin, but get rid of it as fast as you can. BTW "Promote the general welfare is in the US Constitution". I don't know what you mean by "promoting the poor class". Please explain.

 

Exactly; The government giving money to a religion is giving money being given for what it is design for. To promote a particular religion over all others. I beleive That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; I don't want government money going to any church, mosque, synagogue, temple, shrine, kingdom hall, etc., etc., etc..

 

You seem to me to be saying that you want a curtain between Church and State so "holey" that money flows through it. If I am misunderstanding, please forgive me, and please explain./

 

Ps;

 

You did miss the point. I wasn't advocating giving money to churches, but instead giving an example. The example could be expanded to include claims of "indirect" support of churches by government (such as what BYU had to deal with because it had students who received government grants; fortunately that was resolved in BYU's favor) which are also very subjective. Again, though, it was just an example.

 

The point is that when we're talking about the interaction between government and religious groups, opinions quickly become very divided about whether such interaction constitutes promoting a certain religion. It is very subjective, which is what situations in the real world typically are. Egregious instances of the violation of church / state separation don't really address what Elder Oaks was talking about. From what I read, he is instead calling for compromise and understanding that enables both entities (religious groups and governments) to work together for the common good of society without letting the haters drag us down to the lowest common denominator.

 

Such compromise allows the church to collect and provide relief supplies for victims of disasters, and partner with  government  to use military transport to get it there - as another example.

 

The reference I made to poverty handouts was simply evidence that the government is selective in ALL areas where it hands out money. To claim that a religious group was being promoted because its public food bank was underwritten in part by government money is as valid as the example I gave over people in poverty being promoted above others because they receive handouts that others don't get.  That's it; no need to over-interpret it.

 

In the end, there are many ways where government and religious groups can appropriately work together as Elder Oaks has encouraged. Are you basically disagreeing with what Elder Oaks has said and contending that government and religious groups should never, under any circumstances, work together?

[jwhitlock]

As per the Link, Elder Oaks is advocating for a curtain instead of a wall of separation between Church and State. I don't agree with that idea, or at least the negative implications of that idea. The idea of a curtain is that it allows for more interactions between those on both sides of that curtain than a wall can. I want less interactions and not more. I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to religions. If for no other reason that once our Church accepts governmental money our Church accepts the strings that go along with it.

 

Ps; CFR answered.

 

That very subjective interpretation of Elder Oaks' comments doesn't support your claim that he advocated for accepting government money.

 

Again, it's not as black and white as you claim. There's a great deal of subjective grey area to interactions - and virtually all interactions will include some kind of financial impact - between religious groups and government.

 

I agree that government money often has strings that go along with it. The religious group must understand what those are and make its own decisions one whether the greater good of society justifies the unwarranted further intrusion of government. I think Elder Oaks understands that all too well and his comments must be taken in that context, rather than thinking he is "advocating" for money.

 

Finally, I don't know where you get the idea that the money extorted from us by the government via taxes is yours in any way. None of us gets any say in what is done with that money, so what you or I want is irrelevant as far as the government is concerned.

[KevinG]

I didn't say anything about chastity. Let's see, there is a flood of topics about gay marriage and religious freedom here in the MDDB. 

How many topics about service, charity, and the poor? 

 

Gay marriage threads are about the LDS notion of chastity and vice versa.

 

It happens to be in the press and current so you will find more threads on it.  Not to mention the fact that some posters will turn any discussion into a gay marriage thread.

 

Just like service and charity threads turn into discussions on how much the LDS church spent to build a mall.

 

Frequency of discussions does not equate to effort expended in the meat world.

[Scott Lloyd]

There aren't many threads because they'd be short:

 

"Mormons are supposed to give service and help the poor."

 

"Yep, that's what we do."

 

End of thread.

Yeah.

 

I'm just offering to provide a playground where The Skeptic Christian can keep himself amused without having to hijack other threads.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

As per the Link, Elder Oaks is advocating for a curtain instead of a wall of separation between Church and State. I don't agree with that idea, or at least the negative implications of that idea. The idea of a curtain is that it allows for more interactions between those on both sides of that curtain than a wall can. I want less interactions and not more. I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to religions. If for no other reason that once our Church accepts governmental money our Church accepts the strings that go along with it.

 

The "negative implications" are of your own creation. Elder Oaks didn't say anything like that, and you have not shown how it follows from what he did say

 

Ps; CFR answered.

 

Nope. I'm calling for a specific quote from the speech. You did not provide that.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

You did miss the point. I wasn't advocating giving money to churches, but instead giving an example. The example could be expanded to include claims of "indirect" support of churches by government (such as what BYU had to deal with because it had students who received government grants; fortunately that was resolved in BYU's favor) which are also very subjective. Again, though, it was just an example.

 

The point is that when we're talking about the interaction between government and religious groups, opinions quickly become very divided about whether such interaction constitutes promoting a certain religion. It is very subjective, which is what situations in the real world typically are. Egregious instances of the violation of church / state separation don't really address what Elder Oaks was talking about. From what I read, he is instead calling for compromise and understanding that enables both entities (religious groups and governments) to work together for the common good of society without letting the haters drag us down to the lowest common denominator.

 

Such compromise allows the church to collect and provide relief supplies for victims of disasters, and partner with  government  to use military transport to get it there - as another example.

 

The reference I made to poverty handouts was simply evidence that the government is selective in ALL areas where it hands out money. To claim that a religious group was being promoted because its public food bank was underwritten in part by government money is as valid as the example I gave over people in poverty being promoted above others because they receive handouts that others don't get.  That's it; no need to over-interpret it.

 

In the end, there are many ways where government and religious groups can appropriately work together as Elder Oaks has encouraged. Are you basically disagreeing with what Elder Oaks has said and contending that government and religious groups should never, under any circumstances, work together?

 

OK.

 

I went to BYU on the GI Bill, and worked part time while there. So I didn't go on Grants. I earned the bulk of the money by being in the military. The VA paid me and I paid the university.  Or using a less personal example; If I pay you for your working for me and you decide to spend some of that money on tithing to a church. I'm still not objectively, or subjectively, supporting that church. You are as is your choice. 

 

For wanting a wall of separation between Church and State isn't being a hater. I want both to live long and prosper in their respective yards.

Curtains certainly have their place, but walls keep good neighbors good neighbors.

 

In theory that might be acceptable, but as they say money is fungible. IE; If I don't agree with the religious practices of church"X". I don't have to be a member. However I do have to pay taxes. If my tax dollars go that church, then I am being forced to support that church. To use your example of a military transport. might be acceptable if the religion renting it paid full price for its use. Otherwise let them buy any cargo plane they can afford. 

 

I don't have a problem with food banks public or private. If a public food bank receives public money the government gets to set the necessary qualification for its use. If a private/church food bank, like the Bishops Storehouse receives public money then the government gets to set the necessary qualification for its use. Do we really want the government setting the rules for how, and for whom, we as a church operate our Bishops Storehouse?

 

Yes I am disagreeing with Elder Oaks. There is nothing in my religion that says I must always agree with any member be they high or low. I'm about as low on that Totem Pole as they come. I generously give to the Church and charities because I want to. I pay the taxes I do because that is what the law requires. Any overlap should be incidental and not deliberate.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Yeah.

 

I'm just offering to provide a playground where The Skeptic Christian can keep himself amused without having to hijack other threads.

 

World hunger is a playground? Did Jesus have a playground? Jesus was never concerned about the politics of religious freedom. I rather defend the poor than religious freedom, religious freedom is not going to go away. 

 

 

Doesn't mean you are entitled to commandeer this one.

 

I recognize you can't start threads because you are on limited status. Just say the word and I'll start one for you dedicated to discussing poverty and humanitarian service. But please cease trying to hijack this one.

 

What ever, but please, it is necessary. 

Edited October 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

Finally, I don't know where you get the idea that the money extorted from us by the government via taxes is yours in any way. None of us gets any say in what is done with that money, so what you or I want is irrelevant as far as the government is concerned.

 

Extortion is the illegal taking of money's by threat of force. Taxes, at least in the US, are not illegal. They are provided for by our US Constitution. I have the right to vote for, or against, my representatives in my government. So I do have a say, just not the only say. Heck, I don't have the only say in my family's checkbook. My wife has a bigger say than I do, but we nearly always agree on what to buy, and always agree to pay the bills.

Edited October 23, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[jwhitlock]

OK.

 

I went to BYU on the GI Bill, and worked part time while there. So I didn't go on Grants. I earned the bulk of the money by being in the military. The VA paid me and I paid the university.  Or using a less personal example; If I pay you for your working for me and you decide to spend some of that money on tithing to a church. I'm still not objectively, or subjectively, supporting that church. You are as is your choice. 

 

For wanting a wall of separation between Church and State isn't being a hater. I want both to live long and prosper in their respective yards.

Curtains certainly have their place, but walls keep good neighbors good neighbors.

 

In theory that might be acceptable, but as they say money is fungible. IE; If I don't agree with the religious practices of church"X". I don't have to be a member. However I do have to pay taxes. If my tax dollars go that church, then I am being forced to support that church. To use your example of a military transport. might be acceptable if the religion renting it paid full price for its use. Otherwise let them buy any cargo plane they can afford. 

 

I don't have a problem with food banks public or private. If a public food bank receives public money the government gets to set the necessary qualification for its use. If a private/church food bank, like the Bishops Storehouse receives public money then the government gets to set the necessary qualification for its use. Do we really want the government setting the rules for how, and for whom, we as a church operate our Bishops Storehouse?

 

Yes I am disagreeing with Elder Oaks. There is nothing in my religion that says I must always agree with any member be they high or low. I'm about as low on that Totem Pole as they come. I generously give to the Church and charities because I want to. I pay the taxes I do because that is what the law requires. Any overlap should be incidental and not deliberate.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I differ in that I can see areas where government and religious groups can and should cooperate for the good of society, and so I agree with Elder Oaks.

 

I think the cargo plane example is a good one. If the religious group has the material to save lives and relieve suffering, but can't transport it, then to say that the government shouldn't provide the transport on the technicality that it's "promoting religion" makes a hard-line position more important than saving lives and alleviating suffering. I don't see how such an attitude is beneficial to society at all.

 

I'm reminded of the situation with Hurricane Sandy on the east cost. There were religious groups (including Mormons) chomping at the bit to get in and start helping people recover. Yet the government wouldn't let anyone in to do good until all the regulatory processes had been evaluated and the bureaucrats gave the ok. In some cases, that took over two weeks before people could receive any help at all. Part of that came from the attitude among some people that the government should be responsible for resolving the disaster, and that religious groups shouldn't impose themselves on the government because they should be separate. In a society where reasonable partnerships are made, things get resolved much more quickly and people's needs are met.

 

Ultimately, appropriate religious partnership with government makes things more efficient and effective. Putting the wall in place isolates government in its own little world to the detriment of everyone. We've seen how well that works inside the DC beltway.

 

So I can't agree with the hard line attitude that there should be no religious interaction with government. Our current government is proof of the negative results of that attitude.

[jwhitlock]

Extortion is the illegal taking of money's by threat of force. Taxes, at least in the US, are not illegal. They are provided for by our US Constitution. I have the right to vote for, or against, my representatives in my government. So I do have a say, just not the only say. Heck, I don't have the only say in my family's checkbook. My wife has a bigger say than I do, but we nearly always agree on what to buy, and always agree to pay the bills.

 

Well, I disagree with just about everything here, except for the situation with your checkbook. However, that's probably going off on a tangent so I'll leave it at that.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I don't have the only say in my family's checkbook. My wife has a bigger say than I do, but we nearly always agree on what to buy, and always agree to pay the bills.

 

Question

 

Was Jesus concerned about the politics of religious freedom? 

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not too sure that any such gains in efficiency justifies the commingling of Church and State. 

The sad history of this earth is that of long suffering for both when combined. Keep them both strong and active while keeping them separate seems a wiser course of action to me.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, I disagree with just about everything here, except for the situation with your checkbook. However, that's probably going off on a tangent so I'll leave it at that.

 

If you are US citizen over 18 years old in the US, baring certain legal problems, you have the right to vote. If you don't already vote I highly recommend you do so.

[jwhitlock]

I'm not too sure that any such gains in efficiency justifies the commingling of Church and State. 

The sad history of this earth is that of long suffering for both when combined. Keep them both strong and active while keeping them separate seems a wiser course of action to me.

 

Like any powerful tool, there are going to be two sides to it. Used carefully, the partnership of religion and government in appropriate situations where the structure is well defined will benefit society. When used to wield power over others, society suffers. When not used at all, society suffers.

 

What I think Elder Oaks sees is that the growing walls between religion and government are leading to antagonism towards government on the religious side, and on the government side, a move towards a self serving bureaucracy that no longer respects the needs of its citizens and sees religious freedom as a threat to its own power.

[jwhitlock]

If you are US citizen over 18 years old in the US, baring certain legal problems, you have the right to vote. If you don't already vote I highly recommend you do so.

 

Again, this is major tangent territory, so all I'll say is I disagree about voting.

[Scott Lloyd]

World hunger is a playground? Did Jesus have a playground? Jesus was never concerned about the politics of religious freedom. I rather defend the poor than religious freedom, religious freedom is not going to go away. 

 

 

I'm referring to your incessant derailment of this thread and posting of huge graphics as a distraction. It is sanctimonious and rude. And as I understand them contrary to board guidelines.

 

 

What ever, but please, it is necessary.

 

Tell me what to title it, and I'll start a new thread for you.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[TheSkepticChristian]

I'm referring to your incessant derailment of this thread and posting of huge graphics as a distraction. It is sanctimonious and rude. And as I understand them contrary to board guidelines.

 

I am just saying that Jesus was not very concerned about the politics of religious freedom, he was more concerned about poverty. I don't think that is 100% off topic. Where is the Christianity?

 

 

Tell me what to title it, and I'll start a new thread for you.

 

The Title: Is Pope Francis bringing Christianity back? 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I am just saying that Jesus was not very concerned about the politics of religious freedom, he was more concerned about poverty. I don't think that is 100% off topic. Where is the Christianity

 

 

 

Jesus was concerned with more than just helping the poor.

 

He commanded His followers to go into all the world and preach the gospel of repentance to every nation and kindred, and to baptize them and confer upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost (and, I would add, other essential ordinances). He intended that they be spiritually as well as physically fed.

 

In the latter-day gospel dispensation, safeguarding religious liberty and ensuring that opinions about "separation of church and state" do not crowd faith from public life is essential to carrying out that mission Jesus gave and still gives His followers.

 

 

The Title: Is Pope Francis bringing Christianity back?

 

Done.

 

If you respond to this post, please do so on that newly created thread.

[TheSkepticChristian]

He commanded His followers to go into all the world and preach the gospel of repentance to every nation and kindred, and to baptize them and confer upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost (and, I would add, other essential ordinances). He intended that they be spiritually as well as physically fed.

 

but I don't see how that has anything to do with the politics of religious freedom. Kim Davis, Oregon Bakery, public prayer in public schools, one nation under God in the pledge. Tell me when did Jesus talk about any of that? 

 

or what are you exactly fighting for? Do you think your religious rights are going to go away? 

Edited October 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian