Public Participation by the Religious in USmerica/Elsewhere

[USU78]

On election day in 1838 in Gallatin, Missouri, Mormons were physically manhandled and prohibited from voting.  This incident is widely seen as the commencement of the 2nd Mormon War in Missouri, ultimately leading to Mormon expulsion, a barefoot exodus across Missouri to the Mississippi, and the imprisonment of JSJr and others in Liberty, Missouri, Jail.

Following Prop 8, several participants on this board have, poorly in my judgment, claimed Mormons should not participate in the public square if, for example, their religious sensibilities inform their political decisions.  The means of enforcement urged by these participants have been left up to the imaginations of observers.

I am inviting such individuals and their interlocutors to continue the discussion just shut down in the recent thread on the difficulty of remaining faithful when suffering from SSA.

I have the following questions, which can act as springboard to the discussion:

1.  Why is it good public policy to prohibit Churches from speaking out in the public square on matters of interest to them?

2.  Why is it good public policy to prohibit or discourage or bully Mormons or other persons of faith from participation in the public square?

3.  Why is it good public policy to prohibit only persons of faith and not persons having other political motivations from participating in the public square?

4.  Why is it good public policy  to have a de facto policy where traditionally black churches are permitted to participate in the public square, including supporting specific candidates, where other churches are prohibited by law from doing so?

[Robert F. Smith]

For 19th century mainstream Christianity, it was regarded as enlightened public policy to use any means necessary to prohibit the practice of that final "relic of barbarism," polygamy, by the Mormons -- up to and including the complete disestablishment of the Mormon Church and polity.  To that end, coercive laws and policies were adopted and enforced -- in order to control the Mormon pattern of non-traditional marriage.  Even the Constitution and good social science were ignored in the rush to deny the Mormons their religious rights and civil liberties.

Having forgotten their own mistreatment at the hands of other churches, over a century later, the Mormons have similarly attempted to deny the civil liberties of those seeking to practice non-traditional forms of marriage.  I have pointed out the irony many times on this board.  We may well be correct that marriage should be between members of the opposite sex, but we should understand (based on our own bitter experience) that we do not have the right to control those with differing views.  Moreover, what will be the LDS public policy when polygamy soon becomes legal?  Indeed, will the LDS Church present an amicus brief on behalf of quashing polygamy -- the ultimate irony.

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We may well be correct that marriage should be between members of the opposite sex, but we should understand (based on our own bitter experience) that we do not have the right to control those with differing views.  

Don't all laws seek to control others, often those with "differing views?"

Are you saying that we have no right to participate in the creation of laws (through voting, advocacy, litigation, petitioning, etc?)

 

[drums12]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Don't all laws seek to control others, often those with "differing views?"

Are you saying that we have no right to participate in the creation of laws (through voting, advocacy, litigation, petitioning, etc?)

 

Unfortunately, most laws do.  In my opinion, any law beyond that of protecting life and property is illegitimate, immoral, and compulsory.  

Edited July 26, 2016 by drums12

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Don't all laws seek to control others, often those with "differing views?"

Are you saying that we have no right to participate in the creation of laws (through voting, advocacy, litigation, petitioning, etc?)

Of course we can enact legislation designed to control the behavior of our neighbors.  We can even try to restrict their religious rights and other civil liberties.  We can use the coercive power of the state to enforce our demands. In the past, the mailed fist of naked power was used to enforce the views of one group upon another, and not always with high-minded consideration for good moral and ethical principles.  The Constitution has often been flouted in the process.  Participatory democracy is all well and good, until it is used to deny someone his guaranteed civil rights.  And then there is the blowback which comes when those who are aggrieved seek vengeance and recrimination.  I always recommend that American citizens formally study their political and judicial system so as to understand how it all works -- so as to be good citizens who are not constantly trying to deny their neighbors their ordinary civil liberties.  That is the heart of the matter: The Golden Rule.

BYU has a free online course, CIT 070, "An American Citizen's Guide to Government and Politics," https://isreg.byu.edu/courses/pe/999087070001/public/start.htm .

[The Nehor]

Can we just compromise and admit democracy just doesn't work no matter what we do?

[california boy]

There is a difference between marching to the polls to support laws that you believe  improves a community and/or nation.and marching to the polls to support laws that you believe improve a community and/ or nation but MUST takes away civil rights of others that don't support that belief in order to do so. So few Mormons grasp the treachery the church engaged in to enforce their religious beliefs into law. 

Just to be clear that treachery I am referring to is the taking away citizens rights in order to enforce their beliefs. 

Yeah I know you have heard this from me all before. But the truth is, very few Mormons have felt the need to be accountable for their actions and even more odd, the ones who have stepped forward to take responsibility have been labeled anti Mormon by the "TBM"

Does the church have the right to speak in the public square?  ABSOLUTELY YES. Did the church abuse that right to run a campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples?ABSOLUTELY YES. That is what has brought shame on the church, not their voice in the public square. 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Can we just compromise and admit democracy just doesn't work no matter what we do?

Or that it works despite our stupidity?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Or that it works despite our stupidity?

No, democracy functions because it checks to a degree our own worst impulses. In a good society we would want the wise and well-informed to rule. Letting every idiot vote is a recipe for disaster (see both candidate in this presidential election). It is just that the wise are as fallen as everyone else and cannot be trusted. Democracy is a crutch for a fallen people. It does not work because "the will of the people" is some vast reservoir of wisdom and insight.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

There is a difference between marching to the polls to support laws that you believe  improves a community and/or nation.and marching to the polls to support laws that you believe improve a community and/ or nation but MUST takes away civil rights of others that don't support that belief in order to do so. So few Mormons grasp the treachery the church engaged in to enforce their religious beliefs into law. 

Just to be clear that treachery I am referring to is the taking away citizens rights in order to enforce their beliefs. 

Yeah I know you have heard this from me all before. But the truth is, very few Mormons have felt the need to be accountable for their actions and even more odd, the ones who have stepped forward to take responsibility have been labeled anti Mormon by the "TBM"

Does the church have the right to speak in the public square?  ABSOLUTELY YES. Did the church abuse that right to run a campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples?ABSOLUTELY YES. That is what has brought shame on the church, not their voice in the public square. 

Still on your angry rant, I see, california boy.  Still unable to place what occurred in accurate context.  In your own way, you are no different than those you criticize, not understanding at all the far reaching implications of your hate mongering.

The majority of voters in California agreed that Prop 8 was a good idea, even though the Supreme Court later found it unconstitutional.  The LDS Church did not foist this result on anyone, and most of those arguing in favor of Prop 8 came from other churches..  It is part of the normal civic process of determining what our laws will be.  In a previous genration, such a legal challenge and final result would have been unthinkable.  Indeed, the Mormons themselves were denied a fair hearing before that same high court a century earlier.  An honest sense of perspective might help you a lot, california boy.  Mormons were once basically in the same boat.

Now let us hear you attack the Roman Catholic and Protestant evangelical churches, and the Black churches in California for their much heavier input into the Prop 8 campaign.  Let us hear about the vengeance-seeking which took place in the aftermath, directed almost exclusively at the Mormons.  People lost their jobs and were hounded.  Are you proud of that vicious behavior, california boy?  Where is the shame in the public square?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, democracy functions because it checks to a degree our own worst impulses. In a good society we would want the wise and well-informed to rule. Letting every idiot vote is a recipe for disaster (see both candidate in this presidential election). It is just that the wise are as fallen as everyone else and cannot be trusted. Democracy is a crutch for a fallen people. It does not work because "the will of the people" is some vast reservoir of wisdom and insight.

What I said.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, USU78 said:

On election day in 1838 in Gallatin, Missouri, Mormons were physically manhandled and prohibited from voting.  This incident is widely seen as the commencement of the 2nd Mormon War in Missouri, ultimately leading to Mormon expulsion, a barefoot exodus across Missouri to the Mississippi, and the imprisonment of JSJr and others in Liberty, Missouri, Jail.

Following Prop 8, several participants on this board have, poorly in my judgment, claimed Mormons should not participate in the public square if, for example, their religious sensibilities inform their political decisions. 

Wait...What?  You are saying that posters on this board have really argued that "Mormons should not participate in the public square if, for example, their religious sensibilities inform their political decisions."
  Please provide a quote.  I think you may have misunderstood these participants, although you never know.

 

16 hours ago, USU78 said:

The means of enforcement urged by these participants have been left up to the imaginations of observers.

I am inviting such individuals and their interlocutors to continue the discussion just shut down in the recent thread on the difficulty of remaining faithful when suffering from SSA.

I have the following questions, which can act as springboard to the discussion:

1.  Why is it good public policy to prohibit Churches from speaking out in the public square on matters of interest to them?

2.  Why is it good public policy to prohibit or discourage or bully Mormons or other persons of faith from participation in the public square?

3.  Why is it good public policy to prohibit only persons of faith and not persons having other political motivations from participating in the public square?

4.  Why is it good public policy  to have a de facto policy where traditionally black churches are permitted to participate in the public square, including supporting specific candidates, where other churches are prohibited by law from doing so?

Each individual should be able to participate in the public square. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

There is a difference between marching to the polls to support laws that you believe  improves a community and/or nation.and marching to the polls to support laws that you believe improve a community and/ or nation but MUST takes away civil rights of others that don't support that belief in order to do so. So few Mormons grasp the treachery the church engaged in to enforce their religious beliefs into law. 

Just to be clear that treachery I am referring to is the taking away citizens rights in order to enforce their beliefs. 

Yeah I know you have heard this from me all before. But the truth is, very few Mormons have felt the need to be accountable for their actions and even more odd, the ones who have stepped forward to take responsibility have been labeled anti Mormon by the "TBM"

Does the church have the right to speak in the public square?  ABSOLUTELY YES. Did the church abuse that right to run a campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples?ABSOLUTELY YES. That is what has brought shame on the church, not their voice in the public square. 

I agree.  I think the OP is arguing against the wrong view--the attempted straw man.

[TheSkepticChristian]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Wait...What?  You are saying that posters on this board have really argued that "Mormons should not participate in the public square if, for example, their religious sensibilities inform their political decisions."
  Please provide a quote.  I think you may have misunderstood these participants, although you never know

I said our tax-exempt church should not get involved in politics, so he tries to paint me as the evil atheist that persecutes Christians. 

Of course Mormons should defend their religious freedom, but it is not right for religious people to impose their religious beliefs on others. 

In many countries a ten year old that was raped can´t get an abortion because it is against the law, those countries are obviously influence religion.

[california boy]

58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Still on your angry rant, I see, california boy.  Still unable to place what occurred in accurate context.  In your own way, you are no different than those you criticize, not understanding at all the far reaching implications of your hate mongering.

The majority of voters in California agreed that Prop 8 was a good idea, even though the Supreme Court later found it unconstitutional.  The LDS Church did not foist this result on anyone, and most of those arguing in favor of Prop 8 came from other churches..  It is part of the normal civic process of determining what our laws will be.  In a previous genration, such a legal challenge and final result would have been unthinkable.  Indeed, the Mormons themselves were denied a fair hearing before that same high court a century earlier.  An honest sense of perspective might help you a lot, california boy.  Mormons were once basically in the same boat.

Now let us hear you attack the Roman Catholic and Protestant evangelical churches, and the Black churches in California for their much heavier input into the Prop 8 campaign.  Let us hear about the vengeance-seeking which took place in the aftermath, directed almost exclusively at the Mormons.  People lost their jobs and were hounded.  Are you proud of that vicious behavior, california boy?  Where is the shame in the public square?

If you cannot distinguish between what the Romsn Catholic Protestant evangelical and black churches did compared to the Mormon church then it is pointless to talk about it

If course I am still angry. Do you want to know why?  Because the church is continuing their quest now exporting their crusade against civil rights to Mexico and Australia. 

And yes I condemned the harm done against the church by a very small group. Too bad the church cannot say something about the harm it caused against gay citizens. 

I also believe that the civil rights were denied Mormons for their polygamy beliefs and I will stand to fight for those civil rights of the Mormon church if they ever decide to challenge those denied rights. I would stand against anyone who works to take away anyone's civil rights. I just wish the church had done the same. The persecuted becomes the persecutor

[jkwilliams]

While there are individuals and groups I wish would stay out of politics, I don't dispute anyone's right to participate in the public arena, as that is a First Amendment right for individuals and religious groups (and since Citizens United, corporations). The LDS church has as much right to speak out on issues it feels strongly about, though obviously there are limits to the ability of tax-exempt groups to speak out on purely political matters. Proposition 8, for example, though obviously a political matter, was also clearly a matter of public morality that the church felt strongly about. It would be wrong to have denied the church the right to do what it did in organizing, funding, and supporting the Proposition 8 campaign. 

[Scott Lloyd]

One thing that struck me from the other thread -- and to some degree, this one -- is the screwy mindset that it's OK to let yourself be influenced in your deliberations as a voting citizen by your association with any number of social or political groups, but don't you dare let your church be among them, because that is anathema!

People who draw distinctions between participation in the political arena by individuals vs. churches forget or ignore that in a very real sense, a church is a collection of individuals who ideally are unified on certain points, including some pertaining to public policy. I affiliate with my church among other reasons because doing so is consistent with my personal outlook on myriad matters, not the least of which is public policy as it pertains to morality and matters of faith and spirituality. So you can't infringe on the rights of a church without violating the rights of the individuals who make up that church.

To put it more succinctly, if you mess with my church, you mess with me!

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Does the church have the right to speak in the public square?  ABSOLUTELY YES. Did the church abuse that right to run a campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples?ABSOLUTELY YES. That is what has brought shame on the church, not their voice in the public square. 

First of all, it's not self-evident that the church or any of its members took away anyone's civil rights.

Second, do you consider it abuse when members of the ACLU, the NAACP, the NRA, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Sierra Club or any of a host of other political pressure groups band together and use their collective influence to lobby for or against legislation, sway public opinion or otherwise affect public policy? Why is it different when a church or its members do so?

Edited July 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One thing that struck me from the other thread -- and to some degree, this one -- is the screwy mindset that it's OK to let yourself be influenced in your deliberations as a voting citizen by your association with any number of social or political groups, but don't you dare let your church be among them, because that is anathema!

People who draw distinctions between participation in the political arena by individuals vs. churches is that in a very real sense, a church is a collection of individuals. I affiliate with my church among other reasons because doing so is consistent with my personal outlook on myriad matters, not the least of which is public policy as it pertains to morality and matters of faith and spirituality. So you can't infringe on the rights of a church without violating the rights of the individuals who make up that church.

To put it more succinctly, if you mess with my church, you mess with me!

The distinction that I see, at least legally, is that tax-exempt organizations cannot favor one political party or candidate over another without losing their tax-exempt status. Obviously, religious beliefs are part of what goes into one's political choices, but even in a religion like Mormonism, whose members skew heavily toward conservative political positions (at least in the United States), there are plenty of members who see their religious beliefs as mandating all sorts of different political positions. For example, my mission companion who supports the Revolutionary Workers' Party, a Trotskyite party in Bolivia. But legally, the organization as a whole must remain neutral as to party or candidate or jeopardize its tax-exempt status.

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Can we just compromise and admit democracy just doesn't work no matter what we do?

The US is not a democracy in the literal sense of the word. We are a democratic republic with a written constitution.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The distinction that I see, at least legally, is that tax-exempt organizations cannot favor one political party or candidate over another without losing their tax-exempt status. Obviously, religious beliefs are part of what goes into one's political choices, but even in a religion like Mormonism, whose members skew heavily toward conservative political positions (at least in the United States), there are plenty of members who see their religious beliefs as mandating all sorts of different political positions. For example, my mission companion who supports the Revolutionary Workers' Party, a Trotskyite party in Bolivia. But legally, the organization as a whole must remain neutral as to party or candidate or jeopardize its tax-exempt status.

Throughout my three-score-year lifespan, the Church of Jesus Christ has never favored one political party or candidate over another. Yet there are those who, if they could, would deprive it of its tax-exempt status for taking positions on public policy matters pertaining to morality.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I said our tax-exempt church should not get involved in politics, so he tries to paint me as the evil atheist that persecutes Christians. 

Of course Mormons should defend their religious freedom, but it is not right for religious people to impose their religious beliefs on others. 

In many countries a ten year old that was raped can´t get an abortion because it is against the law, those countries are obviously influence religion.

There is no law in the US stating that tax-exempt churches can't inform their members about politics of the day.

Say it is my religious idea that the Electric Codes shouldn't apply to my church. Should that idea let me get away with putting others at risk?

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I said our tax-exempt church should not get involved in politics.

you should leave tax law to the professionals.

Not only is it legal for tax exempt organizations to engage in politics, many are specifically designed to do so.

One of them is holding a major convention this week.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I said our tax-exempt church should not get involved in politics, so he tries to paint me as the evil atheist that persecutes Christians. 

Of course Mormons should defend their religious freedom, but it is not right for religious people to impose their religious beliefs on others. 

 

But I take it that it's OK in your view for political zealots to impose their political beliefs on others.

[Danzo]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course we can enact legislation designed to control the behavior of our neighbors.  We can even try to restrict their religious rights and other civil liberties.  We can use the coercive power of the state to enforce our demands. In the past, the mailed fist of naked power was used to enforce the views of one group upon another, and not always with high-minded consideration for good moral and ethical principles.  The Constitution has often been flouted in the process.  Participatory democracy is all well and good, until it is used to deny someone his guaranteed civil rights.  And then there is the blowback which comes when those who are aggrieved seek vengeance and recrimination.  I always recommend that American citizens formally study their political and judicial system so as to understand how it all works -- so as to be good citizens who are not constantly trying to deny their neighbors their ordinary civil liberties.  That is the heart of the matter: The Golden Rule.

BYU has a free online course, CIT 070, "An American Citizen's Guide to Government and Politics," https://isreg.byu.edu/courses/pe/999087070001/public/start.htm .

Isn't all law designed to "Control the behavior of our neighbors"?