Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2017 Author Posted February 10, 2017 1 hour ago, hagoth7 said: If I were to say more, this thread would likely be shut down. More importantly, to protect the innocent, what I've said previously will have to suffice. You've lost me. But that's OK.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2017 Author Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) On 2/10/2017 at 10:47 AM, emeliza said: It goes back to the issue of people blindly following religious leaders. You might not care, but I know too many people who blindly follow. Aren't people in a free society entitled to follow whomever they want? You or I may not like the choices some others make, but I don't see how this is a compelling argument for defending the Johnson Amendment. I'm sure there are some sorry souls who would accuse me of blindly following my religious leaders. I very much disagree with them, but I don't say that public policy should be based on my disagreement with them. The law doesn't favor my view over theirs nor theirs over mine unless there's a violation of the Constitution or some such thing involved. I can see at least one reasonable argument for retaining the Johnson Amendment. There may be others, but this is not one of them. Quote I care very much that religion and politics stay as separate as they can with elected officials. I understand it blurs with some laws and such, but it shouldn't with actual people If by this you mean that elected officials ought not use the power of their office to favor or enshrine one religious faith over another under the law (amounting to a violation of the "establishment" clause of the Constitution), I agree with you. If by this you mean elected officials ought not listen to or consider the views of churches and their members along with the views of other citizens in the formation of public policy or that people of faith ought not seek to make their voices heard -- individually and collectively -- in the public sphere, I disagree. Edited February 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2017 Posted February 10, 2017 For me it means there must be a well substantiated secular reason for intruding into sectarian affairs.
The Nehor Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 6 hours ago, emeliza said: It goes back to the issue of people blindly following religious leaders. You might not care, but I know too many people who blindly follow. I care very much that religion and politics stay as separate as they can with elected officials. I understand it blurs with some laws and such, but it shouldn't with actual people I am not sure that would help. People who blindly follow rarely suddenly start 'thinking for themselves'. Instead of their religious leader telling them what to think they will let Richard Dawkins tell them what to think. Some pick someone else and let John Stewart or Rush Limbaugh or their parents or whatever to tell them what to think. 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I want my religion sectarian and my government secular. While I don't entirely agree in general in the United States I would find that state of affairs preferable to our current sectarian government and secular religions.
MormonVideoGame Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: If by this you mean elected officials ought not listen to or consider the views of churches and their members along with the views of other citizens in the formation of public policy or if people of faith ought not seek to make their voices heard -- individually and collectively -- in the public sphere, I disagree. What voices are you talking about? The Federal, State, and Local government protect religions and freedom of speech. You mean you want all the laws of the church to become the law of the land? You do have the right to want that, it's obvious you do. So, what did Jesus mean in John 18:36?
strappinglad Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm sure there are some sorry souls who would accuse me of blindly following my religious leaders. I very much disagree with them, but I don't say that public policy should be based on my disagreement with them. The law doesn't favor my view over there's nor there's over mine unless there's a violation of the Constitution or some such thing involved. Oops, Scott made an error . 10 points to who(m)ever spots it. Edited February 11, 2017 by strappinglad 1
JulieM Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Oops, Scott made an error . 10 points to who(m)ever spots it. Ewwww....wrong form of theirs (he used there's),. The 3rd one is correct though 😊 Edited February 11, 2017 by JulieM 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: For me it means there must be a well substantiated secular reason for intruding into sectarian affairs. What constitutes a "well substantiated secular reason"? Therein lies the rub. Potential abridgment of First Amendment rights sometimes results from goverment thinking it has a "well substantiated secular reason." 2
The Nehor Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: For me it means there must be a well substantiated secular reason for intruding into sectarian affairs. I find that well substantiated reasons to do things rarely enter into political decisions on non-sectarian affairs. Why expect a difference in sectarian ones? 6 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: What voices are you talking about? The Federal, State, and Local government protect religions and freedom of speech. You mean you want all the laws of the church to become the law of the land? You do have the right to want that, it's obvious you do. So, what did Jesus mean in John 18:36? Very few Christian groups want the laws of their church to become the laws of the land. It is simply not practical. How do you codify loving your neighbor as yourself into law that can be judged by mortals? How do you test whether someone has charity and how do you punish them if they do not? Now in some practical cases religious groups can support religious injunctions as practical for the community. For successful ones I would argue that honoring the Sabbath was one. While rarely enforceable law now many businesses close on the Sabbath. I would argue the laws against usury were probably good in general for society. Prohibition might have been a good idea but it failed. I would argue that some Christian groups desire to prohibit elective abortion were probably unwise. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: What constitutes a "well substantiated secular reason"? Therein lies the rub. Potential abridgment of First Amendment rights sometimes results from goverment thinking it has a "well substantiated secular reason." To give an example. You can believe that building codes are of the devil. But good luck trying to build a House of the Lord without following them.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 11, 2017 Author Posted February 11, 2017 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: To give an example. You can believe that building codes are of the devil. But good luck trying to build a House of the Lord without following them. No reasonable person objects to requiring churches to comply with safe building codes. (And in truth, I think you just pulled that out of thin air.) I have in mind controversial, real-world examples of abridging religious freedom, such as requiring Catholic charities to act in ways that violate the religious principles of Catholicism.
MormonVideoGame Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: No reasonable person objects to requiring churches to comply with safe building codes. (And in truth, I think you just pulled that out of thin air.) I have in mind controversial, real-world examples of abridging religious freedom, such as requiring Catholic charities to act in ways that violate the religious principles of Catholicism. The real persecution on religion comes from convervatives. Some religions believe in polygamy, gay marriage, recreational marijuana, assisted suidice for the terminally ill, recreational nudism, ponography, sex before marriage, abortion. But conservatives fight against all of that. Anyways, I though Mormon Dialogue was about religion, not about politics. Nothing that you mention affects the LDS church.
MormonVideoGame Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Elder McConkie was wrong to have written that, and you are wrong to dredge it up and perpetuate it. Im fairly confident Elder McConkie no longer believes that, as it was removed from subsequent editions of his book. Finally, it is a diversion for you to bring that up to prop up your anti-religious bigotry. Please don't call me a bigot. Some religions believe in nudism, marijuana, polygamy, gay marriage, sex before marriage, assisted suicide for the terminally ill, abortion, do you defend liberal religions too? The Jehovah witnesses don't believe in Blood transfusion, do you defend parents that refuse to allow blood transfusion for to their children?
Nemesis Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 Please do not respond to a troll especially after reporting.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2017 Author Posted February 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Nemesis said: Please do not respond to a troll especially after reporting. I'm generally pretty good at spotting trolls. But I have to admit, I don't know whom you are referring to in this instance. I'm all for not feeding trolls, though.
Vance Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 On 2/2/2017 at 0:46 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Anyone here heard of the Johnson Amendment? It forbids 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations -- including charities, universities and churches -- from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Doing so could cause them to lose their tax-exempt status. At today's National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump reiterated his intent, voiced during his election campaign, to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Ordinarily I might oppose such a move. But now, with Fred Karger gunning for the Church, trying to deprive it of its tax-exempt status (altogether unjustifiably, in my view), repeal of the Johnson Amendment might be a thing that is needed to help protect the Church against ill-intentioned parties like Karger and his ilk. So now, I'm not sure how I feel about repealing the amendment. I'm bringing it up for discussion here. I say YES, get rid of it. America survived for over 150 years without it just fine.
thesometimesaint Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: No reasonable person objects to requiring churches to comply with safe building codes. (And in truth, I think you just pulled that out of thin air.) I have in mind controversial, real-world examples of abridging religious freedom, such as requiring Catholic charities to act in ways that violate the religious principles of Catholicism. The reason for the building codes is for those that believe they are not bond by them.
thesometimesaint Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Vance said: I say YES, get rid of it. America survived for over 150 years without it just fine. No it didn't.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2017 Author Posted February 12, 2017 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: No it didn't. ???
Vance Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: No it didn't. America died without it? Perhaps you could provide a reference for this.
thesometimesaint Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Vance said: America died without it? Perhaps you could provide a reference for this. It didn't survive just fine. Separation of Church and State issues have been at the very heart of our country. If a religion can't survive without help from our government maybe it just isn't that good of a religion. Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin. Edited February 12, 2017 by thesometimesaint
Vance Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: It didn't survive just fine. Separation of Church and State issues have been at the very heart of our country. Yet, the Republic did survive just fine. And the separation of Church and State means that the State (that is the Federal Government) is forbidden from instituting any preference for one Church above another. The influence of Churches on the Federal Government is nowhere prohibited as long as such influence doesn't result in one Church being favored above another. The individual States were not prohibited from establishing religion or preferring one Church above another, in fact several of them did EXACTLY that. 49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: If a religion can't survive without help from our government maybe it just isn't that good of a religion. Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin. But what about surviving with the direct interference or persecution by the government? 2
thesometimesaint Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 I know LDS history. But it has been a long time since our leaders were prosecuted for polygamy. Try it now, and see how long you remain a member of the Church.
Vance Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Why must Churches have their freedom of speech abridged? 1
Rain Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 On Thursday, February 02, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said: I've seen no credible evidence that law-abiding Muslims have anything to fear under the Trump Administration. As for "at the moment," if you're referring to the so-called "travel ban," it is a pause while measures can be put into place for stricter screening of refugees to ensure that admission is granted only to those who intend to abide by the law and have no designs to bring harm to the United States or any of her citizenry. I'm all for preventing future terrorist attacks. If the situation truly turns out to be "dire" for would-be refugees, I'll stand with you. I don't see it yet. This is just more on the proposal to repeal the Johnson Amendment. It has nothing to do with LGBT groups. I already said I haven't staked out a position on the proposed repeal. i didn't say it's premature to talk about the repeal. That's why I brought it up here for discussion. What i said was premature was hand-wringing over a leaked document that contradicts the expressed position of White House. Last spring I won't to a Phoenix area Just Serve meeting where we learned about refugees. I learned there is a legal definitions for refugees and many whom we think of as refugees are actually a part of other groups. We were told the screening process for refugees is one of the strictest screening processes in the world. Not all of the people coming in go through this process because they are under a different legal definition and their entrance hasn't been set up the same as the refugees. I admit I know almost nothing of the screening process, but got just a brief glimpse of it at this meeting. I understand why some may be worried about security, but many will not realize that the terrorist from _______ group of entrants is not the same as the highly screened group of refugees. 1
Recommended Posts