USU78 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 26 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't think you're being reasonable nor responsive to the thread's purpose. I did not indicate what you feel I might have meant so there's really no where to go with this. Peace to you So ... the irony is entirely lost on you, as well as the double standard. Interesting.
CV75 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In the absence of direct theocratic rule by God, we are left only with His inspired Constitution -- which already embodies rights which have been more broadly promulgated in our time, by the supreme judicial body which has the final say in such matters. What's not to like in an open society in which freedom of speech and religion are fully honored? How else would we be able to preach our beliefs unhindered? Majority rule of the mob does not determine what is legal. The voice of the people is not the voice of God. As long as there is no hinderance of religion as protected in the Constitution, that is correct. But let's not ignore the vulnerability of freedom in religious expression in the rhetoric, tactics and strategies taking place in the current climate, which does not seem to honor religious freedom in principle.
CV75 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: An online dictionary defines fiat as "a legally binding command or decision entered on the court record (as if issued by a court or judge)" And I deny that, by calling it a fiat, I have attacked either the validity of the decision or the court's right to rule on the case. I can fervently disagree with a judicial fiat (or ruling) even as I recognize its legality and validity. A corollary to that is that I can argue against a judicial fiat even as I recognize its legality and validity. I think you don't understand what fiat means. I think this gets to an important point. Fervent disagreement "sometimes" -- and I'm not saying you're doing this -- escalates into contentious speech and behavior which is hurtful to our democratic republic because it engenders anti-religious sentiments, even by the religious. Once that happens, the moral appreciation or the moral authority (depending on which side of the argument one is on) of the special Constitutional protection of religious freedom is undermined. The environment is subject to a virtual"mob rule" and not a virtual "common consent." It is interesting to me that this thread was (apparently) started to cover the exercise of religious conscience by way of religious doctrine as a way of hurting individuals. As we see, this kind of belief ends up driving the discussion of first amendment and special protection for religious freedom, and this particular stance is poised to undermine religious freedom, because all these laws ultimately reflect our society's moral compass (regardless of what one recognizes the moral standard or its source to be). 1
CV75 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 6 hours ago, stemelbow said: That's not true. The entire premise is that leaders have been wrong in the past so it's possible they are wrong again. It's clear to me you've misunderstood. There must be a better premise than that. Leaders have been right in the past so it's possible* they are right again. The Lord commanded and allowed expedience and counted it as righteousness in the past so it's possible* He's doing it again. Those who were "right" contrary to the Lord's expediency acted contrary to Him and so it's possible* they will act contrary to Him by the same mentality again. And of course, marriage was between and man and a woman in the past, so it's possible* it will remain so. * And here's the rub: "possible" can be likely or unlikely... so it's really a matter of religious perspective and getting along, in the present with and an edifying contributor to the religious community one wishes to be part of. (See 3 Nephi 11 and 12). 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, CV75 said: As long as there is no hinderance of religion as protected in the Constitution, that is correct. But let's not ignore the vulnerability of freedom in religious expression in the rhetoric, tactics and strategies taking place in the current climate, which does not seem to honor religious freedom in principle. Some on the political left would place limits on freedom of religion. They would limit it to the freedom to preach a sermon inside a house of worship, but they would curtail the freedom of people of faith to participate in the political process, to express their views in public, to endeavor to persuade the electorate to this or that view or policy. Like garden-variety despots, they would seek to eviscerate in this regard the First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech and the press. Many are so ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights they are doing this without realizing it, even if they did care, which they don't. Edited July 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 1 hour ago, CV75 said: As long as there is no hinderance of religion as protected in the Constitution, that is correct. But let's not ignore the vulnerability of freedom in religious expression in the rhetoric, tactics and strategies taking place in the current climate, which does not seem to honor religious freedom in principle. Free speech and expression is not a rose garden and can get pretty wild, woolly, and contentious. That is the nature of freedom. We all need to accept that, stop whining, and get over it it. 2
Calm Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Some on the political left would place limits on freedom of religion. Some on the political right would do so as well, limit what type of religion is allowed freedoms. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: Excellent post Robert! I worry that the church is controlling a little much. But you probably aren't purporting that, I just added it. I long for the old days a little too much. Yes, the Roman Catholics trying to legislate anti-abortion laws, many Christian denominations attempting to define marriage in civil law, etc., encroach on our secular Constitution, which prevents one group from controlling all the others. We need to put the medieval controls behind us.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: But obviously with some it doesn't go without saying, or we wouldn't have the misguided agitation currently going on to invalidate within the Church some of the clearly enunciated doctrine in the family proclamation. So even if you think it goes without saying, it must be repeated from time to time as there apparently are some who would ignore it. it is not coercive to resist public policy that would fundamentally redefine an institution such as marriage or family, eventually stripping it of any meaning that gave it value. We used to have Blue Laws in Utah and in many other states. They were formulated with the best of intentions, but were ultimately unconstitutional. So too, we may all have our pet notions of what is best for people, and we are free to recommend that to everyone. When it comes to the Constitution, however, we really ought to stop trying to dictate morality--according to our personal, subjective preferences. Marriage & family are certainly of prime importance in society, and it would be nice if we could all sit down and discuss what makes for the best familial relations. For example, I do not agree that the nuclear family is the optimum choice. I prefer the extended family. In addition, I see nothing at all wrong with polygamy, and I think that it should be a legal option in our society. We need to be respectful and tolerant of choices which don't mesh with ours. The open society has many enemies, and the totalitarian temptation is powerful. This life is all about the free market place of ideas -- the only real test of character.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Some on the political right would do so as well, limit what type of religion is allowed freedoms. I suppose in theory that's true. But if you're referring to Trump's travel ban, it doesn't apply, because Muslims from countries not covered by the ban are allowed in. Regardless of whether or not you like the ban, it is nation-based, not religion-based. Furthermore, immigrants and visitors are not citizens and thus are not entitled to a full measure of the benefits of citizenry. This became starkly clear to me a few years ago when I went to Canada to cover the Mormon History Association Conference and was only allowed past the border when they ascertained that the newspaper I was working for was based in the United States, not Canada. 1
MiserereNobis Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I suppose in theory that's true. But if you're referring to Trump's travel ban, it doesn't apply, because Muslims from countries not covered by the ban are allowed in. Regardless of whether or not you like the ban, it is nation-based, not religion-based. Furthermore, immigrants and visitors are not citizens and thus are not entitled to a full measure of the benefits of citizenry. This became starkly clear to me a few years ago when I went to Canada to cover the Mormon History Association Conference and was only allowed past the border when they ascertained that the newspaper I was working for was based in the United States, not Canada. I'm not sure what she is referring to, but there are examples of people on the political right doing things like using zoning laws to prevent mosques from being built. Bigotry and intolerance is found across the political spectrum. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 39 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I'm not sure what she is referring to, but there are examples of people on the political right doing things like using zoning laws to prevent mosques from being built. Bigotry and intolerance is found across the political spectrum. I don't dispute -- or approve of -- this.
california boy Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Some on the political left would place limits on freedom of religion. They would limit it to the freedom to preach a sermon inside a house of worship, but they would curtail the freedom of people of faith to participate in the political process, to express their views in public, to endeavor to persuade the electorate to this or that view or policy. Like garden-variety despots, they would seek to eviscerate in this regard the First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech and the press. Many are so ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights they are doing this without realizing it, even if they did care, which they don't. When religion starts to attempt to legislate and control Americans based on their own religious beliefs, it creates foes that it didn't have before and ultimately those foes strike back at religion. When religion defends unChrist like behavior such as refusing to serve someone because they believe they are a sinner or that their marriage is wrong, then religion looses it's moral position. It trivializes religious principles. All the sudden, those that naturally would defend religion find themselves fighting unjust behavior. Religion no longer represents morality or kindness, or caring or love of others. It becomes something more nasty. Something that supports discrimination. Something that has lost respect for how we should treat others. The biggest enemy of religion is found in those that champion the treating of others uncharitably. Religion finds itself supporting uncivil behavior. People are not leaving religion because of the good it represents. People are leaving religion because they no longer see kindness, and charity and a sense of fairness. Their new champions of justice are those that are not just at all. People are not stupid. They know bad behavior when they see it. They know that refusing to bake a cake for someone's wedding just because they are gay is not a behavior one could attribute to Christ's teachings. The biggest threat to freedom of religion is religion. It is systematicly turning this country against religion. 2
Recommended Posts