I sense that some of my friends feel that any religious principle has no place in federal or state law because of the concept known commonly as "the separation of church and state."
I see a problem with this:
It may be very difficult or even impossible to guarantee that a law is not religiously motivated. To insist that a law not be based off of religious principles may increase the likelihood that laws would be based off of atheistic principles, which, to me, are also religious principles. Having laws based off of atheistic principles doesn't achieve a separation of church and state; quite the opposite.
I think what reasonable people may want to consider is the following scenario:
If a Mormon, a Catholic, a Muslim, a Jaw, and a Protestant all able to agree on a certain law that is motivated by their (different) religious beliefs, is this not a reasonable law for a country to have if the majority support the law? I would suggest that the answer may be "yes" in many cases. Why? Because it's fair, it's what most people sincerely think is best, and it isn't biased toward any one group's interests.
And if you think that the answer to my above question is "no", I would invite to give some serious reflection as to why that may be.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Monday, July 13, 2015
It is better to deny oneself (yet another reason why same-sex marriage is contrary to God's plan)
Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Or
3 Nephi 12:30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.
My interpretation: It is better to deny oneself of harmful physical appetites and enter into heaven than satisfy these appetites and be cast into hell. This seems to be in conflict with the modern principle of same-sex marriage which teaches that it a person is born with a specific type of sexual urge, then it is appropriate to satisfy this urge and the government will support anyone who wishes to behave this way, no matter what the cost to society ends up being.
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Mini purpose of life
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/6.55
55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.
I read that as: once people become teenagers and their bodies start to mature, they will be faced with a new temptations that will be contrary to God's will. Each person's temptation will probably be different.
55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.
I read that as: once people become teenagers and their bodies start to mature, they will be faced with a new temptations that will be contrary to God's will. Each person's temptation will probably be different.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
What does 'discrimination' really mean?
I see some people tossing around the word 'discrimination' a lot these days, and like Inigo Montoya once said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
According to dictionary.com, the word (in the context which most people have been using it) means:
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit
To summarize, if a person is discriminating against another person, it means that they are treating them differently because of the group to which they belong rather than in individual merit.
Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, recently wrote this piece for the Washington Post.
I quote a section of his remarks here:
Conclusion: Some people misuse and/or misunderstand what the word "discrimination" means. The more that we are all on the same page, the better we can move forward with thoughtful dialog on the subject.
According to dictionary.com, the word (in the context which most people have been using it) means:
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit
To summarize, if a person is discriminating against another person, it means that they are treating them differently because of the group to which they belong rather than in individual merit.
Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, recently wrote this piece for the Washington Post.
I quote a section of his remarks here:
"There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.
A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.
Others are more transparent in their effort to discriminate. Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — even if the Supreme Court strikes down Texas’ marriage ban later this year. In total, there are nearly 100 bills designed to enshrine discrimination in state law."
I am troubled that Mr. Cook seems to be automatically assuming that religious freedom laws are intended to be used to discriminate. While I freely acknowledge that some people may use these laws as an excuse to discriminate, I also see a vital need for laws of this nature to protect other people who have no interest in discriminating.
I believe that one must examine each case individually to determine whether a person claiming religious freedom is discriminating. Let me give you a few examples of possible scenarios that I am talking about:
| Scenario | Discriminating? | Rational |
| 7-11 eleven, which posts a sign that says "no shirt, no service" refuses service to a man who walks in without a shirt | No | The man is being treated based on his individual behavior, not because of any group to which he belongs |
| Restaurant refuses to serve someone because of their skin color | Yes | The person is being turned away because of belonging to a group, not because of their behavior |
| Wedding cake maker, and/or wedding photographer, and/or wedding planner refuses service to any customer (regardless of sexual orientation) who specifically wants services related to gay marriage | MAYBE | Here is where people need to slow down and not jump to conclusions. The business MAY be automatically dismissing the customer simply because they belong to a specific group. If so, yes, they are discriminating. However, the business MAY be dismissing the customer because the business owners sincerely have a religious believe that God created marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that to participate in a ceremony that conflicts with this commandment would be an offense to God. If this is the case, then the business owner would primarily be concerned with his/her relationship with God and would the essentially be willing to sacrifice the relationship with the customer. This is not discrimination because the group to which the customer may belong is not a factor in this decision. |
Conclusion: Some people misuse and/or misunderstand what the word "discrimination" means. The more that we are all on the same page, the better we can move forward with thoughtful dialog on the subject.
I love Elder Oaks's thoughtful words
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865627143/Elder-Oaks-champions-religious-freedom.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)