You need to be a Right-Wing Conservative to be a Mormon?

[Guest]

Democrats pass legislation to keep people from starving - Republicans oppose it.

References (both that Republicans ever opposed such a measure, or that anyone, save a few of the severely mentally ill that the Left, in their bottomless compassion at the expense of others, forced out onto the streets in the eighties, is starving in this country)?

Democrats propose legislation to to provide heath care for all- Republicans oppose it.

As they should. This is socialized medicine (or, the socialization - the nationalization - of the medical industry and profession) which has proved both a boondoggle and a practical failure in every country in which its been implemented, and would mean a serious decline in both the quality and availability of health care). This is socialism as applied to the medical profession and its associated industries, with all the well known tragedies of the commons associated with it.

Democrats pass legislation to reduce the working week from 60+ to 40 hours - Republicans oppose it.

So now we know for certain that you are both an economic illiterate and a poor observer of the human condition. This is just more discredited socialist clap trap from the first half of the 20th century. Mind your own business, and I'll work as many hours as I and my employer decide in a private, uncoeirced contractual relationship I'll work. The state's greasy, porcine, meddling fingers need not decide that for me, or for my employer. Its none of government's business.

Democrats pass legislation to let workers have collective bargaining - Republicans oppose it.

For heaven's sake wake up Moksha. Unionism is a Dinosaur, and is on the way to the status of a historical curiosity. Most workers today want nothing to do with Unions, their economic inefficiencies, the bad blood they brew between employer and employee, or their incessant class warfare ideology (not to mention the perennial political corruption they breed). Unionism is down to some 12% of the workforce, and continues to shrink from a high of some 40% of the workforce a half century ago. The only place its still gaining ground is in government unionism (which should be outlawed on principle).

Democrats pass legislation to insure that our food is clean through inspection - Republicans oppose it.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Democrats pass legislation to help clean up air polution - Republicans oppose it.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Democrats pass legislation to provide for a reasonable minimum wage - Republicans oppose it.

I won't ask you to define what "a reasonable minimum wage is" because neither you nor anyone else on the planet can do so. That then, would be pointless. Suffice it to say, all raising the minimum wage does (beyond creating a general price inflation as businesses pass on the increased cost of doing business), is to create unemployment among those who need it most - low skilled wage earners, especially at the entry level.

Democrats pass legislation to accord civil rights to all regardless of race or religion - Republicans oppose it.

Exactly. Politicians do not dispense "civil rights" to anyone. They are inherent and unalienable or they do not exist at all. Memo to Moksha, without the Republican Party, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 never would have seen the light of day because of overwhelming Democratic opposition.

A mind is a terrible thing to have let atrophy in this manner, or never to have developed at all.

[_Yoda]

To me, the Gospel of Jesus is for everyone regardless of their political stripe. I also think it
is unfortunate that the Church has allowed itself affiliation with ultra-right wing politics, since that
has probably tempered some of their decisions.

This would include then, Nazis, I presume?

How about Marxist-Leninists, with all that implies?

Actually....yes. The Church is for people, not labels.

[_Droopy]

To me, the Gospel of Jesus is for everyone regardless of their political stripe. I also think it
is unfortunate that the Church has allowed itself affiliation with ultra-right wing politics, since that
has probably tempered some of their decisions.

This would include then, Nazis, I presume?

How about Marxist-Leninists, with all that implies?

Actually....yes. The Church is for people, not labels.

Liz, come on. Some intellectual substance is due here, is it not?

[_Droopy]

Back to the point, early Christians were communalists. Jesus was a Leftist.

And I'm sure Merc has some compelling biblical textual references for us here (I notice he forebears from using the terms "communist" or "socialist" to describe the early Christians, but instead resorts to the nebulous "commualist" (which he can then interpret as need arises).

So, Jesus was a "leftist"? What kind of a leftist? What did he teach or believe that could reasonably be interpreted coherently in light of historical definitions of this term and, more importantly, the discreet beliefs, policies, and actions taken by leftists and leftist governments throughout history?

[_Yoda]

Liz, come on. Some intellectual substance is due here, is it not?

Yes, it does. That's why I corrected your statement. ;)

Obviously, those who hold to militant Nazi or Marxist/Lennon ideals would go against the basic principles of the gospel. But that doesn't mean that the Church is not FOR them. The Church of Jesus Christ is for everyone.

Also, many people who are trapped in militant situations may simply be proclaiming these beliefs to save their own lives, or their family's lives.

My point is, when you peel back all of the layers...we're more alike than different. We're mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, sons, daughters.

Children of God.

[Guest]

You clearly don't understand social democracy.

Yes he does, which is why he wants nothing to do with it (Socialism and democratic institutions are self contradictory, and cannot be blended). One can create a tossed salad in which socialistic institutions and policies exist alongside democratic ones, but they work against each other and are irreconcilable in their incentives and priorities. The more socialism one has, the less freedom one must settle for, and vice versa. "Democratic Socialism" is a contradiction in terms. The one is the antithesis of the other, and they can only exist in tension, not in unison.

[_Droopy]

Obviously, those who hold to militant Nazi or Marxist/Lennon ideals would go against the basic principles of the gospel. But that doesn't mean that the Church is not FOR them. The Church of Jesus Christ is for everyone.

Yes, but that's not the argument Moksha has made here. What he, and other leftist Mormons I have known are saying, is that one can be considered a faithful Latter Day Saint and simultaneously hold to virtually any political ideology or belief system. In other words, as long as one doesn't display their politics openly in the street and scare the horses, one can believe anything one wants and still be considered a faithful, believing LDS.

What I'm saying is that this is not the case. Accepting the Gospel means, ultimately, the rejection of any and all false principles or doctrines of which one is aware (as one becomes aware of them). The more serious is the inconsistency between principle or belief x and the Gospel, the more imminent must be its demise as a going concern within one's life. The Gospel is for Nazis and Communists - but only as they leave those other beliefs behind in the process of repentance and entrance into the Kingdom of God. In other words, the Gospel is for Nazis and Communists who have repented and are no longer a part of those worlds. It is for non all these things. The Gospel is for non-pornographers, but not for practicing or believing pornographers. One cannot serve God and mammon, can one?

[Guest]

The choice to receive medical care.

Yes. The famous socialist "choice" to accept the only state of affairs available.

This is so abjectly pathetic. What was the great choice put before us all in the Grand Council. What do we choose? Mortality and probation or a short circuiting of the Plan? Risk or security? Agency or the absolute will of another? Freedom or coercion? Quality or equality?

Choose you this day...

But choose wisely. These opposites are all in tension and conflict with one another in mortality, and can only be reconciled within the context of the Gospel. Human attempts to ultimately reconcile the tension between the individual and the collective, quality and equality, individual freedom and social cohesion, and risk and security have all ended in everything from economic and cultural stagnation on one hand, all the way to cataclysmic human disaster on the other.

[_Droopy]

I want to opt out of the requirement to fund national defence programs. I can't. Can I therefore conclude that national defense is the path to socialism?

No, you cannot, because national defense, both against external enemies and internal criminal predation, is the primary function of government. The logical gaff here is rather stunning to say the least, as programs that lead to socialism, as pointed out by, among others, Heyek, are social or economic programs that collectivize private economic and social life and create an incentive for the meddling of the state in areas in which they have no competence and are better left to individuals and private collective action. Such programs create both constituencies dependent upon the expansion of government power for their existence and mentalities of dependence among the citizens of such a country. Programs that lead to socialism are socialistic in nature at the outset.

Whatever else defense industries are, they are private industries who produce and provide defense technology. they are businesses that compete with each other in the private sector for military contracts. They are not nationalized industries (as in a socialist state), or industries under extreme government control (as in a fascist or syndicalist state). How the present reliance upon private industry for defense equipment and technology could lead to Socialism, I don't know. I do know, however, how programs like Social Security set up a people, both psychologically and as a matter of pure, unquestioned expectation (the entitlement mentality) to accept ever more dependence upon government for ever more basic human needs and desires at the expense of their fellow citizens.

[_Droopy]

But internationally he was able to start an unwinnable war.

Excuse me?