Page 1 of 2

Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:12 pm
by _Sethbag
NBCNews.com has this story in its local news section for my area about a Constitution Fireside held near me. I didn't attend.

Reading it, it seems to be just talking about the Constitution itself, which is fine, but I wonder to what extent this is seen as a thinly-veiled anti-Obama message. With the Teabaggers usurping the Constitution as their bludgeon to attack Obama, is this more Teabagger crap? Or is this more Bircher type crap, from the bad old days of Ezra Taft Benson's anti-Communist hysteria?

I'm not sure what the real message and intent is here. I do suspect it's an attempt to bash Obama by focusing on the Constitution with the implied meaning that Obama is trying to destroy it.

That said, is this really an appropriate use of Mormon church facilities?

Re: Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:30 pm
by _Rollo Tomasi
Sethbag wrote:NBCNews.com has this story in its local news section for my area about a Constitution Fireside held near me. I didn't attend.

Here's an interesting quote from the presenter:

“There is no such thing as Constitutional rights. It’s a misnomer. Rights come from God.”

That's some scary stuff, in my opinion.

Re: Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:44 pm
by _Cicero
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Sethbag wrote:NBCNews.com has this story in its local news section for my area about a Constitution Fireside held near me. I didn't attend.

Here's an interesting quote from the presenter:

“There is no such thing as Constitutional rights. It’s a misnomer. Rights come from God.”

That's some scary stuff, in my opinion.


Well, we do have a long-standing history in this country of giving credence to the notion of "natural" rights (e.g., Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" or even the Declaration of Independence). Bentham once called such ideas "nonsense on stilts" (one of my favorite quotes of all time).

Re: Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:46 pm
by _Sethbag
I agree, but the faithful can just point to the Declaration of Independence where similar language was used:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Still, given the absolute surety and absolute fervor that many religious people pursue their beliefs, changing the discussion from a political one to a religious one kind of scares me too. Put this in context of the discussion on Laban, and whether it was OK for Nephi to hack his head off in order to get the brass plates. The more hard-core religious types on the board justify that as A-OK, because God said so.

So is there anything a person wouldn't be willing to do if they thought that God required a particular stance on the Constitution? It's hard to see where it might stop.

Re: Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:15 pm
by _Ludd
I know a guy who is really into the "Constitution is Threatened" mentality. He has, in his "bomb shelter" not only two years supply of food, etc. for his extended family, but 20 AK-47s (some of which have been converted to full-auto capability) and 50,000 rounds of 7.62 ammunition---for when the "guvment tries to take our freedoms away".

I think he's really scary.

Re: Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:29 pm
by _Cicero
Ludd wrote:I know a guy who is really into the "Constitution is Threatened" mentality. He has, in his "bomb shelter" not only two years supply of food, etc. for his extended family, but 20 AK-47s (some of which have been converted to full-auto capability) and 50,000 rounds of 7.62 ammunition---for when the "guvment tries to take our freedoms away".

I think he's really scary.


He'll be ready for his "Red Dawn" moment. Wolverines!!!

Re: Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:22 pm
by _3sheets2thewind
Sethbag wrote:NBCNews.com has this story in its local news section for my area about a Constitution Fireside held near me. I didn't attend.

Reading it, it seems to be just talking about the Constitution itself, which is fine, but I wonder to what extent this is seen as a thinly-veiled anti-Obama message. With the Teabaggers usurping the Constitution as their bludgeon to attack Obama, is this more Teabagger crap? Or is this more Bircher type crap, from the bad old days of Ezra Taft Benson's anti-Communist hysteria?

I'm not sure what the real message and intent is here. I do suspect it's an attempt to bash Obama by focusing on the Constitution with the implied meaning that Obama is trying to destroy it.

That said, is this really an appropriate use of Mormon church facilities?


It is Arizona lunacy at approaching its worst. Or as you said "more teabagger crap".

Re: Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:53 pm
by _Darth J
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Here's an interesting quote from the presenter:

“There is no such thing as Constitutional rights. It’s a misnomer. Rights come from God.”

That's some scary stuff, in my opinion.


I get what you are saying, but this statement is not so much scary as it is vapid. "Constitutional rights" is a very common short-hand for rights that are protected by the Constitution. Merely using that phrase says nothing about whether you believe in natural law or some other philosophical origin for things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.

Sethbag wrote:I agree, but the faithful can just point to the Declaration of Independence where similar language was used:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


They can point to it, but that language does not support the restorationist politics that the article in the OP is strongly implying. Jefferson was a deist, and let's just say he was not a biblical literalist. The idea that the rights people have in the United States come from God or nature does not lead to the conclusion that this means the Abrahamic God or that the U.S. was meant to be a "Christian" nation. It's essentially another way of saying that the government rules at the consent of the governed. I understand your concern, Sethbag, but I think you would agree that, for example, your right not to have the police break down your door and ransack your house just in case there might be evidence of a crime in there was not a gift generously bestowed upon you by the party holding the majority in Congress.

Cicero wrote: Well, we do have a long-standing history in this country of giving credence to the notion of "natural" rights (e.g., Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" or even the Declaration of Independence). Bentham once called such ideas "nonsense on stilts" (one of my favorite quotes of all time).


Well, I do believe that the rights protected by the Constitution are something to which we are inherently entitled, not just a product of governmental largesse. But as Bentham pointed out, that philosophical belief doesn't give you a lot to work with when you are trying to apply the law in practical reality. The other problem, as Bentham observed, is that many of these "natural" rights that are supposed to transcend the existence of a State only make sense if the State already exists. For example. due process of law in the 5th and 14th Amendments. There has to be a legal system in place before you can get due process in it. The necessity of obtaining a warrant based on probable cause (4th Amendment) also only makes sense if a government exists. And the 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments make very little sense in a "state of nature."

Re: Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:05 pm
by _Cicero
Darth J wrote:Well, I do believe that the rights protected by the Constitution are something to which we are inherently entitled, not just a product of governmental largesse.


I generally agree with you. I understand all of the inherent problems with "natural law" (as you well know, such ideas are given about as much respect in the legal academy today as the belief that the earth is flat).

That being said, I can't help but get misty-eyed when I read these words and remember their context:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Re: Constitution Fireside in Arizona

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:46 pm
by _Darth J
From the article:

“Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States,” read a quote by LDS President David O. McKay on a display at the lecture."

As demonstrated, inter alia, by the Church's concentrated effort to divest same-sex couples in California of equal protection of law.

For Krauser and members of the Mormon Church, the Constitution should only be changed in extreme cases.
“Our Constitution has longevity,” he said. “Other countries have had numerous constitutions.”
What makes our constitution different is it allows for free agency, he said.
“At the end of the day, we allow people to do things that we may not agree with,” Krauser said. “We try to be a voice for good, but we don’t force people to make choices.”
That’s why keeping the document in its original form is so important, he said. By keeping it in its original form, it doesn’t pervert or change the original intention of the document.


This is code for the One, True Jurisprudence being either originalism or strict constructionism.

The underlying assumption is that 18th-century social mores represent a golden age of morality and righteousness that the Constitution forever enshrines----and of course, that sense of morality and righteousness just happens to equate to LDS value judgments. So naturally any competing school of thought on constitutional jurisprudence is inspired by Satan. (For those who think I engage in hyperbole, I refer you to the works of Ezra Taft Benson, Cleon W. Skousen, and Glenn Beck.)

Take for example the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, judicial flogging was not unusual, and many people did not think it was cruel, either. Today, most people would feel that flogging is not appropriate as a sentence for a crime, but rather should be practiced in the setting of a loving, consensual adult relationship. But if a prisoner is beaten today and successfully pursues a civil rights claim, then is he or she perverting or changing the original intention of the document? Even if it's flogging in a women's prison, which is hawt?

“At the end of the day, we allow people to do things that we may not agree with,” Krauser said. “We try to be a voice for good, but we don’t force people to make choices.”

Wait a minute. Since Krauser insists that our rights come from God, who is this "we" that "allows" people to make choices "we" find to be distasteful?

His assertion is also demonstrably false. The Church does in fact teach people to politically and legally oppose choices that the Church does not agree with. E.g.:

Gospel Topics: Pornography

Members of the Church should avoid pornography in any form and should oppose its production, distribution, and use.

If members of the Church are avoiding pornography, then the production, distribution, and use of pornography by people who are not them is none of their business if "we" really do "allow" other people to make choices we don't agree with under the Constitution. But that isn't what the Church teaches. Examples:

Spencer W. Kimball

As citizens, join in the fight against obscenity in your communities. Do not be lulled into inaction by the pornographic profiteers who say that to remove obscenity is to deny people the rights of free choice. Do not let them masquerade licentiousness as liberty.

Gordon B. Hinckley

Legal restraints against deviant moral behavior are eroding under legislative enactments and court opinions. This is done in the name of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of choice in so-called personal matters. But the bitter fruit of these so-called freedoms has been enslavement to debauching habits and behavior that leads only to destruction. A prophet, speaking long ago, aptly described the process when he said, “And thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell” (2 Ne. 28:21).

On the other hand, I am satisfied that there are millions upon millions of good people in this and in other lands. For the most part, husbands are faithful to wives, and wives to husbands. Their children are being reared in sobriety, industry, and faith in God. Given the strength of these, I am one who believes that the situation is far from hopeless. I am satisfied that there is no need to stand still and let the filth and violence overwhelm us or to run in despair. The tide, high and menacing as it is, can be turned back if enough of the kind I have mentioned will add their strength to the strength of the few who are now effectively working. I believe the challenge to oppose this evil is one from which members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as citizens, cannot shrink.
........
I am not one to advocate shouting defiantly or shaking fists and issuing threats in the faces of legislators. But I am one who believes that we should earnestly and sincerely and positively express our convictions to those given the heavy responsibility of making and enforcing our laws. The sad fact is that the minority who call for greater liberalization, who peddle and devour pornography, who encourage and feed on licentious display make their voices heard until those in our legislatures may come to believe that what they say represents the will of the majority. We are not likely to get that which we do not speak up for.


In case it isn't obvious enough, Hinckley's premise it that individual rights are determined by legislation and majority vote. In reality, the Church does encourage its members to impose the Church's values on other people. The Church does this through legislative lobbying and amicus briefs in various court cases as well.

“When you look at these men, it’s hard not to think that God had a plan laid out for them,” he said. “And people may say, ‘There he goes again, talking about politics,’ but I say, ‘No, I’m talking about the word of God.’”

No, he's equating his ideology with the word of God.

“General Washington said that he thought it was a rising sun,” Krauser said. “And I believe that the sun still rises on America and that the best days are still ahead.”

That's an allusion to the Tea Party religious/political belief in restorationism.

By the way, did anyone catch what exactly Mormons are supposed to do to "uphold and defend" the Constitution beyond reading LDS value judgments into it and demanding that their value judgments be regarded as positive law?