The Vision of the Anointed Never Faileth at FAIR

[_Droopy]

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:

Droopy, pleas stop lumping conservatism and libertarianism together. Libertarianism is a philosophy of peace and respecting your neighbor. Conservatism is about war and controlling your neighbor.

Actually, I can't help but to correct Spurven here. Conservatism and libertarianism are both about peace and respecting your neighbor. Where they differ is in the relative balance between freedom and the sociocultural/moral controls, boundaries, and mediating institutions and principles between individuals that make ordered liberty and civil society - not just a free society - a real possibility.

Some of these differences are core philosophical divergences as to the essence of human nature and the nature of the human condition itself.

There is a body of political ideology that is, indeed, about war (both because some of its major forms are partial to it and because other forms inadvertently lead to it) controlling one's neighbor and as many aspects of his life as possible, and the worship of power, and that is, of course, the various schools and sects of leftism, in which these aspects are always present if with differing intensity and scope.

Modern conservatism and libertarianism are sibling schools of classical liberalism. The Left is the implacable enemy of both, but especially of conservatism because of its understanding of the need to encourage, preserve, and defend the family, religion, and certain central, permanent, perennial values, institutions, and ideas, including but not limited to, individual liberty and freedom, as the foundation of civilization and civil society itself.

[_Darth J]

Is this an admission, Darth, that you support the production and distribution of child pornography, or just a re-admission?

I think it's hilarious that an adult in the modern world thinks that this is what Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition means. This is just the kind of shrill, hysterical self-parody that I love about Droopy's posts.

We don't have organ grinders with monkeys anymore for cheap entertainment, but at least we have people like Droopy posting this crap on the internet.

[_Darth J]

Droopy is totally a libertarian----as demonstrated, inter alia, by his opposition to same-sex marriage, his belief that only political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and his belief that his personal value judgments should be incorporated into positive law.

1. I have never claimed to be a libertarian.

The first sentence of this thread was: "The recent Church Newsroom statement regarding the Church's position on race, generally speaking, and the priesthood ban specifically, has apparently been perceived by a core of MDD board moderators as a throwing down of the gauntlet and a license to take off the politically correct gloves and rhetorically run other TBM/conservative/libertarian posters out of the church."

2. I've never said only political speech is protected by the First Amendment. Darth is lying here (shock of all shocks...)

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13788&p=344138

"The crux of the matter is that pornography qua pornography is not speech, and has no relevance to the first amendment at all........

Pornography, however, has no intellectual content in this sense. It is political speech, above all, that the 1st amendment was created to protect. Barely Legal is not strictly protected speech under the 1st amendment for the simple reason that it, and all material like it...have nothing to say."

3. It would not be too far to say that most positive law does, indeed, embody personal value judgements, and the best law embodies values that a the vast majority of a people within a common cultural milieu and body politic can agree on. Much environmental law, for example, involves distinctly personal value judgements (indeed, an entire worldview and ideology) that is, in point of fact, inhospitable to the principles of the Founding and with the beliefs of a substantial majority of Americans. Others are much more compatible. That one should not swear or drink in public are value judgements. The age of consent for sexual activity in different countries reflects value judgements. Insider trading laws represent value judgements.

So you'll agree with me that the increasingly common value judgment that homosexuals deserve equal treatment under the law should be incorporated into positive law.

4. Darth is just arguing for the sake of arguing, as he always does, so pay no attention to the lawyer behind the curtain.

No, I am reading your posts and responding to you for the same reason that I like to watch episodes of How I Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory.

Droopy purports to be a libertarian, so it must be true. Also, I am a believing Latter-day Saint who has a firm testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel.

I have never purported to be anything of the kind. I am a conservative, but a libertarian conservative (like Buckley himself) otherwise known as a fusionist, within historic conservative intellectual circles. It is the specific form of contemporary classical liberalism - modern conservatism - as developed by William Buckley and other intellectual pioneers of the movement, that combines elements of libertarian thought with conservatism and its balancing and conditioning focus on tradition, the Permanent things, and eternal verities that should not be tampered with by ambitious politicians, ideologies, and utopian dreamers. Modern conservatism retains the all-important "social issues" as matters of central importance, without which "freedom" can, with terrifying rapidity, become a curse instead of a blessing and devour its own children.

Indeed, conservatism is very close to the main streams of libertarian thought in its ideas about economics, the proper size, scope, and prerogatives of the state, and the importance of individual liberty. Unlike what I would term purist "strong" libertarianism, however, it has not totemized the concept of "freedom" and sacrificed other fundamental mediating principles to it.

You know how some Latter-day Saints like to throw around that vacuous platitude about "Mormonism encompasses all truth"? But the way they determine what "truth" is is whether something appears to conform to their interpretation of Mormonism?

Yeah, it's like that.

[_Darth J]

No one, it should be noted, who follows the link Darth gave and gets a gander at his rambling, scatter-gun courtroom tactic

This statement would be somewhat more impressive if Droopy had any demonstrable knowledge about law or the legal system.

Here's another test that I offered for our resident constitutional scholars, bcspace and Droopy. Let's see if Droopy will respond to it this time:

Under Utah law, a clergyman who receives a report of a child being sexually abused, from someone other than a confessing perpetrator, is required to report the allegations of sexual abuse to law enforcement and/or the Utah Division of Child and Family Services.

62A-4a-403. Reporting requirements.
(1) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2), when any person including persons licensed under Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 31b, Nurse Practice Act, has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, or who observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, that person shall immediately notify the nearest peace officer, law enforcement agency, or office of the division.
(b) Upon receipt of the notification described in Subsection (1)(a), the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall immediately notify the nearest office of the division. If an initial report of abuse or neglect is made to the division, the division shall immediately notify the appropriate local law enforcement agency. The division shall, in addition to its own investigation, comply with and lend support to investigations by law enforcement undertaken pursuant to a report made under this section.
(2) Subject to Subsection (3), the notification requirements of Subsection (1) do not apply to a clergyman or priest, without the consent of the person making the confession, with regard to any confession made to the clergyman or priest in the professional character of the clergyman or priest in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs, if:
(a) the confession was made directly to the clergyman or priest by the perpetrator; and
(b) the clergyman or priest is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of that confession.
(3) (a) When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the clergyman or priest is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though the clergyman or priest may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.
(b) Exemption of notification requirements for a clergyman or priest does not exempt a clergyman or priest from any other efforts required by law to prevent further abuse or neglect by the perpetrator.

This means that the State is imposing a legal duty on a clergyman to comply with civil law based on information the clergyman obtained within the scope of his role as a religious leader. A clergyman who willfully fails to report this information to law enforcement and/or DCFS is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, which has a maximum penalty of 180 days in jail.

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads:

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.

Does the State requiring a clergyman to report information he obtained within the scope of being a religious leader violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment?

And, more importantly, why or why not, based on the Constitution?

of attempting to create an impression of logical inconsistency in certain statements I make

Carrying coals to Newcastle

(usually when no actual argument, technically speaking, is present)

Touche'.

using suggestion and innuendo while avoiding actual logical analysis of my arguments or statements, and who notices the cornucopia of logical fallacies, wild leaps of inference, mind reading,

I would venture that most people reading the board (not just me) notice your cornucopia of logical fallacies, wild leaps of inference, and mind reading.

and overarching concern with legal definitions of terms (as opposed to critical philosophical rigor in defining them), will be left with much doubt as to the fact that legal thinking and argument is light years from philosophical thinking and argument.

Droopy, would you be willing to share your favorite couple of examples where I have relied on the legal definitions of terms when discussing things that are not legal issues?

Darth may be quite effective in the highly truncated universe of discourse of the courtroom, but in the marketplace of ideas, he's nothing but a bag boy.

Thanks for telling the world your informed opinion about what goes on in the courtroom, Droopy. Now tell everyone your equally knowledgeable thoughts about ancient Chinese metallurgy, or what it's like to fly the Space Shuttle.

[_Nightlion]

I suggest that we call all Mormon denials of doctrine a Hinckley Hiccup.

[_Jason Bourne]

You read my post, and perhaps you even read the posts I've made at MDD and others I've made here, but you haven't thought about them, have you? You aren't paying attention because you're locked into the very same mental vortex of thought that pulls everything down toward only one, single, possible explanation for everything.

I have read your posts and I know your position well.

Race.

Droopy. I understand the doctrine is the ban came because of disobedience. But the curse was wrought upon all the descendents of those who were disobedient and those descendents became a race, did they not?

I really shouldn't have to repeat myself over and over and over and over and over again regarding any of this as I've made it all as clear as crystal in the posts I've already put up. Apparently, here, as at the MDD board, very few people are actually reading and thinking about what I've written, but are scanning the post, seeing scriptural verses that link morphological differences with culture and internal spiritual condition, and the reflexive reaction withn the mind of the Anointed is much like a typical leftist who sees someone working hard, making a profit, and driving a nicer car than he is. Seething, politically correct, ideologically pure indignation.

Sometimes indignation is right, correct and appropriate.

[_Jason Bourne]

The Church hasn't changed it's response to the issue or it's doctrine.

Which is exactly the point. The attitude among some there has come perilously close to the situation regarding the ERA and woman and the priesthood as I remember it among some closet (and not so closeted) liberals in Maryland back in the mid-eighties.

Horse crap. The Church has totally taken a woosie position and basically says we don't why the hell or how the hell or where the hell this thing came from. But we think it may have been from God. But that is all behind us so forget everything else will you already? That is what the Church says now. It that the same position it has always had?

You've acclimated yourself nicely to this environment, Jason. I've watched the developmental stages in progress for a number of years. Interesting how these things evolve and grow.

Sigh......Well Droopy perhaps so. There are days I think I should leave the Church. Really. But I still hold on. You may think your comment is a dig. But you know, you are part of the environment on this board as well. And honestly, having watched you (and others) that defend the church (so very poorly in my opinion) maybe I would rather be more like some here then what I see from the defenders like you. Sorry, but I cannot adopt your world view. It is rather repulsive to me. And more than anything, defenders of the Church have soured me on it. All the hoops, games, downplaying, obfuscation, holding out on the slightest plausibility, and even out right lying at times about things taught in the past just turns my stomach. Is this what the LDS Church needs in order to stand tall?

As bc and a couple of other LDS intellectuals who are also still apologists have pointed out ad nauseum already, existing statements by the Brethren imply explicitly that the ban was, from an LDS perspective, known and understood in the past and its fulfillment and end foreseen. This implies that the "ban" was a revealed principle, and a principle that prophets of the past (including likely the ancient past) were aware of and for which a future day held its discontinuance.

It seems to me that an honest historical study of this will show that the ban was introduced by 19th century LDS leaders based on their own prejudices that were common for that day. It appears to be a mistake. If as you say above the ban was known and understood why does the Church now act like they have no idea about it? If it was revealed where is the source? If LDS leaders now believe what you say above why don't they say so?

The Church is simply being honest. We don't "know" with any detail, but the Book of Mormon texts I quoted, and the words of modern prophets all point to the ban as being somehow a part of the Lord's plans and purposes in both ancient and modern times. I have no more knowledge of specifics than anyone else, but I will not throw the Church under the bus and try to second guess and outmaneuver the Brethren.

But now you say it is honest to say we don't know? Don't you think something this significant would be knows by God's anointed prophets?

Based on the back peddling I wonder how well the brethren know the mind and will of God.

Excuse me, but you are the one who has backpeddled - right out of the Church.

Nah I am still in. Maybe someday I won't be. Who knows. Would you like Bot be happy to see me resign?


But yes, the leaders have back peddled, from plenty of stuff. It does not serve me though to list things to you. You are one who simply denies such things much to often.

You know, it would be a real shame if the apologetic movement, given all the good it can do and has done in defending the Church, should fracture and fragment from within because of a kind of Trahison des Clercs among some of its elite intellectuals.

Apologists are well on their way to modifying and changing what the Church is. But the brethren let them answer the hard issues. They certainly don't bother with them.

What bosh. You aren't even trying, Jason.

Really? Have you even seen a GA in the last 20 year offer an apologetic defense or comment on some of the difficult issues? If yes please provide some references for me.

[_Chap]

Apparently, here, as at the MDD board, very few people are actually reading and thinking about what I've written ...

Why ... that's dreadful.

[_Buffalo]

Apparently, here, as at the MDD board, very few people are actually reading and thinking about what I've written ...

Why ... that's dreadful.

Perhaps if he cut out the ill-executed, grammar-challenged attempts at verbiage inflation as signifier of pedantry he'd get a few more responses.

[_Darth J]

Apparently, here, as at the MDD board, very few people are actually reading and thinking about what I've written ...

Why ... that's dreadful.

Well, I am.

You know what makes Droopy's posts even funnier? Reading them to yourself in Foghorn Leghorn's voice.