The Founding and its Cultural Mormon Enemies

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: The Founding and its Cultural Mormon Enemies

Post by _Darth J »

Here's a hint.

Brother Blood made both of these assertions in the OP, totally oblivious to the self-contradiction:

"Further, the verities of the Constitution are not simply a sociocultural construction of a particular people at a particular time under particular circumstances...."

"They have attempted to embrace it through the alteration of the meaning of language (as they cannot embrace its “original intent”)....."
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: The Founding and its Cultural Mormon Enemies

Post by _Droopy »

Bob Loblaw wrote:
Darth J wrote:Like freedom of the press, for example.


Congratulations on slogging your way through that giant puddle of viscous dreck. I managed to get through it, though it ended up just being another meandering soliloquy containing angel-hair thin assertions stretched to their breaking points into interminable sentences that start nowhere, take a detour into redundant nowhere, and end up nowhere.


Good show, Bob, you're beginning to write like me now. I'm overjoyed to see my linguistic and compositional influence is growing (heaven knows this place could use it).

A "giant puddle of viscous dreck" is quite evocative, and all those sentences comprised of nowheres...pretty fair.

Now, what would really be nice would be for you to back-up your claim that any of the assertions contained therein were "angel-hair thin," and why, through the adducing of a body of logically connected argument, you think the claims I made in that piece begin and go nowhere (and what exactly you might mean by that).

You see, this snide rant of yours above is exactly the coin of the realm here, and always has been. Its empty of intellectual or logical content, and there's no way to argue against it on that basis as it contains no argument.

Try your hand at a calm, critical analysis of my piece, and bring to the table something other than an emotional spasm wrought by your own internal psychological conflicts and frustrations, and engage in a serious debate regarding what claims and arguments, specifically, you disagree with, and most importantly, why.

Then see how I respond and treat you in return. You might be quite surprised (but no one who has ever engaged me with civility, respect, and maturity would. Let's end the high school cut-down contest in the hall mentality, shall we, Bob?)
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: The Founding and its Cultural Mormon Enemies

Post by _Droopy »

I do note, with all the invective aimed at me for daring to criticize Saint Joanna, not a single rational, logical, intellectually substantive counter-argument as been yet fielded. Chap made an attempt, but it was a philosophically sloppy one, unfortunately, and didn't get any traction.

Analytics is the only other poster to have responded with minimal mockery and some degree of intellectual seriousness. The rest of the usual suspects performed as expected (Jason was at least civil, and made some comments that, although not rebuttals or augments, strictly speaking, at least implied them and would be worthy of pursuing as to further clarification).
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: The Founding and its Cultural Mormon Enemies

Post by _Chap »

Droopy wrote:I do note, with all the invective aimed at me for daring to criticize Saint Joanna, not a single rational, logical, intellectually substantive counter-argument as been yet fielded. Chap made an attempt, but it was a philosophically sloppy one, unfortunately, and didn't get any traction.

Analytics is the only other poster to have responded with minimal mockery and some degree of intellectual seriousness. The rest of the usual suspects performed as expected (Jason was at least civil, and made some comments that, although not rebuttals or augments, strictly speaking, at least implied them and would be worthy of pursuing as to further clarification).


So once again we come back to the question - what on earth is Droopy doing, wasting his fragrance on the polluted air of our fetid little trailer park? I have speculated that he may be doing some kind of missionary work, but I suspect the explanation may simply be that so far as other boards are concerned, this is the only place where he really belongs (and certainly not with them).

Incidentally, I am shocked to see that I may have give the impression that I was attempting to engage at a serious, valid, well-read and philosophically (fill in a few more words ad libitum) level with something that Droopy wrote. Down here in the trailer park we don't do that kind of thing. I was attempting more a kind of 'throwing empty beer cans at passers by' kind of engagement when I commented on his post.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: The Founding and its Cultural Mormon Enemies

Post by _Darth J »

Droopy wrote:I do note, with all the invective aimed at me for daring to criticize Saint Joanna, not a single rational, logical, intellectually substantive counter-argument as been yet fielded. Chap made an attempt, but it was a philosophically sloppy one, unfortunately, and didn't get any traction.

Analytics is the only other poster to have responded with minimal mockery and some degree of intellectual seriousness. The rest of the usual suspects performed as expected (Jason was at least civil, and made some comments that, although not rebuttals or augments, strictly speaking, at least implied them and would be worthy of pursuing as to further clarification).


Disregarding for the moment your complete lack of evidence that any of your interlocutors give a crap about Joanna Brooks, the thing is that you have not made any argument to be countered. The logorrhea of your OP amounts to nothing more than banal platitudes based on unsupported assertions masquerading as religious dogma. That is completely useless in the real world. I would like to thank you, though, for the reminder of how in the arena of rule of law and the Constitution, the LDS Church once again refuses to hold itself to its own standards, Q.E.D.

But since you are such a constitutional scholar, while everyone else is just a drooling idiot, here is a simple question that I'm sure the Doctrine and Covenants will easily help you answer.

Like many states, Utah requires clergy members to report child sex abuse to law enforcement when the clergy member receives information about child sex abuse from a source other than the confession of the perpetrator. Here is the statute:

Utah Code Section 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.


Under this statute, the legislature has imposed a duty on clergy regarding how they are to carry out their ecclesiastical functions. Failure to comply with this duty carries criminal penalties (up to six months in jail).

Please explain why this statute does or does not violate the First Amendment. If you want to separately address a Free Exercise analysis and an Entanglement Doctrine analysis, that would be great.

Note to MDB readers: there is a non-zero chance that if Droopy reacts (notice I said "reacts," not "responds") to this post, it will be another rambling wall of text about my supposed political/moral/intellectual shortcomings that will be in no way responsive to the above question.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: The Founding and its Cultural Mormon Enemies

Post by _Darth J »

Droopy, just as another follow-up to your OP:

I would really, really appreciate it if you could discuss for us one or two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that were based on " the nihilism of Nietzsche."
Post Reply