The Dude wrote: Is it right for any religious sect to seek to have it's theological teachings enforced on others who do not believe in the sect's myths and beliefs?
Further, what if a true believing animal rights folks got organized like these churches and tried to legislate their dietary rules for the rest of us? You know, for the sake of the animals.
Is it right for any group of people to have it's moral decisions which can be made into law enforced on others who do not believe in that stance's reasoning/purpose?
Yet this happens with virtually every piece of legislation out there. When the conservatives or liberals try to create legislation that they believe is right they are rarely accused of forcing their dogma on us (except of course that Coggins does it) but when religious people try to have their social and political views (derived from their religious beliefs) made into law everyone howls at the injustice of it all.
I don't howl at the injustice of it. There is no injustice in any group effectively using the process to get legislation passed. The way to combat this is to get an effective message out that combats their message and shift public opinion. I have no problem with those that are religious working within the system to vote for candidates or issues that will reflect their ideology -- of course I"m also aware that the denominations vary as to how they view many issues in our country and am not worried about some huge conglomerate of religious voters. There are religious denominations that are not anti-abortion, there are religious denominations that support stem cell research, there are denominations that are concerned for social equality, there are denominations that are concerned for the environment, etc...
As long as there are a diversity of opinions between denominations and within denominations I'm not too concerned.
LDS Church FP wrote:The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.
Is it right for any religious sect to seek to have it's theological teachings enforced on others who do not believe in the sect's myths and beliefs?
Further, what if a true believing animal rights folks got organized like these churches and tried to legislate their dietary rules for the rest of us? You know, for the sake of the animals.
"Lord Krishna's teachings on the position of eating beef are unequivocal. Cows are the sacred pinnacle of spiritual development, and their slaughter for food is immoral and blasphemous. Cows are entitled to live lives unmolested by human beings. We ask that Hindus give of their means, and their time, to see that the constitutional amendment banning the slaughter for meat of cattle is passed. Our bovine overlords must be protected."
I wonder how the First Presidency would respond to such an attempt by Hindus to pass a constitutional amendment enshrining some religious principle of theirs into law that binds the rest of us? For some reason I can imagine the Christian outrage over being dictated to in this way.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
The Nehor wrote:Is it right for any group of people to have it's moral decisions which can be made into law enforced on others who do not believe in that stance's reasoning/purpose?
If a stance has reasoning that everyone can appreciate and investigate, then lets hear it. If a stance says "Lets drill for oil on our coasts," and it has a logical basis like "the benefits outweigh the costs" then at least everybody can examine the logic and make a decision. How different would it be for a tax-exempt religious sect to tell everyone "Lets drill for oil because be believe this is part of the Creator's plan for us."
Yet this happens with virtually every piece of legislation out there. When the conservatives or liberals try to create legislation that they believe is right they are rarely accused of forcing their dogma on us (except of course that Coggins does it) but when religious people try to have their social and political views (derived from their religious beliefs) made into law everyone howls at the injustice of it all.
No it doesn't happen with virtually every piece of legislation. How many pieces of legislation are backed by large and powerful churches that blatantly frame their position in terms of religious dogma? This statement from the FP, assuming it is for real, is outstanding and outrageous. On the other hand, the "logical" arguments for denying gay marriage aren't very solid (the California Supreme Court rejected them), so religious dogma is all they really have at this point.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Well, how different is it when those religious views line up with my secular views? I have no problem with having an ally with Churches that want to go to war as a last resort -- their reasons rely on scriptures and my reasons lie elsewhere, yet we share a common goal. What about those Churches that want to abolish the death penalty for religious reasons? That want the Kyoto treaty signed because they believe they are stewards of the Earth -- that lines up with my secular beliefs.
To believe that religious voters are always voting in a manner that is against many secular views is quite frankly in the paranoia conspiracy theorist realm.
Moniker wrote:Well, how different is it when those religious views line up with my secular views? I have no problem with having an ally with Churches that want to go to war as a last resort -- their reasons rely on scriptures and my reasons lie elsewhere, yet we share a common goal. What about those Churches that want to abolish the death penalty for religious reasons? That want the Kyoto treaty signed because they believe they are stewards of the Earth -- that lines up with my secular beliefs.
To believe that religious voters are always voting in a manner that is against many secular views is quite frankly in the paranoia conspiracy theorist realm.
I also would be willing to sit with religious voters on a case-by-case basis. I don't know who is thinking religious voters are always wrong because they are religious... hmmm, where did you get that idea. The way religious folks sometimes arrive at the same conclusion as us may be completely wacko, and yet, it is possible for them to coincidentally agree with something that has a rational basis. I would think, in public discourse, they ought to emphasize the rational basis and keep their religious basis tucked under a bushel somewhere. Yet these days you don't have a shot at getting elected unless you can prove to the media that you aren't a muslim or atheist. Go figure.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Moniker wrote:Well, how different is it when those religious views line up with my secular views? I have no problem with having an ally with Churches that want to go to war as a last resort -- their reasons rely on scriptures and my reasons lie elsewhere, yet we share a common goal. What about those Churches that want to abolish the death penalty for religious reasons? That want the Kyoto treaty signed because they believe they are stewards of the Earth -- that lines up with my secular beliefs.
To believe that religious voters are always voting in a manner that is against many secular views is quite frankly in the paranoia conspiracy theorist realm.
I also would be willing to sit with religious voters on a case-by-case basis. I don't know who is thinking religious voters are always wrong because they are religious... hmmm, where did you get that idea. The way religious folks sometimes arrive at the same conclusion as us may be completely wacko, and yet, it is possible for them to coincidentally agree with something that has a rational basis. I would think, in public discourse, they ought to emphasize the rational basis and keep their religious basis tucked under a bushel somewhere. Yet these days you don't have a shot at getting elected unless you can prove to the media that you aren't a muslim or atheist. Go figure.
Well, I thought you were continuing from this thought:
Is it right for any religious sect to seek to have it's theological teachings enforced on others who do not believe in the sect's myths and beliefs?
I assumed you posed the question with a thought the answer would be "no". I would say as long as I can use the process to push for my agenda that may align with a religious sect it's fine. :)
I agree they should appeal with reasons that are rational. Yet, I'm not really that concerned as long as their irrationality meshes with my well thought out reasoning.....
Heh. It says that is to be read on June 29th. That's Gay Pride day - a day that will no doubt involve a lot of advocacy for upholding gay marriage. The chance that is a coincidence is hovering around zero.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Dude wrote: How many pieces of legislation are backed by large and powerful churches that blatantly frame their position in terms of religious dogma?
The vote in California and elsewhere isn't going to be influenced by the LDS church alone; they're going to have help, and they're going to find it in similiarly conservative churches from the Catholics to the Evangelicals. So let's be careful to not blame just the LDS church for the upcoming fiasco.
The Dude is such a "looser"! Even if he does abide.
I also would be willing to sit with atheist voters on a case-by-case basis. I mean, I wouldn’t want to make a habit of it, simply on principle, but I could justify it on occasion. After all, the way these blind atheists sometimes arrive at the same conclusion as us may be completely wacko, and yet, it is possible, however infrequent, for them to coincidentally agree with something that has a rational – even an inspired – basis.
I would prefer, however, to keep them tied up in a bushel somewhere – out of sight and out of mind.
;-)
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...