Dror

At Church, we re-read the scriptures and the words of the prophets...to instill in us the truthfulness of the gospel. In the forum, I quote Founders and Prophets...i.e., truthfulness. Repetition does play an important part in learning, at least the memorization part of learning. Thinking things through and understanding the principles do not, however, come from repetition (though the memorization helps make that process possible). Nor does repetition instill in us the truth--revelation does (in religion), experimentation and measurement do (in science), and reasoning does (in philosophy and mathematics). I think reasoning, experimentation, and perhaps even measurement ("by their fruits ye shall know them") play a role in religion, too, but revelation is the primary instrument.

Between the two of them, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were probably, uh, "active" enough to have fathered America!

Actually it is recognized that Iraq had terorist training camps, which the 9/11 commission acknowledged. They did not have any known link with 9/11, but were training terrorists, and paid the families of suicide bombers. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html See my thread on the Iraqi General who says there were flights out of Iraq carrying chemical weapons to Syria. It is far from a closed case. By the way, I believe that invading North Korea would be WWIII and possibly the end of the world... Whether it was wise to invade Iraq or not, we did, and as you said, we must see the process through. Check my website for links to progress made in Iraq so far (another shameless plug). Muchas gracias, Outshined!

Removing Saddam Hussein from power was, in and of itself, a positive thing. Better planning for the aftermath would have been in order, though. If the Iraqi democracy survives, the long-term effects of this war will be good for the Iraqi people. However, I question Bush's reasoning for our going there in the first place. 1. The "War on Terror"/self-defense: Osama bin Laden attacked America, not Saddam Hussein. There was nothing linking Hussein with the Sept. 11 attacks or any other terrorism perpetrated against Americans. This is not a war of self-defense. 2. WMDs: Practically everybody now understands that no WMDs were found in Iraq, and that Bush's "evidence" was very questionable or downright fabricated. Also, is it sound foreign policy to invade every "unfriendly" country that develops WMDs? Is it wise, or even legal, to do so without UN support? 3. Freeing the Iraqi people/spreading democracy: This is something we may actually accomplish, which is a good thing. However, again, is it sound foreign policy to invade every country we want to liberate/establish democracy in? Who will be next? How do we decide who will benefit from our generosity and who won't? Are we going to do this all by ourselves, without the international community's support? Will we pay to rebuild every country? Do we "liberate" nations if they don't ask, or want, us to (such as when a person or party we don't like legitimately wins an election)? My short and simplistic answer is, therefore, no, I don't support the current war. However, since we are there, it is our responsibility to clean up after ourselves and make the best of a difficult situation. The Iraqi people deserve better than Saddam Hussein, and deserve our support in the aftermath of this war, including our training them to support themselves politically and economically. Are we going to invade Iran next? North Korea? These places either have developed or are developing WMDs, and are clearly unfriendly to us. What about Saudi Arabia? They could use some democracy there, and Saudis were involved with the Sept. 11 attacks. I greatly respect our military personnel and the good job they're doing. The media need "hot" stories, and so they hype things up--I don't doubt things are going better in Iraq than it sometimes looks on TV. This doesn't mean, however, that the current Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq was a good idea. Please provide evidence. (And no, repeating oneself does not constitute evidence!)

*sigh* That's so sad about the guy's family members being killed. About the other guy (who rigged the shotgun), isn't that what the police are for? I mean yes, maybe the guy who was vandalizing and stealing deserved it, but to we really want to go back to Old West vigilantism? What if an innocent person had gotten hurt? Like a family member of his who forgot the gun was rigged up. Or a police officer investigating someone who had broken in through the window. And is losing one's arm a punishment proportional to the crime? We have rule of law for a reason...

Aristotle, I think you're a bit confused about what liberalism is. Here's the definition from the dictionary: As you can see, liberalism is inherently anti-communist ("autonomy of the individual," "favoring civil and political liberties," "consent of the governed," "protection from arbitrary authority," "free market"). Making the claim that liberals are clearing the path for communism is as offensive to us as it would be offensive to you for us to say that conservatives are clearing the path for fascism.As far as the U.N. and international law go, neither of those threaten American sovereignty or supercede the Constitution. We have full membership in the U.N. (in fact, we have special status being one of the few nations with a permanent place on the Security Council and veto power), and participate in the making of international laws, U.N. resolutions, and policies. What it amounts to is a bunch of different nations getting together to make agreements about how to keep the peace and address other problems before the international community. Treaties with other nations are, again, simply agreements we have come to, often to resolve disputes. Things like "we agree not to dump chemicals in the ocean near your waters," and "we agree not to attack you if you don't attack us." If we violate a treaty, we have violated a promise, which is dishonest. Conservatives in the US have no problem with international law and treaties when they benefit us. Or with the International Court (like when we tried Nazi war criminals). Why should we insist on others obeying the law, but consider ourselves above the law? The only way it's going to work is to work together.

God is out there somewhere, and He is alive, but not on earth. Therefore, by definition, He, and anybody with Him, is extraterrestrial! We also know He created other worlds. Whether or not they have spacecraft is open to speculation. We have spacecraft, so why wouldn't someone else?! Do they visit the earth? Angels have, and they are extraterrestrials. Spacecraft? Dunno.

I met Cleon Skousen once--nice man. Just don't understand why you included such an extensive quote of Bro. Skousen regarding communism. First of all, this thread isn't about communism, and nobody here is advocating for communism. Second, Bro. Skousen is neither a prophet nor a Church leader, so his word cannot be taken as authoritative or binding upon the Saints. Not that I necessarily disagree with everything he says, simply that it's ok to disagree with him. But once again, what does this quote have to do with the subject of the thread?

For once, Aristotle, I agree with everything in your post! :) While I disagree with much of what you have said in other posts, I appreciate your sincerity and honesty, and that you're willing to share your views with people. Keep it up! Dror

Thanks, Outshined. :) Sometimes it seems like such an uphill battle that positive comments are very welcome! For the life of me, I haven't the foggiest idea why people are so willing to risk losing their own religious liberty. BTW, I love your sig quote by Wilensky. It made me laugh.

This Dennis Prager guy must be quite a character! This list of "liberal beliefs" grossly twists, misrepresents, and oversimplifies what liberals actually believe. Moreover, who says all liberals believe exactly the same things? Who says all conservatives believe exactly the same things? (Did you know Barbara Bush is pro-choice?) I claim the titles "liberal" and "progressive" with pride. Speaking for myself, not necessarily for all liberals, I respond to Prager this way: Dror

Syble, John Jay was quite entitled to his opinion. However, the law is the law, and the Constitution quite clearly states that there is to be no religious test for any public office. Justice Jay may have wanted Christians to rule, but he could not enforce that without violating the law. Reread Article 6 of the Constitution (the 1st Amendment wouldn't hurt, either). The Ten Commandments are good, but there is nothing especially Christian about them--they were, after all, brought to us by the Jews. Are we now to discriminate against the Jews by claiming this as a Christian nation? The Ten Commandments comprise a moral code--the principles they teach are not specific to any particular religion. Indeed, religion is not necessary at all to form, support, or practice a moral code. Don't misunderstand me, folks. I'm not anti-religion in any way (I'm an active LDS and RM, and have a testimony of Christ, the Gospel, and the Church). It's because I am so pro-religion that I insist on keeping our government secular, so it won't interfere with anyone's right to worship, or not worship, as they please. As for being a Christian people, I would like nothing more! However, as the prophet Alma, the Younger, understood, preaching the word of God is more effective (not to mention more moral) than using coercion to convert people (Alma 31:5). The government should not be used to coerce people to be Christians, to interfere with the practice of another religion (or no religion), or to stifle anyone's beliefs, regardless of what they may be. See these verses from Alma 30: Note that in verse 7 it says that it's strictly against the commands of God that there should be a law which would bring people on to unequal grounds. That means America should be a land where all people, of all religions, should be treated equally under the law, not just Christians. The government does not exist to promote Christianity or any other religion, or to discourage any religion. The government exists to, well, govern and protect our rights so that we can enjoy liberty and live together in peace. Finally I ask one more time, which version of Christianity do you expect would rule in America? Ours? It is my opinion that God inspired the Constitution to be secular in order to protect our religious liberties.

Aristotle, I think what the prophets are saying is that the American people need to act in a Christian manner. One of the most fundamental principles of the LDS belief system is free agency. Jesus Himself would never force anyone to worship him, and as His disciples, we ought not do so, either. That is why our form of government is secular--to prevent anyone from being forced into or out of any religion. This does not prevent us from being a "Christian nation" in the sense of serving Christ as individuals. In fact, it protects our God-given right to do so. I totally agree with President Benson and other prophets who say that if (emphasis on "if") the Constitution will be saved, it should be saved by the elders of Israel. That's why we, as elders of Israel, need to stop the fundamentalist evangelical Christians from gutting the Constitution in order to establish their little theocracy. Think of it in terms of protecting the LDS Church: if the fundamentalist evangelical Christians manage to gain control of our government, turning it into a "Christian" theocracy, what's to stop them from passing laws (or issuing executive orders) that would inhibit our (LDS) freedom of religion, because they think we're not Christian? For example, when we apply for a permit to build a temple, they might deny it (and don't try telling me people wouldn't do that--they actually have tried that sort of stunt!), on the basis that (they think) we are not Christians and worship the Devil in our temples. Take care, Dror

Speaking as a member of the Christian majority in this country, I would have to disagree with you on this. Whatever any of the founders may have said as individuals, their collective work, and actual law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, says otherwise. The Constitution is a thoroughly secular document: it never mentions God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity, and certainly does not establish Christianity as the state religion. In fact, it specifically forbids it in Amendment I and Article VI. We are all familiar with the First Amendment, but here's the relevant text from Article 6: Where the First Amendment allows citizens to practice or believe any religion they want (or not practice any), and forbids the government from interfering or from imposing a state-sponsored religion (not even Christianity!), Article 6 protects the rights of any citizen, even atheists, to hold any public office (even President!). You may quote individual founders, but where they stand on religion/state matters depends entirely on which founder you quote. They had wildly varying opinions on practically every topic under the sun, from religion, to slavery, to states' rights, to numbers of representatives, to their favorite dessert. The only way the Constitution ever got passed was through a great deal of compromise. To extrapolate "original intent" from the basis of what any one founder, or group of founders, believed or said is foolhardy and/or misleading. The only reliable evidence we have of the founders' intent for this nation is the work that they, as a group, collectively produced, namely the Constitution itself, as that is what they all agreed to sign. As the prophets have said, the Lord did indeed inspire the Constitution. That is, He inspired the founders who wrote the Constitution. He inspired them to humble themselves and work with each other in order to produce something they could all agree to. He inspired them to not only protect people's freedom of religion, but their freedom from being forced into someone else's religion. He inspired them to allow anyone who got elected, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof, to hold public office (that is govern) in this country. He gave us freedom of religion so that, among other things, the Latter-day Saints would be able to worship freely and exist as a Church. I have a hard time believing that if some of those who are pushing the hardest for Christian dominance in government actually got their way, that they would leave the LDS Church alone. Let's not forget our own Mormon history. So-called "Christians" persecuted and eventually disincorporated our Church precisely because they thought our beliefs and practices were not Christian. (Yes, they had other reasons, too, but this proved a very convenient way to sway others to support them--it would be very convenient today, too.) Think about it--Christians actually used the government to persecute other Christians by accusing them of not being Christians... in America! How could we Latter-day Saints even contemplate running the risk of something like that happening again, to ourselves or to others, by supporting the notion that our government ought to be Christian? I would ask, Whose version of Christianity is the one that should rule America? No, until Jesus Himself comes to rule, I'll stick to a secular form of government, thank you very much.

Fiannan said: Well, one could argue that getting fat is already covered by the WoW. I'm a tad overweight myself, but quite frankly, I have bigger things than the size of my belly to worry about right now (pun intended). But it would feel nice to be a bit thinner. Your point is well taken.

That is just awful, about Nazanin. We should be grateful we live under a secular form of government that does not allow religious extremists, whether they be Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or *gasp!* Christian to make and enforce such laws. America is indeed a Christian nation--there is no disputing that the vast majority of Americans are Christians (in name, anyway), and that it's a good thing for us to follow Christ--but we live under a secular form of government specifically to avoid the problems of theocracy, like the ones they experience in Iran. My personal belief is that since Christ Himself would never force people to follow Him, neither should we attempt to force Christianity on people.

It might confuse a little girl. What, pray tell, would it confuse her about? If this hypothetical little girl lives, say, in the United States, and she's LDS, her parents probably bring her to the LDS Church each week, dressed in a normal dress, she goes to school during the week and wears, say, pants and blouse, or skirt, and sneakers, and whatever else normal Western girls wear, and her friends and siblings and parents, and, well, almost everybody she sees dress the way you and I are used to seeing women dress. She also has several dolls dressed in Western fashion, too, and quite possibly a few action figures (GI Joe, Princess Leia, Wonder Woman, for example). Furthermore, every day she sees men and women interact as equals (hopefully!) in marriages, business situations, politics, and so on. Her parents give her one of these little Muslim dolls and all of a sudden her world falls apart, she gets confused about her gender role, starts acting all submissive to the little boys she knows, and starts wearing a veil? Aristotle, I think you exaggerate the possible influence of one little doll. The main thing I imagine this doll teaching a girl is that there exist girls elsewhere in the world who *gasp!* dress differently than she does! If her parents are sensible, they might teach her a little about Islamic culture and religion, just for her edification. Lighten up a little, ok!

I don't think anybody's homeland is just any nation to that person. However, I do agree that America is special. It is a promised land, and like you said, as long as the inhabitants of this land serve the Lord, we will remain free. (And no, that does not mean establishing a radical right-wing theocracy!) The Constitution was inspired by God, and we are told that if it will survive as the law of the land (emphasis on the word "if"), it will be the elders of Israel who will save it. America has indeed been a beacon of liberty to the world. Many nations have adopted similar principles of government and democracy has spread all over the place. Lest we become too arrogant, however, let us keep in mind that America is not the only free country in the world, and it's not the only wonderful place to live. America is my home and native land, and I love it.

That's hilarious!

I think that doll's way cool! Sure, I'd buy my daughter one (if I had a daughter, and if I thought she'd like it). A Muslim woman wrote a letter to the editor of a local paper here explaining her reason for wearing the head-to-toe garb. She said that by covering up her shape and not showing too much skin, Muslim women force men to view them not as mere sex objects, but as actual people. Because men cannot ogle their legs, behinds, breats, etc., they end up interacting with the women's minds, not their bodies, and seeing them as real people (a radical concept, indeed!). I had never thought about it from that point of view before, and found it both fascinating and fantastic (though I'm not at all sure that's the reason most Muslim women dress that way). In any case, a little multiculturalism won't kill a little girl.