yjacket

?? yes they are like mini-gods, i.e. they have powers that are IMO far above what they should have in order to do their jobs. Some of those abuse said power (i.e. the video), some do not. You are conflating me saying they are mini-gods to me saying that police are evil. That I did not say. The title is "Too much power?", not "All police are evil mini-gods".

Absolutely, many, many police officers are extremely upstanding, forthright individuals who do their jobs well, who serve their communities, and who even pay the ultimate price. But at the end of the day they are human, just like every one else. And because they are human they have the same tendencies as every other human. D&C 129:39 "39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." Because of the laws we have in this country that give police the powers of mini-gods, many end up acting like mini-gods. I'm not saying all police act like mini-gods, I'm saying the powers that they have are mini-god powers. In this incident, yes it is one-sided . . . however it is very clear in the video that while 5 police officers are on top of the guy, he is not resisting at all.

Confiscated Video Showing Oklahoma Cops Killing Man Released | Photography is Not a Crime: PINAC If what is in the article true, this just sickens me. Police in today's society are like mini-gods.

Problem solved: let private businesses refuse service to anyone anytime for any reason | The Matt Walsh Blog Hits it.

Until individuals can get over this morbid fascination with using the law to force someone else to do business with you then religious folks are out of luck. IMO, that's what it comes down to. Religious freedom is simply an expression of personal belief. In reality there doesn't need to exist "religious freedom" there simply needs to exist freedom of personal beliefs that as long as I as an individual do not try to force my beliefs on someone else (or aggress against another) I can think, believe, act however I please. Unfortunately, people have this morbid fascination with exerting power over other individuals to make them act, feel, believe how they believe they should act/feel/believe.

I happen to think it would have happened much quicker: "From page 111 of the 1918-1919 Negro Year Book, published by the Tuskegee Institute and edited by Monroe N. Work: Railroads Attack Validity Separate Car Laws. The Supreme Court of Tennessee in a decision rendered in March, 1918, relative to white and Negroes being served in dining cars upheld the validity of the separate car laws of the United States, providing separate cars for white and Negroes. In December, 1918, the validity of the Kentucky law for the separation of races on trains was attacked in appeals to the Supreme Court by the South Covington and Cincinnati Street Railroads and the Covington and Erlanger Railway Company. These companies had been convicted in the lower courts for failing to provide separate coaches or compartments for Negroes." I can't find the article but read one that basically stated that companies were already integrating because of the financial costs associated with maintaining separate systems; government intervention put a stop to that. How different would things have turned out had the free market been allowed to run in this case . . . As much as people talk about access to people denied "necessary goods", in reality it doesn't happen. Sure one particular company might not provide services or even a group of companies. But I can guarantee in a free market system if someone is desperate they will find someone to purchase goods from. A quick example, housing. Say normal rent goes for 1000, but someone discriminates against an individual. At 2000, some enterprising young chap will most definitely enter into the market and provide housing for those who are discriminated. Yes the discriminated person will pay a higher price (I know, I know it's not "fair"---life isn't fair, deal with it), but they will get access to the good.

That would be the government taking things too far.

I don't have much faith in the State. Jim Crow laws mandated discrimination.

People already self-segregate! Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com Go to any major city and look at the demographics. You do not find many census areas that are very heterogeneous. The most heterogeneous areas are those areas that transition between homogeneous demographics.

I apologize that I was unclear: yes I mean discriminate without infringing on the life, liberty, or property of others.

Well that's good, I don't believe it is right (or moral) for someone to do so either. The question becomes at what point is it right to deprive someone of their life, liberty, property for doing something that I believe is immoral. Something that is illegal means the State has the ability to use force (i.e. police powers) to either arrest and put one in jail (deprive liberty), execute (life), or deprive property (fines). Person A had a house to rent but will only rent to Mormons. Is it moral to take away person A's property simply because they won't rent to anyone else. I say no it is not moral to do so. And as much as I believe that Christ would condemn a person for not renting to other faiths, I can't find anything in the scriptures that indicate that Christ would be for taking person A and fining him or putting him in jail for not renting to other faiths. From a moral standpoint, I agree. From a legal standpoint, I disagree. When we use words like basics, we conflate the issues. What is "basic" today is not "basic" in 50 years. A simple scenario. I own land, I have a farm on my land, I grow potatoes for my own use. Is is moral and should it be legal for someone to come on my land and take my potatoes at the point of a gun? The answer is of course no. What if they are starving? Morally, I would be a horrible person to not give them food, but legally if they came in with a gun and said food or you die I should have every right to refuse and fight back. Why is that? Because they do not have a claim on something that I have produced. The only person who has a claim on what I produce is me. Now let's say we have laws that tell me I must support those who are starving. In a very, very basic economy where everyone is close to starvation this leads to perverse incentives. Basically, I have no incentive to store of excess food!!!! The reason being because, why am I going to work twice as hard to get twice as much food when as soon as I get more food than I need to eat for my family someone can come and claim it! Property rights are the basis of a modern, functioning society. Now what if I have a business where I sell food to other people, I take the excess food I produce and sell it. Now what happens if someone comes to me and is starving? Morally, I should give them food, legally do I have to-can they take food by force from me? Yes and no. If we answer yes to the 2nd that we should have laws to force me to give food to the starving, then we run into the scenario above . . . there is less incentive for me to actually do business because of the threat of someone taking it by force. How does this apply to current economic society? There is a huge disincentive in the US to actually start up and do business. The litany of rules, regulations, threat of lawsuits, etc. dissuade individuals from starting businesses. It imposes additional costs on businesses in the form of lawyers to compile with all these regulations. And in the end, just as in a basic society where you disincentivize property rights, you get less of the thing desired. If anyone thinks discrimination in housing, employement etc. doesn't happen b/c of laws is sadly mistaken. In the private rental market for example wants to discriminate against race, religion, etc. all you need is a private interview. One can find out quite a bit without asking "forbidden" questions. All it does is push discrimination underground. If discrimination was above ground then it would be very easy for individuals to discriminate against companies or businesses that discriminate! When property rights are respected, people find out relatively quickly that the best way to interact with others is to follow the golden rule and not discriminate.

Me too, I don't care to see signs on lawns etc. But here is a secret it is already completely legal to have a hate sign on your own property. And no people don't have the tendency to jump the gun; philosophically it comes down to are people basically good or are they basically evil. If people are basically good then you will have some bad actors but basic laws protecting life,liberty,property protect everyone else. If people are basically evil, then one believes you need laws to make men good.

??? What the . . . . going from discriminating to spraying hate messages on their door. 2 completely different issues. This is why we are doomed as a society, people can not understand the different between protecting life,liberty, property!! If you spray paint messages on their door you are violating their property rights and as a consequence should be held accountable. If I spray-paint my own door or business and someone then sues me and I'm held accountable then they are violating my property rights. This isn't hard. Discriminating != violating someone else's rights, it means protecting my right to you know discriminate or to not interact with someone.

I can't say that I agree with you, we need to make the distinction that just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right. A plethora of legal behavior exists that is deplorable and will bring about destruction, out-of-wedlock births, one-night-stands, alcohol, smoking, etc. I haven't seen hardly any members make the claim that homosexual "marriages" is morally right. I think it's none of the government's business to tell consenting individuals how they should run their lives, yet I've freely admitted if I had a homosexual son-he wouldn't be bringing it around my house (and if he had a "marriage" he'd get written out of the will!). I can easily argue for legality of an action while at the same time condemning such actions. Legality has to do with the power of the State, and we don't need the power of the State to condemn homosexual "marriages". We need the power of individuals to have the freedom to discriminate how they please without fear of retribution.

Prior to baptism there really is no need to have a sin confession talk with the Bishop, after baptism the Bishop is the person to talk. You should definitely met him and chat with him, but until you are baptized the individual(s) who you should talk to regarding any past sins would be the missionary interviewing you and if need be the mission president. Here are the interview questions: "Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world? 2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you? 3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions? 4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship? 5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are you willing to obey them? a. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between a man and a woman. b. The law of tithing. c. The Word of Wisdom. d. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to fellow members. 6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?" Answering yes to #4 will require an additional interview with the Mission President. Other than that you should be good. Even if you are required to talk to the mission president you should be good. As far as sins go, #3 is the most important. If you have concerns about whether you've repented of past sins or not then I would suggest talking to the missionaries. I will say the Atonement is a beautiful thing, the most precious gift God could give to His Children and the most precious gift our Elder Brother voluntarily gave to help us. Through the Atonement you will feel the peace and assurance of wiping away past sins and being clean.

I think that is a very salient question. Looking at quotes from Brigham Young's time, the Church gave up a lot to keep it standing. Yeap, governments stop issuing marriage licences and getting rid of all the government benefits to marriage. Had government been out of marriage in the 1890s, polygamy might be a part of the Church today . . .

I wish so, but I don't think so. Government support of marriage is so wedded into our laws it is very difficult to take out. It all starts with income taxes; filing "married head of household". If we could do away with it being tied into income taxes then yes there is some hope, but that isn't going to happen. It ends with Social Security, Medicare, and VA benefits. If none of these benefits existed or only applied to one individual rather than to spouses then yes, but ripping out expected benefits to get government out of marriage isn't going to happen. The problem isn't homosexuals getting "married", the problem is too much government.

True and not true. Families today "perceive" that both parents need to be working. I used to work in a very high cost of living city. I started having kids and realized that in order to provide the lifestyle I wanted to provide in that area my wife would have to work. I could either have both of us work to get to that lifestyle, one work and not reach that lifestyle, give up on the lifestyle I wanted, or move. I choose to move. Where is the priority, if the priority is that one parent will be at home with the children, then it can happen. There are some circumstances where it can't, but that probably has more to do with extraneous effects rather than one income. Personally, I don't care who stays home with the kids as long as one parent is doing so. I think in general that ends up being the mom, but each family should make that conclusion themselves.

The disintegration of the family has been going on for a long time; ~50% of marriages end in divorce, both parents working with kids being raised by government schools, cohabitation, children out of wedlock is common, single parent homes, etc. As I've said before, IMO the right, moral solution is for government to get out of the marriage business. Let religions determine what is or isn't marriage not government. I for one am looking forward to the 2nd Coming to shine a light on all the corruption and tyranny in the world.

I read somewhere (I think on lds.org, but I don't feel like taking the time to find it), that for baby blessings when we feel inspired to bless the child with something specific we do so directly, i.e. "I bless you that . . . ". It also mentioned that there may be times where we are not inspired to directly bless but to ask HF that they may be blessed, i.e. "HF we ask thy to bless (baby) with xyz". I think both forms are acceptable: in one case we are basically issuing a command (if we feel inspired to do so) and the other we are asking for something.

Yesterday's nightmare was a combination of multiple factors. 1) The weather pattern. It was pretty cold (teens to mid 30s), warmed up for a day or 2 (30s to upper 50s) the day before and then the day of high of 25. This meant that a lot of people thought, it's too warm it will pass to the south, etc. Normally, in GA when snow starts to fall it takes about a couple of hours before it starts to stick. Well when the snow started falling about 10:30-11, it hit the pavements it melted (pavements were warm from the day before) and then started to freeze (b/c of the cold and wind). 2) Because of this (and the fact that in GA if school lets out after 1100am they don't have to make up a snow day) none of the schools closed when the snow started to hit. Of course since a significant portion of businesses take their cues from the schools (as they have employees who need to pick up kids if school gets out) very few businesses closed as soon as the snow started. 3) About 11:30-12:00 schools start closing-about an hour after they should have, it takes about 15-20 min. for the word to get out and then businesses start closing. So from about 12:10-12:30 basically the whole of Atlanta closes, now rush out is normally staggered from 3:30-5:30-6pm. Take that amount of people and shove them into a 30min - 1 hour window. Total gridlock . . . at first not from the snow but just the sheer massive amount of people leaving at one time. 4) So by 12:30 everybody is trying to leave to pick-up kids, go home, etc. Of course it's been snowing for 2 hours. Snow hits pavement melts, refreezes and now we have slick spots. 5) Atlanta is actually a pretty hilly city. So ice is forming on roads @ 12:30, normally cars running on the ice would melt it, but since the entire world let out, cars are stopped which gives time for the snow to melt, refreeze, melt refreeze, etc. So we have gridlock, time passes and now we have really bad roads coated in ice. Not only that but there are a lot of immigrants in Atlanta, and a lot of them are from places further south, Mexico, Africa, etc. they have probably never seen snow like this and they are driving on it. 6) Idiot drivers: going slowly down a hill, braking sliding down a hill, stop at the bottom and then try and make it up the top, not knowing to turn into a skid, etc. Just basically being not very smart drivers. A complete mess. IMO the whole thing mess started with the school systems; had they let out at the first snowflake a significant portion of it would have been avoided . . . some schools didn't let out until 1:45pm! School buses were trapped with kids on them, kids slept the night at schools, etc. Many road were impassable because the school buses were blocking the roads! I believe a major reason why schools didn't let out early was because they didn't want to have to make up a snow day (so none of them except the furthest south counties released before 11AM) and the fact that many of the local schools systems already had egg on their face for closing school a couple of weeks ago because it was too cold. Oh and they don't pre-treat or salt the roads . . . .okay they do but they don't have enough to get the job done, plus it doesn't do much good to salt the roads when they are gridlocked simply because everyone is on the roads.

Kirk!!! No way. He was one of my good friends before I went on my mission. Lost contact with him. I always wondered what happened to him.

It doesn't surprise me. This is what happens in GA if you refuse a breath-analyzer test (which is legal, it just means you have a strong possibility of losing your license). DUI suspects face forced blood draws in some Ga. counties - Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5 » Shock Video Shows Police Forcibly Drawing Blood Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Lol . . . coming soon to a theater new you. Off-topic, but I found out today that the development of the ObamaCare website cost more than the development of the iPhone! Yeah! Sure; I can easily see how someone can view it as a religious freedom issue.

I agree. For example if there is 1 cop in town and 100 murders, then the solution is to increase the cops, not to stop the murders but to prosecute the murderers. The point being is that in allocating resources to enforcing a particular law(s), one cannot task them to enforce n number of additional law(s). Basically time and resources are finite and choosing wisely where to allocate those resources is important. The more laws created, the more manpower and resources needed to enforce those laws. The manpower is drawn from the labor pool and the resources drawn from the people. The manpower that is now enforcing laws, could have been employed doing something else and the monetary resources could have been employed doing something else. There is a cost, both seen and unseen to enforcing laws. It can get sticky, if one doesn't understand their own philosophical base. Unfortunately, I think many people see liberty very myopically. Basically, as long as I can do whatever I want I have liberty, but I don't like it that this person does xyz so I'm for laws that prohibit them from doing xyz. So it ends up being liberty for me, and as long as everyone else agrees with me then it's liberty for them too, but if they disagree with me then they should be prohibited from doing xyz and tough for them. I've explained it before, but liberty is simply an extension of property rights, which is simply an extension of self, which is an extension of life. Ultimately, the question comes down to who owns me? I agree, except it doesn't have anything to do with religious liberty. It has everything to do with property rights and true liberty-I can think and act however I please as long as I do not harm someone else. Just because there is discrimination or something is "injust" doesn't mean that there should be a law against it.