Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'religious'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Third Hour Popular Forums
    • Third Hour Admin Alerts
    • LDS Gospel Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Learn about The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints
    • Current Events
    • Advice Board
  • Gospel Boards
    • Jewish Beliefs Board
    • Christian Beliefs Board
    • Organizations
    • Study Boards
  • General Discussion Forums
    • Parenting
    • Interests
    • Just for Fun
  • Resources
    • Family
    • Missionary Work
    • Family History
    • Preparedness
    • Share
    • LDS Resources and Information
  • International Forums

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 12 results

  1. When can government order churches to stop, legally? What constitutes an emergency? As this pandemic rages, and seems to have become too political, I've had my cynical moments. Church-goers vote the wrong way, so governors and mayors keep the liquor flowing but shut us down! Sadly, I should have had more answers than many. I'm a chaplain. I've lived/breathed RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) for well over 20 years now. Governments may restrict religious liberties when there is a compelling government interest--such as public safety--such as COVID-19. Indeed, most churches, including my own, have complied. What irks are the inconsistencies. Restrictions must not single out religion. I found the linked article extremely insightful. I am @prisonchaplain and I endorse this message.
  2. Christian Post did a reverse-journalism on this story--the best material is at the end. The key points are: 1. Samaritan's Purse set up an over-flow hospital to help with NYC's COVID-19 response. 2. The charity treats all-comers, no questions asked. 3. Doctors and other medical staff who work for the charity sign on to the organization's statement of faith, which includes belief in Christian marriage being between a man and a woman, and forbidding sex outside such unions. 4. Franklin Graham is a well-known Christian speaker who has spoken very directly about the Christian views on LGBT issues. 5. The council speaker argues that NYC was forced to accept charitable help to save lives, but now that the crisis is coming under control, the evil Samaritan's Purse must go. 6. The council speaker says this is mainly about Franklin Graham and his hate speech. Others argue that the core stance of Samaritan's Purse is the same for most Christians, and that if this stands Christians can be driven out of the public square nationwide. 7. The hospital Samaritan's Purse is serving says it will begin to phase out the overflow hospital on May 4.
  3. Political secularism, by which I think of groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation, has billed itself as neutral position, as a defender of the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against government establishing religion. Many school districts, and a fair number of government agencies seem to accept secularism's inherent neutrality as fact. Is it? One Catholic writer, from Crux, argues that: A rabbi in my area, Daniel Lapin, has labeled such groups as "secular fundamentalists." I like that because it distinguishes agnostic/atheists of good will and open-mindedness (who might very well self-identify as 'secular') from those who insist that all religion must be driven out of the public square, and that believers are foolish, at best. THOUGHTS?
  4. The attached link is to an article that has the US joining countries like North Korea and Saudi Arabia, for engaging in religious persecution. The organization notes, towards the end, that Americans face less danger than in most overseas countries, but earns its place on the list due to the rapid decline in liberty--especially in practicing faith in the public square. 2016 Hall of Shame Report.pdf this report over-done? Do we dare protest religious persecution and run the risk of "crying wolf?" On the other hand, is the trend mentioned a serious concern? AND, will the change in government reverse, or even slow down the direction?
  5. The linked article basically has these LDS Hillary supporters arguing that Trump's anti-Islam rhetoric and his sexist speech and behavior towards women go against LDS values. Thoughts? BTW, is the "Mormon" label being revived? We have this group. Then there's the recent change in this site's brand...
  6. On LinkedIn and Facebook I published the following: Chaplains are the front-line defenders of religious freedom. We love and live the First Amendment--our first freedom. Some are questioning the value of this cherished spiritual liberty. Some even say it is a cover for bigotry. As a Pentecostal preacher who freely hands prayer rugs to Muslims, meditation mats to Buddhists, and "Parenting Without God" books to Humanists, I reject that analysis. We facilitate the faith of others, and thus invest in our own right to worship God in spirit and in truth. May America never jettison its most precious pact with religious freedom. Then noticed that what I wrote was Kinda similar to this: Articles of Faith #11: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
  7. Some here followed the case of Chaplain Wes Modder, who was accused of being insensitive and intolerant in his spiritual counsel to LBGT service people. His commanding officer had requested he be "discharged with cause." The Navy disapproved the request.
  8. I just did a google of "religious freedom" and found that many secular pundits and groups frame our First Freedom as bigotry. They say that the sexual mores common to traditional practices of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--indeed most religions--is hatred and bigotry--incompatible with enlightened, inclusive America. I love this quote: America did not create religious freedom. Religious freedom created America. Any effort to weaken or jettison the free exercise of religion should be deemed politically incorrect, and unworthy of response. An attack on the First Amendment is unAmerican.
  9. In a beautiful decision my neighbor to the North, Canadian justice has told Nova Scotia that it cannot bar graduates of Trinity Western University's law school from practicing law in the provice, simply because the alma mater bars gay sex amongst students. The justice said it's not about LBGT vs. Evangelical Christian rights, but rather about respect, inclusion, and the true meaning of tolerance.
  10. It seems absurd, but if the Supreme Court rules that marriage is a Constitutional right then the IRS may deny tax-exempt status to schools that refuse to offer same-sex housing, just as it did to Bob Jones University in 1983, for denying housing to interracial married couples.
  11. American society has concluded that bigotry and discrimination cannot happen in the public square. Further, it is quickly reaching the place where gender orientation is protected the same as race. One possible conclusion the courts may make (I'm not agree or disagree--just predicting): 1. A business (not a church or other house of worship, but church-run ones would be included) cannot be allowed to refuse product or service to customers on the basis of protected categories. So, certainly no denying business because, "I don't serve Pagans, LBGT, or races I don't agree with/like." 2. On the issue of LBGT weddings it may end up depending on the venue and the officiant. If the wedding is secular (Justice of the Peace offciates), then a religiously-oriented vendor might be required to provide services/products. If the wedding is religious, but is not of the same religion as the vendor, then the vendor may be required to provide services/products. HOWEVER, if the wedding is religious, and is of the same religion as the vendor, then the vendor may be able to claim RFRA protection. Why? Let me provide an example. I bake cakes, and I belong to an A/G (or LDS) church. An LBGT couple comes to my shop and says they are having a wedding over at the Methodist Church, and could I bake a cake for them. I say I will not, because, as a Christian, I believe the Bible prohibits same-sex marriages. Since this wedding is happening in a Christian church, I find the ceremony to be profane and sacrilegious. Kill me or jail me, but I will not be a part of it! I could see a judge siding with the defendant. His/her religious belief and practice would be substantially burdened forced participation. The government does not have a compelling interest in forcing that. There are other sources for cakes. Even if the wedding party had to ship one in, that would be less of a burden than requiring a religious person to engage in what s/he views as a corruption of a sacrament. THOUGHTS?
  12. Lake Worth, Florida is now requiring business licenses, and is using secret investigators to check on "underground churches."