Mormons: The new fascists?

[Guest Xzain]

(This didn't seem to appropriately go anywhere; so I stuck it here.)

An event happened about a month ago that got me to pondering. I had put it aside, but it was brought up anew this past week, and I decided to get everyone's ideas on it.

At work, my boss and coworkers and I were discussing alcohol and drugs. I brought up the fact that I believe alcohol should be outlawed, along with all illegal drugs. A coworker of mine, knowing me to be Christian, attempted to make a defense for his position (which is to make everything except crystal meth 'legal') by saying that when on tour with a Christian band, they did drugs backstage all the time. I responded by saying that I wasn't surprised, and that I was dismayed by what passes as 'Christian' in society.

At this point my boss laughs condescendingly, shakes his head, and says something that hits me like a truck:

"Dude, you're a freaking fascist." He defended this by saying my belief in the outlawing of illegal drugs is similar to the fascist view of outlawing everything they don't agree with. He finishes by saying that I have some views in common with Hitler, and that should scare me.

I was absolutely furious, naturally- but, I got over it. However, I was reminded of it the other day- my boss walked in, and I asked him an unrelated question about the nature of opinions. He rolls his eyes and says, "What fascist things are you saying now?"

Thoughts? Frankly, I'm at a loss. I can't see anything I said that wasn't in line with the Church's stance (I may be wrong, but last time I checked it was for prohibition and against the legalization of any 'recreational' drugs whatsoever). Does that mean that the next popular social trend we see towards the Church might be that we're fascists?

The way I see it, our theology most emphatically decries homosexuality, and there are already cases of religious groups being persecuted because they refuse 'equal services' to homosexual couples. Will we start to be called fascists and hate-mongers? Will the world start to say Mormons are the next Nazis because we hold to high morals and standards of truth? Will this view be used as a lever in governments and social groups against the Church and its people?

I hope not...

[RachelleDrew]

I'm honestly surprised this is the first time you've heard this. When I was in college, missionaries came to our apartment complex a lot, and were often referred to as the LDS Gestapo by our neighbors.

It was a cruel thing to say, but the use of the word "Nazi" anymore is quite flippant. I've been called much worse since joining the church, I wouldn't be too concerned if someone called me a Nazi.

And just for the record, this guy is in the minority. Most Christian bands are vehemently against the use of drugs and alcohol. I remember going to Cornerstone as a teen (a christian rock festival) and ciggs weren't even allowed in the parking lot or in your pocket or purse when you entered the festival. Same for alcohol. Please don't think that what he said is common of christian rock bands, I was very involved with that scene at one point in my life and I can tell you with certainty that it's exceedingly rare.

[skalenfehl]

John R. Howe was heard to quote the phrase, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams

The Constitution guarantees every person the right to choose whether or not to be religious, whatever that religion may be or not at all. Our country was primarily founded by Christians and their moral compass is the Bible. When one lacks such a compass, eventually he or she may believe that doing anything is acceptable and eventually look out for only "number one." When everyone eventually believes it is every man for himself liberty will die. Perhaps Anarchy takes over then or a corrupt society becomes so corrupt that it requires a despotic government. I made a brief mention of this in another thread:

Freedom invites corruption. We need to be active in defending our rights and be conscious of who we vote for at the local level and at the national level...

...Liberty functions from the bottom up (we the people), not dictated from the top down. But more and more we are giving up our freedoms until we have lost them all. Many don't care what the government does as long as it doesn't affect them directly. But we all have been affected every day, every year, every generation and at such a slow rate that most don't even know it or care...

...The other problem is that while shady politicians conspire and make smoke filled back room deals, our society is becoming more liberal, less moral and less principled. Benjamin Franklin said, "I agree to this Constitution...and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need a despotic government being incapable of any other." (emphasis added).

Mormons or any group of Christians are far from fascist, which is typically enforced by totalitarian attempts to impose state control. You don't see President Monson or the Pope taking over the government. Hitler was evil, a murderer; one who took away the agency of an entire nation by imposing his own dictatorship. One of our fundamental beliefs as is any Christian belief is the right to choose. Agency is central to liberty, which is protected by the Constitution. Fascism removes agency. No Christian will ever seek to take away the freedom from another but rather defend the freedom of everyone to choose for themselves and elect representatives to represent them with those choices. That's the beauty of living in a Democratic Society. We have the right to choose conservative leaders just as libertarians and liberals are free to choose liberal leaders. That's hardly being fascist. Now if you wanted to take over the country and impose your system of beliefs, morals, ethics, or creeds on everyone, including your boss, then I would say you are fascist.

Edited June 17, 2008 by skalenfehl

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

(This didn't seem to appropriately go anywhere; so I stuck it here.)

An event happened about a month ago that got me to pondering. I had put it aside, but it was brought up anew this past week, and I decided to get everyone's ideas on it.

At work, my boss and coworkers and I were discussing alcohol and drugs. I brought up the fact that I believe alcohol should be outlawed, along with all illegal drugs. A coworker of mine, knowing me to be Christian, attempted to make a defense for his position (which is to make everything except crystal meth 'legal') by saying that when on tour with a Christian band, they did drugs backstage all the time. I responded by saying that I wasn't surprised, and that I was dismayed by what passes as 'Christian' in society.

At this point my boss laughs condescendingly, shakes his head, and says something that hits me like a truck:

"Dude, you're a freaking fascist." He defended this by saying my belief in the outlawing of illegal drugs is similar to the fascist view of outlawing everything they don't agree with. He finishes by saying that I have some views in common with Hitler, and that should scare me.

I was absolutely furious, naturally- but, I got over it. However, I was reminded of it the other day- my boss walked in, and I asked him an unrelated question about the nature of opinions. He rolls his eyes and says, "What fascist things are you saying now?"

Thoughts? Frankly, I'm at a loss. I can't see anything I said that wasn't in line with the Church's stance (I may be wrong, but last time I checked it was for prohibition and against the legalization of any 'recreational' drugs whatsoever). Does that mean that the next popular social trend we see towards the Church might be that we're fascists?

The way I see it, our theology most emphatically decries homosexuality, and there are already cases of religious groups being persecuted because they refuse 'equal services' to homosexual couples. Will we start to be called fascists and hate-mongers? Will the world start to say Mormons are the next Nazis because we hold to high morals and standards of truth? Will this view be used as a lever in governments and social groups against the Church and its people?

I hope not...

First off, one of the founding principles of the Gospel, one of its major ideologies, a seminal distinction of our religion - is the belief in the freedom of choice. We like to call it "agency" in Primary and Sunday School. It means that we believe in the right of individuals to choose for themselves whether to do good or evil. Remember also that Satan's plan was to deny all humanity the freedom of choice (agency).

Secondly, the Church very rarely takes any political stance whatsoever. There have been notable exceptions, but these have been very few and very rare. The Church maintains a "hands off" approach to government and is not officialy for or against any political movement, platform, or candidate. The Church maintains this same policy towards legislation except when the most extreme moral issues are at stake. A quick search of lds.org has failed to turn up any examples of the Church encouraging its members to act in any particular way as regards legislation (but I know there are some...) excepting the "Equal Rights Amendment" of 1980. The best source of general information I found was LDS.org - Topic Definition - Civil Government and Law.

After about 90 minutes of searching, it's proving pretty difficult to ascertain an "official" position of the Church. While the Church does take political stance on "moral issues", I'm unable to find any concrete information on what the Church has considered a "moral issue" in the past and whether the points you bring up are "moral issues". So unless or until somebody can find me some clear evidence to the contrary, I'm going to say that while believing that people shouldn't participate in these behaviors is the official Church position, believing that governments should make them illegal is NOT the official Church position. When and how governments should intervene in someone's personal life is up to you to decide.

And yes, if you want to make all these things illegal, I'll call you a fascist too :) These are so-called "victimless crimes" where we throw people in jail for disagreeing with us. The D&C says that "We believe that governments were instituted of God .... for the good and safety of society." ( Doctrine and Covenants 134: 1 ). I believe governments should only have the right to criminalize behavior that is destructive to society. Criminalizing behavior that is only destructive to an individual, such as drug use, infringes upon a person's right to the "free exercise of conscience" ( Doctrine and Covenants 134: 2 ) and, in my opinion, is morally wrong and goes against the eternal law of agency and the most basic principles of the Gospel. But this last paragraph is only my opinion and I'm sure I'll catch more than my share of flack for it. Oh well.

:edit:

Skal, good post. I'll agree in principle, but keep in mind that Hitler was ELECTED by the people. I think if we took a poll of American LDS who would vote for an LDS president on a "fascist" platform of prohibiting drugs, alcohol, homosexuality etc and making LDS the state religion, we'd find the majority of members would support such a president. Or maybe I just have a bleak outlook.

Edited June 17, 2008 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[skalenfehl]

I think if we took a poll of American LDS who would vote for an LDS president on a "fascist" platform of prohibiting drugs, alcohol, homosexuality etc and making LDS the state religion, we'd find the majority of members would support such a president. Or maybe I just have a bleak outlook.

Hitler was elected by a bigoted society after writing his book while in prison for treason, which by the way, he dodged paying taxes on the royalties of Mein Kampf. His rise to power and election was craftily manipulated.

I wouldn't vote for an LDS leader under the circumstances you cited. No LDS leader in his right mind would run on such a platform. I don't think any Mormon in his or her right mind would vote for him either. Not one of the current candidates stands on such a platform, misguided as they may be. Methinks your outlook is bleak, brother.

Edited June 17, 2008 by skalenfehl

[Moksha]

I doubt Mormons would become Fascists, even if some of the fringe members have similar points of view. In any Fascist State, the Mormons would soon become the victims after the JW's and a few other groups were eliminated.

[Elphaba]

"Dude, you're a freaking fascist." He defended this by saying my belief in the outlawing of illegal drugs is similar to the fascist view of outlawing everything they don't agree with. He finishes by saying that I have some views in common with Hitler, and that should scare me.

Ask your boss if he’s ever heard of “Godwin’s Law.” Form wikipedia:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

In other words, when a person resorts to a comparison with Hitler, Godwin’s Law indicates his contribution to the discussion no longer has merit, usually resulting in his expulsion from the discussion.

If there are only two people in the discussion, he is considered the “loser,” and the discussion is over.

Full disclosure: The above is my interpretation of Godwin's Law. Others might understand it a little differently. However, the gist of my explanation is valid.

Godwin’s Law is primarily used in online conversations, but I see no reason why it couldn't be applied in the real world as well.

So the next time he calls you that, ask him if he’s ever heard of Godwin‘s Law, and when he says no, tell him to look it up.

I think he might be embarrassed to learn that comparing you to Hitler and a fascist is considered, well, inane and stupid.

Elphaba

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I doubt Mormons would become Fascists, even if some of the fringe members have similar points of view. In any Fascist State, the Mormons would soon become the victims after the JW's and a few other groups were eliminated.

Only if it's not a Mormon who started the fascist state!

:edit:

Ask your boss if he’s ever heard of “Godwin’s Law.”

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

Reductio ad Hitlerum! I LOVE IT!

Edited June 17, 2008 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[skalenfehl]

I was involved in another forum debate several months ago where one of the debaters invoked Godwin's Law. It was funny to see him declared the loser by his opponent.

[JcDean78]

Fascism is not limited to Nazi Germany. In fact it is alive and well today. Most of the policies by both US political parties are heavily rooted in Fascism. Over the years the meaning however has been changed and adopted to be in sync with Nazism. Facism was just the system of Govt they used which closly resembles communism and socialism.

Now here is the thing though, I support a free society even if those things we are free to do are bad for us. In Church we are given our free agency for a reason. It does not mean that any decision we make is a good decision but rather we are free to make bad decisions or good decisions and then one day be judged. When we start making laws to force our morals on people or take away that free agency then we not only are violating that persons freedom but we are taking away that agency.

The only expection I see to this rule is when that freedom violates the freedom of others. In situations such as Murder/Abortion, Stealing, physical abuse, etc. That is the only time the govt should step in and make things illegal, all else should be fair game.

[skalenfehl]

When we start making laws to force our morals on people or take away that free agency then we not only are violating that persons freedom but we are taking away that agency.

The only expection I see to this rule is when that freedom violates the freedom of others. In situations such as Murder/Abortion, Stealing, physical abuse, etc. That is the only time the govt should step in and make things illegal, all else should be fair game.

Laws have been made to take our morals as a society away for decades. If they could take our rights, they would do that too. (right to bear arms, free speech, etc). But they haven't been taking our freedoms away as much as we have been giving our freedoms away instead. This is why the Constitution is said to one day hang by a thread.

Edited June 17, 2008 by skalenfehl

[Fiannan]

Skal, good post. I'll agree in principle, but keep in mind that Hitler was ELECTED by the people. I think if we took a poll of American LDS who would vote for an LDS president on a "fascist" platform of prohibiting drugs, alcohol, homosexuality etc and making LDS the state religion, we'd find the majority of members would support such a president. Or maybe I just have a bleak outlook.

Not sure we could call all those policies fascist -- unless we are willing to say that the generation that sacrificed so much to defeat fascism in the 1940s was itself fascist.

IN the 1940s, homosexuality was technically illegal in every state. The founders of this nation made homosexual acts illegal and from what I understand Jefferson supported castration for male homosexuals -- heard that in a lecture on sexuality in college. Female homosexuality was generally illegal as well but from what I understand absolutely no female was ever charged in US history.

Drugs? Well, actually prior to the early part of the 20th. Century drugs were legal. Heck, the US Constitution is written on hemp paper -- I don't think they smoked it in those days. Then there was Prohibition which could be argued that it did work -- even with bootleggers like Joe Kennedy (who Al Capone thought was particularly dishonest) it could be said that given another generation alcohol consumption would have become socially unacceptable. However one feels about drugs I do not believe a temperance candidate could be considered a fascist.

As for the state religion thing the 1at. Amendment prohibits the federal government from having a state religion. I have never heard any LDS politically active person advocate having a federal religion.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I suppose to be technical, it's just as fascist to force my ideals of freedom and liberty upon someone as it is for someone else to force their ideals of conformity and restraint. By this logic, Bush is just as fascist as Saddam and we're all a bunch of fascist hypocrites! Yay!

And seriously, the whole fascist mormon candidate thing was a hypothetical. I wasn't talking about or inferring that any candidate or any mormon leader has in the past, does now, or will in the future run on any such platform. And I made no mention, nor do I care, whether such a platform would or could be successful or constitutional. I was merely trying to make a point. While the people on this site are a pretty cool and open-minded bunch, the majority of mormons I've met in any setting would most likely support such a platform. However I grant that my experience is heavily limited by demographics and geographic limitations. Now do I seriously need a disclaimer like this every time I make a post?

[skalenfehl]

By this logic, Bush is just as fascist as Saddam and we're all a bunch of fascist hypocrites! Yay!

[NateHowe]

We are not fascist simply for supporting laws based on moral principles. If there were no laws based on moral principles, murder and theft would be condoned. Another significant difference between Mormons and fascists is that we do not believe in killing those we see as different.

Just laws keep order in society. Get rid of them, and the society crumbles. Can we not already see this happening? To stand up for the right thing often results in name-calling. The epithets they throw out have no substantive bearing on what is right and what is wrong.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

We are not fascist simply for supporting laws based on moral principles. If there were no laws based on moral principles, murder and theft would be condoned. Another significant difference between Mormons and fascists is that we do not believe in killing those we see as different.

Just laws keep order in society. Get rid of them, and the society crumbles. Can we not already see this happening? To stand up for the right thing often results in name-calling. The epithets they throw out have no substantive bearing on what is right and what is wrong.

Morality is a rather vague and antiquated notion. Most things that we consider "amoral" are so only out of tradition or custom and we often apply no thought whatsoever to WHY these things are considered "wrong".

I suggest you read the treatise by Richard Garriott called "Ethical Hedonism". Here, I'll even link you to it :)

UO Stratics - Books - Ethical hedonism: An introduction, by Richard Garriott

After gleaning some inspiration from above, I posit that there is a significant difference between what we accept as "right" and "wrong" and those things that truly are "right" and "wrong". I add to this that those things which truly are "right" and "wrong" are all extrapolated from what we call the "Golden Rule", which is nothing more than a reasonable course of action in a social setting.

[Elphaba]

We are not fascist simply for supporting laws based on moral principles. If there were no laws based on moral principles, murder and theft would be condoned.

This thinking always amazes me. Do you seriously think if you were not religious, you would commit murder? Would you suddenly start stealing?

One of the reasons the human species survived was that their brains evolved such that they could feel empathy and compassion.

Additionally, when they saw another person experience a severe loss, such as a child's death, they understood this could happen to them as well. Thus, for them to survive they developed methods of taking care of each other.

My point is not many people would suddenly devolve to mindless murderers and thieves. To do so would go against our instincts to survive as a species.

I know this is an extremely simplistic explanation for what would be a very complicated reality. But religion does not make a significant and relevant population of murderers into saints. If religion were to disappear from our consciousness, I believe there would be approximately the same number of people who are dangerous to our survival that exists today.

Elphaba

[NateHowe]

This thinking always amazes me. Do you seriously think if you were not religious, you would commit murder? Would you suddenly start stealing?

No, and I did not specifically bring religion into this. I said that law is based on moral principles. Religion codifies those principles and teaches them in a God-centered way, but even staunch atheists hold moral principles. Thanks for trying, though.

[Fiannan]

One of the reasons the human species survived was that their brains evolved such that they could feel empathy and compassion.

Oh really? What about psychopaths?

Also, before you take comfort in the idea that maybe they have a brain disorder that is organic in nature just look up the Japanese biological experimentation center Unit 731. I will bet these doctors and scientists that did experiments that would freak out Countess Bathory or Dr. Mengela were generally not people any different than any other person biologically. And if the Milgram experiments are any indication people will do rather nasty things to each other if they know they will not be held accountable for it.

If you think morality and the civil liberties contained in the US Constitution can survive in a society absent a belief if God for long I think you are sadly mistaken.

Edited June 17, 2008 by Fiannan

[Elphaba]

No, and I did not specifically bring religion into this. I said that law is based on moral principles. Religion codifies those principles and teaches them in a God-centered way,

I apologize for my mistatement. Given the thread is about Mormonism, "moral principles," and religion are one and the same to me.

I will be more careful in the future.

even staunch atheists hold moral principles.

Tell that to Fiannan!

This is what I meant when I get annoyed at people who claim societies will fail without religion. I believe the vast majority of human beings are guided by instinctive morals, atheist or not.

Thanks for trying, though.

I've read a lot of your posts, and consider you an intelligent and enjoyable poster. I'm surprised at your juvenile quip.

Elphaba

[Guest Username-Removed]

XZain,

I can understand it can be eye opening. There’s nothing that chips away more at job security than a boss that seems to be sympathetic to drugs!

Actually it is kind of scary. When I was in Oregon I worked for a very well known auto dealership in the mid-Willamette valley. I was getting ready to sell my business and this job was keeping me busy until I could move out to Utah or Idaho. The long story short was the guy that was training me ended up being a drug dealer. He would have customers come up from California and they would go on long (2-3 hour) “demo rides”.

Coming back with dilated eyes and extremely fast speech patters, it was easy to put two and two together. And after noticing all the scares from injection marks on his arms just really confirmed everything. Later, I figured out he was he was the drug dealer for the entire dealership. My boss, and a host of others were also heavily involved. I later quit as it was simply too difficult to excel as a Mormon.

I can tell you at least a half a dozen stories like that. Most of them circle around Crystal Meth in the workplace. I’ve had so much experience dealing with these people over the years it’s now easy to initially suspect them by simply recognizing their behavior patters; Extreme paranoia being the most obvious. What ever a person is scared of, turns extreme when using this drug. There are other signs as well.

Right now I am extremely lucky. I work in a very secure place with zero tolerance for drugs – and I do mean ZERO! While there are challenges with work politics once in a while, for a worker its incredibly good.

So fascism aside, I simply support the company that has my own values. Once I find a company is way out of alignment, I usually find another job pretty quickly.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Now children, let's behave. Don't make me come back there and sit between you two!

Elphaba: In Western society we commonly see morality as an extension of religion, namely the 10 commandments. However there are numerous examples of moral societies with no basis in the 10 commandments or any similar codified set of religious doctrine. It would probably be safe to say that only western morality is based on religion.

Fiannan: Psychopaths would be psychopaths with or without religion. A moral code may prevent a small (read: insignificant) number of psychopaths from behaving psychopathically, but that moral code need not be based on religion.

Nate: Another note on your earlier post, fascists don't necessarily believe in killing anyone. Brainwashing (indoctrination or in other words: early childhood education and propaganda) are also very acceptable means of forcing your ideology on others. As are in inprisonment, fines, and other legal consequences.

XZain,

I can understand it can be eye opening. There’s nothing that chips away more at job security than a boss that seems to be sympathetic to drugs!

Actually it is kind of scary. When I was in Oregon I worked for a very well known auto dealership in the mid-Willamette valley. I was getting ready to sell my business and this job was keeping me busy until I could move out to Utah or Idaho. The long story short was the guy that was training me ended up being a drug dealer. He would have customers come up from California and they would go on long (2-3 hour) “demo rides”.

Coming back with dilated eyes and extremely fast speech patters, it was easy to put two and two together. And after noticing all the scares from injection marks on his arms just really confirmed everything. Later, I figured out he was he was the drug dealer for the entire dealership. My boss, and a host of others were also heavily involved. I later quit as it was simply too difficult to excel as a Mormon.

I can tell you at least a half a dozen stories like that. Most of them circle around Crystal Meth in the workplace. I’ve had so much experience dealing with these people over the years it’s now easy to initially suspect them by simply recognizing their behavior patters; Extreme paranoia being the most obvious. What ever a person is scared of, turns extreme when using this drug. There are other signs as well.

Right now I am extremely lucky. I work in a very secure place with zero tolerance for drugs – and I do mean ZERO! While there are challenges with work politics once in a while, for a worker its incredibly good.

So fascism aside, I simply support the company that has my own values. Once I find a company is way out of alignment, I usually find another job pretty quickly.

Just because someone believes in personal freedom and individual rights does not make one "sympathetic to drugs". I'm really not even sure what "sympathetic to drugs" means but I don't like the sound of it. My mother was killed in a car accident by someone who thought he could do drugs and drive. I have zero tolerance for people whose behavior puts others at risk, whether through drug use or not. However, my belief in the "rightness" of personal choice is so strong, that I believe people have the right to harm themselves if they're stupid enough to want to; only when their choice puts others at risk do I get offended. Does this make me a "drug sympathizer"?

[Hemidakota]

Hitler was elected by a bigoted society after writing his book while in prison for treason, which by the way, he dodged paying taxes on the royalties of Mein Kampf. His rise to power and election was craftily manipulated.

I wouldn't vote for an LDS leader under the circumstances you cited. No LDS leader in his right mind would run on such a platform. I don't think any Mormon in his or her right mind would vote for him either. Not one of the current candidates stands on such a platform, misguided as they may be. Methinks your outlook is bleak, brother.

Thanks....never knew that about Hitler. :)

[Hemidakota]

(This didn't seem to appropriately go anywhere; so I stuck it here.)

An event happened about a month ago that got me to pondering. I had put it aside, but it was brought up anew this past week, and I decided to get everyone's ideas on it.

At work, my boss and coworkers and I were discussing alcohol and drugs. I brought up the fact that I believe alcohol should be outlawed, along with all illegal drugs. A coworker of mine, knowing me to be Christian, attempted to make a defense for his position (which is to make everything except crystal meth 'legal') by saying that when on tour with a Christian band, they did drugs backstage all the time. I responded by saying that I wasn't surprised, and that I was dismayed by what passes as 'Christian' in society.

At this point my boss laughs condescendingly, shakes his head, and says something that hits me like a truck:

"Dude, you're a freaking fascist." He defended this by saying my belief in the outlawing of illegal drugs is similar to the fascist view of outlawing everything they don't agree with. He finishes by saying that I have some views in common with Hitler, and that should scare me.

I was absolutely furious, naturally- but, I got over it. However, I was reminded of it the other day- my boss walked in, and I asked him an unrelated question about the nature of opinions. He rolls his eyes and says, "What fascist things are you saying now?"

Thoughts? Frankly, I'm at a loss. I can't see anything I said that wasn't in line with the Church's stance (I may be wrong, but last time I checked it was for prohibition and against the legalization of any 'recreational' drugs whatsoever). Does that mean that the next popular social trend we see towards the Church might be that we're fascists?

The way I see it, our theology most emphatically decries homosexuality, and there are already cases of religious groups being persecuted because they refuse 'equal services' to homosexual couples. Will we start to be called fascists and hate-mongers? Will the world start to say Mormons are the next Nazis because we hold to high morals and standards of truth? Will this view be used as a lever in governments and social groups against the Church and its people?

I hope not...

Be patience....it is there time for now and then it will be time for the righteous to rule for eternalty.

[Guest Username-Removed]

In my opinion, any manager or owner that does not enforce their own company drug policy, and is themselves involved in the use of illegal drugs, is sympathetic to illegal drug use.

The problem is, sometimes people might think that it’s totally an individual problem. It is not. I've seen really horrible personal tragedies that affect many. It affects family & friends of the user. It affects judgment on the job and off. Addicted users sell off all their assets, and use poor judgment to support their habit including questionable business accounting practices. Some even steel from friends and family. Many claim bankruptcy, affecting the entire credit system. If the user never interacted with anybody, I suppose it would never affect anybody other than the user. The problem is, when does that happen?

I have so many stories on this subject it could fill an entire book. I've lost countless friends, and seen it destroy families. And, I have seen how some of the user’s eventual deaths affect others who tried so hard to get them to stop. In my opinion, personal drug use is extremely selfish.

This is why the church is so wise to employ the word of wisdom.

Nevertheless, I personally work with people to help them stop addiction. I still have acquaintances that use drugs, and I still experience profound loss when their lives and the lives of others are destroyed by its use.

However, I choose not to work for or with anybody with this problem. (It, afterall, is my personal choice) Its not that I don’t love them, I’m just not willing to put my safety in their hands when they are in a drug rage. I’ve managed to avoid being killed twice – so I have some experience in this matter. My career & my life are too important to my personal success. I have much to offer a company, and I choose to support employers that support my own beliefs in this area.

Edited June 17, 2008 by WordFLOOD