Invented Constitutional "Rights"

[annewandering]

It puzzles me that a person can believe a person is the prophet yet doubt everything he says. Looking at President Monson, I have trouble doubting anything he says.

What the slams at the church and prophets have to do with the constitution I am not sure except that, of course, a person is free to think whatever he wants, right or wrong.

Edited April 20, 2012 by annewandering

[applepansy]

It puzzles me that a person can believe a person is the prophet yet doubt everything he says. Looking at President Monson, I have trouble doubting anything he says.

What the slams at the church and prophets have to do with the constitution I am not sure except that, of course, a person is free to think whatever he wants, right or wrong.

I was thinking the same thing Anne.

When the majority of people thing that right is wrong and wrong is right is when we need to really be paying attention. Oh wait.... that's exactly what has been said in this thread.

[Guest]

Well, unfortunately, even the LDS Church who distinguishes themselves as the church of modern revelation have a'la carte members. Those who say, yeah, the Church is true, the prophet is true, the Book of Mormon is true, but if I don't agree with this or that, then this or that is not true... regardless of whether it is a key doctrine of the Church. Don't agree in Pre-mortal Existence? Well, darnit, it's just musings of really old men with archaic teachings! 20 years from now, it will be just like the blacks and the priesthood, they'll soon realize their error and I can prove them right (sticks tongue out).

[HEthePrimate]

1. Any "right to marriage under equal protection and due process" is make believe.

Well, if you put it in context by including the rest of the sentence, it becomes more clear: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In other words, all citizens are to enjoy equal status under the law, and as of that amendment, it applied to all the states, as well as to the federal government. Due process comes into play because the government may abridge a person's rights if they commit a crime (by putting him into prison, confiscating property, etc.), and due process needs to be followed to determine if the person is innocent or guilty, and in sentencing.

Also, just because a right is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read Amendment IX.

What protections are people not getting by being unmarried? Same with due process.

Well, among other things, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights.

2. How is marriage a form of expression?

It's a pretty dramatic expression of love, if you ask me!

Plus, religions traditionally perform marriages for their adherents. One could argue that the First Amendment protects churches' rights to marry people, as a form of religious practice.

I think it's ludicrous to think the authors of the Bill of Rights intended such applications.

Why do you think that?

Does anyone here also believe porn is protected speech?

I do.

3. Why must there be a purely secular justification?

Because we have a secular government, not a theocracy. People of different faiths live in this country, and their rights to worship (or not) as they please need to be respected.

I reject that notion.

Reject away! It's a free country! I'm just glad you're not in charge.

Laws are fundamentally based on morals.

Why do you say that? One could easily work up a legal code without reference to morals. For example, the basis of a legal code could be for everybody to be able to coexist and conduct peacefully. In order to coexist peacefully, you can pass laws against murder, assault, theft, and (obviously) disturbing the peace. No moral codes, just everybody looking after their interests by attempting to get along. Laws that uphold common interests need no further justification.

Also, morals do not have to be derived from religion. People can, and have, made up moral philosophies and codes without reference to God or religion.

[Just_A_Guy]

There's been a lot of talk here about the Supreme Court and Equal Protection jurisprudence, so it may help to brush up on how the Supreme Court has actually applied the 14th amendment. From Wikipedia. In short: Government can enact laws with a discriminatory effect, but such discriminatory legislation will be evaluated by a court on one of three levels of scrutiny:

--Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.

--Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest.

--Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

Most of the compelling and well-known civil rights cases--e.g. Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia--overruled discriminatory legislation on the "strict scrutiny" level, because both those cases discriminated against a racial group. "Rational basis" review is extremely deferential to the legislature--I'm not sure if a law has ever been thrown out by SCOTUS on rational-basis, and if SCOTUS did so it would be a clear signal to the legislative body that not only were they wrong, but that they were out of their freakin' minds. That's one reason Judge Walker's recent opinion re Prop 8 was such a bombshell--it said Prop 8 didn't even pass rational-basis review. (In fairness to Judge Walker, Prop 8's lawyers reportedly did a miserable job and made it very easy for His Honor to do what he reportedly already wanted to do anyways.)

The Supreme Court has never clearly said which level of scrutiny applies to legislation that happens to adversely affect gays. Lawrence v. Texas grappled with the issue but the SCOTUS justices basically scattered on the issue. They killed the particular Texas restriction at issue in that case, but left a murky mess of precedent that still needs to be untangled.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[PeterVenkman]

So then, as long as you can find two or three prophets who agree on a moral issue, then following their counsel is not an abrogation of your critical thinking duty?

My responsibility to engage critical thinking is facilitated by the opinions of 3 or more prophets, which is the opposite of abrogation. By understanding how multiple different perspectives can reach the same conclusion, I can learn how to evaluate the strength of claims and ethical positions, identify the best arguments and determine their desirability. In other words, their "counsel" is more about persuasion than dictation.

So a ten-year-old, or a fifteen-year-old, is equally capable of making important moral or ethical judgments as an adult? Is this what you allow your children to do -- make moral decisions with no input from you, since they are obviously equally capable of making such judgments?

Not sure how I feel about this. Sometimes children make better ethical decisions than adults, and I wouldn't exactly put an age limit on morality. In a broad sense, I don't believe people are inherently good, but I believe that humans internalize good as a function of their continued existence in the infant stage.

I don't "allow" anyone to do anything. People do what they do. Any time I interact with someone I am projecting meaning that influences them in some way...whether it be my children or my spouse or the girl at the ticket counter at the movies. That is the nature of being part of a social web of meaning. Yes, not only is everyone capable of making their own judgments, I would say that is the nature of individualism.

The fact that you think there are no experts in morality or ethics really means nothing, except perhaps that your judgment is highly questionable (something that you freely admit). Then why ought we, or anyone else, listen to you? You admit you have nothing to offer. Why do you reference various feminist texts and authors? By your own philosophy, their opinions are exactly as worthless as your own.

True enough. You don't have to take me seriously or believe me for my goal to be achieved. Have you ever heard of the logic of the gift? It's a philosophical concept presented by Jean Baudrillard. The basic premise is that giving someone a gift creates a relationship with them, which they cannot ever escape. They can reject the gift, which will have consequences for the future of the relationship, or they can accept the gift, which will also have consequences for the future of the relationship.

I'm not saying I'm giving you a gift. I'm only saying that my expression here in this forum will have consequences for all of the people that read what I write, in whatever way (big and small). Some might react by strengthening their own testimony about gay marriage. Some may react by changing their minds. Either way, the fact that my written words are influencing the thoughts of others is valuable, even if my judgment is questionable and my opinions worthless.

Pushups. They are unpleasant, but build upper body strength.

lol I'm on it I promise.

The question is asked often, "how does homosexual marriage hurt traditional marriage? How does it help? And Venkman.....are you gay? And if you haven't read the Book of Mormon since 2008....is it because of Prop. 8? Are you inactive? Just curious....

I'm really not a fan of the confessional. I've eluded to the reason why I think gay marriage helps traditional marriage in my 2008 post. I'm not sure if I'm going to answer your other questions yet, for now let's just say I'm...different.

Well, unfortunately, even the LDS Church who distinguishes themselves as the church of modern revelation have a'la carte members.

Most successful religions have some level of malleability or they wouldn't survive very long. This is a totally different and interesting doctrinal discussion that I think should be its own thread.

For example, what if my patriarchal blessing encourages me to take an "a'la carte" approach to the LDS faith? What if every single member of my family has a patriarchal blessing that says something to that effect? From different people in different regions of the US? Just something to think about...

[Timpman]

and why did you use my arguments to start a thread about the constitution and rights guaranteed by it if you did not want my perspective?

and why did you run away from the conversation about the constitution as soon as I chimed in?

Something went wrong with my last post. I used those four points as a springboard for this thread, but I wasn't specifically asking for you for all the details of your previous arguments. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I ran away (I'm still here, obviously - t's hard to stay away) because:

1. You seem to believe the separation between church and state is an impenetrable iron wall and I see see it as more of a picket fence with a swinging gate.

2. You are focused on secular logic only and I believe it's okay to also consider religious morals.

3. You tend to heed modern philosophers and I follow the prophet.

I am sure you will let me know if I am wrong on any of those perceptions of your viewpoints. In view of these differences between you and I, it's useless to present my arguments. Why? Because in the case of same-sex marriage and other so-called rights, the evidence I wish to present is not even admissible in your court. So the questions of what is or is not a right and what should or should not be legal in our society cannot be effectively debated. We first need to establish what can be considered in the argument, and we can't seem to agree on that.

Recall that God established this country to be a free land wherein the Gospel could be restored. It does not make sense that the philosophies of man and of Lucifer should prevail while the guidance of God and His prophets and religious morals should be contemned.

I believe you and many court judges interpret the Constitution far too loosely. There were wicked judges in Book of Mormon and there some around today. Since the Book of Mormon was written for our time, maybe we should consider how those stories apply to us now.

[Timpman]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In other words, all citizens are to enjoy equal status under the law, and as of that amendment, it applied to all the states, as well as to the federal government. Due process comes into play because the government may abridge a person's rights if they commit a crime (by putting him into prison, confiscating property, etc.), and due process needs to be followed to determine if the person is innocent or guilty, and in sentencing.

Also, just because a right is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read Amendment IX.

The writers of those amendments and the voters did not have problems with sodomy laws. What's so different now?

Well, among other things, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights.

Hospital rules, inheritance laws, taxes, and many other things can be changed. We don't have to allow same-sex marriage to even things out in those regards.

Because we have a secular government, not a theocracy. People of different faiths live in this country, and their rights to worship (or not) as they please need to be respected.

We live in a country established by God. The Constitution was inspired by Him. How soon we forget. People can live how they want, but AGAIN I'm tired of radical activists trying to FORCE me and the rest of society to acknowledge and/or condone their unholy unions! That is what this is really about.

Also, morals do not have to be derived from religion. People can, and have, made up moral philosophies and codes without reference to God or religion.

Or, people like to think they made up moral philosophies, but those morals have been around since Adam.

[Timpman]

Again with the investigation about my authenticity. I shouldn't have to tell you about graduating seminary or being an eagle scout or attending church or doing baptisms for the dead or doing splits with missionaries or preparing and delivering the sacrament or personally baptizing people and I sure don't have to tell you about the content of my own prayers or patriarchal blessing...so either come out and tell me why you think any of this is relevant to the conversation we are having or leave your doubts about my religious disposition out of the conversation.

Seriously, it's shocking to read questions about poisoned Kool Aid and murdering a pregnant actress when asked by a member of the church. I have only heard such arguments before from atheists and anti-Mormons. It was very surprising, so I asked the question.

[Vort]

People on this forum love to tell me that I'm too fringe to be part of the group.

Are you sure people here love to do that? Because I have never seen anyone do so. Perhaps you can provide some examples of this allegedly common practice.

Do I think following Monson is dangerous? I will keep saying it as many times as I need to: I think it is dangerous to follow any human being without being skeptical of what they are saying. This goes for Monson as much as it goes for the Pope and Carl Sagan and Charles Manson and Jim Jones.

Please note:

According to "PeterVenkman", following Thomas S. Monson is equally as dangerous as following Charles Manson and Jim Jones.

Edited April 20, 2012 by pam
References to political candidate.

[Timpman]

And Barack Obama!

[JudoMinja]

I read yours and Klein's exchanges and thought about responding, but hadn't yet gotten to it. Let me define what I think is meant by a "right".

My definition of a right is expounded in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

A right is an inborn social freedom to which all people have claim merely by virtue of being human. In religious terminology, we say it is "God-given" (or in the wording of the Declaration of Independence, "endowed by their Creator"), emphasizing that its existence is not conferred by governments or by documents. Rather, inherent in the very condition of being human and living among other humans is the existence of these rights.

For example: All humans have the inborn, inherent freedom to think as they wish. That is their right, conferred by nature or God or whatever überpower you want to acknowledge. Not all governments recognize this right, of course, and there are many (perhaps even our own) that would abrogate this right if they could -- indeed, that actively seek to abrogate it. That does not change the fact that freedom of thought is a natural right, and that any decent government worth supporting will defend it.

The three rights listed in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are not the only rights; as the Declaration of Independence says, these three are "among" our God-given rights.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are an attempt to further enumerate these God-given rights. Thus, we have the freedom to assemble, to worship how and whom we please, to keep and bear arms for our defense, to keep silent instead of being forced to provide self-incriminating information, and so forth.

In all these cases, please note: The right does not exist because it is listed in the Constitution. It is self-existent. The Constitution merely enumerates that right so as better to acknowledge and defend it.

Many today say things such as, "We have a right to health care!" Viewed from the pure perspective of rights as given above, such statements are quickly recognized as absurd, a perversion of the very meaning of the idea of "rights". We have no "right" to have everyone else take care of us. As Christians, we are taught that we should care for others, that we are our brother's keeper -- but that is a far cry from claiming that there exists a right for such treatment.

Hope this illuminates my position a bit.

I was just reading over this discussion- specifically the part about rights between Dravin and Klein and wanted to chime in with my thoughts, but as I reached the end of the thread I found that Vort beat me to it. My views about "rights" are pretty much synonymous with what he's written in this post.

I always get a bit aggrivated when people claim they have a "right" to something that has absolutely nothing to do with rights whatsoever. Changes to the constitution and/or additions to the ammendments are meant to adjust the governments ability to protect our "unalienable Rights"- or those things which we should be allowed and able to freely do, say, think by the very virtue of being human.

There are many things now which we expect our government to regulate and oversee which have nothing to do with these rights, but we expect government involvement because it is something we want that we feel will enrich our lives and/or make it easier. Health care and education are great examples of this. I do not think either of these qualify as an "unalienable Right" or something that our existence as human beings priviledges us to. Certainly I think everyone deserves to have affordable health care to help in prolonging their life. Certainly I think everyone deserves to receive a quality education. But what people deserve, what will make their lives better, is not necessary the same as what they have a right to.

Added amendments to the constitution have the purpose of extending the protection of our rights to those who did not previously have such protection. These are rights that are there, whether protected or not, but without that constitutional protection we may find them repressed. So when people are advocating for their "rights", we must think to ourselves whether this is something that their very human nature should priviledge them to and should thus be protected by the government, or if it is just something they want. It's a lot like teaching our children the difference between needs and wants. We need food, but we want toys.

And, of course, when you get down into these heated arguments about topics like same-sex marriage, we realize that the answer to this question is very rooted in our morals. It is impossible to make a decision about whether or not something is a right without examining our morals, because it is our morals that define what we consider to be rights.

[Timpman]

According to "PeterVenkman", following Thomas S. Monson is equally as dangerous as following Charles Manson and Jim Jones.

What's worse is that he also listed Obama!

[Wingnut]

What's worse is that he also listed Obama!

Worse than Charles Manson? I think not.

[Timpman]

Is this thread locked?

[MarginOfError]

Is this thread locked?

Yes.

[JudoMinja]

Is this thread locked?

You wouldn't have been able to post this question if it was.

[Timpman]

I'm going crazy. I made two posts that disappeared. Would I be notified if I got moderated?

[pam]

I'm going crazy. I made two posts that disappeared. Would I be notified if I got moderated?

I believe they were deleted because of the references to a political candidate.

[Timpman]

So I guess I rocked the strict secularists.

[MarginOfError]

No. The strict secularists stopped paying attention during the implications that you can't be a secularist and a faithful member of the Church. Secularists like myself aren't interested in discussions full of rude judgments from strangers on the internet. I've got better things to do than to argue with people who want to be right more than they want to listen.

[Jamie123]

I do not believe pornography is an inherent right as a part of free speech. The Supreme Court disagrees with me, and their view is the relevant one. But yes, I am one that thinks pornography is not a God-given right.

I've often noticed that "rights" tend to get confused with "powers" and "freedoms".

We might grant the freedom under law to look at porngraphy, together with the freedom to behave obnoxiously, or to offend other people's nostrils by never taking a bath. In doing so we needn't acknowledge such behaviour to be "right".

One particular example: I often hear police representitives say that they have the "right" to arrest people and hold them for 24 hours without charge. They don't. They have the power (or freedom) to do so. Whether they are right to do it in any particular circumstance would depend on whether there was valid grounds for suspicion. If the police nabbed someone without any evidence of wrongdoing and held him in the cells for 24 hours, I don't think an appeal to their "rights" would stop them getting sued for wrongful arrest.

P.S. I know what you're going to say...police don't have the right to arrest without probable cause. True, but who decides what is and isn't probable cause? There are guidelines, yes, but ultimately it's the decision of the arresting officer. He has the power to make the decision, but that does not automatically make the decision right.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Jamie123

[Timpman]

No. The strict secularists stopped paying attention during the implications that you can't be a secularist and a faithful member of the Church

I didn't mean that. It's an assumption you chose to make. I can see how someone might think "Only purely secular arguments can be made when making and interpreting laws of the land, but I choose to follow Christ and I am a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

I pointed out what I believe to be differences between PeterVenkman and myself and wrote "I am sure you will let me know if I am wrong on any of those perceptions of your viewpoints." I think that was fair enough.

I've got better things to do than to argue with people who want to be right more than they want to listen.

I'm listening. I want someone to consider the whole context of the history of the United States and tell me why religious morals should be banned from discussions regarding laws.

[Soulsearcher]

I'm listening. I want someone to consider the whole context of the history of the United States and tell me why religious morals should be banned from discussions regarding laws.

I don't personally think they should be banned, but i don't think they should be the beginning and the end of the discussion. I think considering the whole context of american history explains why religion shouldn't be the only aspect of the discussion. When it comes down to the topic of same sex marriage there really hasn't been a solid reason against it. there's been a lot of "what if's" which in reality would require a dramatic increase in the homosexual population as well as any number of other less than plausible events. The majority of the fight against same sex marriage comes from christian morality or(and I'm not linking the 2) simple misunderstanding bigotry. We know the LDS hated and presented many arguments when they were subjected to the dictates of mainstream christianity, and are clear examples of the sting of being forced to follow the religious majority against the dictates of your own faith and heart. The issue with most of the laws we link directly to morals are the directly and clearly have an affect on others. Murder, theft, rape, fraud all have a very clear victim and it's much easier to link the religious morals stance to common sense. In america to the best of my knowledge there aren't laws, or at least enforced laws, concerning honoring your mother and father, coveting(unless you really stretch it to stalking laws) ect. If there's nothing but a long shot chance it might do actual harm and the only reason for blocking something is someone elses religious belief that's when there has to be a certain level of separation.

[Timpman]

Here's a really good talk about this: A More Determined Discipleship - Ensign Feb. 1979 - ensign

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage....

This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play—especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them—the secular bureaucrats’ burden, you see....

If people, however, are not permitted to advocate, to assert, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold which grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would we be?

Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church.

I added the bold emphasis. Edited April 21, 2012 by Timpman