A Safe Society

[Traveler]

I see that many are falling into line one way or the other with all the rhetoric of how we can improve our environment and be safe in our homes, schools and communities. I would only ask one question:

Can a people ever be safe and trust a government that has publicly rejected the protection and inspiration of G-d in favor of separation of church and state?

The Traveler

[sgallan]

Can a people ever be safe and trust a government that has publicly rejected the protection and inspiration of G-d in favor of separation of church and state?

You could always go to Iran. I hear the Church and State is pretty much the same there.

[Winnie G]

That’s a good question traveler, in president Hinckley’s book Standing for Something 10 Neglected virtues that will heal our hearts and homes. He holds that up to the light and points out economic failures since more liberal ideas have come in to place.

The specific ten virtues that are each given an entire chapter:

• Love: The Lodestar of Life

• Where There Is Honesty, Other Virtues Will Follow

• Making a Case for Mortality

• Our Fading Civility

• Learning "With All Thy Getting, get Understanding"

• The Twin Virtues of Forgiveness and Mercy

• Thrift and Industry: Getting Our Houses in Order

• Gratitude: A Sign of Maturity

• Optimism in the Face of Cynicism

• Faith: Our Only Hope

The final two chapters and the epilogue cover the way to restore our country and our lives to morality and peace. He refers to them as The Guardians of Virtue and further states: "The health of any society, the happiness of its people, their prosperity and peace, all find their roots in the strength and stability of the family."

• Marriage: What God Hath Joined Together: "It is one thing to talk about the importance and sactity of marriage, and another thing entirely to create such a marriage, day in and day out. Marriage can be fragile. It requires nurture and time and very much effort." He lists four cornerstones of a successful marriage:

1. Mutual respect and loyalty to one another

2. The soft answer

3. Financial honesty

4. Prayer

• The Family: We Can Save Our Nation by Saving Our Homes: "Society's problems arise, almost without exception, out of the homes of the people. If there is to be a reformation, if there is to be a change, if there is to be a return to old and sacred values, it must begin in the home."

• The Loneliness of Moral Leadership: " In leadership, in standing for principle, there is loneliness. But men and women of integrity must live with their convictions. Unless they so so, they are miserable."

Hinckley approaches today's problems at the root. He reminds us to be grateful in good times and to persevere in trying times. He speaks in plain and simple words that hit hard and on target. This book gives insight to the reader that easily if applied could change one's life.

I highly recommend it if you have not read it.

I truly believe it when he said We Can Save Our Nation by Saving Our Homes

I can only speak for what I know of how the Canadian government handles this issue.

There has been a movement to remove "God keep our land" from the anthem, needless to say Canadians would not stand still for it and the government ignores the movement.

If you wish to send your children to a say a Catholic school or a Christian school etc. you can do so with just about the same cost as a public school. They receive funding from the government as long as they fallow the education standers. In some places were we have live the Catholic school system was the public school and my children received a good education. The only difference was catechism classes.

More private schools $$$$$ do not receive government money but under the law they still have to fallow the education standers.

Hospitals are the same way a Catholic or Salvation Army hospitals can not have maternity wards if they do not also provide other repetitive services in some provinces like Ontario.

I think governments can work well with in the needs of the community it provides services for with religious tolerance. Canada is very big on tolerance of religious and ethnic beliefs as long as it does not stop others from the same rights. It’s a well maintained dance I have to say.

sgallan you remind me of the intolerant people of the 60's that said "America love it or leave it" well its their America too. You did not really mean that did you?

[sgallan]

sgallan you remind me of the intolerant people of the 60's that said "America love it or leave it" well its their America too. You did not really mean that did you?

No, I rather like diversity. But he seemed to want a theocracy. I was just pointing out where one was.

I am rather happy with the United States and it's Democratic Republic. Somehow I get the feeling an athiest wouldn't fair very well in a theocracy. Nor would a certain minority religion that a lot of other Christians call a cult.

[a-train]

The seperation of Church and state is essential. The Church has here thrived longer and stronger in a nation where freedom of religion prevails.

'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.' (11th Article of Faith)

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment)

'The principles and philosophies upon which the U.S. constitutional law is based are not simply the result of the best efforts of a remarkable group of brilliant men. They were inspired by God, and the rights and privileges guaranteed in the Constitution are God-given, not man-derived. The freedom and independence afforded by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are divine rights—sacred, essential, and inalienable. In the 98th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord indicates that the “law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.” (D&C 98:5.)' - M. Russell Ballard (“Religion in a Free Society,” Ensign, Oct 1992, p 64)

It is not this government's favor of seperation of church and state that causes such a problem for it, but it is any prohibition of free exercise in spite of the First Amendment that will prove disasterous.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Most people don't even know the original meaning of the the phrase "separation of Church and State."

It does not mean government cannot publicly acknowledge God or Jesus or a belief in them.

Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists (a minority in Connecticut worried about being rolled over by other sects controlling the state government). Actually, the original phrase Jefferson used was, "wall of separation betweeen church and state."

Originally, it meant that government could not show preferential treatment towards any one denomination or sect...i.e. tax breaks for Catholics if the government was Catholic.

But today, people interpret the phrase as forbidding any government judicial buildings to have quotes from the Bible on them, or forbidding the mention of God in public schools, et al, ad naseum.

During the Founders' days, Christian sects would share city halls on Sundays when they had no church building of their own. There was no hysteria about "separation of Church and State" like there is today. Bleh.

[JcDean78]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania.

[sixpacktr]

Winnie G,

Pres Hinckley is exactly dead on in this. If the homes are secure and correct principles are being taught (honesty, love, etc.) then we don't need a theocracy, which seems to be sgallan's fear, because people will choose what is right anyway. Where the problem comes in is that the family is under assault today, and the gov't has chosen to be everyone's nanny, which is causing all the problems IMHO.

The gov't should stay out of religion, but shouldn't be prohibiting the free exercise of it. The crud about infringing on some poor Muslim's rights, or atheist rights, by showing a creche or other scene on the public square during Christmas is a crock of crap. What do they think the season is about?! It isn't an endorsement of Christianity, simply an acknowledgement of a holiday. But the lawyers, in the best Zeezrom and Nehor tradition, have made it a religious issue, with the evil Christians trying to force their religion down other's throats...

Common sense has left the building...

[Gwen]

something that came to mind reading this topic

If Nobody Believed In You Lyrics

Artist(Band):Joe Nichols

I watched him take the two strike call:

He hadn't tried to swing at all.

I guess he'd had all he could take,

He walked away, for goodness sake.

His father's voice was loud an' mean:

"You won't amount to anythin;."

That little boy quit tryin',

He just walked away.

There were teardrops on his face.

Tell me, how would you feel?

You'd probably give up too,

If nobody believed in you.

That old man said: "One more try,

"I know I'm not too old to drive.

"I promise, son, I'll do my best,

"This time, I'm gonna pass the test."

"Give me the keys, Dad, an' get in."

His father never drove again.

That old man quit tryin',

He just turned away.

An' there were teardrops on his face.

Tell me, how would you feel?

You'd probably give up too,

If nobody believed in you.

We take His name out of the schools.

The lawyers say it breaks the rules.

Pledge of allegiance can't be read,

An' under God, should not be said.

I wonder how much He will take.

I just pray it's not too late.

What if God quit tryin',

He just turned away?

There were teardrops on his face?

Tell me, how would you feel?

You'd probably give up too,

If nobody believed in you.

Tell me, how would you feel?

You'd probably give up too,

If nobody believed in you.

[Dr T]

Thank you for that one ALmom! I want to listen to that song now. I'll look it up. :)

[pushka]

I'm with Sgallan on this one. I think the kinds of governments that the USA and United Kingdom have are fine, they allow religious freedom...within the boundaries of the Law of the country.

Any country in which the Church has a full say about the Law is a frightening place to envision, as Scott pointed out, for minority Religions and for Atheists.

[Outshined]

Pres Hinckley is exactly dead on in this. If the homes are secure and correct principles are being taught (honesty, love, etc.) then we don't need a theocracy, which seems to be sgallan's fear, because people will choose what is right anyway. Where the problem comes in is that the family is under assault today, and the gov't has chosen to be everyone's nanny, which is causing all the problems IMHO.

The gov't should stay out of religion, but shouldn't be prohibiting the free exercise of it. The crud about infringing on some poor Muslim's rights, or atheist rights, by showing a creche or other scene on the public square during Christmas is a crock of crap. What do they think the season is about?! It isn't an endorsement of Christianity, simply an acknowledgement of a holiday. But the lawyers, in the best Zeezrom and Nehor tradition, have made it a religious issue, with the evil Christians trying to force their religion down other's throats...

Common sense has left the building...

I agree.

[Traveler]

The meaning of a democracy is the rule by the will of the majority. We cannot call the USA, Canada, UK or any other country a democracy if the minority rule. Now I realize that there have been times in history when the majority rule has been oppressive. And their has been times when the minority has been beneficial in rule but such cases have always been the exception that has never lasted beyond a generation.

If one believes in democracy then in a country that has a majority of Catholic - the power will be in the hands of the Catholic members (not the Catholic leadership) unless those Catholics give their power to their church leaders - in which if they did there would no longer be a democracy.

If the majority of Americans believe in G-d and hope for his protection but a minority, that do not believe in G-d remove G-d and his protection from that country, then two things have happened:

1. We cannot say that the country is a democracy.

2. We can conclude that the majority had denied the protection of G-d.

After 9/11 it was interesting to me how many wanted to pray for the protection of G-d, especially those that would not make a big deal of it before 9/11. I remember when I was in the army all the guys that made fun of my prayers. I remember those guys that would come to my table and say and do things while I gave thanks. I remember too that first time we were sent into combat how many of those same guys came in tears to pray with me. My point in this little story is that what rules a person when there is no danger is what sustains them through the time of greatest danger. The same is true of a country. If we do not care for G-d when there is no need how can we know what is his help when there is need? If we do not plan in times of peace to protect ourselves in times of war we will have no means of protection when the time of war is suddenly upon us.

My understanding of the last days is that few will prepare with G-d in mind and then blame him for not helping when the need comes. Most of those that do not believe in G-d blame him for their failures when there are needs.

I remember taking a gun to school. I even had a high power rifle by my desk at a number of classes. No one even asked why I had a gun. No one lived in fear. Today our society has changed - We fear guns and prayer in schools. I believe there is a connection. And I think our fears will continue to increase as our prayers continue to decrease. We have made heroes of those leaders that have taught us to forget G-d and remember to fear. There is a connection in forgetting G-d and creating fear - and when a person realizes the fear they bring to others in forgetting G-d they can no longer live with the fears that over take them.

There was a day when air ports did not need security. There was a time the armed guards did not have to protect schools. There are places that are safe - but there are fewer safe places in Western civilization. The sad thing is that we cannot ever go back. The question now is - where are we going?

The Traveler

[JcDean78]

The USA is a Republic and NOT a Democracy. There is a huge difference and the founding fathers warned us of the dangers of Democracy. FDR in his quest to be Emporer, started calling the USA a Democracy as much as he could, and the term sticked. Since most people did not know the difference, he got away with it.

[Traveler]

The USA is a Republic and NOT a Democracy. There is a huge difference and the founding fathers warned us of the dangers of Democracy. FDR in his quest to be Emporer, started calling the USA a Democracy as much as he could, and the term sticked. Since most people did not know the difference, he got away with it.

I am glad you are convinced this is a republic. Who is representing you?

The current attitude of elected officials are to get elected and exert power not represent - the reason we have biparticanism. I assime that you believe our politicians will keep campaign promisses? And that is assuming that there is no corruption during the election - which I know for a fact is not true - which is why I am no longer a Republican.

The Traveler

[JcDean78]

<div class='quotemain'>

The USA is a Republic and NOT a Democracy. There is a huge difference and the founding fathers warned us of the dangers of Democracy. FDR in his quest to be Emporer, started calling the USA a Democracy as much as he could, and the term sticked. Since most people did not know the difference, he got away with it.

I am glad you are convinced this is a republic. Who is representing you?

The current attitude of elected officials are to get elected and exert power not represent - the reason we have biparticanism. I assime that you believe our politicians will keep campaign promisses? And that is assuming that there is no corruption during the election - which I know for a fact is not true - which is why I am no longer a Republican.

The Traveler

Thats the catch, in a Republic the people elected do not have to do the will of the people. Our power stops at the voting booth. If I get elected and promise to cut taxes by 30%, once I get in office I can refuse to do it or even raise taxes. As a citizen my only power is through my vote. However those elected are held accountable when they go up for re-election and are also held accountable to our laws.

In a Democracy, public opinion would matter and the elected officicals would be held to public opinion. Even though most of the public is ill informed and get too much of their information from a liberal and biased media. Our founding fathers also warned that once the rule of law (our republic) is tampled by the rule of mod (democracy), it is only a matter of time until the public realises that they can vote themselves money from others, just robbing hard working people at the point of a gun via the government.

With the outgoing Republic that we should be and the new reign of a Democracy coming, you can already see how little the rule of law means to people and how elected officials take money from one group to give to another to secure their votes.

If you believe the republicans are the party of coruption then the liberal media really has gotten to you. take a look at one of our own at Harry Reid, the man has many shady deals. Clinton? Take your pick of Bill or Hitlary. William Jefferson? Sandy Burger? John (Traitor) Murtha? Ted Kennedy? And the list goes on and on and on and on. All of the above have done serious crimes and not done a single day of jail for it.

While if a republican so much as sneezes, the liberal media and those listed above rush to have them locked up and throw away the key. Poor Libby did not do a thing wrong and he was prosecuted and even convicted! My gosh! Sure there are some creeps but they are few and far between and as I said, if a Republican does ANYTHING at all real or imagined, it will be front page news for the next year... but if it is a democrate then the story gets burried on page G7 in small font and will be glossed over and then never heard about again.

I fear for our Republic.

[a-train]

There is only one issue with the notion of a priviliged minorty removing God from this country: It can't happen. Not even a majority can do so. Only God can remove Himself.

In Waxahachie, Texas there is a famous courthouse. It has served Ellis County for 110 years. As one walks around it, noticable is a beautiful angelic face in the center of one of the capitals over one of the many granite columns of the structure. The face is continued on each capital as you circumscribe the building. With each repetition the face grows uglier and uglier until grotesque demon-like gargoyles glare at the onlookers.

Legends surround those faces. A story of a love gone bad during the construction of the building has oft been told. The young man who carved the faces lost his love in eventual bitter animosity over this period and the face of his once beloved took on such abhorring appearance in his eyes as her heart grew colder towards him and his toward her.

Now imagine if I said to the citizens of Ellis county that the story is all a big lie and part of a great hoax. Do you think that if I had the proof they would change those faces? Do you have any idea how stubborn a Texan is? If they have anything to do with it, those demons will glare another 110 years.

Now, these faces do not preach any particular religion. They are not any symbol of any union of Church and State, but they are an image of history and are analogous to those things found in museums and galleries. And although superstition and legend can be connected therewith, this is not done by any imposition of the state.

Even so, the tables of stone baring the Decalogue have artistically and dramatically symbolized the spirit of justice and law throughout the ages for men of all types of faith and understanding. Efforts to remove such artistic expression and symbolism from a public courthouse are akin to those to take down the angels and gargoyles in Waxahachie. The process is meaningless and is only symbolic of the inability of the onlookers to make their own suppositions and interpretations of the images. I don't feel Waxahachie government has forced me to believe in gargoyles, angels, or even a story about a love gone bad.

But as for those who believe the story, taking those symbols down will not take down their belief. Nor would it make or break any reality of any existance of angels or gargoyles.

Therefore also, let us not think that the taking down of the Decalogue from a courthouse would signify any rejection of God on our part, but it only shows the fear and uncertainty on the part of the few disbelievers who cannot bare the evil glare of the ten commandments.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't care whether a courthouse has passages from the Koran, Bible, or any other world religious text on it, if the purpose is to highlight principles of justice or law.

Now if a courthouse has Koranic writ emblazoned on it's facade, and it grants special legal concessions to Muslims as a result...that is a violation of the wall of separation between church and state that Jefferson described so long ago.

Those who get hysterical over some perceived evil union of government and a particular religious persuasion need a good hard slap in the face; a kick in the pants; and a dose of maturity.

I can provide the first two with pleasure. B)

[Dr T]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1525–35; < MF démocratie < LL démocratia < Gk démokratía popular government, equiv. to démo- demo- + -kratia -cracy]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk'rə-sē) Pronunciation Key

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

A political or social unit that has such a government.

The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

Majority rule.

The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

[French démocratie, from Late Latin dēmocratia, from Greek dēmokratiā : dēmos, people; see dā- in Indo-European roots + -kratiā, -cracy.]

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[JcDean78]

That definition of democracy is a new definition with some parts added to sound more like a Republic.