Supreme Court ruling


Str8Shooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest LiterateParakeet

Yes, Brittain ended slavery before the United States, but practiced it for many hundreds of years whereas the USA practiced less than one hundred years and while slavery ended after the war between the states, emancipation was not the primary reason the North invaded the South. I would note that Brittain does not have nor have they ever had a black Prime Minister, while the USA has a black President.

 

The idea that God was "showing his displeasure" with a horrific war is offensive on so many levels.

 

England is also hundreds of years older than the US.  

As far as your last line have you studied the Old Testament lately?  I thought it was pretty horrific when God asked King Saul to kill every man, woman and child of a people he was conquering.  Remember that one?  Saul got into trouble because he saved some livestock to sacrifice and was told he needed to be 100% obedient.  Is that offensive to you too?  

 

What about the implication that the fall of the entire Nephite population in the end of the Book of Mormon? Offensive?

 

I was raised on stories of God using war.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes England in older....so what? The USA ended slavery  as a nation in less than one hundred years and elected a black President in 232 years. It took England in it's storied history many hundreds of years to do that and they still have not elected a black Prime Minister.

 

You are free to believe that it is God and not man that causes war if you like.....

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Yes Englans in older....so what? The USA ended slavery i as a nation in less than one hundred years and elected a black President in 232 years. It took England in it's storied history many hundreds of years to do that and they still have not elected a black Prime Minister.

 

You are free to believe that it is God and not man that causes war if you like.....

 

About King Saul and the Nephites?  Instead of repeating what you said before why not answer my question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About King Saul and the Nephites?  Instead of repeating what you said before why not answer my question. 

 

So, God asked Abraham Lincoln to invade the South...is that your claim? Again, you are free to believe that God causes war and not man....

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

So, God asked Abraham Lincoln to invade the South...is that your claim? Again, you are free to believe that God causes war and not man....

 

No I didn't say that at all.  Tell me what caused the destruction of the Nephite nation?  What were you taught in Sunday School?  I was taught that it was their wickedness, and yes that is what I am saying about the Civil War, that it was brought about by wickedness, that likely could have been avoided if the US, like England and Mexico, had ended slavery without it.  

 

You are free to avoid the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I didn't say that at all.  Tell me what caused the destruction of the Nephite nation?  What were you taught in Sunday School?  I was taught that it was their wickedness, and yes that is what I am saying about the Civil War, that it was brought about by wickedness, that likely could have been avoided if the US, like England and Mexico, had ended slavery without it.  

 

You are free to avoid the point. 

 

No...you said, it was God showing his displeasure. A wicked people cause war...not God. Perhaps, you want to rephrase your original comment or remove it. You are now stating the facts....that wickedness is the cause of war...not God.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

The point I intended all along is what I just said...whether I didn't state it clearly enough, or you just choose to misunderstand me--that is and always has been my point.  When 9/11 happened people (LDS people) said that God allowed it because of the wickedness.  Peoples wickeness/God's wrath...they are related. That is what I meant.  

 

  So does this mean you agree with me?  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome back plural marriage...


 


“As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God doesn't use war as a chastening device?

 

How 'bout D&C 87? I would call your attention especially to verses 6 and 7:

 

 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;

 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

Also the Prime Minister of England has to be a member of the Church of England. England does not have nearly as big a population of people of African descent as the US does, and the Church of England is mostly made up of caucasians. So the fact that they have not had a black Prime Minister has little if anything to do with the affect that slavery has had on their national socio/economic status, and much more to do with medieval traditions. I would point out that they have had a female Prime Minister, which seems to me to be a much bigger accomplishment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How bitterly ironic that the symbol of the covenant of God's love and mercy toward his people is used to celebrate the legitimization of perversion.

 

Oh I don't think it's ironic at all. I think that Satan orchestrated that deliberately, and is having a good laugh about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh this is just the beginning...

 

Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God doesn't use war as a chastening device?

 

How 'bout D&C 87? I would call your attention especially to verses 6 and 7:

 

 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;

 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

Also the Prime Minister of England has to be a member of the Church of England. England does not have nearly as big a population of people of African descent as the US does, and the Church of England is mostly made up of caucasians. So the fact that they have not had a black Prime Minister has little if anything to do with the affect that slavery has had on their national socio/economic status, and much more to do with medieval traditions. I would point out that they have had a female Prime Minister, which seems to me to be a much bigger accomplishment. 

 

 

Sorry...I don't wish to hijack the thread. So, I will just say...no. War is contrary to the will of God and is a result of man's wickedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused about this.  (I didn't read his whole statement, just the two paragraphs that some article quoted.)

 

I think that he is saying that rights and dignity are inalienable, which I want to agree with, and yet he mentioned slavery.  If you are a black man who is a slave, and you are not able to prevent your own children from being sold or your wife raped...and the law allows this, then where is the dignity, the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect, in that?  How could he respect himself, or ask anyone else to respect him.  The law said they didn't have to.  So it seems that the government can take away dignity.  

 

What am I missing?

 

There is being treated with dignity, and then there is having dignity.  Being enslaved is undignified, but being treated in an undignified manner in no way removes a person's dignity.

 

Dignity is an inalienable right.  I can help you feel dignified, but I cannot give you dignity, and vise versa.  A person can be in the most undignified situation (living in squalor, being beaten, virtue lost, enslaved, etc) but still be dignified. A good example is Joseph Smith.  He never lost his dignity by the actions of others.  

 

The word dignity comes from the Latin word "dignus" which means "worthy".  The only way someone can lose their worthiness is by their own actions.  No law will ever help people feel dignity.  It must come from within.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If legal action gets pushed beyond the current Supreme Court ruling we will begin to lose our religious liberty in this country.

A few people just can't live and let live. I am now waiting for the discrimination lawsuits that will eventually come. Already people are being sued for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes and take pictures at homosexual weddings. How long before radicals sue for not being allowed entry into an organization or other invented rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if or why He has not been upset with America for a very long time.  Since Judge Thomas mentioned slavery in his opinion, I think it relates here.  I learned recently that England and Mexico both abandoned the practice of slavery before the United States did, and it didn't take them a war to do it.  But then perhaps, the Civil War is my answer....God showing His displeasure...as I note that His covenant people were removed to Utah and therefore spared the most of the horror of the war.  

 

I feel that England and Mexico were more civil/righteous than the US at that time, and the US did drive the early church out of the country which brought about condemnations.  Maybe that's why there was no war when they abolished slavery.  England abolished slavery via elected officials.  I don't know about Mexico.

I also don't know how much money was involved in England or Mexico, but in the US it was huge.  I am starting to think that money had more to do with the Civil War than slavery or state's rights.  The value of the slaves in 1861 adjusted to 2015 dollars is around $88 BILLION.

 

That's a lot of cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If legal action gets pushed beyond the current Supreme Court ruling we will begin to lose our religious liberty in this country.

A few people just can't live and let live. I am now waiting for the discrimination lawsuits that will eventually come. Already people are being sued for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes and take pictures at homosexual weddings. How long before radicals sue for not being allowed entry into an organization or other invented rights?

 

I wouldn't be too worried about the gay wedding cake thing.  I don't think it will hold up in appeals because there are conflicts of interest on SO many levels it's crazy.  If it's upheld.....I'm moving to a secret undisclosed location far away from the Left Coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused about this.  (I didn't read his whole statement, just the two paragraphs that some article quoted.)

 

I think that he is saying that rights and dignity are inalienable, which I want to agree with, and yet he mentioned slavery.  If you are a black man who is a slave, and you are not able to prevent your own children from being sold or your wife raped...and the law allows this, then where is the dignity, the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect, in that?  How could he respect himself, or ask anyone else to respect him.  The law said they didn't have to.  So it seems that the government can take away dignity.  

 

What am I missing?

 

Well, first off, Thomas takes a lot of ink to argue that gay marriage bans are not actually infringement on liberty per se.  He then suggests that even the majority knows darned well that this isn't about classical "liberty"--hence, their preoccupation with "dignity" instead.  Thomas cites, especially, pages 3, 13, 26, and 28 of Kennedy's majority opinion, which each suggest that marriage confers dignity on a couple (whether gay or straight).

 

From there--we're into Section IV of the dissent now--Thomas rejects this notion of government granting dignity to anyone.  Dignity, in Thomas' view, is something innate and immutable; conferred by God Himself (a proposition for which he cites the Declaration of Independence).  Thomas is basically saying "Buck up, gay people!  You were human beings before this decision, just as much as you are human beings after it  Quit looking to government to provide you with your sense of individual worth!"  (And I think he's also giving conservatives the same message--that they have dignity that cannot be taken away, no matter how obnoxiously our Dear Leader and the Libertine Mafia may be spiking the football at present.)  Moreover, neither dignity, nor (I'm extrapolating now) respect, nor warm fuzzies, nor companionship, nor an active and healthy sex life; are benefits that our Constitution requires governments to guarantee, anyways.

 

Now, to come back to your post a little more directly:  Did slaves and internees lose their dignity?  Justice Thomas would actually reply in the negative.  They lost "life", "liberty", and "property", which the Constitution guarantees--and from a philosophy-of-law standpoint, that's what made those people's predicaments so egregious.  They also certainly didn't have the respect of their broader society--but again, it's not government's role to ensure the respectability of each citizen.

 

But their "dignity", Justice Thomas asserts--they kept that throughout.  Think of Joseph Smith, standing in chains and rebuking the guards at the Liberty Jail, and Parley Pratt recalling that he never saw majesty in any European court the way he did that night in Liberty.  That's the sort of thing we're talking about here.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1999, President Gordon B. Hinckley told the members of the Church the following:

"We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues. ... Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution. God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.

I commend those of our membership who have voluntarily joined with other like-minded people to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. ... You are contributing your time and talents in a cause that in some quarters may not be politically correct but which nevertheless lies at the heart of the Lord’s eternal plan for His children, just as those of many other churches are doing. This is a united effort."

- President Gordon B. Hinckley
LDS General Conference, October 1999

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Thanks St8Shooter and JAG, you were both very helpful.

 

St8Shooter, you brought to my mind, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which I read for the first time last year.  Such a beautiful story of faith and yes, now that you mention it, dignity.  (BTW, I hear the movie is very different than the book...as in completely different ending...so I'm not talking about that.)

 

JAG, thanks so much for taking the time to explain that.  I was talking to my 18 yr old son and he told me that to understand it I should really read the whole opinion.  (I'm so proud I raised him to be a critical thinker, even if he is out shining me, LOL!)  Your explanation really brought that home and cleared up my confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks St8Shooter and JAG, you were both very helpful.

 

St8Shooter, you brought to my mind, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which I read for the first time last year.  Such a beautiful story of faith and yes, now that you mention it, dignity.

 

Thanks!

 

Dignity is one of those things that I love because it's a gift from God to us.  It's like a birthday present with a force field that keeps jealous younger siblings from taking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share