Liberals in the Church


JojoBag
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think its because we all have what we expect God/Church to do and say.  However there comes times when what we expect and what we get don't match up.  That can cause all kinds of stress, because then we have to make a choice on which is correct.

 

Our expectation is a result of our entire lifetime of learning and understanding, and therefore can be very hard to even think that is wrong much less change.  However if our expectation is right then what we got was wrong.  That means we are on the wrong path and need to adjust.

 

Either way it can be a profound adjustment to make.  The way through is prayer, scripture study, faith etc. But trying to tell someone that can provoke a reaction of "that is how I got here".  After faithfulness does not preclude having challenges come forth to test you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if in some cases faith in the church, no matter how good, comes 2nd to social views. Someone is for all intents and purposes a great Mormon but discovers social views matter more and s choice must be made.

 

It could also be that people expect God to share their social views.  After all no one really thinks their views are wrong. And if God shares their views but the church does not....  Well the conclusion is straight forward in that case

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The liberal of one year may be the conservative of the next... The question is not who is a liberal but one of what is being "liberated"? ... And i agree that what is often saught to be free from in these days is usually ends up being some path that puts god last if at all instead.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Well that sounds about like the description of the war in heaven. Both sides saw a problem and wanted to resolve it, they just differed in how.

 

How matters!

 

That is true, but doesn't apply to every case.  For example, we disagree here all the time about various issues...another case of two people (or two parties) looking at the same issue differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really free.  Someone is paying for it. 

 

Well of course someone is paying for it - government is supported by taxes. Taxes provide us with necessary services. I count health care as a necessary service - and I don't mind paying taxes to ensure that all citizens can access the care they need if they can't afford health insurance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I disagree. I have a niece who us in favor of gay marriage and is very near to losing her testimony completely over how the church treats the subject.

 

I'm very sorry about your niece.  

 

But with all due respect, you missed my point which was that not ALL "Liberal" views are incompatible with the Gospel.  I support compassion in illegal immigration (as do The Brethren), and I believe Black Lives Matter,  I also support everyone having access to medical care....these are all considered Liberal views and yet they do not effect my status as a "good Latter-Day Saint".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I believe Black Lives Matter....these are all considered Liberal views

 

Do you seriously think that believing that "black lives matter" qualifies as a "liberal view"? This is an absolutely astounding proclamation, and I want to make sure I understand what you're saying before attributing such an idea to  you.

 

(This is separate from discussion of "Black Lives Matter", a divisive group, arguably a hate group with quasi-terroristic leanings, which is most definitely a "liberal" organization. If you are saying you support that group, then I definitely grant your "liberal" nomenclature, but I would dispute the contention that it is appropriate or defensible for a Latter-day Saint to offer support to such an openly divisive, hateful, antagonistic group.)

 
As to your other points: I grant that your support of socialized medical insurance is a stereotypically "liberal" view which can reasonably be held by practicing Saints. I do not know what your particular views on immigration are; the desire to treat illegal but otherwise law-abiding Hispanic immigrants with dignity and compassion is hardly confined to the political left. If you are more "liberal" than that, the desire to all but destroy any defensible border is definitely "liberal" -- but not easily compatible with gospel teachings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I mean caring about Black Lives/issues seems to be important to my friends who identify as Democrat, and the issue is largely ignored or downplayed by my friends who identify as Conservative.  So it appears to be a "Liberal" view.  

 

I don't agree with everything the Black Lives Matter group does, but I don't think they are "a divisive group, arguably a hate group with quasi-terroristic leanings".  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. As long as everyone fully understands that the health care is not "free", any more than the public roads are "free", then I think I have no principled objection to publicly-funded health care. But it is in no good sense a right or (as the US government likes to name things) an entitlement.

 

EDIT: Let me add a clarification to this. Public roads are a legitimate concern of government. I am not at all convinced that health care is a legitimate government concern. But if the people want the government to regulate health care and, specifically, want the government to collect taxes which are then spent for health care, I may not have a principled objection. But no one should confuse this with a "right" to health care insurance. There exists no such right, either in the US or anyplace else in the world. That is not what the word "right" means.

 

I didn't say that health care was free, I said I didn't see a problem with it being 'free'. Of course public health care is being paid for through taxes - in my case it's around 2% of my gross income each year, paid during the tax season. My husband used far more than that contribution during several hospitalizations and surgeries just in the past two years. The system isn't perfect, but it works quite well considering the demand placed on it.

 

What do you think the word "right" means in the sense of access to vital services? For me it means having an inalienable right to the basic necessities of life. Health care to me is as basic a right as food and shelter - quality of life depends on having access to it.

 

There exists no such right, either in the US or anyplace else in the world.

 

While countries such as the US are not legally bound by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, doesn't the fact that the US is a signatory to various international agreements imply a right to healthcare, especially for vulnerable members of society such as the disabled, expectant mothers and children?  (Convention of the Child, Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, etc). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how one can separate their religious views from their political views.  The former should guide one's thinking on the latter.

 

How do you figure? ALL of us who vote have limited choices in who we want to run the country - sometimes the party we elect is the 'lesser of two evils'. A party can have great economic policies but support the legalization of late-term abortion on demand, or any number of combinations that may be conflicting with one's fundamental religious views.

 

Even worse would be to vote for a bumbling fool as leader of the country, just because he goes to church on Sundays and appears to have 'wholesome values'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true, but doesn't apply to every case. For example, we disagree here all the time about various issues...another case of two people (or two parties) looking at the same issue differently.

Well that's just because you're wrong a lot.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I mean caring about Black Lives/issues seems to be important to my friends who identify as Democrat, and the issue is largely ignored or downplayed by my friends who identify as Conservative.  So it appears to be a "Liberal" view.

 
So then you do, in fact, think that "liberals" care more about black people and their lives than "conservatives".
 
Unbelievable. I do not even know how to respond to such unmitigated bias.
 

I don't agree with everything the Black Lives Matter group does, but I don't think they are "a divisive group, arguably a hate group with quasi-terroristic leanings".  

 

Given your proclivities as you state above, I am not surprised.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean caring about Black Lives/issues seems to be important to my friends who identify as Democrat, and the issue is largely ignored or downplayed by my friends who identify as Conservative.  So it appears to be a "Liberal" view.  

 

I don't agree with everything the Black Lives Matter group does, but I don't think they are "a divisive group, arguably a hate group with quasi-terroristic leanings".  

 

This is flat out wrong.  Your friends may have downplayed it, but it surely is not downplayed by Conservatives... nor Liberals for that matter.

 

Going back to Romney's campaign (because we can't talk about this election cycle's campaign) - it is very apparent that when he talks about uplifting Americans - he doesn't single out just the Black folks.  He means EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN including blacks.  But, unfortunately, when he says this, the Sharpton types only hear White folks.  They refuse to acknowledge that to stop racism one has to stop making racial lines.

 

That same thought applies here.  Who you call "Liberals" (it is actually not a majority in the Democrats who ally with Black Lives Matter just like it is not a majority of Democrats who ally with the LGBT - they're just the ones that get the most media attention) who believe conservatives (or Republicans) down play Black Lives Matter simply refuse to acknowledge that when conservatives say ALL lives matter, Blacks are included in that.  They prefer to keep racial tensions going by marking racial lines with extra strength Sharpie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Vort, you don't have to believe it but I've seen it enough here and on Facebook. I say black lives matter and there's always a conservative that will chime in "all lives matter".

It's the Conservatives that call Liberals "bleeding hearts". Over this and other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think the word "right" means in the sense of access to vital services?

 

"Right" means nothing in the sense of access to vital services.

 

Look at the second paragraph of 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

Rights are liberties granted by God (or, if you prefer, natural, as opposed to something granted by the fiat of a king). The duty of any government is to protect such natural rights. So, for example:

  • You have a right to speak your mind, politically. The duty of the government is to insure that you can exercise that right, and that your neighbor doesn't shut you up because he doesn't like your politics.
  • You have a right to religious expression. The government's duty is to protect your right to believe and worship as you choose, without the interference of others.
  • You have the right to own property. Your property may not be seized by others without due process that establishes that you do not actually own the property, or that you have forfeited that ownership for some legitimate reason.
Note that you have the right to own property, but you do not have the right to property. This is a crucial distinction. If you had some natural, God-give "right" to property, then clearly the government's duty would be to secure you some property. This difference is often ignored today, even (especially) by law-makers who should know better.
 
You have the right to obtain health care, just as you have the right to obtain food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities and luxuries of life. However, you have no natural right to be given these things. It is not the government's duty to procure you some health care, any more than it's the government's duty to feed you.
 

Health care to me is as basic a right as food and shelter - quality of life depends on having access to it.

 

Quality of life also depends on having friends. Do you suppose this means that the government is required to make friends for you?

 

"Freedom" means that we get to choose our own path. "Freedom" does not mean that we somehow get to choose the consequences of our free choices, or that the government exists to take care of us. That is what children need, not adults. The government exists to protect our rights, not to take other people's goods and give them to us.

 

While countries such as the US are not legally bound by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, doesn't the fact that the US is a signatory to various international agreements imply a right to healthcare, especially for vulnerable members of society such as the disabled, expectant mothers and children?  (Convention of the Child, Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, etc). 

 

No, it does not. There is no such "right".

 

Publicly funded health care may, or may not, be chosen by a society as a desirable thing. It may, or may not, work well. But it is in no way a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

This is flat out wrong. Your friends may have downplayed it, but it surely is not downplayed by Conservatives... nor Liberals for that matter.

Going back to Romney's campaign (because we can't talk about this election cycle's campaign) - it is very apparent that when he talks about uplifting Americans - he doesn't single out just the Black folks. He means EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN including blacks. But, unfortunately, when he says this, the Sharpton types only hear White folks. They refuse to acknowledge that to stop racism one has to stop making racial lines.

That same thought applies here. Who you call "Liberals" (it is actually not a majority in the Democrats who ally with Black Lives Matter just like it is not a majority of Democrats who ally with the LGBT - they're just the ones that get the most media attention) who believe conservatives (or Republicans) down play Black Lives Matter simply refuse to acknowledge that when conservatives say ALL lives matter, Blacks are included in that. They prefer to keep racial tensions going by marking racial lines with extra strength Sharpie.

I disagree. All lives matter is not the same as black lives matter. Black lives matter is about police brutality for the most part. Every time there is an issue, I can predict easily what side of the issue people will be if I know their political personality. It's happened many times.

Your comment about people keeping racial tension up intentionally is exactly the kind of difference I'm talking about.

Again the issue isn't really about seeing the problem, it the ideas about how to solve the problem that are different.

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. All lives matter is not the same as black lives matter. Black lives matter is about police brutality for the most part. Every time there is an issue, I can predict easily what side of the issue people will be if I know their political personality. It's happened many times.

Your comment about people keeping racial tension up intentionally is exactly the kind of difference I'm talking about.

Again the issue isn't really about seeing the problem, it the ideas about how to solve the problem that are different.

 

Here you go... You're welcome.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think the word "right" means in the sense of access to vital services? For me it means having an inalienable right to the basic necessities of life. Health care to me is as basic a right as food and shelter - quality of life depends on having access to it.

 

I'm curious where this "inalienable right" came from, lagarthaaz?

 

Did it come from God?

And if it didn't, can you explain how it can be "inalienable"?

I mean if we acquired that right from men then it certainly can't be described as inalienable, can it? What men have the right to bestow, they also have the right to take away.

 

The fact of the matter is, there is NO SUCH THING as an inalienable right to the basic necessities of life. Otherwise you must argue that you have the RIGHT to force someone to supply you with whatever it is you believe you're entitled to; that you have the RIGHT to forcibly conscript someone to do your bidding.

 

How any member of the Church can believe that they have a God-given right to the capitol or labor of another person is beyond me. :huh:  

Edited by Capitalist_Oinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Here you go... You're welcome.

So are you telling me you are a Malcolm X fan?

You seem to think that solves the question but you missed the point. You think Sharpton and people like him are artificially stirring up racial tension (which I believe is a theory commonly held by Conservatives) and I believe the racial problems in this country are real not created (which appears to me to be a Liberal POV).

AND here's the point-either belief does not make us less of a Latter-Day Saint. JojoBag doesn't think Liberal ideas and adherence to the gospel are not compatible. I say it depends on the ideas.

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