Liberals in the Church


JojoBag
 Share

Recommended Posts

lagarthaaz, I appreciate your honest and open responses. I am going to try to respond to what you have written in the same spirit. But I am not sure when I will be able to do so.

I'm in the same boat - I appreciate the time it takes to write a response and will also get back here tomorrow when I have some time to read and respond properly to what you have written.

Edited by lagarthaaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN Declaration describes human rights as 'inalienable' - whether men can take those rights away or not is hardly the point. What matters is that the ideal is at least promoted and that nations, in principle, agree that people's rights should be protected.

 

What????? Whether men can take those rights away or not is PRECISELY the point!!

If men can take them away then they are NOT inalienable, are they??

Houston, we have a problem: The words of the Declaration of Independence are not always the words we'd use today. Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his own language: that of a well educated (but largely unschooled) man of the XVIII. The word 'inalienable" to him meant something different from what either of you has stated. It meant "cannot be given away." We have rights that are as much a part of us as the heart or toe nails. They are, we must note as well, not "free": each comes with a responsibility (or many of them).

We have the right to defend ourselves, for instance, because we have an obligation to defend our families and ourselves. We have the right to think or believe as we choose because we have a responsibility to make of ourselves something better than a slave. We have the right to be safe in our homes because we have a duty to raise children who are good, upstanding people. (None of the duties listed here is exhaustive: there are others associated with each.)

When we abrogate our duties, we forfeit our rights. Thus, the Constitution is a document for a government of a righteous (not necessarily a religious, but almost always so) people. When people neglect the responsibility to be charitable, the government must impose welfare (we ignore, for this discussion, that the government makes it harder to be charitable). When we fail to educate our children as God has required, the government steps in to do it "for" us (with the same caveat).

We forfeit them, they are not taken from us, nor do we specifically give them away. If we want rights, true rights, we must attend to the obligations that go with them. And, we must defend our right to perform them, not for the right itself, but for the duty.

That said, when people insist that government abridge their rights, they don't want it to be only their rights: they want the government to infringe on yours and mine, as well. That is a problem

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intermission:  unalienable. :popcorn:

Yes, that was Jefferson's word. It is/was very close to an exact synonym for "inalienable":

Unalienable

UNA'LIENABLE, adjective Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights

Inalienable

INA'LIENABLE, adjective [Latin alieno, alienus.]

Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable The estate of a minor is inalienable without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

Both from Webster's 1828 dictionary.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word 'inalienable" to him meant something different from what either of you has stated. It meant "cannot be given away."

 

I'm fully aware of the "cannot be given away" argument, but I it's only HALF an argument.

Jefferson not only understood the terms "unalienable” and inalienable" to mean the same thing, but more importantly he understood that both terms also meant "cannot be TAKEN away". To suggest that he believed both terms meant ONLY that you cannot voluntarily "give your rights” away", is to suggest that he believed there was no prohibition on someone TAKING them away. 

 

When we abrogate our duties, we forfeit our rights.

 

Only to one extent.

NATURAL rights can only be (morally) forfeited when we abrogate our duty to refrain from acting in a way that infringes on someone else's rights. That refrain is the ONLY duty we have. I may have a moral obligation to be charitable, but I have NO legal obligation, and government cannot (morally) require it of me. 

 

When people neglect the responsibility to be charitable, the government must impose welfare...

 

It "must"???

A charitable citizenry or not, the government has NO RIGHT to legislate charity because you and I (and all of us put together) have no such right either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, government is incapable of doing anything without taking something from someone, and taking it by (the threat of) force. The force is potentially lethal. All laws are based on lethal force and will be enforced by potential lethality. Government has perverse incentives. Government cannot make good decisions because it cannot understand all the parameters and cannot turn on a dime when that's the necessary action.

Lehi

 

This is called socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty Liberal in many of my views, and I'm a faithful Latter-Day Saint. If that worries you then pray for me, LOL.

It depends on your definition of "liberal".

If you accept that it's okeh for government to confiscate one person's property and give it to someone else without compensation, that is just theft. Supporting theft is "liberal" (in the modern sense) and is not compatible with Gospel teachings.

If you accept that it's okeh for a woman to get, or for a man to force her to get, an abortion, then that's liberal (in the modern sense), and is not compatible with Gospel teachings.

If you accept that people should be able to be as stupid as they like without harming others, that is liberal, and in accordance with Gospel teachings.

For each "liberal" (in the modern sense) position, one must ask, does it support the concept of agency? If it does (keeping in mind that no one has the right to harm another, except a consenting adult), then it is in accordance with Gospel principles. No one, whether Satan wanted to force people to live the Law or just remove the Law altogether, can claim to be "liberal" (in the modern sense) if he supports Satan's plan.

When someone makes a poor choice, he, and he alone should pay the price for it. Forcing others to pay is inimical to fundamental Gospel principles. And government is based on force.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

It depends on your definition of "liberal".

 

 

You could have saved yourself a lot of preaching typing, IF you had simply asked me what I meant.  I already mentioned above that I don't believe in abortion.

 

Let me tell you what I mean by Liberal.  Not a single Republican candidate supports allowing Syrian refugees into our country.  I'm appauled by that.  And as a result I will NOT be voting for a Republican in the next presidential election.  Perhaps I won't vote for a Democrat either, we'll see.  Maybe I'll vote third party, it wouldn't be the first time.  Our church leaders have taken a stance on helping Syrian refugees, as evidenced by the letter sent to be read by Bishops, and the $5 million (? I think that's the correct amount) they donated.

 

I'm compassionate on illegal immigration.  The church leaders have also suggested compassion in these issues.

 

I think that Eric Gardner was senselessly murdered.  Akai Gurley, John Crawford and Tamir Rice....were also unjustily killed.  Except for Eric Gardner do you know who any of these people were?

 

I voted to legalize marijuana.  It's not that I think marijuana is a good idea, but I think people who use drugs need rehab not jail...same as alcohol.

 

And so forth . . . it is these sorts of things that I am referring to when I say I have Liberal views and am still a good Latter-Day Saint.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Comments copied and pasted below...

 

Vort, I appreciate your articulate response to my limited understanding of the concept of "rights" as its been discussed in this thread. After reading your comments I did some reading on the origin of the Declaration of Independence, which took me on a trip through the  the Age of Enlightenment, and the concept of 'natural rights' espoused by Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers. That's all helped me understand what you were trying to explain about the difference between natural rights and government protected rights. I also read up on what other posters said about the 'unalienable/inalienable' rights referred to  as well. 

 

So, bearing all that in mind, when I say that 'healthcare is a basic human right' as outlined by international agreements that a country may be signatory to, I am not referring to 'natural' human rights, but to social rights decided on by citizens that the government is then obligated to protect. Does that make sense or am I still not getting it? 

 

Having lived in a society for most of my life where services like healthcare and education are taken for granted and always referred to as a 'basic human right', my ideas have very much been entrenched in this understanding. Australia, like the USA, is signatory to various international agreements on human rights, and citizens' rights are further protected by federal and state laws. And yet, for a country with cultural sense of entitlement to 'rights', we don't even have the concept enshrined in our Constitution (and we don't have a Bill of Rights).  Rather, rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution.

 

That's where I've been coming from, hopefully it gives some perspective about how we've been viewing the concept of 'rights' in very different contexts.  

 

There is a difference between a government protecting rights, a government defining responsibilities, and a government doing its duties. Rights have to do with allowable actions, exercise of conscience, and human interaction, never about possessions. In no case is health care a human right to be protected, any more than education is a "right" or property is a "right". We have a right to possess such things, but you have no right to demand that I give you such things.

 

Yes, I understand that.

 

A simple and pretty good way to test if something is a "right" is to ask: "Can I reasonably demand my neighbor to supply me with this?" If the answer is "yes", then the thing under consideration might be a right. If the answer is "no", then it is not a right.

 

Examples: In general, can I reasonably demand that my neighbor give me:

  • My exercise of religion, without interference? Yes.
  • An automobile? No.
  • The freedom to speak my mind about politics, even if he doesn't like them? Yes.
  • Health care insurance? No

So exercise of religion and freedom of political speech are true rights; cars and health insurance are not. If the UN doesn't understand that, that just goes to show that we should not take our legislative understanding from the UN.

 

One question here - do you know if the idea of universal 'natural rights' as determined by Enlightenment thinkers and then enshrined in the Declaration of Independence -  are considered to be culturally variable - or, do they only subscribe to a European construct of 'true rights'? [Edited to add - never mind, I just read this site and read that the issue was not clear cut even in the 17th century!) Maybe you can add to this? 

 

A government has a few primary responsibilities. Foremost among those is defending the rights of its citizens.

 

What other things a government takes responsibility for is up to those who establish the government. In the case of US and western democracies, that means it's up to the people, since it is the people who establish the government. But people must then be wise about what they demand of their government, because government is a huge and immensely powerful tool. It is a genie that, once out of the bottle, won't go back. Americans have traditionally understood this, and many Americans have thus argued forcefully for a very limited government. Thus we have the apocryphal quote, supposedly from Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best which governs least."

 

If the people get together and decide they want their government to tax people and use the money to pave roads, then that becomes a duty of that government. But "paved roads" do not magically become a human right. There is no human right to paved roads, any more than there is a human right to automobiles or health care. Similarly, people might decide they want their government to tax everyone and use the proceeds to fund public health care. If they so decide and legislate -- and that is a foolish choice, in my estimation -- then that becomes a duty of the government. But never confuse that with a right. it is no right.

 

A good, righteous government might very well do away with publicly funded health care, publicly funded child support, publicly funded education, publicly funded welfare payments -- heck, even publicly funded roads. But by definition, a good, righteous government can never do away with defending the rights of its citizens.

 

Thanks for the insights!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm equally baffled as to why my POV is considered Liberal....but to my Conservative friends it certainly is.  There are many issues that I am passionate about that I don't consider political in nature, but other people seem to.  I'm also baffled by that.

Same here - I get in trouble from both sides, so maybe we are more libertarian than anything. 

 

One example - I remember at university getting into heated arguments over the topic of abortion (pardon me, I am supposed to say 'termination of pregnancy'). The same people who were in favor of elective abortion would drive around with pro-animal rights stickers on their cars saying "Meat is Murder". Hello - killing a human fetus is ok, but killing a cow isn't?  Having said that, I also agree with the church's compassionate stance on abortion in 'rare cases'. This gets me in trouble with friends who are both pro-choice and anti-abortion... can't win either way <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Same here - I get in trouble from both sides, so maybe we are more libertarian than anything. 

 

One example - I remember at university getting into heated arguments over the topic of abortion (pardon me, I am supposed to say 'termination of pregnancy'). The same people who were in favor of elective abortion would drive around with pro-animal rights stickers on their cars saying "Meat is Murder". Hello - killing a human fetus is ok, but killing a cow isn't?  Having said that, I also agree with the church's compassionate stance on abortion in 'rare cases'. This gets me in trouble with friends who are both pro-choice and anti-abortion... can't win either way <_<

 

Yes, I agree.  I'm in a pickle myself.  I feel the same as you do about abortion, so there's that.  And so many other issues...

 

Perhaps we are Libertarian.  I'll have to learn more about that.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, bearing all that in mind, when I say that 'healthcare is a basic human right' as outlined by international agreements that a country may be signatory to, I am not referring to 'natural' human rights, but to social rights decided on by citizens that the government is then obligated to protect. Does that make sense or am I still not getting it? 

 

Lagarthaaz, I know this wasn't directed toward me, but I hope you won't mind if I make a comment. I know you're not much interested in a conversation, since you think I'm rude, but please hear me out.
 
Considering your statement above, it appears you believe that "citizens" (I assume through some sort of democratic process) have the right to determine what should be considered "rights" for the body of citizens as a whole. Am I reading your thoughts correctly here?
 
Let me explain why I think you're wrong, and why I believe no Latter-day Saint should embrace such doctrine.
I'll explain my reasoning by way of analogy along with a related question for you.
 
As a member of the Church, you know that we claim to have authority from God (Priesthood) to act in His name. Each Priesthood holder received that authority from another man who already possessed the authority beforehand. I can trace my authority through just 10 individuals (counting the Three Witnesses and Peter, James, and John as one each) beginning with the Savior Himself. 
I'm confident you would agree that if a man does NOT hold the Priesthood (authority) himself, he cannot bestow that authority upon another. 
I'm also confident that you would agree that if any two men do not have that authority, neither can they bestow the authority upon another. 
My question is this: Can there ever be a large enough number of men (having no authority themselves) who can then bestow authority? In other words, based upon sheer numbers alone, can they bestow authority they do not possess individually?
Before hearing your answer I'm going to guess that it will be "No". 
And, of course, if that is your answer you are correct. Obviously the number of men is inconsequential. If none of them (no matter how many) have authority, it's impossible to argue that they can bestow that authority they do not possess upon someone else!
 
The same principle applies to societal authority. If I have no authority to take money from one man to give to another, I certainly cannot bestow that authority upon someone else.
If you and I (and ten thousand more like us) have no authority individually to take money from one man to give to another, then how on earth can we transfer that authority to someone else? It is simply impossible to argue that individuals who have no authority to do something, can by virtue of sheer numbers assume authority and subsequently bestow it upon another!
Likewise, government cannot rightly claim the authority to do something that the individuals who make up the government have no authority to do themselves. Nor can a society transfer authority to government when the individuals who make up that society have no authority themselves. It makes reason stare to argue otherwise.
 
God has issued an irrevocable command---"Thou shalt not steal".
Nowhere in scripture or modern-day revelation are there any clairfiers ("unless it's for a good cause"; "unless the majority agree"; "unless it's made legal"). 
If I (by force, stealth, or fraud) take something that doesn't belong to me, with the intention of giving it to someone whom I deem worthier of it, I am no less guilty of stealing than if I had kept it for myself. I have no right to steal, and because I have no right to steal I cannot bestow that right upon someone else, whether inside or outside government.
It makes no difference whether we are talking about health care, welfare, public education, or any of the myriad other services supplied by government which require forcibly taking capitol or labor from one person and bestowing it upon another.
It is unrighteous, immoral, and a violation of God's law.
 
I hope this explanation is sufficient to explain why I feel the way I do about "rights", forced charity, and the other things we discussed.
Edited by Capitalist_Oinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, bearing all that in mind, when I say that 'healthcare is a basic human right' as outlined by international agreements that a country may be signatory to, I am not referring to 'natural' human rights, but to social rights decided on by citizens that the government is then obligated to protect. Does that make sense or am I still not getting it? 

 

[...]

 

That's where I've been coming from, hopefully it gives some perspective about how we've been viewing the concept of 'rights' in very different contexts.

 

Thanks. Yes, it sounds like you understand my position pretty well.

 

At this point, it's tempting to say, "This is just a semantic discussion. One person's 'rights' are another's 'natural rights'. We all understand each other. Hurray! Time to move on." But I'm thinking maybe it's not yet quite time to move on, and here's why:

 

Though we may not all use the term "rights" in the same way, yet we all do tend to think about "rights" in the same way: As an inalienable entitlement, something the government must in all circumstances provide. This works very well for "rights" such as freedom of conscience, religion, speech, and such. But when we demand that housing, food, and health care occupy the same position of prominence, we empower the government a very great deal more than we ought to.

 

We say that the government can seize our property and throw us in jail -- that is, deprive us of our "natural rights" -- if we fail to pay the taxes necessary to fund these social programs. In effect, the government becomes Robin Hood, stealing from the "rich" to give to the "poor". There are two obvious problems with this scenario:

 

1. The legendary Robin Hood "stole" from the rich only in the sense that he took back monies that rightfully belonged to the poor to allow the poor to eat. This is really not what the government is doing.

 

2. Such actions in aggregate disincentivize working. In the US today, we have thousands, perhaps millions, of adults who do not work and do not even search for work, because they are on the "public dole" and so have their needs provided for. This is not how the system is supposed to work (though it is how the system is designed to work), and harms the spiritual development of the individuals even more than it harms the integrity of the society that upholds it. Thus, it is a bad idea from both a practical and a spiritual perspective.

 

If people want to argue that publicly funded health care should be provided, let them make that argument. I might perhaps even agree with it. (Probably not, but maybe; if it works for roads, maybe it should work for health care.) But when they stamp the imprimatur of "rights" on the topic, thus invoking the moral requirement to act in this manner, they lose my confidence and any support I might give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though we may not all use the term "rights" in the same way, yet we all do tend to think about "rights" in the same way: As an inalienable entitlement, something the government must in all circumstances provide. 

 

If we can substitute the word "protect" for the word "provide" then I agree.

If not, then I vehemently disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The legendary Robin Hood "stole" from the rich only in the sense that he took back monies that rightfully belonged to the poor to allow the poor to eat. This is really not what the government is doing.

 

.. much agreed. I can trace almost 10 generations of ancestors to Nottingham so I feel inclined to post - 

 

1c30c7bd96359bdece5cadab595f5a0b.jpg

Edited by Windseeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Yes, I agree.  I'm in a pickle myself.  I feel the same as you do about abortion, so there's that.  And so many other issues...

 

Perhaps we are Libertarian.  I'll have to learn more about that.  Thanks.

  I feel the same way. I'm too conservative for the left and I'm too liberal for the right. So I'm a libertarian. I'm happy there.  

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could have saved yourself a lot of preaching typing, IF you had simply asked me what I meant. I already mentioned above that I don't believe in abortion.

This is a public forum: the discussion "between" two people is not between them alone. We write knowing that others are watching over our shoulders. There are times that I write to the greater audience. This was one of those times.

 

 

Let me tell you what I mean by Liberal. Not a single Republican candidate supports allowing Syrian refugees into our country. I'm appauled by that. And as a result I will NOT be voting for a Republican in the next presidential election. Perhaps I won't vote for a Democrat either, we'll see. Maybe I'll vote third party, it wouldn't be the first time.

One can be compassionate, vigilante and wary at the same time.

 

I'm compassionate on illegal immigration. The church leaders have also suggested compassion in these issues.

One can be compassionate, vigilante and wary at the same time.

 

I think that Eric Gardner was senselessly murdered.

As do I. He was breaking the law, but it was an incredibly stupid law (as most are).

You did not raise this issue, but in the political environment we face today, it is important to recognize that the lieutenant who supervised his death was black. His death, however senseless, was not racist.

 

I voted to legalize marijuana. It's not that I think marijuana is a good idea, but I think people who use drugs need rehab not jail...same as alcohol.

We agree here, except, perhaps, that this rehab should be paid for by the addict, his family, or his friends, not by taxation.

 

And so forth . . . it is these sorts of things that I am referring to when I say I have Liberal views and am still a good Latter-Day Saint.

With this declaration, you identify yourself as a classic liberal, not a modern one. The correct modern terminology is “libertarian”. Welcome to the elite.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
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