Is religious liberty threatened in USA?


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But when for the last six months Daddy has been casting furtive, scowling looks at you . . . and last week you heard him muttering to Mommy about “get rid of that little maggot” . . .  and the global playing field is full of the abandoned carcasses of other kids whose mommies and daddies DID “forget” to pick them up from soccer practice . . . suddenly the experience takes on a totally new dimension.  

Eh, don't worry about it. Eventually the son gets dejected and doesn't care. Then, he goes to law school. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, here's the news conference where Dr. Burks unveils her 3 stage, gated entry, state-by-state return to normal.

If you only watch one press briefing for the whole covid thing, watch this one.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but if you want to have a relevant opinion on what the nations' federal and state governments will be doing and why for the next year or two, and you don't have a rudimentary grasp on what was unveiled here, you can't hope to have a relevant opinion.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

They thought he was more like Stalin. 

Oh, dead on comparison. After all, Stalin killed millions of people and Obama-well, yeah, dead on comparison. 

When you (generic) compare a politician to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc-you (again, generic) show that you don't really understand history or common decency. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

FYI, here's the news conference where Dr. Burks unveils her 3 stage, gated entry, state-by-state return to normal.

If you only watch one press briefing for the whole covid thing, watch this one.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but if you want to have a relevant opinion on what the nations' federal and state governments will be doing and why for the next year or two, and you don't have a rudimentary grasp on what was unveiled here, you can't hope to have a relevant opinion.

 

The problem is the same as it has been with everything Trump has said or done.  He has no teeth.  He has no power in this exercise unless he starts practicing some.  He hasn't done anything except recommend thus far.

Most had already taken actions before he started to recommend stuff, and those who didn't went on their own timelines.  When he was ranting and raving about it not being a threat, no one paid him heed if they decided to do something.  He didn't do anything to stop them or force them to do what he was insisting (and thank goodness, California or New York may be 10X worse if they HAD listened to him or he HAD forced them to do nothing). 

Unless he does something with enforcement, his words mean very little.  Sure, some may listen (and we have no idea if they will be detrimental or not) and some may not, but thus far, his word hasn't had much to enforce anything or have much force behind them for the most part.  The current approach he has taken probably delights many of those who are against a stronger Federal Government and more for States Rights rather than Federal Governance, but it means that he has had very little actual power to implement anything he has said or suggested.  This actually should appeal to those who wish more for States Rights and argue for their ability to govern in situations like these rather than the Federal Government. 

That said, it doesn't sound like a bad idea with some of his suggestions, but some of them are rather hazy in the approach as well.  Some of them sound like we might NEVER reach them if some things do not turn out to be true (for example, let's say we can't develop our own immunity and we can catch it over and over and over again).  They seem very highly dependent on some assumptions that hopefully are true, but we are not positive they ARE true at this point.

It may be that some states will adopt his ideas, especially as it was presented as coming from others beyond just Trump.  However, there's nothing that I see to force them to utilize this plan or these phases anymore than anything else has been done to make states accept his changing directives at various times during the pandemic (at first, to ignore it and that it was not much to worry about, to now when he has had other things.  Some states have even flat out ignored his social distancing idea at times, and Texas seems to want to ignore the different phases he put out and do their own thing...though I have no idea if they will go massively against his phases or not yet).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Just to be clear, when the left compares Trump to Hitler, that's wrong and ridiculous too. I find it vastly amusing that the two sides scream and yell at each other but are too dense/deluded to realize they do the same things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I find it vastly amusing that the two sides scream and yell at each other but are too dense/deluded to realize they do the same things. 

I stopped finding it amusing in the mid '90's, as Rush Limbaugh was well underway with his career built a cornerstone of "Here's what a liberal did.  What do you think liberals would do if a conservative did that?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2020 at 4:04 PM, Godless said:

But a religious service is still recognized by the State, and the State has its own guidelines on who can get married and who can't. I'm not saying that Churches shouldn't be allowed to enact additional restrictions. I'm just not comfortable with a tax-exempt organization putting its own restrictions on a service that it's performing as an extention of the State.

You appear to be much more totalitarian than I previously thought.  In other words, that the state, at some level, needs to control everything.  I am quite opposite - if there is not a threat to life or property - the state should keep it's hands out of such business.  I favor religion having options that do not threaten life or property of others - It is a great way to demonstrate what social experiments work well - produce intelligent progress - especially with collecting and distributing taxes.  If a church pays taxes they should receive distributions - or the state is unjust.  I personally like keeping religions out of that loop with the state.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I stopped finding it amusing in the mid '90's, as Rush Limbaugh was well underway with his career built a cornerstone of "Here's what a liberal did.  What do you think liberals would do if a conservative did that?"

The more you travel the spectrum-the more hard right and hard left you go-the more the same type of people you meet. Sure, they believe different things-but they act the same way. They can't handle dissent, they can't have friends that disagree with them, they don't listen, and they view themselves as morally superior to those who have different views then they do, even though they won't usually admit it. Usually. Sometimes they do.  They also have no ability to engage in self critique. None. True believers never do, to paraphrase Eric Hoffer. 

 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@prisonchaplain started this thread - concerned about religious freedoms.  The religious tradition (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) that I was raised in - I was raised with the impression that religious liberties would come under great pressure as the time of the 2nd coming drew closer.  That the world would be drawn into two camps.  One camp would be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its committed and trusted allies. The other camp would be the rest of the world that would be in chaos.  There have been prophesies that brother would rise up against brother and that those unwilling to rise up in violence against their neighbor must flee to Zion for peace and safety.   I can see this as a possibility before this year is over.  Right now the supply chain is still in tact but there is a real threat - if the supply chain for food is interrupted the freedoms and liberties of everyone will be most difficult to maintain. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Just to be clear, when the left compares Trump to Hitler, that's wrong and ridiculous too. 


I don’t agree with this sentiment. 

 

I can agree that it is often overused in efforts to deride those with dissenting opinions on all manner of subjects. 
 

However, the fact is that he really existed, those things really occurred, and it is imperative that we are able to remember them in order to not repeat the same mistakes. (Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.) As such, discussions should occur and comparisons should be made in the light of truth and for greater understanding. 
 

So, while it is mostly used as a dismissive tactic to add an emotionally responsive impact to a person’s argument, there is validity when used properly. 
 

 

Besides, you know who else wants us to quit making comparisons to Hitler? 

Hitler. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2020 at 6:39 PM, blondie)) said:

The coronavirus is a public emergency...

luckily we have the Internet to help us with our worship. Heck, we are using the Internet to communicate NOW. Sometimes we are too quick to freak out about things. Quarantining for a few weeks is NOT a big deal if it means we can slow the spread of coronavirus to the point where we don't have to worry anymore. 

The coronavirus symptoms can take up to 14 days to show up. (Source: https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period) and in that time period you can spread it to anyone within 6 feet of you. Ignoring public safety rules to have your own fun is not only selfish but dangerous. 

As for the overall topic: NO, religious liberty is not being threatened. Over 76 percent of Americans are still religious (Source: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/) and it is ridiculous to victimize yourself when you are in the majority. Atheists are still attacked and in eight states cannot hold office. (Source: https://www.inquisitr.com/1357238/atheists-are-still-not-allowed-to-hold-public-office-in-eight-states/) 

I absolutely agree that antitheists have been hateful and horrible towards religious people, but these people are a very small minority. My experience being a Mormon hasn't been difficult. It usually goes like this:

Me: I'm a Mormon.

Person: Oh, okay, cool.

The coronavirus is a public emergency...

This is debatable. What emergency?

Quarantining for a few weeks is NOT a big deal if it means we can slow the spread of coronavirus to the point where we don't have to worry anymore. 

It has been longer than a few weeks, but who is counting. Some hysteria and panic are saying look to another 18 months.  That doesn't sound like a few weeks. But sure, if it were simply just a few weeks, if we didn't have an infringement on rights under the guise of "safety", and other things happening right now. Sure you might have a good point here.

Sorry, the virus is a virus. We are going to have to worry until it fully spreads and anti-bodies are developed, or a proper vaccine.

The coronavirus symptoms can take up to 14 days to show up.

It has been longer than 14 days of staying home, so we should all be good to get back to our jobs right?

Ignoring public safety rules to have your own fun is not only selfish but dangerous. 

People going out with family members or friends isn't dangerous nor selfish, except to people who increase fear and panic.

Ignoring constitutional rights now that is not only selfish but definitely more dangerous to our overall freedoms and liberties.

As for the overall topic: NO, religious liberty is not being threatened. 

Me: I'm a Mormon.

Person: Oh, okay, cool.

As a famed movie once said, "You keep using that [phrase] but I don't think you know what it means." Your example of "I'm a Mormon....'Oh, okay, cool," has nothing to do with religious freedom. People can be "cool" with a religion while making sure they don't have rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Interesting quote form the article you provided regarding atheists and not being able to hold office, "They also have a ban on religious ministers from holding any public office but for seemingly different reasons. Ministers are not allowed to hold seats in either House of the Legislature, so as not to distract them from their divine activities. In the state’s own words: they “ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions." (emphasis mine)

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Colirio said:


I don’t agree with this sentiment. 

 

I can agree that it is often overused in efforts to deride those with dissenting opinions on all manner of subjects. 
 

However, the fact is that he really existed, those things really occurred, and it is imperative that we are able to remember them in order to not repeat the same mistakes. (Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.) As such, discussions should occur and comparisons should be made in the light of truth and for greater understanding. 
 

So, while it is mostly used as a dismissive tactic to add an emotionally responsive impact to a person’s argument, there is validity when used properly. 
 

 

Besides, you know who else wants us to quit making comparisons to Hitler? 

Hitler. 

I agree. It's an overused comparison (by both sides), but not always invalid. I think the mental trap that people fall into is to use Hitler's worst action (the Holocaust, obviously) as the standard of comparison. I think the likelihood of another Holocaust being committed by a developed nation is microscopic, but that doesn't mean that we are immune to other symptoms of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and/or fascism. In other words, you don't have to kill millions of people to warrant the Hitler comparison. A lot of the Trump/Hitler talk centers on Hitler's rise to power, before he invaded Poland. The need for people to be personally loyal to him, not just the country and the German people. The aggressive attempts to discredit any negative press about him. The militant nationalist rhetoric. It all sets us on a very dangerous path as a nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

You appear to be much more totalitarian than I previously thought.  In other words, that the state, at some level, needs to control everything. 

I believe that the laws of the state should be respected. And I'm not even advocating for universal enforcement of recent LGBTQ marriage laws, just the use of NPO policy to incentivise conpliance. And yes, I believe that churches that pay taxes should absolutely be eligible for government assistance as needed (like our current situation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I think the likelihood of another Holocaust being committed by a developed nation is microscopic...

I am not sure I agree with this statement and then again I am not sure what you mean or are defining as a developed nation. Iran has already called for the destruction/genocide of Jews/Israel. If Iran was a world power, would they have already tried? I would think so from all the statements I have heard and come across.

What would North Korea do if they could?

I am more apt to trust in human nature. As long as the natural man reigns in the hearts of human's, holocausts are more likely than not. It is all position of power, greed, fear, self-perceived entitled elites, etc...

The difference, it would be harder now, but definitely not microscopic. We already know the Jews will experience another holocaust event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2020 at 5:55 PM, blondie)) said:

I'd argue nonreligious people are more discriminated against than religious people. Atheists in 13 countries today can still be killed just for professing their beliefs. Where have religious people been discriminated against in this way?

Err...uh...in atheist countries. Communist China, the former Soviet Union, Cambodia, etc. State-sponsored atheism killed nearly 100 million people in 70 years. I'm not proud of some hateful religious incidents of bygone years (and perhaps a few currently), but Lord Acton got this one right: power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's why so many here lean towards personal religious liberty rather than towards public efforts at combating racism, sexism, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point about Hitler was that he took advantage of an “emergency “ to obtain power as Chancellor of Germany in 1933. He then arranged things to rule as an absolute dictator for twelve years, even though he was not technically a dictator at all. Mostly his decrees had a legal basis. 
 

Even though we have a supposed emergency here in the US, we must be cautious about giving up any of our God guaranteed rights. 
 

Actually we should be adamant about not giving up any, including church attendance.  AFAIK there is no legal basis to arrest anyone attending church. 

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