Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments on a case involving the town of Pleasant Grove, Utah, incidentally a next-door neighbor to my childhood home of American Fork. In 1971 Pleasant Grove, accepted the donation of a statue from the Fraternal Order of Eagles depicting the tablets containing the 10 Commandments. Since that time the statue has been publicly displayed in Pioneer Park, along with a stone from the original Nauvoo temple and other historical artifacts.
In 2003, the founder of a religion known as Summum wrote a letter to the town asking to donate a similar statue containing the Seven Aphorisms of Summum for display in the park. Summumers (or whatever you call them, perhaps Summis or Summuma...) believe that these Seven Aphorisms are the higher law that Moses destroyed because he believed the Israelites were not ready for it. We LDS folk have other ideas about that, but that's very much beside the point.
Predictably, the town refused to display the monument, and Summum sued in order to force the town to treat them equally, arguing for the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech. Pleasant Grove initially won the case, but the 10th Circuit Court of Nutty Liberal Activist Judges Appeals overturned the original decision. The court ruled that the town must either accept the donation and display the Summum monument, or remove the monument depicting the 10 Commandments.
Summum argues that by displaying only specific religious monuments, the government's constitute a tacit endorsement of a specific religion, which would obviously contradict the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The town argues that its role in monuments such as these is not unlike a museum curator's, responsible for the selection of historically important artifacts.
Both sides have a decent argument, and it will be fascinating to see which side prevails when the ruling is issued in the Spring. I tend to side with the fruity Summum folks on this one, despite my obvious regard for the Ten Commandments. What business is it of the government's to endorse and publicly display specific religious symbols while refusing others? I would rather the government and the church be completely separate, for mutual protection from undue influence. It is the same reason I oppose school-sponsored prayer and the unnecessary addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the fifties.
What if the monument in question had been a symbol of Judaism, or Islam, or even one of a Christian denomination in opposition to LDS teachings - say, the Five Points of Calvanism? Surely it would have been rejected, too. Just because there are those who don't feel Summum is a "legitimate religion" doesn't mean Summum's arguments aren't valid.
Discuss!
By the way, I hereby expressly forbid any discussion of same-sex marriage in this thread, thankyouverymuch.
Church and State collide once again
Posted by big.bald.dave on 11/13/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments:
Whee, I found out about this post as soon as it happened because I have email notification now! Welcome to the 21st century, everyone. :)
Also, my husband wrote it and he's on the couch next to me, but anyway...
I'll have to do some reading on this one and see what the Constitution has to say. I'm also very curious to see how it goes. Who gets to decide what's a "legitimate" religion? Does that even matter, from a constitutional point of view? I hope no one except the members, because otherwise I would imagine our own fair faith is in serious danger. ;) Not in Pleasant Grove, though.
And I second your motion for no same-sex marriage discussion. PLENTY of threads already open for that, I say.
What if a gay couple wanted to donate a statue but....:)
The only reservation I would have in siding with the "other" religion would be if this were an anti-mormon gesture. There's really no way to prove that, so who knows what will happen. How about put it at another park so there would be no "competition".
Matt - nice try with the other park idea. That would be equal but different, we just can't have that!!!
Dave any similaritied this comment may have with the un-mentionable subject is purely coincidental :)
BBD, can we still talk about abortion? (Just kidding :)
Like you, I see both sides of it but I think the only way to keep the peace is to just keep all religious symbolism off of public property. Perhaps, though, to save us from having to remove absolutely everything with any remotely religious significance from public property, there should be a cut-off date. Like from this day forward, no more from anyone. What's already there can be regarded as heritage and historical items and can be removed voluntarily, but do not have to be.
Dave, your html was eating some of your post, I think I fixed it for you.
I should first say that I think the Seven Aphorisms of Summum are pretty cool. "Chance is just a name for Law not recognized..."
That said, not sure what the best move is here. I think the historical argument might have some validity here, unlike in the Pledge or "In God We Trust". It'd probably be more historically valid if it was something more Mormon-centric than the Ten Commandmnents. I'll be interested to see what the Court decides.
I've been reading Ether lately. It is surprising to me how many times verses like these can be found in the BofM:
Ether 2:9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off whent he fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.
The same thing is said over and over again to both the Jaredites and Nephites. Considering that the BofM was written for our day, perhaps it is a clue?
Honestly, I am sick of separation of church and state always meaning to cut God out of everything. We do that at our detriment.
In this case, I guess I don't see what the big deal is. The group is donating the statue. I would consider it education to go look at it. Just display it, be glad that another religion recognizes God, and move on.
Honestly, I am sick of separation of church and state always meaning to cut God out of everything.
Even if "God" = Allah?
...and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God...
Which God? The Mormon Godhead? The Catholic Trinity? Allah? Each of these Gods instruct humans to do different things. Which one is OK for the nation and which one isn't?
FD, why make things so complicated?
I'm not the one who complicates them. It's the reality of the very complicated world in which we live. One religion is more than enough for me, believe me.
to expand on fd's commnet
the evangelical Christians don't like the lds god and yet, they have all the power in the government. it's 'their" god referenced on the money. it's 'their" god in the pledge..and if there was to ever be school prayer, what's to stop them not letting your children pray to the lds god instead of the evangelical god?
see, i know how bad y'all want more god in the public sphere, the problem is that we can't agree on what god to allow in that sphere (see OP) and what happens when the religion w/ the most power doesn't like your god?
as is the case with us. remember, to most of the world, we are not even christians and not a 'real' religions-instead we're just a cult.
tricky, tricky.
I think it is all the same God. The Mormon God, the evangelical God, Allah, the people who worship God as a woman, Hindus who worship multiple Gods. Whatever we call it, it is the same God.
I think that one of the quotes in the article I linked to yesterday addresses what is happening with seeking to eradicate God from everything public:
We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.
M. J. Sobran wrote recently:
“The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …
“What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.”
steph,
i KNOW it's all the same god but they don't.
or they don't believe it(despite our attempts to reckon with them) ever had this discussion with an evangelical,protestant, jew?
it's mind numbing.
on a different note, lets assume we allow more religion in schools and public life, do you think they will be teaching the nature of god to be three distinct personages? that christ visited the americas? that he has a body and that we too will have our bodies when we are resurrected?
see, again. it gets ugly because we all have different ideas of what god is.
and fd is right, i would bet my life that if we changed our currency to say, in allah we trust, many a fine mormon folk would get their guns and storm the white house.
i'm just trying to point out how difficult it is to mix politics with religion.
reckon? oy! discuss. yeah, ever try to discuss how much we believe in christ with evangelicals?
i hate talking about other groups of people in the "us v. them" sense.
anyone know how i can discuss other groups of people without feeling like I am talking behind their back?
I am not interested in religion being taught in school for that exact reason. I am not interested in my children being taught the theology of other religions. I don't think schools need a course in the Bible. But, rather than completely cut God out of our schools and government, I would prefer to keep a general respect for "God". I don't mind a prayer before football games. Take turns between kids of different faiths. I don't mind a National Day of Prayer. I am glad that people besides just Mormons pray to God.
I don't believe we have to remove all the 10 commandments monuments, remove "Under God" from the pledge, remove God from our money. I don't think the movement to do these things stems from a desire to respect others and their religions. I think it stems from a desire to eradicate God from our country. I think we are going a little crazy with this "separation of church and state" business.
Ditto to Stephanie's whole first paragraph there. :)
I don't want all 10 commandment monuments removed either, but I think I would rather have them all removed than have the government, at the state or federal level, pre-screen which religions are deserving of having their tenets displayed.
I guess I'd have to hear more about the reasoning for why the city declined to display the other monument - whether there was a legitimate "historical" difference between them, or whether it was something more insidious.
Unless it's a clearly devilish or evil thing, why not allow others to display things (which are historically relevant) in a public place? Our lives and histories are intertwined with religion. Governments cannot ignore history of religions without ignoring history itself. Not displaying anything which can be connected to religion is just needless ridiculousness.
It's actually easy for people to exercise prudence when deciding what is "evil" and appropriate. Some people just like to throw a wrench in the works. (ie The Scrooges around Christmas).
By the way, any thoughts about Government allowing "Merry Christmas" merchandise to be decorated during the holidays?
To me, it's a no brainer. I would like to see Merry Christmas as well as Happy Hanukkah etc. (last year one of the Doctors I work with threw a Christmas Party for the whole group. The doc was Jewish. What class.) And I have no qualm about celebrating and respecting others holidays.
Thoughts?
Sounds good to me, Coy.
But, rather than completely cut God out of our schools and government, I would prefer to keep a general respect for "God". I don't mind a prayer before football games.
So, in the marketplace of religious ideas, the government should put its thumb on the scale in a way that makes it harder for atheists to "sell" their ideas? That's fundamentally unfair. What's so terrible about simple fairness to ALL beliefs, including atheist belief?
Also, the Supreme Court's ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman (source of the so-called "Lemon Test") says that the government should not promote one religion over another, nor should it promote religion over non-religion.
Anonymous, I think we cut God out of our public life at our own peril.
stephanie,
what is the peril?
i'm not picking a side, just trying to figure out myself what role "god" should play in our, yours, mine, my atheists, JW, jewish, mulsim, bahaien (is that a word?) friends.
what is fair?
and that's really what this is about. how do we establish equity in a country where we are not supposed to favor one religion/faith/god over another.
mfranti, I think the BofM does a good job of explaining how it is possible to "establish equity in a country where we are not supposed to favor one religion/faith/god over another" (until, of course, they all turned against God and were wiped out).
steph, you didn't answer the question-what are the perils and then what are the ways we can estblish equity-assume i am not an lds reader...make your case.
i'm having a hard time trying to figure out how we can or you can say the bom says....and have that mean anything to the rest of the country.
but convince me. i'm all ears.
Sorry, mfranti, with everything else I've got to get done today, I just don't feel like it. But, you can read the BofM and find the answers yourself.
I think we cut God out of our public life at our own peril.
That's not the answer, and it's not what I would propose. But I also don't think it's the government's business dictating which religions are acceptable and which are not.
BBD, Agreed, Government shouldn't dictate religion, or block it's free practice. Gov. should respect it.
For those asking Stephanie to explain what she means by "at our own peril"... for mercy sake guys, you are smart people, I assume you can clearly deduce it. But for those who refuse to accept fact... 2 words...
Sodom and Gomorrah. Interesting how this story illustrates what happens when we take God and morals out of the picture.
Also interesting what the word Sodom means. look at our current word Sodomy, (look it up yourself) points specifically to immoral sexual sin, specifically homosexual and etc...
Just an interesting parallel.
(And for those who doubt the validity of biblical stories as this one, one more word... )
Pompeii!
(article from Islamic site)
For those asking Stephanie to explain what she means by "at our own peril"... for mercy sake guys, you are smart people, I assume you can clearly deduce it.
sounds like a cop out.
c'mon, explain it to me. i haven't read all of the bom-i'm a convert and new to this gig.
Like I said. Look up Sodom and Gomorrah. Look up Pompeii.
And I guess you could look up Los Angeles 2008. lol.
Anyone else find it ironic and interesting that LA is burning right now?
It's worth a chuckle at least.
ironic?
no. it's a function of nature. just like a premature baby born at 25 weeks dying shortly after birth is just a function of biology.
to blame god for the bad things that happen is dangerous ground.
i also think it's lazy.
you know, you still haven't answered the questions.
but if i've learned anything from being in this church it's that my opinion doesn't matter (because clearly i'm interpreting the scriptures wrong) and don't ask too many questions cos the prophet and the church are always right.
so, i guess that means my questions don't need to answered.
glad i worked that one through on my own.
Anyone else find it ironic and interesting that LA is burning right now?
It's worth a chuckle at least.
I can't believe you're suggesting that Los Angeles is burning because gay people want to get married. Regardless, it's definitely no laughing matter - thousands of people who have absolutely nothing to do with this controversy are losing everything. In fact, it's statistically likely that members of the Church who campaigned actively for Prop 8 are among them.
Dang it, I just violated my own edict. Ahhh - when will the madness stop?!?! :)
"Dang it, I just violated my own edict"
what is that?
mfranti, my edict was this:
"By the way, I hereby expressly forbid any discussion of same-sex marriage in this thread, thankyouverymuch."
haha. Keep trying to make controversy, its amusing. I didn't say God caused the fires. I wouldn't know.
It's just IRONIC that there are fires burning LA when God people were being persecuted the same week within 50 miles of the destruction.
I am not the originator of such note, I have heard this from others more observant than I.
Dangerous ground... I think people in Sodom and Gomorrah could tell you where the dangerous ground was.
Separating God from society at our peril Mfranti is ANSWERED in my last 2 posts. Perhaps you aren't aware of Sodom and Gomorrah? Read a small bit and all your questions on the topic are thereby answered.
I said nothing about Gay marriage BBD, but it IS interesting that calamity is allowed to happen SOMETIMES due to sin, and the persecution of Gods worshipers in Calif. makes it very ironic that there is calamity there.
And you well know I am not laughing at their loss, but at the irony. Irony is worth a chuckle.
"haha."
you know you start a lot of your posts this way. i don't know if you know this but it comes across poorly.
let me show you:
haha... you have a spot on your lung. if you just read the scriptures and OBEYED the Word of Wisdom, you wouldn't have cancer right now..
see? it sounds as though you are mocking.
Saying haha, like smiling while you are talking, is a nice way to be friendly. while I also am mocking some peoples ways of skewing others comments (mine) in the worst way.
Like BBD saying this...
"I can't believe you're suggesting that Los Angeles is burning because gay people want to get married."
which is an extreme misrepresentation of my comment to create controversy. I never even said a word about "gay people". I find it "ironic" that LA is burning, so close to where 'persecutions raged'. Where did BBD come up with that twisted representation? haha, haha. its funny how you can try to cause controversy if you want to. I take it with a pinch of salt and a smile. haha. :)
coy, do you live in So Cal? I did my entire life until recently.
It burns every year. especially in the fall when the Santa Ana winds pick up and make the fires worse.
..but since you brought it up...
how are we supposed to interpret this:
Like I said. Look up Sodom and Gomorrah. Look up Pompeii.
And I guess you could look up Los Angeles 2008. lol.
Anyone else find it ironic and interesting that LA is burning right now?
It's worth a chuckle at least.
so that i'm not misinterpreting your tone and intentions, you might want to clarify it for me.
on account that i'm not so bright.
Dave, thanks for saving me the trouble.
I don't think it's funny that LA is burning. I don't think it's ironic. I don't get any joy out of it, on any level. Yes, historically according to the Bible and the BoM God has destroyed civilizations for their wickedness. I personally don't think that's the case here, and just because someone other than you originated that argument doesn't mean you hold no responsibility for perpetuating it.
You didn't explicitly say that LA was burning because of the wickedness of gay people and their allies, but that was definitely the impression that I got from your post comparing LA to Sodom and Gomorrah. I live with BBD and I assure you he is not the kind to take something personally without good reason. I am, but he's not. :)
I know you think you are coming off one way, but if this many people are consistently getting a different impression, it MIGHT be worth your time to think about why that is. Again, that has nothing to do with your political leaning and everything to do with the way you present yourself and your arguments.
What game is this? What is there to interpret? I have much more important things to be doing now. You ask what is Peril for leaving out God, or going against him...
I answer... See S&G and Pompeii, as a few examples. If you don't think LA burning is related to them persecuting Gods worshipers, so be it. I don't claim to know why LA burns, but I can appreciate irony when I see it.
Wizzle, seriously, I am not worried about BBD taking a comment personally. You are intelligent enough to know I am not Laughing at peoples suffering.
I have said it before, if we TRY to understand each other, we can actually make progress in discussion. But if we play this game where you try to misunderstand and take the worst meaning of something, well, no one wins.
Mfranti complains that no one will answer her. I answer, and you guys are trying to twist it the worst way you can. If it makes you feel better, go ahead...
What is left for you to bicker?
Well, I could turn that back on you and say that you are willfully ignoring other people's sincere attempts to help you make yourself better understood, if indeed we are misunderstanding you.
Yes, I am intelligent, and I would not assume you to be taking some pleasure in others' misfortunes if you hadn't SAID IT with your own mouth.
For example - Stephanie and I are on "opposite" sides of the political spectrum, t grossly oversimplify the matter, but I have no problem with her or her comments, because she is respectful and thoughtful. I take no issue with your viewpoints, or rather I respect your right to have them although I sometimes do not agree. My concern is with the (what I perceive to be) flippant, glib way with which you address people's suffering, whether or not you feel it is "deserved".
I'm not doing it to make myself feel better. I'm trying to get past this issue so that we CAN have productive discussion. I am continually distracted by the way you present yourself, a problem that I do not have with any other contributor (even Matt calmed down! :))
"My mouth", you mean I assume (playing your game ;) my typing... did not day that.
I said it was ironic and interesting that LA is burning.... Its worth a chuckle at least.
I can see how someone could take that the wrong way.. IF you wanted to. However, knowing me well enough, you can easily deduce I am not chuckling at their suffering, but at the Irony I mentioned in the sentence referred to. When others (elsewhere) mentioned things like "isnt it funny how LA is burning right now", I didn't go after them with silly games as if they literally meant the fires were silly. C'mon... you and I are able to understand they are referring to the situational irony, and not the peoples loss. No one in their right mind would really believe that is funny.
Go back and read the simple post I answered MFranti with, and try to logically assume I wouldn't laugh at peoples suffering. There is nothing wrong with my comments. You have so many prejudices against me now, you can't see past that when you read.
Shall we keep playing word games?
I would rather get back to intelligent conversations.
i simply asked for you to explain and or clarify your positions.
being pointed to a scripture, a possibly irrelevant one, to make your point is, imo, hiding behind scriptures and ummm...lazy
when you are a doctor ( i believe i read you are in med school) you can't hide behind an encyclopedia to explain to mrs jones why she's dying of lung cancer, ou have to be able to explain to her in your own words to her what's going to happen.
all i was asking from you was to, in your own words, explain your position.
thank you.
I'm not "playing games". I don't know where you're getting that.
The whole point is that I *don't* know you personally. I have developed my opinion of you through this blog, which is not a fair portrait of any of us, I would assume. Since many of us do not know each other personally, it behooves us even more to be deliberate with our words so we are understood as we mean ourselves to be. It is hard for me to communicate easily with you because of the way you choose to explain yourself.
That is all. I give up. I will simply direct my conversation to other contributors since we seem to have such drastically different styles and I have no interest or time for unproductive arguments.
ok Mfranti... Mercy.
This is simple...
God IN= prosperity, peace, plenty, protection.
God out= Sorrow, destruction, lack of protection, etc.
Hiding behind scriptures... no
Using them for learning... Yes
PS. we wouldn't expect our doctors to sit an hour with every patient to tell them every facet of a cold. You refer people to info, they can learn all they want. I refer to S&G for your answer. If the above simplified explanation doesn't satisfy.
In humble agony, I offer my express intent to attempt to clearly spell out my words for you, ok?
I can admit my words can be misconceived. while I also admit, everyone's can.
Anyone can play that 5th grade game where you take everyone's words to mean the worst conceivable meaning.
But If you try, you will actually understand what one really means.
you don't like your thoughts to be challenged.
i should know better.
...and your are really good about making any "misunderstanding" everyone elses fault.
to BBD and everyone else,
how do we keep god "in" and not insult, discriminate, favor those that do not believe in god or don't believe in the same god?
how do manage god in in a land that doesn't favor (at least in word) a state religion?
i was always under the impression that it's a personal thing between me and my family. my relationship with god is sacred and therefore needs to be treated that way.
when we bring "god" into the public sphere, we are not glorifying him by putting his name on our currency, but rather, imo, taking his name in vain. it ceases to have any meaning when every piece of currency says, in god we trust and yet...we really trust the dollar itself to define the country, well it cheapens His name.
for this reason, i don't have LDS stickers on my car, nor do i think the fish symbol is appropriate. it's cheapens it's meaning when it's prominently displayed on the back of your car next to the "bush/Cheney sticker (how's that for juxtaposition?)
anyways, dave you address good things in this post. thank you for bringing it up.
I would happily accept a sincere olive branch.
That didn't qualify.
wizzle, just to be clear, are you speaking to me?
Mfantic, Refering to your comment above to Stephanie, I HAVE had that conversation with many friends of other religions. Funny, I never have problems talking to people of differing beliefs than my own. We try to understand each other, and we have AMAZING productive conversation. Misunderstanding grossly someone is a product of misdirected effort. If you want to understand people, you can. Likewise if you want misunderstanding or controversy.
A Jewish gal lived with my family for a long time. We had many discussions about god, religions and politics, and never once did we have controversy, even where we did not agree. We did however find MANY areas we agree on. I have had very intelligent religious discussions with my friends who are Islamic, Buddhist, Baptist, and one of my most respected friends who is Muslim. I have never had an argument, not a single one.
It is so interesting that the biggest disrespecting conversations I have been around are right here among 'our own' religion. When a person states something is chuckle-ably ironic, and one decides to twist is to mean they are chuckling at someones agony, nothing more than unintelligent controversy steering speech.
If my Muslim friend tells me Allah is great, I will agree! Because I believe in Allah. Allah is God, and we agree, God is great.
If you treat everyone the same as you treat my comments, I assume this would be your response to Allah is great...(deleted) (well, nevermind. you get the point I HOPE!
Getting back to your original post here, and how it relates to my comment now, I don't have problems with people of other religions being recognized, and respected in public or government. ALL of them including LDS should be arms length. Displaying 10 commandments, or artifacts from any religion in a public place... I am happy to respect them.
It's a really good question, mfranti. It's such a personal relationship that I think it's really hard to legislate it, or avoid legislating it, on a national level, or even a state one. I kind of think it's one of those abortion-type issues, that just derives from such a fundamental difference in worldview that there may never be a solution that *everyone* is happy with.
I also think that as long as everyone's intentions were good, it would be a relatively simple thing to find that give-and-take balance - but of course, that isn't always the case, so we sort of have to assume at least the possibility of ill will in any case. It's sad, and it honestly kind of makes me just want to back away from politics or political action altogether and just sort of hole up in my house and make sure that MY family is taken care of. That much, at least so far, I pretty much have control over - no teenagers yet! :)
I am, incidentally, also of the opinion that overtly religious bumper stickers and T-shirts are too irreverent for my personal taste. I don't think they're bad, per se, they make me personally a little uncomfortable. I would do a "Choose the Right" bumper sticker, but not a "Jesus died for you" one for example. I guess there's all kinds out there, though, and if someone else hears the call to repentance via a bumper sticker then they've served their purpose!
Wizzle. I agree with your comment about the bumper stickers. Funny how many of them come on cars with another bumper sticker that doesn't match so well, like Calvin peeing on someone, or the like.
Ya see, we can agree if ya try!
Sorry, fast moving board today! That "olive branch" comment was for Coy. I am leaving your other conversation just between the two of you!
Also, Coy, since I'm posting yet AGAIN (long naptime today for the girls!) I might as well say that I think the problems we are encountering are due to the difference in communication between the spoken word, face to face, with body language and many other factors to influence it, and the impersonal written word here. That's the point I have been trying to make - I think we'd do much better discussing these things in person, but since that's not the available medium here, we should be doing everything we can with what we have available, in writing. I promise to try to give you the benefit of the doubt if you will concede that I am not entirely to blame for misinterpreting your words.
I think that would be better phrased "we can agree if WE try". :)
But yes, I take your point. (If you were in my living room I would shake your hand here.)
yup. But you'll definitely have to try harder than assuming I would be laughing at suffering. That's not even trying.
Typing has limitations, and you perceive the words in your own light. haha, I will take the olive branch back then, eh MFrantic? I can admit when I am wrong, and I admit I could have spelled out my words more. Seriously shouldnt have to spell out that I am not laughing at suffering though.
I will say that the irony is of note though.
I don't want to get too involved here because I'm too busy with too many different threads these days. :) But I just had to say something to Coy.
Coy, first of all, I appreciate your point of view and your faith. I can even admit that comments from you and Stephanie have helped me better understand the Church's position regarding Prop 8 (and even sympathize with it a lot more, although I wouldn't exactly say I'm enthusiastically "on board.")
I have noticed, however, that sometimes you express yourself in a way that is probably detrimental to not only others, but especially to yourself. Definitely the "haha's," as harmless and as meaningless as they are to you, have a tendency to come across as self-righteous and arrogant. Since our only communication with each other is written, you're probably cutting yourself way short. For all we know, we'd probably get along great in person. But it can be really easy to misinterpret tone, sarcasm, and "haha's" when we only write to each other. In fact, only now, when you really explained it, do I see how harmless your "haha's" really were. I don't think you meant them the way that some of us have interpreted them, but up until now I honestly thought it was simply arrogance and immaturity. I now see you in a new light. I think that you're probably a down-to-earth, happy go-lucky type of guy with a good sense of humour. And I appreciate all of that.
When you say that you never have any problems or arguments when you've talked to people of other faiths, I believe you completely. I bet you probably represent Mormons very well in your contact with non-members through your friendliness and respect for their different beliefs. I do wonder, though, whether you have the same tolerance and respect for members of your own faith who have views that differ from yours. I know that you probably think that you do, but I think you need to really ask yourself again.
And really, that can go for all of us, myself included.
Thank you FD, for giving me the "benefit of the doubt".
Thank you all for your many criticisms.
Coy, since I don't want to have any further misunderstandings, I just have to ask you to clarify your last comment. Are we OK or have I offended you?
haha, no seriously, that is worth a chuckle, eh FD? lol.
I am not offended. I can take criticism, and you truly gave me the benefit of the doubt.
We are "ok" ;)
Phew, now I can sleep well. Thanks, Coy. :)
G'night, all. :)
mfranti, here's what I mean:
The BofM talks about three groups of people who are sent to the American continent for purposes of "freedom" - the Nephites, the Jaredites and the Latter-Day Gentiles. The Lord repeatedly says that this is a land of promise and that any nation that possesses it must serve God or perish. The Nephites all turned on God and were destroyed. The Jaredites all turned on God and were destroyed. I don't think it is different for us. I think the exact same promises that the Lord gave to the Nephites and Jaredites apply to us, namely that we must serve Him or perish. In fact, the Lord tells us this. In 1 Nephi chapter 13, Nephi sees a vision of the early settlers in the U.S.:
30 Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance
In chapter 14, 5 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, Nephi, saying: Thou hast beheld that if the Gentiles repent it shall be well with them; and thou also knowest concerning the covenants of the Lord unto the house of Israel; and thou also hast heard that whoso repenteth not must perish.
6 Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God.
I feel that this is a direct warning.
It is my understanding that our country was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation. Our declaration of Independence refers to our unalienable rights endowed by our "Creator" and "Nature's God". Our constitution itself does not say "separation of church and state", it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ., so I think that ought to be our guide. We can do a lot of things and acknowledge God in our public life without establishing one religion. In fact, I think that things like banning nativity scenes from public displays borders on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Considering that our nation was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation and I believe what the BofM says (that this is a promised land the Lord designed for His followers to worship him), I am okay with things like displays of the 10 commandments - even if some people don't believe in them.
In the BofM, freedom of religion was the main thing the people fought for (in addition to their property, liberties and their wives and their children). When they had it, whoever wanted to believe in God and join the church could, but noone was compelled to join. One difference between the Nephites and us is probably that they didn't have the cultural melting pot that we do. But, even with our various religions, most all believe in a higher power. I don't believe that government needs to completely nix all references to God as to appease or not offend or not endorse. I think that is a dangerous path. I would prefer we recognize our heritage as a nation and respect it. Doesn't mean everyone has to agree or participate, but I prefer a general respect for "God". Given the warnings that He gave us Himself, I think we cut Him out of our public life at our own peril.
How do I explain that to someone who doesn't believe in the BofM? I am not sure I can. But, I can vote using the knowledge I have from the BofM, and I can share the gospel to help others to learn about our responsibilities and blessings and warnings as citizens of the U.S.
If someone interprets 1 Nephi 13-14 differently, I am interested to hear.
With regard to the subject of this post, I think the town ought to just display the statue. Put it next to the 10 commandments. Let's be a nation that celebrates faith. Putting both statues up neither establishes one religion as the official religion nor prohibits the free exercise. I would prefer that to FD's suggestion that all religious displays of any kind be discontinued. I will be interested to hear how this case turns out because I can't really see a good argument for keeping the 10 commandments and not allowing the other one. To me, that would establish one religion over another.
Stephanie, the more I think about it the more I agree. That seems to be the most constitutionally sound interpretation I can come up with. Plus I like it personally - I like hearing what other people have to say, and allowing others to voice their views on equal footing with the "preferred" religion can only foster a good spirit.
I also agree that sounds sensible, but, not to make it complicated but simply to point out the obvious, what happens when you have hundreds of statues that everyone demands to have erected because the other faiths were allowed to? Or what if you have a long line-up of religious folk who want their turn to open a sporting event with a prayer?
I think the town ought to just display the statue. Put it next to the 10 commandments.... Putting both statues up neither establishes one religion as the official religion nor prohibits the free exercise.
Nice to pop back in here and see that Stephanie and I agree! I would add only that Stephanie's solution is precisely what the plaintiff (Summum) is asking for. Summum is not in any way asking to keep God out of the public sphere.
F.D. raises an objection that deserves to be taken seriously: what happens when you have hundreds of statues that everyone demands to have erected because the other faiths were allowed to?
But this need not be as big a problem as it seems.
1. Most of those "different" faiths will actually be different versions of Christianity, and a single Ten Commandments monument might satisfy them all.
2. A city can establish *religiously neutral* requirements for monuments--that they have to be durable, mounted on a solid concrete foundation, etc.--that will make it expensive enough that only serious groups will seek to add a monument of their own. Frivolous groups will not want to bother.
3. Pleasant Grove is a pretty small town--how many religious groups there will want to take advantage of a positive Supreme Court ruling on this issue? Not many. True, in larger cities there will be more religions, but there will also be many more parks. Often those parks will be located near ethnic communities. I can easily see a Confucian monument in a park near Chinatown, an Eastern Orthodox monument in a park near Little Armenia, etc., and I think that would be great. A thousand different monuments, scattered throughout the city's hundreds of parks. It would add local color to the city, and be educational to boot. Some enterprising soul might even publish one of those urban tour guides: A Guide to the Religious Monuments of Los Angeles. I'd buy one!
--David
Anon David, welcome back. :)
Before I even finished reading your comment, I started thinking about the tourism potential. When I got to the end, I realized that we were on the same wave length.
OK, I have another question. And you know that if I don't bring it up, someone eventually will. :) Does religious tolerance have a line and if so, where do we draw it? If some Satanic group comes along and actually has the money and wants to put up a stink about it, do we let them erect a statue or monument honouring Satan because it's their "religion?" Even a Wiccan monument would cause quite a stir among a lot of Christians, I'm sure.
FD, the scriptures about Korihor relate to your question. Korihor was an antiChrist who admits to working for Satan, but Alma 30 says:
7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.
8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him . . .
11 Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.
12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ.
Interestingly, although the Nephites didn't touch him, when he went among the people of Jershon, they were more wise than many of the Nephites; for they took him, and bound him, and carried him before Ammon, who was a high priest over that people.
21 And it came to pass that he caused that he should be carried out of the land.
Then he went to Gideon, but they also bound him and took him before the high priest and chief judge. When these two saw how hard Korihor's heart was, they took him to Alma (high priest) and the chief judge of Zarahemla (back to the Nephites). I don't know what would have happened legally (I suspect nothing) because he was struck dumb by God and turned back out to the streets before any legal action was taken. The chief judge did send a proclamation to all the people telling them what happened and warning them to repent, but there was no compulsion.
I learn a lot of things from this story:
1. The Nephites were a people who allowed freedom of religion (noone was compelled to believe in God or join a church), but they also feared God as a people.
2. The people of Jershon were "more wise" than the Nephites because they bound up Korihor and kicked him out. It sounds like these were the common people. They didn't like what he was doing and got permission from the chief judge to kick him out. So, which way is the preferable way? The way of the Nephites or the "more wise" way of the people of Jershon?
3. Equality is referred to several times in the chapter, and that equality comes from allowing everyone to believe what they want to believe.
My opinion is that the "more wise" thing to do would be to not allow a Satanic monument. However, I also think that we are society more like the Nephites. We have freedom of religion and respect individual beliefs, so I think the likely outcome would be to allow the monument (and, in weighing all alternatives, that would probably be my choice).
Great post Stephanie.
In my previous post, I mentioned that "It's actually easy for people to exercise prudence when deciding what is "evil" and appropriate.
I think using wisdom about what is good and evil by secular standards is not that hard. As such, I wouldn't worry too much about Satan worshipers getting their equal display. Most people are wise enough to say... that crosses the line.
As for the gray area groups...well, glad I am not making the decisions! ;)
So this has changed my mind about public religious displays. I think I am going to have to change my position and agree with FD. This display is not actually a declaration or symbolism of beliefs - it is an attack on the beliefs of others. To me, that is not at all what "freedom of religion" means. I am disgusted. If allowing religious displays on public property produces drivel like this, let's just can them all. That is probably what the people who put up the sign had intended, particularly since it is more of a political move anyways:
It will be two-sided, with a lengthy message on the main side, and "Keep State/Church Separate" on the back.
Sad to see the world getting so ugly.
Interesting ruling on this case by the Supreme Court.
Check it out.
I have to say - sanity may be making a comeback.
Post a Comment