Does the government have the right to...

*Force churches to stop teaching homosexuality is sinful?

*Force churches to marry gays in those churches or temples?

*Force Christian (or Muslim or whatever) printers to print "gay" oriented material if that printer does not want to?

*Force restaurants and nursing homes to hire HIV/AIDS infected people?

I don't believe the government should be involved in any of this. Your comments below.

Should the government stop churches from doing human and animal sacrifices?

Should the government stop a chruch that wants to kill everyone that believes in killing everyone that does not believe in the religion from attempting such acts?

Should the government be involved in protecting the rights of people that post to this board as "Dr. D'Hesh?

I do not thing so.

So, you DO believe the government should TELL churches what to teach, what not to teach, FORCE people to go against their own conscience. It's people like you that remind me of the Stalinists of the old Soviet Union.

Exactly right, D'Hesh! The number of people opposed to simple liberty is astounding. People can do what they like and churches (or others) can damned we'll criticize it also. Bunch of fascists.

So, you support the right for churches to kill those that are not of the Church?

So, you believe that churches should have the right to kill people that do not believe in their church? I hope they go after you first.

Laws are passed all the time that go against some people's conscience. Some churches beveled in slavery, yet laws were passed to outlaw slavery in opposition to the conscience of the believers of that church.

It is not what I believe, it is a thing called REALITY. It has happened many times.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2015 11:40PM by MJ.

No, they can't tell them what to teach and do (so long as it's not animal or human sacrifices, or physically harming other people etc), but they can revoke their tax exempt status, like they were gonna do to LD$ Inc. in 1978, or as they did to Bob Jones University

"so long as it's not animal or human sacrifices, or physically harming other people etc" So, you do support limiting what churches can do, we are just trying to determine how much. You say "physical harm", do you believe that a church has the right to inflict emotional harm?

How would you stop that? How does one define emotional harm? If the emotional harm causes suicide (like in the case of LGBT) the Church should be held accountable, so to a certain degree I do, but at the same time i don't want to restrict their freedom of speech, no matter how stupid what they say is. I also think if they get involved in issues like LGBT equality or any politics or if they discriminate (which is often a huge cause of emotional harm) they should be punished by having their tax exempt status revoked (I actually don't think any religion should be tax exempt, but that's just the anti-theistic side of me and is irrelevant)

So, you think a church should be exempt from any efforts to stop emotional abuse, how ever it gets defined and implemented?

Cross burning in front of a black person's home is designed to inflict emotional harm by instilling fear and insecurity at a deep level. Do you think churches should be exempt from laws designed to prevent this sort of hateful intimidation?

But how do you penalize churches without violating free speech? People have the right to say what they want, no matter how stupid, bigoted etc. It's better to call them out on it, that's what I do regularly (mostly not LD$ btw, I don't know any Mormons that live around me as far I know, I mainly argue with fundamentalist reactionary Protestant fascists, cause that's what common where I live)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 12:18AM by iamanevermormon.

Imprisonment of the church officials that organized the burning another.

Now for the freedom of speech thing.

You seem to think that freedom of speech is unlimited. It is not. One can not yell fire in a crowded theater, nor can they incite a riot.

BTW, SCOTUS has already affirmed that laws prohibiting burning a cross as I have described do not violate free speech. Your question does not apply, because burning a cross, according to SCOTUS, is not protected speech.

Understanding the law is important to these sort of discussions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/high-court-upholds-cross-burning-ban/

"A burning cross is an instrument of terror, and government should have the power to stamp out or punish its use, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote."

In other word, actions that are "of terror" can be prohibited. I do not think churches should be exempt.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 12:34AM by MJ.

I am a free speech fundamentalist, i don't think there should be limits unless it's directly inciting violence. Starting a riot does this, because it causes both physical and property damage. This is my opinion of free speech here, summed up by someone much better at articulating than me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

And it is SCOTUS that interprets what rights the constitution grants.


Ultimately, your opinion does not matter, the US government has been granted the right based on the interpretation of the constitution by SCOTUS.

If you want to change that, you will have to organize lots of people of like mind into action.

I am more a realist and know that there are very few, if any, unrestricted rights. My right to free speech may impact other people's rights. Should my right to free speech trump the rights of others or should there be some restrictions on my free speech?

Should laws restricting speech that constitutes fraud be removed?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 01:01AM by MJ.

The SCOTUS that allowed "separate but equal"? The SCOTUS that said Dred Scott wasn't a citizen because he was black? The SCOTUS that very nearly upheld DOMA? The SCOTUS that struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act a few years ago? the SCOTUS that imprisoned anti-war activists and used a stupid "fire in a crowded theater" analogy? What a great organization. Anyway, yes your right to free speech trumps other people's feelings. rights, no. You can be a horrible bigot and say horrible things about POC, but that doesn't mean laws protecting them will be struck down. You can a virulent homophobic a-hole, but that doesn't mean laws against gay marriage or any rights should be enacted. Laws against fraud are fine because fraud is a crime that does serious financial damage to people (like tithing perhaps? Lol). And yes, I know my opinion ultimately doesn't matter, nor does yours, but that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to have it and express it freely without any sort of punishment or government sponsored intimidation, and the same with you. but this is just my opinion, I mean you no hostility and if I gave that impression, I apologize.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 01:13AM by iamanevermormon.

Nice try at deflection. SCOTUS, right or wrong, is charged with such decisions according to the constitution. That is a fact of life int the US. I take it you reject the Constitution? Again, if you want to change thing, you will have to get a lot of people to agree with you. Good luck with that.

Reality strikes again, no institution is perfect, nor are humans. everyone and every institution makes mistakes. To eliminate everyone and every institution that makes mistakes would mean there would be nobody and no institutions. Not a world I would want to live in. I prefer that we learn form our mistakes and use that knowledge to improve the institutions.

BTW, SCOTUS has also struck down laws that have been used to take away lots of my rights.

Here is another question about what sort of free speech you would allow.

Lets say that there are 5 people

1: A suicide bomber that kills dozens, but does nothing to plan the attack.

2: The person that taught 1 how to build the bomb and helped in every aspect of planning the attack

3) The person that taught 1 how to get all the parts to the bomb and helped in planning every aspect of the the planning

4) The religious leader that made promises of great reward in heaven for such a sacrifice in the name of God.

5) The leader that organized all of this.

So, only person 1 actually did not do the bombing. The other 4 did not actually do the bombing. So, should the other 4 go free and unpunished because conspiracy laws should be struck down in the name of free speech? After all, they did nothing but talk.

Do answer the question and not just rail against SCOTUS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 01:29AM by MJ.

In response to the five people, all of them are criminals. You misunderstood what I said, I don't think people that take part in conspiracy should be let off if they didn't actually do it directly, because they took part in planning an act of terrorism. I never said conspiracy laws should be struck down in the name of free speech, I don't know where you got that from. What I said is people have the right to say bigoted and hateful things, nobody's feelings should be protected, so long as they don't interfere with rights of said people that they are bigots against or directly incite violence (like the Klan for example). Do you think those people should be silenced? If you don't, we don't have much disagreement. Question for you in the case of person 4 also, what if this comes from a part of the doctrine of that faith. Should the holy book be banned? Should the religion be banned? I say this because there are passages in various holy books that permit and even encourage violence. Should they be banned? And finally in closing, no I don't reject the Constitution, it's the best of the options. I just wouldn't take SCOTUS as gospel, they are fallible like everyone else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 01:59AM by iamanevermormon.

Should the religion be held responsible when people act on the violent urgings of their religion? The Ku Klux Klan has been.

Well, I'm an anti-theist that thinks religion has done far more harm than good in the world, (Indeed, the link I posted earlier was a speech by Christopher Hitchens, one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism) so I would say yes. That's partly what I was talking about. But I wouldn't ban it, things like that don't work. Look what happened in Albania when Hoxha tried to do that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 01:51AM by iamanevermormon.

He was not asking if religion should be band. In all the discussion I have had with you, I have never suggested such a thing.

I just do not think they should be exempt from the government holding them accountable for violating other people's rights.

I never said you did. I'm using it an example when I said about violent doctrine in religion (which there is, all of the monotheistic holy books are violent books) and although I think the religion should be held accountable, I don't think banning anything is a good idea. i wasn't saying or even implying you said it should be banned. That would be unfair.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 02:13AM by iamanevermormon.

Then there really was not any reason to bring up "But I wouldn't ban it" because nobody was talking about banning religion, right? What point were you making with that that would actually have added to the conversation we were actually having?

Seems to me that was a defensive statement. One of many.

iamanevermormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In response to the five people, all of them are
> criminals.

Then we agree, there should be limits to free speech. 4 of those did nothing except talk and you say that they are criminals for what they said. That is a clear limit to free speech.

The only argument left is the appropriate level of limits of free speech. Again, in the US it is SCOTUS that currently is in charge of making such rulings. Good luck with trying to get it changed.

SCOTUS has ruled that Cross burning is not protected speech. Like it or not, that is the law of the land. It is a limit to free speech that is considered appropriate. You can try to change the law, but it may take a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

I wasn't defending those kind of people. If that is what it seemed, my apologies. What I was defending was the right of people to say bigoted things, so long as they don't infringe on said people's rights (which would include violence or conspiracy to commit violence). I actually think it's better to have them say what they think, than they can be called out on it, which is what I love to do (than again, I'm a cantankerous, argumentative person that loves to do that) Please accept my apologies if that's what I was conveying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 02:05AM by iamanevermormon.

I did not say you were defending those people. Why do you keep trying to make this about things I have not said? I was discussing the point you made: "I am a free speech fundamentalist, i don't think there should be limits unless it's directly inciting violence."

A case can be made that they did not directly cause or even incite the violence. If they claim the bomber came to them and asked how to do it, could they really be held for inciting the violence? incitement has a level of burden of proof than conspiracy. So I was asking if you agreed with conspiracy laws, rather than just incitement to violence.

I could set up a same sort of scenario regarding committing credit card theft, which is not a violent act. Would you oppose conspiracy laws for non-violent crimes such as this?


But you are saying you are fine with cross burning, which is not inciting violence, yet it is an act of terror is fine by you?

When I said "Free speech fundamentalist" I meant the right to say bigoted things and not be punished by the state (for example, hate speech laws, which exist in many countries, I was making an argument against that, admittedly not very good) Yes I support conspiracy laws. That argument given by those that helped the bomber would not hold though, because they give information that directly led to that, and you said in your hypothetical scenario that they actively helped plan it anyway which would make them part of the terror cell. I don't think cross burning should be illegal as long as it isn't done on somebody's property. If done on somebody's property it is a direct act of intimidation. Yes I would support conspiracy laws for non-violent crimes as well like credit card theft because that is causing direct harm to people by making them lose their finance or having good stolen, and if you help facilitate that, it doesn't matter whether you were the person actually doing that, you helped it happen.

I don't see what that last point has to do with the others. Are you suggesting restaurants and nursing homes are religious institutions? You can catch HIV from food prepared by those infected? Should I wear a condom if I see a nurse?

To the extent that a religion exists within the context of a larger community, then the "government", which is the representative voice of the community at large, has every right to put limits on religious expression. In America the "government" is not some separate entity that exists independently of the rest of society. It is society.

Some churches teach and practice temperance. That is, they don't believe in consuming alcohol. Consuming alcohol is legal. Should the government force church goers to consume alcohol? No, you're free to abstain. Just as you're free to not marry a gay person or have an abortion.

If it's against you're religion, don't do it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2015 11:45PM by wine country girl.

Are you saying that allowing something is the same as forcing people to do it?

I really do not think your post made the sense you thought it did.

Are you talking to me, MJ or the doofus that started this thread?

Hm, I thought it would quite clear that I was talking about your statement: "Consuming alcohol is legal. Should the government force church goers to consume alcohol?". To which I asked "Are you saying that allowing something is the same as forcing people to do it?"

The issue could also be, does the government have the right to force churches to comply with laws passed that go against their beliefs.

Ooops! MJ, what I'm saying is this: These assholes think their religion trumps the laws. They don't. If they don't believe in certain things, they don't have to participate in certain things, but that doesn't give them the right to discriminate against those who do.

So if your job is dispensing prescriptions, than by gawd you need to do that, even if you personally do not believe in taking fucking birth control pills.

And if your job is caring for the sick, but your religion says that gay people aren't worthy of the care, too bad!!! You need to provide that care for everyone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 12:20AM by wine country girl.

This is my opinion as well

Thanks for the clarification.

And MJ, if I don't make sense sometimes, you have to consider that I'm a very old person and you should just give me a break.

I did not think I was doing anything other than responding to a legitimate interpretation of what you wrote.

I think my question was clearly a question asking for clarification.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 12:31AM by MJ.

And I'm saying, it's not you, it's me.

Anyway, LDS, Inc. thinks it's okay for its members to believe in "gay marriage" (in quotations because that's what they would call it, not what I would call it), but not to advocate for it publicly. I feel the same way about their shit. They can believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't have the right to advocate for it publicly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2015 12:49AM by wine country girl.

I'm sorry, I took the statement that I had to give you a break as meaning that I was not actually giving you a break when I asked for clarification.

That statement by LDS Inc. is the reason that the non discrimination bills that have been introduced in the Utah State Legislature in the past have not become law. The legislators do not have a private vote. TSCC is able to see how they vote and if they vote yes, they are advocating for gay rights. I have heard that some legislators have been reminded where TSCC stands on certain bills before they reach the floor.

As for TSCC having the right to advocate their position publicly, I say let them go for it. In the past year, they have done themselves more harm than good.

Exactly my view. It's fun to watch them constantly shoot themselves in the foot.

Yes, they do if it harms other individuals.
Orthodox Rabbi circumcision rituals:
http://nypost.com/2012/09/02/despite-baby-dying-after-getting-herpes-orthodox-rabbis-say-theyll-defy-law-on-ancient-circumcision-ritual/

Female circumcision/mutilation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/26/english-court-on-female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision/

Religion is one of the 'basic causes' of violations of women's rights
http://theelders.org/article/religion-one-basic-causes-violations-womens-rights

RLDS child brides. LDS, FLDS polygamy http://www.religioustolerance.org/polylaw.htm

Racism in religion:
http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/04/20/why-religion-can-lead-to-racism/

So yes, When religion infringes on the liberties and rights of others or causes harm to other groups or individuals; Government, Society and Laws need to be utilized to end the suffering and discrimination.