"I submit that religious leaders should have at least as many privileges as any other leaders, and that churches should stand on at least as strong a footing as any other corporation when they enter the public square to participate in public policy debates."
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/10/religious-values-and-public-policy?lang=eng

If their footing should be "at least as strong a footing as any other corporation" then they should be taxed. Their operations are already somewhat protected in the right to believe what you will so they SHOULD be satisfied with that and seek to strengthen their footing by paying taxes in the public square. They want equal and fair exercising of their rights "as any other corporation" right?

I'm all for it. I've found Mormonism to be very taxing.

Okay, I read as much of this rant as I could, noticing that it was taken from a speech in 1992, before Islamic fundamentalism exploded onto the scene, showing the weakness of these arguments in a context other than the familiar "all religion is necessarily Christian or Jewish, so harmless."

The first part of the article is basically a listing of touchstones, dog-whistles, such as contrasting moral relativism with moral absolutes, declaring moral absolutism to be superior and moral relativism to be dangerous, and without even attempting to define either one or distinguish one from the other. Typical Mormon argument. Ring the bells, blow the whistles, make your audience feel self-satisfied, but never actually go out on a limb to define anything or actually explain exactly what you mean. The audience believes it understands and it agrees--and feels satisfied--but if a member of the audience were asked, "What is moral relativism anyway?" Maybe they could give an example or two, of what the words "moral relativism" remind them of, but they would realize they couldn't explain what the words mean or even what Oaks meant by them, because he never really said.

He then gets upset that there is a division between church and state. He thinks it's unfair that someone's religion can't be the sole basis for a law that impinges on the rights of others. He must really hate the Prop 8 trial court and the Defense of Marriage Act decisions because that's basically their holdings, a law that restricts important rights must be grounded in something other than religious views. He doesn't seem to get that based-solely-on-religious-views is out-of-bounds because the First Amendment says it is. It's not necessarily because of an animus toward religion. It's the Constitution. Of course, many people are grateful that our laws must be justified by reasoning more tangible than one group's supersitions or imaginary authority, in other words, "because...the Bible!"

He moves from there to simply ranting. Religious people and their arbitrary authorities aren't granted more respect. People disagree that society should be run on their bases. Religions losing ground, he recognizes that; but, like the authoritarian he is, he won't set forth tangible justifications for respect, instead, he laments his loss of historical privilege. He's getting left behind in a past century.

He can't drag the world back and he can't get ahead of it. I predict he'll be angry for a long time.

MCR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He can't drag the world back and he can't get
> ahead of it. I predict he'll be angry for a long
> time.

And all these years later he is so crazy that he is trying to put protections for his prejudices into laws in a vain attempt to protect his moral high ground.

What I don't understand is that if Absolutism beats Relativism and there is a God and Oaks is a special witness to this god, this is the best Oaks and his god can do?

If the world is going to Hell in a hand basket then Oaks should welcome the persecutions right?

"43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/5.htm

"He thinks it's unfair that someone's religion can't be the sole basis for a law that impinges on the rights of others. "

I think this is what has me so angry at all of Christianity right now. Who in the hell made you people the authority on what's right? Because you say so? No, that's not how it works. If religion should impact law-making, then every religion should get a say, not just Christianity.

It makes me stabby.

siflbiscuit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "He thinks it's unfair that someone's religion
> can't be the sole basis for a law that impinges on
> the rights of others. "
>
> I think this is what has me so angry at all of
> Christianity right now. Who in the hell made you
> people the authority on what's right? Because you
> say so? No, that's not how it works. If religion
> should impact law-making, then every religion
> should get a say, not just Christianity.
>
> It makes me stabby.

But of course, he's scream "constitutional protection" to high hell if Muslims tried to pass Sharia laws, or if Jews tried to outlaw eating pork, etc.
Because only HIS religion should have the right to make its beliefs into laws.
Putz.

so he is admitting that LD$ Inc. is nothing but a corporation.

For once one of them speaks the truth - straight from Judge Dallin.

my, how their own words come back to bite them!