I've been watching all the discussion on TV about the midterm elections. Someone came on today crying about the attacks on religious freedom. Have I been sleeping? I have occasionally heard people criticize certain religions. I've seen too many mental cases shooting innocent people over religion but I haven't seen much large scale, serious discussion about taking away religious freedoms in the USA. None of this seems to be addressed on my ballot. But I have heard religions equate losing religious freedom with having their tax free status questioned.

I don't believe revoking a religion's tax free designation is the same as taking away their religious freedom unless they think freedom of religion should include freedom to amass huge fortunes on the backs of poor members in the name of God and give back little or nothing of substance.

I think what you are talking about involves subjects like: LBGQT issues, abortion, birth control, equality in the workplace and in school (etc.), baking cakes or acting as a photographer for people whose lifestyle those making the charges disagree with....

....plus: subjects such as any of the above, or issues like slavery (or anything else similarly embarrassing), or not being allowed to discriminate against LBGQT people (whether they are adults or children) in public schools....

....plus: the legally disputed "rights" of local governments, or publicly-owned facilities, to install plaques of religious sayings, reproductions of the Ten Commandments, pictures of religious figures, etc. in publicly-owned facilities....

....plus: the legally disputed "rights" of local governments or tax-supported entities to demand that official meetings (etc.) begin with [virtually always, and specifically] Christian prayers, led by specific religious figures whose beliefs accord with whoever is in charge.

In these cases, "religious freedom" is interpreted, by those who make these charges, as the right to impose specific religious beliefs and religious practices on the public at large in most any way the believers in control deem "acceptable."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2018 01:46AM by Tevai.

I think Elder Oaks is the main force behind religious freedom rhetoric (in LDS circles) and as usual, it’s sexual. His big hot button is LGBT, which has been his crusade for over half a century. The tide has not gone his way. Expect the church to ease up after he dies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2018 06:40AM by babyloncansuckit.

"Religious Freedom" in this context is code for discrimination and domination...as in the "right" to discriminate against, exclude, or dominate and control "others" you don't like.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2018 07:53AM by anybody.

I think the word "attack" to most religion means taking away their power to impose their views on others.

Actual physical attacks on religious property and religious people also happen and always have. We must protect religion when this kind of attack happens.


I think the problem is that some religions can't tell the difference.

Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion is is indeed under right wing attack.

What I've heard on AM talk radio is "taking prayer out of school." and the ending of teaching civics in the classroom, hence we have a whole generation that don't know anything about what made america great. How manifest destiny created the nation which we live, How free enterprise, small government made possible the intermountain west, All of this is under attack because unlike in the past Christianity is not explicitly taught by tax funded teachers, unlike in the past when certain cultures were taught to be supperior, now all societies are suppose to be equal, and the previous dominant traditions (ten commandments) are being taken down in the courthouses. And replaced with an anything goes kind of idea, the post modern world is what we get.

This is all linked to the mess we are in with regards to primary and secondary schools. Discipline problems are sky high, gone is the respect students had for their teachers like what was enjoyed in the 1950s, and replaced is a communist core doctrine of everyone being equal and subjected to what the state deems politically correct and mediocrity is celebrated. Freedom of association is threatened. We are going to be seeing more and more of this as decades go on.

This is probably what Oaks is worried about, even though he can't quite articulate his politically incorrect ideas satisfactorily so the rest of us know what he's talking about. Because its too impolite or whatever?

I say talk inpolite, speak your mind, otherwise too many are confused.

telll us about communist doctrine and then define communism.

one of the places to study to learn about communism is what took place in Russia when Lennin and Stallin were the leaders. The movement didn't value the sanctity of human life in the way that the West did. Hence the death of so many Russians and the secret police, and the killing of the nobility and the rampage against Estonia, Lithowania and other places near by. Stallin (the atheist) was notorious for killing anyone he thought was a personal threat. Even if they were on the same side. The communists of that day were also believed their new found insight or intelligence triumphed over any Religion or god. THere is no right or wrong, because the world is composed of diametrically opposed matter that is in a constant state of conflict (this was termed diametrical materialism in the 19th century)

The 1930s architecture (that is still standing in Europe, Russia, and TelaViv and other places) shows the manifestation of the new age. Beauty was extinguished and replaced with concrete boxes and communial high rises. Beauty had no purpose anymore.

In Oaks mind, he and the conservative right think that America will descend into this degenerated past that overtook much of Europe if society gives up on certain traditions.
1) sanctity of life, (hence the fight against abortion)
2) taking god out of public sphere.

But the thing about mormon leaders is that they don't say what they really think. They spend all their time being really really nice.

anono this week Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> one of the places to study to learn about
> communism is what took place in Russia when Lennin
> and Stallin were the leaders. The movement didn't
> value the sanctity of human life in the way that
> the West did.

Surely you jest. You can't really believe "Western" Germany respected "the sanctity of human life" better in the 1930s than Stalinist Russia.

Do you?



-----------------
> Hence the death of so many Russians
> and the secret police, and the killing of the
> nobility and the rampage against Estonia,
> Lithowania and other places near by.

That's funny. I thought Hitler invaded and controlled Lithuania and Estonia from 1941 to 1945 and did precisely what you just described. Is there a reason why you consider Soviet desolation of those countries worse than Nazi desolation of them?



-----------------
> Stallin (the
> atheist) was notorious for killing anyone he
> thought was a personal threat.

That is true. And yet if you read the history of that stage in Soviet life, you will find that it originated in the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler wiped out all his opponents in a slaughter that Stalin considered "brilliant" and after which he modeled his purges.



---------------------
> Even if they were
> on the same side. The communists of that day were
> also believed their new found insight or
> intelligence triumphed over any Religion or god.
> THere is no right or wrong, because the world is
> composed of diametrically opposed matter that is
> in a constant state of conflict (this was termed
> diametrical materialism in the 19th century)

It's actually called "dialectical materialism" and it was official 20th century Soviet ideology. Of course it originated in German philosophy, first Hegel and later Marx, and Hitler was very much Hegelian as well. So this is another commonality between the Nazis and the Bolsheviks.

Did you know that you are describing German philosophy?



--------------------
> In Oaks mind, he and the conservative right think
> that America will descend into this degenerated
> past that overtook much of Europe if society gives
> up on certain traditions.

The USSR, and international communism, fell in 1989. Oaks is not worried about that. No one since Ezra Benson has been.



--------------------
> 1) sanctity of life, (hence the fight against
> abortion)
> 2) taking god out of public sphere.

Europe, Japan, South Korea, and to a large extent the US already allow abortion and have taken God out of public affairs. Heavens, the US constitution was the first governmental charter that attempted to do that.



-----------------
Let's strip out your attempt at 20th century history since it is inaccurate and, more important, represents a diversion from the topic at hand.

No one in SLC is worried about communism, long since relegated to the dust bin of history. What Oaks and his like worry about is their ability, at taxpayer expense, to influence politics.

That's it: pure and simple.

Explain for us the difference between "Manifest Destiny" and genocide.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2018 02:37PM by Lot's Wife.

"How dare you not let me impose my conservative views on society as a whole," is often what I think of when I hear people complaining about their religious freedom being attacked.

They'll also complain about their children having to see something that they're taught is wrong, like two men or two women walking down the street holding hands.

Taking religion out of public schools is always a big one.

When you don't let them impose what they want to, then you're "attacking" them. It's that "if you're not with us, then you're against us" sort of mentality, which is something we all experienced in the Mormon Church.

What I voted NO to this morning in Alabama. Of course it will pass.

Amendment #1 to the Alabama State Constitution.

“Providing for certain religious rights and liberties; authorizing the display of the Ten Commandments on state property and property owned or administrated by a public school or public body; and prohibiting the expenditure of public funds in defense of the constitutionality of this amendment.”

They know it will pass. They know it will be challenged, but they won't pay for defense of the challenge. Why am I represented by idiots?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2018 11:00AM by fossilman.

Me too.
I was so pissed that was on the ballot in AL I could hardly keep the ink in the NO circle.

Religious freedom is fine. This is a personal individual freedom.

Religious privilege, particularly institutional privilege, is being recognized. Religion is experiencing critical analysis it never did before. None of those are infringements on religious freedom.

The term “Religious freedom” has come to mean nothing more than the right to use religion to discriminate against other people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2018 11:29AM by Atari.

Freedom is always under attack by someone. That's history. Make no mistake, there is always someone lurking in the bushes that wants to take something away.

There's that issue and then there is the issue of being made fun of and persecuted. Again this is history. There is someone always making fun of you or someone that hates you.

Maybe one important thing people forget is our republic was set up to protect the minority. It's why we aren't a democracy. Nobody has amended the bill of rights and taken the first amendment away. Maybe the government is a bit lax in protecting certain groups because those running it currently are dysfunctional.

It's all your typical noise that always exists. Someone is always getting screwed and someone is always crying. The reality is the world isn't perfect.

Pooped Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't believe revoking a religion's tax free
> designation is the same as taking away their
> religious freedom unless they think freedom of
> religion should include freedom to amass huge
> fortunes on the backs of poor members in the name
> of God and give back little or nothing of
> substance.

In my opinion as long as the game is on and the competition happening, if tax exemption is the price I pay for not having a group of megacorporations dominating the market and making The United States a dystopic religious state with competing corporations with the money to fund their conglomeration...then that is the price.


In businesses who are taxed we get corporate ballooning and protection of their interests in dominating markets.


Hopefully organized religions will wither and die on their own even with subsidization.

No.
Unless you mean the "freedom" of religion to unconstitutionally dominate and discriminate...in which case, yes...and it's a good thing.

Now, keep in mind, most religions (and the people who belong to them) in the US don't do the above.

But the religions and people that have exercised unjust "power" in their communities in the past, and trampled on the rights of other people...they're very fearful of losing that power. Hence the whining.

It is my belief I should be free from all others belief.
In other words stay out of my life.

EXON46 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is my belief I should be free from all others
> belief.

Good luck with that.