Mormons have the right to try to change USA laws?

Post Reply New Topic

Like all citizens, Mormons have the right to change the law, but I'm uncomfortable when religions (with the exception of black churches involved in civil rights, or confessional Lutherans opposing Hitler) get involved with politics. Especially with a religion like Mormonism that's so outside the mainstream.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Why should black churches be an exception? Forming your political ties around religion opens people up to abuse.(in the sense that they can be used in ways that do not end with an advantage for anyone but the pastors)

Because nothing is absolutely black and white. Some causes are more legitimate than others. Black churches fighting for equal rights hardly is comparable to Mormons denying civil rights to gays.

-Bill, otherwise known a Kraichgauer

So the ends justify the means? It is ok to abuse someones faith for political goals if those goals are just?

It's just to deny someone's civil rights?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Think about some racism laws being broken.
The Muslims / Islams will get very angry, they don't like racists, these people rest on Friday.

Australian laws are totally different, we have laws to tolerate different religions Acted in 2001 and there is the government human equal opportunity commission. Acted 1995, 2010, this protects everyone from losing civil rights.

Australia is a mixture of cultures from all over the world and I do have acquaintances that are Muslim, at the college I attended is mixed with different cultures, the college has rules against racism if your racist your out the door.

Last edited by woodss82 on 23 Feb 2011, 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In other words the ends justify the means.

You have a funny way of making a good thing sound bad.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Denying a church the right to organize such a large minority is not denying the minority the right to organize, no one loses rights but the church, rights it arguably shouldn't have. Black people can be tied together through secular means and there is no reason they should not be.

In fact, in my original post, I said Mormons had the right to become involved with politics, but I made it clear I find their anti-gay cause to be unpalatable.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Same here. I realize they are attempting to become a worldwide religion, but they should remain politically Utah-based and just leave us alone, because they are a tiny minority everywhere else. If the Muslim Brotherhood was funding the anti-gay movements in America there would be a much more vocal public outcry

Some of the most racist people I've ever met are Muslims from the northern part of Africa, basically any African country touching the Mediterranian basin. The ones I knew didn't like even being referred to as "African." A while back, what was essentially a hagiography in movie form of Anwar Sadat was banned in Egypt for the simple reason that Lou Gosset, Jr. played him. (Apparently Sadat was very sensitive about his skin color, and the idea of an African-American playing him was anathema to his family.)

Perhaps their racist beliefs are a matter of local culture and run contrary to the tenets of their faith, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a substantial number of Muslim racists, who reside in countries that do nothing to discourage such beliefs.



Just out of curiousity, would Australia have a problem with something like Santeria? Federal, state and local authorities in the US seemed to go back and forth on the group for quite a while, but it looks like their rites are now considered protected behavior. Possibly even to the point they waive the zoning rules about slaughterhouses, the keeping of farm animals on small residential lots, etc., so Santerians can do their thing in their kitchen if they want.



I must grudgingly admit the logic the Miami police ultimately applied. Still, the idea of having a neighbor slitting the throats of goats, pigeons, rabbits or whatever in their home on a regular basis would give me pause, personally. And, boy am I glad there don't seem to be any of them around here.

Well, since you're granting some sort of absolution to historically black churches, I guess their organized opposition to gay marriage in California is okay by you? Whites voted in against the measure by a small margin, Latinos voted in favor, but also by a small margin. It may in fact have been the African-American vote which pushed Prop 8 over the top. 70% supported passing the law, quite possibly from what they were told in their churches.

Or are we to look to you as the sole arbiter of what does and does not constitute "legitimate?"

Most of California's Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban (Washington Post link)

excerpts:

]

that depends what you want to change it to, in America i know thats not how it is anymore but its supposed to be if the law goes against freedom(religion and freedom do not mix because if someone is a different religion they are killed usually) they have no right to pass it

if i were in charge the government would be a very smalkl limited government whose biggest job was just being the first line of defense against threats to freedom but because i dont come from a rich family and because im not a sociopath(thats a prerequisite these days) i can never be in politics

Short answer - no.
But to elaborate; just because those California voters who proved to be homophobic were black doesn't mean they were in any way right just because of the color of their skin. It's the cause that has merit (or lack thereof), not the supporter's particular race.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer