1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Mormon Church ventures in politics again, supports immigration reform

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by downtown, Apr 20, 2011.

?

Possible reactions to this thread might include

  1. Kudos to the LDS church for using their influence for social justice

    11.8%
  2. I'm mad that this church used their influence for a bill I disagree with

    9.8%
  3. I'm glad they're speaking out this time, but in the future, I hope they shut up about politics

    3.9%
  4. churches should never try to influence policy, even when it's stuff I like

    39.2%
  5. I have another opinion

    3.9%
  6. I have no opinion

    7.8%
  7. Mormons are absolutely going to hurt Obama politically this year

    9.8%
  8. The LDS church should make downtown a lobbyist

    13.7%
  1. GhostWriter16

    GhostWriter16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    22,753
    Location:
    Wherever my name is posted
    I've never heard "Vote Republican" but that's probably because its illegal to do so (Even though that's the most moronic thing ever, free speech applies to religious leaders too.)

    That said, I have heard pastors give advice on how to vote. They didn't tell us who to vote for, but they did give Godly principles to vote based on.

    I actually heard 2 services shortly before election day, in different churches. One of them was much more open about the issue, the other one is my regular church. Our pastor just basically outlined Godly principles for voting, but the other church basically implied we should not vote democrat. I actually, in hindsight, prefer the way the other church did it, but not because of what they said (I didn't actually agree with the way they portrayed every issue) but because they weren't afraid to give an honest, frank opinion instead of dancing around the issue.
     
  2. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,006
    Location:
    Sydney
    FWIW, coming up to the recent state election (in which religion was a reasonably big factor, unusually), my minister informed our congregation that he'd received another email from a minister urging him to tell us who to vote for (with that being a specific political party). So he specifically didn't tell us who to vote for. And that's the way it should be. He all the time speaks of moral issues and contentious social justice issues, and we all know which way he'd vote, but actually telling people who they should vote for, from the pulpit, is completely unacceptable. Speaking on individual issues is not, but taking it that further step to apply those subjective judgements to electoral candidates is.
     
  3. GhostWriter16

    GhostWriter16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    22,753
    Location:
    Wherever my name is posted
    Why exactly?

    Or at least, do you mean morally unacceptable? Or are you suggesting it be legally unacceptable? Because we have the latter in the US and its total crap...
     
  4. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,006
    Location:
    Sydney
    No, not legally unacceptable. It's perfectly legal to do so here. It's just morally unacceptable. Unless one side are completely dangerous loonies, and voting for them is as close to objectively bad as you can get, then using a religious position of power to score political points is just not on. Why should my minister be telling me to vote for the ALP over the Libs? That decision is too far divorced from the church's political responsibilities as to mean that influencing people to vote a particular way on religious grounds is irrelevant when compared to the big picture. So one party might represent one small interest where the other party does. That doesn't call for wielding such a position of power to agree with something that involves a whole lot more than just that issue.

    This is a rather subjective measure of unacceptability, in that it is therefore only unacceptable when I think religion is largely divorced from the electoral choice.
     
  5. GhostWriter16

    GhostWriter16 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    22,753
    Location:
    Wherever my name is posted
    OK, that makes more sense. For one thing, the law is tricky here I think, and I only really know about New York. It may be legal in other states, I don't know (Though IIRC it was a Federal Law actually.) That said, you can make it totally obvious who to vote for and still not SAY it and still be legally OK.

    As for the moral perspective, I think there's a difference between the Pastor saying "My opinion is you should vote for X because of Y," and "You must vote for this, God wills you to because (Insert opinion here.)"

    I don't have a problem with a frank opinion, as long as of course, you don't threaten spiritual consequences that don't actually exist....

    Ultimately, I'm kinda in between on the issue, but not totally agreeing with you. I think its fine to give an opinion. Of course, abusing the power over your congregation IS a bad thing.
     
  6. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    17,201
    Location:
    Canberra
    Hey, Dr Gordon Moyes did say "On environmental issues, climate change and social justice, the Greens are far more Christian than climate sceptics and those who back the exploiters of the poor and homeless." I'm pretty OK with that.

    I guess that's why the Christian Democrat nutters (ie Fred Nile) kicked him out. And it says interesting things about Family First in NSW that they made him their state leader. (and 3500 preferences from their voters were the key distribution which put the Greens into the NSW Legislative Council ahead of Hanson)
     
  7. FriendlyFire

    FriendlyFire Codex WMDicanious

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    18,190
    Location:
    Sydney
    Protesting military funerals with God kills soldiers ?
    guess everyone has their personal bug bears.
     
  8. civ_king

    civ_king Deus Caritas Est

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,368
    Laws of Burgos, it dictated they were to be fed, clothed and taught, outlawed abusing them, alas, it was ineffectually enforced
     
  9. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,006
    Location:
    Sydney
    So am I. And this is what makes me slightly hypocritical.
     
  10. RedRalph

    RedRalph Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    I'm sorry, but is anyone else seeing this? Patroklos says its wrong to keep churches out of politics, then says black reverend should keep out of politics, then calls me inconsistent when I have said that all churches should stay out of politics????

    Patroklos, in your own word, explain how I have been logically inconsistent when I am saying that ALL churches should stay out of politics???

    Please, I invite comment from others on this as I could be missing something
     
  11. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    I remind you that the head of that group is a registered democrat.
     
  12. RoboPig

    RoboPig Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    OOC, do you mean that you've never been told to vote for a specific candidate or that you've never been given any criteria to consider when deciding who to vote for?

    In my own experience, I've never been told to vote for a specific candidate or not to, for that matter. However, I usually get some sort of letter or pamphlet reminding everyone not to vote for politicians who oppose Church teaching.
     
  13. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Neither have ever occurred to me in my entire life, and I have visited and attended probably more churches than your average person.
     
  14. RedRalph

    RedRalph Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Now what is the logical inconsistency on my part you are alleging???
     
  15. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Canis Latranscendental

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    14,906
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with the consensus that churches expressing opinions is wrong because it doesn't represent all the members, unlike a PAC, where all the people join for a specific cause. People don't join religious organisations for politics; they join it for God.

    Now, if religious people want to form a PAC for a certain issue, then that's a different story. Private citizens form PACs all the time after all; this time it just has a religious theme. Granted, I'd prefer it be a liberal PAC, but, hey, best not to muddy the waters by reasoning "good" and "evil" in this case.

    Of course, that said, while they should be able to advocate secular policies for religious reasons, they shouldn't be able to advocate religious policies for a secular government. Wanna go against abortion because God thinks it's wrong? Fine. Want to force us all to go to Church? Hell no.
     
  16. downtown

    downtown Crafternoon Delight

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    19,514
    Location:
    Chicago
    I think Letter from Birmingham Jail convinced me that churches could have a positive role in politics actually. Before I read the piece, I was more in the "omg no churches and policy at all" camp.
     
  17. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Canis Latranscendental

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    14,906
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sure businesses can do a lot of good in politics too...

    Should we allow businesses to run rampant rather than the insulated system we have now?

    No, we shouldn't. It's in the spirit of the American government to make all the various forces check themselves by them all having no dominant role in government. Many ideologies, many backgrounds, etc.
     
  18. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,429

    The law is tied to the tax free status, which all non-profits are required to uphold. Unions have never been brought to court that I know of for violating that law.
     
  19. Patroklos

    Patroklos Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,721
    I never said blacks reverends should be kept out of politics, every time you say this you are committing a bald faced lie. I in fact said the exact opposite, quoted it for you when you lied the first time, and THAT is what everyone in this thread has read.

    To be clear, you are the one advocating the banning of religous figures from politics, I simply stated generally I would prefer they not involve themselves but understand fully why they do and should be allowed to.

    You are inconsistant because when you encountered my statment asking someone else to be logically consistant with your above statment, you were unable to apply it US black civil rights leaders who are primarily agents of religious organizations.

    You are a hypocrite, unless you would like to answer the question instead of suspiciously dodging it like you did the first time.

    I have several times, RTFT.

    Please afirm that you think the involvment of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King, and Jeremiah Wright in American politics as overt representatives or relgious organizations was immoral and improper.

    Downtown already did, you ignored him.

    You inability to apply your sweeping statment to specific examples.

    King was not an individual reverend, he was the ecclesiactical leader of a vast alliance of hundreds if not thousands of black religious congregations drawing his power primarily through those organizations. Did you never wonder why so many civil rights leaders are reverends? The cynical would note that gaining that title was a necessary requirement to marshal support and was done under false pretenses, the not so cynical would just accept that religious affiliation was a natural result of serving a community very much defined by religious groupings.

    Either way, Martin Luther King is a prime example of religion being leveraged into politics. Please repudiate him now.
     
  20. Jolly Rogerer

    Jolly Rogerer Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    402
    Wyoming was the first state to give the vote to women.
     

Share This Page