Mormon Church ventures in politics again, supports immigration reform

[ParkCungHee]

Never mind that the Pope is acknowledged as the mouthpiece of the RCC, isn't he? He can't state an opinion without it being God's in many's view.

...

It doesn't matter if the Pope has his own views or not; a lot of people treat it as if he's just a puppet with God as the puppet master.

That's not how it works

 

[classical_hero]

Er, no.

First, it doesn't matter if MLK was a religious person and his views were influenced by his participation in church. His views are still his views, not necessarily those of the church.

Second, what are you even trying to say about your pope? I'm sure it's wrong, I just don't know exactly what it is you're saying.

Well the fact that he was a clergyman does mean that when he spoke it was the fact that he was the leader of a church, so that pretty much means his views would be those of the organisation he runs. You can't separate the views of the preacher of the church from the church itself, otherwise he would not have become the pastor of a church, and certainly not in Baptist circles, which he hails from.

 

[Bill3000]

Well the fact that he was a clergyman does mean that when he spoke it was the fact that he was the leader of a church, so that pretty much means his views would be those of the organisation he runs.

That's certainly not the case all the time when the pope speaks. The pope has personal views as well which are not the views of the church as a whole.

 

[RedRalph]

That's certainly not the case all the time when the pope speaks. The pope has personal views as well which are not the views of the church as a whole.

In fact, that tactic is often used when a church leader says something they didn't want him/her to say

 

[Tani Coyote]

That's not how it works

I didn't say it did, merely that many people tend to confuse the Pope's opinion with the Church's or God's.

He is so intertwined with it he can't be a separate person anymore.

 

[civ_king]

Never mind that the Pope is acknowledged as the mouthpiece of the RCC, isn't he? He can't state an opinion without it being God's in many's view.

Unlike King, who could state a view and people would believe it was his.

It doesn't matter if the Pope has his own views or not; a lot of people treat it as if he's just a puppet with God as the puppet master.

Why was I never told this?

I didn't say it did, merely that many people tend to confuse the Pope's opinion with the Church's or God's.

He is so intertwined with it he can't be a separate person anymore.

uh wut?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Churches should have no say in politics, after all, they pay no taxes.

Churches should have all the say they want in politics - and should suffer the appropriate tax consequences.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Now I have a headache. Both of you, shake hands limply and make up.

Pure awesome.

Speaking with compassion about political issues is a good thing, but as soon as religious leaders start getting their hate on about women or minority groups and being all exclusionist, then they should shut up.

This is pretty easy.

Thread winning comment.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Why was I never told this?

uh wut?

Once again, the reality =/= widespread opinion.

The Pope's opinion is gonna be pretty universally acknowledged as the Church's and/or God's in all circles I've seen. The Church especially since he is its leader.

It doesn't matter if he actually is the voice of God or the Church.

 

[Patroklos]

The original issue is whether the Mormon Church ought to participate in politics. It's just derailed into people shouting past each other rather than discussing whether a church representative can distance his own politics from his church enough for it to be appropriate for him to speak out in public on politics.

I think Ralph means the church as an institution should stay mum on politics, that it would be okay for King to go into politics as a so-to-speak "civilian" but not on behalf of his church.

Unfortunetly for you and RRW MLK was not speaking as an individual, he was speaking as the recognized haed of a coalition of religious based organizations. He wasn't representing himself, he was representing all of those organizations. This was overt, any attempt to divorce the body of his work from the religious institutions who were the backbone of his movement is daft. You may as well claim any Catholic priest at the alter isn't linked to the Catholic church.

If you believe the involvement of religious intitutions in politics is bad, then you have to repudiate the work of MLK and many famous civil rights leaders because that was exactly what they were doing.

 

[JollyRoger]

Some people will never understand the difference between the alter and the soapbox.

 

[LucyDuke]

Well the fact that he was a clergyman does mean that when he spoke it was the fact that he was the leader of a church, so that pretty much means his views would be those of the organisation he runs. You can't separate the views of the preacher of the church from the church itself, otherwise he would not have become the pastor of a church, and certainly not in Baptist circles, which he hails from.

Erm. Yeah you can. Except maybe in the case of a I'm-a-prophet cult or something. Is the view of the church that ice cream is yummy? Or is ice cream just none of the church's goddamn business?

Unfortunetly for you and RRW MLK was not speaking as an individual, he was speaking as the recognized haed of a coalition of religious based organizations. He wasn't representing himself, he was representing all of those organizations. This was overt, any attempt to divorce the body of his work from the religious institutions who were the backbone of his movement is daft. You may as well claim any Catholic priest at the alter isn't linked to the Catholic church.

If you believe the involvement of religious intitutions in politics is bad, then you have to repudiate the work of MLK and many famous civil rights leaders because that was exactly what they were doing.

If that is the case, and I admit I don't know the history so I'll hypothetically take your word for it, I don't see what's unfortunate about it. I take no stand on whether you can divorce MLK from his church. I see no contradiction in "I'm uncomfortable with religious institutions getting involved in irreligious affairs, but MLK's church's work turned out to be a good thing."

 

[Formaldehyde]

Some people will never understand the difference between the alter and the soapbox.

Or even apparently the primary purpose of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. It would have been rather absurd for the leader of the conference not to discuss white racism in the South and do all he could to end it.

I think this is what the real issue is here. There are still those who wish the South was segregated, even today. They resent that black Christianity played an important role in ending white supremacy in the South which was predominately Christian-based.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Speaking with compassion about political issues is a good thing, but as soon as religious leaders start getting their hate on about women or minority groups and being all exclusionist, then they should shut up.

Do you really mean: They should talk as much as they like, as long as I agree with what they say?

 

[Patroklos]

They resent that black Christianity played an important role in ending white supremacy in the South which was predominately Christian-based.

Yes, it is unfortunetly that RRW resents such benefits religious involvement in politics has brought us.

 

[Dachs]

In fact, that tactic is often used when a church leader says something they didn't want him/her to say

Who is "They"?

 

[classical_hero]

Or even apparently the primary purpose of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. It would have been rather absurd for the leader of the conference not to discuss white racism in the South and do all he could to end it.

I think this is what the real issue is here. There are still those who wish the South was segregated, even today. They resent that black Christianity played an important role in ending white supremacy in the South which was predominately Christian-based.

I wish you would think before you wrote, otherwise it would not be so hard to read what you are saying. The biggest opponents of Racism and things associated were Christians and especially with the issue of Slavery, which came from the issue of Racism.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I realize that I am derailing the thread by talking about the Utah immigration law, but . . .

What, exactly, is the exact nature of the LDS Church's involvement in this bill?

Did Church leaders say it's a good bill and should be passed?
Did Church leaders explicitly or implictly tell/command/encourage LDS legislators to vote for it?
Did Church leaders give Church resources to those seeking to get the bill passed?

All of this matters, I think.

(By the way, I have seen churches lobbying both for and against recognition of same-sex marriage . . . I hope everyone has consistent opinions on both groups.)

 

[downtown]

I realize that I am derailing the thread by talking about the Utah immigration law, but . . .

What, exactly, is the exact nature of the LDS Church's involvement in this bill?

Did Church leaders say it's a good bill and should be passed?
Did Church leaders explicitly or implictly tell/command/encourage LDS legislators to vote for it?
Did Church leaders give Church resources to those seeking to get the bill passed?

All of this matters, I think.

(By the way, I have seen churches lobbying both for and against recognition of same-sex marriage . . . I hope everyone has consistent opinions on both groups.)

I spoke with a family friend of ours, who is a high level Democratic guy in Utah County (yeah, I didn't know those existed either). As far as we both understood, the Church came out and officially endorsed the bill, and endorsed it's backing on comprehensive immigration reform in general. It did not require LDS legislators to vote for it, nor did it specifically ask the membership to do anything.

The thinking is that the church did this for two reasons. 1) Obviously, since the church is increasingly hispanic, the church doesn't want to risk deportations or alienation of people who hold leadership positions. Immigration rhetoric is apparently a big dividing issue in LDS wards out west.

2) The church was worried that conservative legislators were using a wink wink sort of thing to imply that the church was in favor of deportations/Arizona style legislation, using the 12th article of faith as justification.

For what it's worth, Elder Burton and the churches' PR guy said that the church may take more forceful action later, and my friend thinks this is going to happen, as a lot of the membership in Utah is unhappy about this.

 

[RedRalph]

Here's how I view the MLK thing.

I obviously broadly welcome the results of his involvement with politics. However, that doesn't change my overall opinion of churches being involved in politics. I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I'm not going to turn around and say "OK, I actually welcome church involvement with politics when it results in something I like". Overall, I think religion causes far more harm to politics than good, so I'm just against it, full stop. That doesn't mean I cant acknowledge that sometimes it has good results. But you can't just pick and choose like that.