Posted on 08/15/2011 4:53:20 AM PDT by Colofornian
Backpedaling faster and faster I see. You said -
The goverment does not have the right to tell people of faith how to practis their religion. Just because all of you don’t agree with the LDS doctrine it does not give the government the power to tell them , you or I how to worship.
I cited an example of a person jailed for practicing his religion. Since you say he should practice his religion however he believes - and he believes his religion permits child rape - you must then be endorsing the action.
You all have missed the point of my post and that was the government should not be in the business of regulating religion.
11. The child was born on February 8, 1844. The mother was legally married to Windsor P. Lyon–cited in D. Michael Quinn’s The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1994), 642, Appendix 7. One contemporary Mormon woman of Joseph Smith’s said, “You hear often that Joseph Smith had no polygamous offspring. The reason of this is very simple. Abortion was practiced on a large scale in Nauvoo. Dr. John C. Bennett, the evil genius of Joseph, brought this abomination into a scientific system. He showed to my husband and me the instruments with which he used to ‘operate for Joseph.’ There was a house in Nauvoo, ‘right across the flat’...a kind of hospital. They sent the women there, when they showed signs of celestial consequences. Abortion was practiced regularly in this house” (emphasis in original). W. Wyle, 59.
No wonder Harry Reid and Mitt Romney are either blase' about abortion or in favor of it. I wonder why this fact is not more widely known?
Kill the messenger, you kill the message.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying, basically, that the Government cannot restrict how you worship and what you believe. The Constitution states in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.". The interpretation of that, of course, has been a boondoggle for lawyers ever since. There was a Supreme Court decision in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), where they required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct.
So, I would surmise from this that the government can only interfere with the free exercise of religion when there is a compelling cause. When the LDS religion first started, there were already laws against polygamy. Smith chose to disobey those laws AS a U.S. citizen, so he was in violation of the law. It would have been different if Smith's religion existed before there was a U.S. Constitution, but that was not how it happened. If it were, then perhaps there would be something about such things in the Constitution that would allow exceptions in certian cases. But it didn't in the LDS case.
For example, the same would apply to Santeria. It is a combined Caribbean/West African religion with some Roman Catholicism mixed in, that, among other things, sacrifices live chickens in their worship. The first Santeria church established in the U.S. was in 1974 (per wikipedia.org). There have been controversies with it and American law. One in particular addressed their treatment of animals. In 1993, the issue of animal sacrifice was taken to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. The Supreme Court ruled that animal cruelty laws targeted specifically at Yoruba were unconstitutional; the Yoruba practice of animal sacrifice has seen no significant legal challenges since then. But when a woman died because her mother thought she was demon possessed and had put a plastic bag over her head to smother her in an exorcism ritual, then the mother was prosecuted for murder. The mother was found not guilty due to insanity, and is currently confined in a New York State psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane.
So, I think the Constitution prevents the government from restricting the free exercise of religion, but when any religion violates federal or state laws, it must adhere to the law unless the courts find a compelling interest in favor of the religion. I don't see any sign of the government threatening established religions in this country and, if they did, as we see in Muslim or communist countries, I believe we have the Constitution on our side and we would not permit such without an unrelenting fight.
place marker
Some white men came & said "you must..." (imposing)
Other white men came & said "you can..." (exposing)
Other white men came & didn't care (live & let live libertarians)
Other white men came & _________ (fill in the blank)
For you to lump all white men together is stereotyping
For you to accuse all white men together as imposing their religion -- when there's no way to break down the #s as to how many/what % of white men did what...is to be guilty of superimposing.
Better quit while you're behind.
Indeed, one could and has been argued in various places here in FR. That is not the issue.
You all have missed the point of my post and that was the government should not be in the business of regulating religion.
Then quit squirming away from my point. If that is your belief then you have no grounds to condemn Jeffs' rape of a 12 year old girl in the name of his religion now do you. Anything goes then.
One day and it won’t be long and the government will be telling everyone who they can and can not worship and you will still be talking about Jeffs.
Aren't the Native Americans allowed to continue their rituals and religious beliefs? They are self-governed on the various reservations and they are even allowed to open gambling casinos on Indian land, open to the public, and this goes on even in states that do not allow legal gambling. I am not aware of restrictions on their religious freedoms in America - on their own reservations or elsewhere. Can you name any?
This is where your historical ignorance & revisionism is showing. (Like I said, you better quit while you're still behind)
First of all, it wasn't all "kumbayah" amongst the Native American tribes. Before white men were in the U.S.; as White men began to populate the U.S.; and after they began to populate the U.S. in great numbers, the fact is that various Native American tribes persistently fought each other.
The Cheyenne were easily provoked in opposing other tribes.
The Comanches were less operative as one solid grouping or tribe--they operated more as "bands"; they drove out the Jumano Indians & the Pueblo Indians & some Apache Indians from the Southern Plains. The Catawba fought the Savannah; and the Catawba were known for fighting other tribes on behalf of the British.
The Fox Indians of Wisconsin rose up vs. the French (1712-1735); the Potawatomi tribe then fought vs. the Fox on behalf of the French.
The very word "Apache" = fighting men & they battled other tribes as well as the Spaniards well before white men: "They were always known as 'wild' Indians, and indeed their early warfare with all neighboring tribes as well as their recent persistent hostility toward our Government, which precipitated a 'war of extermination,' bear out the appropriateness of the designation." The first intruders were the Spanish, who penetrated Apache territory in the late 1500s...When New Mexico became a Spanish colony in 1598, hostilities increased between Spaniards and Apaches.
Source: APACHE TRIBAL NATION
If you're tracing "color wars" here, guitarplayer, that would mean that brown Apaches were fighting lighter brown Spanish in those years.
These border & south-of-the-border tribal clashes also took place in South America, as they did frequently in Africa, island communities and just about all regions.
I could go on and on listing such conflicts. Frankly it was because of both isolation and tribal diversity that Native Americans could not or would not often band together to oppose their enemies.
Btw, there were five tribes known as the "civilized" tribes & were peaceful toward other tribes & white men as well: Cherokee, Chickasaw; Chocktaw; Creek, and Seminole. So I would not count these tribes as being in the "same camp" as the others...they indeed were more solely victimized by white men alone.
One other thing: This same tribal-hostile reality occurs with slavery. It was often other West African tribes who would kidnap other tribesmen to sell them to the Portuguese or British, etc. into slavery for centuries. And for some centuries, the Muslims were far worse than "white men" in the operative slave trade. IOW, there was plenty of historical guilt to pile on ALL.
But go ahead, guitarplayer. I guess I interrupted your brow-beating racist tirade vs. ONLY (& all) white people. As far as I can tell from history, all colors of people groups have committed all sorts of trans-tribal atrocities. All people of each diverse group were not guilty of such acts; but all colors found contributors to mayhem in their midst.
It's the typical liberal approach to want to blame only "white privilege" and "white colonial imperialism"...By all means, blame away...what was done is hardly worth defending...But what I am saying is that the finger-pointing tends to be rather selective...which means they deliberately ignore and/or distort other histories so that only whites tend to be wearing the guilt badge.
Sounds to me guitarplayer that you specialized in music during your campus years much to the downfall of your history homework.
That will be then, this is now and from everything you've posted you NOW it appear you endorse rape of 12 year old children as long as it is part of one's religion. The gov't shouldn't be involved in such rapes because it is part of religion. You'd probably condone aztec human sacrifice as well by the same logic
Guitarplayer, I understand the point you are trying to make about Government intrusion into religious freedoms in our country. Just as the subject of this thread stressed, there are, and must be, some restrictions - just as was true with the Warren Jeffs case as well as the polygamy of the LDS in general. I don't think you or any of us would not agree that proscriptions against certain behaviors ARE the responsibilities of the State. Human sacrifice would be a prime example, but seeing as our current government seems to have no problem sanctioning the equivalent in legal abortion, such acts under the guise of religious freedom should be illegal.
There are still some countries that permit multiple wives and also slavery, but they would not be and should not be permitted to continue such things when they take up residence in the U.S. I also don't think those actions are considered "religious" duties like was done with the early Mormons and with the FLDS now.
As to your fears of our federal government infringing upon our religious traditions, I agree that there are certain elements right now that would delight in being able to do so. We are seeing what is going on in the UK with anti-homosexuality beliefs. I believe that during the Tribulation, the Anti-christ will demand obeisance to him as god and will persecute those who refuse. But for right now, we continue to enjoy freedoms greater than any other nation in the world. Should that time come where Christianity is forbidden to be practiced, I will not be alone in fighting against such tyranny with every ounce of strength and drop of blood I have.
I never thought you did. I hope your wife has found healing and peace about her ordeal.
I also believe that about the end-times people will be persecuted and killed for not worshiping the Anti-christ and Scripture does say no one will be able to buy or sell without his "mark", however, I do not agree that once a person is born again/saved that they can lose their salvation. The Bible says that those who take the mark of the Beast will not be saved, but first of all, the Christians that are alive before the Anti-christ takes power will have already been taken up to heaven and will be out of the world during the seven year tribulation. The unbelievers who were left must make a choice between Christ and the Anti-christ and those that choose Jesus will be the ones who are persecuted and killed for their faith. Those who reject Christ will take the mark and will seal their eternity in hell. The Christians who come to faith during the tribulation will NOT take the mark because they will know not to be deceived.
I think we are in agreement about the endtimes, but thank you for clarifying your statement about the Mormon's having freedom to break the current laws of our country. There is a big difference between government enforcing its laws and those laws being in violation of the Constitutional free exercise of religion clause.
Convicted con man in N.Y.? Paragon Defender used to post some interesting sites so that folks could investigate both sides & decide for themselves. I thought your assertion was interesting so I checked out one of the sites. You may find it interesting yourself as it would seem your assertion that JS was convicted for working a “magic stone” is anything but concrete fact.
I’m not taking sides here, but as we’ve seen on this very thread, folks aren’t afraid to mislead on issues, as Mount Athos aptly pointed out. Hope you’re not part of that crowd.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_issues/Trials/1826_glasslooking_trial
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.