1- I agree.
2- I disagree. My experience in dealing with businesses in Utah is that they can essentially do nearly anything they want. And I will emphasize that those businesses are nearly always owned by LDS. Strange coincidence? After spending 20+ years in the LDS, I don’t think it is a coincidence.
I'll tell you right now that anytime someone starts in on the whole "only in Utah" or "LDS are uniquely guilty of this or that" my hackles are going to go up.
What would be strange is if LDS did not constitute a majority of most statistically large group here in Utah. That includes prison inmates, philanthropists, good people, bad people, and everything in between.
I've lived from California to Massachusetts, Illinois to Virginia, and traveled all over this big, beautiful nation and bit of the world. What I've found is that people differ a lot less than we think.
In Ferguson, the vast majority of rioters and other criminals were and are black. In Peru, the vast majority of crime is committed by...wait for it....Hispanics. Strange coincidence? Only to someone too dense to understand anything of freshman statistics. Would I expect anyone other than Hispanics to make up the majority of any group in an area that is 90+ Hispanic? Anyone who drew any conclusions about blacks generally based on Ferguson would be rightly called a bigot.
To point out that most businesses in Utah are owned by members of the LDS church is about as insightful and useful and pointing out that most businesses in Peru are owned by Hispanics most of whom happen to be Catholic.
Now, what point, exactly, were you trying to make?
Back when I was active in the church that discussion came up several times, and what was made clear is while the church may have a standing order, such as the one we are discussing, members of the priesthood are permitted to carry so long as they do so discretely and in compliance with the state and federal laws. A big concern certainly as the anti-gay marriage law in California (“Section 8” or something like that?) was big in the news. While I was an active member of a baptist church, I was periodically attending LDS per invitation by LDS friends. I know the issue came up in the baptist church a few times as well- what should we and would we do if the gay-rights radicals invaded or church during services? Nearly everytime the vote was split 50/50 between let them be as they have their hissy fit and just shooting them. The funny side fo that is the majority of those in support of shooting the gay-rights radicals were married women. Things like that leave ya scratching your head.
What mostly leaves me scratching my head is what point you're making here.
First and foremost, the LDS Church has been very clear the last 10 or so years. Excepting their own security personnel, they don't want private citizens carrying guns into their houses of worship. Whether one holds the priesthood or not makes no difference. I posted the policy from the General Handbook of Instruction. And the law is clear.
As for married Baptist women and homosexuals, I have no idea what point you're making. I've never heard of any such discussion among LDS congregations and I've spent at least as much time serving in leadership positions and attending various leadership meetings over the last 20 years as I've spent not in such positions and meetings.
[Regarding the 1st and 2d amendments]
Well, I kinda understand that and I kinda don’t.
This is key to our rights. The 2nd amendment doesn't merely require government to treat guns the same as it might treat model airplanes, coffee cups, or cowboy boots. Guns (and other defensive weapons) are given special benefit under the 2nd amendment. Someone recently complained that public colleges can ban food and drink from their auditoriums but not guns. That is exactly what the 2nd amendment is supposed to do (though admittedly it is statute in Utah that so limits colleges). If a public/government institution wants to ban food and drink, or picture taking, or shorts and t-shirts, etc, it is free to do so under whatever reason it can dream up including the old "good order". But it can't ban possession of firearms except under the most stringent conditions. The courts call it "strict scrutiny". This in contrast to "intermediate scrutiny" or "rational basis".
Avoiding the mess from food and drink is a "rational" reason for banning such items and is likely to be sustained by the courts. Under such a standard, the government entity doesn't even have to show that their policy is the best or only way to avoid whatever problem they are wanting to avoid. They only have to show that they have a rational (as opposed to bigoted or completely irrational) reason for their policy.
In contrast, under a proper holding of the 2nd amendment (and the courts have not yet fully done this), guns could be banned only under the strictest of needs. The government would have to show a compelling reason AND demonstrate that the banning of guns was the least restrictive means of achieving those compelling needs.
The 1st amendment does likewise for religious rights and freedoms. Hence, the government can generally ban the recreational use of Peyote, but cannot ban the use of Peyote among American Indians who use it as a religious sacrament. A businessman who refuses to hire women because he thinks they can't do the job is subject to anti-discrimination laws. A church that doesn't hire women for its professional clergy because their doctrine limits such positions to men, is exempt from those laws.
My apologies, I did not intend it to come across that way.
Apology accepted.
As I already said in a different manner, I feel that if it weren’t for the civil rights laws we have so far this country would not be as free as you may think. Before I became physically impaired, I used to volunteer with helping in the physically impaired/disabled community. And I know first hand that if it were not for those civil rights laws a lot of people in the disabled community would be treated very similar to how they were in Germany in the early 1900's.
I disagree, but that is ok. I wasn't alive in 1960 and don't claim to know what was or wasn't needed to overcome 300 years of slavery and government imposed Jim Crow. But I think today anti-discrimination and ADA laws have become mostly full employment for lawyers. I've heard of small businesses being sued because a mirror was hung a couple of inches higher than permitted by the ADA, even though a full length mirror was hanging directly across from it. And these days, most businesses care mostly about money which means they don't care who customers are as long as they've got money to spend.
But, and this is key, I've spent nearly 20 years working on RKBA in Utah with the very successful theory that we only need 2 things in order to work together on RKBA:
1-Agreement on RKBA.
2-Mutual respect on areas where we don't agree.
Businesses and anti-discrimination comes up only in the sense of how gun owners ought to react to "no gun" signs. Are they tantamount to "No Irish" or "No Coloreds" signs? Or are they more like "No shirts, no shoes, no service" signs?
I'm of the mind that if society would legally permit private business owners to discriminate generally, I'd not complain about discrimination against legally armed gun owners. But so long as we legally prevent racial, sexual, and other discrimination, we ought to provide the same level of protection to those of us who are legally armed, whether visible or concealed. We would no longer much tolerate a business who refused service to a homosexual couple just for holding hands, hugging, otherwise expressing affection in a way that would be entirely appropriate for a heterosexual couple. So why do we expect gun owners to get into the closet and hide their guns in order to avoid being subject to discrimination? Is fear of guns any less offensive than fear of homosexuals or fear of large black men?
I kinda disagree. When a church starts pulling a profit, not specifically the LDS but other churches as well, then to me they look like a business. Look at these tele-evangelists that have millions of dollars rolling in, and then look at the poor and destitute they claim to care about.
If they want to make money, fine. But it’s then a for-profit business and they should be treated as a business.
Churches do not "pull profits". And the LDS Church keeps its for profit business ventures (including KSL, DesNews, and real estate development) separate from non-profit church entities. The for profit businesses are subject to all the same laws, taxes, etc, of any other for profit business.
If a church wishes to pay its ministers very well, that is a matter for the church membership, trustees, etc.
To dismiss or diminish the clear, constitutional differences between churches and businesses is to start down the path that allows the gun grabbers to limit our RKBA. How often have we heard that the 2nd amendment really only applies to muskets, it was never intended to apply to highly deadly (semi-) automatic guns like ARs and AKs?
Fundamentally, this is the same thought process and legal reasoning as "Churches are entitled to be treated as churches only so long as they don't have more than 'X' amount of money."
It was only about 110 years ago that the LDS church was nearly bankrupt and in danger of losing its property including its temples. To LDS, temples are not merely property, but are essential for administration of sacraments. Unlike a business or investment, temples do not generate income, but require constant money to maintain them. Have you any idea the monthly electric bill for a single, large temple like Jordan River (almost 150,000 square feet) or Salt Lake (over 250,000 square feet)? No wonder then, that the LDS Church maintains cash reserves that might seem excessive to some.
As for holding what they consider sacred, that’s a farce. I can tell you the one thing that makes me want to puke is the arrogance of not only the LDS but other mainstream churches.
You're entitled to whatever opinion you like. But decent men give some regard to what others hold sacred.
To me and my church, Peyote use is a sin. Yet the LDS Church joined several American Indian tribes in their lawsuit against the feds so as to be able to use Peyote in their sacraments. The LDS Church doesn't have much in the way of paid clergy. Full time general authorities and mission presidents can receive a living stipend if needed. But the vast majority of our clergy are unpaid. Yet I'm a strong supporter of the right of churches to hire their ministers as they see fit.
I spent a couple of weeks in Peru this year and learned much of their pre-Catholic religious traditions. I don't subscribe to such beliefs. And among closed company, I might even express my views in less than reverent ways. But among those who do believe, I will show forth deference and respect. I'm not Catholic, and within an LDS meeting, there are times when it is appropriate to point out differences in doctrines. But when attending a midnight Mass or in casual conversation with those who are Catholic, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to speak of their beliefs or practices or doctrines with anything but respect.
We in the gun community often claim to subscribe to Heinlein's belief that "an armed society is a polite society." Do we really believe and live that? Or do we think it is limited only to not engaging in crime? Read the rest of that quote and it is clear that Heinlein was not limiting himself to just crime, but to the totality of our conduct and words.
Politeness, good manners, and civility are most often demonstrated by how a man treats others or their ideas when he disagrees with them. There are times when vigorous debate is needed. But most often, quiet respect, especially for what others hold sacred, is appropriate.
Elder to elder, more focus is put on the LDS because they proclaim the Articles of Faith as the word of God, and to be part of the church you must adhere to those Articles of faith. Yet while that is a requirement, it nauseates me, then and now, when members of the priesthood not only partake of the sacrament, but still retain their temple recommends while at the same time openly and knowingly disregarding the same Article of Faith. What is the image provided there? It’s about like the Pope taking a pee on a portrait of Mary. And even though it is recognized by the Area & District Leaders, nothing is done. There ya go. Same thing as wiping a handful of poop on a portrait of Jesus, too. How sacred is THAT? Not very (and one of the reasons why I left).
Yup. Turns out that the "whole have no need of a physician". The easiest way to avoid hypocrisy is to have no standards at all. And if someone hasn't been offended in church recently, he hasn't been paying attention.
That said, your choice of religious affiliation (or none at all) is your choice and right and I can respect that. What I won't tolerate without some response, is for attacks on the LDS or other churches on a pro-RKBA board.
I don’t know why it had to go to the Hosana-Tabor decision as that has been recognized for many years now.
It had to go there because the Obama justice department wasn't abiding prior precedence. So they pushed it to the SCOTUS and got slapped down on a 9-0 decision.
I think you’re talking to David with that,
Yes. My mistake and my apologies.
but I’ll answer it anyway- I will respect their Freedom of Religion. However, I will not go any further than the same basic respect I have for other religions. I cannot imagine respecting a denomination when even their own priesthood holders are not capable of the same respect to themselves.
As I said before, I think you’re talking about David, not me. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have for the most part not been railing against the LDS. However, I am not going to fake any pleasantries, either.
I don't expect anything more than basic civility toward any and all peaceful religious beliefs and churches.
Charles
