The Church has plenty of room for individuals who are struggling to overcome their temptation toward homosexual behavior. But for the protection of the Saints and the good of the persons themselves, the Church has no room for those who, instead of repenting of homosexuality, wish it to become an acceptable behavior in the society of the Saints. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, preaching meekness while attempting to devour the flock.
…
The repentant homosexual must be met with forgiveness. Even hypocritical homosexuals must be treated individually with compassion. But the collective behavior of the hypocrites of homosexuality must be met with our most forceful arguments and our complete intolerance of their lies. To act otherwise is to give more respect to the opinions of men than to the judgments of God.

I try to apply this approach in all aspects of my life. When my priesthood leader asks ME to do something (even me as part of a larger whole), then my concern is how I and my family will respond.

The Saints in California, in my view, would be better served by individually and quietly heeding or not heeding the request from the President of the Church, rather than commanding that other Saints must or should not respond in any particular way. There’s too much noise here for my comfort. Those who want to respond affirmatively to the request, please do so, quietly and humbly — and those who find the request problematic or choose not to obey, please so do, quietly and humbly. No Latter-day Saint needs to point a finger at any other Latter-day Saint. I can knock on doors and share literature without condemning other Latter-day Saints who stay home, or I can stay home without condemning other Latter-day Saints who go out.

All power and liberties inherently belong to the people. The Constitution is laid out to specify which powers “we the people” will relinquish to the government “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility…” etc. We give up certain liberties (that are inherently ours) so that we can live together in peace. Some falsely believe that if a right isn’t spelled out in the Constitution, then you don’t have that right. If this were true, then we would have very few rights and liberties as Americans. There is very little of liberties and rights mentioned in the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution was written to expressly say which powers are granted to government, and it is expressly written that whatever power is not enumerated therein is NOT granted.

Of course, the Bill of Rights does expressly mention rights and liberties that we as Americans inalienably possess, and these are listed for the purpose of securing those liberties against those who wish to take them from us. But, again, because a right is not expressly secured does not mean we do not possess it.

So please, when appealing to the Constitution to support your views or to denounce those of another, keep this in mind.

Actually, when people knew they were being prayed for, they suffered significantly higher complications.

Dang, if that isn’t a bummer… it’s also not a double-blind study (insofar as that’s possible with prayer). “OK – you get real medicine; the others are getting placebos.” :-) [Just had to point that out ;-) ]

Aside from that, oh, how embarrassing! The “Creator” parts are in the Declaration of Independence. *egg on face* But *ahem* moving on… thanks for catching that. :-) The point, however, is that the government provided in the Constitution is designed to protect the natural rights of man.

.Sometimes I hear people say… who are we to upset their social order?

You mean, like the majority of the voices on this site? ;-) After a recent post, I’ve started pondering again whether it’s right to officially intervene abroad to stop things like feeding people into shredders. My feelings still say yes, but that puts me very much in the minority, (which doesn’t necessarily make me wrong ;-) ), and since I can’t officially defend it yet, I have to just be quiet and ponder some more, for the moment…

As for potential relativism – what makes some “normal human values” right, is that they DO come from a Creator (“Nature’s God,” in the Declaration… and government’s purpose is to protect those rights). However, the right to one’s behavior does not necessitate special societal recognition of that behavior. And if, as I believe, the Creator’s had something to say about what a marriage is, then it’s not really up to us to change.

…[I]f we want to abridge someone’s right of contract, then I say we should have a good reason.

I don’t believe that it is abridging anyone’s right of contract. Homosexuals can still make up wills, powers of attorney, etc., that empower the other individual to act a certain way with regard to the first individual. They still have the right to establish a union/commitment/covenant/contract with each other, as well. There is also the option to try to set up a distinct entity with its own set of rights. Why must we change the legal definition of marriage?

The biggest reason to change it seems to be, in essence, limiting freedom of religion and expression. Rather than just wanting rights peculiar to a committed couple (hospital visits, etc.), which seem reasonable, and which many faiths do not oppose; gay rights advocates are targeting religious groups and individuals with accusations of “hate” and seeking to actually prevent them from expressing their opinions or exercising their religion. To hear them speak, anyone who opposes changing the legal definition of the term “marriage” is doing so only out of “hate.” In Canada, churches are not allowed to preach against homosexual behavior, since it’s “hate speech.” And to see the effects of this in the US, already, check out this NPR article. Where churches do not condone violence or unkindess toward homosexuals, they should be allowed to maintain their differences of opinion. The only reason for demanding the same legal term is to shut down differences of opinion.

Actually, when people knew they were being prayed for, they suffered significantly higher complications.

So… given our two different approaches, we still agree that there are certain values that seem to be common.

Sure.

And that our Constitution outlines several rights, having a Creator (whatever you’d like to interpret that to be) as their source.

No, it does not. Where does the Constitution talk about a god or a creator?

And from earlier in the discussion, marriage is a privilege, not a right.

No, dessert is a privilege. Voting is a right. Marriage is a contract, or if you like, a covenant.

Therefore, societal standards – whether they’re derived from random evolutionary “normal human values,” or spring from another source that many consider “super”natural – determine the parameters for obtaining/exercising that privilege.

Good so far, kannie, but I think I see where you’re going. People determine the rules for their society, so if people want to restrict marriage for gay people, as reflects their social order, then what’s the problem?

The problem is that if we want to abridge someone’s right of contract, then I say we should have a good reason. No one is presenting satisfactory reasons.

Sometimes I hear people say that if people in other countries want to make women cover themselves in black clothing or have their genitals removed, then who are we to upset their social order? I’m getting the same feeling here. Don’t turn into a relativist on me! You’re better than that! :)

We may not understand strong force, but we are able to observe its effects through natural means, and thus show that it exists.

What if everything is an “effect?” :-) That’s actually how the God idea works in my mind… :-)

I do recall conflicting studies on whether prayer helps, actually… but whichever study we’re talking about, it didn’t hurt anything. ;-)

So… given our two different approaches, we still agree that there are certain values that seem to be common. And that our Constitution outlines several rights, having a Creator (whatever you’d like to interpret that to be) as their source. And from earlier in the discussion, marriage is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, societal standards – whether they’re derived from random evolutionary “normal human values,” or spring from another source that many consider “super”natural – determine the parameters for obtaining/exercising that privilege.

Does that work so far?

Plus, I think the idea that “rights are granted by God” basically means that He tells us it’s wrong to take them.

The ’strong force’ analogy is not very apt. We may not understand strong force, but we are able to observe its effects through natural means, and thus show that it exists. When we try to observe supernatural things, we find there’s nothing there. A good example is prayer studies. These experiments find that prayer has no reproducible effect, every time.

Before we can study supernatural things, we have to first show that something supernatural is happening. No one has shown this. It’s all natural.

Clumpy: I suppose it is a little strange to say that rights come from somewhere, as though they travel or something. I’d say that rights are the result of social contracts between people, but I’m not well-versed in this area.

What motivates us – or anything – to survive? Take an atom. Or a cell. A cell, to my knowledge, hasn’t scientifically been observed to have much of an opinion. But put cells together (or up against other friendly or foreign cells or environments), and they begin working together or in opposition; there’s something keeping it going, in a very reductionist statement… and suddenly, there’s a (very strong!) opinion about self-preservation. My whole point is, what is behind that drive? Or any drive?

Additionally, I don’t see a division between what Daniel calls “natural” and “supernatural.” Instead, I think it’s a continuum. If we observe a true law, it will be true everywhere; so when we learn something “natural,” we are actually learning about how what some call “supernatural” works, as well.

To limit our knowledge to previous descriptive activity and say, “there simply cannot be a ‘why’,” is an incorrect approach, IMO. Even science itself doesn’t limit itself to what it can observe. For example, there’s a part of science that simply calls what keeps certain particles together, the “Strong Force.” (Wikipedia article here.) We don’t know what it is, or why it works, or how it works, or where it came from, or pretty much anything else about it. We just know it’s there, and it does work. And then science sees it working, and says, “there must be something more” and keeps looking and dissecting. So… to limit others to a particular understanding of things that don’t even limit themselves seems kind of… limited, doesn’t it? :-)

In summary, I don’t want to limit the acquisition of knowledge. (Could that be a self-interest showing? :-) ) And I don’t think that all knowledge can be measured yet, just as not all feelings can be adequately expressed.

If, as Daniel claims, somebody with no religious affiliation can still believe in and subscribe to a particular morality (a fact I happen to agree with, to a point), is it possible that one’s beliefs regarding rights could stem from that morality and belief on what is best for people rather than coming from some outside source? For example, if I believe that people are happiest and do the best for themselves when government doesn’t intervene in most things, could I logically extend that to the Bill of Rights or some similar rights-based belief system without prescribing the source of the rights either to man or God?

Wait a minute. Let’s unpack the implications of your statement. And I know you haven’t said the following things explicitly, but they follow from your view. Since the moral value of a thing is intrinsic to that thing, if someone disagrees with your moral perception, that means they’re either unable to accurately perceive moral value, or they actually can see the moral value in things, but they choose to ignore it. In other words, anyone who disagrees with you on moral issues is either morally defective or evil. Well, that certainly explains a few things around here!

Anyway, back to the point. Disagree with my criteria if you like, but you’ll be turning your back on centuries of Enlightenment thought. Is that what you’re intending? If so, welcome to the new Dark Ages. (Hey, they didn’t have any separation of church and state then either. Some people would love it.)

All I’m doing is summarising the scientific method, probably not very well. You may not like the conclusions that the scientific method gives us, but that’s reality (or as close an approximation as we’re going to get).

I’m interested in any answers to Brandon’s question as well. I can’t think of a single scientific theory that improves when we add supernatural beings.

BUT: I think if we use sound principles, we can make these kinds of mistakes less and less. So I like to advocate reason.

The principles of reason are not very controversial, and I think two are relevant here: expect evidence for claims, and don’t rely on supernatural explanations when natural explanations will do.

Most people don’t use these two guidelines very well, and that’s a shame. They seem to be unaware of what good evidence looks like — anecdotes are fine for them — and if they’re religious, they seem to want to attribute everything to their favourite supernatural being.

I think one of the worst patterns in American politics lately is the rise of limbic-brain politics. People vote for candidates, not by what they’ve done or what they say, but by how people feel about them. Does this person tickle my amygdala or not. Palin! Don’t get me started on Palin. She’d be a great newsreader, but a decision-maker? So far, she’s shown herself to be woefully deficient on background knowledge, and she and McCain have repeatedly lied on earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. But will that change anyone’s mind if they’ve decided to vote for her? Nah. They vote based on how they feel. It’s like these people are totems that we hold up to represent us when going into battle or something.

So I think the refusal to reason has caused some of the biggest disasters in US history, and will yet. I know the people on this blog are more thoughtful than most, and they have access to more information. But I have noticed a definite tendency here to cling to religious conservative ideas, even when such ideas are (whatever their other virtues) not well-supported by evidence and are tethered to a supernatural worldview. And these ideas are incredibly resilient when challenged by reason. So it goes.

I don’t know the right kind of political philosophy to have. It’s like asking which church is true. (In fact, I find it useful to think of political philosophies like religions, and not in a good way.) I have my preferences — I hate guns, and I’m against the death penalty, to name two — but if someone could show me empirical evidence that they were better for people if we had them, I’d suck it up and change my mind.

I don’t mean to attack you, kannie. I’m sorry if it seemed that way on the other thread. I ask everyone for evidence, not just you. Just browse my comments on other threads. Egad, I’m a bore. I never stop.

But if I could encourage you to try (as a mental exercise) using these two principles:

- provide empirical evidence for claims, and
- stick to natural explanations, not supernatural

and if you must hold an idea that goes against this, at least try not to get too attached to it. It could wind up wrong, and then you waste time on it.

Your ideas will be so much better grounded in reality, and that’s not a bad thing. And you’re more likely to have people agree with you when you make claims that are better evidenced, which makes life a bit easier as well.

Oh, and point it out if you notice me making these mistakes. I’m not immune. And I’ll thank you for telling me.

I’ll try to separate my thoughts, as they’re getting tangled.

1) re: Assuming God/whatever is less rational than assuming nothing:
Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does thought :-). The idea that there was “nothing,” and then there was “something,” is ludicrous to me. Since matter is neither created nor destroyed, it existed in some form before, and it will continue to exist in some form hereafter. It’s just reorganized. Something caused the movement (h/t: law of inertia). That we are unable to scientifically observe what was before, and what caused the change (movement), does not alter my position that there was *something* that caused it. I believe it was/is God. And that He’s existed from eternity to eternity. And that He’s much more advanced than we are – so we just might not be able to comprehend Him yet. (In fact, I’ll just say we aren’t.) I’m still learning – aren’t we all? :-)

In essence, applying Occam’s Razor, it is actually more rational for me to believe that things are a continuous pattern of cause/effect/existence – to and from infinity, including God. Or nature, or aliens, or ferrets, or whatever. The more I learn, the more I see continuity, connectedness, and patterns.

2) re: Values coming from God -
Let’s play “no God” for a minute. Our “normal human values” are just inherent (somehow) in our being (which just exists, since we think, therefore we are… we think;-). Then everyone has these “normal human values,” with a few variations. What makes one person’s variation of “normal” better? Shouldn’t we all have a say in our collective government? Regardless, perhaps, of where we might think our “normal human values” come from?

[Yes, we disagree on primacy, if that's a functionally descriptive word... I believe that principles have always existed, and on this earth, what we call religion was there at the beginning... then it got watered-down into "normal human values" and the exercise of it became a largely political issue.]

3) Closing up… You say, “[c]laims are valid when they have evidence to support them. ” I have evidence, to my encouragement and satisfaction, but since you are restricting your acceptable means of observation to scientific measurement through current technology, you probably wouldn’t consider it valid. And if you don’t accept my evidence, even as it goes for myself, (since that’s what we’re talking about – individuals acting in accord with their values/conscience/what-have-you), you shouldn’t accept my claim, either.

We’re at an impasse, at which point I suppose we should just leave each other to our respective, spontaneously-generated-from-nothing-but-inherent-in-our-beings moral compasses. ;-)

Isn’t morality simply a judgment regarding a specific set of behaviors? In that case, I don’t see how you can have morality without some form of religious belief.

I know many religious believers think that atheists are basically immoral people, but I seldom see it expressed so brazenly as this.

I shouldn’t have to point this out, but it is possible to live morally without religion. Atheists pay taxes, obey laws, mow their lawns. We raise kids, and teach them to work with others in an ethical way. Atheists are under-represented in prisons. I only get one life, and I try to be good to other people because they only get one life too.

You may be thinking to yourself: That’s the Golden Rule! You do have religious beliefs! But this only shows the extent to which religion has co-opted normal human values and claimed them for itself.

That means that I am free to believe God is the source, and you are free to believe otherwise. But since we don’t empirically *know* the source, my opinion (God) is equally as valid as yours, correct?

No, this is not correct. If we don’t know the explanation for something, it is not valid to make up any kind of explanation we like with no supporting evidence. Claims are valid when they have evidence to support them. You are claiming that a supernatural being gives rights to people, but you do not offer evidence for this claim. Brandon makes no such claim, and therefore does not need to support it with evidence. His stand would therefore be more rational.

Remember Occam’s Razor: In general, the simpler explanation is better, all else being equal. Brandon’s idea makes fewer assumptions; Occam’s Razor suggests that it is to be preferred.

Put another way: You ask how natural laws could come from nothing, and must therefore come from a supernatural being (which could be Jehovah, Zeus, the Magical Wishing Ferret, etc.). I could then ask you how a supernatural being could come from nothing. Infinite regress follows.

However, I have noticed that when I ask questions that deserve a rational explanation, I often receive answers that rely on a belief in God. I guess I do think it is better to base my opinions on the things that I believe I can verify than on those I can’t.

Things that you can verify? Like cause and effect? Principles of physics? Laws of gravity, inertia, etc.? What makes those laws that way? I believe that God organizes things and is, put simply, the Cause behind those logical laws. What is your rational, non-God explanation for those laws? Nature? Either way, things exist that just *are* a certain way – and something beyond what we observe is at work to form those laws.

Jefferson’s phrasing of inalienable rights shows explicitly that he believed they come from a Creator – a Creator whose authority supersedes government’s. Whether that’s God or Nature, our rights still don’t come from government.

So… whatever the cause of natural laws, they exist, and we are free to believe what we will about the cause, or even the lack thereof. That means that I am free to believe God is the source, and you are free to believe otherwise. But since we don’t empirically *know* the source, my opinion (God) is equally as valid as yours, correct? What is more rational about believing that nothing is the source of natural, observable law?

And in response to this:

In fact the philosophy simply says we as individuals fully own ourselves.

If you own yourself, do what you will. And let me do as I will. Why worry about being accountable to the state or asking for their blessing – or forcing others to agree with your stand? [Insert social contract theory of government here...]

Isn’t morality simply a judgment regarding a specific set of behaviors? In that case, I don’t see how you can have morality without some form of religious belief.

Why do you have to have a religious belief to have morality? You just said that morality is a judgement regarding behaviors. Anyone can have a judgement about behaviors, no religion required.

Clearly there is a shared morality common among most people that dictates what is good versus what is not. This is natural law, and the basis of true liberties

That sounds acceptable to me. This argument seems to support the idea that God is not required to create rights or liberties, but rather they come about by the agreed upon will of the people.

There are plenty of non-religious arguments on why same-sex marriage should not be tolerated by society. It is not within the purview of the topic of this post to re-hash them all out. But it would be silly of you to demand that I or others give non-religious arguments on why the LDS Church should be inclusive of everybody, regardless of their position on this matter (which is, if you’ll recall, the original subject of this post).

Aha, but I was simply addressing the idea that only God can grant rights. You are correct, you are free to use religious reasoning to justify exclusion of non-prop8 supporters. When it comes to the human rights issue, I think non-religious arguments are more relevant (since we are discussing government and not religion).

Others have previously provided examples clarifying why marriage is not a fundamental right. A thirteen-year-old cannot obtain a drivers license, nor can a self-proprietorship receive the same tax incentives as an S-corp. Individuals may associate with whomever they wish, but it is incorrect to assert that it is a fundamental and inherent right for any given type of union to be sanctioned by law (the erroneous CA Supreme Court ruling nothwithstanding). Keep in mind that the Court stated that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a constitutional one, despite the fact that nowhere in the Constitution do we find such language or provision.

Of course I am familiar with those arguments having read nearly all of your most recent posts. I agree that it would be pointless to rehash all of the old arguments, so I won’t.

Inasmuch as an individual rejects prophetic instruction, asserts his/her own intelligence as superior (or perhaps more in harmony with God’s true will), or thinks that s/he can pick and choose which instruction/counsel/commandments s/he will follow, then yes, I do believe that you can define such a course of action as the pathway to apostasy. The historical record makes this clear.

I think I agree with you on this one. I disagree that these characteristics inherintly apply to any LDS who don’t support prop. 8, but agree that anyone who does not strictly conform to the authoritarian hierachy is on a path out of the religion.

I have little doubt that Saul initially thought that kicking against the pricks was a well reasoned and supported action. He later learned, though, that despite the grandstanding, one’s supposedly well-reasoned position means little when it’s not what God says is correct.

I have no evidence that Saul actually received any kind of a visitation from God, so you’ll hopefully excuse me if I don’t feel that this proves the supposed weakness of reason/logic.

Critics of Christianity have always attempted to pit logic and reason against faith. Few of them ever seem to understand that the two principles of action are not mutually exclusive. You may feel that your argument is more reasoned and logically superior than mine, perhaps, but I may think the same thing of my argument. To each his own, I guess.

It is interesting that you say that. I am actually not so full of confidence in my thinking skills that I assume my opinions are better thought out than anyone else’s. However, I have noticed that when I ask questions that deserve a rational explanation, I often receive answers that rely on a belief in God. I guess I do think it is better to base my opinions on the things that I believe I can verify than on those I can’t.

Since those who do not believe in God cannot conceive of natural rights (as coming from a divine source, or even the more abstract version, “nature”), most are, by default, positivists who are left only to assert that government is the author and creator of all human rights. What a sad, scary stance to take. Such logic spurred the quote: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” If government is the author of your rights, then it can take them away, despite Jefferson’s citation of inalienable rights. Positivism rejects Jefferson’s attribution of divine providence, and asserts supreme government control. Have fun with that.

In my study of libertarianism (which both of us seem to be attracted to) I have not seen anything that requires the basic rights to be given by God. In fact the philosophy simply says we as individuals fully own ourselves. This in and of itself is the source of all of our human rights. Once again, no God or religion is required to believe in this version of human rights.

Often, I find that the arguments depend upon the truthfullness of your God claim, wheras I am trying to make arguments that rely on observed reality.

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. (Alma 30:44)

I like that kind of observed reality.

I like considering the wonderful reality of the natural universe as well. It is indeed amazing. I hope to understand it as much as I can.