Our state legislature - and those of other states - meet fairly regularly with
representatives from all major faiths in the area. They always get their opinion
when it comes to social issues. It's up to the legislature to decide
whether or not they'll be swayed by that opinion. Sometimes they are, and
sometimes they aren't. This isn't anything new, and it happens in
every state in the union.
RedShirt,AMEN!Those fighting religious expression are
trying to impose their own rule on everyone else by prejudicially restricting
peaceably assembling and free speech. Restricting religion destroys free-thought
to give anti-religious persons power to enforce their rule. It is a tyranny of
the minority.Suppose they succeed:If the LDS Church in
Utah said nothing, but the entire LDS population of this state voted their
opinion- I'm sure these critics would be violently more upset than they are
now, claiming they are even more oppressed, and so on. These critics should be
thankful. The LDS Church is trying to offer balance, not actual LDS doctrine.
Cause if I voted my actual beliefs, I would suggest prohibition authorized
democratically by the people as I do not believe drug/alcohol use is a human
right but a threat to free society.I agree with the church
suggesting balance to accommodate all people. But that tolerance won't
extend to those fighting freedom to impose their views, their rule- against
democracy. Some may think they can corner others into silence, but ultimately
that doctrine to fight freedom will be their own undoing.
To "silo" congratulations, you just realized that on a state level you
could implement Sharia Law or socialism, as long as you don't violate the
Constitution.To "LValfre" you mean laws such as the fabled
"separation of church and state" which was created by athiests and
anti-thiests.You also have the laws and policies that have removed
prayer from schools, removal of the 10 commandments from courthouses, and the
current fight over allowing crosses to mark where state troopers have died.It sure seems like the athiests and anti-thiests are pushing their
adgenda through the legal system either through laws being made or being ruled
Re: Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT 3:27 p.m. March 26, 2012"There shall
be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or
interfere with its functions."Nothing in Article I, Section 4 of
our Utah State Constitution limits the LDS Church's 1st Amendment right to
free speech. There is nothing sinister about have a full time lobbyist at the
legislature as long as he, or she, is properly registered and obeys the rules
set forth for all lobbyists.Sorry but there is no smoking gun here.
Alcohol is rated as the worst of the drugs. On a scale of 1:10 it is rated an 8
vs cocaine and heroin 6. This is not a religious issue. We want as little
alcohol consumed as possible. Alcohol kills the drinker and those within range
of his car. Many states have liquor laws. We do not need liquor in ever store to
So much black and white reasoning on this thread. What ever happened to
reasonable laws based on a legitimate interest in protecting society but limited
so as not to needlessly infringe on individual freedoms. there is a middle
This is Article I, Section 4 of our Utah State Constitution:.
"There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate
the State or interfere with its functions. "It does not state
that the church can dominate or interfere when it feels it is a moral issue!
Nor by lobbying the legislature. Why DOES the church have a full time lobbyist
at the legislature? Does anyone know? Does any other church have a lobbyist?
Lets just all go back to the rules established by the progressives in 1920. LOL.
It was a republican that led the efforts to repeal the 18th amendment.
Re: LValfre CHICAGO, IL 12:48 p.m. March 26, 2012"as if alcohol was
some forbidden pornography you didn't want your children to see."Ummm .... the federal government agrees with us backwood folks here in
Utah that have tough laws against possession of child porn. Probably the same
laws that restrict your freedoms there in Illinois. You can't blame the
Mormons for the restrictions on your freedoms in a state that currently has two
ex-governors serving time in prison at the same time.
"@RiflemanHere in Utah we don't care if you want to drink
yourself under the table but we do care if you want to drive drunk and put the
lives of everyone around you on the highway at risk."Great and
that's why it's illegal to drive while under the influence.
What's your point?Doesn't change the fact that the LDS
church has gotten so far involved in the laws of Utah that people had to drink
behind curtains for decades as if alcohol was some forbidden pornography you
didn't want your children to see.
Re: LValfre CHICAGO, IL 11:23 a.m. March 26, 2012"But I am for freedom
... freedom from religious control."Under our republic form of
government all the people have a share in rule. Here in Utah we don't care
if you want to drink yourself under the table but we do care if you want to
drive drunk and put the lives of everyone around you on the highway at risk.They made the same argument here about smoking in public buildings a
while back ..... and now I enjoy the freedom of not being forced to breath 2nd
hand tobacco smoke.
"LeeshaKearns, UTLValfre:I don't get it. So you are
for more opportunistic underage drinking and more DUI's? Did you read
the article?Absolutely not. But I am for freedom ... freedom from
politicians, freedom from government control, freedom from religious control.
This is an example of religion, the LDS church, once again having strong control
of the politics and laws of Utah. It's a sham! That's the opposite
of what America is yet your 'politically neutral' church continually
"RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTok liberals, you complain about
people enacting laws that conform to the LDS church, but do you complain about
the secular humanists (atheists and anti-theists) who push through laws that
conform to their religious beliefs?"What laws? Please expand.
Forgive me if I'm being ignorant but most laws that the believers and
non-believers argue about is the right to teach religion in public schools, have
religious statues and figures in state buildings, etc. As far as
pushing through laws that conform to religious beliefs, of which atheists have
NO religious beliefs, that is purely a Christian/theist thing. Also
... not all atheists are liberals or left side. So stop the generalizations ...
You Utahn's are just ridiculous with how narrow you think about left vs
right, atheist vs this, .... we're all the same to you but really
we're all individuals.
Re: OJF64 8:13 p.m. March 25, 2012"It's about time someone
challenged the LDS church and the influence it has on the government."Are you suggesting that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution
doesn't apply to religious organizations? Perhaps those who believe in the
teachings of the LDS Church should be prohibited from holding public office.
Makes perfect sense ..... if you're a bigot.
Regardless of religious inclinations, the consumption of alcohol SHOULD be
highly regulated. The sad fact is that we as a country believe that
it's okay to kill innocent people so that society as a whole can enjoy
their liquor. That's the price we pay for lenient laws on alcohol
consumption. Whenever lives are at stake, one should weigh the
costs, and ultimately can be regulated by government. The state of Utah has
sided with caution and preserving human life. Alcohol abuse is a trigger for
spouse abuse, domestic violence, vandalism, destruction of private property,
DUIs, youth and college age drinking that causes a great deal of waste and can
destroy a life before it has a chance to even know what life's like.
Congratulations Redshirt...you just defended shari law and socialism in one
post. And you claim to be conservative?
It's about time someone challenged the LDS church and the influence it has
on the government.
The Church's lobbyists always say that they only are in the back hallways
of the legislature in order to answer questions and to help legislators
understand what the Church's position is on a certain issue.That was the position the Church's lobbyists took on HB116. However,
according to a post by Senator Curt Bramble on Facebook, the Church actually
helped draft the legislation. Senator Bramble was writing in
response to an earlier post that said: HB116 was not sponsored by the LDS
Church, no matter how you try to fly it. There is no First Presidency seal on
it. In response, Sen. Bramble posted the following:Curt
Bramble As for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints involvement with
HB 116, I was there, Mr. XXXX. You were not. I worked to draft the legislation
with them. I don’t know how to be more clear than that.The
post was quickly removed but screen shots of the thread were taken and saved.
Well, we could ban the hospitality industry!Aw Dang, that won't
work. People do actually eat, drink and sleep while away from home.Okay, just put a huge tax on booze. Take all the profit away. Who is going to
argue against sin taxes? The state clearly has the authority to do that.
LValfre: I don't get it. So you are for more opportunistic underage
drinking and more DUI's? Did you read the article?
I do not think that the hierarchy @ 50 E N Temple are meddling. What
I do think is; there a bunch of narrow-minded busy bodies in the legislature
trying to enforce their interpretation of God's will.
ok liberals, you complain about people enacting laws that conform to the LDS
church, but do you complain about the secular humanists (atheists and
anti-theists) who push through laws that conform to their religious beliefs?The biggest issue that I have with the complainers is this. If the
government is a reflection of the will of the people who vote for their
representatives, what do you expect to happen in a state where a majority of
people share the same religious beliefs? Would you be surprised if the New
England states passed laws that reflected Catholic teachings, or would you be
shocked with some of the southern states voted for laws that reflected Southern
Baptist teachings.Let me restate this again. You are complaining
about the Utah Legislature reflecting the teachings and values of a majority of
the state's population.
Honestly ... the fact that LDS has such a strong influence in Utah is an example
to the rest of the nation what can happen when church and state are practically
paired.The nation's laughing ... non-LDS Utah residents are
crying ... this is in direct opposition to why this country was founded.Religious Freedom!
Stop Fracking with my water supply, and let the people drink. End the oppression
in this great state!!! And stop scanning my ID every time I want a beer!!!
These are ingredients that will never mix. Get the church out of the equation.
You bet the Mormon church dictates our liquor laws. They run this state Now I
would like to see the Mormon Church dictate that Utah not be a Sanctuary City
for Illegal Immigrants and dictate that we will not tolerate Drugs being sold to
our children by Drug Cartels.
The claim here is that giving opinion is putting people "under
pressure". Furthermore, the LDS Church doesn't promote its alcohol
doctrine but balance for every citizens interests."Legislative
leaders said Wednesday that the LDS Church's new statement on alcohol makes
it easier to consider... to change the state's liquor laws."Maybe the drinking minority forgot that "makes it easier" doesn't
mean "under pressure", but the exact opposite. People aren't
arguing for freedom, but convenience at the expense of others who without such
protective laws would suffer. Freedom and convenience are not the same thing.-------From the LDS Newsroom:"One of the
functions of religious leaders in a democracy is to add their moral voice to
issues of public importance. This is why churches take positions on social
issues."The Church supports "reasonable regulations to (1)
limit overconsumption, (2) reduce impaired driving and (3) work to eliminate
underage drinking." That we should all be trying to "allow individual
freedom of choice while preserving Utah’s proven positive health and
safety record".Saying 'allow freedom while protecting
people' isn't pressure; it's responsible and the most possible
balanced opinion. Disputing such balanced public interest is simply