@J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTDid Christ recant? Did He ever tell
us to embrace sin if it meant that we could keep our lives? Did he ever renounce
His mission to declare that we needed to repent, to accept Him and to receive
His ordinances?[Did Christ ever author, sponsor, or push to codify
the Law of Moses, His Law or any other Religious Laws into ROMAN Laws?
Please Preach all you want, call people to repentance -- but stop trying to
codify Religious law into State Laws.]He gave His life rather than
submitting to sin.[Um, He gave his life as a Ransom for OUR sins -- it had
nothing to do with submitting to sin].@J Thompson"We are
not Christ. We don't have the authority to forgive"[Then we most
certainly don't have the authority to Judge others, either.]
@gmlewis,Nobody has gone to court because people have said they
believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. People have gone
to court, however, because we have created laws making the belief into law. You
have the right to say whatever you want. Creating laws based on those beliefs
can be taken to court, however, to help us determine whether or not they violate
someone's constitutional rights.
"J Thompson, As more than 2/3 of the population of the world do not believe
in the divinity of Christ, it would probably be a good idea for the ambassador
not to mention him at all."Exactly incorrect... at just about
every level. The right answer is that he should respect all belief systems -
even those that don't mirror his own. It doesn't mean he has to
abandon his own, hardly. It simply means he should pursue all avenues that
guarantee all the right to follow the precepts of their faith. And
specifically in doing, do not deny anyone else their right to follow their
beliefs.This concept that religious freedom is freedom from
religion, that we should all keep our religions in a box, hidden from view is
the antithesis of the founding principle of this nation. You have no right to
impose your religion on others, but neither do you have the right to tell
someone they can't practice their religion either.
J Thompson, As more than 2/3 of the population of the world do not believe in
the divinity of Christ, it would probably be a good idea for the ambassador not
to mention him at all.
2 bits. ”Where did the article say "the government of the United
States should tell the world how to run their religions"... or anything like
that???".."the need for the United States to
take a firm leadership role has never been greater""The
vacancy was beginning to speak as loudly as any nomination might, signaling to
the world that religious persecution might not be a top concern""Saperstein seems well-qualified. He holds liberal positions on some
recent domestic issues involving religion, but the issues with which his new
post will deal are far more stark and clear-cut, and on these he appears to be
solid and capable""Saperstein’s efforts were
instrumental in the passage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which
strengthens the First Amendment and keeps the federal government from infringing
on the exercise of religion. He knows how to gather influence and use it""Millions of oppressed believers worldwide are hoping for U.S.
support"Religious persecution is the competition between
religions, only in America has religions been tolerant of each other. The
trouble in Iraq is between the religions, they would only come together if an
outsider tries to come in.
@LDS Liberal@LDS LiberalIn this country we the people,
including religious get speak out and help make the lawswe are not
subject to kings here.Here the religious get to help make the
laws.Do you sustain your local lawmakers and state law makers?and in "in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."?Or just the laws made by leftists?
@J Thompson"We are not Christ. We don't have the authority to
forgive"That means we lack the authority to throw stones too.
UtahBlueDevil,Although you and I agree on "judging", you
seem to have left off a very important part of the directive that Christ gave to
the woman. We don't know why she was committing adultery. We don't
know the circumstances of her life. We don't know who suggested that she
engage in adultery. All we know is that she was caught in the very act. Those
in authority would have stoned her, under the law. Christ knew everything about
her. He knew her circumstances. He knew why she was committing adultery. He
judged her and then commanded her to "sin no more". She was found to
have committed a sin. He and He alone had the authority to forgive sins. He
forgave her ON CONDITION that she sin no more.We are not Christ. We
don't have the authority to forgive, but we have the responsibility to keep
sacred things sacred. There is nothing more sacred on this earth than the
family unit and the sacred nature of marriage. An ambassador of
religion would never require that we abandon our religious views to accept the
opposite of "marriage" as part of our culture.
@FTRe: "I just don't see all this persuction (sic) the DN
and the right wing keep telling us about"...That's because
you are intentionally blind.The article wasn't about Utah, or
the LDS Church. It was about religious persecution around the world.If you are seriously uninformed about the religious persecution (and I mean
people being killed for their religion) around the world... just let me know,
and I'll tell you about it, or at least show you where you can read about
it.The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas is resulting in LOTS
of attacks on Jewish people in their places of worship around the world.
Coptic Christians have been killed in mass in many places in the Middle East.
Muslims have been attacked and killed for their religion (I saw video of a group
of truck drivers shot on the spot for not knowing the proper way to pray when
stopped by a group of ISIS soldiers in Iraq).If you really
don't know about these abuses... you need to read more than MotherJones and
Huffington Post. Read some current events. It's happening, whether you
acknowledge it or not!
BTW.... this has what to do with Gay issues? Are you kidding me? Does that
fraction have to try to hijack every thread about religion into their own
personal quest to have people change their faith to accommodate their own
beliefs. There are literally hundreds of religions out there, each and every
one of them operating in pretty much total freedom. Rather than try to change
a faiths core beliefs, join one that represents your beliefs. There are plenty
out there that will let you be gay, and Christian. Stop try to change other
peoples religions to match your own belief system.Now may sound odd
coming from someone who thinks ultimately on a legal equal protection of the law
basis that gay marriage will ultimately be the rule of the land. There is no
doubt in my mind that is the courts feel abortion is a "right to choose"
activity, they will equally protect ones right to marry whom they will.But that does not mean everyones religion has to accommodate that belief
system. Drinking, Smoking.... all legal... and I don't expect the Church
to ever say it is ok to do. Religious law is not governmental law.
"Having an ambassador of religion should remind those in government that we
worship God, not government and that we turn to God for answers, not to
government."And all the while, this is a government position.
That is rich.
@profucdorfiscal"But, there is real religious persecution going on in
the world. Not just in Africa and the Mid-East, where people are daily
assaulted, burned out of their homes, driven from their countries, and
beheaded."What you're not seeing is the misery of millions
affected by religious persecution, and the fact that there are too many in
liberal America -- with many more coming across Obama's open borders every
day -- who would love nothing more than to bring the same thing here."I see those think you write about as persecution, just as I see gays
being slaughtered and persecuted in those same places you speak of. Putting
"religon" in front of persuction does not make it any more special or
tragic, it only draws in more support from people who otherwise may change the
channel or just stick with Fox News.
J Thompson - all you say is very true here, but Christ also said "He who is
without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" and
then it goes on to say "Again He stooped down and wrote on the
ground.…" No name calling. No pronunciations of guilt.
No raised voices. No judgement. If anyone had a right to judge during that
situation, it was him. But today, we have a whole cast who have taken upon
themselves keys and rights, the right of judging others, that the Savior
himself choose not to use. Yes, he told the young lady to go, and sin no more.
But he clearly indicated by his example that those who came to accuse her had no
right to do so themselves.When we step into a position of judgement,
we bring a whole cast of responsibility unto ourselves, that we will do so in a
Christ like manner. That is not what I am seeing buy those who self proclaim
themselves as being granted the right and responsibility to judge others.To your question.... yes.... we should do less. We are not called to be
@procuradorfiscalAccording to your view LIBERALS have no religion and are
seeking to remove GOD from our society?Liberals insure your right to have
your religion and NOT have someone else's religion shoved down your throat.
Liberals insure your fair treatment in a work place and society so people do not
discriminate against you because of your religion. Liberals are about LIBERTY
AND EQUALITY FOR ALL. I am sorry you have such a complete misunderstanding
about LIBERALS.1978 I moved to Utah as a Conservative Republican,
after 22 years of Utah Conservative mentality I left a LIBERAL.
Some interesting arguments are being made today. It appears that some would
have us believe that Christ gave In to the political pressure of His day. It
appears that some believe that Christ abandoned His doctrine when he was beaten,
crowned with thorns, made to carry His cross, nailed to that cross and speared
in the side. Did Christ recant? Did He ever tell us to embrace sin if it meant
that we could keep our lives? Did he ever renounce His mission to declare that
we needed to repent, to accept Him and to receive His ordinances?Christ died rather than to accept the "politically correct" thing to
do. He watched as Peter faltered. Christ did not recant, even as spikes were
driven into His flesh.Make no mistake about it, Christ did not
accept sin, He did not tolerate sin; He gave His life rather than submitting to
sin.Should we do anything less?No ambassador to religion
would allow governments to dictate to Christ which laws were valid. He would
stand for freedom of religion over any government, just as Christ did.
re: Mountanman this morningHe'd be really busy (but enough
about Utah)to Mike R earlier today1) Jefferson's
Wall restricts traffic in both directions2) Article 11 Treaty of
Triploi3) Jeebus also said, "Render unto Caesar..."
@procuradorfiscal"Doing what we can to discourage what we know to be a
dangerous, destructive, desperately unhappy lifestyle is kindness, no matter how
liberals and doctrinaire LGBT activists look at it"1. If someone
called your faith dangerous, destructive and desperately unhappy lifestyle,
would you consider that kind of them?2. Should someone with that belief
work towards limiting the freedom of people who share your faith from living
that "lifestyle"?I would hope not, since that'd be a
trampling of equal protections and religious freedom. So why do it to gay people
(yes there's less religious freedom there but the rest still exists)?
Re: ". . . WANTING to discriminate against us is not "kindness",
Mike, no matter how you look at it."Sure it is.Doing
what we can to discourage what we know to be a dangerous, destructive,
desperately unhappy lifestyle is kindness, no matter how liberals and
doctrinaire LGBT activists look at it.
Ranch,I'm not a member of any legislation. You know that. You
know that you're accusing me of "legislating" when I am simply
using my right as a disciple of Christ to speak against those who pervert His
doctrine. You will never find me among those who accept unauthorized doctrine.
You once proclaimed everything that Christ stood for as being true
and necessary for "salvation", but now that you 'be decided to
accept same-sex sex as your religion, you fight against those things that you
once testified as being true. Christ has not changed. His doctrine has not
changed. His rules and regulations have not changed. Who has changed?Paul changed when he became aware of his error. He became an advocate for
Christ. Religion gives everyone the opportunity to reject anything
that separates them from Christ. Shopping religions is not acceptable. Christ
told us that He would spew false religions out of His mouth.An
ambassador of religion would uphold all truth. Christ represents all truth. He
is the "word".
Re: "I just don't see all this persuction [sic] the DN and the right
wing keep telling us about."No doubt.Liberals just
don't see religions persuction, or persecution, either, for that matter.
They're not looking. They're too busy suggesting that the first
Amendment's guarantee of American "freedom of religion" should be
re-written in liberal newspeak. That is should really be read as, "complete
isolation from seeing, hearing about, or in any way perceiving that real people
disagree with me or [gasp] believe in God."But, there is real
religious persecution going on in the world. Not just in Africa and the
Mid-East, where people are daily assaulted, burned out of their homes, driven
from their countries, and beheaded.What you're not seeing is
the misery of millions affected by religious persecution, and the fact that
there are too many in liberal America -- with many more coming across
Obama's open borders every day -- who would love nothing more than to bring
the same thing here.
" Religious Freedom " does not have the same meaning for everyone. Here
in Utah, for example, it is very one sided. The main religion here wants freedom
to act upon their beliefs concerning same sex marriage. The problem with this
comes because by passing laws against same sex marriage, they are infringing
upon the religious freedom of gay people! That is why we have courts. In my
opinion, religious freedom should have been a part of the lawsuits. We all know
that most of the state's arguments are based upon Mormon religious beliefs.
They have a right to believe whatever they want, but should not have the right
to pass laws that harm others and that take away their freedom, including
religous freedom! Gay people should not be forced into living their lives
according to the beliefs of others. In order to pass laws against same sex
marriage, they must prove harm done to others, and they have not been able to do
it! Religious freedom gives me the right to not believe what Mormons have to say
about gay people! It gives me the right to live my belief that God did create
Mike Richards says:"Government cannot require that we accept any
religious doctrine."--- Then why are you legislating your
beliefs into law? You're thusly using the government to require others to
accept YOUR religious doctrine"."Personal responsibility
requires that we stand as witnesses for Christ at all times ... the propaganda
machine of the 1.6% who demand... even if they claim that those practices are
their religious doctrine."--- So, you're saying you DO NOT
really believe or follow the First Amendment except as it applies to YOUR
religion. Got it."Christ has never told anyone to accept the
sin, only to show respect and kindness towards the sinner."---
Who are you to judge us as "sinners"? Refusing to do business with us,
voting on our right to marry whom we choose, WANTING to discriminate against us
is not "kindness", Mike, no matter how you look at it.
I think that Ranch misunderstands the entire concept of personal responsibility
vs government duty. The 1st Amendment prohibits government from interfering
with religion, including both the "establishments of religion" and those
who practice their religion. Government cannot require that we accept any
religious doctrine. Personal responsibility requires that we stand
as witnesses for Christ at all times and in all places regardless of public
opinion or the propaganda machine of the 1.6% who demand that we accept as
normal and moral their sexual practices, even if they claim that those practices
are their religious doctrine.Christ has never told anyone to accept
the sin, only to show respect and kindness towards the sinner.The
ambassador of religion, if he does his job well, will make those points clear.
RanchThe ssm has been determined to come under the equal protection
clause, not the religious freedom of the First Amendment. It would be an
interesting argument though. _ _ _ LiberalI'm not
reading any "knee Jerk" Obama hating here. Apparantly yours is the only
knee that jerked. In it's usual hating on Conservatives and Republicans
Mike Richards says:"Religion is a way of life for billions of
people. It is not a suit that we put on before going to our place of
worship."--- I can point out hundreds of local people who show
me otherwise when they put on their "Sunday suit" and worship, then go
about the rest of the week not living their religious beliefs.@SCfan;Yes, it is a religious belief of many religions that SSM is
valid, just as it is for OSM. If you don't believe in it, don't
practice it, but when you try to prevent other religions from practicing it you
violate their religious freedom. NC's ban on SSM includes a fine for ANY
religion that performs an SSM
FT, please engage in more of the events going on not only around the world, but
in our own nation. People are intimidated, bullied, even dismissed from
educational and vocational pursuits on the basis of not supporting social
positions on the basis of religion. At times even I at work am attacked
personally and my work-related efforts-all unrelated to my beliefs,-enigrated on
the basis of my religion.As for the appointment of this person as
"ambassador for religion"? Given it's on social matters that those
in developed countries are most fervently attacked on the basis of religion,
it's to be expected that someone to push those social matters under the
banner of religion would be put in place, paired with inevitable taunting by
some of you.
RanchClearly you are missing the points being made by others. But I
do have to ask you this question that I think deserves an answer. Just which
religious beliefs is it that you think I disagree with? Or are you saying that,
for instance, same sex marriage is a religious belief? You aren't trying
to claim that are you?
The Rabbi David N. Saperstein would know what it is to have people heap insults
on him because of his religion. He would be uniquely qualified to speak for
religious tolerance. He would know that government CANNOT and MUST NOT dictate
religious doctrine nor listen to those who would demand that government force
religions to change any doctrine or even traditions.Religion is a
way of life for billions of people. It is not a suit that we put on before
going to our place of worship. It molds us. It reminds us that we are one
family. It gives us a foundation to know that there are boundaries that must
never be moved to accommodate those who mock religion.Having an
ambassador of religion should remind those in government that we worship God,
not government and that we turn to God for answers, not to government.
‘In our opinion: In an important sign, the Obama administration appoints
ambassador for religious freedom’===== I can
already guess what the "Obama-haters" knee-jerk, automatic response to
this will be...
What many conservatives refuse to see is that the wall of separation between
church and state is actually a protective wall for all religions.We
have learned through painful experience that if this wall is dissolved that one
religion will gain more power over the others and goodbye to freedom of
religion.So if you really love religious freedom, you will do
everything possible to maintain this wall between church and state.
He appointed a non-christian, how dare he doesn't he know America is a
Christian Nation? Why didn't congress hold up this appointment for
several years of vetting?So is he going to be a referee between religious
groups or an interpreter between religion and government?
Ultra BobRe "The government of the United States of America
should not be telling the world how to run their religions"...Where did the article say "the government of the United States should tell
the world how to run their religions"... or anything like that???
SCfan says:"Unfortunately for you Ranch, the First Amendment is not a
one way street, as you seem to want it to be."--- Unfortunately
for YOU, the First Amendment protects religious beliefs that you disagree with.
@gmlewis;There is a world of difference between someone
"telling you they look down on you", and their actually refusing to hire
you, or do business with you or firing you or evicting you or voting on whether
you can marry simply because you are different. Your freedom of speech does NOT
include the right to discriminate against someone. All it does is gives you the
freedom to speak your piece.
What is he supposed to do, scold all the religious bigots both at home and
@Ranch - I really think that we should be able to discriminate vocally in
public. If someone wants to tell me they look down on me for my religion, they
should have that right. This happens every day with LDS missionaries, and they
don't go to court over it. Of course, this freedom of expression
doesn't include violence, loss of property, etc.This whole idea
of enforcing political correctness by law is a degeneration of our
constitutional right to freedom of speech. I may not agree with vocally
castigating a religion, race, or group, but I will fight to the death for their
right to say it.
I just don't see all this persuction the DN and the right wing keep telling
us about. Our neighborhood ward still is enjoying it's tax free status and
the parking lot is full every Sunday. What am I not seeing?
Unfortunately for you Ranch, the First Amendment is not a one way street, as you
seem to want it to be.
The government of the United States of America should not be telling the world
how to run their religions. If the current interpretation of the Constitution
is that our president cannot interfere in American religion in America, where in
the world is the justification for interfering in the religious affairs of other
nations? Should we not allow the same freedom of religion in other
nations as in America? Why do we have the right to impose our notion of freedom
of religion on other nations? Could it be the commercial business
aspects of religion that wants our government to use our military in the same
manner as with normal business activities?
"What counts is his dedication to religious liberty and the rights of
conscience ..."--- Why hide behind nice words: "rights of
conscience". Say what you REALLY mean. "Right to discriminate in
public.""the passage of the 1993 Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which strengthens the First Amendment and keeps the federal
government from infringing on the exercise of religion."--- You
mean like passing laws which prohibit *some* religions from performing legal
same-gender weddings? Isn't that an infringement on someone's
religion? I'm really tired of so-called "religious"
people reading the First Amendment as a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes
to the law and obedience to it.