Mormon Church OKs Firing Squad Change

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**So what? That makes the LDS Church’s opinion more valid than Joe Schmoe’s? **

As a matter of fact, it does, although I’d use the term “important” rather than “valid.” It is more important in much the same way as the opinion of Al Sharpton’s organization is more important than Joe Schmoe’s for anyone thinking of passing a neighborhood rule in Harlem.**

[quote]
The hell with that. This is not a theocracy, and government commissions should not behave as if it is. **

[quote]
The comission is not behaving as though the government is a theocracy. It is simply recognizing the simple practical fact that the LDS church is the leading opnionmaker in the state of Utah.**

Don’t be so ridiculous. What does it cost to put out a statement that the committee is soliciting public comments on the proposal to do away with firing squad executions? Next to nothing, that’s what it costs. **

This costs time and money: someone has to sort through responses and report them back to the commission. To use an example I’m personally familiar with, there is a reason that it can take several years for the SEC to go from requests for comments on a proposed rule to actually implementing that rule.

The whole point of asking the LDS church for their view at the outset is to avoid that time-consuming process if it will ultimately be for naught. The public will be able to comment on the proposed rule; the commission just thought it prudent to make certain it wasn’t tilting at windmills before it proceeded. **

Fortunately, the First Amendment is anti-democratic. “Congress shall make no laws,” remember? No exception for “unless it’s politically expedient.” **

I agree that the first amendment is a brake on democratic processes, and that it is a good thing, and that it should be vigorously enforced. But you yourself admit that the commission’s act isn’t unconstitutional. The first amendment is wholly irrelevant here. **

Yes, I understand that conservatism is an irrational philosophy that must be accepted on faith instead of objectively verifiable evidence. But that still doesn’t make the Republican Party a religion. **

This response is simply…bizarre. Conservative voices are largely ignored in my part of the world, much as liberal voices are largely ignored in yours. My point is that, absent a constitutional violation (which you agree is not present here), it’s a simple fact of life in our system of government that institutions capable of persuading 90% of the population will be more closely listened to than others.

[kambuckta]

Members of the legislature get their information and recommendations for changes to Bills by their ‘advisors’, who in turn get THEIR info and so-on from lobby and/or interest groups in the community. The louder the voice of the lobbyist, the more likely that particular group is to have THEIR agenda accepted for proposal, regardless of whether it is religiously-based or otherwise. This is how democracy works.

In the case of Utah, it makes complete sense that the opinion of the Mormon Church would be sought before trying to institute changes to the law. Not only would it be politically suicidal to do otherwise, the laws of a particular country are meant to reflect the attitudes and mores of the majority of its citizens, or at least the most vocal of the lobby groups. It is totally irrelevant that this is a ‘religious’ group…if the majority population happened to be, say, vegan tree-huggers. then THEIR opinion would direct changes to the laws.

Imagine if the US govt. tried to introduce gun-control laws without consulting the NRA?

[Blalron]

Imagine if the US govt. tried to introduce gun-control laws without consulting the NRA?

Hmm… I’m not sure if consult is the right word. I’m sure Congressional Committees supeona people from advocacy groups to hear their points of view, but they don’t rely soley on the NRA’s position to proceed forward.

[Blalron]

I agree that the first amendment is a brake on democratic processes, and that it is a good thing, and that it should be vigorously enforced. But you yourself admit that the commission’s act isn’t unconstitutional. The first amendment is wholly irrelevant here.

I agree that it would be hard to find a specific constitutional violation here, but it creeps me out nevertheless to think that one monolithic religious organization can hold so much control.

[kambuckta]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**Hmm… I’m not sure if consult is the right word. I’m sure Congressional Committees supeona people from advocacy groups to hear their points of view, but they don’t rely soley on the NRA’s position to proceed forward. **

But you can bet your bottom dollar that if, say, 60% of the population were members of the NRA (I have no idea WHAT the actual percentage is) then they WOULD rely solely upon their position when making changes to legislation.

[wring]

*Originally posted by kambuckta *
**But you can bet your bottom dollar that if, say, 60% of the population were members of the NRA (I have no idea WHAT the actual percentage is) then they WOULD rely solely upon their position when making changes to legislation. **

God I would hope not. Belonging to any group, be it religious, political etc, does not mean that one would agree 100% with all of their positions.

and, I’m rather surprised of the position held by some folks here that specifically consulting any specific group wrt pending legislation shouldn’t cause the heebee jeebies.

Consider, Dewey (*not to pick on you specifically), but since you posted that you’re the minority (conservative) in your specific area, how would you feel if the legislature soliticted the opinion of the Democratic party prior to attempting to pass legislation? wouldn’t that make you a tad nervous???

[kambuckta]

*Originally posted by wring *

and, I’m rather surprised of the position held by some folks here that specifically consulting any specific group wrt pending legislation shouldn’t cause the heebee jeebies.

**

How else are the guvmint meant to find out about how the ‘community’ feels about things? They cannot run a referendum every time there is about to be a legislative change or addition. ‘Umbrella’ groups serve the purpose of advising the government about what should be instituted, and I would rather a govt that consulted with lobbyists rather than one who DIDN’T.

[wring]

A. you said

then they WOULD rely solely upon their position when making changes to legislation

I elected a representative, not a shill for an outside group.

B. They can, (as was suggested) ask for opinions, listen to their constituents (as in the folks who, like, voted for them, to whom they answer etc).

Your position suggests that legislators should merely ask these lobbyists what they should enact, vs. what is in the best interest of the people in their jurisdictions, or what they want etc.

again, any specific person may belong to any number of groups, doesn’t mean that they adhere 100% to all of their beliefs etc. (Catholic is a good example - church is against birth control etc, not all members are).

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by wring *
**Consider, Dewey (*not to pick on you specifically), but since you posted that you’re the minority (conservative) in your specific area, how would you feel if the legislature soliticted the opinion of the Democratic party prior to attempting to pass legislation? wouldn’t that make you a tad nervous??? **

No, it would not. In fact, I’d expect it. In fact it actually works that way, albeit on an informal rather than formal basis.

[wring]

Really? I would agree that it happens on the ‘informal’ basis, however, I would say it’d be quite the chilling situation if my rep officially requested direction from the Republican party before enacting legislation.

I’m really quite surprised that you say you’d not be bothered by this.

[Michael_Ellis]

Dammit! Now where am I gonna go to be executed by a firing squad?

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
[Me: So what? That makes the LDS Church’s opinion more valid than Joe Schmoe’s?]

As a matter of fact, it does, although I’d use the term “important” rather than “valid.”

Gee, debating is easy when you just change a person’s words and argue what you wish they’d said. “Valid” and “important” are not even remotely synonymous, you know.

I understand it’s also “important” for the government of Iran to get the Ayatollah Khameni’s approval before deciding questions of public policy. That doesn’t make the Ayatollah’s opinion any more “valid.”

It is more important in much the same way as the opinion of Al Sharpton’s organization is more important than Joe Schmoe’s for anyone thinking of passing a neighborhood rule in Harlem.

Al Sharpton’s organization is not a church so far as I know, and no government organization that I am aware of is asking for his religious blessing before undertaking any neighborhood projects in Harlem. If they were, I’d object to that too.

This costs time and money: someone has to sort through responses and report them back to the commission.

You mean just like what happens with every other proposed piece of legislation in the country? BFD.

The whole point of asking the LDS church for their view at the outset is to avoid that time-consuming process if it will ultimately be for naught.

I’ve never denied the expediency of asking the Ayatollah for his advance approval. What I am denying is the propriety of doing so.

[Monty]

Otto: I’ve already said all on the matter I’m going to say to your bigoted jackass self.

minty: When it comes to the issue of what the actual doctrine of a particular group is, then the opinion of that group’s leadership sure as heck trumps the opinion of “Joe Schmoe.” And that doesn’t matter how many people wrote in with the wrong description.

Guin:

You know, Monty, it IS possible to criticize the Mormon church at times and not be anti-Mormon.* Just like it’s possible for someone to be pissed at how the Vatican is handling child molester priests, without being anti-Catholic.

No kidding. Too bad Otto’s not following that methodology. I also criticize the Catholic church’s handling of the pedophile issue facing it. And you know that I’m not anti-Catholic.

I await proof–actual honest proof–that the government of Utah “kow-towed” to the LDS church on this. So far all I’ve seen is a request from ONE agent of the government requesting clarification about ONE issue of that church’s doctrine. Absent something that says, “Do we have your permission, Brother H., to amend the laws of the State of Utah,” my description of the event sure seems to be the more accurate–i.e, the one with the actual proof–description.

[Monty]

vanilla: Otto is full of crap and you will know this to be true if you do a search on this site for my username and the word Islam or Catholic. I have often gotten involved in calling people out here on their inaccurate and, when appropriate, prejudiced descriptions of the Roman Catholic church, the Islamic faith, and even about Buddhism (just to name a few). So, unless all of those faiths are part of my “cult,” then Otto’s statement is yet another lie…er, “mistake.”

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by wring *
**Really? I would agree that it happens on the ‘informal’ basis, however, I would say it’d be quite the chilling situation if my rep officially requested direction from the Republican party before enacting legislation.

I’m really quite surprised that you say you’d not be bothered by this. **

If the overwhelming majority of voters in my neck of the woods look to the Democratic party as a formative source for their opinions, then it’d be nuts for them not to request such direction. I can lament that my fellow citizens look to such an institution for political direction, but I really can’t be upset at government officials for dealing with that political reality.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by minty green *
Gee, debating is easy when you just change a person’s words and argue what you wish they’d said. “Valid” and “important” are not even remotely synonymous, you know.

Validity or invalidity isn’t at issue here. No one in this thread is debating the merits of getting rid of firing squads. The only discussion going on is on the merits of consulting with a church body before going forward on a given matter. Your use of that particular word is inappropriate. “Important” captures the concept better. We aren’t dealing with the merits of a particular policy position here (which, of course, is infinitely arguable), but rather the simple fact of political power (which is not). **

I understand it’s also “important” for the government of Iran to get the Ayatollah Khameni’s approval before deciding questions of public policy. That doesn’t make the Ayatollah’s opinion any more “valid.”**

Can you honestly not see the difference between a theocracy that governs by intimidation and fear, and lawmaker’s recognition of the fact that a freely-joined religious institution influences the voting patterns of its members?

Islamic theocracies seek the approval of imams because they are founded on the premise that state policies need the imprimatur of God himself. That is not what the commission is doing. The commission is just recognizing that many of its constituents will have their view shaped by church teaching on this matter, and thus they need to take that fact into account in deciding whether or not to proceed. In short, the reason for proceeding or not proceeding is not “because the LDS church says we can/can’t,” but rather “because our constituents will be opposed/unopposed to this action.” **

Al Sharpton’s organization is not a church so far as I know, and no government organization that I am aware of is asking for his religious blessing before undertaking any neighborhood projects in Harlem. If they were, I’d object to that too. **

Well, he does retain that “Rev.” in front of his name…

But more to the point: Sharpton’s organization is an important opinionmaking vehicle in that nook of the world. What he says shapes the views of a good chunk of the citizenry in that locality. It therefore makes a hell of a lot of sense, if you’re trying to undertake a project in Harlem, to get his sign-off first – because otherwise you’re project ain’t going anywhere.

I fail utterly to see why the fact that the institution in question is a religious one should make any difference at all. The first amendment is not implicated here. Nor really is the wall of separation, unless you believe that religious values cannot inform the moral worldview of the citizenry, and thus in turn legislation based on that worldview – an absurd and unenforceable standard.

Your real problem isn’t with the commission. It’s with the people of Utah, for daring to take their church’s doctrine seriously and for allowing it to shape the way they vote on public policy matters. **

You mean just like what happens with every other proposed piece of legislation in the country? BFD. **

And, as you assuredly noted in the part of my post that you deleted, that will most certainly happen as the proposal moves forward. Again: the public will be able to comment on the proposed rule; the commission just thought it prudent to make certain it wasn’t tilting at windmills before it proceeded. Why expend all the time, money and effort involved in soliciting public opinion if you know from the outset that you will assuredly fail?

This is no different than some junior member of the House going to the House leadership to get their sign-off on a proposed bill. Why bother with all the time and effort of drafting and pushing a bill through committee and onto the floor if you know from the outset that the bill will be killed? **

I’ve never denied the expediency of asking the Ayatollah for his advance approval. What I am denying is the propriety of doing so. **

This is an absurd analogy for the reasons stated above.

Consulting with the LDS church conserves government resources and prevents the utter waste of time and effort in pursuing a doomed change in policy. We don’t pay our officials to waste time tilting at windmills. Far from being improper, the consultation with the church was an act of good government.

[Monty]

Taking Dewey’s analogy of the Democrats: Say that a majority of the population in the state is Democrat and there’s some legislation being considered. Say also that quite a number of the “rank and file” Democrats in the state write into either the legislature, the “letters to the editor” pages, or both and state that their party is opposed to that legislation. So a member of the commission who happens to know better decides that the best thing to do is to get the official stance of the party. Does he turn to the guy next to him or does he write to the leader of the Democratic party and request a definitive answer? Does he have to query the Green party and every other party in the state when he was looking only for official word on the stance of one party, the Democrats?

[Monty]

A more complete account than the Yahoo page cited in the OP.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
“Important” captures the concept better.

Sure, if you’re an apologist for theocracy. Me, I think theocracy is a terrible idea, and that the issue is “propriety.” But then again, I’m a Dem and you’re a Pubbie, so there you have it.

We aren’t dealing with the merits of a particular policy position here (which, of course, is infinitely arguable), but rather the simple fact of political power (which is not).

Ah, but we’re not talking about “political power.” If we were, the state committee would have just asseted its authoritity and done whatever it thought was best. Instead, we have political power kowtowing to the authority of a religious power.

To hell with that. This nation is a republic founded on the principle that religious authority should have nothing to do with governmental authority.

Can you honestly not see the difference between a theocracy that governs by intimidation and fear, and lawmaker’s recognition of the fact that a freely-joined religious institution influences the voting patterns of its members?

I see no relevant difference, insofar as the proposition is that it is wrong for government to prostrate itself before a religious authority. Is your position really so weak that all you can claim is that this particular religious authority is better than that other religious authority?

Islamic theocracies seek the approval of imams because they are founded on the premise that state policies need the imprimatur of God himself. That is not what the commission is doing.

Bullshit. But asking for the opinion of the LDS Church, and only the LDS Church, the commission acted under the presumption that the only imprimatur that mattered was the imprimatur of the Mormon God Himself, as revealed through his prophet, the President of the LDS Church.

That’s a terrible philosophy in Iran, and it’s a terrible philosophy in the U.S.

The commission is just recognizing that many of its constituents will have their view shaped by church teaching on this matter, and thus they need to take that fact into account in deciding whether or not to proceed.

The Iranian government is just recognizing that many of its constituents will have their view shaped by the Ayatollah’s teachings on this matter, and thus they need to take that fact into account into deciding whether or not to proceed.

In short, the reason for proceeding or not proceeding is not “because the LDS church says we can/can’t,” but rather “because our constituents will be opposed/unopposed to this action.”

Can you quit with the expediency shit already? I don’t care about the expediency of the matter. I care about the impropriety of the government asking a religious organization, and only a religious organization, for its sanction of a proposed law. I’m sure it’s also expedient to seek the Ayatollah’s approval in Iran.

But more to the point: Sharpton’s organization is an important opinionmaking vehicle in that nook of the world.

Goody for them. But the Constitution doesn’t prohibit the Establishment of Al Sharpton, nor does it prohibit the Establishment of the Westchester County Democratic Party.

I fail utterly to see why the fact that the institution in question is a religious one should make any difference at all.

Clearly, you don’t care. I do.

Your real problem isn’t with the commission. It’s with the people of Utah, for daring to take their church’s doctrine seriously and for allowing it to shape the way they vote on public policy matters

That is complete and utter crap, and you should damn well know better based on everything I’ve said in this thread. I have consistently said that I don’t give a shit what the Mormon Church thinks, and I don’t give a shit what Joe Schmoe thinks. I do give a shit that the government of Utah seeks the input and permission of the LDS Church, and nobody else, before taking legislative action.

This is no different than some junior member of the House going to the House leadership to get their sign-off on a proposed bill.

So there’s no difference between secularism and religion? I guess that’s Republicanism for ya.

Consulting with the LDS church conserves government resources and prevents the utter waste of time and effort in pursuing a doomed change in policy. We don’t pay our officials to waste time tilting at windmills. Far from being improper, the consultation with the church was an act of good government.

Do you really think that if you repeat this claim ebough times, I will come to think of expediency as a reasonable excuse theocracy? Expediency is the refuge of the Ayatollah, not a basis for government’s decision to cede its authority to a religious organization.

I eagerly await your future repetitions of the expediency argument. I’m sure I won’t be disappointed.

[Monty]

minty: How about looking at facts as facts? One: Utah is not a theocracy. Two: ONE agency of the government requested factual information regarding something that agency thought may have affect something that agency is considering recommending to the legislature. Three: nobody in the government asked the LDS church for permission.