Fuck you. I am not an apologist for theocracy, unless by “theocracy” you mean “a democratic system of government that permits its constituents’s views to be shaped by their religious preferences.” That’s an odd way to describe a “theocracy.” **
You mean this same nation that pays a chaplain to begin each session of Congress?
This nation was founded on the principle of (more or less) freedom of conscience in religious worship. It was not founded on anything resembling a principle that religion must be hermetically sealed from policy choices. Indeed, it cannot: religion shapes the worldview of a good chunk of the citizenry, and they vote accordingly. **
The theocracy in Iran is wrong because it governs without a democratic mandate (other than perhaps the mandate of the mob), because it squelches dissent, because it does not permit alternative religious choices, and because it uses repression, violence and fear to maintain its power, all in the name of God. It is not wrong because it happens to have heavy Islamic influences. Your attempt to draw moral equivelance between Utah and Iran is appalling.
When the US took over Iraq, one of the first groups it consulted in trying to bring about a sense of order and establish a working government was local imams. Should they have ignored the political reality of their influence in the name of your rather extreme ideological view of church-state relations? **
Not bullshit. The imprimatur of the LDS church matters to the commission not because Mormon theology is necessarily correct, but rather because it is the primary determinant of the voting patterns of millions of Utahns. If the LDS imprimatur is the only imprimatur that matters, then that is so only because of choices freely made by the citizens of Utah. **
Again, this is an appalling bit of moral equivelance. The Iranian government, for all intents and purposes, is the ayatollahs, and they do what they want pretty much without regard for what their constituents think. Dissent is permitted in Utah; it is not permitted in Iran. If the LDS church carries a good deal of influence, it is because most Utahns voluntarily turn to it for guidance, and not because they are forced to do so at the point of a gun. **
Good to know you don’t care about waste in government. **
And again, as you’ve noted, the first amendment is not implicated here. Why you continue bringing it up is a mystery.
But ol’ Al is an ordained Presbyterian minister, calls himself Reverend, and is given to calling his followers his congregation. Why is seeking his approval OK by your lights?
Hell, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend, too, and he frequently invoked God as the basis for the civil rights movement. If legislators had sought his initial approval on civil rights matters before going to the public at large, would you have been bitching about separation of church and state? **
OK, but why? This isn’t a first amendment issue by any stretch. The right to religous worship, and the right to not be forced into religious worship not of your choosing, is not at stake here. Religious functions are not being paid for out of the public purse. Why are you willing to permit kowtowing to secular opinionmakers, but not religous opinionmakers? What grave and terrible threat to the republic does this cause?
I honestly can’t think of one, outside of simple blind hostility to religion. **
It isn’t crap. The only reason the commission seeks the approval of the church is because a bunch of Utahns freely choose the church as a political compass. That being the case, the church will inevitably wield considerable influence over public policy, including de facto veto power over measures it thinks contradicts its doctrine. And that being the case, lawmakers will inevitably inquire as to whether the church will exercise that veto power before they proceed, lest they waste time, in much the same way as congressmen might ask the White House if they plan on vetoing a given measure before they proceed.
So what you’re really pissed over is the fact that Utahns allow the LDS church to influence how they vote on public policy matters.
Good heavens: if the church had not been consulted, and they had decided that the change in policy did contradict Mormon doctrine, and the matter failed because of that pronouncement, would you be any less annoyed? The church would still be wielding the “big stick” in public policy choices; it would still be exercising de facto veto power; the wall of separation is exactly as porous as it is in the current example. Why is that any less of a “theocracy” by your lights? **
There is no meaningful difference between the current example and the one I cited (going to the House leadership). In that example, and in the Sharpton and DNC examples, the lawmaker is going to an influential person or body carrying de facto authority to squelch the proposal. The only difference is that the LDS is a religous organization. If you’d care to explain why that is an important distinction of the kind that they should be accorded less deference than other opinionmaking bodies, feel free – but do bear in mind that you’ve admitted the current situation is not of constitutional import.
Blind hostility to religion: I guess that’s Democratic politics for ya. **
Oh, I don’t expect to convince someone as ideologically blinded as you that lawmakers owe a duty to the public to act efficiently and to refrain from wasting time on the public’s dime.
One quibble, though: the Ayatollah doesn’t, last I checked, care terribly much about democratic principles. Your invocation of Iran is, again, both inappropriate and an appalling attempt at moral equivelance.**
And I eagerly await your future repetitions of the “but…but…it’s a church” argument. I’m sure I won’t be disapponted.
But FTR I do not and never have lived in Utah; it’s practically a foreign country to me.