And I wonder how prominent the LDS church is in Georgia, where you can’t buy beer on Sunday.
You think this is a laughing matter, vanilla? It’s the firing squad for you! Oh wait…:smack:
I’m sure the government of Georgia just asked the Baptist Church what its position was on selling beer on Sundays . . .
Seriously, you think I have the slightest respect for blue laws?
Heck, minty; neither do I. But I don’t go around pretending a church did something that it didn’t do and that a one member of a legislative committee seeking info did something he didn’t do.
Once again, I don’t care even in the slightest whether “a church did something that it didn’t do.” I care only about the actions of the government a topic that you have repeatedly failed to address.
Well, the government didn’t do anything wrong either. Not even an appearance of impropriety. And I’ve addressed it.
Well thats obviously wrong as the existence of this thread shows. The LDS and the gov’t worked together to move forward legislation. The Church’s central control of doctrine was used to “circumvent protest” of the new legislation? The opinion of a church director is taken as the will of the people(ie replacing “expensive polls”)? There is a big appearance of impropriety though I’m not surprised you don’t see it.
Cite?
J/K, I’ve lost hope in this thread.
Minty,
Thanks for the input. You forgot this part though:
It seems to me that you can have church-state separation only when you have churh-people separation. In Utah you don’t really have that, so it certainly seems prudent to get the churchs’ say on the matter simply because it will be reflected by alarge portion of the population.
Sorry, CarnalK; the LDS church did not “work together” with anyone “to move forward legislation.” Just because someone’s pretending they did does not mean that there is actually the appearance of impropriety. All it means is that someone’s pretending there is. Actually, the existence of this thread shows that someone wants there to be an impropriety.
I really don’t need to cite my posts in the very thread for which you’ve asked to see those posts, do I, CarnalK. And you can shove that stupid comment about you not being surprised.
If the legislation is beneficial and proper, sure, see if you can get it passed. Why not? Worst thing that happens is you lose. Big deal.
j/k=“just kidding”
But I’ll accept my shoving of the “not surprised” comment. I meant that one.
Well, no. Worst thing that happens is that a lot of time, money, and effort is wasted with no beneficial results whatsoever. Money, time and effort which could be better utilized towards achieving a goal which has a higher degree of success. That, to me, is an important consideration.
Now take it another way. What if(before the Church position announcement) the majority of Utahns wanted to keep the firing squad option? Doesn’t asking the Church to make an early pronouncement on the matter giving it an unfair priority and bias future public comment?
This talk of expediency assumes that the Mormon public will all vote/think according to Church doctrine. Maybe that is true but I’m against formalizing the process.
Oh, you mean it is expedient to breach the wall between church and state?
I said nothing about ‘breaching the wall between church and state’. My last post was specifically about the course of action being pursued after inviting public comment. In the hypothetical you invited public comment and found proponents of the legislature among all groups but the LDS church. Since in the hypothetical you invited comment no breach of church and state has occurred. At this point however you know that the church is unequivocally against the new legislation and that the legislation has an extremely small chance at passing. You then indicated that you would still attempt to get the legislation passed despite it’s practically being guaranteed to fail under the reasoning that it “couldn’t hurt”. I noted some of the drawbacks to pursuing the legislation despite the opposition and I disagree with the sentiment that “it couldn’t hurt”.
Ah, I’m afraid I wasn’t following the hypothetical there. But I still believe the government should attempt to enact beneficial legislation, even when that legislation is opposed by a substantial portion of the population. I guess I’m just a wacky idealist that way.
Isn’t that what the sentencing commission is attempting to do? Isn’t research part of the process?
I would suggest that asking a church for its sanction is not “research.”