Does the LDS Church have to take a stand to immigration?
The major premise of the article is whether or not the LDS Church has an obligation of take an official stand on immigration. Some argue that it is just fair that if the church took an active role in Prop 8 few years ago in California; they equally have to be actively engaged in immigration policy.
I will propose that the LDS Church DOES NOT have that obligation. There are major differences between immigration policy and Prop 8. For once, immigration policy is a purely political issue. The church has in many instances advice to the saints of this era to remain in their home countries. This should be a very clear clue that the church does not approve of all the immigrants –legal or illegal- that choose to come to the United States.
Proposition 8 in the other hand, is a purely moral issue. It defeats all that is natural and proper in LDS doctrine. The stand of the church on Prop 8 went beyond any political partisan and went straight to the point: the LDS Church opposes homosexuality.
I believe that some members of the church in Utah specially want to feel the warm hand of their church patting them on their back and say “it’s ok, don’t worry;” when the truth is that, the church does not completely support them or their actions. I am not trying to belittle their efforts to push the government to pass an immigration reform; I am just trying to tell them that they ought to do it alone, with no church support.
It's strange to compare Prop 8 to immigration reform.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, no religion should strive to push what is considered subjective truth into law. Their is no reliable evidence to prove that their is a God. We protect various religions by ensuring that our laws give no preference to any. As some may possibly believe God doesn't mind homosexuality, it would be prudent to base our laws on things we can consider objective truths.
This country is based on subjective truths. Truth being the most subjective of all principles. This country was based on religious beliefs and it's a truth no one can deny. Justice and law are equally subjective and changes over time. The application on law varies greatly depending on every judge and court. Objectivity is never an achievable goal in a social science, specially politics.
ReplyDeleteSecond, it is the right of every citizen and entity in this country to believe or not whatever they want. so it is also they right of every religion, as well as every other interest group to push any legislation that it's in their best intererst.
Third, you missed the point of the premise. I was arguing that as LDS members, we should NOT expect the LDS Church to openly support a reform when the church itsels has an adverse opinion in the topic.
"Truth being the most subjective of all principles."
ReplyDeleteYes, in the sense that 'objective reality' is 'collective subjective reality'.
"This country was based on religious beliefs and it's a truth no one can deny."
Yes, not all of the founding fathers were willing to resign certain religious beliefs like 'Blacks are inferior'. Religious beliefs in our law and Constitution are generally an embarrassment because they tend trample over others rights. Our countries strongest principles are independent of religion.
"Justice and law are equally subjective and changes over time. The application on law varies greatly depending on every judge and court. Objectivity is never an achievable goal in a social science, specially politics."
I believe you misunderstand the context of 'objectivity' as I meant it. Yes 'true objectivity' is unattainable. 'Objective truth' as I meant it is seen as 'collective subjective truth'. Can we collectively agree murder is wrong? Yes. Can we collectively agree that homosexuality is wrong? No. Can we collectively agree that one certain religion is correct? No. Which leads to your second part.
"Second, it is the right of every citizen and entity in this country to believe or not whatever they want. so it is also they right of every religion, as well as every other interest group to push any legislation that it's in their best interest."
I agree with the first statement but I don't see it's correlation to the second statement. It is wrong to force an opinion into law with little or no factual basis, religious or not. A Mormon can believe homosexuality is wrong and exclude them from their club. But it would be wrong if a law were passed that would discriminate homosexuals on the basis that 'God commands it'.
"Third, you missed the point of the premise. I was arguing that as LDS members, we should NOT expect the LDS Church to openly support a reform when the church itsels has an adverse opinion in the topic. "
I didn't miss that point. I simply didn't care about that point.
Defining objective truth as collective subjective truth is an oxymoron in itself. Your point also lacks of logic. If you say that is a majority agrees that murder is wrong, you can't argue that another majority can't decide whether homosexuality is right. Even more, can you define right or wrong? It is all relative.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, if a religion has a strong opinion for or against something, they have the right to promote it, without infringing in other people's right to not believe it.
"If you say that is a majority agrees that murder is wrong, you can't argue that another majority can't decide whether homosexuality is right. Even more, can you define right or wrong? It is all relative."
ReplyDeleteYes, it's not as simple as the majority rule you're thinking I meant. The courts are a check and balance to ensure rights of the people when the majority forgets our valuable tenets we collectively agree upon.
"Likewise, if a religion has a strong opinion for or against something, they have the right to promote it, without infringing in other people's right to not believe it."
I think you need to broaden that last bit. They have the right to promote it without infringing on other people's rights. Marriage should be considered a civil right and as such should have it's definition fit to the broadest equal application available. If a group claims it exclusively it ceases to be a right.
The truth is that marriage in itself it is not a right. In fact, "rights" are mainly determined by the governmental entity in which certain people have enter into a contract, the so called Social Contract. In the United States, the rights that are protected by the law are found in the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments of the Constitution.)
ReplyDeleteTherefore marriage it is not a right per se, it is a privilege granted by the individual states. In law, marriage is a contract, and, like in all contracts every state stipulates the terms and conditions.
You need to understand the difference between a right and a privilege. What is my right as human? who determines what rights I have? even more, who is going to protect my rights, if i have any? and if I do, do they really have the obligation to protect my rights? Is the right to marry really a right?
Under your above assumption, that marriage is a right, people should have the right to marry whatever they want, males, females, babies, animals... and that's taking it to the extreme, but the reality is that marriage is such a key social entity that it shouldn't be granted to anyone. Family is the nucleus of society, and it it starts to get funny shapes, society will turn into something different as well.