Why am I posting this on HN? First, because Oaks is a brilliant Professor of Law, and second because I wanted to expose the community to an elegant expression of a different point of view than what they might be used to hearing on the issues of Church and State. I want to hear your thoughts on what Dallin H. Oaks has set forth.
Glad you got it, I actually thought it was a sound legal argument. I don't expect many of my fellow HN readers to agree, but I thought they might find it interesting.
Unfortunately it sounds jus like a lawyer wrote it. He is obviously ( as he mentions in his preamble ) aware that this is going to be broadcast outside the walls of BYU.
But he is incredibly circutous in his argument. He waxes philosphical on his belief that his god created the Constitution (in case my choice of caps is missed, I'll leave it as m only clear statement of what I put my faith in) as a vessel of Mormonism. "Restoring the Gospel" as be put it. But wait! It's for the protection of all flesh.
Which of course one can interpret many ways, and I don't get the impression he's willing to state the position the LDS church has made clear over the years: your flesh is safe as long as you do things our way. But we won't hesitate to point out to you that your soul is damned.
The crucial question of course is, as is mentioned, when deciding an issue do the rights and beliefs of the religious take more, less or the same weight than those of the non-relIgious. Or, to be fair, the not-Mormon.
For a relgiouus group with a long history of conspiracy to build voting blocs ( I believe they were thrown out of a least one state for it), I find it hard to be willling to listen to enlightened pontiification on the issue from them. And the LDS' questionable involvement in influencing, especially from out of state with people, propaganda and money, last years Prop 8 debacle in CA shows that they are still not above such anti-democratic shenanigans. It also shows that for the LDS the answer is: the Constitution prevents the government from proscribing us and from letting us make everyone join our church. So well simply throw money at thugs until the law reflects our belief system as closely as possible.
4 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 23.1 ms ] threadBeats me.
> An active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a disciple of Jesus Christ.
Ah, now I get it.
But he is incredibly circutous in his argument. He waxes philosphical on his belief that his god created the Constitution (in case my choice of caps is missed, I'll leave it as m only clear statement of what I put my faith in) as a vessel of Mormonism. "Restoring the Gospel" as be put it. But wait! It's for the protection of all flesh.
Which of course one can interpret many ways, and I don't get the impression he's willing to state the position the LDS church has made clear over the years: your flesh is safe as long as you do things our way. But we won't hesitate to point out to you that your soul is damned.
The crucial question of course is, as is mentioned, when deciding an issue do the rights and beliefs of the religious take more, less or the same weight than those of the non-relIgious. Or, to be fair, the not-Mormon.
For a relgiouus group with a long history of conspiracy to build voting blocs ( I believe they were thrown out of a least one state for it), I find it hard to be willling to listen to enlightened pontiification on the issue from them. And the LDS' questionable involvement in influencing, especially from out of state with people, propaganda and money, last years Prop 8 debacle in CA shows that they are still not above such anti-democratic shenanigans. It also shows that for the LDS the answer is: the Constitution prevents the government from proscribing us and from letting us make everyone join our church. So well simply throw money at thugs until the law reflects our belief system as closely as possible.