Close Topic Options

Law vs. Religion

Law vs. Religion

Do you think the Church and members around the world should become more established in government and the legislative process so as to put into effect laws that will 'force' morality and standards similar to that of the Church?

Religion vs Law

No. I don't think we have a right to force our gospel standards on non-members. I think LDS members should be active in government, but they represent the people in those positions, not the Church.

Law vs. Religion Studies Doctrine Mormon

I agree with tenaheff. We can't force "our" standards on others. The Lord doesn't want us to be forced into the gospel, which is why we have agency. It would be nice if everyone could maintain higher standards, of course, but legislating it is not the right way to go.

In my opinion.
Roz

Religion vs Law

I thought that one of the reasons the Prophet and the leaders encourage our members to be involved in politics and represent our cities/countries is to make a contribution, to make a difference and the only way this kind be done is if the LDS member tries to support or create legislations that will help people to live better lives and most of the time they will use the influence of the Gospel in their lives, I do not see anything wrong with that.

Religion vs Law

I think we can make a difference by being a good and honest politician and by listening to our constituents and what they want. We represent them, not ourselves only when we hold an elected office. In addition, I don't think you can legislate morality.

I think you can help pass laws that allow for freedom of religion like school prayer and such and make a difference this was as well, but I don't think you can pass laws that say, we don't think you should shop on Sunday so we won't allow stores to remain open. In my opinion any way

Law vs. Religion

Excellent replies from all.

As members, we are encouraged to be involved, and to press for moral, sound legislation. We must each decide what that means.

As a libertarian, for example, I am not comfortable with the "War on Drugs" that the Republicans are so strongly in favor of. Many, probably most, members of the church in the US are also in favor of it. If I could have an effect on the subject, I would repeal the horribly unjust laws that have come from it.

JB's example is another case. Here, tax laws are being implemented to try to control an industry that the state has already been shown can't be controlled by legislature. I think that if the state wants to forbid this industry, it should be able to do so. But the uncontrollable court system has stripped the states of many of their rights.

This is probably where righteous people can make the greatest contribution, reigning in the judicial system. Remember in the Book of Mormon, when the judiciary got out of control and wicked, the people suffered.

Actually, yes we can, and should, legislate morality. All just laws are based on moral principles. Laws against murder, theft, burglary, rape, pedophilia, etc, are all based on attempts to legislate morality. States and communities should be able to legislate against gambling, pornography, homosexuality, and other moral issues that the citizens of those communities have taken a moral stand on, without the guaranteed threat that their political decisions will be overturned by the judiciary or another legislature (ie, the US Senate and House recently passed the anti-spam law which nullifies more effective ones in several states).

So, I do think that members should be pressing for legislation that justly supports moral and spiritual principles, as long as they don't harm other beliefs. For example, it would be inappropriate to pass a law requiring that tithing be paid. It wouldn't be inappropriate (IMO) to pass a law forbidding the sale of pornographic literature or products within a community.

NightHawk

Law vs. Religion

I agree with this only if the majority of your constituents want it. As you say, the citizens of those communities have taken a moral stand on....

Again, I believe the litmus test must be what the majority of your constituents want. If you are a political leader in an area where the majority are in favor of selling porn, then I believe you are duty bound to vote in favor of allowing it. You are not there to put forth your private adgenda, but to represent a particular group of people.

I agree that the most good can probably be done from the judicial bench and not the senate floor. At least it appears you are saying this, in any event, I believe it to be true.

I personally believe the use of drugs should be legalized.

Law vs. Religion Mormon Doctrine Studies

Tenaheff you messages have been surprising me lately

Anyways, let me share some of my thoughts...

The topic at hand is 'Do you think the Church and members around the world should become more established in government and the legistrative process so as to put into effect laws that will 'force' morality and standars similar to that of the Church?'

1. Keep in mind that these threads are not all based on the US Constitution

2. Yes, I think we should take up office as far as possible and let everyone know of our standards as part of our campaign theme. For instance if you have a desire to get rid of porn and run for a position with that theme and you are elected then get rid of the thing!

3. If you run for a position in government and then 'spring' on your voters that you really had intentions of getting rid of ponography, then I think that would be both dishonest and unreasonable. However, this wouldn't stop you from now saying to the people of the community.... ' Now that I am in office I would like to propose that we get rid of porn and then wait to hear what they say. If they are in agreement then get rid of the thing! If they are not then leave it for the next term. At the same time it does not mean that you have to encourage participation in porn or agree with porn.

4. Thus in my opinion we need to, one, run for office, two, make sure our campaign speaks about out values, three, be elected on that standard, and lastly act the best we can on that basis keeping in mind seperation of Church from State and equality for all.

5. Lastly, we must keep in mind that to 'sustain the law' does not necessarily mean agreement. In the case of porn being legal all it means is that I cannot censor someone else for watching it, but it does not mean within my own household I should or must watch it, nor does it mean I should promote it.