What is wrong with religious leadership? (souls, Satan, Brahma, philosophy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. I did read it. And the writer has heartburn because only 60% of the state is Mormon, while voting in close to 90% of elected officials.
So what? What's the problem? Do they legislate a requirement to be Mormon? How is this specifically a bad thing? Does the Mormon prophet dictate to them how to legislate?
Or is just that you can't stand the idea of a state being represented by religious people?
I'm signing off now, but before I do, let's get a few things straight...
I simply noted the article tends to "raise the same sort of questions." I didn't comment about anything being wrong, but I can't say there aren't some issues worth at least some consideration, for discussion if nothing else.
A good deal of my wife's side of the family is there, in SLC, so I know plenty about living in Utah, being in Utah, and there is nothing about that I "can't stand." As the article simply points out, the Mormon church has had an impact on government there, by way of over-representation in their government by members of the Mormon church.
Most people in government claim to belong to one religion or another, but we are a secular country for a reason, so where secularism is undermined by religious influence, one might consider that a problem.
For me personally, no big surprise and nothing I'll lose sleep over, but to suggest no problem or issue whatsoever is not to understand these problems or issues. I mean have you tried buying a bottle of beer in a supermarket in Utah? I guess that's not a problem for people who don't like beer, or who don't mind having to drive who-knows-where to find a six-pack, but again as I said before. Depends on who you ask. Ask my relatives there who are "Jack Mormons," and they'd tell you if it's not a problem, it's a bit ridiculous!
There are some women mentioned in the article who thought there was something of a problem as well. A more serious problem. Far as they were concerned anyway...
I'm signing off now, but before I do, let's get a few things straight...
I simply noted the article tends to "raise the same sort of questions." I didn't comment about anything being wrong, but I can't say there aren't some issues worth at least some consideration, for discussion if nothing else.
A good deal of my wife's side of the family is there, in SLC, so I know plenty about living in Utah, being in Utah, and there is nothing about that I "can't stand." As the article simply points out, the Mormon church has had an impact on government there, by way of over-representation in their government by members of the Mormon church.
Most people in government claim to belong to one religion or another, but we are a secular country for a reason, so where secularism is undermined by religious influence, one might consider that a problem.
For me personally, no big surprise and nothing I'll lose sleep over, but to suggest no problem or issue whatsoever is not to understand these problems or issues. I mean have you tried buying a bottle of beer in a supermarket in Utah? I guess that's not a problem for people who don't like beer, or who don't mind having to drive who-knows-where to find a six-pack, but again as I said before. Depends on who you ask. Ask my relatives there who are "Jack Mormons," and they'd tell you if it's not a problem, it's a bit ridiculous!
There are some women mentioned in the article who thought there was something of a problem as well. A more serious problem. Far as they were concerned anyway...
At this point, there are some statistics....and some anecdotes. The issue I have is that you apparently, as well as the article, draws a cause/effect of religion and laws. There seems to be a suggestion that the laws that exist are there because the LDS Church tells them to make them. That would be a violation of the Constitution. But to have religious people vote according to their conscience or to have legislators enact laws due to their conscience, while not directly acting as agents of the church, does not violate any law.
At this point, there are some statistics....and some anecdotes. The issue I have is that you apparently, as well as the article, draws a cause/effect of religion and laws. There seems to be a suggestion that the laws that exist are there because the LDS Church tells them to make them. That would be a violation of the Constitution. But to have religious people vote according to their conscience or to have legislators enact laws due to their conscience, while not directly acting as agents of the church, does not violate any law.
The issue I have is with you arguing as if with me. I never suggested any laws were being violated. I do have something of an issue with straw man arguments however...
There is also a bit of an issue with respect to what the problem(s) actually may be other than as you seem able to understand or accept. At a simple minimum, there is always something wrong according to some people no matter how legislators vote, according to their conscience or not. Especially when the secular laws dictated by our constitution are arguably being undermined by religious doctrine. What is either right or wrong in these regards is also a matter of some debate in any case. Again also depending on who you ask.
Seems we're "talking apples and oranges" in any case, and I've got to sign off now, so here's to enjoying whichever fruit you prefer until perhaps we meet again.
The issue I have is with you arguing as if with me. I never suggested any laws were being violated. I do have something of an issue with straw man arguments however...
There is also a bit of an issue with respect to what the problem(s) actually may be other than as you seem able to understand or accept. At a simple minimum, there is always something wrong according to some people no matter how legislators vote, according to their conscience or not. Especially when the secular laws dictated by our constitution are arguably being undermined by religious doctrine. What is either right or wrong in these regards is also a matter of some debate in any case. Again also depending on who you ask.
Seems we're "talking apples and oranges" in any case, and I've got to sign off now, so here's to enjoying whichever fruit you prefer until perhaps we meet again.
You posted the article that seems to suggest there was an issue. I'm just asking questions.
Something about "ok, we will keep our feet on the ground." meaning rooted in what we agree on. While the aggressive crusaders (atheist or theist) run a muck. We need to keep aggressive activism atheist out of state rule making also. Separation of statement of belief about god.
Hey representing god. Based on that, you ought to hold yourselves to the highest standard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
