I was listening to the Mormon Channel App on my iPhone the other day during a broadcast of a talk by Dallin H. Oaks dealing with the responsibilities of citizens. I will not seek to repost the entire article (I do suggest that you read it at some point), but rather place the a few highlights that I feel are of note in society today:
Quote 1) "Some of the responsible personal conduct that is necessary to save America is the kind of conduct that is enforceable by law and legal process, but much of it can only be encouraged. In the end, many of our most important personal, family, civic, and church responsibilities are entirely voluntary. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell said in his address at this Freedom Festival last year, "Our whole society really rests on the capacity of its citizens to give 'obedience to the unenforceable.'"
At a time when most of our public discourse concerns rights, it may seem strange to speak of responsibilities. But a democratic republic needs patriotic citizens who are fulfilling their responsibilities as well as claiming their rights. No society is so secure that it can withstand continued demands for increases in citizen rights without producing corresponding increases in the fulfillment of citizen responsibilities. Responsibilities like honesty, respect for personal and property rights, self-reliance, and willingness to sacrifice for the common good are basic to the governance and preservation of our nation."
Quote 2) "Church members who seek to use LDS doctrine as a basis for concluding that government infringements on inalienable rights have excused them from obeying the law seem to have forgotten the principle of following the prophets. Until the prophets invoke this principle, faithful members will also refrain from doing so. We remain committed to uphold our governments and to obey their laws."
In both quote runs the idea that we as citizens do have our rights, but we all have our responsibilities that accompany this. From the far right we see those complaining about the government infringing on their rights. With the left we see the promotion of a system that seeks to take away citizen responsibility and place more and more aspects of individual responsibility on the government. As in most things, we should consider where out loyalties lie. To country, or self? Are we more concerned about our rights, or our responsibilities?
Based on Quote 2, it appears that LDS members do not have free agency. You must obey the government until the prophets decide it's OK not to. If the founding fathers had been members of an LDS church in England they would never have started the revolution, or at least not until their church leaders told them to.
ReplyDeleteAs for our rights, I think you'll easily discover that the left is far more vocal in complaining about government infringement of our rights than the right. Where are the right-wing voices against torture, loss of habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping, election fraud (as opposed to non-existent voting fraud), expanded executive power, etc., etc? Maybe you are all waiting for permission from Salt Lake City to express your opinions.
The flaw in your thinking is this Charles, obedience is a choice. We can chose to obey or not. For your information, several on the right side of things have been complaining about right being infrindged on. Where have you been with this whole tea party/national health care debate?
ReplyDeleteFor the record I am for individuals that have certain god given rights. But I do believe that, like many of the alledged terrorists that you seem to be defending, there are certain actions that an individual can comit that can forfeit those rights.
I am against the patriot act, I am against water boarding, but I am not against all forms of torture. That is the point of the article... In part. There are people who spend their time complining and using rights and their platform without an increase in responsibility for those rights. The go hand in hand.
I am not against wter boarding. if it is toture then why does almost everyone that goes through SERE training in the military undergo it? That includes all aircrew enlisted and officer from all branches of service, special ops and others. Tens of thousands of servicemen and women. It is real hush-hush what happens in SERE training (Survive, evade, resist, escape). It is training to acquire the mental skills and toughness to stay alive and thrive if captured in enemy territory. Just because John McCain says it is torture does not make it so.
ReplyDeleteI have a difficult time listening to any complaints about expanded executive power from someone who does not support Amendments 9 & 10 in the bill of rights. That rings hollow.
If you want to see what election fraud is just come to my fair State of Washington and research the governor election in 2004. You will see the far left colluded with election officials, government leaders, lawyers and judges in a way that makes whatever people say about Florida 2000 look like childs play.
At least the patriot act, which I am not a fan of either, had a sunset provision embeded into and is forced to be renewed or die on the vine. Why are there no sunset provisions on what the current adminstration and Congress is implementing?
Thats enough for today. Suffice to say that the far left are socialists and are wrong and are poison to our Republic.
James, the tea party has complained about taxes and "government takeover" of health care, but I've heard nothing about individual rights. You and Pahoran both admit you believe in torture (at least sometimes) even though that is a violation of human rights and international law and has been proven not to work. Why is it that right-wingers harp on the 9th and 10th amendments but excuse the violations of the first 8 amendments by the government - at least when a Republican is in office?
ReplyDeleteAs for the choice to be obedient, I don't buy it. If you truly believe your religion then being obedient to the men who make up the church's leadership is essential to your spiritual and probably your social well being. The penalty for flagrant opposition to your church leadership carries penalties at least as harsh for the true believer as those meted out by the state to its opponents.
First, the agency that Mormon's believe in is more appropriately called Moral Agency. We have the ability to chose our actions, but we cannot chose the consequences of our action. Believing your religion is a choice, a moral choice. If a person is willing to disobey church leadership, then they are willing to accept the consequences of that action. No one is forcing them to believe the church. And as far as I see it, if an individual is okay with not following the church, any church disciplinary action regarding their membership in the church is probably of little consequence to the individual who has made the CHOICE to not follow it.
ReplyDeleteIf you are unwilling to see this as choice, then I am not sure how to explain it further. You have a choice to be a member, you have a choice to follow the leaders, you have a choice to not follow the leaders, you simply don't have the choice of consequence. The argument you seem to be offering makes as much sense as a person who is upset that they want to jump off a building but they feel that they don't have a choice of wether or not to fall as a result. If you don't want to fall, then don't jump.
If you have not seen the tea partiers talking about rights then you exposed your ignorance of the movement. Turn off Keith Olberman and do your own research in the future. The ENTIRE MOVEMENT is based on the idea that big government is impeding the rights of its citizens. That socialism and those who are increasing the role of government, government spending, including national health care, gun control, etc, are all violations of constitutional rights. The claims that the 10th amendment is that the federal government has taken away the rights of the citizens and overstepped their enumerated powers given them by the sovereign citizens.
Lets turn things around Charles. What do you suggest in place of "torture" (which I think is a subjective term at best)? What should we do. Simply saying, "not torturing" is insufficient. If we are to keep our nation safe from those who are dedicated to their own death, to kill and cause harm to our nation, how do you suppose we go about doing that?
Let me clarify, I am not FOR torture, but I understand it in situations where our nation is faced with the NEED to protect ourselves from those willing to come and kill us. If these other nations were not attacking us, if there were not actively sending people who are willing to kill themselves in an effort to kill us, then I would see no reason for it.
ReplyDeleteJames, which amendment in the bill of rights says that government should not spend money on health care? How is it my right to deny other people health care? The 10th amendment doesn't protect the rights of citizens, it protects the rights of state governments which are no more or less effective or moral than the Congress.
ReplyDeleteWhat do I suggest in the place of torture? How about guaranteeing "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"? How about "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", or "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed", or "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."? You are eager to deny those rights to people the government - without adequate evidence - calls terrorists, but then you claim to be supporting the Constitution?
Actually the fact that the tenth amendment says that anything not in the consitution, powers not spoken of or enmerated tithe federal government by the states are reserved unto the citizens and to the states. So to answer your question: there is nothing saying that the government CAN spend our money on it, therefore, in the absence of a clear enumeration of that power, it is not the federal governments job or right to do so.
ReplyDeleteYou are mixing concepts. Just because we say the government doesn't pay for health care does not mean we are for denying people health care. No one has claimed such rendering your argument a straw man arguement. People have the right to health care, they don't have a right to health insurance. I will not explain the difference as it should be self evident. What the government is putting in place gas nothing to so with the right to health care. It has everything to do with how it is paid for.
As far as your response on torture, re-quoting law is not a plan. Especially when you acknowledge that certain conditions and rules change when there is probable cause. Terrorists are far beyond probable cause.
Charles D,
ReplyDeleteThe 10th Amendment says the federal governemtn should not provide health care. If yu want to talk about states or local governments offering it, that conversation can be had, but it is off limits to the Federals if it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. That is the point of the Constitution, not to tell the federal government what it cant do, only to specify what it can, that and only that.
Goes toward the ends of that whole "decentralization of power" and "theres something about too much power that tends to corrupt" lines of thought you have espoused here.
Water boarding is not physical torture, period.
James, in our society a right to health care absent a right to health insurance is an empty platitude, you should understand that. The government doesn't need to fix health care, it needs to see that every citizen with a right to health care can receive it. Unfortunately that's not what our corporate congress is willing to do.
ReplyDeleteA terrorist, absent probable cause that can bring an indictment, is presumed innocent in our system of law (at least that's the way it's supposed to be). Just because the federal government says someone is a terrorist doesn't mean they are. I would expect you to understand that. Why don't you waterboard Pahoran and see if he or you feel differently afterward.
Let's just assume that you are correct in your assumption with regards to the right to health care, and the right to health insurance. How is it that I have to pay for someone else's right? I have a right to buy an orange to eat. So does my neighbor, but that doesn't mean that I should be taxed so that the government can pay for his orange to fulfill a right to an orange. Let apply that to a car. I may have the right to own a car. What kind of car? Any car that I can afford to buy. Used Kia all the way to Lotus. I have a RIGHT to it, but that doesn't mean I am entitled to it on the dime of another.
ReplyDeleteSo let's say I have a right to health care, fine. But if I can't afford it, sad as that may be, I can't afford it. I can't afford my sex change operation - too bad. But what Obama would like us to think is that somehow, what is being proposed has something to do with offering a guarantee to a right, but when in reality it is forcing all americans to pay for something that someone can't afford. In my opinion, it seems as ridiculous a request to ask an american to pay for my car because I have a right to a car too. Or that American's need to pay for me food. I have a right to food, so America needs to pay for it. And you can't tell me that food is any less important to our health than medical insurance is.
The simple fact is, that even if there is a right to insurance, it is not congruent to think that the natural course of public policy is that everyone need to be taxed to pay for it. I have a right to own a gun, to own property, I have lots of rights. That doesn't mean that anyone has to pay for it. A right simple guarantee's the opportunity, not the success.
I don't wish to comment further on the torture idea simple for the fact that I believe 99% of the people involved in the discussion have no real experience from which to draw on. Including myself. I just know that as unfortunate torture may seem, it is a drop in the bucket to the tragedy that could be the result if there were no such measures of prevention in place.
Let's try to be serious at least. No one advocates a right to own a car, or to have a sex change operation, what we're talking about is the right not to die, not to live in agony. The only reason you don't recognize a right to health care is that you don't want to pay for it. You want to enjoy the benefits of the society without the responsibilities of caring for those who aren't able to enjoy those benefits.
ReplyDeleteAs for torture, it is one of those things that no one should have to experience. We don't need to be tortured to know it's wrong, we only have to have the ability to think.
No, I realize that there is a right to health care. Don't mis read me please. I am saying that even if there is a right, that doesn't mean that we have to pay so that someone exercises that right. The comparison to the car was to show that your argument for universal health care = constitutional right makes as much sense as the right to someone having a right to a car therefore america should flip the bill. You say that there is a right to these things but how do you make that jump from having a right to everyone having to pay for it?
ReplyDeleteAnd why do these two ideals need to mutually exist in your mind? You say that we have a responsibility for our fellow man which I don't disagree with. Your major flaw, and it looks like I have to repeat this in bold again because you seem to be hard of reading: GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON TAKING CARE OF OUR FELLOW MAN. I can't seem to come to a reasonable conclusion as to why you are unable or unwilling to see this! I think you want to feel like you have a lock on charitable acts as some kind of anti-religious rhetoric.
Do you think that if you support universal health care that makes you more christian than christians? Or is it simply to try and show that religion doesn't make you a good person? Is this all part of the marxists paradigm? Guess what Charles, I don't buy it. Taxing the people into a health care program is pawning the responsibility of each citizen to take care of their neighbor on the government. In fact, I find anyone who wishes to pawn this responsibility off onto a heartless corrupt bureaucracy is a cruel manipulative individual who has no desire to help anyone. Current government health care is terrible. If people are to have a right to life, then pushing people substandard government health care is sure to cure them of that pesky breathing problem. This is not opinion, this is the reality of Greece, Canada, and ALL OTHER COUNTRIES THAT TRY UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE - currently and historically.
Now to torture:
ReplyDeleteThere are two sides to every issue Charles. Sure we don't have to personally experience torture to formulate an opinion on it, but is that the right opinion? If you were shown what would have happened if torture was not used. What if you were shown millions of innocent citizens killed through terrorist acts, vs. 20 or 30 terrorists being tortured which would you chose? Why is it that you are only willing to take the side that protects terrorists and not the innocent citizens? Are you willing to accept that the same people you want provide health care to could die at the hand of a terrorist?
Let me ask you this, IF you care about the greater good, and IF you are willing to place the rights of private citizens aside like what will happen when people are taxed into a programs and debts against their will, why are you against even mild forms of torture, used against terrorists, that can be used to save the lives of millions of americans against terror attacks?
You say the ability to think, yet you have been unwilling to conclude the obvious to be true. Socialism has never worked, government is not the universal and sole source of good will and neighborly behavior, and no mater how much someone has a right to healthcare, that right does not trump my right to my money/private property.
Consider this FACT: The two most generous counties in the United States according to the IRS are Utah County, home to provo/BYU and is 80 percent Mormon, and Salt Lake County a close second; headquarters of the Mormon Church. Is that because the government MADE Mormons charitable? Or does that mean that perhaps the proof is that people are more charitable when they are not forced to be that way?
Park the socialist rhetoric for a second and consider this idea: People can be good without and sometimes in spite of the government. Second, sometimes people make bad choices. Sometimes those choices are to be a terrorist. When you make bad choices, there are consequences. That means that when an individual chosen to engage in acts of terrorist against this country, they forfeit even their God given rights. Choices have consequences. We have been given the ability to chose our actions, not our consequences. Sometimes bad things happen to bad people.
Charles D you say no one advocates the right to own a car. There are many leftist swho say that transportation is a right. There are many leftist whosay that employment is a right. It goes on and on with their "rights".
ReplyDeleteI will meet you halfway on this argument, lets say that healthcare is aright. I dont believe it to be, but I will go along for a moment. (minors and those who cant take care of themselves are a different category. Should be obvious, but it seems we are in the business of debating the obvious with you here)
So even if we agree for arguments sake that healthcare is a right, I would still not be OK with the federal government taking it upon themselves to fund it and provide it as a service.
Here is why:
The federal government is NOT supposed to have the ability to provide for all the needful government in our life. If that were the case we would not need States, counties and municipalities.
There are many functions that are needful of government. The federal level is not supposed to be suffient on its own. It has no business providing for the bulk of what we would look to government for.
So if you wanted to have government health care systems, I would have that conversation at the State level and down. For example, Massachussetts did their own thing a few years back. That is their perogative. No reason that folks from another State should subsidize that plan for them though. The will of people in different regions (States) can be served this way. We do not need to be a uniform-law, one size fits all nation. In the first place that requires consolidationof power sufficient to execute it, and that consolidation is what the checks and balances are trying to stop. We have eliminated some of the most important, via Amendment 17.
Let me turn one of your arguments on you: Why do you always harp on the 8th Amendment while ignoring the 9th and 10th?
You should seriously consider embracing the liberating principles of check and balance of the original layout of the Constitution, stop with the "living, breathign document" mindset and find much more happines than your socialist deadend will take you to.
Socialism does not care for people. It is not concerned with rights. It is the bitter fruit from a poison well.