Is Religious Freedom Under Attack in the United States?

[JonNC]

Hmmm. That is what is meant by democracy in modern colloquial English.

Perhaps so, but the result is what the founders warned against, and what this thread started out being concerned about. Those who wish to expand government control in our lives talk about an “evolving, living constitution”, which in reality means that individual rights are devolving, subject to the whim of the majority.

You can all you want about what I’ve written, but I suggest that the very concern you have - an attack on religious freedom - is in large part founded in two things: the destruction of the finite nature of the constitution (individual rights are many, and government power is strictly limited), and creeping majority rule democracy (if the maority want something, the constitution should not get in the way).

Jon

 

[Jerusha]

There are two places in the Book of Mormon where hostility against the Church was a result of bad behavior by church members. Recent research indicates that those passages were written by Solomon Spalding. Perhaps people ought to examine thier consciences for spiritually abusive behavior. See, Zerinus, I can speak your language, with reservations, of course.

 

[ljubim]

Hmmm. That is what is meant by democracy in modern colloquial English.

We have a democracy by the definition of a propagandized grade-schooler. Then we grow up and learn about the electoral college and see that our vote truly doesn’t count, we’re only electing our representatives in the electoral college, to vote for us. And voting for them along party lines no less, not even voting for specific ones! Not once do we actually vote on real issues. Sure, in some states we get to give our opinion about a certain amendment maybe, but it’s merely an opinion, which the state legislators can reference if they must. Pure democracy is direct democracy, something we only have on the local level, perhaps when we vote for superintendent of schools.

 

[gearhead]

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

To some extent, I agree.

Do you think that various churches and religions should put aside their differences and join forces to defend religious freedom and democracy in the United States? Do you agree with the guidelines suggested by Elder Oaks as to what we can do to protect religious freedom in the United States? Do you have any suggestions of your own to add to what he recommends?

One big step toward religious freedom that I can think of would be to protect members of the military from proselytization from Christian chaplains and officers. From what I hear from non-Christian servicemen and women, this is a serious problem in the American military.

 

[zerinus]

Perhaps so, but the result is what the founders warned against, and what this thread started out being concerned about. Those who wish to expand government control in our lives talk about an “evolving, living constitution”, which in reality means that individual rights are devolving, subject to the whim of the majority.

You can all you want about what I’ve written, but I suggest that the very concern you have - an attack on religious freedom - is in large part founded in two things: the destruction of the finite nature of the constitution (individual rights are many, and government power is strictly limited), and creeping majority rule democracy (if the maority want something, the constitution should not get in the way).

Jon

“Majority rule” must form the basis of any kind of free government, regardless of how it is structured. That is the basis of the American government as designed by the Founding Fathers. That is what the periodic elections and the ballot boxes are all about. The President of the United States is elected on the basis of majority vote. The members of Congress are elected on the basis of majority vote. It was designed that way by the Founding Fathers. You cannot protest a free society against the will of the majority. That is impossible. If the majority of the population decide to elect Hitler, that is what they will do. The only way to stop the majority of citizens from having their way is by another form of dictatorship. Man’s only hope is that the majority make the right decision; and as a general rule they do. But it is possible that they don’t; and that is when there will be big trouble, as the Book of Mormon has expressed it eloquently in these words:

Mosiah 29:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

 

[Tyuiop411]

“Majority rule” must form the basis of any kind of free government, regardless of how it is structured. That is the basis of the American government as designed by the Founding Fathers. That is what the periodic elections and the ballot boxes are all about. The President of the United States is elected on the basis of majority vote. The members of Congress are elected on the basis of majority vote. It was designed that way by the Founding Fathers. You cannot protest a free society against the will of the majority. That is impossible. If the majority of the population decide to elect Hitler, that is what they will do. The only way to stop the majority of citizens from having their way is by another form of dictatorship. Man’s only hope is that the majority make the right decision; and as a general rule they do. But it is possible that they don’t; and that is when there will be big trouble, as the Book of Mormon has expressed it eloquently in these words:

Not true, actually there has been a case where a president won but didn’t get the majority vote. He did however get the majority of the Electoral College vote.

 

[gearhead]

Not true, actually there has been a case where a president won but didn’t get the majority vote. He did however get the majority of the Electoral College vote.

More than one case, actually.

And in 1824, John Quincy Adams didn’t get the majority of the popular vote OR the electoral college ballots but still became president. None of the presidential candidates had a majority, so the House of Representatives chose from the top 3.

 

[JonNC]

“Majority rule” must form the basis of any kind of free government, regardless of how it is structured. That is the basis of the American government as designed by the Founding Fathers. That is what the periodic elections and the ballot boxes are all about. The President of the United States is elected on the basis of majority vote. The members of Congress are elected on the basis of majority vote. It was designed that way by the Founding Fathers. You cannot protest a free society against the will of the majority. That is impossible. If the majority of the population decide to elect Hitler, that is what they will do. The only way to stop the majority of citizens from having their way is by another form of dictatorship. Man’s only hope is that the majority make the right decision; and as a general rule they do. But it is possible that they don’t; and that is when there will be big trouble, as the Book of Mormon has expressed it eloquently in these words:

You are here talking about the electoral process, not governance. It is two different things.
And it must also be pointed out that our presidents are not elcted by majority rule (thank goodness), and our US senators were originally voted on by the state legislatures.

In governance, on the other hand, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are (supposed) to be limited to actions specifically given government in the Constitution.

Jon

 

[zerinus]

Not true, actually there has been a case where a president won but didn’t get the majority vote. He did however get the majority of the Electoral College vote.

More than one case, actually.

And in 1824, John Quincy Adams didn’t get the majority of the popular vote OR the electoral college ballots but still became president. None of the presidential candidates had a majority, so the House of Representatives chose from the top 3.

That is how American democracy was designed to work. I am not claiming it is perfect. Nothing made or run by man is perfect. But it has worked well so far. The main point is that the US is a democracy (according to the modern definition of the word); and so are Britain and France and India and Switzerland and many other countries with widely different arrangements for how the elected officials are chosen and how the respective governments actually work.

 

[zerinus]

You are here talking about the electoral process, not governance. It is two different things.

And it must also be pointed out that our presidents are not elcted by majority rule (thank goodness), and our US senators were originally voted on by the state legislatures.

In governance, on the other hand, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are (supposed) to be limited to actions specifically given government in the Constitution.

Jon

And you are splitting hairs over nothing. Truth is that the US is a democracy according to the modern understanding of the term.

 

[gearhead]

That is how American democracy was designed to work. I am not claiming it is perfect. Nothing made or run by man is perfect. But it has worked well so far. The main point is that the US is a democracy (according to the modern definition of the word); and so are Britain and France and India and Switzerland and many other countries with widely different arrangements for how the elected officials are chosen and how the respective governments actually work.

I think the electoral college was a decent system in its day, but it’s based on some assumptions that no longer hold true:

• traditionally, there was no way to quickly communicate between Washington and the rest of the country. Unexpected things could happen between when the will of the people was measured (however that was done) and when the time came to actually decide who won the election - a candidate could die or be delcared ineligible, for instance. You had to send a delegate who had the authority to exercise some judgement, because there was no practical way for the people of the state to judge changing situations in Washington themselves. But since the invention of the telephone and the telegraph, this has no longer been the case.
• states used to assign their college votes by a number of means… in some cases, this was by popular vote; in others, it was done by the state legislature, and IIRC, a few states had systems that were different from both of those. It would have been impossible to elect a president based on the popular vote because there simply was no popular vote of all citizens.

 

[JonNC]

And you are splitting hairs over nothing. Truth is that the US is a democracy according to the modern understanding of the term.

Blessings,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think the electoral college was a decent system in its day, but it’s based on some assumptions that no longer hold true:

• traditionally, there was no way to quickly communicate between Washington and the rest of the country. Unexpected things could happen between when the will of the people was measured (however that was done) and when the time came to actually decide who won the election - a candidate could die or be delcared ineligible, for instance. You had to send a delegate who had the authority to exercise some judgement, because there was no practical way for the people of the state to judge changing situations in Washington themselves. But since the invention of the telephone and the telegraph, this has no longer been the case.
• states used to assign their college votes by a number of means… in some cases, this was by popular vote; in others, it was done by the state legislature, and IIRC, a few states had systems that were different from both of those. It would have been impossible to elect a president based on the popular vote because there simply was no popular vote of all citizens.

Consider the 2000 election. Without the Electoral College, the craziness of FLorida would have been nationwide. I don’t believe it is too far fetched to say that the Electoral College may have saved us from a severe national crisis in 2000.

Jon