Romney and The Bill of Rights
Brigham Young, the second President and Prophet of the LDS Church, taught the belief that it is the right of "...every class of worshipers [to be] most strictly protected in their municipal rights and in the privileges of worshiping who, what, and when they please, not infringing upon the rights of others."
Last week in the second part of Romney's religion speech, he displayed a vastly limited knowledge of history, most of all, surprisingly, a limited knowledge of the history of the faith to which he adheres, and not unsurprisingly, the mission that many of the Fundamentalist Evangelicals have for the people of the United States: the dismantling of the Wall of Separation of Church and State, a central tenant of their mission; but to give Romney benefit of the doubt, it is probable that he may not know that; but if he does, indeed, have some idea of that part of their mission, then he demonstrates a lack of perception of long term probabilities of cause and effect.
While he tells us in the first part of last week's speech that he believes in the Separation of Church and State, in the second part his words show that he would undermind the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution's First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Romney made it clear that he has a limited understanding of the first amendment of the United States Constitution that not only protects one's right to believe and practice a religion - which he tells us he believes - but that he has a very limited understanding of the whole Bill of Rights, having previously told us, in the presidential candidates debate in May 2007, that habeas corpus was not a right of prisoners held without charges at the United States' military base at Guantanamo when he said:
".....I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them at Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers that they'd get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people say that we should close Guantanamo, my view is: We outta double Guantanamo." He then finished: "Enhanced interrogation techniques need to be used." .
in which he further demonstrated his lack of knowledge of Brigham Young's municipal rights, the other part of the First Amendment, as well, as the teachings in the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church's Articles of Faith.
The LDS Church's 12th Article of Faith instructs its members to obey, honor and sustain the law. Advocating the denial of basic legal rights is in direct contradiction to this article and the 13th Article teaches LDS members to be benevolent, virtuous and good to all men. How "enhanced interrogation techniques" fits into being benevolent, virtuous, or good, which Article of Faith implies justice, he does not explain. Both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon, Christ taught:
"And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy, but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you. That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven."
In the LDS book of Doctrine and Covenants, Christ says:
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me."
One would think that "all mankind" means there are no exceptions.
In the Book of Mormon, in Alma, Chapter 14, when Alma and Amulek were in Zarahemla, they were smittened and imprisioned and their accusers "sought to put them away privily", intending to prevent them a hearing before the court and judges of the law, ie: deny them of their municipal rights of habeas corpus. That, is as all Mormons should know, is exactly what happened to Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum. And to put anyone "away privily" could mean any number of things including to disappear them in whatsoever manner their accusers pleased.
Then, finally, in the Book of Alma, Chapter 30, verses 7-10, there was
"no law against a man's belief, for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law.... for thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye shall serve. Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather if he believed in God, it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him."
The only laws on the books in the nation of Zarahemla were laws against crimes of person and property, which is defined in verse 11 of Alma Chapter 30,
"For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man's belief; therefore a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds."
Romney, then, seems to only not understand the laws of the United States and righteous laws throughout the world, he seems to not understand, or know that much of the history of Joseph Smith, after the restoration of the gospel, was in violation the Bill of RIghts, not only the right of him and the members of the LDS church to worship as they saw fit, but a continued violation of their municipal rights as we see in the above quotes from scripture and doctrine of the LDS Church.
At no time does Mormon belief support anything that would take away the freedom of the individual to decide for himself how to think and proceed on any matter, except for violations of the rights of persons and property of another, which are crimes. The issues that currently divide the present population including the right to life, gay marriage, the current war for hegemony over the world's natural resources for power and gain, and all other issues of any kind that have polarized the people of this country, including the right to freely worship who, what, and where they please or not do so, if they so please, Romney, in trying to make common cause with the various sects of Fundamentalist Evangelicals, forsakes that which he professes that which is not negotiable -- the teachings of his faith.
His speech, directed at a small population, told them, as well as the population at large, that he shares their position to dismantle the First Amendment and the whole of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, by appointing judges inclined to adhere to idealogical positions, rather than rule of law. He saw secularism as "a new religion in America" -- in violation of the teachings of the Book of Mormon that man also has the right to be protected in not believing in God -- and his statement on secularism implies a desire for the state to address this concern; but how to address it, he did not say. Appointing judges who would do away with anything that bespeaks of no belief in God in violation of the teachings in the Book of Mormon and LDS Church doctrine?
The Constitution does not mention God any place in it. It is a completely secular document, and it only mentions religion in the negative sense. Romney says that he is sympathetic to those who would place some religious symbols and religious texts in taxpayer funded facilities, which would of course include the Ten Commandments. Which version of four versions of the Ten Commandments would he advocate? The Old Testament? The Catholic Vulgate? The Book of Mormon? The Torah? Which of the religious symbols would he exclude? Islam has none, so there would be no decision there to make there, since Moslems believe that all religious symbols are forms of idolatry, and, indeed, a former President of the LDS Church, George Albert Smith, said - paraphrasing - that God brought forth Mohammed to rid the world of idolatry, so no need to square that one. Such a discussion presents a serious delemma for any nation when the rule law runs into the wall of a religious culture.
Romney praised America's "symphony of faith" while failing to utter a single word about the millions of American citizens who do not kneel "in prayer to the Almighty." What of the Buddhists, the Hindi, Sikkhs, the Hottentots, the tribal religions and other lesser known religions and practices whose adherents have migrated to the US? This was no oversight, as some commentators have speculated; it was an expression of ideology. Mitt Romney's America is a country defined by its Christian majority and will tolerate non-believers, only at a price: the price of exclusion from the nation's presumed theological identity.
In his eagerness to champion the Fundamentalist Evangelical tendentious views of American history and culture in his campaign to be president, Romney has opened a can of worms and those worms will have their say. If he continues, he will have boxed himself in and have no way out and he will have then opened up the cherished beliefs and practices of millions of people to ridicule and disparagment by whomever can obtain an audience.
Religion is a seriously private concern and the First Amendment protects everyone, as Brigham Young said, in their privileges. The common ground for all people in the United States is not the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, Confuscian, or Buddhists' or Hindi, or any other religious tenet or belief; it is the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. We put in peril all beliefs and practices that do not violate the person or property of another when we do not support the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.
At no time does Mormon belief support anything that would take away the freedom of the individual to decide for himself how to think and proceed on any matter, except for violations of the rights of persons and property of another, which are crimes. The issues that currently divide the present population including the right to life, gay marriage, the current war for hegemony over the world's natural resources for power and gain, and all other issues of any kind that have polarized the people of this country, including the right to freely worship who, what, and where they please or not do so, if they so please, Romney, in trying to make common cause with the various sects of Fundamentalist Evangelicals, forsakes that which he professes that which is not negotiable -- the teachings of his faith.
His speech, directed at a small population, told them, as well as the population at large, that he shares their position to dismantle the First Amendment and the whole of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, by appointing judges inclined to adhere to idealogical positions, rather than rule of law. He saw secularism as "a new religion in America" -- in violation of the teachings of the Book of Mormon that man also has the right to be protected in not believing in God -- and his statement on secularism implies a desire for the state to address this concern; but how to address it, he did not say. Appointing judges who would do away with anything that bespeaks of no belief in God in violation of the teachings in the Book of Mormon and LDS Church doctrine?
The Constitution does not mention God any place in it. It is a completely secular document, and it only mentions religion in the negative sense. Romney says that he is sympathetic to those who would place some religious symbols and religious texts in taxpayer funded facilities, which would of course include the Ten Commandments. Which version of four versions of the Ten Commandments would he advocate? The Old Testament? The Catholic Vulgate? The Book of Mormon? The Torah? Which of the religious symbols would he exclude? Islam has none, so there would be no decision there to make there, since Moslems believe that all religious symbols are forms of idolatry, and, indeed, a former President of the LDS Church, George Albert Smith, said - paraphrasing - that God brought forth Mohammed to rid the world of idolatry, so no need to square that one. Such a discussion presents a serious delemma for any nation when the rule law runs into the wall of a religious culture.
Romney praised America's "symphony of faith" while failing to utter a single word about the millions of American citizens who do not kneel "in prayer to the Almighty." What of the Buddhists, the Hindi, Sikkhs, the Hottentots, the tribal religions and other lesser known religions and practices whose adherents have migrated to the US? This was no oversight, as some commentators have speculated; it was an expression of ideology. Mitt Romney's America is a country defined by its Christian majority and will tolerate non-believers, only at a price: the price of exclusion from the nation's presumed theological identity.
In his eagerness to champion the Fundamentalist Evangelical tendentious views of American history and culture in his campaign to be president, Romney has opened a can of worms and those worms will have their say. If he continues, he will have boxed himself in and have no way out and he will have then opened up the cherished beliefs and practices of millions of people to ridicule and disparagment by whomever can obtain an audience.
Religion is a seriously private concern and the First Amendment protects everyone, as Brigham Young said, in their privileges. The common ground for all people in the United States is not the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, Confuscian, or Buddhists' or Hindi, or any other religious tenet or belief; it is the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. We put in peril all beliefs and practices that do not violate the person or property of another when we do not support the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.
