Separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and State

There appears to be a grave misunderstanding regarding religion and the government in the United state. Most rely solely on the phrase "Separation" arguing that the two entities must be separate, however that is not case, nor the intent of the founding fathers, the constitution, the federalist papers and the Treaty of Tripoli. 

The First amendment states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." When this is read plainly, it shows that the government shall not partner with a specific faith and therefore make it the religion of that state. This would cause citizens to have to join a church based solely because the government chose for them. The first amendment does no refer to how religion can be used inside government, and according to the federalist papers, the fathers state that if there is no specific right listed in the constitution it is deemed that the government does have that right. So the interpretation that one cannot make decisions while in public office based off of religious convictions is not correct. 

Next, the Treaty of Tripoli. Very few have actually read the entire treaty or tried to understand the purpose and reason for the treaty. In the late 1700's, the US barely started to travel into the Mediterranean and had a number of issues with pirates. This forced a number of treaty's to be signed to protect the US. Many often refer to the 11th article for their justification for separation. However, that is not what it says, in fact it actually has nothing to do with religion in the US. The article reads...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The purpose of this article was to say "We will not break out in war against Muslim nations based on differing religious views. This treaty does not state that laws and policies cannot be made or enforced in the United States based off of religion. 

Religion can and should be used in all aspects of our lives, just as atheists are able to practice it in all aspects of their lives. No country, state or local governments  should ever partner with a church and declare that it's citizens will practice a particular faith. As you can recall, during the formation of the United States, Great Britain had the Church of England, which was a splinter of the Catholic Church. It was formed out of adultery when King Henry had sexual relations outside of marriage, was excommunicated from the church and therefore became angry chose to create this church with the ability to commit suchlike whoredoms legally. He therefore set off a chain of events that lasted for centuries of injustices against its citizens. Therefore, in the establishment of the United States, our founders wanted to declare that our President, or any Branch of government for that matter, shall never create a State Run church, like we would with Universities or so on. With a church run state, by not following the religious whims of government leaders, citizens would be exposed to tyranny, frustration and ultimately the darkness the comes from False Christ's and false Gods. I cannot find in any text where government cannot allow it's leaders to be influenced by religion, or God. Rather, the founding fathers were so interested in establishing a land for God to flourish that by creating a false sense of "Separation of and state" would defeat the purpose of this land. Let me even take a step further, the atheist left continue to promote this false ideal of Separation, desiring that all religious items should be removed from any public property, events or policy. Is this not the exact same course that King Henry took, except it is on the opposite side of the scale? Forcing all citizens to believe a certain way, under a tyrannical government? It is no different. 

Mormons and Gay Marriage

I have 2 members of my family that are in practicing homosexual relationships. These individuals know that I love and care for them and have often stood up and agreed with them on various subjects. 

Mormons and Same-sex relationships (Solely my opinion)

Full disclosure. I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for which I am in good standing. The comments I make are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the church or it's members. 

I do not wish to argue whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong or the separation of church and state, the definition of marriage, or to question the love shared between two people of the same gender. Rather, I would like to make a point that I believe has been left out of this discussion. Most people look at this argument as the simple change of a definition. When it is approached that way, the argument can easily be swayed either way, causing great conflict between supporters on both sides, but I wish to share how this is different for Mormons. 

Mormon theology teaches that all humans that have lived or will live on planet earth, lived with God as spirits before they were born. Mormons also believe that when this world was created, God sent his spirits to earth for one purpose, to become like him. Mormons believe that the purpose of this life is to learn and grow, and become like God in the after life, creating children and having posterity. 

Once we've understood what their belief is, we can understand a few of their political views as well. For instance, "cradle to grave" welfare for individuals capable of supporting themselves, causes a hindrance on an individual or a communities self reliance, which may be the most important attribute God has. We cannot fulfill our purpose, if we cannot support ourselves. When drugs, stimulants or addictions are available, legal or glorified, God's children find themselves relying on these substances to relieve anxiety, pain or discomfort. A member of God's family cannot lead or become great, when they cannot resolve the problems of the world without support of substances.

Now, I do not wish to get into a battle on whether or not the ideology is correct, because regardless this is what the Mormon faith teaches. 

If homosexuality was to become accepted and spread throughout the world, this could become an important issue for Mormons. The reason for this is that it can thwart their core beliefs in 2 ways. 

1- It can slow or halt the ability for spirit children to come to earth. 

2- It is against what they believe the purpose of life is, which is to prepare for a life as God, man and wife. 

These are very unique beliefs and I do not expect readers unfamiliar with Mormons to fully understand our reasoning or evidence for this belief, but I think it helps us see why Mormons take this issue so seriously. For a moment, I would like to discuss a point to my Christian friends that are not of the Mormon faith. When they argue against same-sex marriage, because they do no share the same views as mormons, their answers can quickly be seen as hate or discrimination. The reason for this is because the argument usually turns to whether it is right, wrong or sinful and for that I can see why the gay community feels the way that they do. I am not aware of any other faith that shares the Mormons view of life's purpose, nor do I believe that they have the ability to propose a legitimate argument in the same-sex dialogue. 

In conclusion, if theology taught in Mormonism is true, could it be one of the most important discussions had? It quickly becomes much more than a definition, it can be seen as a change to the purpose of life. It is my prayer and hope that the religions and non-believers of the world can hold hands and live peacefully. Holding hands requires two. It's a two way street and it is not appropriate to demand acceptance with your hand when trying to grab another. Neither party should be forced to hold hands, remember it takes two. It is my hope that someday a Mormon can hold hands with those of any faith, race, sexual orientation, or gender and both parties willingly stretch out their hands in love, without hate, an agenda or forcefulness