Let’s spare ourselves the mundane and over-worked discussion of separation of church and state and get right to the point of Jimmy Marcy’s pet peeve and legal misconception. What are the facts? About 60 percent of the state’s residents belong to the LDS Church and between 80 and 90 percent of Utah’s legislators also belong to the LDS Church. Utah is also officially known as the beehive state, an obvious LDS reference to the Book of Mormon Deseret, or honeybee.
The LDS Church is headquartered in Utah, and has been for a long while, and any dramatic legislative changes that occur will inevitably effect the image of the Church. All that being said, Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville has assured us all, including Jimmy Marcy, that “they [the LDS Church] are not the Legislature and they do not legislate policy." In fact, he even gave us an order of influence: “Legislature first and Mothers Against Drunk Driving second, followed by the restaurant and hospitality associations.” Yes, many legislators are members, but the LDS Church leaders fall into last place behind all other influencing factors regarding this reform.
Mr. Marcy, you have nothing to fear. If you’re going to be mad about an organization getting its nose into politics, visit MADD.org and speak with the mothers against drunk driving. How dare they dictate their moral standards to us! Indeed, the LDS Church is discussing nothing about faith or God or religion in regard to this issue, but merely offering persuasive advice from a moral standpoint. Treat the Church as an interested business partner. Should I go into the statistics of land and business ownership of the Church within Utah state lines?
Let me put this bluntly: given the LDS Church’s local history, local wealth, power, influence, and unique connection to the state (unlike any other in the nation), they most certainly have a special spot in the discussion of what many politicians are calling “the most significant legislation of the decade.”
Perhaps you need to spend less time in Utah and more time in Washington so you can get a feel for the true “hammerings” that occur from all sorts of organizations, politicians, and lobbyists when passing various legislature. The Mormon Church has done nothing illegal or even ill-advised. This man's commentary is just one more example of Mormon bashing by people with nothing better to do. If you feel something was illegal, email me and I'll make a special post explaining it to you in complex legal terms.
This is from Bruce L. Olsen of the LDS Public Affairs:
"The Church makes no apology for making its views known on issues that it considers essential to the well-being of Utah society. It does so as part of our democratic process, through formal lobbying of members of the legislature in the same way that other interest groups seek to explain their views."
Mr. Marcy needs to stop fearing a repeat of the Spanish Inquisition, or the religious massacres of Vlad the Impaler, or pious conquests of Saladin and Richard Lionheart. Wrong era, wrong country, wrong church. Let us all hope that his “enough is enough” statement implies immediate relocation, though perhaps this new legislation will find him the means to get himself hammered and drink away his vacuous fears of LDS command and conquer.
Posts
Wonderful points!
ReplyDeleteYes, I suspect that Jimmy's problem is really with the Utah legislature and LDS dominance, rather than separation of church and state. And concerns about our legislature and the dominance of the LDS Church are legitimate.
ReplyDeleteI very much doubt that he would have the same concerns about a non-dominant religion sitting down with legislative leaders and providing their input on policy. I suspect his problem is really that he thinks that LDS legislators will take the church's position as the "gospel" and go straight out and enact it. And he's probably right about a number of them.
However, I submit that this is the reality of living in a political geography that is demographically dominated by one religion. You can't escape it with impermissibly infringing on the right of the dominant religion to speak and the right of legislators to vote their conscience.
I think that, in situations like these, the dominant religion should exercise restraint in flexing its political muscle, and the legislators who belong to the dominant religion should separate their own beliefs from the interest of their district more broadly. But just because a number of them may not is no reason to cry foul when the dominant religion lobbies for a position on a certain issue.
Any religious body attempting to influence my legislature is illegitimate.
ReplyDelete"Influencing" the way our government works is a wonderful way to keep our government in check. We should all be involved in politics and helping voice our opinions. I'm sorry that you feel that participation in decisions that determine the direction of our great country, illegitimizes a church. I guess we can all be like you and just sit by while others get their voices heard and determine what sort of country our children will be raised in.
ReplyDeleteIf we had a sanitized government that had no influence of religion we would have a pretty sorry country. They have been intricately intertwined since day one and there is no constitutional separation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteBut as Rep. Leonard Hughes said, "I would argue at times we do need to concentrate on government and not impose our views or our religions on others through the use of government because that's not what our forefathers intended. They intended government to be government and not a religion." There is a time and place for everything, and this specific case is completely appropriate.
Well stated. Ignore the trolls who have nothing intelligent to say.
ReplyDeleteVery well written and intelligent blog.
ReplyDeleteIn primitive societies the influence of religion on law was obvious, but it is not so obvious in modern societies. In primitive communities religion, morals and law were indistinguishably mixed together. In the Ten Commandments, for instance, you find the First Commandment, which is religious: "God spake these words and said, ‘I am the Lord thy God: Thou shalt have none other Gods but me.’ " You find the Fifth Commandment, which is a moral precept: "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." You find the Eighth Commandment, which is a legal duty: "Thou shalt not steal." This intermingling is typical of all early communities. The severance of these ideas—of law from morality, and of religion from law — belongs very distinctly to the later stages of the evolution of modern thought.
And I would add that James Marcy just sounds bitter. If this bothers him, why not leave Utah? Really just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteGiven that I've proven this was all done LEGALLY, if you folks were in charge, you would mute the opinion of this organization and take away their right to voice their opinions to elected officials, which is actually unconstitutional. Are we living in Soviet Russia?
ReplyDeleteThe LDS CHURCH should be stripped of their tax exempt status!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is horrible and this is a horrible blog. Stop spueing hate.
the LDS Church has broken their own laws and the laws of their tax group.
the LDS Church is a 501(c)3 tax group. Many people are under the impression that 501(c)3 groups can’t engage in the political process at all — not true. They cannot endorse candidates, and they cannot be so immersed in efforts to influence legislation that they devote “a significant part” (to quote the IRS) of their resources to political lobbying and such. This latter prohibition is designed to go after folks who want to create non-profit front groups to launder political contributions.
ReplyDeleteHere let me put this into perspective:
Let's take this legal argument to its logical conclusion. The Humane Society of America is a tax-exempt organization under the same tax code section, 501(c)(3), as the Mormon church. In the eyes of the IRS, the Humane Society and the Mormon church are the same. The Humane Society was the critical force behing [sic] getting Prop 2 (treatment of farm animals) passed. It donated $3.7 million, helped get the proposition on the ballot, and carried the torch in getting it passed. Should the IRS strip the Humane Society of its tax-exempt status for advocating Prop 2? Of course it should not.
Many people are aware of the first prohibition, and extrapolate — incorrectly — to say that 501(c)3 groups can’t get involved in politics at all. That’s the big piece of misinformation I’m trying to correct.
In public works environment an internal improvement is some constructed object that augments a nation's economic infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you that have not lived outside of Utah excluding any mission calls I dare you to try so! Mr. Marcy's comments did not come across to me as moron, sorry, mormon bashing, rather a view outside the over-bearing religious majority. Pick up any newspaper in SLC (I believe the church now owns both!) and daily you will read stories of moron politicians attempting to legislate morality! Typical mormon closed mindedness by stating that Mr. Marcy should possibly leave Utah. Is this not what happened to the Mormons? Kicked out of Vermont, forced from New York, etc, etc. Believe me most of us that have lived outside of this state so desperately want to leave Planet Utah, but due to many factors we unfortunately cannot. In closing, I believe mormons have the view that your body is a "temple" and therefor do not use alcohol, tobacco and drugs, etc. However, how come there are so many fast food restaurants in the SLC area? Why do I see so many fat mormons? Sounds to me that this view of your body being a "temple" is left up to the individual. Just as being able to purchase a drink should be!!!!
ReplyDelete