I don't believe the Founding Fathers gave Civil Rights to Mormons

[edhopper]

Last edited Sun May 13, 2012, 10:24 AM - Edit history (1)

I have read the Federalist Papers and much of Jefferson's writings, I didn't see Mormons or the Mormon religion mentioned anywhere. I can only conclude that if they didn't explicitly mention Civil Rights for Mormons, they did not originally intend for them to have them.
That is how it works, right?


Thought it was obvious, but on edit:

[slackmaster]

1. Mormons weren't invented until the middle of the 19th Century

[Bluenorthwest]

9. So when Mitt says Marriage has been 'one man and one woman for thousands of years' he does so as a

person whose faith rewrote the cultural norms of marriage as recently as that? How can this be?

[slackmaster]

16. The irony runs wide and deep in Mitt saying anything about "traditional" marriage

[malthaussen]

17. But that doesn't matter, because Conservatives are immune to irony

n/t

[braddy]

19. That was a brilliant post.!!!

"So when Mitt says Marriage has been 'one man and one woman for thousands of years' he does so as a person whose faith rewrote the cultural norms of marriage as recently as that? How can this be?"

Bishop Romney the highest ranking religious leader to ever be a major candidate for president should be asked that question.

[jberryhill]

11. That's intentional humor in the OP

[KurtNYC]

2. Is this sarcasm? I haven't had my coffee yet...

[malthaussen]

3. There should be a corollary to Poe's Law

Something about not being able to determine if a remark stems from irony or ignorance.

-- Mal

[cali]

4. I'm not sure this works

as Mormonism is a religion and religion is specifically mentioned. A better comparison is women and minorities. I understand why you're using Mormonism but I still don't think it works. And yes, I understand you're attempting to use satire.

[malthaussen]

6. I rather think the 9th amendment covers women and minorities

And Mormons too, if it comes to that, although certainly the 1st should be sufficient in their case.

-- Mal

[cali]

7. I'm not sure that works. I love the 9th amendment but

anyone can claim that almost anything is covered by the 9th. The 1st is more specific.

[malthaussen]

8. That's exactly why I love the 9th

I think we can agree that men of ill-will can twist any plain statement into whatever they wish, however specific the language is. For example, I could argue that Mormanism is not a "Religion" because it doesn't meet some benchmark standard I impose, and thus deny Mormons of rights. That is at least as reasonable as arguing that the Rights of Man do not apply to women, or that slaves are 2/3 of a Man.

-- Mal

[NutmegYankee]

10. Women and slaves were guaranteed their rights through amendments.

I'm not sure how you could argue that Mormonism isn't a religion.

[malthaussen]

13. Women and slaves were guaranteed their rights through amendments

... because men of ill-will were persistent in arguing the crazy idea that they were not already covered under the Constitution. For that matter, women have not been guaranteed equal rights by amendment: the ERA failed. Women were granted a specific right, that of voting, by the 19th Amendment.

I can argue that Mormonism is not a "religion" by claiming that it has too few adherents and should therefore be considered a "cult." Note that I do not claim this argument to be particularly convincing or even rational: the point is not whether or not it is true, but whether or not I can get enough support for it to create legislation.

By asking me to back up my claim that Mormonism isn't a religion, you have just proved my original point. I expect to see a DU thread shortly asking if Mormonism should be considered a cult.

-- Mal

[jberryhill]

12. Actually, it kind of works...

Given that the Mormons had to choose between giving up polygamy, and having Utah territory placed under federal control. They gave it up, and became a state.

They've been feed off about that since then, as the courts did reject First Amendment free exercise claims in relation to polygamy.

[RobertEarl]

14. Polygamy

Why not?

Ya know, when the campaign boils down to religion and marriage and getting some on the side, front, back or wherever, it would behoove us to remind the republicans that their man is a real mathematician when it comes to the number of possible legal concubines.

As a male, the idea of a Harem is quite appealing, but my sensibilities tell me NO. Yet the next possible president's religion is one that tells me GO for it? WTF?

Polygamy: Not Rmoney's campaign slogan, but his way of life.

[exboyfil]

5. The one I like to point out is the Air Force

that gets strict constructionists going as well.

[safeinOhio]

15. Fun to look at what the Founding Fathers said about

Papist Bishops.

[Igel]

18. The founding fathers would be irate.

They'd respond that they didn't give rights to anyone.

Rights weren't theirs to bestow; they simply were something that men possessed by virtual of being men. The best the founding fathers could do was acknowledge the government's obligation to defend those that government had any truck with and, when pressed, enumerate some of them to keep government providing those few that involved governmental action and stay out of those that government might intrude on.

I think the "sarcasm" tag wasn't intended to extend back to the basic (mis)assumption.

[malthaussen]

20. You put your finger on a great problem

... which is the perspective that "rights" are something that are bestowed or withheld by government. Regrettably, that is a perspective held by many of our legislators and legislator-wannabes.

But it is a sticky philosophical question indeed. Whatever rights may be inherent in manhood, the exercise of those rights is regulated by government. It is understandable that the two might be conflated.

-- Mal

[edhopper]

21. That's a good point

In trying to have a succinct title, I was not accurate in my description.

"The Founding Fathers did not provide that Mormons have Civil Rights" would have been more on the mark, if somewhat clumsier.