Yeah, I can sense this as well. However, haven’t prophets of old used this same method to get the people to repent?

Yeah, and I agree that even fear-inspired action is a little better than no action, but I think I’ll leave the death threats for the prophets to deal out. :)

Are we “forcing” our morals on others by using the democratic process, making our voices heard, and using our vote to support those who would uphold our own morals, and (dare I say it?) God’s? Just as liberals and homosexuals are able to do the same, we are able to vote the way we want, and see to it that America remains a moral, God-fearing nation.

Short answer: well, yeah. Doesn’t matter how the law was created, force is force is force. So is it okay to pass a law that American children are baptized as members of the Church at the age of eight? Of course not. Even if we could pass it, I think it would be immoral.

Is it okay to pass a law that utilizes local clergymen in dealing out mental and financial assistance to those in need? Yeah, probably.

Is it okay to pass a law that preserves our national history by protecting phrases like “In God We Trust” on our coinage? Yeah, sure.

What I’m trying to say is that we can legislate good, moral things: it’s just that these things need to be justifiable by secular means as well, while at the same time maintaining a level playing field for everyone else’s beliefs, which includes my own as well as my homosexual neighbor.

We can’t edge out the beliefs and concerns of others and expect them to allow us to talk about ours. Democracy is meant to be fair. It allows a majority to make direction while at the same time protecting the minority.

Yeah, I can sense this as well. However, haven’t prophets of old used this same method to get the people to repent? “Repent, or you’re going to die!” I’m not equating Hudson with a prophet, but I’m not so sure the method is all that bad. We read it in the scriptures, and hear it in church all the time. “If we pay our tithing, we won’t be burned at the Second Coming”. The first motivation for action is fear, and once one matures past that point, the second motivation becomes out of love. We need to get to that point - obeying the prophet because we love God and are willing to obey Him in all things, rather than acting out of fear of what is surely to come.

“You Cannot Separate Politics from Religion.” I think the separation between church and state is very inspired and allows “all men the same privilege” of worshipping according to their own conscience.

I’ve come to see, from your comments on my blog and repeated citation of D&C 134, that we have a different interpretation of this. I agree with Hudson - politics and religion are inseparably connected. Both are instituted to govern men’s lives. Yes, church and state (being institutions) should be separate as you indicate, but the principles and theories behind them (politics and religion) are often connected. Indeed, we learn in the BoM that the political freedoms people enjoyed were directly proportional to their righteousness, as this post explains.

I’ve always wondered exactly how you are supposed to prepare and find things that are, by their definition, things that most people don’t know of.

I think secret is somewhat of a subjective term. Yes, they are secret to the population at large, but I don’t think that nobody can know about them. In fact, I don’t believe that at all. Just as Nephi exposed them in the Book of Mormon, I think prophets and others today who are “in the know” can do just that. One such example is Carroll Quigley and his book Tragedy and Hope. Right now I’m reading a book called None Dare Call It Conspiracy that Pres. Benson recommended during a general conference - it’s an easy reader on the basics regarding who is behind the secret combinations of our day. Very informative.

I was finally disappointed to see that Mr. Hudson thinks that we should force our morals on others by using the government.

Are we “forcing” our morals on others by using the democratic process, making our voices heard, and using our vote to support those who would uphold our own morals, and (dare I say it?) God’s? Just as liberals and homosexuals are able to do the same, we are able to vote the way we want, and see to it that America remains a moral, God-fearing nation.

Unless God himself happens to be the one drafting the resolutions, you can’t really expect the outcome to be fair.

I’ll agree with this one. Uninspired (and sometimes wicked) men cannot always institute and execute morally sound policy. But can’t we try? Can’t we support those who would do better at this than others, and try our best to draft such resolutions? Didn’t the Founding Fathers do this?

Fair is fair, so I don’t mind removing the stone tablets from a public building. Atheists use courtrooms too.

So where’s the middle ground? Do we remove all elements of God from our country to cater to Atheists? Do we meet halfway somewhere? Do we base such actions on the percentage of Atheists in the country, thus removing God-related elements in 1% (or whatever the statistic is) of our courtrooms and currency?

I do however, think that the freedom of religious belief, and the protection of the agency of man—the standard of equality and justice we enjoy—is paramount when dealing with our civic duties.

So then we can keep the Ten Commandments statues, the “in God we trust” on our currency, and “one nation, under God” in our pledge of allegiance, right? Surely such things don’t infringe upon the agency of those who might not agree with or support such things.

Wouldn’t it work better, in every possible way, to “legislate morality” or these “weightier matters of the law” on the fleshy tables of the heart?

Agreed. That’s why Alma gave up his political office to go preach the gospel. He knew that society would improve much better by turning to the Lord. Sadly our nation seems to be drifting in the opposite direction, and I don’t think it will much improve before it gets worse.