Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...

[Stone holm]

It is my understanding that the mass-migration from the Democratic party to the Republican party down South was strongly stimulated when the IRS considered yanking the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its miscegenation-like policies that precluded blacks from dating whites on campus, and then for only allowing married blacks on campus. In the South religion has unfortunately often been used as a shield for racism -- a practice which because of the public disgust it tends to raise endangers all of our religious protections. The best preventative is to try and maintain the separation of church and state as strong and tall as possible, everytime we try to impose our religious beliefs on others by political/legislative activity, we weaken the wall and we may win a battle today that is very costly to us when the war is considered in the long term. Short sighted oppression of people who believe differently than us, tends to come back to haunt us -- unless we do a nigh complete eradication like we did to the Native Americans, and I don't think any of us have the stomach for that type of thing anymore.

[Stone holm]

On the outside of each Chapel is a sign: "Visitors welcome". We conduct marriages inside our Chapels and the people being married do not always have to be LDS.

Actually, I believe the policy on that has changed. The Church now even discourages time-only marriages in chapels. The last one I recall, the Branch President actually performed the ceremony outside the chapel for that reason. I could be wrong its been about 30 years, but I am pretty sure that is the case still.

[thesometimesaint]

On the outside of each Chapel is a sign: "Visitors welcome". We conduct marriages inside our Chapels and the people being married do not always have to be LDS.

As it should be. However that doesn't diminish the fact that we are a private organization. Any minister of any church can by law marry anyone they so choose. There is no requirement that they do so. Try getting married in the Temple if you're not a member with a Temple Recommend, let alone a nonmember.

[thesometimesaint]

It is my understanding that the mass-migration from the Democratic party to the Republican party down South was strongly stimulated when the IRS considered yanking the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its miscegenation-like policies that precluded blacks from dating whites on campus, and then for only allowing married blacks on campus. In the South religion has unfortunately often been used as a shield for racism -- a practice which because of the public disgust it tends to raise endangers all of our religious protections. The best preventative is to try and maintain the separation of church and state as strong and tall as possible, everytime we try to impose our religious beliefs on others by political/legislative activity, we weaken the wall and we may win a battle today that is very costly to us when the war is considered in the long term. Short sighted oppression of people who believe differently than us, tends to come back to haunt us -- unless we do a nigh complete eradication like we did to the Native Americans, and I don't think any of us have the stomach for that type of thing anymore.

Not really. In the1968 presidential campaign Richard Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy to peel off white racist Dixiecrat's.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[CASteinman]

Actually, I believe the policy on that has changed. The Church now even discourages time-only marriages in chapels. The last one I recall, the Branch President actually performed the ceremony outside the chapel for that reason. I could be wrong its been about 30 years, but I am pretty sure that is the case still.

If there has been a change it has been since 1999, when the Church taught that the Bishop could perform a civil ceremony, without getting permission from headquarters, for non-members, in the chapel, subject to the laws of the land.

[CASteinman]

As it should be. However that doesn't diminish the fact that we are a private organization. Any minister of any church can by law marry anyone they so choose. There is no requirement that they do so. Try getting married in the Temple if you're not a member with a Temple Recommend, let alone a nonmember.

You seem to be missing the point. Courts have ruled that if you have offered your facilities to the public they must fall under public accommodation laws.

[Stone holm]

If there has been a change it has been since 1999, when the Church taught that the Bishop could perform a civil ceremony, without getting permission from headquarters, for non-members, in the chapel, subject to the laws of the land.

This would have been before that. I distinctly remember the situation as I was an unremarried widower at the time, and one of my friends in the single program got married and the Branch President performed the ceremony, but the instruction he had been given was that such was not to be done inside the Church so he performed it outside on the lawn. The Branch President was a very good friend of mine as I had served in several Br. Presidencies with him, and he said that the Church was discouraging any wedding related activities inside the Churches because the Brethern wanted to emphasize that Temples were where you were supposed to get married. He was a pretty sharp fellow that read the General Handbook very carefully. I can't remember attending a marriage at any chapel since then -- but I didn't perform any marriages while I was Bishop so it may have been that people who aren't getting married at the Temple just tend to do it elsewhere. But you could be right.

[Ahab]

You seem to be missing the point. Courts have ruled that if you have offered your facilities to the public they must fall under public accommodation laws.

The fix can be as simple as saying we will accept requests from the public which may or may not be approved. That way we're not saying the facilities are open to the public, but only that the public can request to use our facilities.

[CASteinman]

The fix can be as simple as saying we will accept requests from the public which may or may not be approved. That way we're not saying the facilities are open to the public, but only that the public can request to use our facilities.

I don't think so. I believe that was expressly covered in the lawsuit because that was one of the defenses that the Church had used and the court struck that down.

[Stone holm]

Not really. In the1968 presidential campaign Richard Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy to peel off white racist Dixiecrat's.

See http://en.wikipedia....uthern_strategy

Yeah it was later solidified because of the Bob Jones University split, that was what really torked the the Southern Christian Right

[Stone holm]

I don't think so. I believe that was expressly covered in the lawsuit because that was one of the defenses that the Church had used and the court struck that down.

I know such requests can be annoying -- and am not doing it to annoy, but do you happen to remember the name of the case or where it was brought -- I might be able to retrieve it.

[CASteinman]

I know such requests can be annoying -- and am not doing it to annoy, but do you happen to remember the name of the case or where it was brought -- I might be able to retrieve it.

Well, after a few minutes of scrolling around I found a place where you can start out.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/judge_rules_monmouth_church_gr.html

I also noticed this interesting article as well on a different lawsuit.

http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/25/some-strange-consequences-of-public-accommodations-laws/

[Ahab]

I don't think so. I believe that was expressly covered in the lawsuit because that was one of the defenses that the Church had used and the court struck that down.

Doesn't that sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me? How can any person/organization allow some people to use it's facilities but not some other people? Did the court intend to suggest that nobody has that right? That no person/organization can legally and lawfully allow some people to use facilities the person/organization doesn't allow other people to use? What a wacky decision, if that's what they meant. Either open to all, or not open at all? Somebody needs to correct that court decision otherwise the ridiculousness will continue.

[CASteinman]

Doesn't that sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me? How can any person/organization allow some people to use it's facilities but not some other people? Did the court intend to suggest that nobody has that right? That no person/organization can legally and lawfully allow some people to use facilities the person/organization doesn't allow other people to use? What a wacky decision, if that's what they meant. Either open to all, or not open at all? Somebody needs to correct that court decision otherwise the ridiculousness will continue.

Well, regardless of how you or I feel about it, the law was decided in a court and is used as precedent around the US.

[Tacenda]

On the outside of each Chapel is a sign: "Visitors welcome". We conduct marriages inside our Chapels and the people being married do not always have to be LDS.

Last I heard they are no longer allowing chapel weddings. Or is this incorrect?

[CASteinman]

Last I heard they are no longer allowing chapel weddings. Or is this incorrect?

I know that this is found in the latest 2010 Handbook of Instructions:

"A wedding ceremony that is held in a home or Church building might include prelude music, hymns, special musical selections, and postlude music. Civil marriage ceremonies should be simple, conservative, and without pomp in the proceedings. When a wedding ceremony is held in a Church building, a wedding march is not appropriate."

[Glenn101]

Because GC is a private gathering. Not funded or promoted by our government.

I disagree with that. General Conference is a public gathering. It is open to the public. The real question goes to the motivations of those doing the praying, whether to be seen of men, as in to be seen as pious and God fearing, or to actually be doing it because one is pious and God fearing. That is something that should be left up to the Lord to judge. (I'll give you a CFR if you wish.)

Glenn

[Stone holm]

Well, after a few minutes of scrolling around I found a place where you can start out.

http://www.nj.com/ne..._church_gr.html

I also noticed this interesting article as well on a different lawsuit.

http://www.volokh.co...modations-laws/

Couldn't find it, but after reading the first article closely it looks like there may have been a lot of issues involved. It also looked like they were renting the facilities out to the general public for weddings, I don't think you get to the same place by a Church putting up a sign saying visitors welcome. The SCOTUS just exempted a church employee from some generally applicable labor law even when the employee basically was not handling any religious associated business whatsoever because there was some remote possibility that she would have some connection to prosleyting or religious education.

Part of the problem here is that churches are getting more and more involved in recreational and commercial projects, so that it starts getting pretty fuzzy as to when they are behaving as a church and therefore intended to have a Constitutional shield, and when they are just behaving like a commercial entrepeneur. We have churches building theme parks and kinds of stuff -- and the Courts get the unenviable job of trying to sort out whether they are entitled to a special exemption or whether they should be treated like a non-religious organization. I think our Church with respect to its properties does a fairly good job of trying to keep them segregated and aimed at religious purposes. We also at least make an attempt at partisan poltical neutrality, even if we do occasionally have a Bishop or Stake President go rogue or become too zealous in carrying out a suggestion. We have a lot of other churches who don't seem to even be bothered by wading into partisan politics and declaring God is backing so and so, or such and such an issue. That kind of behavior is eventually going to come back and take a chunk out of all of us.

[thesometimesaint]

I disagree with that. General Conference is a public gathering. It is open to the public. The real question goes to the motivations of those doing the praying, whether to be seen of men, as in to be seen as pious and God fearing, or to actually be doing it because one is pious and God fearing. That is something that should be left up to the Lord to judge. (I'll give you a CFR if you wish.)

Glenn

When was the last time our government wrote out a check to the Church for holding GC? The public is welcome to attend but the purpose of GC is not to serve the general public.

Christ says that we are to pray in private.

[CASteinman]

Couldn't find it, but after reading the first article closely it looks like there may have been a lot of issues involved. It also looked like they were renting the facilities out to the general public for weddings, I don't think you get to the same place by a Church putting up a sign saying visitors welcome.

1. As I already said, they were renting it out. But this did not, in the end, cause the decision to fall against them. It was that they had let the public use it. The rent was merely an added factor supporting the use by the public. (I don't recall exactly but I think that there was even some legal discussion about whether it would even matter if they did not charge rent -- but still made it a public place)

2. The facility had been a religious facility for about 100 years or more. It has been used for weddings during that time. The Church felt that they were doing the community a service by allowing people to be married there. (No good deed goes unpunished.) The judge ruled that because it was permitted to be used by the public for weddings that there was no obvious religious purpose to the facility (!).

3. A really interesting bit was that ANY facility that has a "close relationship" to the government is required to follow public accommodation rules. An example used was a private day care that got a license from the state to operate. The license was deemed to create a "close relationship"

4. Here is a mormon legal blog on the matter

http://www.mormonlaw...public-use.html

Although he thinks the Church plays it safe, I consider the fact that courts can reach out and touch someone at will to be sufficient danger that there is no such thing as playing it safe.

(There was a side factor relating to taxes as I recall -- where the Church got the property from the City and tax abatements -- as long as they allowed the public to walk on their property -- or something to that effect).

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When was the last time our government wrote out a check to the Church for holding GC? The public is welcome to attend but the purpose of GC is not to serve the general public.

Christ says that we are to pray in private.

You seem to think that "government writing out a check" is equal to "public event". I disgaree. I don't think you could even defend that definition.

As to your 2nd point:

Yup he did. So why do we pray at church and at GC? Those are not private prayers in really any sense of the word.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Stone holm]

Okay I read the NJ ruling. You really have to be an alarmist to jump from that ruling to the notion that Courts are going to be ordering us to allow gay weddings in our chapels. That pavilion was not a wedding pavilion it was just a pavilion on a boardwalk that was basically open to the public to use at will and which they rented out for all kinds of secular uses and was sometimes rented out for weddings of any faith or no faith at all, there was a specific determination that it was not a house of worship and that it was also not a place of religious education. Really people lets try to not play into this kind of alarmist scaremongering it doesn't help our cause.

[CASteinman]

Okay I read the NJ ruling. You really have to be an alarmist to jump from that ruling to the notion that Courts are going to be ordering us to allow gay weddings in our chapels. That pavilion was not a wedding pavilion it was just a pavilion on a boardwalk that was basically open to the public to use at will and which they rented out for all kinds of secular uses and was sometimes rented out for weddings of any faith or no faith at all, there was a specific determination that it was not a house of worship and that it was also not a place of religious education. Really people lets try to not play into this kind of alarmist scaremongering it doesn't help our cause.

You have incorrectly characterized things, but mainly because the judgement lays it out that way, not because you intend to. I would say the judgement itself was biased.

That particular establishment was religious, had been religious for ages, had been almost entirely religious, and was rarely used for secular activities except for the fact that they allowed pedestrian traffic on their property.

What is entirely missing from your analysis is the fact that it was a religious organization, forced now to operate against its beliefs because it had previously acted in good faith to be a helpful entity in the community, allowing access and otherwise just being a nice community member.

It was that very act that brought them into the scope of the law. As the legal blog pointed out, the consequences of this decision is that Churches must now limit things like this and not provide so many community services.

If that were the only effect, just that alone would not be a good thing in my opinion. But there really is more. To pooh pooh this in the face of judicial activism is not reasonable.

Edited March 21, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

You have incorrectly characterized things, but mainly because the judgement lays it out that way, not because you intend to. I would say the judgement itself was biased.

That particular establishment was religious, had been religious for ages, had been almost entirely religious, and was rarely used for secular activities except for the fact that they allowed pedestrian traffic on their property.

What is entirely missing from your analysis is the fact that it was a religious organization, forced now to operate against its beliefs because it had previously acted in good faith to be a helpful entity in the community, allowing access and otherwise just being a nice community member.

It was that very act that brought them into the scope of the law. As the legal blog pointed out, the consequences of this decision is that Churches must now limit things like this and not provide so many community services.

If that were the only effect, just that alone would not be a good thing in my opinion. But there really is more. To pooh pooh this in the face of judicial activism is not reasonable.

Perhaps. That wasn't actually a court it was a bureaucratic agency. They may have gotten their facts wrong but if the did they did a pretty good job of lining them up. I don't however believe that we should extend the religious shield to protect just anything that a religious organization does. The potential for mischief is just too great. It was not owned directly by the church, it was not even set up to be completely controlled by the church membership. I can imagine all kinds of socially abusive organizations and activities being established in such a manner in the former Confederacy if you extend the shield to cover such activities by trusts set up by churches

[Nathair/|\]

I know that this is found in the latest 2010 Handbook of Instructions:

"A wedding ceremony that is held in a home or Church building might include prelude music, hymns, special musical selections, and postlude music. Civil marriage ceremonies should be simple, conservative, and without pomp in the proceedings. When a wedding ceremony is held in a Church building, a wedding march is not appropriate."

Are these weddings held in the chapel or in other rooms such as the cultural hall or the RS room? I think that's what Tacenda is trying to ask.