Church Launches New Website On Preserving Religious Freedom

[Paddy]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks at BYU-Idaho, October 13, 2009: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/oaks-religious-freedom

Elder Oaks at Chapman University School of Law, February 4, 2011:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-religious-freedom-Chapman-University

Elder Oaks at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Canterbury Medal Dinner, New York City, May 16, 2013: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/transcript-strengthening-free-exercise-of-religion-elder-dallin-h-oaks

Kenngo

Thanks for those links

Paddy

[foster]

Scott

Thanks for the response and I understand your point. I definately agree with the concept of religious freedom, however I also have learned that the leaders of the church don't usually do something with some precident. I am just trying to get some context around the emphasis of this principle. I will keep looking into it.

Thanks

Paddy

 

From the 2011 speech.

• In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay
• In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies.  A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties.
• Professors at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful.
• Candidates for masters' degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities were penalized or dismissed from programs for their religious views about the wrongfulness of homosexual relations.
• A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor.
• The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.

 

It really boils down too, when is discrimination acceptable due to religious beliefs? Presently the United States bars discrimination regarding a handful of characteristic...religion itself is a "protected class" along with race and gender.

[Kenngo1969]

From the 2011 speech.

• In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay
• In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies.  A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties.
• Professors at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful.
• Candidates for masters' degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities were penalized or dismissed from programs for their religious views about the wrongfulness of homosexual relations.
• A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor.
• The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.

 

It really boils down too, when is discrimination acceptable due to religious beliefs? Presently the United States bars discrimination regarding a handful of characteristic...religion itself is a "protected class" along with race and gender.

As Elder Oaks points out, although the Constitution's Framers gave religion special protection under the First Amendment, courts increasingly are eroding that status in favor of giving it mere Equal Protection.  There's a reason why the  Framers crafted the Constitution the way they did.  Even though that document was crafted more than 225 years ago, the vitality of that reasoning remains.

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo

Thanks for those links

Paddy

Sure!  Happy to be of service!

[rockpond]

From the 2011 speech.

• In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay
• In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies.  A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties.
• Professors at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful.
• Candidates for masters' degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities were penalized or dismissed from programs for their religious views about the wrongfulness of homosexual relations.
• A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor.
• The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.

 

It really boils down too, when is discrimination acceptable due to religious beliefs? Presently the United States bars discrimination regarding a handful of characteristic...religion itself is a "protected class" along with race and gender.

 

When is discrimination acceptable due to religious beliefs?  That really is a very key question, in my mind.

 

Based on the cases you noted from Elder Oaks' speech, it would appear that the court's answer might be "when public funds are involved" or other laws are violated.

 

In the NM case:  the photographer violated the non-discrimination laws of the state.

 

In the NJ case:  the church had previously turned over the pavilion as a public space in exchange for tax breaks.

 

Catholic Charities chose, of their own volition, to stop providing adoptions.  This is a commonly misunderstood case.

 

I'm not sure what difficulties the BSA has had.  They won their appeal to the Supreme Court then (last year) made the change anyway.

[Damien the Leper]

[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]Obamacare's contraception mandate[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]

Or on the other side of the spectrum...treating being female as a pre-existing medical condition. That is just ridiculous!

[Storm Rider]

I agree religious liberty is under threat because so many Churches have gone political and are trying to legislate their beliefs. We have not seen religious liberty under such threat since the days of the John Birch Society's reign of political terror.

 

Quite the opposite. This country is supposed to have freedom of religion, but this has become twisted to be freedom from religion. It is perfectly acceptable to have prayers in school or any where else; this only issue is that the government must not choose which religion is "the" religion for the nation. We are free to worship as we choose; it is utter folly to dictate that all religion must be hid under a stone so that those that do not believe are not offended.

[Damien the Leper]

I believe that there should be equal laws concerning the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. I don't believe Scott has made a solid point of trying to make the argument "transcend partisan politics". The beaten dead horse of same sex marriage is of course a key issue. Conservative religions want the government to get out of marriage yet they want to legislate what defines a marriage. No one gets to have their cake and eat it too. I'm reminded of The Daily Show episode involving Matt Slick where Slick and some of his like minded ilk make the erroneous claim that christians are somehow being bullied. This is laughable at best. Sam Bee, the interviewer, makes he case against Slick's perspective very well...albeit oddly and comedically.

[Stone holm]

I believe that there should be equal laws concerning the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. I don't believe Scott has made a solid point of trying to make the argument "transcend partisan politics". The beaten dead horse of same sex marriage is of course a key issue. Conservative religions want the government to get out of marriage yet they want to legislate what defines a marriage. No one gets to have their cake and eat it too. I'm reminded of The Daily Show episode involving Matt Slick where Slick and some of his like minded ilk make the erroneous claim that christians are somehow being bullied. This is laughable at best. Sam Bee, the interviewer, makes he case against Slick's perspective very well...albeit oddly and comedically.

 

We already have those laws, they are called the "free exercise clause" and the "establishment clause" in the Federal Constitution.  Problem is people want to freely exercise their right to impose their religion on everyone else.

[Damien the Leper]

We already have those laws, they are called the "free exercise clause" and the "establishment clause" in the Federal Constitution.  Problem is people want to freely exercise their right to impose their religion on everyone else.

I understand. That's why I made the obvious statement. It's by inspiration that we don't have a state religion or a religiously compelled government. That would be tantamount to Communism.

[Storm Rider]

I believe that there should be equal laws concerning the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. I don't believe Scott has made a solid point of trying to make the argument "transcend partisan politics". The beaten dead horse of same sex marriage is of course a key issue. Conservative religions want the government to get out of marriage yet they want to legislate what defines a marriage. No one gets to have their cake and eat it too. I'm reminded of The Daily Show episode involving Matt Slick where Slick and some of his like minded ilk make the erroneous claim that christians are somehow being bullied. This is laughable at best. Sam Bee, the interviewer, makes he case against Slick's perspective very well...albeit oddly and comedically.

 

Marriage is a religious rite and the government has no role to play on that field. They do control civil unions and they can allow those for whomever they choose. 

 

I see no reason why we don't allow religion, any and all religions, in schools, business, and government. If people want it I see no problem with it. If someone has a problem with it; don't listen to the bloody 2 minutes it takes to say a prayer.

 

That prayer can and should be a Muslim, Hindi, any Christian church/denomination, or any other religion that wants to pray. The prayer should be open to any group that wants it and no one gets to limit who does it.

 

This is how a puny minority is literally dismantling our social structure; preventing any form of religion form being practiced in schools, on government property, and any where else. All because some twit does want to hear a Christmas carol, see a Star of David, or God forbid, hear that prayer. Oh yeah, let's ride this buggy down into hell for the sake of ...oh, I better step off the ole soap box before I start spitting.

[rockpond]

Marriage is a religious rite and the government has no role to play on that field. They do control civil unions and they can allow those for whomever they choose. 

 

Marriage was solely a religious rite (and should have stayed as such) until we let the government get into the marriage business when we began licensing it.  And then allowing civic officials to perform marriages.

[foster]

As Elder Oaks points out, although the Constitution's Framers gave religion special protection under the First Amendment, courts increasingly are eroding that status in favor of giving it mere Equal Protection. There's a reason why the Framers crafted the Constitution the way they did. Even though that document was crafted more than 225 years ago, the vitality of that reasoning remains.

I would like to see how the framers gave religion special protect above, anything else.

Just because something is listed first does not equate to special protection. I do not think the framers intended personal religious beliefs as a means of circumventing the laws of the land.

What reason do you have that a religious private citizen should be exempt from laws but a non-religious person shouldn't be exempt from the laws?

[David T]

No, no love troubles. I take no medication and have never been to a counseling session in my life. I am not angry, bitter, hateful, depressed, resigned, or spiteful. I am a little itchy from those fire any bites but that is it.

 

It was not intended to be malcontentive.....the best metaphor is it was more like pouring gasoline on a fire just to see what would happen. And no, I do not think the curse of Cain is a thing.

 

But the point is a good one, actually. I do think there should be a distinction between individual public businesses, and religious entities and services, as I believe there currently is. Sometimes, Churches participate in public business offerings, and in those things, they should be held accountable to public business policies. It is different than religious, spiritual, belief-oriented services.

 

IE, Offering to rent out one's chapel to anyone in the public who wants to be married there is a public business offering. A private sacramental marriage service offered, at no fee, to parishioners, is different.

 

If one believes a public business should be able to make an "everybody but Gays" policy, you are actually also advocating that they should also be able to make an "Everybody but interracial couples" policy, and an "everybody but Mormons" policy.

 

And that may be true. But keep in mind that if one advocates that this be legal, one should also be able to acknolwedge that such businesses will be subject to "supply and demand", and those who idiologically oppose such businesses will vote with their money.

 

And here's the thing - with many of these store owners complaining about the (non-legistlative) persecution they have for having discriminatory policies, the Law has nothing to do with their woes. It is generally due to those they would otherwise do business with not willing to support them with their wallets. It is the very freedom of their religious or moral expression that causes them to be unpopular.

 

Imagine a similar wedding photography or wedding cake business that refused, on policy, based on religious belief, to cater to mixed-race weddings. Would you have any problem with people vocally acknowledging they would not be supporting that business, and letting others interested know what type of policies that business was built on?

 

We can't have it both ways.

[The Nehor]

I understand. That's why I made the obvious statement. It's by inspiration that we don't have a state religion or a religiously compelled government. That would be tantamount to Communism.

Wait, what? There have been a lot of religiously dominated societies and even more with a state religion. I cannot think of a single one that could be defined as Communist.......

[foster]

As Elder Oaks points out, although the Constitution's Framers gave religion special protection under the First Amendment, courts increasingly are eroding that status in favor of giving it mere Equal Protection.  There's a reason why the  Framers crafted the Constitution the way they did.  Even though that document was crafted more than 225 years ago, the vitality of that reasoning remains.

I think you misunderstand Elder Oaks

" Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution."

He did not say the framers establish more freedom for religion than say speech or the 4th Amendment. He is giving his opinion.

What would be your reasoning that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not apply to business proprietor whose religious beliefs are that Mormons are of the devil?

[Stone holm]

Marriage is a religious rite and the government has no role to play on that field. They do control civil unions and they can allow those for whomever they choose. 

 

I see no reason why we don't allow religion, any and all religions, in schools, business, and government. If people want it I see no problem with it. If someone has a problem with it; don't listen to the bloody 2 minutes it takes to say a prayer.

 

That prayer can and should be a Muslim, Hindi, any Christian church/denomination, or any other religion that wants to pray. The prayer should be open to any group that wants it and no one gets to limit who does it.

 

This is how a puny minority is literally dismantling our social structure; preventing any form of religion form being practiced in schools, on government property, and any where else. All because some twit does want to hear a Christmas carol, see a Star of David, or God forbid, hear that prayer. Oh yeah, let's ride this buggy down into hell for the sake of ...oh, I better step off the ole soap box before I start spitting.

Marriage is both a religious rite and a secular status its dual status derives from the days when religion was simply an arm of the.State and the church was an established part of the state. I have no problem with the government getting completely out of the marriage business and making the marriage status of no legal significance and limiting the civil rights we have today which flow from the marital status to civil unions or domestic partnerships for both different sex and same sex unions. But until they do that, they should not discriminate on the basis of the beliefs of the dominant religious group.

[thesometimesaint]

As Elder Oaks points out, although the Constitution's Framers gave religion special protection under the First Amendment, courts increasingly are eroding that status in favor of giving it mere Equal Protection.  There's a reason why the  Framers crafted the Constitution the way they did.  Even though that document was crafted more than 225 years ago, the vitality of that reasoning remains.

 

Mere Equal Protection. Thus, the law and the judges must treat everyone equally before the law regardless of their race, gender, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, or other characteristics, without privilege, discrimination, or bias.

 

See US Constitution Amendment 14:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[thesometimesaint]

Quite the opposite. This country is supposed to have freedom of religion, but this has become twisted to be freedom from religion. It is perfectly acceptable to have prayers in school or any where else; this only issue is that the government must not choose which religion is "the" religion for the nation. We are free to worship as we choose; it is utter folly to dictate that all religion must be hid under a stone so that those that do not believe are not offended.

 

Fredom of religion is freedom from religion. We have the freedom to not be of any religion. IE; I have the freedom to not be Zoroastrian, or have my tax dollars used to promote it. The US is the most religious country of industrialized countries. Believe me religion is alive and well in this country. Of course any can decide to be offended. However as Brigham Young said. “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”.

[Stone holm]

Fredom of religion is freedom from religion. We have the freedom to not be of any religion. IE; I have the freedom to not be Zoroastrian, or have my tax dollars used to promote it. The US is the most religious country of industrialized countries. Believe me religion is alive and well in this country. Of course any can decide to be offended. However as Brigham Young said. “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”.

 

It has been said that in America we believe in "freedom of religion" and that in Europe they believe in "freedom from religion", not sure that I agree.  But we have always been somewhat a nation of Bible thumpers.  Both sides of the Civil War thought God was on their side. We have a somewhat Janus faced set of religion clauses in the Constitution which when read to not antagonize each other basically says the government should stay out of religion and religion should stay out of government.  We were one of the first to create a purely secular government which divided the two spheres.  There have been radicals on both sides trying either to suppress religion or convert us into something approximating a theocracy.  Right now the forces pushing towards a theocracy have pushed, and I believe have peaked -- when that happens and a side sees that it is ebbing then it struggles even harder to get back on top.  This is a cycle in American history.  Religious oriented government reformers push through things until the American people start saying, "Uh, yeah well that's enough of that." and then the pendulum starts swinging the other direction.  Eventually, things get too loose and the pendulum swings back the other way again.  Right now the polls seem to show that Americans have had enough and the pendulum is swinging back.  It is usually pretty much standard fare to claim that things previously were so much better and people were so much more righteous.  Sometimes that is true.  The Twenties were not a particularly righteous period, the sixties and seventies were not a particularly righteous period either in some ways -- in other ways they were more righteous.  But to say that religion is currently under attack?  No I don't think so -- religion has been on the attack for about the last 30 years.  Unfortunately, not since Prohibition has religion become as politicized as it is right now and when that happens -- both religion and politics suffer.  Religion becomes tainted, and politics becomes irrational.  But this will pass.

[Damien the Leper]

Wait, what? There have been a lot of religiously dominated societies and even more with a state religion. I cannot think of a single one that could be defined as Communist.......

I apologise for not being clear. A religiously motivated or controlled state bears the same fruit that a Communist anti-religion state would. They are both equally evil and should be rejected.

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe that there should be equal laws concerning the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. I don't believe Scott has made a solid point of trying to make the argument "transcend partisan politics".

The First Amendment provides that there be no laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I support both portions of this clause, and nowhere on this thread have I indicated otherwise, nor do I believe that the Brethren have done so in the newly launched set of Internet resources.

 

And yes, the concept of religious liberty does or should transcend partisan politics -- at least in the United States.

[Stone holm]

The First Amendment provides that there be no laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I support both portions of this clause, and nowhere on this thread have I indicated otherwise, nor do I believe that the Brethren have done so in the newly launched set of Internet resources.

 

And yes, the concept of religious liberty does or should transcend partisan politics -- at least in the United States.

It should, but it rarely does.

[Kenngo1969]

We already have those laws, they are called the "free exercise clause" and the "establishment clause" in the Federal Constitution.  Problem is people want to freely exercise their right to impose their religion on everyone else.

I agree.  "Thou shalt not kill" is a ridiculous religious principle, and since there isn't much difference between that and, "Anyone who, intentionally and with malice aforethought, kills another human being is guilty of a felony ..." we should simply do away with both.

[Kenngo1969]

Fredom of religion is freedom from religion. ...

I disagree.  Those two concepts hardly are synonymous, and as messy as dealing with the conflicts and questions posed by the former is, I much prefer that messiness to living in a society in which the government, through totalitarian means, attempts to enforce the latter.