Church Launches New Website On Preserving Religious Freedom

[Damien the Leper]

I love that pinnacle of wickedness that we're worried about is homosexual couples getting married.  Not despots killing people with chemical weapons.  Not poverty or the lack of clean water/food in many parts of the world.  Not a national debt that is unsustainable.  Let's worry about the gays making marital commitments.

 

FYI... We kept blacks out of the temple until OD2, I'm confident that we can keep gays out as long as we want though we might have to give up on having temple sealings recognized as civil marriages... not a big deal.

Not a bad idea. Conservative religionists want the government out of marriage business then the government has the right to invalidate any ceremony not performed by a government or state official.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

I hope so. I'm more on the religious freedom side. That being said my religious right to swing my fist ends at your nose. I wish more people would get that.

[thesometimesaint]

Ah.  I see.  So the free exercise and disestablishment clauses in the First Amendment were actually superfluous.  Thanks for clearing that up!

 

That isn't what I said.

 

Without equal protection the First Amendment is superfluous. It would be like me claiming that I stand inside the protections of the laws, because of my religious beliefs, while you stand outside the protections of the law because of your religious beliefs. The Founders were well aware of how such played out for centuries in Europe.

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo I am interested in any legislative intent analysis you could provide that shows the framers intended religious persons to be in a position of higher protection than others. 

 

The fact that religion is mentioned (and specifically treated) in the First Amendment indicates to me that religious liberty was of special concern to the Framers.  While I disagree with him that mere "Equal Protection" of religion would be adequate and that (apparently) treating religion in the First Amendment as the Founders did, was, therefore superfluous, Thesometimesaint is correct in implying that the Founder's could have confined constitutional religious protection to mere "Equal Protection" if they had wanted to do so.  There would have been no need for the Founders to treat religion specifically in the First Amendment if all they had intended was for it to have "Equal Protection."  A basic rule of statutory construction is that if is possible to do so, statutory language should be given effect rather than denied effect, and that legislators don't use language which they don't intend to mean anything or to have any effect.  I aver that the same is true of the Founders when they drafted and ratified the Constitution.

 

And in your analysis would you please distinguish between what the framers intended for Christians v Catholics, Muslim, and Hebrew?

 

 

I freely admit that I cannot do so.  I doubt the Founders envisioned the degree of religious pluralism that exists in the country today, so I'm not sure they intended anything with regard to non-Christian groups.  As I told Thesometimesaint, however, I would prefer that courts continue to engage in the messy business of attempting to determine how the Constitution's religion clauses should apply in our religiously pluralistic society than for them simply to throw up their hands and say, "Forget it.  Freedom of religion is impractical and unworkable in our modern society.  Freedom from religion, it is!"  For more of my thoughts on the issue, I'll see if I can dig up an op-ed I wrote that was published last December regarding Christmas, religious pluralism (and irreligiousness), and the First Amendment, and PM it to you.

 

Elder Oaks made a statement of his opinion, he did not discuss, beyond platitudes, legislative intent with his statement. That Freedom of Religion is the First Amendment does not mean religious individuals are to be exempt from laws which are neutral and of general application.

 

 

You may think the United States Supreme Court correctly interpreted the Constitution's Free Exercise clause in Employment Division v. Smith, and many people might agree with you.  Elder Oaks and I (along with a good number of others) disagree.  The Court's interpretation potentially gives the government license to interfere in all manner of religious practices where it does not belong.

 

I do not doubt the Brethren are concerned. I do have reservations, as a LDS person who values the Constitution and respects freedom of worship and freedom of non-worship, that in the United States there is a trend of alarm any greater than rhetoric spewed forth from antagonists on either side of the US Political spectrum. 

 

 

You're free to advocate for "freedom of non-worship," but such a concept was totally foreign to the Founders.  If you believe that freedom of religion and the constitutional protection afforded that freedom are outmoded (both of which are much broader than mere "freedom of worship"), you're free to advocate for a constitutional amendment.  I don't think such a movement would gain much traction in the U.S., notwithstanding recent trends toward increasing religious pluralism and irreligiousness here.  I do agree with you, though, that heated rhetoric threatens to supplant reasoned debate, on this and many other issues. 

 

I have reservations that religious people should be more protected than non-religious people ...

 

 

You're 226 years too late and more than a few dollars short.  That horse left the barn long ago.  The fact of the matter is that the Constitution does protect religion.  You're welcome to disagree with it, but in order for your disagreement to have any effect, you'd have to persuade a U.S. legislator to introduce a constitutional amendment.  (And there are plenty of countries in the world with no analogue to the First Amendment, and/or which have no constitutional free exercise and disestablishment clauses.  The Church of Jesus Christ may not be able to do a lot [at least, not directly] about religious freedom in such countries, but that doesn't mean they should simply throw up their hands in defeat where religious freedom in the U.S. is concerned.)

 

... consider the irony of wanting special protections for the religious ...

 

 

Again, it's not a matter of wanting "special protections" for the religious.  The Constitution already says that religion is protected from government influence.  Period.

 

... not creating special rights is main canard used against anti-discrimination regarding sexual orientation ... 

 

 

It's not a canard that the supposed "right" to homosexual marriage has no historical basis in the Constitution specifically or in law generally. With due respect, you're comparing apples and Buicks in attempting to draw any sort of equivalency between the religious freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment (which have existed for 226 years, and had their roots long before that) and the supposed "right" to homosexual marriage.  (That said, whatever my views regarding homosexual marriage [or regarding what the Constitution says (or doesn't say) about it], I don't support discrimination against homosexuals in housing, employment, public accommodations, et cetera.  To label a view opposing homosexual marriage discrimination overgeneralizes, oversimplifies, and poisons the well.)

 

... adding insult to injury creating special rights ONLY for religious people excludes everyone else ...

 

 

The suggestion that Constitutional principles should be adhered to creates no "insult" or "injury" in itself.  As for exclusion of the nonreligious, you're right: the Founders felt that religion was integral to our society.  I agree with them.  (They felt that the Constitution was suitable to the government only of a people which, by and large, is religious, and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other).  And you persist in speaking of the First Amendment's religion clauses as though they're recent innovations.  They're not. They're hundreds of years old, and their roots are even older.  If you feel they should be changed or jettisoned, you're more than welcome to so advocate.

 

... anti-discrimination regarding sexual orientation protects EVERYONE.

 

 

I agree, but as I have already explained, opposing homosexual marriage (and failing to see any historical "right" thereto in the Constitution or in other law) does not necessarily mean that one favors discrimination against homosexuals.

 

Without more direct analysis and statements from the Church Leaders, this issue begs of confirmation bias. 

 

 

The Brethren have been more than direct enough.  Whether you like what they've had to say is another matter.  And I wonder if you know what "confirmation bias" is.

[Kenngo1969]

I like you too, Kenngo. It's not that there isn't a place for "judges". But they do not exercise the authority to gauge worthiness in the same manner as Christ. To Him do we confess and receive forgiveness and there is no other. Confessing sins to a mortal does nothing. Confessing sin to God facillitates healing and other positive consequences.

Christ is not concerned with the public perception of any church. That is nonsense. Christ is concerned with our individual salvation and our willingness to respond to His calls.

As I say, we'll simply have to agree to disagree!  Ta-ta for now! 

[Stone holm]

Eschatology is of little concern to me. Searching for "signs of the times" is little better than a marijuana smoker who is paranoid about getting busted by the cops. There are more important things to worry about. I remember when I was in high school my seminary teacher friended over Bruce McConkie and the mess of "calling and election made sure". It was obsessive. It is more important to worry about acts of love, charity, mercy and redemption in the here and now and let God sort out all the rest when it is time.

Well, given the worst most likely mortal consequence of smoking pot is getting busted, why would you say there are more important things to worry about?

[Damien the Leper]

Well, given the worst most likely mortal consequence of smoking pot is getting busted, why would you say there are more important things to worry about?

It's the paranoia that I was referencing and comparing to.

[foster]

Kenngo, stating "Religion is covered in the First Amendment therefore the legislative intent is" is not a sound basis for legislative intent. Legislative intent, goes to the very debates the legislatures had, it goes the various wordings put forth, it goes to the entire process of what/why/how a particular law became law and why the word choice.  A statement from a single Framer of the Constitution does not established what the whole body agreed on.  Again, Elder Oaks expressed his opinion about what HE THINKS the Framers intended.

 

And yes, the canard "creating special rights" is the irony of the proposing special rights, above equal protection, for religious individuals. The anti-discrimination law the Church supported did not apply to marriage - so we can stop with the strawman arguments about marriage. The anti-discrimination law the Church supported dealt with housing and employment. This law protects everyone in Salt Lake City (not just a particular group). The canard bandied about by those opposed to the LDS Church stance was that the anti-discrimination law (which did not affect marriage) created special rights for a particular group. Nothing could be more short-sighted or complete lack of comprehension, the canard was rhetoric vomited about very likely with the intent  that most would gobble it up without fact checking.

 

Thanks for pointing about Employment Division v. Smith, I was not aware that Elder Oaks testified to Congress about it. I was aware of the case, but not to the detail that the Supreme Court had changed the judicial analysis on the issue.

 

The freedom to worship necessarily protects the freedom of non-worship e.g. Congress can not establish a religion nor force attendance.

[emarkp]

 

just like they congratulated Hitler on his rise to power.

CFR.

 

I thought I researched this claim when I saw it somewhere else and confirmed it, but I can't verify it now, so I'll withdraw it. The best I could find was the infamous "Mormonism in the New Germany" article by (I think) a young missionary who was in Germany at the time.

 

I disagree that the majority have chosen wickedness. I think at this point we are pretty evenly divided. I do think that the people have been fooled into choices that they now regret. I think we are seeing a resurgence of patriotism and love of freedom as it becomes more obvious that our rights are being destroyed. Look at what happened in Colorado.

I agree there is a resurgence, but it's a tiny minority. Every poll I've seen has been a huge victory for communism in the US, and enforcement of equivalence of gay marriage. Once Obama flipped on same-sex marriage, the nutbars came fully out of their shoes.

Colorado's vote was interesting, but pointless. The bad laws still stand, freedoms remain curtailed.

[Stone holm]

I thought I researched this claim when I saw it somewhere else and confirmed it, but I can't verify it now, so I'll withdraw it. The best I could find was the infamous "Mormonism in the New Germany" article by (I think) a young missionary who was in Germany at the time.

 

I agree there is a resurgence, but it's a tiny minority. Every poll I've seen has been a huge victory for communism in the US, and enforcement of equivalence of gay marriage. Once Obama flipped on same-sex marriage, the nutbars came fully out of their shoes.

Colorado's vote was interesting, but pointless. The bad laws still stand, freedoms remain curtailed.

Yep, am definitely reading a nut bar right now in the above quote.

 

You have been removed for name calling.

[emarkp]

I agree. I think President Obama and Senator Reid played hardball during the election.

Not hardball. Lies. Reid slandered in the most heinous manner a fellow church member on the Senate floor. In a just world, he'd be ejected both from office and from the church.

 

The truth doesn't matter as much as what a candidate and his or her machine can persuade the American electorate to believe.

Thus my "majority choosing evil" argument is strengthened.

 

Nevertheless, they took the high road, and I think we're all better off for it. (Would you rather have General Authorities pontificating publicly about the election [and reelection] of a "darkie"? I sure wouldn't! )

Sustaining evil is never "the high road". I would have preferred they not comment on the election other than kicking Reid's sorry butt out of the church.

 

Church leaders befriended East German leaders who allowed the killing of anyone who tried to escape East Germany by scaling the Berlin Wall, too. In the long run, East Germany and the Church were both better for it.

People have been prophesying such doom and gloom since long before you and I were born.

This is utterly bizarre IMO. You point out the horrors of East Germany, and then make light of concerns? Are you daft?

 

This is where the New Jerusalem is going to be built.

This continent, yes. This country? Doubtful. I see no way for that to happen without a second civil war (also about slavery, ironically).

 

I suggest we all flee to Zion for safety, and stand in holy places. Fortunately, that means we don't have far to go. If we can't find Zion where we are, all we have to do is make it.

Just like East Germany. Enjoy sticking your head in the sand, after inexplicably pointing out the real danger.

[california boy]

Well so far there have been 5 pages about the supposed "threat" to religion.  Not much evidence has been put forth.  As usual, this threat against religion points towards the famous New Mexico photographer and the wedding cake baker who used their religion as an excuse to discriminate against gays as proof.  I say this simply because there is no record of either of these businesses refusing service to other sinners.  Did any of them ask if the intended couple were virgins?  Have they shot photos for anyone who was previously divorced?  Do they interview all of their clients to determine their worthiness to receiving their services??  Do either of these businesses handle weddings on Sundays?

 

When people start using their religious convictions as a basis for discriminating, they cheapen religious beliefs.  This all despite the fact that Christ himself had no problem reaching out towards sinners.  How can they read the scriptures and determine that it is ok to discriminate against others because of their sins?  And quite frankly I am disappointed that members of Christ's church would support these kinds of individuals.  Unless you can show Christ consistently refusing to do business with any sinner, then you are preaching another gospel.

[Kenngo1969]

Not hardball. Lies. Reid slandered in the most heinous manner a fellow church member on the Senate floor. In a just world, he'd be ejected both from office and from the church.

 

I’m sure Brother Reid’s Stake President is on the edge of his seat, waiting, all aquiver and with ‘bated breath, simply waiting for your call!  What are you waiting for, man?!  Pick up the phone and get to it, Brother Mark!

 

Thus my "majority choosing evil" argument is strengthened.

 

 

Congratulations!

 

Sustaining evil is never "the high road". I would have preferred they not comment on the election other than kicking Reid's sorry butt out of the church.

 

Denver Snuffer, is that you?

 

This is utterly bizarre IMO. You point out the horrors of East Germany, and then make light of concerns? Are you daft?

 

 

I love civil discourse!  (I sense a Godwin's Law violation coming on ... )

 

 

This continent, yes. This country? Doubtful. I see no way for that to happen without a second civil war (also about slavery, ironically).

 

 

Just a hunch ... you haven't read the Doctrine & Covenants lately, have you?

 

Just like East Germany. Enjoy sticking your head in the sand, after inexplicably pointing out the real danger.

 

 

I love playing at the beach!

[emarkp]

Just a hunch ... you haven't read the Doctrine & Covenants lately, have you?

Section and verse please.

 

Everyone who has gone political has been removed from the thread.

[Stone holm]

The problem with politicisation of religion is that it gives power to the dominant religious beliefs, we as Mormons of all people should be aware of the fact that this can turn into a real war on religion since we are the only religious group an entire American army was sent out to suppress. This faux war on religion being fomented by the Christian Right needs to be shunned, because if they ever get true power they will turn on us in a heart beat.

[Deborah]

This faux war on religion being fomented by the Christian Right needs to be shunned, because if they ever get true power they will turn on us in a heart beat.

 

So the leaders of the church are over-reacting in setting up a site to support religious freedom. I guess they don't know as much as some here.

[thesometimesaint]

So you think the GA's are wrong to be concerned. I wonder if they know something you don't.

 

There is lots of things I don't know. I think they have every right to be concerned about anything they want. I think a more valid concern would be how to convert more of the world to LDS standards and beliefs. Even why more LDS don't live up to those standards and beliefs. But no I don't believe that simply having more people have a religion is that big of a concern.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well so far there have been 5 pages about the supposed "threat" to religion. Not much evidence has been put forth.

Anytime someone seriously entertains the notion that people of faith ought to be barred from engaging in political discourse when their views align with their faith, or that faith groups ought to be punished for engaging in the political process, that is a clear example of threat to religious freedom and violates the spirit of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. .

I may not like one's political views, but I have no right to try to have him barred or intimidated from promulgating them. And that applies as much to people and organizations of faith as to anything else.

[rockpond]

Anytime someone seriously entertains the notion that people of faith ought to be barred from engaging in political discourse when their views align with their faith, or that faith groups ought to be punished for engaging in the political process, that is a clear example of threat to religious freedom and violates the spirit of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. .

I may not like one's political views, but I have no right to try to have him barred or intimidated from promulgating them. And that applies as much to people and organizations of faith as to anything else.

Is that happening somewhere?

[california boy]

Anytime someone seriously entertains the notion that people of faith ought to be barred from engaging in political discourse when their views align with their faith, or that faith groups ought to be punished for engaging in the political process, that is a clear example of threat to religious freedom and violates the spirit of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. .

I may not like one's political views, but I have no right to try to have him barred or intimidated from promulgating them. And that applies as much to people and organizations of faith as to anything else.

I completely agree with what you state.  And I support the church in setting up the web site.  But what does that have to do with what I wrote?

[Scott Lloyd]

Is that happening somewhere?

All too frequently, I see antagonists calling for a revocation of the tax-exempt status of the Church of Jesus Christ because the antagonists don't like the public position that Church leaders have taken on this or that issue.

 

Or I see accusations of "Church and state" violation, as though people of faith -- or the organizations to which they belong -- had no right to express themselves on public affairs or take part in the political process.

[Scott Lloyd]

I completely agree with what you state.  And I support the church in setting up the web site.  But what does that have to do with what I wrote?

You commented on a paucity of evidence with regard to threats to religious freedom. In response, I was furnishing a collective example.

 

See my most recent post.

[rockpond]

All too frequently, I see antagonists calling for a revocation of the tax-exempt status of the Church of Jesus Christ because the antagonists don't like the public position that Church leaders have taken on this or that issue.

 

Or I see accusations of "Church and state" violation, as though people of faith -- or the organizations to which they belong -- had no right to express themselves on public affairs or take part in the political process.

 

That's true.  I do hear those types of statements.  I just didn't think anyone was taking them seriously.

[california boy]

You commented on a paucity of evidence with regard to threats to religious freedom. In response, I was furnishing a collective example.

 

See my most post.

Well I just reread every post you made on this thread.  I still do not see many examples of "threats to religious freedoms".  I am certainly one who passionately fight for religious freedom.  But so far, I have found little evidence of any threats.  As I have commented previously, the only examples I have found are people using "religious belief" to excuse their discrimination against gays. If this is indeed such a serious issue, there should be a ton of examples where religious freedom has been threatened.  So far I am only hearing crickets.  I am certainly willing to look at any evidence you wish to present.  In doing so, please provide the source material so I can read the context of what has happened.

 

Thanks for your help in increasing my understanding of this issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's true.  I do hear those types of statements.  I just didn't think anyone was taking them seriously.

As frequently as they come up, it shows that some are  taking them seriously.