Religious Freedom Forum Fireside

[Buckeye]

Rockpond, to address your OP, I haven't heard of this type of fireside in my stake, but religious freedom has been a common topic with other LDS professionals. My views:

 

1. I don't see evidence of significant attacks on faith in my community. Yes, there is a decline in religious voice. But mostly that's a reflection of personal choices and not because of adversity. Religion just isn't as persuasive as it used to be. Maybe if we had some more angels show up that would change.
2. I find it hard to pin down exactly what is a "religious viewpoint." Is it a viewpoint expressed by a religious person, such as "I'm Catholic and I oppose abortion" or "I'm Mormon and I support gun control"? Or is it a specific argument premised on religious grounds, such as "God doesn't want gays to marry and that's why I oppose SSM" or "God doesn't want the races to intermix and that's why I oppose the civil rights act"? To the degree we're supporting the former then, great, I 100% support religious people's right to speak. But to the degree it's the latter (and I suspect it is), then I disagree. Arguments made in the public sphere are only persuasive to the degree that the public agrees on the trustworthiness of the source. Scientific data, surveys, etc. are all valid arguments - whether made by a religious voice or otherwise. But appeals to divine authority are not because the people do not agree on that authority. A legislature or court should not give any more consideration to the argument "God opposes SSM" than they should to the argument "God opposes inter-mixing of the races" or "God wants me to have water rights to this river to perform baptisms." God can't be called as a witness. And there is no agreement as to what God actually says on political issues. In reality, appeals to God in politics only serve to undermine the religions themselves.
3. The best places to support religious freedom are the places we have the strongest control - our homes and church institutions. Starting there is not only most effective, it shows that we really believe in the principle of religious freedom. So here are a few examples of where Mormons can improve:
   1. Many members distance themselves from children/family/friends who decide to join another faith. We also tend to be hypocrites when it comes to truth claims - encouraging others to listen to our claims, but not showing a willingness to consider theirs. This needs to change. We need to treat others with the values we expect to be treated.
   2. Many members felt pressured to support church positions on political issues they otherwise would not have supported (e.g. Prop . There still remain great uncertainty as to whether members can openly support civil SSM and remain in good standing in the church. I agree that churches should have the right to define standards for membership, but principles of respect apply both ways. It's very hard to argue that (i) LDS views should be given weight in public discourse of SSM, at the same time we say (ii) no LDS person can disagree with the church on this political issue.
   3. BYU currently discriminates on religious grounds. It forbids beards for men of faiths that include beards as a religious tenet. It also casts out any students who convert from LDS to another faith. That's simple hypocrisy.

[california boy]

I find it amazing that the Church could produce BOTH of those videos, since they make exact opposite points.  The first video says that, without religion, there can not be a stable society because religion infuses citizens with a desire to obey the law.  The second video then says that religious freedom means that citizens should be able to disregard the law based on their religious beliefs (the same religious beliefs that are supposed to give people a desire to OBEY the law).  Huh?

 

The second video gives the example of the pharmacist who wishes to exercise his/her "religious freedom" to not dispense certain drugs, despite the legal obligation to do so.  But the first video tells us that religion should make this pharmacist not only obey the law (to dispense birth control) but to WANT to do so.  So which is it?

 

Or is it that religion only makes people want to obey JUST laws?  And if so, who gets to decide which laws are just?  Currently, we have a democratic process and judicial oversight to make these determinations.  However, the proponents of "religious freedom" want to turn that power over to people of faith so that "we can do whatever seems right in our own eyes"; provided, of course, that those eyes are "spiritual eyes."  Certainly, no one is suggesting that, say, a pharmacist should be able to withhold dispensing medication to a patient because of a personal animus or just on a whim.  In fact, no one is even suggesting that the pharmacist should be able to withhold, say, heart medication if he/she has a good faith belief that the patient beats his wife and children and therefore, society would be much better off without such a person.

 

However, if the pharmacist has a religious belief that taking birth control is wrong, then the pharmacist should be able to withhold such medication from the patient.  As a result, the pharmacist doesn't just have the freedom to abstain from using birth control herself, but she has the right to impose her religious beliefs on another person.

 

And what if those beliefs fall far outside the mainstream Christianity?  What about the JW surgeon who refuses to do blood transfusions?  Or what about the Mormon waitress who refuses to serve coffee to patrons?  Does religious freedom require that she be allowed to withhold coffee from the customers in her section or that some other waiter must come over to serve her customers?  Of course not.  If you can't stand the fresh brew, stay out of the diner.  And the same applies to pharmacists, wedding photographers, bakers and candlestick makers.  You have perfect religious freedom to abstain from getting into any of these businesses.  However, when you enter into the MARKETPLACE, you are subject to the rules of the marketplace.

 

And that should be just fine, because after all, religion makes citizens obedient to the laws, doesn't it?

 

 

Mormonweb exposed truth on the two videos.  Each teaching an opposing approach to how Christians should behave in a democracy.  Because you are Christian, you obey the laws of the land.  Because you are Christian, you should break the laws of the land.  

 

In the second video, the church teaches that religion should be able to be used as a reason to disobey the laws of this country.  So what kind of government would that produce?  A government where the citizens can decide for themselves whether they should have to obey the law and then when the law prosecutes them for disobeying the law, then they should rise up and call upon all Christians to follow such examples.  Why shouldn't the baker be fined for breaking the law. Why shouldn't the photographer be brought to task for breaking the law.  Christians seem to answer "because they believe that religious people should be above the law."  So what would that country look like

 

We go back to segregation because after the civil right laws were passed, religious people actually made the claim that their religion dictated that different races should not mix.  Citizens would be able to discriminate against gays.  Ham, pork, bacon would no longer be sold at the checkout.  Blood transfusions would be outlawed.  Coffee would no longer be served.  Or alcohol.  Divorce would no longer be allowed.  Shellfish no longer served.  Hamburgers no longer served.  Many fabrics no longer sold.  We would all have to wear little skull hats.  During certain months, no one would be allowed to eat during the daytime.  We would all have to kneel throughout the day to offer prayer.  Polygamy would be allowed, wait, no it wouldn't, what, no it would.  All of these things and more would be required of each citizen OR WE WOULD ALLOW CITIZENS TO BREAK THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.

 

So fellow Christians, what will it be.  What world do you choose to live in.

 

Oddly enough, the only religious belief that Christians think they should be allowed to do is discriminate against gays.  Why not all the other religious beliefs?  I will tell you why.  Because some "christians" think they can get away with discriminating against gays.  Some "christians" think that the Constitution does not protect gay citizens.  Some "christians" think they can break the law over this one religious belief because it is the one religious belief that will have no impact on how they live THEIR lives.  Take away their bacon, and that is an entirely different matter.  No longer are they willing to fight for religious rights.

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

Mormonweb exposed truth on the two videos.  Each teaching an opposing approach to how Christians should behave in a democracy.  Because you are Christian, you obey the laws of the land.  Because you are Christian, you should break the laws of the land.  

 

In the second video, the church teaches that religion should be able to be used as a reason to disobey the laws of this country.  So what kind of government would that produce?  A government where the citizens can decide for themselves whether they should have to obey the law and then when the law prosecutes them for disobeying the law, then they should rise up and call upon all Christians to follow such examples.  Why shouldn't the baker be fined for breaking the law. Why shouldn't the photographer be brought to task for breaking the law.  Christians seem to answer "because they believe that religious people should be above the law."  So what would that country look like

 

We go back to segregation because after the civil right laws were passed, religious people actually made the claim that their religion dictated that different races should not mix.  Citizens would be able to discriminate against gays.  Ham, pork, bacon would no longer be sold at the checkout.  Blood transfusions would be outlawed.  Coffee would no longer be served.  Or alcohol.  Divorce would no longer be allowed.  Shellfish no longer served.  Hamburgers no longer served.  Many fabrics no longer sold.  We would all have to wear little skull hats.  During certain months, no one would be allowed to eat during the daytime.  We would all have to kneel throughout the day to offer prayer.  Polygamy would be allowed, wait, no it wouldn't, what, no it would.  All of these things and more would be required of each citizen OR WE WOULD ALLOW CITIZENS TO BREAK THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.

 

So fellow Christians, what will it be.  What world do you choose to live in.

 

Oddly enough, the only religious belief that Christians think they should be allowed to do is discriminate against gays.  Why not all the other religious beliefs?  I will tell you why.  Because some "christians" think they can get away with discriminating against gays.  Some "christians" think that the Constitution does not protect gay citizens.  Some "christians" think they can break the law over this one religious belief because it is the one religious belief that will have no impact on how they live THEIR lives.  Take away their bacon, and that is an entirely different matter.  No longer are they willing to fight for religious rights.

 

 

Personally I prefer the not making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... .

[Daniel2]

It is always a question as to when a private religious belief motivates a person to an illegal public action. IE; Your religious right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Sigh. Largely, I agree with your broader point, but I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to come up with a less strained analogy. After all, what religion has, as one of its central tenets, assault and battery? C'mon, Sometimesaint! You can do it! I know you can!!!

No analogy necessary. Here's an actual, unstrained, similarly-situated reality:

Mormons' right to restrict same-sex couples from marrying (civilly or religiously) exists within but ends when exiting the doors of their own houses of worship or the borders of their own private property.

This rule is increasingly expanding it's application to all forms of civil discrimination against gays and lesbians, as well.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

LDS history gives us a glorious tradition of breaking laws. We had a strange way of doing it too. For the most part we did not agitate for change in the laws or make it out to be a defiant gesture. We just ignored the laws. We formed a quasi bank because we needed it. We ignored the extermination order because it was insane. We ignored the anti-bigamy laws because it conflicted with what we had to do. We illegally immigrated into what was then Mexico and betrayed our new host government by taking up arms against them because we had to.

I do not doubt at some point we will do it again.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS history gives us a glorious tradition of breaking laws. We had a strange way of doing it too. For the most part we did not agitate for change in the laws or make it out to be a defiant gesture. We just ignored the laws. We formed a quasi bank because we needed it. We ignored the extermination order because it was insane. We ignored the anti-bigamy laws because it conflicted with what we had to do. We illegally immigrated into what was then Mexico and betrayed our new host government by taking up arms against them because we had to.

I do not doubt at some point we will do it again.

 

Do what you feel you must, but be willing to pay the price.

[rockpond]

 

Rockpond, to address your OP, I haven't heard of this type of fireside in my stake, but religious freedom has been a common topic with other LDS professionals. My views:

 

1. I don't see evidence of significant attacks on faith in my community. Yes, there is a decline in religious voice. But mostly that's a reflection of personal choices and not because of adversity. Religion just isn't as persuasive as it used to be. Maybe if we had some more angels show up that would change.
2. I find it hard to pin down exactly what is a "religious viewpoint." Is it a viewpoint expressed by a religious person, such as "I'm Catholic and I oppose abortion" or "I'm Mormon and I support gun control"? Or is it a specific argument premised on religious grounds, such as "God doesn't want gays to marry and that's why I oppose SSM" or "God doesn't want the races to intermix and that's why I oppose the civil rights act"? To the degree we're supporting the former then, great, I 100% support religious people's right to speak. But to the degree it's the latter (and I suspect it is), then I disagree. Arguments made in the public sphere are only persuasive to the degree that the public agrees on the trustworthiness of the source. Scientific data, surveys, etc. are all valid arguments - whether made by a religious voice or otherwise. But appeals to divine authority are not because the people do not agree on that authority. A legislature or court should not give any more consideration to the argument "God opposes SSM" than they should to the argument "God opposes inter-mixing of the races" or "God wants me to have water rights to this river to perform baptisms." God can't be called as a witness. And there is no agreement as to what God actually says on political issues. In reality, appeals to God in politics only serve to undermine the religions themselves.
3. The best places to support religious freedom are the places we have the strongest control - our homes and church institutions. Starting there is not only most effective, it shows that we really believe in the principle of religious freedom. So here are a few examples of where Mormons can improve:
   1. Many members distance themselves from children/family/friends who decide to join another faith. We also tend to be hypocrites when it comes to truth claims - encouraging others to listen to our claims, but not showing a willingness to consider theirs. This needs to change. We need to treat others with the values we expect to be treated.
   2. Many members felt pressured to support church positions on political issues they otherwise would not have supported (e.g. Prop . There still remain great uncertainty as to whether members can openly support civil SSM and remain in good standing in the church. I agree that churches should have the right to define standards for membership, but principles of respect apply both ways. It's very hard to argue that (i) LDS views should be given weight in public discourse of SSM, at the same time we say (ii) no LDS person can disagree with the church on this political issue.
   3. BYU currently discriminates on religious grounds. It forbids beards for men of faiths that include beards as a religious tenet. It also casts out any students who convert from LDS to another faith. That's simple hypocrisy.

 

 

Thanks for the response, I have similar questions floating around in my heads.  I want to attend the fireside but at the same time, I don't really feel like the Catholic and Mormon churches have done much to earn the right to preach to me about religious freedom.

 

To use an example from the video... if it is an issue of religious freedom for a photographer to be able to refuse to service a gay wedding how is it NOT an issue of religious freedom for that gay wedding to be denied legal status?

[Buckeye]

Thanks for the response, I have similar questions floating around in my heads.  I want to attend the fireside but at the same time, I don't really feel like the Catholic and Mormon churches have done much to earn the right to preach to me about religious freedom.

 

To use an example from the video... if it is an issue of religious freedom for a photographer to be able to refuse to service a gay wedding how is it NOT an issue of religious freedom for that gay wedding to be denied legal status?

 

Maybe that's why you should go - so the event doesn't turn into an echo chamber. Point out how the principles being espoused conflict (as newb discusses above), how religiosity does not directly track with democracy (see the arab world), and how religious persecution is very often most heavily perpetrated by religious groups. Then, and this is critical, ask that the group pause from discussing how their religious freedom is under attack (a rather easy, but fairly fruitless topic) and instead consider how their practices and actions negatively affect the religious practices of others.

[rockpond]

Maybe that's why you should go - so the event doesn't turn into an echo chamber. Point out how the principles being espoused conflict (as newb discusses above), how religiosity does not directly track with democracy (see the arab world), and how religious persecution is very often most heavily perpetrated by religious groups. Then, and this is critical, ask that the group pause from discussing how their religious freedom is under attack (a rather easy, but fairly fruitless topic) and instead consider how their practices and actions negatively affect the religious practices of others.

 

Yeah -- I am planning to attend but since it is a stake-wide meeting I don't know that there will really be any Q&A or discussion.  If there is, I will do my best!

[tonie]

I refuse to believe that limiting myself to 65 mph while driving down an empty highway betters me or society. It is a controversial and unpopular stand but I do not decide my moral values based on what is popular.

 

And I refuse to believe that you drive the speed limit because you fear eternal punishment.

[tonie]

So have the lack of religions, iow some people will use whatever is at hand to control and oppress others whether it is religion or its denunciation.

 

So would I be in saying that we are in agreement that Democracies are held together by an agreement of the people, rather than fear of God?

[tonie]

double post

Edited January 13, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

This is speaking of self defense and not speaking of assault and battery.

 

Eye of the beholder.

 

I am not so sure the person on the receiving end would consider it "self defense"; but then this gets us in to a discussion about religious moral relativism.

[tonie]

Mormonnewb you point an interesting aspect to the "religious freedom" debate.  Some organized religions subscribe to beliefs and practices that do not comport with other organized religions beliefs and practices - that the second religion might even find offensive.  Yet, in defending "religios freedom" the second religion will seek legislation that has the effect of prohibiting the practices of the first.

 

I think there is a very delicate balance for religious people. We must allow others to practice their religions, so that we can practice our own. We must protect others in order to protect ourselves. When we fail to protect others, who will defend us when our own practices are deemed offensive.

[The Nehor]

And I refuse to believe that you drive the speed limit because you fear eternal punishment.

I do not obey the speed limit at all. I defy God and man in that respect.

[Calm]

So would I be in saying that we are in agreement that Democracies are held together by an agreement of the people, rather than fear of God?

I think there are a lot of reasons they are held together or fall apart.

[rockpond]

Mormonnewb you point an interesting aspect to the "religious freedom" debate.  Some organized religions subscribe to beliefs and practices that do not comport with other organized religions beliefs and practices - that the second religion might even find offensive.  Yet, in defending "religios freedom" the second religion will seek legislation that has the effect of prohibiting the practices of the first.

 

I think there is a very delicate balance for religious people. We must allow others to practice their religions, so that we can practice our own. We must protect others in order to protect ourselves. When we fail to protect others, who will defend us when our own practices are deemed offensive.

 

Yep... and this is precisely why I feel that the Catholic & Mormon churches have lost the moral high ground to advocate religious freedom....  We have showed no interest in defending the rights of FLDS to practice polygamy.  And, we've actually fought against the free exercise of religion when it came to gay marriage.  Civil rights for gay people only became worthy of our attention a few years ago, prior to that, we were opposed.

 

With the Church's change in position on housing/employment rights for LGBT individuals, I feel hopeful that we'll keep making progress.

[thesometimesaint]

Yep... and this is precisely why I feel that the Catholic & Mormon churches have lost the moral high ground to advocate religious freedom....  We have showed no interest in defending the rights of FLDS to practice polygamy.  And, we've actually fought against the free exercise of religion when it came to gay marriage.  Civil rights for gay people only became worthy of our attention a few years ago, prior to that, we were opposed.

 

With the Church's change in position on housing/employment rights for LGBT individuals, I feel hopeful that we'll keep making progress.

 

I think both have the moral high ground to make moral statements about what ever they want to. You'll get no argument from me about the right of the FLDS to practice polygamy as they please. All I do ask is that it be freely entered into by consenting adults, and that young male adults are not excluded from the community.

 

Incorrect. What we fought for is what is marriage according to law. Marriage was/is a religious rite. The community approval of sexual intercourse. Personally; I want to get the government (community) out of the religion business altogether. Make them all legally enforceable civil contracts.

[CV75]

Yep... and this is precisely why I feel that the Catholic & Mormon churches have lost the moral high ground to advocate religious freedom....  We have showed no interest in defending the rights of FLDS to practice polygamy.  And, we've actually fought against the free exercise of religion when it came to gay marriage.  Civil rights for gay people only became worthy of our attention a few years ago, prior to that, we were opposed.

 

With the Church's change in position on housing/employment rights for LGBT individuals, I feel hopeful that we'll keep making progress.

Freedom of religion supports our autonomy/right/privilege to express our religion through doctrine, practices, worship and observance (including the freedom to change religions or to not follow any).

 

As a broader society we may rightly place restrictions necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals (yes, morals!!!) and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others to secure and protect religious freedom.That only makes sense (see article 18 of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b3ccpr.htm). You're rolling other fundamental freedoms and human rights into a single mass with religious freedom, which muddles a discussion about religious freedom.

 

Of course the Church and members are to be free to participate as fully as possible in public discourse to determine what constitutes safety, order, health and moral issues, and issues of rights and freedom.

[CV75]

So which is it?

It is both --see my post above.

[rockpond]

Freedom of religion supports our autonomy/right/privilege to express our religion through doctrine, practices, worship and observance (including the freedom to change religions or to not follow any).

 

As a broader society we may rightly place restrictions necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals (yes, morals!!!) and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others to secure and protect religious freedom.That only makes sense (see article 18 of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b3ccpr.htm). You're rolling other fundamental freedoms and human rights into a single mass with religious freedom, which muddles a discussion about religious freedom.

 

Of course the Church and members are to be free to participate as fully as possible in public discourse to determine what constitutes safety, order, health and moral issues, and issues of rights and freedom.

 

The video (the second on in my OP) talks about religious freedom being more than being able to believe what you want (as you correctly noted)... it describes being able to publicly manifest and live according to those beliefs.  Given that, consider this...

 

Church A believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman and is permitted to perform legally recognized marriages consistent with that belief.

 

Church B believes that marriage is between any two adults but they are not permitted to perform legally recognized marriage consistent with that belief.

 

I know you don't see that as a problem but that does not seem like religious freedom for Church B to me.

 

Another example...

 

A man operating a bakery in the public market wants the ability to deny services to gay couples.  The LDS Church considers this to be a part of his religious freedom.

 

A gay couple wishing to marry is denied legal recognition of their union but the LDS Church does not consider that to be a an issue of religious freedom.

Edited January 13, 2015 by rockpond

[tonie]

Of course the Church and members are to be free to participate as fully as possible in public discourse to determine what constitutes safety, order, health and moral issues, and issues of rights and freedom.

 

I argue whether a "Church" has right to participate, I regard the wall separating Church & State as a wall that prohibits intrusion by either. (If find it somewhat offensive that Utah legislators seek out Churches for legislation rather than constituents. It is likewise offensive that Utah Legislators seemingly wait for the Church to speak before the individual legislator can decide)

 

As for citizens who are religious, of course citizens have a right to participate in their government.

 

However, when a religious citizens mingles her religious beliefs with civil government, which prosribes another religious citizen in her religious beliefs; then we have situation that Joseph Smith described as unjust.

 

So CV75, Which is more important:

 

The religious freedom of all, even for those who I disagree with, OR

 

The religious freedom only for self and who cares about the religious beliefs/practices of those I disagree with.

Edited January 13, 2015 by tonie

[thesometimesaint]

The video (the second on in my OP) talks about religious freedom being more than being able to believe what you want (as you correctly noted)... it describes being able to publicly manifest and live according to those beliefs.  Given that, consider this...

 

Church A believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman and is permitted to perform legally recognized marriages consistent with that belief.

 

Church B believes that marriage is between any two adults but they are not permitted to perform legally recognized marriage consistent with that belief.

 

I know you don't see that as a problem but that does not seem like religious freedom for Church B to me.

 

Another example...

 

I know of no state that authorizes marriage between parents and their children, or marriage between closely related siblings regardless of sex.

[rockpond]

The video (the second on in my OP) talks about religious freedom being more than being able to believe what you want (as you correctly noted)... it describes being able to publicly manifest and live according to those beliefs.  Given that, consider this...

 

Church A believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman and is permitted to perform legally recognized marriages consistent with that belief.

 

Church B believes that marriage is between any two adults but they are not permitted to perform legally recognized marriage consistent with that belief.

 

I know you don't see that as a problem but that does not seem like religious freedom for Church B to me.

 

 

I know of no state that authorizes marriage between parents and their children, or marriage between closely related siblings regardless of sex.

 

And that's true for both Church A and B in my example.

[tonie]

And that's true for both Church A and B in my example.

 

Rockpond, please don't let us get diverted by a strained example that does not consider the nuances of the law.