Religious Freedom Forum Fireside

[CV75]

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.

That is what I noted – used “express” instead of “manifest”. Church A and B can do whatever the broader society permits them to, having in mind the public safety, order, health, morals and the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. You may take exception to restrictions placed on Church B in the name of public interest, and you like anyone else may work to change things. Even to the extent of using polemics to characterize others as impinging on religious freedom or imposing an uninformed sense of what is best in the public interest.

 

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

You are conflating religious freedom with unfettered license to ignore the public interest as defined by the broader society.

 

Another example...

It's really the same example. The baker and the gay couple can do whatever the broader society permits them to, having in mind the public safety, order, health, morals and the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Church correctly does not see this as an issue of religious freedom but as one of restriction for the sake of the public's best interests. You merely disagree with the Church’s position on what entails the public interest.

[tonie]

That is what I noted – used “express” instead of “manifest”. Church A and B can do whatever the broader society permits them to, having in mind the public safety, order, health, morals and the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. You may take exception to restrictions placed on Church B in the name of public interest, and you like anyone else may work to change things. Even to the extent of using polemics to characterize others as impinging on religious freedom or imposing an uninformed sense of what is best in the public interest.

 

You are conflating religious freedom with unfettered license to ignore the public interest as defined by the broader society.

 

It's really the same example. The baker and the gay couple can do whatever the broader society permits them to, having in mind the public safety, order, health, morals and the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Church correctly does not see this as an issue of religious freedom but as one of restriction for the sake of the public's best interests. You merely disagree with the Church’s position on what entails the public interest.

 

And time and time and time again, governments have failed to provide legally sufficient reason for denying religious freedom of others, particular for religious couples who religious belief accept ssm.

 

Given that governments have failed to such a great extent to provide legally sufficient public interest for denying religious freedom, what reason could their be for denying religious freedom with regard to ssm?

Edited January 13, 2015 by tonie

[rockpond]

That is what I noted – used “express” instead of “manifest”. Church A and B can do whatever the broader society permits them to, having in mind the public safety, order, health, morals and the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. You may take exception to restrictions placed on Church B in the name of public interest, and you like anyone else may work to change things. Even to the extent of using polemics to characterize others as impinging on religious freedom or imposing an uninformed sense of what is best in the public interest.

 

You are conflating religious freedom with unfettered license to ignore the public interest as defined by the broader society.

 

It's really the same example. The baker and the gay couple can do whatever the broader society permits them to, having in mind the public safety, order, health, morals and the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Church correctly does not see this as an issue of religious freedom but as one of restriction for the sake of the public's best interests. You merely disagree with the Church’s position on what entails the public interest.

 

I see that as an odd way to define religious freedom... Broader society now permits gay marriage.  Is it now a matter of religious freedom for them to be able to be married?  Will the Church now come to the defense of that right?  Probably not, because it disagrees with our religious freedom.  But then, that makes us more defenders of religious freedoms that we agree with.

[CV75]

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.

I don’t think I understand the choices you offer in context of your position on the separation of church and state. If churches cannot participate in representing defining the public interest, then society is missing a significant partner since its health is dependent on a broad base of commonality and layers of relationships expressed through its various cultural vehicles and institutional structures.

[The Nehor]

I don’t think I understand the choices you offer in context of your position on the separation of church and state. If churches cannot participate in representing defining the public interest, then society is missing a significant partner since its health is dependent on a broad base of commonality and layers of relationships expressed through its various cultural vehicles and institutional structures.

Well obviously political parties do a much better job of communicating what the public is interested in.

.....nope, I could not keep a straight face.

[CV75]

And time and time and time again, governments have failed to provide legally sufficient reason for denying religious freedom of others, particular for religious couples who religious belief accept ssm.

 

Given that governments have failed to such a great extent to provide legally sufficient public interest for denying religious freedom, what reason could their be for denying religious freedom with regard to ssm?

This ignores that governments have also succeeded in providing legally sufficient public interest for restricting certain expressions/manifestations of  some religions / "religions" to protect religious freedom.

[CV75]

I see that as an odd way to define religious freedom...

Of course you do, because for whatever reason you're not distinguishing between religious freedom and restricting behavior that is damaging to the public interest.

 

Broader society now permits gay marriage.  Is it now a matter of religious freedom for them to be able to be married?

No; at best It is a matter of society redefining public interest in relation to civil rights, not religious freedom since gay "marriage" hasn't an origin in religious practice at all.

[CV75]

Well obviously political parties do a much better job of communicating what the public is interested in.

.....nope, I could not keep a straight face.

Oh, we could go on and on...

[rockpond]

Of course you do, because for whatever reason you're not distinguishing between religious freedom and restricting behavior that is damaging to the public interest.

 

No; at best It is a matter of society redefining public interest in relation to civil rights, not religious freedom since gay "marriage" hasn't an origin in religious practice at all.

 

My belief in gay marriage is based in my religious practice.

 

So religious freedom should be bound by what is damaging to the "public interest"?  Setting aside the issue of how gay marriage would damage the public interest, what happens if the broader society decided that believing in the tenets of Mormonism was damaging to the public interest -- would we just lose our religious freedom?  And you would, apparently, be okay with that.

[tonie]

This ignores that governments have also succeeded in providing legally sufficient public interest for restricting certain expressions/manifestations of  some religions / "religions" to protect religious freedom.

 

And your example(s) are?

 

Also you are ignoring that governments have failed, time after time, to provide a legally sufficient public interest for prohibited the religious practices of ssm.

 

 

 

But while we are on the topic of marriage and religion:

 

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."--Judge Leon Bazile in Caroline County Court, 1958

Edited January 13, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

I don’t think I understand the choices you offer in context of your position on the separation of church and state. If churches cannot participate in representing defining the public interest, then society is missing a significant partner since its health is dependent on a broad base of commonality and layers of relationships expressed through its various cultural vehicles and institutional structures.

 

I am not missing anything.

 

The LDS believe it is not just to mingle religion with civil government.  As one who believes in the importance of the United States Constitution, I believe the wall separating Church and State is intended keep each out of the other business - to the extent that every man does not become a religious law unto himself.

 

Furthermore, individual members make up a Church body, it is the individual members acting individually of their own choice, to shape their government. However, again, the LDS believe it is not just to mingle religion with civil government. 

[Paddy]

What is the actual issue driving the videos and firesides in the US? From my perspective you guys already have religious freedom. Why the focus on it??

[tonie]

Of religious freedom and how  far the United States has fallen

 

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

 

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

 

"[slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

 

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined."  United States Senator James Henry Hammond

 

No race baiting!

[tonie]

What is the actual issue driving the videos and firesides in the US? From my perspective you guys already have religious freedom. Why the focus on it??

 

Because individuals - after signing the social contract against discrimination - wish rewrite the contract to favor religious based discrimination.

 

Those who wish to rewrite the contract, after having knowingly and willingfuly agreed to follow it, claim their religious freedom is under attack if they are not permitted to ignore laws. 

 

What the rewriters are seeking is individualized special priviledges; and special privileges is usually what these people rail against.

[CV75]

My belief in gay marriage is based in my religious practice.

So you claim, but from what you've shared, that would be the religion that proscribes gay marriage and does not perform them, meaning whatever your pro-gay marriage belief and religious practice is based on being against at least that aspect of what Mormonism teaches and practices.

So religious freedom should be bound by what is damaging to the "public interest"?  Setting aside the issue of how gay marriage would damage the public interest, what happens if the broader society decided that believing in the tenets of Mormonism was damaging to the public interest -- would we just lose our religious freedom?  And you would, apparently, be okay with that.

The expression of religious freedom must be restricted in those instances where it does violence to the public interest so that religious freedom can thrive. The public interest is defined by the free society at large, and churches by definition must have a voice in that. A tenet is not a practice, so I am not OK with doctrines and creeds being proscribed for any religion.

You fail to address the fact that while the practice and demand for gay marriage did not originate as a religious rite, religions that have adopted the practice as licensed by the state are not prohibited from performing them. I think you need to hold up the Church as a threat to religious liberty (or gay marriage for that matter) on other grounds.

I think you’re just ranting and repeating the same point over and over; you’ve sabotaged your own thread with poorly thought-through polemics. Demonstrate that you can actually engage in a conversation, because I’m not going to keep explaining Civics 101 to you.

The LDS believe it is not just to mingle religion with civil government. As one who believes in the importance of the United States Constitution, I believe the wall separating Church and State is intended keep each out of the other business - to the extent that every man does not become a religious law unto himself.

Furthermore, individual members make up a Church body, it is the individual members acting individually of their own choice, to shape their government. However, again, the LDS believe it is not just to mingle religion with civil government.

Same to you (I think you're just ranting, etc.)! You too don’t seem to distinguish between religious freedom, restrictions on harmful religious practices, the separation of church and state, and the role of churches in providing a voice in a society’s self-government as one its many institutions.

[mormonnewb]

I think the greatest indication of the weakness of the Church's religious freedom argument is the lack of posts from Team Church. If the Church's position was challenged on ANY other issue, the "faithful" would be out in force defending the Church.

And I guess Team Church could counter that they have simply grown tired of the SSM issue. But that goes to prove our point. These videos are SUPPOSED to be about religious freedom, not the right to discriminate against gays. Yet, in actuality, we know that the two are synonymous. After all, on what other issue is the Church's "religious freedom" being challenged?

And what the Church really is asking for is not religious freedom, but freedom from the consequences of its religious bigotry. It realizes that SSM is here to stay, so now it is trying to negotiate a peace where there won't be payback from the winning side. "Don't reject us from high profile positions! Don't boycott BYU sports. It was nothing personal when we tried to keep you from marriage. We were just exercising our religious freedom." Good luck with that one!

Edited January 14, 2015 by mormonnewb

[tonie]

"The LDS believe it is not just to mingle religion with civil government. As one who believes in the importance of the United States Constitution, I believe the wall separating Church and State is intended keep each out of the other business - to the extent that every man does not become a religious law unto himself."

 

Same to you (I think you're just ranting, etc.)! You too don’t seem to distinguish between religious freedom, restrictions on harmful religious practices, the separation of church and state, and the role of churches in providing a voice in a society’s self-government as one its many institutions.

 

Perhaps you should Reynolds v. US before you accuse me of something.  I do not believe a legal entity, which can does not possess a thinking mind of its own, has a role to play in self-government; individuals which have membership in the entity have a voice. As stated above, according to the LDS that voice is only just as it does not mingle religion with civil government to proscription of others in their religious beliefs.

 

Could you provide some examples pertaining your statement "[T]hat governments have also succeeded in providing legally sufficient public interest for restricting certain expressions/manifestations of  some religions / "religions" to protect religious freedom."

[rockpond]

So you claim, but from what you've shared, that would be the religion that proscribes gay marriage and does not perform them, meaning whatever your pro-gay marriage belief and religious practice is based on being against at least that aspect of what Mormonism teaches and practices.

The expression of religious freedom must be restricted in those instances where it does violence to the public interest so that religious freedom can thrive. The public interest is defined by the free society at large, and churches by definition must have a voice in that. A tenet is not a practice, so I am not OK with doctrines and creeds being proscribed for any religion.

You fail to address the fact that while the practice and demand for gay marriage did not originate as a religious rite, religions that have adopted the practice as licensed by the state are not prohibited from performing them. I think you need to hold up the Church as a threat to religious liberty (or gay marriage for that matter) on other grounds.

I think you’re just ranting and repeating the same point over and over; you’ve sabotaged your own thread with poorly thought-through polemics. Demonstrate that you can actually engage in a conversation, because I’m not going to keep explaining Civics 101 to you.

Same to you (I think you're just ranting, etc.)! You too don’t seem to distinguish between religious freedom, restrictions on harmful religious practices, the separation of church and state, and the role of churches in providing a voice in a society’s self-government as one its many institutions.

Marriage began as a religious rite. And since then has been defined and redefined by governments and churches. But I think you and I both agree that, at its core, marriage remains a religious institution.

Your counter to what I've said, assuming I've understood you correctly, is that gay marriage does violence to the public interest and therefore can be restricted. So, how does the legal recognition of a gay union do violence to the public interest?

[The Nehor]

These videos are SUPPOSED to be about religious freedom, not the right to discriminate against gays. Yet, in actuality, we know that the two are synonymous. After all, on what other issue is the Church's "religious freedom" being challenged?

 

I actually don't know that. There are several things in recent history it could also refer to. Fallout from the Romney campaign and attacks on his religion. The Church recently speaking out on immigration policy. It could also just be a general defense against the asinine "You can't legislate" morality nonsense so many people parrot with solemn gravity.

 

Only on the internet is gay marriage a monomania of the LDS church because it seems to be a favored weapon of our enemies. Last time I heard anything on the subject in a church meeting was in a Sunday School class about a year ago when I taught the Law of Chastity in a Gospel Principles class. It took less then ten seconds and then we were on to other things.

[california boy]

I had great sorrow for the church when it's leaders decided it would be a good idea to take away the civil rights of gay Americans.  It has reaped nothing but bad on the church and what it is suppose to represent.

 

Now it appears the church is again positioning itself as an institution that pushes for discrimination against gays.  There will once again reap nothing but bad for the church.  Let's say the church is successful in spearheading laws in some states allowing discrimination against gay Americans all disguised as "religious freedom".  Does anyone in their right mind think that those kind of laws will hold up in a court of law?  

 

This country is not built on a belief that discrimination is a good thing.  There has been far too much in its past.  To try and push once again the buttons of discrimination simply because "we don't believe gays should be treated like every other American" is a path that will only lead to sorrow once again.  There is no room for discrimination within the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Unfortunately, many members will read the signals from this fireside as an excuse to discriminate against gays.  The press will once again show that such beliefs stem from church leaders and will reinforce the perception of bigotry against gays.  This position is a no win for the church.

[Rob Osborn]

I had great sorrow for the church when it's leaders decided it would be a good idea to take away the civil rights of gay Americans.  It has reaped nothing but bad on the church and what it is suppose to represent.

 

Now it appears the church is again positioning itself as an institution that pushes for discrimination against gays.  There will once again reap nothing but bad for the church.  Let's say the church is successful in spearheading laws in some states allowing discrimination against gay Americans all disguised as "religious freedom".  Does anyone in their right mind think that those kind of laws will hold up in a court of law?  

 

This country is not built on a belief that discrimination is a good thing.  There has been far too much in its past.  To try and push once again the buttons of discrimination simply because "we don't believe gays should be treated like every other American" is a path that will only lead to sorrow once again.  There is no room for discrimination within the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Unfortunately, many members will read the signals from this fireside as an excuse to discriminate against gays.  The press will once again show that such beliefs stem from church leaders and will reinforce the perception of bigotry against gays.  This position is a no win for the church.

CFR that the church is positioning itself to discriminate towards gays.

[The Nehor]

I had great sorrow for the church when it's leaders decided it would be a good idea to take away the civil rights of gay Americans.  It has reaped nothing but bad on the church and what it is suppose to represent.

 

Now it appears the church is again positioning itself as an institution that pushes for discrimination against gays.  There will once again reap nothing but bad for the church.  Let's say the church is successful in spearheading laws in some states allowing discrimination against gay Americans all disguised as "religious freedom".  Does anyone in their right mind think that those kind of laws will hold up in a court of law?  

 

This country is not built on a belief that discrimination is a good thing.  There has been far too much in its past.  To try and push once again the buttons of discrimination simply because "we don't believe gays should be treated like every other American" is a path that will only lead to sorrow once again.  There is no room for discrimination within the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Unfortunately, many members will read the signals from this fireside as an excuse to discriminate against gays.  The press will once again show that such beliefs stem from church leaders and will reinforce the perception of bigotry against gays.  This position is a no win for the church.

I am not too worried. A little real persecution is good for the soul and we have been liked by the world at large far too much lately for my taste. Jesus's counsel that the world loves its own has bothered me for some time.

[california boy]

 

Luke 10:25-37King James Version (KJV)

²⁵ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

²⁶ He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

²⁷ And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

²⁸ And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

²⁹ But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

³⁰ And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

³¹ And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

³² And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

³³ But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

³⁴ And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

³⁵ And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

³⁶ Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

³⁷ And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

 

 

 

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a message of love, compassion, caring and service.  It is not a message of judging sinners and withholding services walking on the other side of the road because "they are not like us or that they are sinners."   It is a message of changing hearts. The Holy Ghost whispers these truths to you.

 

Mark my words.  For it shall surely come to pass.  The message that every Mormon baker, every Mormon photographer and indeed every Mormon is that they should not render service to gay couples.  Just like the very first fireside on Prop 8, this fireside will be a pivotal moment, sending the church on a road that reinforces the belief of bigotry and discrimination against gays.  

 

EACH and every case that has been brought to the courts have resulted in "the good christian baker" being found guilty of breaking the discrimination laws of this country.  Does anyone really think that will change?  Does anyone think the Mormon church is going to repeal the civil right acts of the 60's? Does anyone really think these license to discriminate against gay laws because of religious beliefs are going to hold up in the courts?

 

So this is what is going to happen.  Mormon bakers are going to get the message from their church leaders that it is ok or even their duty to withhold their services from gay couples.  And each time that happens, they will be drawn into court.  They will be found guilty of breaking the laws of this country and they will be fined.  And each time tis happens, it won't be a baker, it will be a Mormon baker.  Instead of a church that teaches service to others even if they are sinners, the church will once again be labeled as a bigoted church that anyone who has compassion for gay couples will distance themselves from.  And this fireside will be the point where it all began.

[CV75]

I think the greatest indication of the weakness of the Church's religious freedom argument is the lack of posts from Team Church.

From the Church (who/what in the world is “Team Church”—one of those maudlin would-be-but–never-caught-on “catch phrases” like George Castanza’s nickname “T-Bone”? Oo-oo!): http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/religious-freedom

It is only in this thread that a couple of people “KNOW” (cough-cough) that gay marriage is synonymous with freedom of religion. This is a stretch for reasons I will not review (again) here, and represents a remarkable lack of education concerning both subjects.

The real issue from the Church’s standpoint is explained clearly in the link above: “Churches, religious organizations and individuals face increasing restrictions as they participate in the public square, express their beliefs or serve in society.”

For some folks it’s all about SSM, always on every topic—LOL.

[california boy]

CFR that the church is positioning itself to discriminate towards gays.

Watch the second video.  What is the message you get?