Sleeper Cell Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 If so, who were the ones who had the motive to marginalize it? In what way has religious liberty been marginalized? For starters, didn’t you just say that “Religious liberty is just code now?” I remember when “religious liberty” was a civil right. Indeed, I even remember when it was considered -- along with free speech and freedom of the press -- as the most fundamental civil right. BTW, if “religious liberty” still has any meaning, it means liberty for people to be faithful to religious beliefs we don’t like. Religious liberties are not under attack. You are just as free to practice your religion as you would have been 100 years ago. You are not free to practice your religion if the state forces you to violate your religious beliefs. For example, by forcing you to participate in an event which violates your religious conscience.
Gray Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) If so, who were the ones who had the motive to marginalize it? In what way has religious liberty been marginalized? For starters, didn’t you just say that “Religious liberty is just code now?” Yes, but that's because anti-gay activists have turned it into a code. I remember when “religious liberty” was a civil right. Indeed, I even remember when it was considered -- along with free speech and freedom of the press -- as the most fundamental civil right. BTW, if “religious liberty” still has any meaning, it means liberty for people to be faithful to religious beliefs we don’t like. Religious liberties are not under attack. You are just as free to practice your religion as you would have been 100 years ago. You are not free to practice your religion if the state forces you to violate your religious beliefs. For example, by forcing you to participate in an event which violates your religious conscience. Not that I said the above quote in blue, I'm not sure I get the connection between public accommodation laws for businesses and private religious worship. Edited June 9, 2015 by Gray
Sleeper Cell Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 CFR. What religous liberty are being threatened? If you say "The religious right a business owner to discriminate against gays." Then the same would be said of the Civil Rights Amendment which nullified religious liberty of a business owner to discriminate against Mormons. You make no distinction between discriminating against people and “discriminating” against events which violate one’s religious conscience?
Sleeper Cell Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 If so, who were the ones who had the motive to marginalize it? In what way has religious liberty been marginalized? For starters, didn’t you just say that “Religious liberty is just code now?” Yes, but that's because anti-gay activists have turned it into a code. I thought only the pro-gay activists had the ability to fundamentally change the meanings of well established words and phrases. Like “marriage” and “gay.” I remember when “religious liberty” was a civil right. Indeed, I even remember when it was considered -- along with free speech and freedom of the press -- as the most fundamental civil right. BTW, if “religious liberty” still has any meaning, it means liberty for people to be faithful to religious beliefs we don’t like. Religious liberties are not under attack. You are just as free to practice your religion as you would have been 100 years ago. You are not free to practice your religion if the state forces you to violate your religious beliefs. For example, by forcing you to participate in an event which violates your religious conscience. Not that I said the above quote in blue, I'm not sure I get the connection between public accommodation laws for businesses and private religious worship. In other words, “practice your religion” is now limited to “private worship.” And you ask me “in what way has religious liberty been marginalized?”
Sleeper Cell Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Are you referring to an individual's religious liberty in their personal life... or a business owner's religious actions in the course of their business? Is it your position that “religious liberty” and "business" are incompatible? Or that those who go into business must check their religious principles at the door? In my opinion, gays (and everyone else) should be far more concerned about religious business people who check their religious principles at the door than about those who won’t. Edited June 9, 2015 by Sleeper Cell
Gray Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Sleeper Cell: The comment thread was starting to get messy, so I've pasted your comments in red. My replies in blue: I thought only the pro-gay activists had the ability to fundamentally change the meanings of well established words and phrases. Like “marriage” and “gay.” Language is constantly changing, usually organically, sometimes from association with certain parties or pejorative usage. In other words, “practice your religion” is now limited to “private worship.” And you ask me “in what way has religious liberty been marginalized?” Public accommodation laws have been on the books since the 60s. And yes, private worship should really be the focus of the topic of religious liberty. Religion is an intensely private affair.
Sleeper Cell Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Gray: Thanks for cleaning up our clutter. And yes, private worship should really be the focus of the topic of religious liberty. Religion is an intensely private affair. I’ll remember that the next time someone criticizes the LDS church for spending too much money on temples and too little on humanitarian aid. Edited June 9, 2015 by Sleeper Cell
tonie Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 CFR. What religous liberty are being threatened? If you say "The religious right a business owner to discriminate against gays." Then the same would be said of the Civil Rights Amendment which nullified religious liberty of a business owner to discriminate against Mormons. You make no distinction between discriminating against people and “discriminating” against events which violate one’s religious conscience? How about answering the question asked? What religious liberty is threatened? Is the prohibition against discriminating against Mormons a threat to religious liberty?
Gray Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Gray: Thanks for cleaning up our clutter. I’ll remember that the next time someone criticizes the LDS church for spending too much money on temples and too little on humanitarian aid. No problem. If someone tried to mandate what the church was allowed to spend its money on, I would join you in decrying the encroachment upon religious freedom. Of course, the first amendment protects the criticism you reference.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) CFR. What religous liberty are being threatened? If you say "The religious right a business owner to discriminate against gays." Then the same would be said of the Civil Rights Amendment which nullified religious liberty of a business owner to discriminate against Mormons. From "Newsroom" at lds.org: Challenges to religious freedom are emerging from many sources. Emerging advocacy for gay rights threatens to abridge religious freedom in a number of ways. Changes in health care threaten the rights of those who hold certain moral convictions about human life. These and other developments are producing conflict and beginning to impose on religious organizations and people of conscience. They are threatening, for instance, to restrict how religious organizations can manage their employment and their property. They are bringing about the coercion of religiously-affiliated universities, schools and social-service entities. They are also resulting in reprimands to individuals who act in line with their principles — from health practitioners and other professionals to parents. In these and in many other circumstances, we see how religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being subtly but steadily eroded. And of equal concern, the legal provisions emerging to safeguard these freedoms are often shallow — protecting these liberties only in the narrowest sense. In many aspects of public life, religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being drawn into conflicts that may suppress them. From an address by Elder Dallin H. Oaks: The guarantee of free exercise of religion seems to be weakening as the tide of public esteem in favor of religion recedes. Religion is surely under siege by the forces of political correctness that seek its replacement by other priorities. A writer for the Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic,” with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.”[22]There are other disturbing signs that the significance of religious freedom is diminishing, at least in the United States. In 1990 the United States Supreme Court issued its most important free exercise decision in many years. The Smith vs. Employment Division case significantly narrowed the traditional protection of religion.[23] Happily, a pair of Supreme Court decisions in the last several years have signaled that the free exercise of religion remains vital in the United States.[24] Despite that reality, some U.S. scholars are contending that a religious message is just another message in a world full of messages, not something to be given unique or special protection. One author, in a book titled Freedom from Religion, takes the extreme position that religious speech should have even less protection than nonreligious speech.[25] As noted earlier, another author published a book titled Why Tolerate Religion?[26]When the then-president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Francis George, spoke at Brigham Young University a few years ago, he referred to “threats to religious freedom in America that are new to our history and to our tradition.” He gave two examples, one concerning threats to current religious-based exemptions from participating in abortions, and the other “the development of gay rights and the call for same-sex ‘marriage.’”[27] He also spoke of possible government punishments for churches or religious leaders whose doctrines lead them to refuse to participate in government sponsored programs.Legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described another of these threats:For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.[28]Powerful secular interests in the United States are challenging the way religious beliefs and the practices of faith-based organizations stand in the way of their secular aims. We are alarmed at the many—and increasing—circumstances in which actions based on the free exercise of religion are sought to be swept aside or subordinated to the asserted “civil rights” of officially favored groups.As we seek to preserve religious freedom, we must also be sensitive to its relationship to free speech. We see this relationship in the United States, where the forces that would constrain the freedom of religion are also attacking religious leaders’ rights to free speech in the exercise of their religious ministry. This is evident in the current efforts to narrow the definition of religious expression and to expand the so-called civil rights of “dignity,” “autonomy,” and “self-fulfillment” of persons offended by religious preaching. This is part of an alarming trajectory of events pointing toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by forcing it to give way to the “rights” of those offended by such speech.Other efforts seek to intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Such advocates should answer this question: How would the great movements toward social justice in the United States, such as the abolition of slavery or the furthering of civil rights, have been advocated and pressed toward adoption if their religious proponents had been banned from the public square by insistence that private religious or moral positions were not a rational basis for public discourse? From "Newsroom" again: Salt Lake City — Churches, faith groups and religious individuals across the United States are reporting legislative actions that are curtailing their religious freedom and conscience. Here are some examples that show the different ways religious freedom is being challenged. Each situation provides a unique window into the complex facets of this increasingly public debate.Gordon College, an evangelical campus in Massachusetts, has been called before the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), the local accrediting body, to justify its “life and conduct statement” — an honor-code style code of conduct which students, faculty, and staff at the small Christian college are bound by, and which prohibits, among other things, “sexual relations outside of marriage and homosexual practice.” If the NEASC does not like what it hears, it has the authority to remove accreditation, or impose other sanctions.The Chief of Atlanta’s fire department was fired for publishing a book in which he affirmed his sincerely held religious beliefs about a biblically-orthodox understanding of human sexuality. He was initially suspended after a copy of his book, which only even mentions homosexuality in two sentences, made its way into the hands of city officials. City officials claim he was fired not for his traditional moral beliefs, but for “lack of judgment and failing to obtain permission” to publish the book — a claim which the chief disputes.The California Supreme Court voted to ban all state judges from volunteering with the Boy Scouts or any other non-religious youth group that espouses traditional morality. Previously, judges were not allowed to be members of organizations “that practice invidious discrimination,” but there was an exemption for participation in non-profit youth groups, such as the Boy Scouts. The Court recently revoked the exemption, so the ban now applies to the Boy Scouts because that organization does not allow gays or lesbians to serve as adult leaders.The Christian Legal Society sought official recognition as a student organization at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. To join the society students had to agree with its statement of beliefs about God and adhere to its standards of sexual conduct. Hastings recognizes student groups of nearly every stripe, but refused to recognize CLS unless it admitted anyone who wanted to join, even if they didn’t agree with its statement of beliefs or live by its standards. The United States Supreme Court eventually rejected CLS’s claims.A fertility doctor in California was forced to provide artificial insemination services to a gay couple, even though to do so violated his religious beliefs, and even though there were many other fertility specialists in the area who were willing to perform the procedure.A small Evangelical church called the Bronx Household of Faith is challenging a New York City policy that bans worship services from taking place in vacant schools but allows other groups to gather in these schools for any reason “pertaining to the welfare of the community.” Though churches and other religious groups are currently meeting in city public schools because of an injunction issued by a District Court, the City of New York appealed the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The federal court upheld the city ban. The church is appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.A counseling student in Michigan was expelled from her program when she respectfully requested that a gay client be referred to one of numerous other counselors in the nearby area. The student was acting on her religious beliefs and therefore could not provide effective counseling to the client.A Baptist-affiliated organization that places at-risk children in adoption or foster care terminated an employee because her admitted homosexual lifestyle was contrary to the organization’s core values. Accusing the organization of sexual orientation discrimination, she brought a federal lawsuit that the organization is still litigating more than a decade later.A private Jewish university in New York City was sued by a lesbian couple for its policy of reserving its married student housing for male-female couples. The state’s highest court ruled that the university’s policy could be challenged as violating the city’s ordinance barring housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Please go to the links and read these sources in full before arguing with me about these quotes. Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) No problem. If someone tried to mandate what the church was allowed to spend its money on, I would join you in decrying the encroachment upon religious freedom. Of course, the first amendment protects the criticism you reference. So you are referring to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, then? How about the freedom for people of faith to speak out in the public arena? It sounds like you would limit religious liberty -- also a First Amendment guarantee -- to "private worship" and not allow it to extend beyond that. Or did I misunderstand you when you stated: And yes, private worship should really be the focus of the topic of religious liberty. Religion is an intensely private affair. Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Are you referring to an individual's religious liberty in their personal life... or a business owner's religious actions in the course of their business?To the extent that a business owner is also an individual who has religious liberty, I would say both. Why do you differentiate? Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 So you are referring to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, then? How about the freedom for people of faith to speak out in the public arena? It sounds like you would limit religious liberty to "private worship" and not allow it to extend beyond that. Or did I misunderstand you when you stated: No, I support freedom of speech, regardless of viewpoint. But I also support public accommodation laws for businesses. Businesses must serve the public without prejudice. These laws protect the religious freedom of the public as much as they do freedoms for other protected classes. I'm glad that no one could legally refuse to cater my LDS wedding reception based on my religion. Of course churches themselves do not have to follow public accommodation laws. Just businesses.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) No, I support freedom of speech, regardless of viewpoint. But I also support public accommodation laws for businesses. Businesses must serve the public without prejudice. These laws protect the religious freedom of the public as much as they do freedoms for other protected classes.The law recently passed by the Utah Legislature with the support of the Church of Jesus Christ (particularly the late Elder L. Tom Perry) is a good model in this respect. Alas, I saw a lot of griping and complaining about it, reasonable though the law is. I'm glad that no one could legally refuse to cater my LDS wedding reception based on my religion. I don't think I would want to do business with a vendor who would refuse to cater my wedding reception because I was LDS. I would be only too glad to find somebody else in town who would do it. I certainly wouldn't hang around, stamp my foot and try to force him to do it against his will. I'm glad that no one could legally refuse to cater my LDS wedding reception based on my religion. Of course churches themselves do not have to follow public accommodation laws. Just businesses. Again, the Utah law is a good model. So am I understanding correctly, then, that you think religious liberty ceases once one leaves the house of worship? Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 The law recently passed by the Utah Legislature with the support of the Church of Jesus Christ (particularly the late Elder L. Tom Perry) is a good model in this respect. Alas, I saw a lot of griping and complaining about it, reasonable though the law is. I don't think I would want to do business with a vendor who would refuse to cater my wedding reception because I was LDS. I would be only too glad to find somebody else in town who would do it. I certainly wouldn't hang around, stamp my foot and try to force him to do it against his will. I'm glad that no one could legally refuse to cater my LDS wedding reception based on my religion. Again, the Utah law is a good model. So am I understanding correctly, then, that you think religious liberty ceases once one leaves the house of worship? I think there is a difference between religious liberty and religious privilege. When religious people are allowed to infringe on the freedoms of other citizens based on religious convictions, in the area of commerce or employment or housing or government services, it ceases being about liberty and starts being about privilege. Having religious convictions is not a blank check to do anything you want.
tonie Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 From "Newsroom" at lds.org: From an address by Elder Dallin H. Oaks: From "Newsroom" again: Please go to the links and read these sources in full before arguing with me about these quotes. So you must agree, then, that laws that prohibit discrimination against Mormons violate the religious freedom of others?
rockpond Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 From "Newsroom" at lds.org: From an address by Elder Dallin H. Oaks: From "Newsroom" again: Please go to the links and read these sources in full before arguing with me about these quotes. I'll bite on the first example... Are you suggesting that the NEASC, a private non-profit group, does not have the right to determine the standards by which it grants accreditation?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) So you must agree, then, that laws that prohibit discrimination against Mormons violate the religious freedom of others? I already said the Utah law provides a good model in balancing religious liberty with prohibition of discrimination. You don't agree, as I recall. My post was to answer your CFR. I believe I did so in good measure. Did you go to the links and read the sources? Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 I'll bite on the first example... Are you suggesting that the NEASC, a private non-profit group, does not have the right to determine the standards by which it grants accreditation?If nothing else, it has an ethical obligation to set reasonable standards. A religious litmus test is not a reasonable standard. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 I think there is a difference between religious liberty and religious privilege. When religious people are allowed to infringe on the freedoms of other citizens based on religious convictions, in the area of commerce or employment or housing or government services, it ceases being about liberty and starts being about privilege. Having religious convictions is not a blank check to do anything you want. So engaging in commerce is a privilege, then, as opposed to a right? Who grants the privilege? I think you are perilously close here to advocating the abridgment of someone's right to make a livelihood. Isn't that one of the main points of the gay-rights agenda? 1
rockpond Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 If nothing else, it has an ethical obligation to set reasonable standards. A religious litmus test is not a reasonable standard. It wasn't imposing a religious litmus test. It was concerned with non-discrimination. This is not an attack on religious freedom by the so called "gay agenda". So let's go to the second bullet. Here's what the mayor had to say about the termination: The mayor’s office opened an investigation into Cochran’s conduct after employees shared concerns over the book’s contents, city spokeswoman Anne Torres said in November. At the time, Torres said “there are a number of passages in the book that directly conflict with the city’s nondiscrimination policies.” The city also said that the book was distributed to an undetermined number of the department’s employees. On Tuesday, here’s how Reed explained his decision to end Cochran’s tenure as Fire Chief: “Despite my respect for Chief Cochran’s service, I believe his actions and decision-making undermine his ability to effectively manage a large, diverse workforce. Every single employee under the Fire Chief’s command deserves the certainty that he or she is a valued member of the team and that fairness and respect guide employment decisions. His actions and his statements during the investigation and his suspension have eroded my confidence in his ability to convey that message.Chief Cochran also failed to notify me, as Mayor and Chief Executive of the City of Atlanta and his employer, of his plans to publish the book and its inflammatory content. This demonstrates an irreconcilable lapse in judgment.” How were Cochran's religious freedom's threatened by the so called "gay agenda"? 1
Gray Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) So engaging in commerce is a privilege, then, as opposed to a right? Who grants the privilege? I think you are perilously close here to advocating the abridgment of someone's right to make a livelihood. Isn't that one of the main points of the gay-rights agenda? No, privilege would be allowing religious people to infringe on the rights of others simply because they (the party of the first part) have certain beliefs. I mean privilege as in special privileges, over and above everyone else. Anyone can engage in commerce, so long as they are willing to serve the public without prejudice. I don't think anyone is owed a business license by the government if they're going to break the law. That doesn't infringe on religious rights, but it might infringe on special privileges some religious folks think they are owed. There is an attitude of religious entitlement to the issue, the rights of consumers be darned to heck. Edited June 9, 2015 by Gray
rockpond Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 It appears time to share this blog post by a fellow BYU grad... a comic interlude that is also relevant to the discussion. http://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/bake-me-to-church/ It's worth the read - even if you disagree. Enjoy.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) No, privilege would be allowing religious people to infringe on the rights of others simply because they (the party of the first part) have certain beliefs. I mean privilege as in special privileges, over and above everyone else. Anyone can engage in commerce, so long as they are willing to serve the public without prejudice. I don't think anyone is owed a business license by the government if they're going to break the law. That doesn't infringe on religious rights, but it might infringe on special privileges some religious folks think they are owed. There is an attitude of religious entitlement to the issue, the rights of consumers be darned to heck. But I've cited a law -- the recently passed Utah statute -- that endeavors to balance religious liberty with prevention of discrimination in the vital areas of housing and employment. There was a hue and cry here on this board that was long and loud when that law was being passed. I don't recall what your personal view, if any, was pertaining to that Utah law. Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) But I've cited a law -- the recently passed Utah statute -- that endeavors to balance religious liberty with prevention of discrimination in the vital areas of housing and employment. There was a hue and cry here on this board that was long and loud when that law was being passed. I don't recall what your personal view, if any, was pertaining to that Utah law. I think my mind may be going because now I'm struggling to remember the provisions. As I recall it prevents discrimination of LGBT citizens in housing and employment, but not necessarily in the area of public accommodation, yes? Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, a step in the right direction, but still unbalanced. States that have granted full protections for LGBT citizens have fully balanced protections, as religious people already have their rights protected by Federal law. Partial protections and rights are given to LGBT citizens in Utah, while religious citizens enjoy special privileges in some areas (assuming I'm remembering the Utah law correctly). Of course the grammar of my sentence makes it sound like it's religious people vs gay people, but many gay people are also religious. Edited June 9, 2015 by Gray
Recommended Posts