Daniel2 Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 This morning, the Deseret News published an article about Dallin Oaks’ recent speech in Argentina “championing religious freedom.” According to the article, Mr. Oaks extolls the virtuous of religious liberty and emphatically makes the case that societies must preserve and protect religious liberties at all costs, if they are to maintain order and freedoms for all. Included in the article about Mr. Oaks’ speech were the following excerpts: In a speech entitled “Challenges to Religious Freedom,” Elder Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, spoke of the importance of advocating religious freedom at a moment when secularism defines many corners of the globe.The Church leader began by noting that religious freedoms are anchoring fundamentals of the United States Constitution. “Foremost among those fundamentals is the vital founding principle that the government should not endorse or establish a particular religion, and that the government should guarantee the free exercise of religion by all of its citizens,” he said. The U.S. Constitution, he added, treats freedom of religion as a “cornerstone of American democracy.” Included is the provision that there shall be no religious test for public office, and that the government shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Elder Oaks said religious teaching and the religiously motivated actions of believers remain valuable to society. They deserve special legal protections. “This, of course, rejects the assumptions of some secularists that religion is mostly a matter of history that has minimal significance in modern times,” he added. “Far from relics of the past, religious principles and religious believers are a vital present and future force everywhere.” The teaching and free practice of religion, he added, are key to a free and prosperous society. The apostle repeated a statement he made four years ago at a law school lecture at Chapman University's School of Law: “Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of [the United States] that we cannot lose the influence of religion in our public life without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms.” Religious freedom is not just the concern of religious persons. Non-believers also have a strong interest in religious freedom because it is allows for peace and stability in a pluralistic world. “The protection of conscience is a vital ingredient for stability because it helps people from a wide spectrum of beliefs feel assured that their deepest concerns and values are respected and protected,” he said. It's essential that nations and multi-national organizations are unified in support of religious freedoms — but that's not enough. “The preservation of religious freedom depends upon public understanding of and support of this vital freedom,” he said. “It depends upon the value the public attaches to the teachings of right and wrong in churches, synagogues and mosques. “Believers and non-believers must be helped to understand that it is faith in God — however defined — that translates religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits the nation.” (bold and emphasis added) http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865627143/Elder-Oaks-champions-religious-freedom.html “It’s essential that nationals and multi-national organizations are united in the support of religious freedoms—but that’s not enough,” because “believers and non-believers must be helped to understand that it is faith in God—however defined—that translates into moral behavior that benefits the nation… “ Hmmm…. I wonder if Mr. Oaks saw the following report--also published today--coming? Or maybe, given the current state of affairs regarding privileges afforded to religious organizations, it was simply just inevitable… According to the following article, a Tennessee (heterosexual) sex club was denied a building permit due to zoning laws and its relatively close proximity to a school. Since religions are automatically given a certain level of leeway in civil matters, the sex club subsequently decided to incorporate itself as a church in order to win city approval so it can open in the same neighborhood as the school. And Mr. Oaks’ ambivalence that defense of religious liberty requires that both believers and non-believers alike must respect the religious faith of others---however defined—sounds a lot like the bolded portion of the lawyer representing this newly-incorporated church… : Sex club seeks Nashville blessing by vowing to be a churchhttp://news.yahoo.com/sex-club-seeks-nashville-blessing-vowing-church-084854304.html By TRAVIS LOLLER 40 minutes ago NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A Nashville swingers club has undergone a conversion — it says it's now a church — in order to win city approval so it can open next to a Christian school. The story began last fall, when a fixture in downtown Nashville called The Social Club sold its building and purchased a new one in a run-down office park several miles to the east. The new building is geographically isolated at the end of a dead-end street, but it is near the back of Goodpasture Christian School, a large private school serving pre-school through high school children. It might have been years before school officials and parents learned what was going on inside The Social Club — its website says it is "a private club for the enjoyment of both men and women ... to engage in any sexual activity" — if someone had not sent anonymous letters to the school president and the local councilwoman. Both say the person who tipped them off claimed to be a concerned club member, although they don't know that for sure. Parents and religious leaders were called on to pack the Metro Nashville Council chambers to support a zoning change to prevent the club from opening. That's when the club, which had spent $750,000 on the building and begun renovations, suddenly transformed into a church. The United Fellowship Center's plans are nearly identical to those of The Social Club but with some different labels. The dance floor has become the sanctuary. Two rooms labeled "dungeon" are now "choir" and "handbells." Forty-nine small, private rooms remain, but most of them have become prayer rooms. Larry Roberts is the attorney for the club-turned-church. He previously vowed to take the city to court. Now, he says, it's the city that will have to sue. "The ball is in Metro's court ... We've now gotten a permit to meet as a church, and a church is something that cannot be defined under the U.S. Constitution," he said. Roberts said church members will "meet and have fellowship" in the new building, but no sex will take place there. "If people have something else in mind, they will go somewhere else." Several of those who opposed The Social Club say they are skeptical of the change. "I find it hard to believe that they've invested that kind of money and they're just going to change the activity," Goodpasture President Ricky Perry said. "I really hope that it's true." Metro Zoning Administrator Bill Herbert said the department takes applicants at their word, so inspectors are treating the building as a church. As long as the United Fellowship Center is in compliance with codes, it will receive permission to operate. "If it is not operating as a church, that's an enforcement issue," he said. "We can tell them to cease and desist, and if they refuse we can enforce it through the courts." If it turns out to continue operating as a swingers club, it could also face trouble with the state after lawmakers passed a bill last month disallowing private sex clubs within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, day cares and houses of worship. Metro Councilwoman Karen Bennett is a Goodpasture graduate who sponsored the legislation to change the zoning for private clubs. She said she will be watching to make sure the United Fellowship Center truly does operate as a church. "I've heard many, many people say they're planning to attend when it opens," she said. (bold added) It appears that Mr. Oaks and Mr. Roberts are in agreement...the Constitution cannot define a church, and religious faith, however defined, must be respected and protected by both believers and non-believers alike, right...? So, my question is: How far does religious liberty extend, and how far can the unintended consequences of unbridled religious liberty go….? What is religious liberty? Should there be limits on religious liberty, or is Mr. Oaks right in saying that anyone’s and everyone’s “faith in god, however defined” must be equally protected? (p.s.--although some gay issues may arise as examples in this thread, this topic isn't focused or dependent on gay issues, so please avoid letting it devolve into such....) 2
Popular Post Mystery Meat Posted April 24, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 24, 2015 This morning, the Deseret News published an article about Dallin Oaks’ recent speech in Argentina “championing religious freedom.” According to the article, Mr. Oaks extolls the virtuous of religious liberty and emphatically makes the case that societies must preserve and protect religious liberties at all costs, if they are to maintain order and freedoms for all. Included in the article about Mr. Oaks’ speech were the following excerpts: “It’s essential that nationals and multi-national organizations are united in the support of religious freedoms—but that’s not enough,” because “believers and non-believers must be helped to understand that it is faith in God—however defined—that translates into moral behavior that benefits the nation… “ Hmmm…. I wonder if Mr. Oaks saw the following report--also published today--coming? Or maybe, given the current state of affairs regarding privileges afforded to religious organizations, it was simply just inevitable… According to the following article, a Tennessee (heterosexual) sex club was denied a building permit due to zoning laws and its relatively close proximity to a school. Since religions are automatically given a certain level of leeway in civil matters, the sex club subsequently decided to incorporate itself as a church in order to win city approval so it can open in the same neighborhood as the school. And Mr. Oaks’ ambivalence that defense of religious liberty requires that both believers and non-believers alike must respect the religious faith of others---however defined—sounds a lot like the bolded portion of the lawyer representing this newly-incorporated church… : It appears that Mr. Oaks and Mr. Roberts are in agreement...the Constitution cannot define a church, and religious faith, however defined, must be respected and protected by both believers and non-believers alike, right...? So, my question is: How far does religious liberty extend, and how far can the unintended consequences of unbridled religious liberty go….? What is religious liberty? Should there be limits on religious liberty, or is Mr. Oaks right in saying that anyone’s and everyone’s “faith in god, however defined” must be equally protected? (p.s.--although some gay issues may arise as examples in this thread, this topic isn't focused or dependent on gay issues, so please avoid letting it devolve into such....) Crazy and extreme exceptions do not disprove the rule. Starting a church about a spaghetti monster or a strip club do not make Elder Oak's comments any less true. What they do do is show how evil and base our society has become. 6
thesometimesaint Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 I try to follow the maxim that my right to swing my religiously righteous fist ends at your religiously righteous nose. but like all maxims there are logical limits. IE; If swinging my fist protects myself or someone else from immediate greater physical harm. With actions of adults the state has an affirmative responsibility to protect minor children from certain adult experiences. IE; We normally don't give the keys to our car to an eight year old. It really doesn't matter what we believe or if we call a car a church. 3
CV75 Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 It appears that Mr. Oaks and Mr. Roberts are in agreement...The lawyers will certainly duke this one out, but Elder Oaks did qualify “faith in God--however defined” with the descriptive that it translates the teachings into moral behavior that benefits the nation (in this TN instance, includes its children). So I suppose religious freedom can be curtailed where the governed feel it espouses immoral behavior that would not benefit the community/nation. Churches only teach behavior, but individuals practice it (or not) on both personal and communal levels, thus impacting their communities for better (or worse).
Buckeye Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) All liberties must be balanced against competing liberties. There are no simple rules that resolve all situations, otherwise we wouldn't be debating these issues so much. But there can be general agreed-upon principles. One of the primary principles used in religious freedom contexts is intent. Courts are loathe to judge the merits of a religious belief, but they are much more comfortable judging whether a citizen (or congress) is pretending a belief as a pretext for something else. Hence, courts routinely uphold laws that adversely affect religious belief if the record shows that the legislature passed the law neutrally- ie, to be applied to all citizens - rather than targeting a specific religious group. The famous SCOTUS peyote case is one such example. On the flip side, courts routinely apply intent tests to individual's and group's purported beliefs. A person of the amish faith may well receive an exemption from a military draft because there is a long record of the amish faith being pacifist and avoiding participation in conflicts. A mormon would have a more difficult case to make considering the long history of members of our faith serving in the military and the fact that several military departments have ROTC groups at BYU. Based on the principle of intent, I would expect (and hope) that a court would throw out claims by a sex club that was attempting to style itself as a church in order to get around zoning laws. This should be an easy case considering the "church" is now on public record of saying that they became a church only for this improper purpose. PS - on a different note (sorry for my habit of derailing threads Daniel2), I was curious to see that the DN does not allow comments for this article. Does the DN have a policy of turning off comments for articles reporting remarks by church leaders? Scott would hopefully know. If so, what is the purpose? It can't be just to avoid conflict because the DN allows comments for many contentious pieces. Is it to avoid criticism of church leaders? That's the best I can think of. Edited April 24, 2015 by Buckeye 1
Sleeper Cell Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 This morning, the Deseret News published an article about Dallin Oaks’ recent speech in Argentina “championing religious freedom.” According to the article, Mr. Oaks extolls the virtuous of religious liberty and emphatically makes the case that societies must preserve and protect religious liberties at all costs, if they are to maintain order and freedoms for all. Included in the article about Mr. Oaks’ speech were the following excerpts: “It’s essential that nationals and multi-national organizations are united in the support of religious freedoms—but that’s not enough,” because “believers and non-believers must be helped to understand that it is faith in God—however defined—that translates into moral behavior that benefits the nation… “ Hmmm…. I wonder if Mr. Oaks saw the following report--also published today--coming? Or maybe, given the current state of affairs regarding privileges afforded to religious organizations, it was simply just inevitable… According to the following article, a Tennessee (heterosexual) sex club was denied a building permit due to zoning laws and its relatively close proximity to a school. Since religions are automatically given a certain level of leeway in civil matters, the sex club subsequently decided to incorporate itself as a church in order to win city approval so it can open in the same neighborhood as the school. And Mr. Oaks’ ambivalence that defense of religious liberty requires that both believers and non-believers alike must respect the religious faith of others---however defined—sounds a lot like the bolded portion of the lawyer representing this newly-incorporated church… : It appears that Mr. Oaks and Mr. Roberts are in agreement...the Constitution cannot define a church, and religious faith, however defined, must be respected and protected by both believers and non-believers alike, right...? For starters, the club is not acting in good faith. From the facts you have presented, even the club members don’t really believe they are a church. They have simply decided to call themselves a church “in order to win city approval so it can open in the same neighborhood as the school.” Even churches must conform to zoning codes, which, among other things, take into account the impact of the proposed use on the existing property owners. If the LDS church decided to build a temple near the school, the city would be well within its rights to consider the potential impacts on the school and the rest of the neighbors. There is no evidence that the city will not allow the club to build elsewhere in the city. Nor that there aren’t other reasonably suitable locations available. 1
tonie Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 For starters, the club is not acting in good faith. From the facts you have presented, even the club members don’t really believe they are a church. They have simply decided to call themselves a church “in order to win city approval so it can open in the same neighborhood as the school.” Even churches must conform to zoning codes, which, among other things, take into account the impact of the proposed use on the existing property owners. If the LDS church decided to build a temple near the school, the city would be well within its rights to consider the potential impacts on the school and the rest of the neighbors. There is no evidence that the city will not allow the club to build elsewhere in the city. Nor that there aren’t other reasonably suitable locations available.Under a RFRA the goveenment entity must prove that whatever law or zoning ordinance a religious person is seeking an exemption from is the least restrictive means, for a compelling gov interest in enforcing the law.So the availabilty of other properties would not really be a factor. The governmwnt would have to demonstrate a compelling interest in denying exemption on the specific property chosen by the religious group/person
Scott Lloyd Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) PS - on a different note (sorry for my habit of derailing threads Daniel2), I was curious to see that the DN does not allow comments for this article. Does the DN have a policy of turning off comments for articles reporting remarks by church leaders? Scott would hopefully know. If so, what is the purpose? It can't be just to avoid conflict because the DN allows comments for many contentious pieces. Is it to avoid criticism of church leaders? That's the best I can think of.I'm afraid I'm not acquainted with the policies pertaining to reader comments. Edited to add: I just took a look at the link and noticed it is a Church News story, written by my colleague Jason Swensen. Unlike other Deseret News content, Church News stories never carry reader comments. Pardon me for not noticing that at first; I could have given you a better answer initially. Edited April 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Russell C McGregor Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Daniel, This is an interesting and potentially valuable discussion. Thank you for bringing it up. I agree that the Nashville sex club's dodge was illegitimate and ought not to be permitted as an end-run around valid zoning restrictions. I also agree that there is potential for lawyers to earn a fair bit of coin trying to litigate this matter one way or another. If some common sense is allowed to prevail, I would hope that a Tennessee court could hold that, just as someone doesn't have to be sitting in Church in order to be following her religious faith, so calling an organisation a church doesn't automatically make everything it does into a religious sacrament. If a local church holds a fundraising activity (such as a bake sale, a car wash, a bingo night or a bring-and-buy) that doesn't make those activities religious as such, and local bodies can (and do) regulate such activities without the churches that hold them feeling especially put-upon. In the same way, I believe that the actual RFRA-type laws that exist and are increasing across more and more American states (just like another development some people here seem interested in!) need to be framed by legislatures and interpreted by courts in a way that protects genuine freedom of religious conscience, and is not merely a convenient cover for malicious discrimination. And I think that really shouldn't be too hard to distinguish. Freedom of religious conscience would look something like "It's contrary to my faith to be involved in that sort of activity or event, and that is a well established principle that my religious authorites can attest," while malicious discrimination would look more like "We don't serve your kind here." And I must say that I find it most encouraging to see someone from your side of the aisle acknowledging the possibility of unintended consequences arising from legislative change. I thought that was a "Don't go there" topic for your group!
Russell C McGregor Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 I'm afraid I'm not acquainted with the policies pertaining to reader comments. Edited to add: I just took a look at the link and noticed it is a Church News story, written by my colleague Jason Swensen. Unlike other Deseret News content, Church News stories never carry reader comments. Pardon me for not noticing that at first; I could have given you a better answer initially. Yeah, yeah. Just go on towing[sic] the party line. It's really just a plot to stifle freedom of expression. Why not come out and admit it? Cheers,Russell
mikegriffith1 Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 This morning, the Deseret News published an article about Dallin Oaks’ recent speech in Argentina “championing religious freedom.” According to the article, Mr. Oaks extolls the virtuous of religious liberty and emphatically makes the case that societies must preserve and protect religious liberties at all costs, if they are to maintain order and freedoms for all. Included in the article about Mr. Oaks’ speech were the following excerpts: “It’s essential that nationals and multi-national organizations are united in the support of religious freedoms—but that’s not enough,” because “believers and non-believers must be helped to understand that it is faith in God—however defined—that translates into moral behavior that benefits the nation… “ Hmmm…. I wonder if Mr. Oaks saw the following report--also published today--coming? Or maybe, given the current state of affairs regarding privileges afforded to religious organizations, it was simply just inevitable… According to the following article, a Tennessee (heterosexual) sex club was denied a building permit due to zoning laws and its relatively close proximity to a school. Since religions are automatically given a certain level of leeway in civil matters, the sex club subsequently decided to incorporate itself as a church in order to win city approval so it can open in the same neighborhood as the school. And Mr. Oaks’ ambivalence that defense of religious liberty requires that both believers and non-believers alike must respect the religious faith of others---however defined—sounds a lot like the bolded portion of the lawyer representing this newly-incorporated church… : It appears that Mr. Oaks and Mr. Roberts are in agreement...the Constitution cannot define a church, and religious faith, however defined, must be respected and protected by both believers and non-believers alike, right...? So, my question is: How far does religious liberty extend, and how far can the unintended consequences of unbridled religious liberty go….? What is religious liberty? Should there be limits on religious liberty, or is Mr. Oaks right in saying that anyone’s and everyone’s “faith in god, however defined” must be equally protected? (p.s.--although some gay issues may arise as examples in this thread, this topic isn't focused or dependent on gay issues, so please avoid letting it devolve into such....) The death of common sense and basic decency.
Recommended Posts