Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[tonie]

What's the history? How, exactly, did BYU quash it?

 

see that various links in post 190.

[jwhitlock]

I agree--but it has to be shown that the accreditation or club recognition or anything like that has been denied based on religious practice as opposed to the real requirements before the conclusion can be made that it is an attack on one's religious freedom.

 

Here's an article about Gordon college and the challenge to its accreditation. It was able to retain it, but this was a case study of a clear attack on religious freedom.

[jwhitlock]

What's the history? How, exactly, did BYU quash it?

 

I left BYU before it got resolved, and so I don't know the details of how it was resolved. However, since I worked with the fundraising arm of BYU at that point, I was very much aware of the concerns the university had.

[jwhitlock]

See jwhitlock's post #194.

 

I wouldn't even bother responding to him anymore, Scott. He refuses to recognize anything that has been posted to refute his rather narrow rants, and then falsely claims victory in that no one has been able to respond to his "arguments".

 

It's not particularly productive.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't know if it has been said before in this thread but accreditation committees are not government entities.

 

However, if an institute of higher learning wants to tap into various sources of state and federal funding (student assistance), as does BYU, then accreditation is meaningful. 

 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/schray.pdf

 

This isn't a question of the government trying to squelch religious freedom at BYU.  It is a question of BYU wanting to feed at the federal trough and not exactly be the darling of accreditation rules of academic freedom.  It is the same issue with the tax exemption.  The First Amendment does not guarantee that there will be a place for you at the pig trough. It guarantees that nothing will prevent you from speaking as you have your snout in the trough or if you are kicked out of the trough.  [Excuse the libertarian rant, once again.  It is confiscatory to provide this kind of funding or that kind of preferential exemption.]

Edited July 13, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[tagriffy]

I left BYU before it got resolved, and so I don't know the details of how it was resolved. However, since I worked with the fundraising arm of BYU at that point, I was very much aware of the concerns the university had.

 

It appears the case was ultimately resolved because the courts ruled the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue in the first place. And the laws being dealt with already carved out an exemption. It would appear, then, that the exemption would have to be repealed or overturned for your concerns in post #195 to even become a problem.

[jwhitlock]

It appears the case was ultimately resolved because the courts ruled the plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue in the first place. And the laws being dealt with already carved out an exemption. It would appear, then, that the exemption would have to be repealed or overturned for your concerns in post #195 to even become a problem.

 

My concern is that although there is an exemption, there is the definite possibility that it can be overturned. Such exemptions are certainly going to be attacked until a hole is found, and the recent SCOTUS ruling opens new ways of doing that.

[Scott Lloyd]

And you and jwhitlock are welcome to make the case.  I have lost count how many times I have posted  direct link to the Christian Legal Society ruling.  The schools which are denying official recognition are very likely following the ruling from CLS v Martinez - which means the schools have enacted a nuetral policy that applies to all groups equally

 

By the way, Scott, you have not addressed the CFR, which is reposted in post 189.  And, No, I haven't reported your failure to address the CFR....I should not need too; Personal integrity should be enough to follow the board rules.

I think it self-evident from context that by "kicked out," I meant excluded from recognition by the university.

 

But go ahead and report me. I'm willing to bear the consequences, if there be any.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do not care about your philosophy of each of those things. Prove me wrong with the law and facts; not your personal opinion.

As has been clear throughout the ages, laws are often ill-conceived and just plain wrong. Any discussion that excludes philosophical argument and is purely legalistic is scarcely of any value.

And any good law is grounded in philosophy.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tagriffy]

Here's an article about Gordon college and the challenge to its accreditation. It was able to retain it, but this was a case study of a clear attack on religious freedom.

 

This is a case that, according to the article, never went to court. Divorced from the obvious slant of the article, it isn't a clear-cut case of an attack on religious freedom. By the article's own admission, the issue wasn't Gordon forbidding "homosexual practice," but whether Gordon's "policies and procedures were non-discriminatory." That issue was obviously resolved to the NEASC's satisfaction. Likely, a key point in Gordon's favor was that it forbade all non-marital sex. The discrimination might come up again in light of the Supreme Court ruling, but as long as Gordon's policies and procedures remain non-discriminatory, it has no reason to fear.

[tagriffy]

My concern is that although there is an exemption, there is the definite possibility that it can be overturned. Such exemptions are certainly going to be attacked until a hole is found, and the recent SCOTUS ruling opens new ways of doing that.

 

At this point, your concern is too vague. Sure, there is a possibility that the exemptions can be overturned or repealed. And you are correct that the exemptions are going to be attacked. As far as I understand things, it is already well established that in order to avoid violating either the Establishment and the Free Exercise clauses, certain exemptions to accommodate religious freedom are going to be necessary. It seems to me the only way to challenge the exemption itself is would be to establish that removing the exemption would not violate the Establishment Cause and the exemption is unnecessary to accommodate the Free Exercise Clause. That's going to be a tough sell.

[strappinglad]

non-marital sex. The discrimination might come up again in light of the Supreme Court ruling, but as long as Gordon's policies and procedures remain non-discriminatory, it has no reason to fear.

And there is the rub. Because of the SCOTUS ruling Gordon College must accept homosexual practices if they take place within a ' marriage ' . Otherwise the policy would be discriminatory . Right? Sledge meet wedge.

[tagriffy]

And there is the rub. Because of the SCOTUS ruling Gordon College must accept homosexual practices if they take place within a ' marriage ' . Otherwise the policy would be discriminatory . Right? Sledge meet wedge.

 

Possibly, but one won't necessarily follow from the other in a straight-line manner. If Gordon were to go the route of "sex is only licit between married couples of different genders," then that would be discriminatory because it singles out and gives preferential treatment to certain married couples but not others. However, if it did something like "sex is only list between couples who are sacramentally married," that might work out to be an entirely different case altogether. Then it becomes a case of making sure the definition of "sacramental marriage" is neutrally defined such that same-sex marriages are not singled out for exclusion and ensuring the policy is consistently applied to both different-gendered and same-sex married couples.

[jwhitlock]

This is a case that, according to the article, never went to court. Divorced from the obvious slant of the article, it isn't a clear-cut case of an attack on religious freedom. By the article's own admission, the issue wasn't Gordon forbidding "homosexual practice," but whether Gordon's "policies and procedures were non-discriminatory." That issue was obviously resolved to the NEASC's satisfaction. Likely, a key point in Gordon's favor was that it forbade all non-marital sex. The discrimination might come up again in light of the Supreme Court ruling, but as long as Gordon's policies and procedures remain non-discriminatory, it has no reason to fear.

 

Actually, it went deeper than that. Gordon college was initially given a year to correct their "discriminatory" policies. There was, as far as I know, no change to their policies before or after the threat from the NEASC.

 

The "discriminatory" policy in question was purely religious. I consider this particular attack (and I do continue to maintain that it was an attack on religious freedom) to be a fishing expedition to see how far they could push it at this point. We're going to see more of these coming until a legal loophole and a sympathetic judge are found.

 

What's also evident is that there are enough activists out there bent on revenge and forcing compliance with the new sexual agenda to make a significant amount of trouble. That's not going to go away anytime soon, and given the capricious nature of judicial rulings nowadays, it's not like the guarantees we have in the Constitution are particularly ironclad.They can be judicially re-interpreted based on the agendas in question.

 

Some might think that this is just hollering that the sky is falling. Given the diametrically opposed viewpoints of the two groups of SCOTUS justices in the SSM case, it can't really be claimed that there is any clear consistency in how judges make rulings. Picking the right judge to push your agenda is becoming increasingly important in court cases, and causing quite a bit of trouble.

[jwhitlock]

At this point, your concern is too vague. Sure, there is a possibility that the exemptions can be overturned or repealed. And you are correct that the exemptions are going to be attacked. As far as I understand things, it is already well established that in order to avoid violating either the Establishment and the Free Exercise clauses, certain exemptions to accommodate religious freedom are going to be necessary. It seems to me the only way to challenge the exemption itself is would be to establish that removing the exemption would not violate the Establishment Cause and the exemption is unnecessary to accommodate the Free Exercise Clause. That's going to be a tough sell.

 

The exemptions are being challenged in different ways. The latest one was here in my state (PA) where all volunteers, including LDS members serving in church callings, who work with children need to get state controlled background checks. There was another thread that I started a little while back on that.

 

There have been increasing challenges to our personal freedoms in many ways, from surveillance cameras to police seizing property without due process to zero tolerance policies in schools and so on. The clear trend is towards more governmental control of every aspect of our lives, and religious freedom is a big rock that they're going to chip at until it cracks. Challenging exemptions is going to be part of that process. 

[jwhitlock]

Possibly, but one won't necessarily follow from the other in a straight-line manner. If Gordon were to go the route of "sex is only licit between married couples of different genders," then that would be discriminatory because it singles out and gives preferential treatment to certain married couples but not others. However, if it did something like "sex is only list between couples who are sacramentally married," that might work out to be an entirely different case altogether. Then it becomes a case of making sure the definition of "sacramental marriage" is neutrally defined such that same-sex marriages are not singled out for exclusion and ensuring the policy is consistently applied to both different-gendered and same-sex married couples.

 

What you've said, in effect, is that BYU, which has a specific policy about married couple housing being only available to mixed gender marriages, is also in danger of being targeted with a discrimination suit.

 

Religious based moral belief is then subject to arbitrary discrimination tests, which is an example of an abridgment of religious freedom.

[tagriffy]

The exemptions are being challenged in different ways. The latest one was here in my state (PA) where all volunteers, including LDS members serving in church callings, who work with children need to get state controlled background checks. There was another thread that I started a little while back on that.

 

There have been increasing challenges to our personal freedoms in many ways, from surveillance cameras to police seizing property without due process to zero tolerance policies in schools and so on. The clear trend is towards more governmental control of every aspect of our lives, and religious freedom is a big rock that they're going to chip at until it cracks. Challenging exemptions is going to be part of that process. 

 

I'm a bit unclear what you are stating about the Pennsylvania case. Are you saying that volunteers are exempted from the need to get background checks before working with children and that exemption is now being challenged? If so, are you saying that removing the exemption is a threat to religious freedom? If so, I'm not entirely clear why that would be the case.

 

I certainly agree that there have been increasing challenges to our freedoms, even if I disagree about the specific means being used or the end goal.

[tagriffy]

What you've said, in effect, is that BYU, which has a specific policy about married couple housing being only available to mixed gender marriages, is also in danger of being targeted with a discrimination suit.

 

Religious based moral belief is then subject to arbitrary discrimination tests, which is an example of an abridgment of religious freedom.

 

BYU would be in such danger if they generally granted married couple housing to any couple who is legally married while singling out SSM couples and discriminating against them, assuming they can't avail themselves of a specific legal exemption. OTOH, if married couple housing were available only to temple-sealed couples, it would be a lot easier to argue their policy is about religious exercise. Religious organizations are not required to recognize civil marriages as having religious validity. But if all that is necessary to qualify for married couple housing is civil marriage, then singling out SSM couples and denying them housing is discriminatory. See how that works?

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, it went deeper than that. Gordon college was initially given a year to correct their "discriminatory" policies. There was, as far as I know, no change to their policies before or after the threat from the NEASC.

 

The "discriminatory" policy in question was purely religious. I consider this particular attack (and I do continue to maintain that it was an attack on religious freedom) to be a fishing expedition to see how far they could push it at this point. We're going to see more of these coming until a legal loophole and a sympathetic judge are found.

 

What's also evident is that there are enough activists out there bent on revenge and forcing compliance with the new sexual agenda to make a significant amount of trouble. That's not going to go away anytime soon, and given the capricious nature of judicial rulings nowadays, it's not like the guarantees we have in the Constitution are particularly ironclad.They can be judicially re-interpreted based on the agendas in question.

 

Some might think that this is just hollering that the sky is falling. Given the diametrically opposed viewpoints of the two groups of SCOTUS justices in the SSM case, it can't really be claimed that there is any clear consistency in how judges make rulings. Picking the right judge to push your agenda is becoming increasingly important in court cases, and causing quite a bit of trouble.

It should be borne in mind that the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex "marriage" prevailed by only the smallest of majorities.

[tonie]

BYU would be in such danger if they generally granted married couple housing to any couple who is legally married while singling out SSM couples and discriminating against them, assuming they can't avail themselves of a specific legal exemption. OTOH, if married couple housing were available only to temple-sealed couples, it would be a lot easier to argue their policy is about religious exercise. Religious organizations are not required to recognize civil marriages as having religious validity. But if all that is necessary to qualify for married couple housing is civil marriage, then singling out SSM couples and denying them housing is discriminatory. See how that works?

 

A gay or straight same-sex married couple, would "lack standing".  Same-sex married individuals are not eligible for attendance at BYU, therefore not eligible for the benefits BYU offers.

[Tsuzuki]

Here is some religious liberty being actually threatened right now.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/satanic-temple-to-unveil-statue-in-secret-after-christians-threaten-to-blow-it-up-real-good/

 

Satanic Temple to unveil statue in secret after Christians threaten to 'blow it up real good'

 

"While they supposedly worship what pop culture envisages as the purveyor of evil, the Satanic Temple has been turned into the victims in Detroit for wanting to do the otherwise run-of-the-mill activity of erecting a religious statue."

[jwhitlock]

In related news (and I won't discuss it in detail, since there are other threads on it) I found this interesting quote from scoutsforequality.org about the BSA decision and how it affects religious organizations:

 

For decades, the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay adults has stood as a towering example of explicit, institutional homophobia in one of America’s most important and recognizable civic organizations. While this policy change is not perfect—BSA’s religious chartering partners will be allowed to continue to discriminate against gay adults—it is difficult to overstate the importance of today’s announcement.

 

 

A few observations about this:

 

- There is no acknowledgment by these particular gay rights activists of the need to balance religious freedom with all of this.

- Religious belief that views homosexual behavior and SSM as wrong is going to be labeled and attacked - both legally and in the press - as discrimination.

- The goal with gay activists and the BSA is not compromise; it's forcing any chartering religious organization to adjust their beliefs, doctrines, and policies about homosexuality in order to charter a scout troop. Religious freedom is not a consideration.

- They will be continuing to work towards that goal. Compromise is not acceptable.

 

Claims of discrimination are going to be used to force churches to comply. Along with the other clear challenges to religious freedom that have been specified on this thread, this can be added to it.

[tagriffy]

In related news (and I won't discuss it in detail, since there are other threads on it) I found this interesting quote from scoutsforequality.org about the BSA decision and how it affects religious organizations:

 

 

A few observations about this:

 

- There is no acknowledgment by these particular gay rights activists of the need to balance religious freedom with all of this.

- Religious belief that views homosexual behavior and SSM as wrong is going to be labeled and attacked - both legally and in the press - as discrimination.

- The goal with gay activists and the BSA is not compromise; it's forcing any chartering religious organization to adjust their beliefs, doctrines, and policies about homosexuality in order to charter a scout troop. Religious freedom is not a consideration.

- They will be continuing to work towards that goal. Compromise is not acceptable.

 

Claims of discrimination are going to be used to force churches to comply. Along with the other clear challenges to religious freedom that have been specified on this thread, this can be added to it.

 

A big point that needs to be made here: Religious organizations are not required to charter Boy Scout Troops, nor is any person required to join the BSA. They do so of their own free will, and by doing so, they agree to follow the rules set by the BSA. Neither is the BSA required to make an exemption for religious organizations. BSA organization; BSA rules. If you don't like the rules, don't join. If you don't like the rule changes, quit. It's really that simple.

 

On a related point, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from criticism. You have the same freedom to criticize their views on homosexual behavior and SSM as they do with you. As long as they are not violating your rights, nor you theirs, everything is fine.

[jwhitlock]

A big point that needs to be made here: Religious organizations are not required to charter Boy Scout Troops, nor is any person required to join the BSA. They do so of their own free will, and by doing so, they agree to follow the rules set by the BSA. Neither is the BSA required to make an exemption for religious organizations. BSA organization; BSA rules. If you don't like the rules, don't join. If you don't like the rule changes, quit. It's really that simple.

 

On a related point, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from criticism. You have the same freedom to criticize their views on homosexual behavior and SSM as they do with you. As long as they are not violating your rights, nor you theirs, everything is fine.

 

When an activist group seeks to co-opt an organization that has had a significant religious basis, and with which religious organizations have had significant involvement for decades, you can't just say "if you don't like it, leave".

 

The activists are just fine with that, because their goal is to marginalize religion in the public arena by doing just that - limiting their options to participate through charges of discrimination.

 

It's also clear from their statements that gay activists consider religious views that don't embrace homosexuality as something that need to be eradicated from American society, by whatever means possible.

 

It's not as simple as you'd like to portray it. Nor does your related point have any pertinence to what I posted.

[tagriffy]

When an activist group seeks to co-opt an organization that has had a significant religious basis, and with which religious organizations have had significant involvement for decades, you can't just say "if you don't like it, leave".

 

 

Why not? That's something I've been told to do often enough usually by conservatives (religious or political). This is just the flip side of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. The BSA was perfectly free then to set conditions on its membership, and if you didn't like the policy, well, no one was forcing you to join. And no doubt you would have been perfectly happy to put it that way then. The way I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

 

The activists are just fine with that, because their goal is to marginalize religion in the public arena by doing just that - limiting their options to participate through charges of discrimination.

 

It's also clear from their statements that gay activists consider religious views that don't embrace homosexuality as something that need to be eradicated from American society, by whatever means possible.

 

It's not as simple as you'd like to portray it. Nor does your related point have any pertinence to what I posted.

 

That is my related point. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from criticism. Assuming the activists' goal really is to marginalize religion in the public arena, they are perfectly free to do so, so long as they don't violate anyone's rights thereby. Freedom of religion does not exempt one from the court of public opinion either. And if you are violating someone else's rights, you don't get to use freedom of religion as a shield because your freedom ends where other people's right begin. It really is that simple.