Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[JAHS]

 

Edited July 13, 2015 by JAHS

[Scott Lloyd]

Not possible, Scott. Only "Mormon apologists" make ad hominem attacks, and nobody could ever mistake Tonie for a defender of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Aaargh!

And from a professional wordsmith, no less!

Have you eve seen anyone towing a line? I've seen people towing a boat, a trailer or another car, but never a line.

The expression is a sports-related one, and it is toe the line.

[/rant]

Well, it bears out what we often say in the profession: Everbody needs an editor.

Except you and Daniel Peterson, perhaps. You each seem to have this uncanny ability to produce immaculate text on first draft.

[Scott Lloyd]

From Skeptic Christian (my responses are in green type):

I understand BYU has the right to do what ever it wants, but isn't BYU suppose to be an example to the world?

BYU students do not know their future, the students that changed their religion didn't know it was going to happen.

I have had a hankering to respond to this for several days now, but have been discouraged by problems with the new board software.

It violates no one's religious freedom for a private educational institution to set its own conditions for enrollment. Enrollment at BYU is a privilege conditioned upon continued compliance with terms of a contract. You violate the contract, your privileges are voided. It's that simple. It’s the same with any contract. This is not an issue of religious freedom.

No one is required to attend the school. There is a plethora of other choices available, and in fact, other options would arguably be a better fit for someone who has apostatized from the Church and thus no longer supports the mission of the university.

Untold numbers of young people would love to enroll at BYU but cannot because all of the enrollment slots are occupied. I can scarcely think of anything more manifestly unjust than allowing someone to remain enrolled who has violated the conditions of enrollment when there are all these other students who want to attend and would be more than willing to live up to the terms.

Under the circumstances, I cannot see the reasoning of those who think apostates should be allowed to remain. Perhaps they are so steeped in the mentality of the entitlement generation that they cannot grasp the difference between a right and a privilege.

But this is not a thread about BYU's enrollment policies. If you want to discuss that further, start your own thread for that purpose.

Religious polygamists are experiencing real persecution. So you are only concerned about conservative Christian religious freedom, not about the religious freedom of others? The poor polygamists in Utah get arrested for practicing their religious beliefs, but you don't care about that.

I went to school with polygamists. Warren Jeffs was my high school classmate in Salt Lake County. Everyone knew they were polygamists. No one took action against them; not the school district, not anyone else. I never saw any instances of taunting or bullying or anything else that might constitute persecution.

Since the infamous raid at Short Creek, which happened in 1953, before I was born, I have never seen anyone getting arrested merely for practicing polygamy. The arrests, if any, occur in connection with more egregious crimes, such as domestic abuse, child sexual abuse, serial murder, etc.

I get the definite impression you don't know what you're talking about on this matter.

"Doesn't bother me. Should it?"

So you don't believe some religions have the right for the religious use of Cannabis?

I meant that their use of it for religious purposes doesn't bother me.

and what about the people that need medical marijuana?

This is not an issue of religious freedom. Please don't derail my thread further with irrelevancies.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you need to be more accurate in your postings, then. "PS you want gay rights to go away" seems rather all inclusive in normal conversation.

 

That inaccuracy extends to your other posts, as well.

 

In #156:

 

"The are 300 million people living in the USA, of course injustices happen somewhere. That doesn't mean your religious rights are going to go away."

 

We're not talking about random injustices among the populace. We're talking about institutionalized removal of religious freedoms by governments and courts. Your statement above misrepresents what we're actually talking about.

 

In #142:

 

"I understand BYU has the right to do what ever it wants, but isn't BYU suppose to be an example for religious freedom? BYU students do not know their future, the students that changed their religion didn't know it was going to happen." 

. 

 

 

You conflate religious freedom with institutional (in this case, University) policies regarding qualifications for attendance.

 

Members of the church enter BYU under a certain structure that relates specifically to their membership in the church. That structure is (or should be) well understood up front. When that person is no longer a member, that structure changes for reasons that BYU itself has made clear. Interestingly enough, non-members enter under a different structure that recognizes they are not members of the church. They are free to exercise their own religious beliefs as long as they don't conflict with the religious standards of the sponsoring organization.

 

None of that has anything to do with religious freedom. A religious organization and the schools it sponsors are allowed to maintain certain expectations of their members when they attend those schools.

 

"So you are only concerned about conservative Christian religious freedom, not about the religious freedom of others. The poor polygamists in Utah get arrested for practicing their religious beliefs, but you don't care about that."

 

 

 

Your first statement is unsupported by your second, and seem to be more of a flame than something based in actual fact. The fact is that the church has been very clear about religious freedom for all, not just for LDS.

 

Secondly (and Scott can correct me since I'm speaking from an East Coast perspective), from what I understand, Utah typically has only prosecuted polygamists when there are other problems such as abuse that are evident. That has also been a function of the State of Utah, and not a function of the church. Those are, believe it or not, separate entities. The vast majority of polygamists in Utah are not prosecuted or persecuted because it's rather difficult to prove, since society doesn't see anything wrong with people living together without marriage. The church's only action in these cases has been to execute any members they find practicing it.  Again, this has nothing to do with religious freedom.

 

"The only war on religious comes from conservative Christians (most Utah lawmakers are conservative Christians) " 

 

 

Throw away statement that is not worth responding to.

 

Secondly (and Scott can correct me since I'm speaking from an East Coast perspective), from what I understand, Utah typically has only prosecuted polygamists when there are other problems such as abuse that are evident. That has also been a function of the State of Utah, and not a function of the church. Those are, believe it or not, separate entities. The vast majority of polygamists in Utah are not prosecuted or persecuted because it's rather difficult to prove, since society doesn't see anything wrong with people living together without marriage. The church's only action in these cases has been to execute any members they find practicing it.  Again, this has nothing to do with religious freedom.

 

jwhitlock is absolutely correct here -- except that the Church doesn't "execute" people they find practicing polygamy. That would be a bit draconian.

 

I think he meant to say "excommunicate" and that he was the victim of an overactive auto-correct function.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scholastic accredidation also is not a religious right. In fact, scholastic accredidation is not a right period. There is legal recourse for scholastic institutions regarding their accredidation.

 

Religious Tax exempt status, also is not a religious right. For a history of tax exempt status see Bob Jone University v United States pages 9 - 11 relavent part:

 

"the legal background against which Congress enacted the first charitable exemption statute in 1894: charities were to be given preferential "The exemption from taxation of treatment because they provide a benefit to society."    Lone Dissent: To the extent that the Court states that Congress in furtherance of this policy could deny tax-exempt status to educational institutions that promote racial discrimination, I readily agree.   

 

Thus we see that tax-exempt status is a privilege granted by Congress, and denying said privilege to  religious institutions has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Denying tax exemption from churches after it has so long been a part of public policy would amount to an attack on religious liberty, as it could be used to oppress churches for political purposes. In fact, it's for that very purpose that some are calling for the removal of the exemption.

 

And jwhtilock has made a superb case that a school's adherence to a code of honor or morality is not a fit subject for accreditation, which ought to focus on issues of educational quality.

 

Or would you require West Point to ditch its honor code ("A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do") as a condition for accreditation?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

This may not be strictly responsive to the opening post (if you'd like me to delete it, let me know) but I was just visiting the Web site of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society on another matter, and I found this (I haven't explored it yet, but it looks like a gold mine): http://www.jrcls.org/news/item.php?id=130

Thank you.

 

This is great. I appreciate being made aware of this site.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I get the definite impression you don't know what you're talking about on this matter.

 

Probably not, I am not from Utah, I admit I don't know much about Utah. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Not possible, Scott.  Only "Mormon apologists" make ad hominem attacks, and nobody could ever mistake Tonie for a defender of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

She's done it twice now that I've seen. I've called her on it both times.

 

Referencing anything from National Review seems to bring out the ad hom proneness in her. I sense a polemical ideology at work here.

[Scott Lloyd]

Probably not, I am not from Utah, I admit I don't know much about Utah. 

Well thanks for that frank admission. You get a rep point for that.

[strappinglad]

Does anyone here remember the " Title 9 " experience and the fight the Church went through in order to have separate male/female living quarters? A contrary decision would have caused all kinds of trouble for BYU and might have even closed the doors. Those who think nothing can come of the new laws should review the Title 9 history and note that a law is one thing, but the mass of bureaucratic regulations that follow can cause most of the problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

Does anyone here remember the " Title 9 " experience and the fight the Church went through in order to have separate male/female living quarters? A contrary decision would have caused all kinds of trouble for BYU and might have even closed the doors. Those who think nothing can come of the new laws should review the Title 9 history and note that a law is one thing, but the mass of bureaucratic regulations that follow can cause most of the problem.

I remember the Title IX controversy. Didn't it occur about the same time as the ERA saga?

[Kenngo1969]

Does anyone here remember the " Title 9 " experience and the fight the Church went through in order to have separate male/female living quarters? A contrary decision would have caused all kinds of trouble for BYU and might have even closed the doors. Those who think nothing can come of the new laws should review the Title 9 history and note that a law is one thing, but the mass of bureaucratic regulations that follow can cause most of the problem. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

Quoted (again!) for truth.  Careless drafting by the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges has opened up a great big can of great big worms.  Though the chickens haven't yet come home to roost, they surely will.  (How's that for mixing metaphors? ) I've said it before, several times, but all the majority had to write to allay the concerns of the religiously devout is, "Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to Free Exercise of religion," but it didn't do that; and because it didn't do that, you can bet dollars to doughnuts (if you're a bettor) that people who want to make inroads into free exercise are going to look for any way they can to exploit the language it did use in order to achieve that objective.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[tonie]

Denying tax exemption from churches after it has so long been a part of public policy would amount to an attack on religious liberty, as it could be used to oppress churches for political purposes. In fact, it's for that very purpose that some are calling for the removal of the exemption.

 

Tax Exempt Status is not a right. 

Tax exempt status is a privilege.

 

Denying an application for said status, or revoking tax exempt status could amount to a Constitutional violation; this could happen based on the reason(s) why the status was revoked.

 

 

And jwhtilock has made a superb case that a school's adherence to a code of honor or morality is not a fit subject for accreditation, which ought to focus on issues of educational quality.

 

Acredidation is not a right. 

Acredidation is a privilege.

 

Denying an application for said status, or revoking accredidation could amount to a Constitutional violation; this could happen based on the reason(s) why the status was revoked.

 

Tax exemption is a privilege, an organization must meet the statutory requirements, then apply for said status.  Thus claiming "religions have long qualified for tax exemption, therefore it is a Right" would not hold up in a Court of law.  Especially given that every organization that claims to be a religion is not granted (yes granted) tax exempt status.

 

Accredidation is a privilege, an organization must meet the statutory requirements, then apply for said status. 

 

What is happening is this discussion is attempting to create right out of thin air; by argueing that a privilege is a Right

 

As the President of the Boy Scouts stated "we have to deal with the world the way it is".  The way the United States is, certain things are privileges; that is the current law of the land.

 

Accredidation is not a right.

Tax exempt status is not a right.

Official recognition of student body groups is not a right.

 

The reasons for which either of those is denied or revoked might be a Constitutional violation. 

 

I would recommend you read Bob Jones University v United States, and Christian Legal Society (CLS) v Martinez.    Bob Jones discusses tax exempt status (I believe this case has been cited by State Courts in addressing "gay wedding" cases. CLS discusses student groups - in this case the Supreme addresses relgious aspects of the  group. 

[tonie]

Here's another one.

 

On college campuses, Christian groups are being kicked out because of their requirements that the leader of the group be a professing Christian. Anyone can join the group, but the president must be dialed into what the group stands for.

 

Apparently, that runs afoul of the political correctness tyrants on these campuses.

 

 

From the article you posted:

 

"The students can still meet informally on campus,..."

 

"At Vanderbilt, ...  About one-third of the 35 religious groups on campus have refused to sign and are no longer recognized by the school; they can still meet and recruit informally, and the campus Hillel has even opened its building for meetings of one of the Christian groups."

 

 

CFR that "On college campuses, Christian groups are being kicked out".

Edited July 13, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

Does anyone here remember the " Title 9 " experience and the fight the Church went through in order to have separate male/female living quarters? A contrary decision would have caused all kinds of trouble for BYU and might have even closed the doors. Those who think nothing can come of the new laws should review the Title 9 history and note that a law is one thing, but the mass of bureaucratic regulations that follow can cause most of the problem.

 

Are referring to Fair Housing Act and BYU - reveiwed by BYU and the Gov in the 1970's, the 80's, and a suit filed by ACLU in the 1994?

 

google result "BYU fair housing act ACLU deseretnews"

 

Or,

 

 

Are you referring to a review of BYU sports programs by the Federal Gov, to when Rex E. Lee was BYU President?

 

Some google results for "BYU title IX deseretnews"

[strappinglad]

I wonder if there would be a group that COULD NOT meet informally on campus. Maybe a chapter of the' left-handed toe nail clippers ' would be escorted off campus by security for breach of the peace . The point is the Christian groups lost ' formal recognition from the school ' because of their requirements. In other words , no religion allowed  formally !

[tonie]

I wonder if there would be a group that COULD NOT meet informally on campus. Maybe a chapter of the' left-handed toe nail clippers ' would be escorted off campus by security for breach of the peace . The point is the Christian groups lost ' formal recognition from the school ' because of their requirements. In other words , no religion allowed  formally !

 

Good grief, all the blantant misrepresentation in this thread.  If we are going to claim religious freedom, shouldn't we attempt to remain credible.

 

If you would read the SCOTUS ruling you would find that the policy is nuetral - as it applies to all equally. 

 

But that is not the point.

 

Official recognition of a student group by a University IS NOT A RELIGIOUS RIGHT.    Denial of recognition, based on a fact based determination of the reason for denial could be a violation

[jwhitlock]

 

jwhitlock is absolutely correct here -- except that the Church doesn't "execute" people they find practicing polygamy. That would be a bit draconian.

 

I think he meant to say "excommunicate" and that he was the victim of an overactive auto-correct function.

 

 

Dang. That is a significant typo.

 

You're correct about what I meant to say.

[jwhitlock]

Denying tax exemption from churches after it has so long been a part of public policy would amount to an attack on religious liberty, as it could be used to oppress churches for political purposes. In fact, it's for that very purpose that some are calling for the removal of the exemption.

 

And jwhtilock has made a superb case that a school's adherence to a code of honor or morality is not a fit subject for accreditation, which ought to focus on issues of educational quality.

 

Or would you require West Point to ditch its honor code ("A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do") as a condition for accreditation?

 

It would appear that there is a lack of understanding that when accreditation or club recognition or anything like that is denied based on religious practice that has nothing to do with the real requirements for accreditation or club recognition - or anything else - then such things are an attack on religious freedom in a public arena.

[jwhitlock]

Does anyone here remember the " Title 9 " experience and the fight the Church went through in order to have separate male/female living quarters? A contrary decision would have caused all kinds of trouble for BYU and might have even closed the doors. Those who think nothing can come of the new laws should review the Title 9 history and note that a law is one thing, but the mass of bureaucratic regulations that follow can cause most of the problem.

 

I remember it very well. There was an attempt to force BYU to have coed quarters since students who attended BYU received grants from the government. There was quite a bit of discussion of what it would take to simply disallow grants of any kind from the government for anyone attending the college, how much it would cost, and if it could be made up through donations and other revenue.

 

I found the bureaucrats' position on it to be rather absurd. "You receive money indirectly from us, so we can tell you how to run your school from any aspect we want". I was glad that BYU was able to quash that.

 

Unfortunately, I think the same rationalization is going to be used again.

[tagriffy]

It would appear that there is a lack of understanding that when accreditation or club recognition or anything like that is denied based on religious practice that has nothing to do with the real requirements for accreditation or club recognition - or anything else - then such things are an attack on religious freedom in a public arena.

 

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.

[tagriffy]

I remember it very well. There was an attempt to force BYU to have coed quarters since students who attended BYU received grants from the government. There was quite a bit of discussion of what it would take to simply disallow grants of any kind from the government for anyone attending the college, how much it would cost, and if it could be made up through donations and other revenue.

 

I found the bureaucrats' position on it to be rather absurd. "You receive money indirectly from us, so we can tell you how to run your school from any aspect we want". I was glad that BYU was able to quash that.

 

Unfortunately, I think the same rationalization is going to be used again.

 

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

[Scott Lloyd]

Tax Exempt Status is not a right. 

Tax exempt status is a privilege.

 

Denying an application for said status, or revoking tax exempt status could amount to a Constitutional violation; this could happen based on the reason(s) why the status was revoked.

 

 

 

Acredidation is not a right. 

Acredidation is a privilege.

 

Denying an application for said status, or revoking accredidation could amount to a Constitutional violation; this could happen based on the reason(s) why the status was revoked.

 

Tax exemption is a privilege, an organization must meet the statutory requirements, then apply for said status.  Thus claiming "religions have long qualified for tax exemption, therefore it is a Right" would not hold up in a Court of law.  Especially given that every organization that claims to be a religion is not granted (yes granted) tax exempt status.

 

Accredidation is a privilege, an organization must meet the statutory requirements, then apply for said status. 

 

What is happening is this discussion is attempting to create right out of thin air; by argueing that a privilege is a Right

 

As the President of the Boy Scouts stated "we have to deal with the world the way it is".  The way the United States is, certain things are privileges; that is the current law of the land.

 

Accredidation is not a right.

Tax exempt status is not a right.

Official recognition of student body groups is not a right.

 

The reasons for which either of those is denied or revoked might be a Constitutional violation. 

 

I would recommend you read Bob Jones University v United States, and Christian Legal Society (CLS) v Martinez.    Bob Jones discusses tax exempt status (I believe this case has been cited by State Courts in addressing "gay wedding" cases. CLS discusses student groups - in this case the Supreme addresses relgious aspects of the  group. 

See jwhitlock's post #194.

[tonie]

See jwhitlock's post #194.

 

 

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.

Edited July 13, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

I think Scott brought up a good subtopic, entitlements and privilege.

Accredidation = privilege

Official recognition of student group = privilege

Tax Exempt status = privilege

 

 

Wrong on all three.

 

 

 

CFR, that Accredidation is not a privilege.

CFR, that official recognition is not a privilege.

CFR, that tax exempt status is not a privilege.

 

And by asserting that each of the above is not a privilege, you are asserting that each is a right or entitlement.

 

 

If I am so profoundly "wrong on all three", then you should not no trouble proving me wrong with the law and facts.  It is appauling that you makes such claims but do nothing to defend your claims.

 

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

Edited July 13, 2015 by tonie