rockpond Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 What limits are there? What freedom have been denied? NONE Each student can chose what religion they prefer. This policy does not stop that choice, it only places a consequence for that choice. What freedom's that are taken away? Read the post above by mfbukowski, he states it very plainly. We each make choices on a daily basis, we do not get to rearrange consequences after the fact.That's why it is so important to make good choices, a great life lesson for us all. I understand that there are consequences to choices. My point is that BYU cannot create a consequence that restricts religious freedom and then claim that it honors religious freedom. The consequence of BYU's decision to have/enforce this policy is that they don't get to claim that they honor religious freedom. BYU is imposing, on students, limits to their freedom to change religious affiliation. That's a fact. We all seem to agree that BYU has the right to do such, but they are certainly limiting religious freedom (for their students) with the policy.
BTH&T Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Yes, similarly the 19th century saints were free to practice polygamy. Never mind that they might have to do it from a prison cell... that's just a natural consequence of their choice, right?I agree with your example, so IF they were to continue to practice polygamy it might have been from prison. They would know what the consequence of their choice would be. Free agency at it's core. We are free to chose good or evil, not to chose the consequences of our choices.
rockpond Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I agree with your example, so IF they were to continue to practice polygamy it might have been from prison. They would know what the consequence of their choice would be. Do you consider practicing polygamy from a prison cell to be "freedom"?
rongo Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Just when this thread was getting super stale. Something NEW !! Mark Juergensmeyer has something to say: http://religiondispatches.org/why-i-boycotted-a-conference-at-brigham-young-university/"But when I received this email from FreeBYU, I knew I could not attend." He's using this for PR-stunt value. He gets an email from "FreeBYU," and based solely on this, does not call those who invited him to discuss his concerns before notifying BYU by letter that he won't be attending out of conscience? C'mon! 4
iWriteStuff Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 "But when I received this email from FreeBYU, I knew I could not attend." He's using this for PR-stunt value. He gets an email from "FreeBYU," and based solely on this, does not call those who invited him to discuss his concerns before notifying BYU by letter that he won't be attending out of conscience? C'mon!Therein lies the credibility issue. "Oooo this looks spicy. Better consult my publicist first...."
BTH&T Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I understand that there are consequences to choices. My point is that BYU cannot create a consequence that restricts religious freedom and then claim that it honors religious freedom. The consequence of BYU's decision to have/enforce this policy is that they don't get to claim that they honor religious freedom. BYU is imposing, on students, limits to their freedom to change religious affiliation. That's a fact. We all seem to agree that BYU has the right to do such, but they are certainly limiting religious freedom (for their students) with the policy.I still do not see any restrictions or limits on religious freedom at BYU. Students can believe and say what they want , they just don't get the benefits associated with not following through on their contract.There are no limits on the students, they just can't have their cake and eat it too.
BTH&T Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Do you consider practicing polygamy from a prison cell to be "freedom"?Freedom of choice, absolutely.IF they chose to follow polygamy after it became illegal then they are subject to the penalties. Breaking the law today does not mean we are free to chose the penalty, only the choice to disobey was ours to make.
iWriteStuff Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Is the new theory that consequences impinge on freedom? Or is it that the consequences are bad because the policy is bad? Either way, if the policy is bad then DON'T AGREE TO IT. That way you won't have any issues with the consequences.
rockpond Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I still do not see any restrictions or limits on religious freedom at BYU. Students can believe and say what they want , they just don't get the benefits associated with not following through on their contract.There are no limits on the students, they just can't have their cake and eat it too. The contract is what limits religious freedom! By definition.
rockpond Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Is the new theory that consequences impinge on freedom? Or is it that the consequences are bad because the policy is bad? Either way, if the policy is bad then DON'T AGREE TO IT. That way you won't have any issues with the consequences. No. The principle is that we shouldn't create consequences with the intent of limiting religious freedom. Unless we're ready to admit that we don't honor religious freedom.
iWriteStuff Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 The contract is what limits religious freedom! By definition.Ever sign a contract you didn't like later on? How much effort did you spend renouncing it due to its restrictions on your freedom?
rockpond Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Freedom of choice, absolutely.IF they chose to follow polygamy after it became illegal then they are subject to the penalties. Breaking the law today does not mean we are free to chose the penalty, only the choice to disobey was ours to make. Freedom of choice is NOT freedom of religion. If the US were to pass a law the punished people for changing religions, we'd decry it as violating religious freedom. But if BYU does it you insist that no limits to religious freedom exist. Interesting logic.
rockpond Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Ever sign a contract you didn't like later on? How much effort did you spend renouncing it due to its restrictions on your freedom? Yes. Contracts often restrict freedom in exchange for some benefit to one or both sides. That's why I say that it is perfectly legal for BYU to do it. But their legal right to do it doesn't make it moral.
iWriteStuff Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Yes. Contracts often restrict freedom in exchange for some benefit to one or both sides. That's why I say that it is perfectly legal for BYU to do it. But their legal right to do it doesn't make it moral.I'd say the Board of Trustees has a moral obligation to be good stewards over the university and the funds that subsidize its students. I'd say the moral obligation to be good stewards trumps the moral obligation (if one can call it that) of allowing students to break their contracts.
Gray Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Very poor argument. We give up freedoms all the time by contract. Marriage is certainly one example. You buy a Ford, you give up the freedom to buy a Chevy with the same money.. You register republican, you give up being a Democrat. You join the church, you give up the freedom to get drunk every night. You want to be moral, you give up the ability to do all kinds of things It's called self-determination. You accept rules, you give up other things for what you gain with your choice. You have determined your own course of life. In fact, what this does is add to your liberty. Without accepting self-determination, we could drive on any side of the road we wanted, and not stopping at stop lights, thereby expressing our "freedom" and total chaos as a consequence. To coin a phrase, freedom is not free. It requires sacrifice and discipline or chaos ensues. It's just a simple statement of fact. BYU students who are LDS do not have the freedom to change their religious affiliation, because doing so would mean they are no longer BYU students. Religious freedom is only available to them outside of BYU. And of course the other difficulty is that only Mormon students are singled out for discrimination under these rules. Other students are not so constrained. This is not "fairness for all"
rockpond Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I'd say the Board of Trustees has a moral obligation to be good stewards over the university and the funds that subsidize its students. I'd say the moral obligation to be good stewards trumps the moral obligation (if one can call it that) of allowing students to break their contracts. They shouldn't allow students to break their contracts. I've never suggested such an absurd thing. I think the contracts should be changed to respect religious freedom.
Gray Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) What limits are there? What freedom have been denied? NONE Each student can chose what religion they prefer. This policy does not stop that choice, it only places a consequence for that choice. What freedom's that are taken away? Read the post above by mfbukowski, he states it very plainly. We each make choices on a daily basis, we do not get to rearrange consequences after the fact.That's why it is so important to make good choices, a great life lesson for us all. Under this scheme, freedom has no actual meaning. Edited October 8, 2015 by Gray
BTH&T Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Freedom of choice is NOT freedom of religion. If the US were to pass a law the punished people for changing religions, we'd decry it as violating religious freedom. But if BYU does it you insist that no limits to religious freedom exist. Interesting logic.logic huh?BYU allows other religious affiliations in their Students.BYU does not restrict changes of religious affiliation (including LDS students)BYU has an Honor Code for all of its students.Excommunication is an honor code violationIn the situation we are discussing, LDS students that are excommunicated or withdraw their membership (THEIR CHOICE) that is a honor code violation, and hence the consequence. Where in any of this is there loss of freedom? 1
Gray Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Freedom of choice, absolutely.IF they chose to follow polygamy after it became illegal then they are subject to the penalties. Breaking the law today does not mean we are free to chose the penalty, only the choice to disobey was ours to make. What could freedom mean then? North Koreans must have just as many freedoms as Americans.
rongo Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 They shouldn't allow students to break their contracts. I've never suggested such an absurd thing. I think the contracts should be changed to respect religious freedom.Do you think that the Church should exempt people in a SSM from violating the law of chastity (because they are legally married)? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 No, FreeBYU is arguing that the honor code should be changed (or scrapped ---- I think that's what the ultimate goal and impulse is) so that they are no longer not in compliance with it. This is similar to the argument from LGBT activists within the Church that the law of chastity definition should be changed to recognize state SSM as protecting these couples from being regarded as violating the law of chastity. They're not breaking it; they're married now! Come to think of it, there is significant/near-universal overlap between FreeBYU agitators/supporters and loosening of chastity "stigma" within the Church. The Venn diagram is pretty much just one circle, isn't it?It's a freaking policy. A POLICY. That's all. God didn't write this policy on stone tablets. That means it can be changed just as easily as it was instituted. If the church wants to be consistent they'll make a change. If they want to live in fear of an apostate living on campus then they should continue to limit religious liberty on campus. 1
BTH&T Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 It seems that there is a difference of opinion as to what freedom means. Freedom does not mean we can do what ever we want, when we want or how we want. Freedom does not mean we do not have to suffer consequences for our actions. BYU offers all religious freedoms to each and every student. BYU also requires all students to take LDS courses, so is that taking away someones religious freedom? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Yes. Contracts often restrict freedom in exchange for some benefit to one or both sides. That's why I say that it is perfectly legal for BYU to do it. But their legal right to do it doesn't make it moral.I cannot for the life of me see what's immoral about it. Consistent with its mission and objectives, the Church offers a subsidized university-level education and sets certain contractual obligations under which said education can be obtained. This contract is agreed to upfront by all parties concerned. None are compelled to avail themselves of the opportunity, but if they do, they must abide by the conditions. When I enrolled at the school in 1972, I probably knew intuitively that my continued enrollment there was conditional upon my remaining a member of the Church in good standing. Since I fully intended and expected to do so, it never became an issue for me. I'm trying now to imagine what my stance would be if at some point prior to graduation I were to remove my name from the records of the Church. I would hope I would retain a measure of wisdom and integrity. Wisdom enough to recognize that it was I who had changed and not the university and that if I were no longer willing to abide by the conditions of the contract I could not in fairness (or, to use your word, morality) expect to continue enjoying the privileges provided by the contract. Integrity enough to withdraw from enrollment on my own and not demand that the university continue to extend contractual privileges to me that I, because of a choice I had made, was no longer entitled to. Perhaps some people, when they lose their faith in the Church of Jesus Christ, lose some positive character traits along with it. I should hope that doesn't happen very often. Edited October 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 4
MosiahFree Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Absolutely nothing, but you are missing the point. The whole idea is to train HOW to deal with that "real world experience" from a gospel point of view, not from an ex-Mormon point of view. The Y presents a point of view- not a free exchange of ideas. That is the whole point. It is ONE point of view, not all of them. It is extensive training in one way of seeing reality. THAT is it's avowed purpose. If you want something else, you should go where you find it. You don't find art films on the Disney channel, or Marxism in the Republican Party.I always thought of BYU was providing an experience similar to that of monks and nuns in training. Returned Missionaries already have an advanced knowledge of the Gospel, BYU gives them a type of Master's Class in spiritual and intellectual discipline needed. We don't have a professional clergy because we don't need one with the kind of religious literacy rate Mormons have,
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 "But when I received this email from FreeBYU, I knew I could not attend." He's using this for PR-stunt value. He gets an email from "FreeBYU," and based solely on this, does not call those who invited him to discuss his concerns before notifying BYU by letter that he won't be attending out of conscience? C'mon!As I said earlier: probalby not the best choice to invite to the school in the first place.
Recommended Posts