Making A Statement About Free Byu

[Buckeye]

I suppose maybe it's an optics problem more than an academic one. Imagine you're a future employer of said apostate and you look at his previous work ("performance art LDS initiatories and endowments a la city park") and see that he's also a graduate of BYU, an obvious Mormon church school. Does that not jade your view of the church and the school simultaneously? Now he's not only made a mockery of sacred ordinances, but he's associated the church with his actions via his bona fides.

 

I'd agree with another poster (previous) who said it's fine to change faiths, but then get in line with the other non-members. Don't take the spot of another member of the church who desperately wants the education and supports the standards of the church with a living, vibrant testimony.

 

Or make it about freedom of religion. He/she is free to believe and worship as they will, but there are still consequences to face and privileges lost.

 

But by your own reckoning the policy did not prevent this 'optic.' The guy graduated and went on to disparage the church. Allowing members who no longer believe to stay enrolled at BYU does not make that possibility any greater. If anything, it may help.

 

To be clear, no one here is arguing that a student should be allowed to stay at BYU if they mock the church or its ceremonies. That's true regardless of the students faith (or lack of faith).

[Buckeye]

You're just incorrect to use "religious freedom" as a means to beat the Church.  But I can understand why a dissenter would be compelled to use terms like this.   As I have said before, "religious freedom" concerns the ability of a religion to operate free of government restriction.  The doctrine is not used to browbeat a religion for its practices.  But I'm pretty sure you know that.

 

In the New Testament, Paul mandates that unbelievers be "cut off" from the Church, and he uses a eumphemism for castration.  That might offend your sensibilities, perhaps, but it isn't a "religious freedom" issue.

 

Bob, if you listen to the recent BYU address given by (now) Elder Rasband, you will see that the church is interested in a religious freedom that is much broader than government action. The church wants protections for/from private actions as well - including employment, housings, faculty positions, and so forth. See: http://news.byu.edu/archive15-sep-rasbanddevotional.aspx

 

You can narrowly define the issue to pure government action, but since the church does not share that view, it makes perfect sense for Gray and others to speak to private actions that impinge on religious freedom, including actions taken by the church itself.

[Gray]

You're just incorrect to use "religious freedom" as a means to beat the Church.  But I can understand why a dissenter would be compelled to use terms like this.   As I have said before, "religious freedom" concerns the ability of a religion to operate free of government restriction.  The doctrine is not used to browbeat a religion for its practices.  But I'm pretty sure you know that.

 

In the New Testament, Paul mandates that unbelievers be "cut off" from the Church, and he uses a eumphemism for castration.  That might offend your sensibilities, perhaps, but it isn't a "religious freedom" issue.

 

I have no interest in beating the church with anything.  But you're trying to keep the scope of the word freedom very narrow. I believe this is known as the "appeal to definition" fallacy. But freedom is not as narrow a concept as you would like it to be. BYU can and does impact the freedom of its students. 

 

If you would like to claim that this isn't a religious rights issue, I'm all on board and I agree. BYU students have no legal right to attend BYU. But all the same it is a religious freedom issue. 

 

I would also point out that BYU is not a church, and does allow non-members to attend, so your comparisons with Paul's ideas about church policy don't really seem relevant. BYU already allows unbelievers, even anti-Mormons can attend so long as they've never been Mormon. 

[iWriteStuff]

But by your own reckoning the policy did not prevent this 'optic.' The guy graduated and went on to disparage the church. Allowing members who no longer believe to stay enrolled at BYU does not make that possibility any greater. If anything, it may help.

 

To be clear, no one here is arguing that a student should be allowed to stay at BYU if they mock the church or its ceremonies. That's true regardless of the students faith (or lack of faith).

 

Maybe we're talking past each other here. I'll attempt to lay out the chain of events in a clearer fashion, with the addition of relevant details:

 

1) In his Jr year at BYU, said student decided he didn't believe in the church any more and opposed policies of the church all over his Facebook account.

 

2) Yet he stayed enrolled and continued to check all the boxes in his Honor Code interviews.

 

3) He followed through with his education until graduating.

 

4) A week after obtaining his degree, he came out of the closet.

 

5) A month after that, the abomination of temple ordinances were performed by him as "a former BYU graduate".

 

Had he been honest about his affiliations and intentions, it wouldn't appear to outside observers that somehow his graduation from BYU meant that the church was aware of and/or approved of said performances. Staying enrolled didn't help him tame his animosity towards the church.

 

The case is, admittedly, an outlier but I know of several others I could use to make the same case. My point is simply that there is a small risk of the church funding apostates who use their education to fight against or make a mockery of the church. I don't know if you could force said apostates to acknowledge their departure, as not all possess the integrity of their convictions, but certainly when someone is vocal in their separation from the church, it's time to reassess and face some consequences.

[Bob Crockett]

Bob, if you listen to the recent BYU address given by (now) Elder Rasband, you will see that the church is interested in a religious freedom that is much broader than government action. The church wants protections for/from private actions as well - including employment, housings, faculty positions, and so forth. See: http://news.byu.edu/archive15-sep-rasbanddevotional.aspx

 

You can narrowly define the issue to pure government action, but since the church does not share that view, it makes perfect sense for Gray and others to speak to private actions that impinge on religious freedom, including actions taken by the church itself.

 

What you're doing is using a phrase "religious freedom" in a way that is not used either in the law or as a term of art by religious scholars.  You're certainly free to do that, but you might as well start using "your" instead of "you're" for all the currency and persuasion that will buy.

 

If I believe, as some do, that people who work in casinos ought not to have church callings, well, that is my right, however, bigoted it might be, to believe that.  But to say that my belief is a violation of somebody's religious freedom is pretty absurd. 

 

If, on the other hand, Congress passes a law that says that churches who discriminate against casino workers can't have boy scout troops use government buildings, well, then, that is a religious freedom issue.

 

You and your pals use "religious freedom" as a means to browbeat the Church for its religious practices in terms of defining who can and cannot use its facilities bought and paid for with tithing money.  I'd say that is the height of absurdity.  It isn't a question of semantics.  It is a question of whether you have seven or eight pistons firing in your engine.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Senator]

We're making this harder than needs be.

 

Since belief is simply a choice, all the unbelieving member student needs to do is choose to believe.

 

Problem solved!

[thesometimesaint]

There already are people taking the place of an otherwise qualified member--they are non-members.

The institution should see those who wish to finish their education with them as an asset...not treat them like outcasts.

 

By their own admission they are no longer qualified. Do they have the honesty to stand by their decisions? Apparently not. You have stated that they should lie.

 

They are not assets to the Church, or BYU. When they cheat and lie. The prime mission of BYU is to educate members to be future leaders in the Church at the Branch, Ward, Stake, and higher levels. That they admit nonmembers is a nice but of secondary importance.

 

They are not treated as outcasts. They are simply asked to abide by the commitments they have already made for the duration of their BYU experience. EVERY school/job I have ever had expects me to be honest and live by my commitments. What do you suggest be done with those that deliberately cheat and lie?

[Buckeye]

What you're doing is using a phrase "religious freedom" in a way that is not used either in the law or as a term of art by religious scholars.  You're certainly free to do that, but you might as well start using "your" instead of "you're" for all the currency and persuasion that will buy.

 

If I believe, as some do, that people who work in casinos ought not to have church callings, well, that is my right, however, bigoted it might be, to believe that.  But to say that my belief is a violation of somebody's religious freedom is pretty absurd. 

 

If, on the other hand, Congress passes a law that says that churches who discriminate against casino workers can't have boy scout troops use government buildings, well, then, that is a religious freedom issue.

 

You and your pals use "religious freedom" as a means to browbeat the Church for its religious practices in terms of defining who can and cannot use its facilities bought and paid for with tithing money.  I'd say that is the height of absurdity.

 

Well, at least one religious scholar disagrees. See the OP. 

 

I'm happy to concede that we're using different definitions. As such, we may both be right in our conclusions. I just think that limiting religious freedom to government action is too narrow for what the church intends, and therefore incorrect for topic of this thread. Perhaps its best to let stemelbow define the term since this his thread.

 

Your casino example is just wrong. Religious discrimination comes from treating people differently based on their religion. So an organization that does not allow participation by casino workers is not religiously discriminating, it is gambling discriminating (or whatever term is appropriate). If the organization allowed participation only by muslims, but not by christians, then that would be religious discrimination. 

 

Finally (and I think we're going in circles), I'm not trying to sue the church are brow beat its practices. I'm just pointing out that, in my view, it's policy is discriminatory, wrongful, and should be stopped. Apparently others agree. I'm not taking any action other than to notify BYU that my donations have stopped until this wrongful practice is changed. I'm sure you'll grant that I'm well within my rights to do that.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Buckeye

[Bob Crockett]

Well, at least one religious scholar disagrees. See the OP. 

 

I'm happy to concede that we're using different definitions. As such, we may both be right in our conclusions. I just think that limiting religious freedom to government action is too narrow for what the church intends, and therefore incorrect for topic of this thread. Perhaps its best to let stemelbow define the term since this his thread.

 

He's an idiot.  I'm published in the field of religious freedom.  Is he?  You really don't see the distinction do you?  

 

Look, I may agree with you that BYU's practice of expelling those who leave the faith may be harsh, particularly if they are compliant with the Honor Code, and it is something I wouldn't do if I were in charge, but you're just not very literate on the issue of what is religious freedom.   People die for their religious freedoms around the world.  There are many honorable people fighting world-wide for religious freedoms in oppressive communities and countries.   You've trivialized a very sacred and important fight by purposely not understanding it or misusing it to criticize somebody's faith.

 

Don't call people idiots.

[Gray]

What you're doing is using a phrase "religious freedom" in a way that is not used either in the law or as a term of art by religious scholars.  You're certainly free to do that, but you might as well start using "your" instead of "you're" for all the currency and persuasion that will buy.

 

If I believe, as some do, that people who work in casinos ought not to have church callings, well, that is my right, however, bigoted it might be, to believe that.  But to say that my belief is a violation of somebody's religious freedom is pretty absurd. 

 

If, on the other hand, Congress passes a law that says that churches who discriminate against casino workers can't have boy scout troops use government buildings, well, then, that is a religious freedom issue.

 

You and your pals use "religious freedom" as a means to browbeat the Church for its religious practices in terms of defining who can and cannot use its facilities bought and paid for with tithing money.  I'd say that is the height of absurdity.  It isn't a question of semantics.  It is a question of whether you have seven or eight pistons firing in your engine.

 

You should review Elder Oaks' speech on religious freedom. He does not seem to share your views on how narrowly it should be defined:

 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/religious-freedom-still-possible-elder-oaks-says?lang=eng 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Gray

[Senator]

 What do you suggest be done with those that deliberately cheat and lie?

 

Umm.....be careful there...

[iWriteStuff]

Well, at least one religious scholar disagrees. See the OP. 

 

I'm happy to concede that we're using different definitions. As such, we may both be right in our conclusions. I just think that limiting religious freedom to government action is too narrow for what the church intends, and therefore incorrect for topic of this thread. Perhaps its best to let stemelbow define the term since this his thread.

 

Kudos to said scholar for his conscientious objection. Thankfully, the policy is decided by wiser minds and inspired counsel.

[Gray]

He's an idiot.  I'm published in the field of religious freedom.  Is he?

 

What are your views on Elder Oaks' understanding of the term religious freedom? 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Gray

[TheSkepticChristian]

http://www.freebyu.org/prominent-scholar-boycotts-byu-laws-annual-religious-freedom-conference-in-protest-over-byus-religious-discrimination/

Oh BYU, stop fighting freedom of religion, please.

 

but BYU is a private business, so it is okay because it doesn't contradict conservative and libertarian views. 

[Buckeye]

He's an idiot.  I'm published in the field of religious freedom.  Is he?  You really don't see the distinction do you?  

 

Look, I may agree with you that BYU's practice of expelling those who leave the faith may be harsh, particularly if they are compliant with the Honor Code, and it is something I wouldn't do if I were in charge, but you're just not very literate on the issue of what is religious freedom.   People die for their religious freedoms around the world.  There are many honorable people fighting world-wide for religious freedoms in oppressive communities and countries.   You've trivialized a very sacred and important fight by purposely not understanding it or misusing it to criticize somebody's faith.

 

Nice appeal to the no true scotsman fallacy. Apparently someone - BYU - thought him enough of a scholar to issue an invitation.

 

Let's end it a this. I'm taking the same view of religious freedom as I see our church leaders take. I pointed to Elder Rasband's talk. Gray pointed to Elder Oaks'. Do you agree that the LDS church (through these leaders) is defining religious freedom more broadly than government action, in fact, defining it to include some types of private action? If so, do you think they are trivializing the real fight and dwelling on things of lesser weight?

Edited October 6, 2015 by Buckeye

[stemelbow]

By their own admission they are no longer qualified. Do they have the honesty to stand by their decisions? Apparently not. You have stated that they should lie.

I did not. That's silly.

 

They are not assets to the Church, or BYU. When they cheat and lie. The prime mission of BYU is to educate members to be future leaders in the Church at the Branch, Ward, Stake, and higher levels. That they admit nonmembers is a nice but of secondary importance.

I'm strictly calling on BYU to reverse its policy the students who lose their faith being ousted from school. I'm not advocating lying. But I would say those kids who do lose their faith and are determined to finish their degree could be an asset to BYU and BYU should treat them as such--not treat them like outcasts.

 

They are not treated as outcasts. They are simply asked to abide by the commitments they have already made for the duration of their BYU experience. EVERY school/job I have ever had expects me to be honest and live by my commitments. What do you suggest be done with those that deliberately cheat and lie?

Nobody is advocating cheating and lying. This is ridiculous.

[jkwilliams]

Nobody is advocating cheating and lying. This is ridiculous.

For the record, I did not advocate that my relative or my friend cheat or lie. As I said, it was none of my business what they did.

[stemelbow]

He's an idiot.  I'm published in the field of religious freedom.  Is he?  You really don't see the distinction do you?  

 

Look, I may agree with you that BYU's practice of expelling those who leave the faith may be harsh, particularly if they are compliant with the Honor Code, and it is something I wouldn't do if I were in charge, but you're just not very literate on the issue of what is religious freedom.   People die for their religious freedoms around the world.  There are many honorable people fighting world-wide for religious freedoms in oppressive communities and countries.   You've trivialized a very sacred and important fight by purposely not understanding it or misusing it to criticize somebody's faith.

Fine let's call it something else then. You know what we mean. It doesn't matter to me what term we use to describe it. BYU is putting constraints on some kids as it relates to their choice of religion. Here I'll change my wording in the OP just for you.

[Bob Crockett]

Fine let's call it something else then. You know what we mean. It doesn't matter to me what term we use to describe it. BYU is putting constraints on some kids as it relates to their choice of religion. Here I'll change my wording in the OP just for you.

 

"Religious freedom" is not what you and your pals think it is.  "Religious freedom" is the freedom of a religion to do what it wants in the name of religion, even if it annoys your personal sensibilities.  "Religious freedom" is not a means to criticize a religion for doing what it wants, particularly in the area of membership and its rights.

 

One of my Muslim friends belongs to a sect which believes it is led by a living successor to Mohammed.  His sect is banned in every single Muslim country on the planet, and it is now based on London.  A friend of his was arrested on a flight to Dubai merely because he was member of the sect and discussed his beliefs with a fellow passenger.   That is a religious freedom issue, not your silly opening post.

 

You and your pals would probably advocate for some law or societal pressure to get BYU to change its matriculation policies.  That is the antithesis of religious freedom.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

Nice appeal to the no true scotsman fallacy. Apparently someone - BYU - thought him enough of a scholar to issue an invitation.

 

Let's end it a this. I'm taking the same view of religious freedom as I see our church leaders take. I pointed to Elder Rasband's talk. Gray pointed to Elder Oaks'. Do you agree that the LDS church (through these leaders) is defining religious freedom more broadly than government action, in fact, defining it to include some types of private action? If so, do you think they are trivializing the real fight and dwelling on things of lesser weight?

I just don't think an appeal to Rasband or Oaks will help you.   You just cannot appeal to "religious freedom" as a way to criticize a religion about who it admits and doesn't.   I know I can't convince somebody who simply chooses to be disingenuous about the whole thing, but perhaps a reader of this thread will understand that "religious freedom" is not a battle-cry to get snake handlers of the Bible belt to stop their practices, to get Muslim women to stop wearing scarves, to get Catholics to stop pressuring Catholic politicians to oppose capital punishment, or to get BYU to admit apostates.

[Gray]

I just don't think an appeal to Rasband or Oaks will help you.   You just cannot appeal to "religious freedom" as a way to criticize a religion about who it admits and doesn't.   I know I can't convince somebody who simply chooses to be disingenuous about the whole thing, but perhaps a reader of this thread will understand that "religious freedom" is not a battle-cry to get snake handlers of the Bible belt to stop their practices, to get Muslim women to stop wearing scarves, to get Catholics to stop pressuring Catholic politicians to oppose capital punishment, or to get BYU to admit apostates.

 

Is BYU a church or a religion to anyone but Cougar fans? Is the BYU policy an article of religious faith? 

[Bob Crockett]

BYU is a religious institution, just like Notre Dame, Loyola, SMU, .  It is a religious corporation and its board of trustees are church officials, including the president of the church -- like the other institutions I have named. 

 

But, I do think you know that.  The question offered in the opening post is not about Cougar football, but about the right of any religious school to define the terms of matriculation.  You and your pals, using "religious freedom" as your banner, say that a religious institution ought to do things your way, not their way.

 

I personally think that BYU ought to let apostates finish the term of their studies, but I'm not in charge of the religion.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[HappyJackWagon]

I just don't think an appeal to Rasband or Oaks will help you.   You just cannot appeal to "religious freedom" as a way to criticize a religion about who it admits and doesn't.   I know I can't convince somebody who simply chooses to be disingenuous about the whole thing, but perhaps a reader of this thread will understand that "religious freedom" is not a battle-cry to get snake handlers of the Bible belt to stop their practices, to get Muslim women to stop wearing scarves, to get Catholics to stop pressuring Catholic politicians to oppose capital punishment, or to get BYU to admit apostates.

Criticizing the university is not the same thing as criticizing the religion. Are you arguing that only the institutional church deserves religious freedom as opposed to the individuals within a church? This is the disconnect I feel with what you're suggesting.

 

Individuals deserve the same rights of religious freedom as an institution.

[jkwilliams]

Oddly enough, I agree with Brother Crockett on this. As a religiously sponsored institution, BYU is free to set its own standards for admission and expulsion as it sees fit. Personally, I think the policy is too heavy handed and puts people in a difficult situation, but I don't dispute that it's BYU's right to set its own policy.

[Gilbert]

BYU is a church school. To say what a church must do with its school, in the name of religious freedom, is rather ironic.

 

Also, members leave the Church is one of two ways. 1. Improper conduct (which goes against BYU's honor code) 2. Becoming disenfranchised with the Church. Not merely inactive but actively believing it's not true. These people, as Joseph Smith said, can't leave the Church alone. They are bound to be a negative influence on fellow students. Either way their presence is a distraction at best.