Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) SkepticChristian resurrected an old thread of mine to link to an AP story about this talk given today in Sacramento by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. I am starting this new thread to link to my own story. I think mine is more thorough in that I didn't see the need to sensationalize it by focusing on the county clerk. As can be seen, he said a lot of interesting and important things. Edited October 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
halconero Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Boom."Although not mentioning Kim Davis by name, in a clear reference to the Kentucky county clerk who refused on religious grounds to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, Elder Oaks said public officials who take an oath have a responsibility to support the constitution and their local laws.“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices,” he said. “A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.”Kim Davis of Rowan County stopped issuing marriage licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June legalized same-sex marriage. She spent five days in jail for refusing to obey a federal judge's ruling ordering her to issue the licenses."http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-balance-accommodation-not-culture-warsBasically, you're welcome to express your convictions in the public square, but if you're an official do your job. Edited October 21, 2015 by halconero 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) The AP story really doesn't do justice to the speech. He said a lot of other important stuff beyond the county clerk thing. I've started a thread in which I link to my own news story about the speech. I think my story covers the speech better than the AP story did. Edited October 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Tony Frank Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 How does Elder Oaks feel about the Second Amendment? Can public officials exercise their Second Amendment rights when the government becomes repressive?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 What is getting lost in all the noise about what he said regarding the county clerk is that he also applied the principle to governors and attorneys general who refuse to enforce laws they don't like: Believers should acknowledge the validity of constitutional laws and recognize that officials in the executive or judicial branches of government who enforce or interpret laws take an oath that does not leave them free to override the law in furtherance of their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise.“A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal by her office and staff to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle,” he said. He added that far more significant violations of the rule of law occur when governors or attorneys general refuse to enforce or defend a law they oppose on personal grounds. As I recall, this was an issue after California voters passed Prop 8 and state officials wouldn't uphold it. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Another important point from the speech: Elder Oaks also offered “some suggestions for those who have other keys to or non-religious values for their human dignity.“First, please respect the laws that provide unique protections for believers and religious institutions, and please accept the fact that this grants religion an honorable place in our public life.”He noted that the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution singles out the “free exercise” of religion for special protection, along with free speech, free press and freedom of assembly.“Surely this unique constitutional guarantee of the ‘free exercise’ of religion was intended to grant unique protections to those acting in accordance with religious belief,” Elder Oaks said. He cited scholar Michael McConnell’s observation that when the First Amendment was drafted, the writers chose the phrase “free exercise of religion” over “rights of conscience,” a choice of “utmost importance” because it makes clear “the First Amendment protected more than just belief. It protected action in accordance with belief.”The preference in the phrasing also showed “that religiously based scruples are given more solicitude than non-religiously based ones,” Elder Oaks noted. This is important because, as Elder Oaks noted later in the speech, religious discourse in the public arena is getting shouted down by people who think religious folk have no right to be there. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Ah. I'll close mine then. Thanks, Scott.Thanks for your consideration.
Tony Frank Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Elder Oaks approach would mean the Jewish leaders were right to reject Jesus as the Christ because they made the laws and the official policy of the Jews. His approach also means the Jews were supposed to abide by the laws and policies of their leaders, which means all of them should have rejected Jesus as the Christ. I believe Elder Oaks has a gay relative. His opinion is far from objective. I really wish he would stop shooting his mouth off on the gay issue. 1
california boy Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I would like you to consider keeping your post open. I think referencing the churches official report on the talk a much fuller evaluation of what Elder Oaks said. Mr. Lloyd's article missed some very important points of what Elder Oaks talked about. And besides, Scott tends to use passive aggressive tactic to control his threads. He likes to close them down if he doesn't agree with what is being said. I think this is an important issue and an important speech and would like to hear what others have to say without fear of the thread being shut down and micro controlled by Scott. I certainly don't mind hearing what Scott has to say about this talk. I hope he will post a link to the article he wrote in your thread. Banned from the thread for personal comments. 2
california boy Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I found this statement by Elder Oaks to be interesting. Even today, our society is not held together primarily by law and its enforcement but most importantly by those who voluntarily obey the unenforceable because of their internalized norms of righteous or correct behavior. Some call this “civic virtue.” It has various sources, but all should recognize the vital contribution of religion because religious belief in right and wrong by a large number of citizens is fundamental to producing this essential voluntary compliance. Is he really saying that it is religion that is fundamental to producing this essential voluntary compliance? Wonder where he came up with that. I personally don't see any proof of that. I currently find religion to be very divisive and at times prodding people to break the law. With over 7,5 million people leaving organized religion in just the last three years, is he speculating that voluntary compliance is now in jeopardy?
Calm Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Chances are everyone has a gay relative given the percentage in the general population. And everyone's opinion is far from objective. Edited October 21, 2015 by Calm 3
KevinG Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Elder Oaks approach would mean the Jewish leaders were right to reject Jesus as the Christ because they made the laws and the official policy of the Jews. His approach also means the Jews were supposed to abide by the laws and policies of their leaders, which means all of them should have rejected Jesus as the Christ. I believe Elder Oaks has a gay relative. His opinion is far from objective. I really wish he would stop shooting his mouth off on the gay issue.I don't remember the Ancient Jews having a Bill of Rights? 2
california boy Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 And now to see this actually put into practice, Utah agrees to end same-sex parent birth certificate lawsuit One of those Attorneys General Elder Oaks was referring to. Maybe there is hope for progress. As a part of the joint stipulation, the Utah Attorney General’s Office said the state has agreed to pay the ACLU $24,302 in legal fees. The stipulation requires the judge’s signature to be made permanent.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Chances are everyone has a gay relative given the percentage in the general population. And everyone's opinion is far from objective.I don't have one that I know about. But I wonder if the poster is confusing Elder Oaks with Elder Christofferson.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) I would like you to consider keeping your post open. I think referencing the churches official report on the talk a much fuller evaluation of what Elder Oaks said. Mr. Lloyd's article missed some very important points of what Elder Oaks talked about. And besides, Scott tends to use passive aggressive tactic to control his threads. He likes to close them down if he doesn't agree with what is being said. I think this is an important issue and an important speech and would like to hear what others have to say without fear of the thread being shut down and micro controlled by Scott. I certainly don't mind hearing what Scott has to say about this talk. I hope he will post a link to the article he wrote in your thread.What a hostile cheap shot! If you think I'm abusing the privilege to moderate my own threads, by all means, report me to the moderators. For the record, I've not been chastened by any of them. But if you think it's a problem, you are free to start your own threads (assuming you have full posting privileges). Halconero, as far as I'm concerned you are welcome to keep your thread open. It won't bother me. Edited October 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
ksfisher Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Elder Oaks approach would mean the Jewish leaders were right to reject Jesus as the Christ because they made the laws and the official policy of the Jews. His approach also means the Jews were supposed to abide by the laws and policies of their leaders, which means all of them should have rejected Jesus as the Christ. I believe Elder Oaks has a gay relative. His opinion is far from objective. I really wish he would stop shooting his mouth off on the gay issue.The civil law at the time of Christ was made by the Romans. Christ counseled those around him to obey the civil law. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) The civil law at the time of Christ was made by the Romans. Christ counseled those around him to obey the civil law.A point that Elder Oaks made today when he talked about how believers should heed both civil and divine law.It really was a terrific speech. Edited October 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
california boy Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 From the other thread.Scott LloydWhat a hostile cheap shot! If you think I'm abusing the privilege to moderate my own threads, by all means, report me to the moderators. For the record, I've not been chastened by any of them. But if you think it's a problem, you are free to start your own threads (assuming you have full posting privileges). Halconero, as far as I'm concerned you are welcome to keep your thread open. It won't bother me. Are you seriously going to deny that you close threads you start on a regular basis when you don't like the way the discussion is headed??? 1
carbon dioxide Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Chances are everyone has a gay relative given the percentage in the general population. And everyone's opinion is far from objective. The gay population according to the CDC is about 2%. Perhaps you are right though the percentage is not nearly close to the obviously made up claim of 10%. Edited October 21, 2015 by carbon dioxide
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 From the other thread. Are you seriously going to deny that you close threads you start on a regular basis when you don't like the way the discussion is headed???Bug off. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 The theme of Elder Oaks's address (as I've repeated in the title of this thread) was "The Boundary between Church and State." He had an interesting take on the well-known metaphor "a wall between church and state" and, in fact, rejected the concept: Elder Oaks said that as a former law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court, later a prosecutor in the state courts of Illinois, still later a Utah Supreme Court Justice, and today as a General Authority in the Church, he has viewed the boundary between church and state from both sides.Recalling the well-known metaphor of “a wall between church and state,” Elder Oaks rejected the concept and substituted instead the imagery of “a curtain that defines boundaries but is not a barrier to the passage of light and love and mutual support from one side to another.” To solidify that, he had a few suggestions: “First, parties with different views on the relationship between church and state should advocate and act with civility,” he said.“Second, on the big issues … both sides should seek a balance, not a total victory.”He cited as an example a compromise recently crafted by the Utah State Legislature in a conflict over individual free exercise of religion and enforced non-discrimination in housing and employment. “It gave neither position all that it sought, but granted both positions benefits that probably could not have been obtained without the kind of balancing that is possible in the law-making branch but not in the judiciary.”His third suggested principle was that “it will help if we are not led or unduly influenced by the extreme voices that are heard from contending positions.” 1
Calm Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 The gay population according to the CDC is about 2%. Perhaps you are right though the percentage is not nearly close to the obviously made up claim of 10%.I am talking about extended family at the rate of 2%---parents, siblings, grandparents, great aunts and uncles, aunts and uncles, cousins, and all those variations for the inlaws. I have over a hundred probably at least, 300 if you count my husband's side as well. Proably have at least four...can't remember if I am confusing a friend with a family member.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 I am talking about extended family at the rate of 2%---parents, siblings, grandparents, great aunts and uncles, aunts and uncles, cousins, and all those variations for the inlaws. I have over a hundred probably at least, 300 if you count my husband's side as well. Proably have at least four...can't remember if I am confusing a friend with a family member.If you're like me, you quickly lose track of extended family once your mom and dad pass away -- especially your mom. Mine kept me up to date on the doings of the family and was a sort of clearinghouse for family news. Ironically, Facebook somewhat fills the role for me my mom once did. Facebook is not nearly as thorough as Mom was, though.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Here is a link to the full text of Elder Oaks's speech. It is on the Newsroom section of lds.org There's also a video of him giving the speech.
Recommended Posts