Elder Oaks Speaks On "the Boundary Between Church And State" (merged)

[Scott Lloyd]

but I don't see how that has anything to do with the politics of religious freedom. Kim Davis, Oregon Bakery, public prayer in public schools, one nation under God in the pledge. Tell me when did Jesus talk about any of that? 

 

or what are you exactly fighting for? Do you think your religious rights are going to go away? 

Asked and answered.

[Kenngo1969]

I think it's important to understand the context in which Mr. Jefferson first invoked the metaphor of a wall of separation between church and state.  He wasn't writing a treatise on constitutional interpretation when he used it, so it may be a mistake to apply it to that end.  I don't think the author of the piece I link below, for instance, has a dog in the fight: I don't think he's arguing (at least, not on his own behalf) for any particular interpretation of Mr. Jefferson's phrase.  The piece is somewhat lengthy, so for those of you who would like me to "cut to the chase," here is the author's conclusion in a "money quote":

 

Analyzed with the help of the latest technology, the Danbury Baptist letter has yielded significant new information. Using it to fix the intent of constitutional documents is limited, however, by well established rules of statutory construction: the meaning of a document cannot be determined by what a drafter deleted or by what he did concurrently with the drafting of a document. But it will be of considerable interest in assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt at enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed.

Lest I be deemed guilty of the same offense against which I now caution my reader, here is a link to the entire piece:

 

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

Edited October 27, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

_{I think it's important to understand the context in which Mr. Jefferson first invoked the metaphor of a wall of separation between church and state.  He wasn't writing a treatise on constitutional interpretation when he used it, so it may be a mistake to apply it to that end.  I don't think the author of the piece I link below, for instance, has a dog in the fight: I don't think he's arguing (at least, not on his own behalf) for any particular interpretation of Mr. Jefferson's phrase.  The piece is somewhat lengthy, so for those of you who would like me to "cut to the chase," here is the author's conclusion in a "money quote":}

 

Lest I be deemed guilty of the same offense against which I now caution my reader, here is a link to the entire piece:

 

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

This is an enlightening article and ought to be required reading for all who wave the banner of "separation of church and state."

 

Clearly, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, and his use of the phrase "wall of separation of church and state" therein was, as the article states, "never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more." Over generations, the phrase has enjoyed reverential deference to the point that many Americans are oblivious to the fact that the phrase is not contained in the Constitution.

 

Despite that deference,  it is not on a par conceptually with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the concept is appropriately subject to re-examination by thoughtful people such as Elder Oaks, who proposes "curtain of separation" as a preferable substitute for "wall of separation." He makes a strong case in doing so.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

 

Despite that deference,  it is not on a par with the phrasing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the phrase and concept is appropriately subject to re-examination by thoughtful people such as Elder Oaks, who proposes "curtain of separation" as preferable substitute for "wall of separation." He makes a strong case in doing so.

 

Nonsense.

 

Are you really suggesting that Elder Oaks has a better handle on the meaning of the first amendment than did Jefferson?  That's just silly.

 

Yes, the phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution.  Only morons don't know that.  That's hardly the point.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Nonsense.

 

Are you really suggesting that Elder Oaks has a better handle on the meaning of the first amendment than did Jefferson?  That's just silly.

 

I'm highlighting the strong case made by the linked article (have you read it by the way?) that Jefferson used the phrase to score points in the context of a political debate (he was opposed to the calling of a national day of fasting or of thanksgiving), that he never intended it be "a statement of fundamental principles." I further suggest that Elder Oaks has a brilliant legal mind, that he is not necessarily at odds with Jefferson on the First Amendment, and that the First Amendment may not have been intended to be what some secularists today try to make it. Perhaps if Jefferson were with us today, he might agree with Elder Oaks that "curtain" is indeed a better concept than "wall."

 

Yes, the phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution.  Only morons don't know that. 

If that be the case, there are multitudes of what you style "morons" at large today.

 

That's hardly the point.

 

 

 

What is the point? That there is to be animus between government and religion? The First Amendment does not provide that.

 

The First Amendment is quite clear with regard to religion and it proscribes the behavior of government, not churches. It says simply that government must not favor one religion over another and that it must not hinder the free exercise of religion. Anything else tacked onto it is unconstitutional baggage.

 

Edited to add:

 

By the way, if you see each and every word that Jefferson ever uttered as being inviolate, you must be opposed to the holiday we will observe here in the United States next month: Thanksgiving Day.

 

Read the article to see why.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[TheSkepticChristian]

 I further suggest that Elder Oaks has a brilliant legal mind

 

Please tell us when Jesus, Joseph Smith, or Elder Oaks told us to defend the right of business owners to discriminate because of their religion? Please tell us when they told us to be worried about BYU's accreditation?  Just tell me where does it say to defend the politics of religious freedom? 

[jwhitlock]

Nonsense.

 

Are you really suggesting that Elder Oaks has a better handle on the meaning of the first amendment than did Jefferson?  That's just silly.

 

Yes, the phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution.  Only morons don't know that.  That's hardly the point.  

 

Are you really suggesting that Thomas Jefferson had a better handle on how the first amendment should be applied to the situations in our day than does Elder Oaks?

[jwhitlock]

Bummer, Scott. You gave TSK his own thread to derail, and he's still coming back to this one with his bizarre accusations.

 

I'll bet all those Coptic Christians being slaughtered for their religion would agree with him that religious freedom is a non-issue that we don't have to worry about.  Such things demonstrate the absurdity of myopic viewpoints based on ignorance of the real world.

[Kenngo1969]

Nonsense.

 

Are you really suggesting that Elder Oaks has a better handle on the meaning of the first amendment than did Jefferson?  That's just silly.

 

  

I'll let Scott speak for himself, but I don't think he's suggesting that Elder Oaks "has a better handle on the meaning of the [F]irst [A]mendment than did Jefferson."  That's the whole point.  Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptist Church wasn't written as a primer on constitutional interpretation generally or on First Amendment interpretation specifically.  To appeal to it as an authority on constitutional interpretation is to press it into service for a purpose for which it was never intended.  He wrote it as a rejoinder to those who questioned his religiosity.  In any event, as I have already pointed out, as venerable as he and his opinions were and are, Jefferson never could have envisioned many of the ways in which interpretation of the First Amendment has changed over the years, often for the better.  

 

For instance, Jefferson's conception of First Amendment freedom of speech very likely did not even contemplate (let alone not embracing) such a principle as expressive conduct.  Yet that principle has been enshrined in First Amendment jurisprudence for generations, and the United States, its laws, and its citizens and residents are all the better for it.  So called "originalists" and "textualists" often are excoriated by allegedly-more-enlightened progressive types, who dismiss them (us; largely, I'm an originalist, or at least, I think that the Founders opinions on many things are deserving of far more consideration and far more deference than they often get) by leveling the accusation that, e.g., they/we want to return to a time when someone of another color was considered 3/5ths of a person for political purposes.  The truth is that many of those critics want to "have their cake and eat it, too": they appeal to Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor to support removing every trace of religion from public life, yet, at the same time, they poison the well against originalist/textualist arguments by saying that their proponents want to return to a time when people of another color were considered less than fully human.

 

Yes, the phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution.  Only morons don't know that.  That's hardly the point.

 

Humbly, then, those of us who think what the Constitution does and does not say is of much greater importance than that which you attach to it must beg your pardon.  So, too, with the level of civic literacy among the American electorate.  While I don't wish to be unduly critical of my fellow citizens, the level of civic illiteracy among the American electorate is startling and disheartening. One cannot effectively exercise rights which one is scarcely aware he has, and one is far more likely to be far more sanguine about infringement of those rights if one cannot even articulate them (and where they come from) than he would be if he were more knowledgeable.  While, again, I don't wish to be unduly critical of my fellow citizens, on the subject of civic literacy, far more people are "morons" about what rights they possess, about the meaning of those rights, and about the proper role of government vis-a-vis those rights than you wish to admit.

 

If an apologist or a critic, were to take a particular quote reportedly uttered or written by someone, were to divorce that quote from its context, and were to attempt to employ that quote in the service of some end never even remotely contemplated by the writer or the speaker in an attempt to defend or to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, people on the opposing side of the debate would be quick to excoriate such a person's tactics.  Yet, arguably, as the author of the article from the Library of Congress to which I linked earlier in the thread points out, that is precisely what those who employ Jefferson's quote in support of removing religion from public life are doing.

 

Dismiss that conclusion if you will, but you do so at your own peril.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Are you really suggesting that Thomas Jefferson had a better handle on how the first amendment should be applied to the situations in our day than does Elder Oaks?

Yeah.  [ironic laugh.]  Especially since, great as Thomas Jefferson was, he was never a prophet, seer, and revelator.

[Kenngo1969]

Please tell us when Jesus, Joseph Smith, or Elder Oaks told us to defend the right of business owners to discriminate because of their religion? Please tell us when they told us to be worried about BYU's accreditation?  Just tell me where does it say to defend the politics of religious freedom? 

Joseph Smith was a prophet, seer, and revelator in his day, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks is a prophet, seer, and revelator in his day. That's the whole point of continuing revelation: it's tailored to the needs and concerns of its recipients and the times in which they, respectively, live.  And you seriously don't think the Brethren, as Trustees of Brigham Young University, or that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose tithing dollars support BYU, should be concerned about its accreditation?  All I can say to that is, "Oh.    Okay."  And any of the parties you mention endorsing discrimination is a red herring.  It's as though you and anyone of your ilk think that the only people qualified to opine on religious freedom are the irreligious or the areligious. 

[thesometimesaint]

As valuable as Jefferson's talk at the Danbury Baptist Church is for our idea's as to the separation of Church State. A much better understanding is derived for the Virginia Statute for Religious

Freedom

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

[Tony Frank]

I don't see a conflict in what Oaks has said.  He did not say that since gay marriage is legal then its is morally right or that we must accept it.  He simply says for public servants, they must do their job even if their job requires them to do some things they do not agree with.  If one is required to do something that violates their conscience, perhaps they should find a new job that does not require them to do so.  Oaks has not changed his view at all.  He simply has clarified a particular point in regards to what people are expected to do on their job. 

 

Oh, come on. Elder Oaks essentially said every public servant MUST support "what God has declared immoral" or quit their job.

 

Once again, this is what Elder Oaks said in 2013:

 

“Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and ‘in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.’ But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

 

“In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited.

 

“A teaching of President Thomas S. Monson applies to this circumstance. At this conference 27 years ago, he boldly declared: ‘Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval.’”

 

“I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life. We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ.”

[Meadowchik]

 

Oh, come on. Elder Oaks essentially said every public servant MUST support "what God has declared immoral" or quit their job.

 

Once again, this is what Elder Oaks said in 2013:

 

“Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and ‘in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.’ But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

 

“In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited.

 

“A teaching of President Thomas S. Monson applies to this circumstance. At this conference 27 years ago, he boldly declared: ‘Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval.’”

 

“I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life. We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ.”

 

 

This does not contradict what he said about the clerk Kim Davis. The Church fought the political and legal battle against same-sex marriage and lost.  To cooperate legally, however, does not require an abandonment and compromise of our convictions.  We don't have to believe that a same-sex marriage must be sealed in LDS temples, the Church does not have to yield in that.  However, the Church and President Oaks does seem to favor going about our relations in a legal and lawful fashion in this day. And this is not new, "We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

We can fight tooth and nail through legal channels for or against a law, but we believe in following the rule of law once it is decided.  I suppose one day this could change, but obviously, the Church has not yet called for a change, even with the legalisation of same-sex marriage (or other acts which the prophets call sinful.) Even then, we are still called to go forth and be a light and share the gospel.  We still enjoy the privilege of teaching ideas opposed to gambling, drinking, smoking, adultery, fornication, and in support of prudence, fidelity, chastity, and seeking to follow God's plan for us.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Meadowchik

[TheSkepticChristian]

Joseph Smith was a prophet, seer, and revelator in his day, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks is a prophet, seer, and revelator in his day. T

 

So tell us when did Elder Oaks said to defend business owners right (Oregon Bakery) to discriminate because of their religion?  or to defend BYU's accreditation?

 

 

.  And you seriously don't think the Brethren, as Trustees of Brigham Young University, or that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose tithing dollars support BYU, 

 

I hope they are more concerned about service and helping the poor. 

[Tony Frank]

This does not contradict what he said about the clerk Kim Davis. The Church fought the political and legal battle against same-sex marriage and lost.  To cooperate legally, however, does not require an abandonment and compromise of our convictions.  We don't have to believe that a same-sex marriage must be sealed in LDS temples, the Church does not have to yield in that.  However, the Church and President Oaks does seem to favor going about our relations in a legal and lawful fashion in this day. And this is not new, "We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

Congress never passed a "law" allowing same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court simply redefined marriage, which they had no authority to do. The Constitution does not give them the authority to simply redefine words.

 

 

We still enjoy the privilege of teaching ideas opposed to gambling, drinking, smoking, adultery, fornication, and in support of prudence, fidelity, chastity, and seeking to follow God's plan for us.

 

Please tell me you did not purposely omit opposition to same-sex marriage as one of the things we have the privilege of teaching. Are you saying that the Supreme Court has determined our right to abide by God's standard on this is null and void and that we must not voice any opposition to same-sex marriage, or am I reading too much into your omission?

[jkwilliams]

Congress never passed a "law" allowing same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court simply redefined marriage, which they had no authority to do. The Constitution does not give them the authority to simply redefine words.

SCOTUS ruled that several state laws were unconstitutional, and they absolutely had the authority to do that. If the court redefined marriage, it was in 1967 in the Loving case, which established marriage as a civil right.

[Kenngo1969]

 

Oh, come on. Elder Oaks essentially said every public servant MUST support "what God has declared immoral" or quit their job.

 

Like every other citizen or resident of the United States, public servants are entitled to think, to write, to speak, and to act as they wish in private and in other arenas of the public square.  However, they must follow the law as the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it when performing their duties as public officials.  Are you going to quibble with Joseph Smith, too, who wrote that "[w]e believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"?  Are you going to quibble with Jesus Christ, who instructed His followers to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's"?

[Kenngo1969]

As valuable as Jefferson's talk at the Danbury Baptist Church is for our idea's as to the separation of Church State. A much better understanding is derived for the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

I don't know about the last part of your statement.  I have not yet read the Virginia Religious Freedom Statute.  However, as to the first part of your statement, (1) Jefferson did not talk at Danbury Baptist Church; we're discussing a letter he wrote and the context in which that letter was written; and (2) I have been arguing that Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptist Church is NOT a primer on constitutional or First Amendment interpretation.  With due respect, you really should read what I linked earlier in the thread before commenting further.

[jkwilliams]

Like every other citizen or resident of the United States, public servants are entitled to think, to write, to speak, and to act as they wish in private and in other arenas of the public square.  However, they must follow the law as the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it when performing their duties as public officials.  Are you going to quibble with Joseph Smith, too, who wrote that "[w]e believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"?  Are you going to quibble with Jesus Christ, who instructed His followers to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's"?

Yep. In 1889, a Mormon law-enforcement officer or judge would have been required to enforce or prosecute the antipolygamy laws, and no one would have said their religious rights were being violated.

[Tony Frank]

SCOTUS ruled that several state laws were unconstitutional, and they absolutely had the authority to do that. If the court redefined marriage, it was in 1967 in the Loving case, which established marriage as a civil right.

 

Establishing marriage as a civil right is not redefining it. Ruling that people of the same sex can marry each other is redefining marriage. And now everyone's tax dollars are paying for all the public records in which society recognizes two people of the same sex being married to each other.

 

I will not budge on this issue, but we can agree to disagree.

[jkwilliams]

Establishing marriage as a civil right is not redefining it. Ruling that people of the same sex can marry each other is redefining marriage.

Ruling that people of different races can marry each other is redefining marriage. Do you have a problem with that redefinition?

And now everyone's tax dollars are paying for all the public records in which society recognizes two people of the same sex being married to each other.

My tax dollars pay for lots of things I wish they wouldn't. That's how it works in a democratic republic.

 

I will not budge on this issue, but we can agree to disagree.

I don't care if you budge or not. I was commenting on your belief that the Obergefell ruling "redefined" marriage, as if it hadn't been redefined many times before. For whatever reason, you seem to be fine with all the other redefinitions, just not this one.

[Meadowchik]

Congress never passed a "law" allowing same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court simply redefined marriage, which they had no authority to do. The Constitution does not give them the authority to simply redefine words.

 

 

 

Please tell me you did not purposely omit opposition to same-sex marriage as one of the things we have the privilege of teaching. Are you saying that the Supreme Court has determined our right to abide by God's standard on this is null and void and that we must not voice any opposition to same-sex marriage, or am I reading too much into your omission?

 

Those are my thoughts regarding the SCOTUS decision, as well.  However, there is a legal way to challenge a current court decision.  At the very least, it is in future court decisions or in Amendments, as frustrating as that may be.  IMO it is a delicate balance deciding when to preserve a respect for the rule of law and when to rebel.  Fortunately for us Americans, we are still in position to effect change through the legal process.

 

Yes, you are reading to much in my "omission." I consciously felt like an opposition to bad law regarding marriage could be included in my statement.

[Tony Frank]

Like every other citizen or resident of the United States, public servants are entitled to think, to write, to speak, and to act as they wish in private and in other arenas of the public square.  However, they must follow the law as the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it when performing their duties as public officials.  Are you going to quibble with Joseph Smith, too, who wrote that "[w]e believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"?  Are you going to quibble with Jesus Christ, who instructed His followers to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's"?

 

Most states did not have "laws" prohibiting gay marriage, but gay people were still not allowed to get married in those states. Ruling that a state law prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional does not simply give gay people the right to marry. They did not have the right to marry in states where there was no law. The Constitution reigns supreme, not the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court could have ruled that the law was not needed to prevent gay marriage, but they instead redefined marriage.

 

We believe in sustaining the Constitution, not sustaining those who try to destroy it. Arguments like yours run contrary to the elders of Israel stepping forth to save the Constitution.

 

As I told JKWilliams, I will not budge on this issue, but we can agree to disagree.

[jkwilliams]

Most states did not have "laws" prohibiting gay marriage, but gay people were still not allowed to get married in those states. Ruling that a state law prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional does not simply give gay people the right to marry.

Actually, it does.

They did not have the right to marry in states where there was no law. The Constitution reigns supreme, not the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court could have ruled that the law was not needed to prevent gay marriage, but they instead redefined marriage.

Please quote the part of the ruling where they redefined marriage.

 

We believe in sustaining the Constitution, not sustaining those who try to destroy it. Arguments like yours run contrary to the elders of Israel stepping forth to save the Constitution.

 

As I told JKWilliams, I will not budge on this issue, but we can agree to disagree.

Again, I don't care if you budge, but don't pretend your position is pro-Constitution.