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

[california boy]

A total of 2.3% of U.S. adults said they were gay, lesbian or bisexual in the largest federal government survey ever to ask about sexual orientation. That number is a bit lower than the 3% to 4% found in some other recent surveys, including a Gallup Poll from 2012 — but some of those studies encompassed broader groups, including transsexuals. In the new survey of 34,557 adults, released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an additional 1.1% said they were "something else," didn't know or refused to answer"

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/15/gay-lesbian-bisexual-cdc-survey/12671717/

 

"A new comprehensive study by the CDC with over 33,000 participants has confirmed earlier estimates; less than 3 percent of the U.S. population self-identifies as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Earlier, much smaller-scale surveys have put that number at 4 percent.

 

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), published July 15 by the CDC, was the first large-scale study of it’s kind. Data was collected from the Census Bureau, as The Washington Post reported, and 33,557 adults between the ages of 18 and 64 participated in the study, which included in-person interviews as well as follow-up phone questions.

 

The NHIS study found that, while 96.6 percent of adults identified as “straight”, 1.6 percent identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent called themselves bisexual. 1.1 percent responded “I don’t know” or said they were “something else” not listed.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2014/07/15/cdc-gay-population-23-thanks-media-americans-think-number-13-times-h

 

This sounds about right to me.  I have know a few gay people in my life but definitely not 10% of the people I have known on my life are LBGT.   Count the number of people you know in your life and how many can you say are LBGT?  Unless you are living in a place like in San Francisco, I predict you will find that far less than 10% of the people you know are of that group.

 

This is always what is so puzzling about the whole issue.  Gays make up only 2.3% of the population.  Most statics I have seen show that only 10% of them seem to get married.  That means only .23% of the total population is even going to have a gay marriage.  Does anyone realize how tiny that number is?

 

Compared to other moral issues such as fornication, adultery and divorce among the heterosexual population, don't you think that gay marriage has been blown way out of proportion?  I wonder how many divorced couples and people who have had affairs apply for marriage licenses on a daily basis in any given courthouse in this country.  Yet no one has any problem issuing them their marriage licenses.  People just freak out about gays. It isn't rational at all. 

[BlueDreams]

This is always what is so puzzling about the whole issue.  Gays make up only 2.3% of the population.  Most statics I have seen show that only 10% of them seem to get married.  That means only .23% of the total population is even going to have a gay marriage.  Does anyone realize how tiny that number is?

 

Compared to other moral issues such as fornication, adultery and divorce among the heterosexual population, don't you think that gay marriage has been blown way out of proportion?  I wonder how many divorced couples and people who have had affairs apply for marriage licenses on a daily basis in any given courthouse in this country.  Yet no one has any problem issuing them their marriage licenses.  People just freak out about gays. It isn't rational at all. 

 

Somewhere around 730,000 people in the u.s. population....just sayin'.

 

But more seriously. I think "freak out about gays" are only a part of those who are concerned. Most, I know, are more concerned about a (continued) change in definition of marriage and teaching their value of marriage in a society that they fear will be more hostile to their practices that may be painted bigoted.

 

Of course, it also probably didn't help that no one perceives the amount of gay people being that small....I mean I know it, but it's hard to believe it even when I do. So it does feel like a drastic and large change even though the people it will directly effect are, as you point out, statistically minuscule. It also probably doesn't help that because they're sexual minorities, they amount of people in the LGBT categories are not based on race and disperse more evenly over populations (being out and openly ID'ing may be for obvious reasons surround culture)...yet racial demo's, though several categories are a lot larger, do not disperse as evenly. Many white people (and other in-groups) may only have a handful of racially diverse friends. One report noted 3/4 of white people don't have non-white friends (in case people are wondering my source, here's an article on it). Yet just about everybody will know someone that are at least LGorB (T is a super small subset, so probably not). And then there's TV, which LGBT folk are probably well over-represented compared to other minority groups in their roles as main characters or side characters with at least some storyline. So as odd as it is, statistically, gay issues are more likely to be talked about and discussed because they are more likely to effect the majority's life (compared to other minority concerns) and are more likely to be mentioned in media outlets (compared to how large the population effected actually is). The freak out over gays is probably about as excessively large as the assumption about how large gay issues as perceived due to our focus on it....but that "freak out" group would still be a minority of the actual population who have concerns about gay marriage.

 

Sometimes perception is a funny thing.

 

 

EDIT: On Oaks' talk, and the general direction it represents, I can see how the allowance and influence of a plurality of viewpoints (including religious) in government is also another (and probably more level) way to address the concern of differing and even conflicting views on what marriage should be. 

With luv,

BD     

Edited October 22, 2015 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

So we can all agree on objective definitions for what constitutes the promotion of religion?

 

Objective and religion don't have much in common.   But I do think we can agree that state mandated religious tests for public office, and/or giving as special tax breaks to just members of a specific religion and the like are no no's. IE; If the state of Utah were to pass a law giving just LDS members a income tax break of 10% because they pay tithing would be a big no no in my book.

[jwhitlock]

Somewhere around 730,000 people in the u.s. population....just sayin'.

 

But more seriously. I think "freak out about gays" are only a part of those who are concerned. Most, I know, are more concerned about a (continued) change in definition of marriage and teaching their value of marriage in a society that they fear will be more hostile to their practices that may be painted bigoted.

 

Of course, it also probably didn't help that no one perceives the amount of gay people being that small....I mean I know it, but it's hard to believe it even when I do. So it does feel like a drastic and large change even though the people it will directly effect are, as you point out, statistically minuscule. It also probably doesn't help that because they're sexual minorities, they amount of people in the LGBT categories are not based on race (being out and openly ID'ing may be for obvious reasons surround culture)...yet racial demo's, though several categories are a lot larger, do not disperse as evenly. Many white people may only have a handful of racially diverse friends. One report noted 3/4 of white people don't have non-white friends (in case people are wondering my source, here's an article on it). Yet just about everybody will know someone that are at least LGorB (T is a super small subset, so probably not). And then there's TV, which LGBT folk are probably well over-represented compared to other minority groups in their roles as main characters or side characters with at least some storyline. So as odd as it is, statistically, gay issues are more likely to be talked about and discussed because they are more likely to effect the majority's life (compared to other minority concerns) and are more likely to be mentioned in media outlets (compared to how large the population effected actually is). The freak out over gays is probably about as excessively large as the assumption about how large gay issues as perceived due to our focus on it....but that "freak out" group would still be a minority of the actual population who have concerns about gay marriage.

 

Sometimes perception is a funny thing.

 

With luv,

BD     

 

Very interesting points. Perception is often more important than reality, from what I see, and most of us are generally unwilling to challenge our own perspectives on things because it is, well, uncomfortable.

 

The WaPo article was also interesting, though I think there may be a problem with the use of the term "friends" as opposed to "acquaintances". As I thought about my own perspective, I don't think of myself as having that many friends, but I do have a lot of acquaintances. That acquaintance pool (which could include family, friends, and people I regularly associate with) is more diverse (from my own perspective) than the article would indicate. However, I live on the east coast in a more diverse section of the country. Other people in less diverse parts of the country (cough, "Utah", cough) would be more in line with the findings of the article, though the exceptions in Utah might be Hispanic and Polynesian acquaintances. Ultimately, however, the racial diversity in my acquaintance pool is far greater than the LGBT diversity. Those are represented, but not at the same rate as racial diversity, which would be expected from the population percentages you mentioned above.

 

The fact that the Washington Post ran this article was also interesting to me. The DC area taken as a whole is quite diverse, but racial groups definitely tend to cluster in their own areas and those areas can be quite large, such as counties. In addition, groups of similar demographics (liberals, conservatives, etc.) tend to also group together, though those groupings tend to be not as sharply defined. Therefore, I was curious as to what the WaPo had in mind by running the article. I guess I'd have to ask them.

 

With all that in mind, perspective seems to very much drive how we view ourselves and others of different races and backgrounds. While it's correct that someone who doesn't have the cultural / historical / racial background of another person probably won't be able to understand fully where that person is coming from, I often find that challenges to perspective (done properly) by someone outside the group can help members of the group realize where their perspectives might need adjusting to be more in line with reality. I've personally benefited from challenges to my perspective, especially as I interact with acquaintances of different races and ask the hard questions of why we all think the way we do.

 

Ultimately, the further a person's perspective is distanced from reality, the more conflict there is going to be between persons and groups of different racial backgrounds.

[jwhitlock]

Objective and religion don't have much in common.   But I do think we can agree that state mandated religious tests for public office, and/or giving as special tax breaks to just members of a specific religion and the like are no no's. IE; If the state of Utah were to pass a law giving just LDS members a income tax break of 10% because they pay tithing would be a big no no in my book.

 

Unfortunately, perceptions of what constitutes "promotion of religion" are more nuanced than that. For instance, should government work in partnership with a religious group in running a food bank or soup kitchen? People have very different ideas on whether that promotes religion or not. Those ideas are very subjective.

[rockpond]

Unfortunately, perceptions of what constitutes "promotion of religion" are more nuanced than that. For instance, should government work in partnership with a religious group in running a food bank or soup kitchen? People have very different ideas on whether that promotes religion or not. Those ideas are very subjective.

 

And, don't forget U of U football coaches teaching institute classes.  

[jwhitlock]

Objective and religion don't have much in common.   But I do think we can agree that state mandated religious tests for public office, and/or giving as special tax breaks to just members of a specific religion and the like are no no's. IE; If the state of Utah were to pass a law giving just LDS members a income tax break of 10% because they pay tithing would be a big no no in my book.

 

To expand further, the short answer on whether we can all agree on objective definitions for what constitutes promotion of religion by government - in all cases where we find government and religion interacting - is "no". Some things are obvious (or should be) to everyone, but most of those interactions have a lot of grey areas in them which are very subjective.

[jwhitlock]

And, don't forget U of U football coaches teaching institute classes.  

 

Maybe the better question is asking what business does any football coach have teaching institute in the first place?   

[thesometimesaint]

Unfortunately, perceptions of what constitutes "promotion of religion" are more nuanced than that. For instance, should government work in partnership with a religious group in running a food bank or soup kitchen? People have very different ideas on whether that promotes religion or not. Those ideas are very subjective.

 

Of course they are. In a pluralistic society such as ours it is hard to imagine it as anything other than more nuanced. That being said I used two examples that come directly from US history(except it wasn't Utah, but Virgina in the latter example).

SEE http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/peterson.htm

 

I don't see a particular problem with the government running, and/or partnering with religious groups in food banks or soup kitchens. As long as religion isn't imposed/required to use them. I have no problems with the individual clients having a religion/praying over their food, or not at all, Though I do see better/more cost effective ways to achieve those goals.

[jwhitlock]

Of course they are. In a pluralistic society such as ours it is hard to imagine it as anything other than more nuanced. That being said I used two examples that come directly from US history(except it wasn't Utah, but Virgina in the latter example).

SEE http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/peterson.htm

 

I don't see a particular problem with the government running, and/or partnering with religious groups in food banks or soup kitchens. As long as religion isn't imposed/required to use them. I have no problems with the individual clients having a religion/praying over their food, or not at all, Though I do see better/more cost effective ways to achieve those goals.

 

There you go. Other people would find any partnership to be a "promotion of religion" no matter who was benefited. Other people would agree with you in general, but disagree with you in the implementation details.

 

I would posit that virtually any interaction between government and religion would find supporters and opponents on a variety of levels. It's why compromise is always needed, and why the metaphor of a curtain rather than a wall is more apt.

[thesometimesaint]

There you go. Other people would find any partnership to be a "promotion of religion" no matter who was benefited. Other people would agree with you in general, but disagree with you in the implementation details.

 

I would posit that virtually any interaction between government and religion would find supporters and opponents on a variety of levels. It's why compromise is always needed, and why the metaphor of a curtain rather than a wall is more apt.

 

Paraphrasing what said; I don't see how it could be otherwise. However to clear up any probable misunderstandings. I want a wall high and think between Church and State. What individuals do in their respective religions is between them and their God, or lack of God. I don't want laws telling me what to believe or prohibiting me from acting on those beliefs as long as my exercise of those beliefs doesn't preclude you from exercising your rights to your beliefs.

 

Thomas Jefferson didn't use the term "curtain". He was a student of history and saw firsthand the results of the mingling of Church and State. I too am a student of history, and I completely agree with Thomas Jefferson.

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

[jwhitlock]

Paraphrasing what said; I don't see how it could be otherwise. However to clear up any probable misunderstandings. I want a wall high and think between Church and State. What individuals do in their respective religions is between them and their God, or lack of God. I don't want laws telling me what to believe or prohibiting me from acting on those beliefs as long as my exercise of those beliefs doesn't preclude you from exercising your rights to your beliefs.

 

Thomas Jefferson didn't use the term "curtain". He was a student of history and saw firsthand the results of the mingling of Church and State. I too am a student of history, and I completely agree with Thomas Jefferson.

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

 

Yet a wall precludes any interaction between the government and religion to the detriment of both and the citizens.

 

Remember that Jefferson's background was markedly different than ours. During his time and prior, the church was actively involved in controlling government. That needed to stop, hence the "wall" of separation.

 

In our day, Jefferson's general concerns have been addressed. Most of the tuning done now is on very subjective nuances. The foundational separation is in place.

 

It's also important to understand that in Jefferson's day, church control in government consisted typically of a very limited group of denominations exerting that control. If you weren't part of the good old boy network, then you were left on the outside. The phrasing in the constitution doesn't say that they must be separate; they say that government may not affect the free exercise of religion. Since Jefferson was part of the group that worded the constitution, his viewpoints surely would have affected that phrasing.

 

Given all that, I would agree that religion / state interaction can be a double edged sword that must be used carefully. There are times when interaction may seem right, but that interaction entails inappropriate inroads of influence one way or another. It's interesting that in my example of food bank partnerships between government and religious groups, opposition took the form of objections that religious groups might then relinquish some of their autonomy since they were taking government money, and objections that government was promoting religion by supporting those groups.

 

I think Jefferson's "wall" metaphor is outdated due to a very different situation. Oaks' "curtain" better captures the nuances of our day.

[BlueDreams]

Very interesting points. Perception is often more important than reality, from what I see, and most of us are generally unwilling to challenge our own perspectives on things because it is, well, uncomfortable.

 

The WaPo article was also interesting, though I think there may be a problem with the use of the term "friends" as opposed to "acquaintances". As I thought about my own perspective, I don't think of myself as having that many friends, but I do have a lot of acquaintances. That acquaintance pool (which could include family, friends, and people I regularly associate with) is more diverse (from my own perspective) than the article would indicate. However, I live on the east coast in a more diverse section of the country. Other people in less diverse parts of the country (cough, "Utah", cough) would be more in line with the findings of the article, though the exceptions in Utah might be Hispanic and Polynesian acquaintances. Ultimately, however, the racial diversity in my acquaintance pool is far greater than the LGBT diversity. Those are represented, but not at the same rate as racial diversity, which would be expected from the population percentages you mentioned above.

 

The fact that the Washington Post ran this article was also interesting to me. The DC area taken as a whole is quite diverse, but racial groups definitely tend to cluster in their own areas and those areas can be quite large, such as counties. In addition, groups of similar demographics (liberals, conservatives, etc.) tend to also group together, though those groupings tend to be not as sharply defined. Therefore, I was curious as to what the WaPo had in mind by running the article. I guess I'd have to ask them.

 

That's what I first thought when I first read this, but then I really began thinking about it and stalked a couple of my FB friends to see their friends list (which, let's be honest, half the time are acquaintance lists). And a lot of them fit the trend down to their friends lists...even if they don't live in UT . Even in diverse areas, though there were more....there would still be a whole lot less than you'd expect. People who have friends lists like mine are simply not the norm (I would click on my friends list on FB, scroll down randomly, and out of 12 people I could see on a screen, at least 4 would be ethnic minorities every time, usually more, and usually from varying ethnic backgrounds...P.S. I live in UT, so that makes it extra weird ). But Friends v. aquaintances do make a difference in the level of discussion or knowledge about what their lives are really about on a day-to-day, either way. And many diverse areas, as you noted, are still in enclaves of peoples. Truly intermixed neighborhoods and populations are still not as common, though growing. Which is probably why they focused on friends. 

 

Also, the research kinda ran its course through several papers....WaPo was just the first one that popped on my screen. 

 

With all that in mind, perspective seems to very much drive how we view ourselves and others of different races and backgrounds. While it's correct that someone who doesn't have the cultural / historical / racial background of another person probably won't be able to understand fully where that person is coming from, I often find that challenges to perspective (done properly) by someone outside the group can help members of the group realize where their perspectives might need adjusting to be more in line with reality. I've personally benefited from challenges to my perspective, especially as I interact with acquaintances of different races and ask the hard questions of why we all think the way we do.

 

 

100% agree. 

 

Ultimately, the further a person's perspective is distanced from reality, the more conflict there is going to be between persons and groups of different racial backgrounds.

 

 

Still mostly agree, but I don't think there is one reality. People build constructs based on what they see and know in the world that become their social reality. The more insular people get in their views, the more that "reality" will become codified in their minds as the right way of existence. Sometimes we are right, sometimes we're not....much of the time it's not really either and one's truth may be completely circumstantial...working well in one state, but terribly in another.

 

with luv,

BD

[Kenngo1969]

His flaws notwithstanding (he was human, and he had them, as we all do), I respect and revere Thomas Jefferson, along with his positions on many things.  He certainly had the right to contribute to the public discourse and dialogue on the issues of his day, just as his contemporaries did in their day and just as you and I do in our day.  Many of those contributions were (and are) sage and apt.  But I find the tendency to elevate his take on particular issues to the status of a Constitutional bedrock principle problematic.  If one were to conduct a "Person-on-the-Street" poll and were to ask ten passersby where the principle of separation of church and state comes from, eight or nine of those passersby would probably say it comes from the Constitution.  And they, of course, would be wrong.  Conversely, if one were to ask where the principle of freedom of religious exercise comes from, a majority of them probably wouldn't be able to say.  

 

Similarly, the United States Supreme Court is, to me, a fascinating institution.  Certainly, all of the people who serve on it are well qualified in terms of education, academic credentials, and professional experience.  But if one were to go to an elite enough gathering of legal professionals, one wouldn't be able to swing a dead raccoon by the tail without hitting at least one other person who meets those criteria.  Thus, education, credentials, and experience are only part of the equation (and they're a relatively small part of the equation, at that).  Few might be willing to admit this, but politics, timing, and sheer, dumb luck also play more than miniscule roles in the process.  Indeed, they probably play a larger role than most people realize.

 

Bottom line?  As much as I respect the rule of law, the Justices' education, credentials, and experience notwithstanding, there's nothing that makes the Nine Wise Souls on the United States Supreme Court uniquely qualified to grapple with the questions they grapple with or to reach the conclusions they do with respect to those questions.  Scores, hundreds, thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of people have similar qualifications, yet they, as intelligent people capable of high reasoning and good will, in good conscience and in good faith, reach conclusions different than those reached by a majority of the Justices all the time.  As someone else so aptly put it, when it comes to the issues upon which they render their opinions, a majority of Justices isn't last because it's right: it's right because it's last.  Period.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

... Thomas Jefferson didn't use the term "curtain". ...

 

And the Constitution doesn't use the term wall.  

 

There!

 

Now we're even!

[Meadowchik]

This is always what is so puzzling about the whole issue. Gays make up only 2.3% of the population. Most statics I have seen show that only 10% of them seem to get married. That means only .23% of the total population is even going to have a gay marriage. Does anyone realize how tiny that number is?

Compared to other moral issues such as fornication, adultery and divorce among the heterosexual population, don't you think that gay marriage has been blown way out of proportion? I wonder how many divorced couples and people who have had affairs apply for marriage licenses on a daily basis in any given courthouse in this country. Yet no one has any problem issuing them their marriage licenses. People just freak out about gays. It isn't rational at all.

Many realize that the claims which make ssm a legal given can continue the trend of changing marriage law into something entirely different, even with the potential to delegalise it altogether.

An early example would be a result of ssm in California, where the legislature responded to a child custody problem involving a lesbian couple by creating the possibility of more than 2 legal parents.

Now, this wouldn't just potentially apply to the children of ss couples, but could to all children.

Thus some very basic changes are being made that are potentially applicable to everyone.

It's like not being able to tell if a dog is wagging it's tail or the tail is wagging the dog and effectively both being true.

Changing the law to include a small minority in something, regardless of intentions, has the potential to change the law for everyone else. That's a valid and rational concern.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Scott Lloyd]

I desire to focus in for the moment on this passage from the Oaks speech:

 

      Second, on the big issues that divide adversaries on these issues, both sides should seek a balance, not a total victory. For example, religionists should not seek a veto over all nondiscrimination laws that offend their religion, and the proponents of nondiscrimination should not seek a veto over all assertions of religious freedom. Both sides in big controversies like this should seek to understand the other’s position and seek practical accommodations that provide fairness for all and total dominance for neither. For example, an influential article by Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School concludes that “accommodation and negotiation can identify practical solutions where abstract principles sometimes cannot.”[10] She observes that this approach “is highly relevant to sustaining and replenishing both American pluralism and constitutional protections for minority groups.”[11] Thus, in a head-on conflict over individual free exercise and enforced nondiscrimination in housing and employment, for example, the Utah Legislature crafted a compromise position under the banner of “fairness for all.” 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 lawmaking branch but not in the judiciary.

       Third, it will help if we are not led or unduly influenced by the extreme voices that are heard from contending positions. Extreme voices polarize and create resentment and fear by emphasizing what is nonnegotiable and by suggesting that the desired outcome is to disable the adversary and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely attainable and never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.

       The Supreme Court bowed toward this principle in its majority opinion in Obergefell, the 5-4 case establishing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It implicitly rejected several argued bases for its decision, such as alleged animus in traditional marriage laws and the need for establishing a new suspect class for laws affecting those with same-gender attraction. Either of those bases for the decision would have complicated the kind of accommodation I advocate here. Just as important, the majority opinion also included some teachings that are particularly welcome to those who argued the losing position. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy acknowledged the reasonableness of the religious and philosophical premises of those who argue that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman and assured that the First Amendment will protect religious organizations and persons who continue to teach them.

 

In this context, let us consider the recent episode in which the Church objected to the recent change in the policy of the Boy Scouts of America with regard to admitting gay leaders and very strongly hinted that it might end its 100-year-old association with Scouting as a result.

 

Of course, it ultimately decided to continue the affiliation for now. I, like others, was disappointed in that decision, but I can see in it the application of the principle that Elder Oaks advocates here, that of seeking a balance, not a total victory. What the Church wanted was no change in the BSA policy at all; what it settled for was an assurance from the Scouting leadership that it would be allowed to continue to appoint leaders of local Scouting units in accordance with its principles and that BSA would sustain and protect the Church in that choice. So the Church accepted a balance in lieu of total victory.

 

In fact, if Elder Oaks was involved in high-level deliberations over what to do about Scouting (and I have no reason to doubt he was), and if the above principle represents a consensus among the Brethren, it does provide insight into why the Church leaders ultimately made the decision they did.

 

Contrast that with the grousing, grumbling and growling of some in the gay rights movement who declared that BSA's new stance is not good enough and who have vowed to continue their lawfare until they get their way, which would amount to forcing the Church to appoint gay Scoutmasters or, alternatively, to be forced out of Scouting altogether. In this, they exemplify the "extreme voices" Elder Oaks spoke of above who "create resentment and fear by emphasizing what is nonnegotiable and by suggesting that the desired outcome is to disable the adversary and achieve absolute victory."

 

As Elder Oaks put it, "Such outcomes are rarely attainable and never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace."

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

In my lifetime, the people who are most adamantly in favor of more religious expression in public life (schools, government, etc.) usually live in relatively religiously or culturally homogeneous communities and have never experienced life as a religious minority in such a homogeneous community. When we lived in Utah Valley, most Mormons we knew lamented what they saw as a banishment of religion from public life, while most non-LDS people we knew complained that there wasn't enough separation. When we lived in Texas, most Mormons we knew (ourselves included) thought that there was not enough separation between public life and the dominant Evangelical religion, though our Evangelical friends felt like they were being excluded by not having prayers at football games, and so on. 

 

I grew up in a mostly Jewish neighborhood. I would say my high school was probably 50-60% Jewish, so Judaism was the dominant religious culture. By contrast, there were probably 10-15 LDS in my high school. But it was never an issue because there was always a separation between religion and school/government. There were never controversies about religious expression at school because everyone understood that religion was private, and school wasn't. I can't imagine what it would have been like had there been school prayer. As much of a religious and cultural minority as we were, our outsider status would have been much more pronounced had there not been a strict separation that everyone agreed on. 

 

Here in Virginia, my son goes to a school where 19 languages are spoken, and if I were to guess, the largest religious group is Muslim. I'm glad there's a separation of church and state because it's hard enough for the students to bridge the cultural and language divides without adding religion into the mix more than it already is.

 

In short, I'm with Jefferson.

[Scott Lloyd]

In my lifetime, the people who are most adamantly in favor of more religious expression in public life (schools, government, etc.) usually live in relatively religiously or culturally homogeneous communities and have never experienced life as a religious minority in such a homogeneous community. When we lived in Utah Valley, most Mormons we knew lamented what they saw as a banishment of religion from public life, while most non-LDS people we knew complained that there wasn't enough separation. When we lived in Texas, most Mormons we knew (ourselves included) thought that there was not enough separation between public life and the dominant Evangelical religion, though our Evangelical friends felt like they were being excluded by not having prayers at football games, and so on. 

 

I grew up in a mostly Jewish neighborhood. I would say my high school was probably 50-60% Jewish, so Judaism was the dominant religious culture. By contrast, there were probably 10-15 LDS in my high school. But it was never an issue because there was always a separation between religion and school/government. There were never controversies about religious expression at school because everyone understood that religion was private, and school wasn't. I can't imagine what it would have been like had there been school prayer. As much of a religious and cultural minority as we were, our outsider status would have been much more pronounced had there not been a strict separation that everyone agreed on. 

 

Here in Virginia, my son goes to a school where 19 languages are spoken, and if I were to guess, the largest religious group is Muslim. I'm glad there's a separation of church and state because it's hard enough for the students to bridge the cultural and language divides without adding religion into the mix more than it already is.

 

In short, I'm with Jefferson.

The optimal environment, in my view, would be one where everyone instinctively respects one another to the point where no on has to walk on egg shells or get uptight about harmless matters like, say, the singing of Christmas carols in school in December.

 

Back during the Church's Pioneer Sesquicentennial of 1996-97, I visited central Iowa on a number of occasions to cover the observance of the Mormon Pioneer trek. I was amazed and delighted to learn that the school district in Garden Grove, Iowa, is named the Mormon Trail School District, that the public school in the city is called the Mormon Trail Junior-Senior High School, and that the school's mascot is the Mormon Trail Saints. The reason, for this, of course, is that the people in that part of Iowa are proud of their historical heritage and the fact that the historic Mormon Trail comes right through their city. Separation of church and state is really not considered a relevant consideration in this. Nobody is forcing anybody else to accept someone's religion. There are probably comparatively few Mormons who live there, in point of fact.

 

I thought of the extreme unlikelihood that such a thing would be tolerated in Utah and shook my head wistfully.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

His flaws notwithstanding (he was human, and he had them, as we all do), I respect and revere Thomas Jefferson, along with his positions on many things.  He certainly had the right to contribute to the public discourse and dialogue on the issues of his day, just as his contemporaries did in their day and just as you and I do in our day.  Many of those contributions were (and are) sage and apt.  But I find the tendency to elevate his take on particular issues to the status of a Constitutional bedrock principle problematic.  If one were to conduct a "Person-on-the-Street" poll and were to ask ten passersby where the principle of separation of church and state comes from, eight or nine of those passersby would probably say it comes from the Constitution.  And they, of course, would be wrong.  Conversely, if one were to ask where the principle of freedom of religious exercise comes from, a majority of them probably wouldn't be able to say.  

 

Similarly, the United States Supreme Court is, to me, a fascinating institution.  Certainly, all of the people who serve on it are well qualified in terms of education, academic credentials, and professional experience.  But if one were to go to an elite enough gathering of legal professionals, one wouldn't be able to swing a dead raccoon by the tail without hitting at least one other person who meets those criteria.  Thus, education, credentials, and experience are only part of the equation (and they're a relatively small part of the equation, at that).  Few might be willing to admit this, but politics, timing, and sheer, dumb luck also play more than miniscule roles in the process.  Indeed, they probably play a larger role than most people realize.

 

Bottom line?  As much as I respect the rule of law, the Justices' education, credentials, and experience notwithstanding, there's nothing that makes the Nine Wise Souls on the United States Supreme Court uniquely qualified to grapple with the questions they grapple with or to reach the conclusions they do with respect to those questions.  Scores, hundreds, thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of people have similar qualifications, yet they, as intelligent people capable of high reasoning and good will, in good conscience and in good faith, reach conclusions different than those reached by a majority of the Justices all the time.  As someone else so aptly put it, when it comes to the issues upon which they render their opinions, a majority of Justices isn't last because it's right: it's right because it's last.  Period.

 

I'm not convinced the average man on the street knows much about the US Constitution. Let alone the background behind it. It is true that the Separation of Church and State appears nowhere in the US Constitution. But the ideas behind it are very much a part of it. IE; No religious test for public office, and the First Amendment. Indeed our very form of government demands that religions carry no more weight in public affairs than the individual citizen carries. Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson had this very debate in 1777, years before our Constitution was written let alone adopted. Thomas Jefferson won that debate.

SEE http://www.religioustolerance.org/virg_bil.htm

 

It is probably true that many many individuals have that ability. What they are not is USSC Justices. Believe me I have plenty of disagreements with some US Supreme Court decisions. But our options are rather limited in our government.

[jkwilliams]

The optimal environment, in my view, would be one where everyone instinctively respects one another to the point where no on has to walk on egg shells or get uptight about harmless matters like, say, the singing of Christmas carols in school in December.

 

Back during the Church's Pioneer Sesquicentennial of 1996-97, I visited central Iowa on a number of occasions to cover the observance of the Mormon Pioneer trek. I was amazed and delighted to learn that the school district in Garden Grove, Iowa, is named the Mormon Trail School District, that the public school in the city is called the Mormon Trail Junior-Senior High School, and that the school's mascot is the Mormon Trail Saints. The reason, for this, of course, is that the people in that part of Iowa are proud of their historical heritage and the fact that the historic Mormon Trail comes right through their city. Separation of church and state is really not considered a relevant consideration in this. Nobody is forcing anybody else to accept someone's religion. There are probably comparatively few Mormons who live there, in point of fact.

 

I thought of the extreme unlikelihood that such a thing would be tolerated in Utah and shook my head wistfully.

 

I think having a firm separation is the best way to ensure no one has to walk on eggshells. I remember a number of years ago when we were in Texas, some parents of high school students in Santa Fe sued over prayers at football games and graduation, which they said were always Baptist/Evangelical and excluded those who were not of those faiths. Some of the plaintiffs were LDS. Having lived in rural Texas, I completely understood.

 

I don't have a problem with honoring the past, including religious groups and people. For example, there's a Junipero Serra high school in California named after someone who has recently been canonized as a saint. I doubt very much that they have Catholic prayers at JSHS football games, though. 

[thesometimesaint]

And the Constitution doesn't use the term wall.  

 

There!

 

Now we're even!

 

I agree. The term "wall" was in Jefferson's speech to a Baptist church explaining why their freedom of religion mattered.   

[Scott Lloyd]

 Indeed our very form of government demands that religions carry no more weight in public affairs than the individual citizen carries.

But there is no denying the fact that, as Elder Oaks put it, religious liberties enjoy special protection and a favored constitutional status.

     

Having given some advice to the religious side, I also have some suggestions for those who have other keys to or nonreligious 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. Most notable is the uniquely positioned First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which singles out the “free exercise” of religion for special protection, along with free speech, free press, and freedom of assembly. This favored constitutional status that a unanimous United States Supreme Court recently described in part as “special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations”[19] should be acknowledged in all controversies over the meaning of “free exercise” and how to balance it against contrary cultural preferences.

       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. This was intended in our nation’s founding. As Professor Michael McConnell has observed, when the First Amendment was drafted, several formulations were considered, the two final ones being the protection of “rights of conscience” or the “free exercise of religion.”[20] The ultimate “choice of the words ‘free exercise of religion’ in lieu of ‘rights of conscience,’ is,” as Professor McConnell notes, “of utmost importance.”[21] First, it made clear that the First Amendment protected more than just belief. It protected action in accordance with belief.[22] Second, while “conscience” emphasizes individual judgment, “religion” also encompasses the “institutional aspects of religious beliefs.”[23] Finally, the framers’ preference for “free exercise of religion” over “rights of conscience” means that religiously based scruples are given more solicitude than nonreligiously based ones. As the framers thoughtfully reasoned, “The free exercise clause accords a special, protected status to religious conscience not because religious judgments are better, truer, or more likely to be moral than nonreligious judgments, but because the obligations entailed by religion transcend the individual and are outside the individual’s control.”[24]

       Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief is, therefore, not enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution. Understanding this reality is important to advancing this conference’s purposes to further mutual understanding, edification, and collaboration.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. The term "wall" was in Jefferson's speech to a Baptist church explaining why their freedom of religion mattered. 

So "wall" is no more sacrosanct than "curtain." Unless you believe it has some special status merely because Jefferson used it.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think having a firm separation is the best way to ensure no one has to walk on eggshells. I remember a number of years ago when we were in Texas, some parents of high school students in Santa Fe sued over prayers at football games and graduation, which they said were always Baptist/Evangelical and excluded those who were not of those faiths. Some of the plaintiffs were LDS. Having lived in rural Texas, I completely understood.

 

I don't have a problem with honoring the past, including religious groups and people. For example, there's a Junipero Serra high school in California named after someone who has recently been canonized as a saint. I doubt very much that they have Catholic prayers at JSHS football games, though. 

But the banning of the singing of traditional Christmas carols in public schools is going overboard, as are a number of other things that are done today in the name of "separation of church and state."

 

An adult who lived in one of the wards where I grew up was later very actively involved in the Mormon Battalion heritage group. He told of an incident in which he was invited to come speak to a school class in Utah history about the Mormon Battalion, but he was strictly enjoined by the teacher from mentioning God or religion in any way.

 

That is sheer idiocy.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd