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

[TheSkepticChristian]

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

 

Why do you defend religious freedom so much? It is not going to go away. Our country will always have religious freedom. 

 

There are more important topics 

 

[jwhitlock]

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. 

 

Texas was (is?) an absolute basket case when it comes to this kind of stuff. There are still people down there (as well as up here where I live in PA) who would cheerfully string up Mormons and other undesirables if they were given a chance. One group (here in PA) bemoaned the fact that separation of church and state had been taken to such an extreme that Mormons, Muslims, etc. were able to practice their religions under the protection of the law.

 

Such attitudes, while fringe, do make rulings such as have occurred in Texas necessary in order to reign in those who actively want to impose their religion on others.

 

Fortunately, I think most people are a little more willing to appropriately compromise on such things so that religious themed holiday songs can be sung in schools without religion being forced on anyone.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Elder Oaks said religious freedom is not going to go away "that religious principles and teachings and their organizations are here to stay" 

[Scott Lloyd]

Why do you defend religious freedom so much? It is not going to go away. Our country will always have religious freedom. 

 

I defend it because it needs defending.

 

From the Oaks speech:

 

 

      For the reasons just stated, the extreme adversaries of churches should refrain from violating or ignoring the fundamental freedoms of speech and assembly that are also enjoyed by religious persons or institutions. Why do I say this? There are strong movements in our country to crowd religious voices, values, and motivations from the public square.[26] One way this is done is to shout down such arguments as irrational or reflective of hatred or bigotry, thus forestalling consideration of the very real secular as well as religious reasons supporting their positions. Even less extreme forms, like the “principled toleration” argument advocated by some mainstream academics,[27] subvert common understanding and have a chilling effect on speech and public debate on many important issues. This jeopardizes not only the freedom of religious exercise but also the associated freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.

 

[jkwilliams]

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 acquaintance of mine who lived in one of the wards where I grew up was 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.

 

Hmmm. Even in my mostly Jewish schools we learned about the Mormon pioneers, including their religious motivation. How bizarre that it would be excluded. As for the hymns, in my high school, they had "holiday" programs, and usually there was a mix of Jewish and Christian songs. 

 

For me, the rule of thumb is that you don't do anything that implies endorsement or acceptance of a religious point of view, especially if that view is the predominant one. So, I understand why people in Utah are a bit touchy about this subject, as one of the things that drove me crazy living there (even as a believer) was that religion permeated every aspect of life: school, government, work, shopping. It was sometimes difficult to determine where church stopped and community began.

 

ETA: The one major accommodation of the Jewish students was that we got Jewish holidays off from school. But this was mostly because half the students would be gone anyway. So, we had Jewish and Christian holidays. 

Edited October 22, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

Hmmm. Even in my mostly Jewish schools we learned about the Mormon pioneers, including their religious motivation. How bizarre that it would be excluded. As for the hymns, in my high school, they had "holiday" programs, and usually there was a mix of Jewish and Christian songs. 

 

For me, the rule of thumb is that you don't do anything that implies endorsement or acceptance of a religious point of view, especially if that view is the predominant one. So, I understand why people in Utah are a bit touchy about this subject, as one of the things that drove me crazy living there (even as a believer) was that religion permeated every aspect of life: school, government, work, shopping. It was sometimes difficult to determine where church stopped and community began.

 

ETA: The one major accommodation of the Jewish students was that we got Jewish holidays off from school. But this was mostly because half the students would be gone anyway. So, we had Jewish and Christian holidays. 

If I lived in an area where a large segment of the population shared some cultural commonalities, I don't think it would bother me if there were some catering to those commonalities. I would tend to expect it, in fact.

 

When I did my intersnhip at the Las Vegas Review-Journal, for example, I recall that the references to the entertainment and hotel industries were everywhere.

 

My first job out of college was at a newspaper in Price, Utah, where a lot of Catholics live. There were devotional candles for sale at the grocery stores. I found this interesting, but not in any way annoying.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

If I lived in an area where a large segment of the population shared some cultural commonalities, I don't think it would bother me if there were some catering to those commonalities. When I did my intersnhip at the Las Vegas Review-Journal, for example, I recall that the references to the entertainment and hotel industries were everywhere.

 

My first job out of college was at a newspaper in Price, Utah, where a lot of Catholics live. There were devotional candles for sale at the grocery stores. I found this interesting, but not in any way annoying.

 

I just remember going to a town Fourth of July picnic when we lived in Utah that was indistinguishable from a ward picnic. There were prayers and a talk about patriotism that was heavy on quotes from LDS scriptures and leaders. My wife told me afterward that she felt very uncomfortable for the two or three non-LDS couples we knew who were there. I know I did.

 

ETA: When my daughter graduated from a state-owned college in Utah, the commencement speaker was Jeffrey Holland, who coincidentally was the speaker at both of my commencements at BYU. He said he wanted to speak about goals and focus in life, but he ended up giving a talk on discipleship and the atonement. I was taken aback, but my parents, visiting from California, were a little horrified. They felt, as I did, that it was inappropriate to give a talk about religious doctrine at a public college's commencement.

Edited October 22, 2015 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

The word itself and its speaker, no! The ideas behind it very much yes! IE; Patrick Henry probably would have agreed to a "curtain" as long as it was "holy" enough for his religion/church to get the tax money. Not so much for others.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just remember going to a town Fourth of July picnic when we lived in Utah that was indistinguishable from a ward picnic. There were prayers and a talk about patriotism that was heavy on quotes from LDS scriptures and leaders. My wife told me afterward that she felt very uncomfortable for the two or three non-LDS couples we knew who were there. I know I did.

 

ETA: When my daughter graduated from a state-owned college in Utah, the commencement speaker was Jeffrey Holland, who coincidentally was the speaker at both of my commencements at BYU. He said he wanted to speak about goals and focus in life, but he ended up giving a talk on discipleship and the atonement. I was taken aback, but my parents, visiting from California, were a little horrified. They felt, as I did, that it was inappropriate to give a talk about religious doctrine at a public college's commencement.

If the pope or a highly placed cardinal of the Catholic Church had been invited, would you have been horrified if he had mentioned God or Christ in his talk? I don't think I would have been.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The word itself and its speaker, no! The ideas behind it very much yes! IE; Patrick Henry probably would have agreed to a "curtain" as long as it was "holy" enough for his religion/church to get the tax money. Not so much for others.

Here is what Elder Oaks said in context. I don't see it as unreasonable in any degree:

 

      There should be no adversariness between believers and nonbelievers, and there should be no belligerence between religion and government. These two realms should have a mutually supportive relationship. In that relationship governments and their laws can provide the essential protections for believers and religious organizations and their activities. Believers and religious organizations should recognize this and refrain from labeling governments and laws and officials as if they were inevitable enemies. On the other hand, those skeptical of or hostile to believers and their organizations should recognize the reality—borne out by experience—that religious principles and teachings and their organizations are here to stay[4] and can help create the conditions in which public laws and government institutions and their citizens can flourish.

       That perceptive observer of America, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote that what sustained the unique American democracy were the voluntary associations like churches—today often called “mediating institutions”—that lead citizens to choose to obey laws that governments cannot enforce.[5] 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.

       Of course there will be differences that must be resolved by the rule of law. But these occasional differences must not obscure the basic fact that we are in this together, we need each other, and we can resolve our differences through mutual respect, mutual understanding, and the collaboration you advocate as the purpose of this gathering.

       When I first studied this subject in law school about 60 years ago, the popular metaphor of the relationship between church and state was that of a “wall of separation.” Introduced into Supreme Court jurisprudence in the 1879 case Reynolds v. United States[6] and brought into mainstream vernacular in its 1947 Everson case,[7] this metaphor dominated discussions of the day.[8] It even found its way into the title of a book I edited in 1963.[9] That book is long out of print, but the unfortunate connotations of the “wall of separation” metaphor persist to the present day. Those connotations inhibit the desirable collaboration that brings us together in this conference.

       I reject the idea of a wall between church and state. The more appropriate metaphor to express that relation—reinforced by various decisions of the United States Supreme Court—is 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.

 

[jkwilliams]

If the pope or a highly placed cardinal of the Catholic Church had been invited, would you have been horrified if he had mentioned God or Christ in his talk. I don't think I would have been.

 

I wasn't horrified. My parents were. If it had just been a mention of God or Christ, I would have been fine with it. I thought he crossed a line, and my parents (both active LDS) thought he did, too. If a cardinal came and told graduates to have faith in Christ and the atonement, I would think the cardinal crossed the line, too.

 

My point is that there is always a line, and when in doubt, we should err on the side of caution instead of going right up to the line or over it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't horrified. My parents were. If it had just been a mention of God or Christ, I would have been fine with it. I thought he crossed a line, and my parents (both active LDS) thought he did, too. If a cardinal came and told graduates to have faith in Christ and the atonement, I would think the cardinal crossed the line, too.

 

I think being "horrified" that a religious figure would give a talk laced with religious doctrine is a bit beyond the pale.

 

 

My point is that there is always a line, and when in doubt, we should err on the side of caution instead of going right up to the line or over it.

 

And I guess my point is we need to lighten up and not be so thin-skinned when the talk turns to religion. Otherwise there is a chilling effect that drives any mention of faith or God from public discourse altogether. I don't see that as a good thing either.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

I thinking being "horrified" that a religious figure would give a talk laced with religious doctrine is a bit beyond the pale.

 

And I guess my point is we need to lighten up and not be so thin-skinned when the talk turns to religion. Otherwise there is a chilling effect that drives any mention of faith or God from public discourse altogether. I don't see that as a good thing either.

 

Well, the word that would more correctly describe my dad's reaction is "pissed." 

 

People talk about God and religion all the time in public discourse, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. My parents and I (and my LDS wife and daughter) thought he crossed it. My daughter said, "I couldn't tell if I was in sacrament meeting or school." 

 

By contrast, when my Jewish niece graduated from Duquesne University, a Catholic school, the talks were all secular, and the only nod to religion was the keynote address and blessing by the nun in charge of the nursing program. Her address was entirely secular, except for the blessing at the end.

Edited October 22, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, the word that would more correctly describe my dad's reaction is "pissed." 

 

People talk about God and religion all the time in public discourse, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. My parents and I (and my LDS wife and daughter) thought he crossed it. My daughter said, "I couldn't tell if I was in sacrament meeting or school." 

 

By contrast, when my Jewish niece graduated from Duquesne University, a Catholic school, the talks were all secular, and the only nod to religion was the keynote address and blessing by the nun in charge of the nursing program. Her address was entirely secular, except for the blessing at the end.

So everything, if it's not said or done within the confines of a church or synagogue or mosque or other house of worship needs to be "entirely secular"?

 

I don't see it. It amounts to "respecting an establishment of religion" or, In this case, non-religion.

 

As Elder Oaks said,

 

Those skeptical of or hostile to believers and their organizations should recognize the reality—borne out by experience—that religious principles and teachings and their organizations are here to stay[4] and can help create the conditions in which public laws and government institutions and their citizens can flourish.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

So everything, if it's not said or done within the confines of a church or synagogue or mosque or other house of worship needs to be "entirely secular"?

 

I don't see it. It amounts to "respecting an establishment of religion" or, In this case, non-religion.

 

As Elder Oaks said,

 

Nope, I did not say that. I just thought it was very strange that the commencement at a public college was far more religiously based than one at a Catholic university.

 

I do think it's inappropriate for a speaker at a taxpayer-funded public college to preach religious doctrines. It wouldn't matter to me if the speaker were LDS, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. Religion is rightly included in all kinds of public discourse, and it's not restricted to churches and synagogues. But a government-sponsored event should not be used as a religious pulpit. Apparently, you disagree.

 

Frankly, sometimes a chilling effect is a good thing, if it makes people think twice about inappropriate venues for religious instruction.

[thesometimesaint]

If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible.

It was an issue for our Constitutional Conventions, and it is an issue today. If the government gives money to specific faith based, or small sets of organizations to the exclusion of all others. It is promoting one religion over another. 

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnership

Edited October 22, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope, I did not say that. I just thought it was very strange that the commencement at a public college was far more religiously based than one at a Catholic university.

 

Catholics can do what they want. A more direct expression of religious faith from them would not bother me -- nor should it.

 

I do think it's inappropriate for a speaker at a taxpayer-funded public college to preach religious doctrines. It wouldn't matter to me if the speaker were LDS, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. Religion is rightly included in all kinds of public discourse, and it's not restricted to churches and synagogues. But a government-sponsored event should not be used as a religious pulpit. Apparently, you disagree.

 

I think your characterizing it as "preach[ing] religious doctrine" and turning the event into a "pulpit" is overwrought. I doubt that accurately expresses what happened.

 

Frankly, sometimes a chilling effect is a good thing, if it makes people think twice about inappropriate venues for religious instruction.

 

A chilling effect that prevents or precludes the honest public expression of feeling, religious or otherwise, is not a good thing. As Elder Oaks intimated, it infringes on other liberties as well, such as freedom of speech or of the press.

 

And I think we are repeating ourselves here. You may have the last word, if you want it.

[Scott Lloyd]

If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible.

It was an issue for our Constitutional Conventions, and it is an issue today. If the government gives money to specific faith based, or small sets of organizations to the exclusion of all others. It is promoting one religion over another. 

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnership

Hmm. Was Elder Oaks advocating that sort of thing? I guess I missed it if he was.

[jkwilliams]

Catholics can do what they want. A more direct expression of religious faith from them would not bother me -- nor should it.

 

I think your characterizing it as "preach[ing] religious doctrine" and turning the event into a "pulpit" is overwrought. I doubt that accurately expresses what happened.

A chilling effect that prevents or precludes the honest public expression of feeling, religious or otherwise, is not a good thing. As Elder Oaks intimated, it infringes on other liberties as well, such as freedom of speech or of the press.

 

And I think we are repeating ourselves here. You may have the last word, if you want it.

 

I guess I am wondering where you would draw the line, or if you wouldn't draw a line. At what point is religious speech at a government function inappropriate, or do you believe that all religious speech is appropriate in that situation?

 

My guess is that, like me, you probably believe there is a line between appropriate and inappropriate speech at a government function. I did think Elder Holland crossed the line in his commencement address, and yes, I think encouraging faith in Christ and the Atonement qualifies as religious preaching. Maybe I was just used to it from having lived in Utah so long, but it didn't bother me that much. But my parents were not happy at all. 

[Meadowchik]

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.

I grew up in Texas, lived at BYU for 9 years and in Europe for seven. The differences have been interesting!

[jkwilliams]

I grew up in Texas, lived at BYU for 9 years and in Europe for seven. The differences have been interesting!

 

Indeed. I've always been opposed to school prayer because I know how awkward it would have been for me growing up in a place where most people were not only not LDS but not Christian. Around the time I was in high school, our school district started having a minute of silence at the beginning of the day, which is pointless.

 

Frankly, I don't want the schools teaching my kids religious values and doctrines. That's my job as a parent. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess I am wondering where you would draw the line, or if you wouldn't draw a line. At what point is religious speech at a government function inappropriate, or do you believe that all religious speech is appropriate in that situation?

 

My guess is that, like me, you probably believe there is a line between appropriate and inappropriate speech at a government function.

Conceivably there is, I suppose.

 

But I live in Utah -- have done most of my life -- and have to say I rarely if ever witness anything that approaches the line of impropriety in that regard. If anything, the opposite is true: too much walking on eggshells, as I said earlier.

 

You didn't specify the school or occasion at which Elder Holland made this allegedly egregious infraction. So out of curiosity, I went looking. I found this report online of a commencement speech he gave at Snow College in southern Utah:

 

EPHRAIM — Invoking three British "voices from the past" — Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, writer Rudyard Kipling, and poet and cleric John Donne — Elder Jeffrey R. Holland counseled graduates Saturday at the 122nd commencement of Snow College.

Elder Holland of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Quorum of the Twelve received an honorary doctorate of humane letters prior to giving the commencement address to 755 graduates at the junior college in central Utah.

In his address, Elder Holland explained that Wolsey rose to political prominence and worldly wealth in the court of King Henry VIII. But when he couldn't overcome church objections and deliver a divorce for his king, he lost everything, ultimately falling ill and dying on his way to execution.

"What a tragic end to such a gifted beginning," Elder Holland said. "What a pathetic farewell to a life that held such promise, as yours does. … And where did it go wrong? It went wrong when ambition became more important that conviction; when corruption transcended fidelity; when power and wealth created a thirst that honest living could not satisfy."

He told the graduates, acknowledging they are facing tough global economic times, to avoid making the same mistakes by turning to "the permanent things, the reliable things forever. Truth and industry and love. Family and friends. Humility and sacrifice and faith."

Elder Holland then recited from Kipling's "Recessional," written at the height of the British Empire, including the words: "Lest we forget — lest we forget."

He exhorted the graduates "to remember again what so many have sacrificed and done for you in order that you could be here today," including parents, family, faculty, friends and for some, spouses and children.

"Promise to remember Snow College, its wonderful traditions, and the people who made all this possible for you today. And when you do remember, be grateful," he said.

Elder Holland then turned to a sermon delivered by Donne affirming that God "had made no decrees to distinguish the seasons of his mercies, especially during times of discouragement."

Then he told the graduates, "Above all else you have learned here, may you leave this great school secure in the promise of God's unfailing love for you."

 

Is this an example of him "preaching" at a state-sponsored event or turning the occasion "into a pulpit"? He did mention God and God's love, he recited a well-known poem that is, in effect, a prayer to God and he did quote a Christian poet and cleric.

 

I think it a sad state of affairs if a religious figure cannot even do that much without incurring the wrath of an intolerant public.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Conceivably there is, I suppose.

 

But I live in Utah -- have done most of my life -- and have to say I rarely if ever witness anything that approaches the line of impropriety in that regard. If anything, the opposite is true: too much walking on eggshells, as I said earlier.

 

You didn't specify the school or occasion at which Elder Holland made this allegedly egregious infraction. So  of curiosity, I went looking. I found this report online of a commencement speech he gave at Snow College in southern Utah:

 

Is this an example of him "preaching" at a state-sponsored event or turning the occasion "into a pulpit"? He did mention God and God's love, and he did quote a Christian poet and cleric.

 

I think it a sad state of affairs if a religious figure cannot even do that much without incurring the wrath of an intolerant public.

 

I don't think that's an accurate summary of his address, which was largely about faith and the atonement. If that was what he had spoken about, I doubt my parents would have been upset. You weren't there, and AFAIK, there is no transcript of his remarks. I like Elder Holland and have met him on more than one occasion, but I thought his remarks crossed a line. That doesn't mean my parents or I want to banish all religious expression from the public square. 

Edited October 22, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think that's an accurate summary of his address, which was largely about faith and the atonement. If that was what he had spoken about, I doubt my parents would have been upset. You weren't there, and AFAIK, there is no transcript of his remarks. I like Elder Holland and have met him on more than one occasion, but I thought his remarks crossed a line. That doesn't mean my parents or I want to banish all religious expression from the public square. 

So this is the very occasion you were speaking of? What a coincidence! I didn't think I would find it, and especially not so easily. I merely put this up as possibly a representative example of what Elder Holland might say on such an occasion.

 

No, I wasn't there, and I don't have a transcript. But if whatever he said about the Atonement was so incidental that it didn't even show up in this news writer's summary of his talk, I have to wonder if it was as overpowering as you are making it out to be, or if perhaps there was some hypersensitivity involved.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

So this is the very occasion you were speaking of? What a coincidence! I didn't think I would find it, and especially not so easily. I merely put this up as possibly a representative example of what Elder Holland might say on such an occasion.

 

No, I wasn't there, and I don't have a transcript. But if whatever he said about the Atonement was so incidental that it didn't even show up in this news writer's summary of his talk, I have to wonder if it was as overpowering as you are making it out to be, or if perhaps there was some hypersensitivity involved.

 

Yep, my parents are really hypersensitive. LOL