Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[USU78]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Of course it had an effect on LDS members. However LDS members were an insignificant minority in 1833. That doesn't excuse their mistreatment.

Let's take the rabbithole offline, if you'd care to clarify who was mistreated and by whom and when and why.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I want to thank you for your post.  I always wonder how people are able to justify and support discrimination.  Your's is the perfect argument.  The truth is, we DO treat all children the same in this country.  There are no special rules when a child is black or gay or Jewish or a female.  The truth is we do treat all criminals equally under the law.  There are no special rules for black, gay, Mormon or female criminals.  ALL ARE TREATED EQUALLY UNER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.  

We have no special laws for ANY group based on race, gender, religious beliefs and increasingly sexual orientation.  Yeah some are trying to create special laws for religious beliefs.  They want to break the civil right laws that have been in existence and have served this country well for over 50 years.  So far they have been unsuccessful except for the very recent law past in North Carolina.  Hopefully the courts and public pressure will correct those discriminating laws.  No one gets a free pass just because they justify discrimination by their religious beliefs. 

Actually, no you have created a comparison that institutes inequality.  A child does not have the rights of an adult; a prisoner does not have the rights of a person who never committed a crime; etc.  We discriminate as a society at every turn.  

We have special laws for all kinds of sexual behavior and you support them.  Your problem is that you have a special group that you think is more entitled than everyone else and they must have their rights while denying rights to any other group that society has long determined is immoral and not acceptable.  That is the hypocrisy of the gay movement - it is just like every other group that wants rights for itself and is determined to deny rights to anyone else that might conflict with their scared cow.  It surprises me that you are so blind to this.

[thesometimesaint]

The LDS were mistreated for a variety of reasons.

They were cliquish, rumors of polygamy, and their opposition to slavery all played a part.

As I said none of which is an excuse for the ill treatment they received.

Ps; That probably is a discussion for another thread.

Edited March 28, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Got it.  You only want quotes from religionists that support your view  (regarding the dialogue from the past on slavery, that you brought up in your OP).  Not much of a discussion, but it is your thread.

.

I think I've been clear. Please refrain from derailing the thread.

And already there have been some thoughtful posts reflecting differing opinions that are on topic (and 430 thread views in the past 13 hours), so I disagree it is "not much of a discussion."

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I thought the point suggested that without the religious contribution things like slavery would have ended worse.  But we dont' know that.  we have to consider the whole of the religious viewpoint to understand whether the religious view was an overall benefit.

It's not a question of "the whole of the religious viewpoint," but rather, a question of what would have happened had those with any religious viewpoint whatsoever been banned from participation in the public policy debate. Need I remind you that the title "the reverend" preceding that name the Rev. Martin Luther King has religious significance? Or that John Brown and Frederick Douglass were both religious men whose opposition to slavery stemmed from religious beliefs?

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

ALarson, perhaps, forgets D&C 101:79-80:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Iirc, that was added after slavery was abolished and it was not in the 1835 edition either (but I need to look that up as I'm just going from memory here).  I think it was added after Joseph's death and after the Civil War.

CFR.

The header identifies the section as a "revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet at Kirtland, Ohio, December 16 and 17, 1833."

Edited March 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

CFR.

The header identifies the section as a "revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet at Kirtland, Ohio, December 16 and 17, 1833."

This has already been taken care of (read the thread).  Thanks.

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a question of "the whole of the religious viewpoint," but rather, a question of what would have happened had those with any religious viewpoint whatsoever been banned from participation in the public policy debate. Need I remind you that the title "the reverend" preceding that name the Rev. Martin Luther King has religious significance? Or that John Brown and Frederick Douglass were both religious men whose opposition to slavery stemmed from religious beliefs?

 

You don't need to remind me.  The question seems to be if there was no religious voice on these topics would they have played out the same?  maybe there would not have been a long lasting issue with civil rights if it weren't for the religious voice. 

I'd say the biggest problem with this hypothetical is we simply don't know.  While Elder Oaks' address as a whole was great, that particular point was extraordinarily weak, and perhaps even counter-intuitive. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You don't need to remind me.  The question seems to be if there was no religious voice on these topics would they have played out the same?  maybe there would not have been a long lasting issue with civil rights if it weren't for the religious voice. 

I'd say the biggest problem with this hypothetical is we simply don't know.  While Elder Oaks' address as a whole was great, that particular point was extraordinarily weak, and perhaps even counter-intuitive. 

I wholeheartedly disagree. It was one of the best parts of an eminently sensible and eloquent speech.

And how is it "counter-intuitive" to suggest that a movement is weakened by silencing its strongest voices? Do you know the definition of counter-intutive?

Edited March 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

59 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Actually, no you have created a comparison that institutes inequality.  A child does not have the rights of an adult; a prisoner does not have the rights of a person who never committed a crime; etc.  We discriminate as a society at every turn.  

We have special laws for all kinds of sexual behavior and you support them.  Your problem is that you have a special group that you think is more entitled than everyone else and they must have their rights while denying rights to any other group that society has long determined is immoral and not acceptable.  That is the hypocrisy of the gay movement - it is just like every other group that wants rights for itself and is determined to deny rights to anyone else that might conflict with their scared cow.  It surprises me that you are so blind to this.

This is interesting, Storm Rider.  I think you have a point in that there is an effort to hush up the religious voice in the public arena.  But it is pretty weak, at least at this point.  No one is asking for special rights and laws on their side, per se.  The special voice is being requested by the religious voice, mostly.  Particularly if someone on the religious side is trying to claim the religious voice should count for more than the other.  It should be a level playing field. 

When I read your response and your accusation of blindness I also realized how well your point seems to fit against the religious side argument.  The religious side wants to deny rights to other groups and yet often pleads and see itself as a privileged group that should count more than others. 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wholeheartedly disagree. It was one of the best parts of an eminently sensible and eloquent speech.

I figured you disagreed.  I simply can't see a reason to see it that way, though.  Unless it can be shown that the results would have been worse with slavery and civil rights without the religious voice, then the point is counter-intuitive. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I figured you disagreed.  I simply can't see a reason to see it that way, though.  Unless it can be shown that the results would have been worse with slavery and civil rights without the religious voice, then the point is counter-intuitive. 

I added this sentence later; perhaps you missed it:

Quote

And how is it "counter-intuitive" to suggest that a movement is weakened by silencing its strongest voices? Do you know the definition of counter-intutive?

 

[USU78]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Bit players are/should be entitled to every right as the majority, whatever their location in the US.

BTW it was the Eastern Seaboard south from Virginia that supported and fought for slavery.

Since we're quibbling:  is it your view that the Atlantic Seaboard Southern States in the '50s-'70s were pro slavery?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I added this sentence later; perhaps you missed it:

And how is it "counter-intuitive" to suggest that a movement is weakened by silencing its strongest voices? Do you know the definition of counter-intutive?

I didn't say the movement is weakened by silencing anyone.  I'd disagree strongly that silencing voices to be a good thing, unless those voices are extreme like ISIS. 

 

I said his example could be said to be counter intuitive to his point, seeing as we don't know that the religious voice sped up the progress of civil rights.  It could be that the overall voice from the religious side slowed it down.  But we dont' know either way.  We do know that there were good strong religious voices that helped.  But we also know religious voices caused good movements to slow down. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't say the movement is weakened by silencing anyone. 

I didn't say you said it. I said Elder Oaks suggested it by raising the conjecture of what might have happened had people of faith been banned from participation in the debate over public policy.

Quote

I'd disagree strongly that silencing voices to be a good thing, unless those voices are extreme like ISIS. 

I agree, and that's why I'm a strong advocate of religious freedom preservation.

Quote

I said his example could be said to be counter intuitive to his point, seeing as we don't know that the religious voice sped up the progress of civil rights.  It could be that the overall voice from the religious side slowed it down.  But we dont' know either way.  We do know that there were good strong religious voices that helped.  But we also know religious voices caused good movements to slow down. 

I still say you don't understand the definition of counter-intuitive but I don't want to keep arguing the matter.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't say the movement is weakened by silencing anyone.  I'd disagree strongly that silencing voices to be a good thing, unless those voices are extreme like ISIS. 

 

I said his example could be said to be counter intuitive to his point, seeing as we don't know that the religious voice sped up the progress of civil rights.  It could be that the overall voice from the religious side slowed it down.  But we dont' know either way.  We do know that there were good strong religious voices that helped.  But we also know religious voices caused good movements to slow down. 

For goodness’ sake, it’s a thought experiment: “Advocates who seek to banish religious arguments from the public square should answer this question: How would the great movements toward social justice in the United States, such as the abolition of slavery or the furthering of civil rights, have been advocated and pressed toward adoption if their religious proponents had been banned from participating on the issue by the assertion that private religious or moral positions were not an acceptable basis for public discourse or lawmaking?”

So all one needs to do is provide an answer rather than avoid the experiment.

He offers one answer coming from advocates who seek to welcome religious arguments in the public square: “Many of the most significant moral advances in Western society have been motivated by religious principles and persuaded to official adoption by pulpit-preaching. Examples include the abolition of the slave trade in England and the Emancipation Proclamation in this country. The same is true of the Civil Rights movement of the last half-century. These great advances were not motivated and moved by secular ethics or persons who believed in moral relativism. They were driven primarily by persons who had a clear religious vision of what was morally right.” He cites Rodney Stark, American’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone, Including Atheists (2012).

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This is interesting, Storm Rider.  I think you have a point in that there is an effort to hush up the religious voice in the public arena.  But it is pretty weak, at least at this point.  No one is asking for special rights and laws on their side, per se.  The special voice is being requested by the religious voice, mostly.  Particularly if someone on the religious side is trying to claim the religious voice should count for more than the other.  It should be a level playing field. 

When I read your response and your accusation of blindness I also realized how well your point seems to fit against the religious side argument.  The religious side wants to deny rights to other groups and yet often pleads and see itself as a privileged group that should count more than others. 

Emphasis mine.

"But it is pretty weak," Not really. Just an FYI, currently there are more anti-religion cases granted certiorari than there are for " the religious side argument." The respect for religious leaders is currently at an all time low. For every one opinion like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby there are five opinions setting precedent against, (i.e. Employment Division v. Smith, City of Boerne v. Flores, Elane Photography v. Willock (famous case about a photographer who chose not to photograph a same sex wedding due to her religious convictions), Ingersol v. Arlene's Flowers, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Baker v. Hands On Originals).  The last three cases I mentioned have been sued by proponents of the GLBT. The defendants in those cases have all refused to use their artistic talents to profit on an issue that is held to be against their sacred religious views.

When an employee needs to know the religion of a Fortune 500 company's owner to know what the health coverage will be, that goes beyond a ridiculous level.

See the following;

God vs. the Gavel, the Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty ~Marci A. Hamilton

The many cases against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and its progeny

The Decline of American Religion ~Marck Chaves

Constitutionally yours

I stand with Elder Oaks

Edited March 28, 2016 by Anijen

[consiglieri]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not yet read the full transcript of this, but I like what I see in the summary report on LDS Newsroom. 

He calls for a cease-fire in the culture wars, asks that each side refrain from leading out with "non-negotiables," and generally calls for greater civility and mutual understanding. 

Link:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-apostle-cease-fire-culture-wars

He wonders pointedly what would have happened in the struggle to abolish slavery if religionists had been shut out of the dialogue because they were religionists. 

All in all, an eminently reasonable stance. 

I think Elder Oaks speaks a great deal about things few would contest.  It is sort of like the Proclamation--it is 95% stuff nobody has any argument with.

It is the 5% buried in the other 95% of fluff that is the issue.

Here, I see the main problem as being that Elder Oaks continues to advocate that religious views should be afforded greater constitutional protection than the secular views of "nondiscrimination."

I think it goes without saying that religious views should trump so long as the impact of those views are restricted to the adherents of that religion, and so long as nobody is hurt or property damaged in the process.  In other words, a religion is free to accept or decline or terminate membership of anybody the religion wishes, based on terms and policies the religion puts in place.

But I think Elder Oaks is advocating for more than that--he wants LDS Church views to be afforded greater (or at least equal) constitutional protection than secular vies when those LDS Church views extend beyond the purview of the LDS Church itself. 

This is where I disagree.

It is where the LDS Church starts going into provinces other than the purely religious where Elder Oaks wants to have the final say.  And he feels entitled to it based on the fact the views themselves are "purely religious."

This, I think, is a bridge too far.

And I suspect Elder Oaks knows such a message will not be received well.

Otherwise why go to such lengths to mask the message?

In fact, why give a talk at all where your message is so masked that others have a hard time even understanding it?

Too much practice at General Conference?

 

[juliann]

29 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It is where the LDS Church starts going into provinces other than the purely religious where Elder Oaks wants to have the final say.  

 

It would be helpful if you provided quotes (or even paraphrases) to support this interpretation because that certainly isn't what I heard. I gave a direct quote of him saying otherwise and using such words as compromise. I think you are veering uncomfortably close to a conspiracy theory with the whispering about hidden meaning. He was there by request to speak on religious freedom from his perspective as an apostle. They have others to speak from other perspectives.  I'm not sure why you would think he should support secularism instead.

What I see happening in this thread is not a discussion of his talk but a demand that he should have given a different talk and come to a different conclusion.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Actually, no you have created a comparison that institutes inequality.  A child does not have the rights of an adult; a prisoner does not have the rights of a person who never committed a crime; etc.  We discriminate as a society at every turn.  

We have special laws for all kinds of sexual behavior and you support them.  Your problem is that you have a special group that you think is more entitled than everyone else and they must have their rights while denying rights to any other group that society has long determined is immoral and not acceptable.  That is the hypocrisy of the gay movement - it is just like every other group that wants rights for itself and is determined to deny rights to anyone else that might conflict with their scared cow.  It surprises me that you are so blind to this.

There are so many problems with your post I don't know where to begin. I have already addressed your assertion that kids are treated differently under the law. While they are not treated as adults, they are all treated equally.  A gay kid or a black kid or a Mormon kid are all treated equally. Do you deny this?

Gays that have sex either married or not are treated the same as heterosexual couples  Do you deny that?  Gay couples are allowed to marry just like straight couples  dDo you deny that?  There is no legal support to deny equality to gays.  Do you deny that?

 

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

  9 hours ago, Anijen said:

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Actually, no you have created a comparison that institutes inequality.  A child does not have the rights of an adult; a prisoner does not have the rights of a person who never committed a crime; etc.  We discriminate as a society at every turn.  

We have special laws for all kinds of sexual behavior and you support them.  Your problem is that you have a special group that you think is more entitled than everyone else and they must have their rights while denying rights to any other group that society has long determined is immoral and not acceptable.  That is the hypocrisy of the gay movement - it is just like every other group that wants rights for itself and is determined to deny rights to anyone else that might conflict with their scared cow.  It surprises me that you are so blind to this.

There are so many problems with your post I don't know where to begin. I have already addressed your assertion that kids are treated differently under the law. While they are not treated as adults, they are all treated equally.  A gay kid or a black kid or a Mormon kid are all treated equally. Do you deny this?

Gays that have sex either married or not are treated the same as heterosexual couples  Do you deny that?  Gay couples are allowed to marry just like straight couples  dDo you deny that?  There is no legal support to deny equality to gays.  Do you deny that?

Um, why are you quoting me and then using someone else's post?

Edited March 29, 2016 by Anijen

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Anijen said:

Um, why are you quoting me and then using someone else's post?

Sorry. Just this new software glitch. Sometimes the quote function doesn't work right

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think Elder Oaks speaks a great deal about things few would contest.  It is sort of like the Proclamation--it is 95% stuff nobody has any argument with.

It is the 5% buried in the other 95% of fluff that is the issue.

Here, I see the main problem as being that Elder Oaks continues to advocate that religious views should be afforded greater constitutional protection than the secular views of "nondiscrimination."

I think it goes without saying that religious views should trump so long as the impact of those views are restricted to the adherents of that religion, and so long as nobody is hurt or property damaged in the process.  In other words, a religion is free to accept or decline or terminate membership of anybody the religion wishes, based on terms and policies the religion puts in place.

But I think Elder Oaks is advocating for more than that--he wants LDS Church views to be afforded greater (or at least equal) constitutional protection than secular vies when those LDS Church views extend beyond the purview of the LDS Church itself. 

This is where I disagree.

It is where the LDS Church starts going into provinces other than the purely religious where Elder Oaks wants to have the final say.  And he feels entitled to it based on the fact the views themselves are "purely religious."

This, I think, is a bridge too far.

And I suspect Elder Oaks knows such a message will not be received well.

Otherwise why go to such lengths to mask the message?

In fact, why give a talk at all where your message is so masked that others have a hard time even understanding it?

Too much practice at General Conference?

 

I read the actual transcript this morning.  While I agree with much of what he spoke, I still don't quite get one of his main points:  He says that there should be special legal protections for religious freedom but I don't get what he's asking for that we don't have already.

 

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a question of "the whole of the religious viewpoint," but rather, a question of what would have happened had those with any religious viewpoint whatsoever been banned from participation in the public policy debate. Need I remind you that the title "the reverend" preceding that name the Rev. Martin Luther King has religious significance? Or that John Brown and Frederick Douglass were both religious men whose opposition to slavery stemmed from religious beliefs?

The world would be a much poorer, and scarier place than it already is.

[rockpond]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a question of "the whole of the religious viewpoint," but rather, a question of what would have happened had those with any religious viewpoint whatsoever been banned from participation in the public policy debate. Need I remind you that the title "the reverend" preceding that name the Rev. Martin Luther King has religious significance? Or that John Brown and Frederick Douglass were both religious men whose opposition to slavery stemmed from religious beliefs?

 

The religious viewpoint should certainly be a part of the discussion.  But Elder Oaks address tries to leave the impression that slavery was ended because of the religious viewpoint when, in fact, there were strong religious arguments given for keeping slavery as well.

Elder Oaks also pushes the idea that religious arguments are behind advancement in civil rights.  While partially true, it's ironic coming from Elder Oaks given the Church's past positions on those of African descent and marriage equality.  While religious folks participated in advancing those particular civil rights movements -- our Church did not.