Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[Gray]

"Religious" is a word like "political". It's not intrinsically positive or negative, it's just a sphere in which people with all kinds of different views operate. 

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

 

By saying, “the religiously motivated actions of believers are valuable to society and are deserving of special legal protection,” he is calling to keep the protections we currently enjoy so as not to have religiously based actions become "diminished in both public expression and influence."

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

"Religious" is a word like "political". It's not intrinsically positive or negative, it's just a sphere in which people with all kinds of different views operate. 

 

If that be true, a corollary to it is that secularists and anti-religionists had best beware of pushing for the banning of participation from anyone, including people and organizations of faith, lest the consequence is that their own ox is gored.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

By saying, “the religiously motivated actions of believers are valuable to society and are deserving of special legal protection,” he is calling to keep the protections we currently enjoy so as not to have religiously based actions become "diminished in both public expression and influence."

 

And given the anti-religion rantings he cited in his talk, there is a great need for vigilance even as we speak.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 11:34 PM, 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. 

A cease-fire would be great. It requires both sides to agree and act appropriately. The problem is each side sees the world so differently that it is difficult to even come up with a definition of what a "non-negotiable" is.

Is it considered a non-negotiable for the church to call SSM members "apostate" and refuse their children ordinances such as baptism. The church may not see that as a non-negotiable but others on the opposite side of the culture war may.

Is it considered non-negotiable for society to claim that individuals should not be discriminated against, even by religious institutions, in matters of employment, housing etc. I'm guessing there wouldn't even be agreement on whether these terms are non-negotiable.

It seems to me that Elder Oaks wants to have the special recognition that comes with being a religious organization and that the rest of society should start at that point. Is that non-negotiable?

In any case, there are things the church could do that would eliminate their "non-negotiables" which is really all they can control.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A cease-fire would be great. It requires both sides to agree and act appropriately. The problem is each side sees the world so differently that it is difficult to even come up with a definition of what a "non-negotiable" is.

Is it considered a non-negotiable for the church to call SSM members "apostate" and refuse their children ordinances such as baptism. The church may not see that as a non-negotiable but others on the opposite side of the culture war may.

And in that, they would be quite wrong.

The tradition in a free society is to allow freedom of religion, including the freedom for individual faith groups to run their organizations as they see fit. Those who refuse to see this as a non-negotiable probably need a few civics lessons.

Quote

Is it considered non-negotiable for society to claim that individuals should not be discriminated against, even by religious institutions, in matters of employment, housing etc. I'm guessing there wouldn't even be agreement on whether these terms are non-negotiable.

The Church of Jesus Christ, in the past year, has set the example in this respect and shown that reason can prevail and a balance can be found between religious freedom and avoiding of discrimination.

Quote

It seems to me that Elder Oaks wants to have the special recognition that comes with being a religious organization and that the rest of society should start at that point. Is that non-negotiable?

What Elder Oaks has done is recognize the Constitutional protection that is afforded freedom of religion, stemming from the First Amendment. He is not unreasonable in doing so. Refusing to recognize that protection and would fight against it is, in fact, unAmerican.

Quote

In any case, there are things the church could do that would eliminate their "non-negotiables" which is really all they can control.

Why, in a free and democratic society, should the Chruch eliminate its non-negotiables? Calling for such a thing strikes me as an extreme position, the very thing Elder Oaks is decrying.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And in that, they would be quite wrong.

The tradition in a free society is to allow freedom of religion, including the freedom for individual faith groups to run their organizations as they see fit. Those who refuse to see this as a non-negotiable probably need a few civics lessons.

The Church of Jesus Christ, in the past year, has set the example in this respect and shown that reason can prevail and a balance can be found between religious freedom and avoiding of discrimination.

What Elder Oaks has done is recognize the Constitutional protection that is afforded freedom of religion, stemming from the First Amendment. He is not unreasonable in doing so. Refusing to recognize that protection and would fight against it is, in fact, unAmerican.

Why, in a free and democratic society, should the Chruch eliminate its non-negotiables? Calling for such a thing strikes me as an extreme position, the very thing Elder Oaks is decrying.

This is a good example of what I was saying. You say the church has set an example of respect and I see it quite differently. You even cited a "non-negotiable" and said anyone who doesn't agree needs a civics lesson. Thanks for making my point.

So what the church is doing is saying we want everyone else to get rid of their non-negotiables but ours are good so we're keeping them. You seem to agree. That's fine. But the culture war will not end like that.

 

[Kenngo1969]

It seems that several contributors to this thread are of the opinion that a proper understanding of "free exercise" of religion confines the meaning of that term to what adherents do on their holy day within the walls of their holy place.  Somehow, I doubt that's what the drafters of the First Amendment had in mind.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why, in a free and democratic society, should the Chruch eliminate its non-negotiables? Calling for such a thing strikes me as an extreme position, the very thing Elder Oaks is decrying.

True, Oaks did not say that anyone need eliminate their "nonnegotiables or extreme positions" (that's the "second step", his first step is to understand one another's point of view).  Great counsel.  And it is counsel that I think the Church is currently trying to follow (e.g. the non-discrimination ordinance).  As he stated:

"A second step is to avoid leading out with nonnegotiables or extreme positions. Both sides in these controversies should seek balance, not total victory. For example, believers 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 that impinge on nondiscrimination."

Where this is tough to accept from him is when you look back just 8 years when the Church was leading a battle wherein they did seek a veto over marriage equality as it offended their religion.  That battle wasn't about our right to continue to practice our religion, it was about making sure others didn't have legal recognition of marriage as they sincerely believed it to be.

So, perhaps this is as close to an apology as Elder Oaks will get for times when the Church did lead with nonnegotiables and extreme positions.  The irony, of course, is that it took judicial action (which he decries as less effective) to correct those previous Church actions.

[thesometimesaint]

31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It seems that several contributors to this thread are of the opinion that a proper understanding of "free exercise" of religion confines the meaning of that term to what adherents do on their holy day within the walls of their holy place.  Somehow, I doubt that's what the drafters of the First Amendment had in mind.

I strenuously oppose such idea's. I agree.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And given the anti-religion rantings he cited in his talk, there is a great need for vigilance even as we speak.

So I think we need to examine and strengthen special legal protections for religious people against intimidation, retaliation, job and other personal loss directed at them because of how they exercise their religious convictions in the way they vote, and what they campaign for, donate to, etc. I think some consideration also needs to be made for how they choose to conduct business or fulfill the requirements of employment.

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

True, Oaks did not say that anyone need eliminate their "nonnegotiables or extreme positions" (that's the "second step", his first step is to understand one another's point of view).  Great counsel.  And it is counsel that I think the Church is currently trying to follow (e.g. the non-discrimination ordinance).  As he stated:

"A second step is to avoid leading out with nonnegotiables or extreme positions. Both sides in these controversies should seek balance, not total victory. For example, believers 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 that impinge on nondiscrimination."

Where this is tough to accept from him is when you look back just 8 years when the Church was leading a battle wherein they did seek a veto over marriage equality as it offended their religion.  That battle wasn't about our right to continue to practice our religion, it was about making sure others didn't have legal recognition of marriage as they sincerely believed it to be.

So, perhaps this is as close to an apology as Elder Oaks will get for times when the Church did lead with nonnegotiables and extreme positions.  The irony, of course, is that it took judicial action (which he decries as less effective) to correct those previous Church actions.

I don't see where it changed Church actions or beliefs. We have every right to gather together and petition our governments for a redress of grievances. We can still teach what we want as doctrine. We still don't perform SSM in our Church, and still regard such as sinful.  All within the confines of the US Constitution.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't see where it changed Church actions or beliefs. We have every right to gather together and petition our governments for a redress of grievances. We can still teach what we want as doctrine. We still don't perform SSM in our Church, and still regard such as sinful.  All within the confines of the US Constitution.

I didn't say it changed our Church actions or beliefs.  And we do have every right to petition our government (although in the case of Prop 8, I'm not sure what "redress of grievance" you might be referring to).  And, of course, we can still teach what we want as doctrine.

My point was that our actions in the case of Prop 8 didn't follow the two step mandate taught by Elder Oaks at Claremont last week.

[thesometimesaint]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn't say it changed our Church actions or beliefs.  And we do have every right to petition our government (although in the case of Prop 8, I'm not sure what "redress of grievance" you might be referring to).  And, of course, we can still teach what we want as doctrine.

My point was that our actions in the case of Prop 8 didn't follow the two step mandate taught by Elder Oaks at Claremont last week.

SSM was already legal under California state law. Prop 8 tried to remove that legality.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

I think it much more complex than any two steep process. As I already said How do we guarantee the rights of all US citizens while denying those same right to other US citizens?

[cinepro]

Perhaps in addition to doubting our doubts, we should negotiate our non-negotiables...?

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SSM was already legal under California state law. Prop 8 tried to remove that legality.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

I think it much more complex than any two steep process. As I already said How do we guarantee the rights of all US citizens while denying those same right to other US citizens?

Yes... definitely more complex.  I'd say Oaks "two steps" are really just a framework to operate under (understand others' POV, don't lead with nonnegotiables/extremes).  And I think that Oaks acknowledges the complexity when he talks about the difficulty of courts trying to make decisions when they really can only cast verdicts for one case at a time.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

Perhaps in addition to doubting our doubts, we should negotiate our non-negotiables...?

I know you are just making a joke but there does seem to be a misunderstand of what Oaks said.  He didn't say that you can't have nonnegotiables.  He said:  don't lead with nonnegotiables.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

True, Oaks did not say that anyone need eliminate their "nonnegotiables or extreme positions" (that's the "second step", his first step is to understand one another's point of view).  Great counsel.  And it is counsel that I think the Church is currently trying to follow (e.g. the non-discrimination ordinance).  As he stated:

"A second step is to avoid leading out with nonnegotiables or extreme positions. Both sides in these controversies should seek balance, not total victory. For example, believers 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 that impinge on nondiscrimination."

Where this is tough to accept from him is when you look back just 8 years when the Church was leading a battle wherein they did seek a veto over marriage equality as it offended their religion.  That battle wasn't about our right to continue to practice our religion, it was about making sure others didn't have legal recognition of marriage as they sincerely believed it to be.

So, perhaps this is as close to an apology as Elder Oaks will get for times when the Church did lead with nonnegotiables and extreme positions.  The irony, of course, is that it took judicial action (which he decries as less effective) to correct those previous Church actions.

By supporting Prop 8, the Church was combating “violations of the rule of law and democratic self-government …on personal grounds—secular or religious,” where the courts and government officers flouted constitutional duties to uphold the vote of the people on a matter of religious interest to the Church. The people led out in 2000; all involved had eight years to listen and understand the other side before campaigning and voting for/against Prop 8 in 2008.

The Church walks the talk; no need for apology there.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/29/2016 at 11:40 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

It seems that several contributors to this thread are of the opinion that a proper understanding of "free exercise" of religion confines the meaning of that term to what adherents do on their holy day within the walls of their holy place.  Somehow, I doubt that's what the drafters of the First Amendment had in mind.

And therein lies the problem.

Keeping people of faith penned up in their own churches, synagogues, temples and mosques when it comes to the right of political expression is one of the unacceptable conditions that some are trying to impose on society. Hence the problem of leading with non-negotiables.

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And therein likes the problem.

Keeping people of faith penned up in their own churches, synagogues, temples and mosques when it comes to the right of political expression is one of the unacceptable conditions that some are trying to impose on society. Hence the problem of leading with non-negotiables.

 

Who is suggesting such action?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

So I think we need to examine and strengthen special legal protections for religious people against intimidation, retaliation, job and other personal loss directed at them because of how they exercise their religious convictions in the way they vote, and what they campaign for, donate to, etc. I think some consideration also needs to be made for how they choose to conduct business or fulfill the requirements of employment.

 

Hear, hear!

I'm ready to join the movement.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Who is suggesting such action?

Anyone who suggests, implies or asserts that people of faith need to "check their religion at the door" or keep their religious beliefs to themselves, or keep their religious beliefs out of politics or government, or any variation on such a theme.

 

[thesometimesaint]

Domestic Partnership marriages were already legal in California.

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

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Anyone who suggests, implies or asserts that people of faith need to "check their religion at the door" or keep their religious beliefs to themselves, or keep their religious beliefs out of politics or government, or any variation on such a theme.

 

Okay... and do you have evidence of that happening in a substantial way?  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You even cited a "non-negotiable" and said anyone who doesn't agree needs a civics lesson. Thanks for making my point.

 

 

That was in reference to an example you put forth that would essentially amount to outside interference in the internal policies, beliefs and doctrines of a church or other faith group. No outsider has any business doing that, and no agent of the government has any business trying to mandate it. Yes, that is and should be a non-negotiable.

An example of a negotiable would be access to housing, employment, etc., the sort of thing entailed in the Utah compromise that the Church of Jesus Christ supported last year.