Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Who is suggesting such action?

 

2 hours 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.

 

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

I agree with Elder Oaks's perception:
 

Quote

 

Despite the Supreme Court’s most recent signals, some U.S. scholars contend that a religious message is just another message in a world full of messages, not something to be given special protection. One scholar, in a book titled Freedom from Religion, takes the extreme position that religious speech should have even less protection than nonreligious speech.[18] Another scholar recently published a book titled Why Tolerate Religion?[19] Other scholars argue that our nation’s founding stories promoting the desirability of religious freedom, such as the religious motivations of the Pilgrims who founded New England, are myths that should be reinterpreted or discarded because they are improperly used to justify religiously based laws.[20]

 

Perhaps less radical than these rejections of the text and history of the guarantee of free exercise are calls for churches to simply abandon their objectionable beliefs and actions by revising their doctrines. Thus, the Washington Post recently published a prominent university professor’s recital of instances where official and social pressure “forced religious adherents to behave better, and over time … the religions themselves changed their doctrines and belief systems to conform to society’s demands.” In our day, he continued, we are “at one of those moments in history when pressure from the larger society pushes against religious belief and insists that believers, at least when doing business with the public, not act even on sincere objections to same-sex marriage.”

 

He concluded by proclaiming that the difficult conflicts we are experiencing are “the birth pangs of a new wave of equality.”[21] And, he surely implied, what must now surrender is the free exercise of religion to the extent that it is contrary to this “new wave.”

 

Similarly, some public policy advocates have attempted to intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making laws in our democracy. One part of this effort is the recent characterization of the free exercise of religion as limited to the privilege of worshipping in the protected space of our own homes, churches, synagogues, or mosques. Beyond those protected spaces, the argument goes, religious believers and their organizations have no First Amendment protection—not even normal free speech guarantees.

 

If you think that characterization is overstated, consider these examples of reactions to our Church’s legal lobbying before the Utah Legislature last month. After the Church’s public statements questioning the merits of two separate bills, one on medical marijuana and the other on hate crimes, a survey asked whether these Church statements helped or hurt the legislative process.[22] Among many responses, both pro and con, were some that questioned the Church’s right to speak on the question at all. For example:

 

1. “Whatever happened to separation of church and state? A church, and it doesn’t matter what religion, has no business mingling in legislative affairs that could potentially help (or hurt) people that don’t have the same beliefs as them.”
    
2. “This is a clear-cut case of lack of separation of church and state.”
    
3. “The blatant attempt by the LDS Church to control the Utah legislature is fundamentally wrong in many ways: it not only violates the State’s constitution but undermines the whole democratic process. Yes, they have the right to do what they did but having the right and doing what’s right can be two different things. They have unique power influence and they know it.”
    
4. “As a non-Utahn and believing member of the LDS Church, I feel their lobbying efforts hurt the legislative session. While I acknowledge their right to lobby for their religious stances on certain issues, the disconnect for people like me takes place when it feels like they are using their influence in Utah to sway Utah legislation.”

 

In other words, the Church should not speak to lawmakers at all, especially when its lobbying is likely to be successful.

 

Earlier, a similar point was made by a law professor who criticized the involvement of the LDS Church and its members on a contested issue here in California. Professor Geoffrey Stone, a distinguished associate of mine at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote that the popular support for Proposition 8 was the result of “a highly successful effort of a particular religious group [you know who he meant by that] to conscript the power of the state. … This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state. … They are not free—not if they are to act as faithful American citizens—to impose their religious views on others. That is, quite simply, un-American.”[23]

 

How is it “un-American” and a “serious threat to a free society” for a religious organization and its members to participate in a public process of lawmaking? Stone cited “the principle of separation of church and state” and asserted that certain persons “are not free … to impose their religious views on others.” These arguments leave me wondering why any group of citizens with secular-based views that make up a majority is free to impose their views on others by a democratic lawmaking process, but persons or their organizations with religious-based views are not free to participate in the same democratic lawmaking process, whether in a majority or—as in California—merely a large group not comprising a majority? Whatever the answer to that question, I suggest that Stone’s criticism of Mormon voters or Mormon lobbyists or their Church is unjustified.

 

If these critics feel the need to criticize something that is truly unprecedented and unconstitutional, they should examine the judicial events that led up to the nullification of Proposition 8. These included a federal district judge disallowing a popular vote on the basis of the alleged religious motivations of some of its proponents and the California attorney general and governor refusing to perform their constitutional duties to defend state laws duly adopted by the constitutional lawmaking process.[24]

 

In view of current experience and culture, how should religious persons and their organizations whose positions are dictated or affected by religious beliefs lobby or otherwise enter the debate on public issues? They should not be required to forego or deny their religious or other beliefs or motivations, but they should be counseled to be prudent. They will usually be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and explaining the value of their positions in terms understandable to and subject to debate with those who do not share their beliefs. All sides should seek to contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that are essential in a pluralistic society.

 

Our friend Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught on this subject with a quote that seems as modern today as when he used it nearly 40 years ago. His talk, appropriately titled “Meeting the Challenges of Today,” included this quote:

 

What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism.[25]

 

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?

 

 

[california boy]

5 hours 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.

I absolutely agree that the church has every right to call gays apostates and not allow their children to be baptized until they are 18 and are willing to condemn their parents in no uncertain terms.  I will defend the right of the church to govern it's members in any way it wishes.  That is a non negational point the church should never give up on.

But church members do not have the right to break the laws of this country because of their religious beliefs.  If they do so, they should expect criminal prosecution just like everyone else.  We can not have religion dictating or over riding secular law.  That is a non negational point the government should never give up on.  That includes laws barring discrimination.  

[california boy]

I agree with most of what Elder Oaks says.  I think the church has ever right to participate in the voting process.  There is nothing the church did wrong in supporting Prop 8.  BUT, when a religion supports a popular vote that takes away the civil rights of any group, they should also expect all the social blowback from that decision.  And that is exactly what the church got.  If you play in the public square, you should expect to be praised or condemned in the public square.  It is a fundamental part of politics.  And it will never change, nor should it.

This is where Elder Oaks goes wrong.

Quote

If these critics feel the need to criticize something that is truly unprecedented and unconstitutional, they should examine the judicial events that led up to the nullification of Proposition 8. These included a federal district judge disallowing a popular vote on the basis of the alleged religious motivations of some of its proponents and the California attorney general and governor refusing to perform their constitutional duties to defend state laws duly adopted by the constitutional lawmaking process.[24]

The constitution is very clear that the civil rights of the minority are protected by the votes of the majority.  You can not expect a vote for something that is against the basic rights guaranteed in the constitution to not be challenged and over ruled by the courts of this country.  It is the very essence of why the court system is a third of our governing branch.  These federal judge did not disallow Prop 8 because of alleged religious motivations.  These federal judges including some that were Mormon judges ruled against the vote of the people because it violated the constitutional rights of a minority.  Every court in this country has come to that same conclusion.  Why Elder Oaks does not see that is an example of religion completely ignoring the law of the land because it wants others to conform to their religious beliefs even when it violates basic rights guaranteed by the constitution.  And that is when religion is wrong.  It is also these kinds of actions that push people further away from religion.  They don't want to be a part of a group that actively tries to take away someone's civil rights.  And on the same vein, they don't want to be a part of a group that tries to circumvent the discrimination laws of this country.  

 

[USU78]

On 3/28/2016 at 0:19 PM, Storm Rider said:

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.

Are you truly surprised or merely dismayed?

[Storm Rider]

46 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Are you truly surprised or merely dismayed?

Better you described my feelings you did.  

[consiglieri]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:13 PM, juliann said:

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.

I hear Elder Oaks saying that religious views should be given greater protection than secular views of antidiscrimination.

This is the part which is particularly alarming to me, because it focuses what Elder Oaks is really getting at.

The issue is religious views versus antidiscrimination views.

What religious views?

Discriminatory religious views, obviously.

Otherwise he wouldn't feel the need to juxtapose religious views with "antidiscrimination views."

What Elder Oaks wants is for his discriminatory views to trump antidiscrimination views.

Why?

Solely for the reason that Elder Oaks' views are based on religion.

This is why I find Elder Oaks position so alarming and, frankly, unconstitutional.

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by consiglieri

[Teancum]

I am all for including religious voices in the public debate. I agree with Elder Oaks in this respect. I do not agree that the religious view that he argues is (allegedly) God's view should be given any special preference over any other position.

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is why I find Elder Oaks position so alarming and, frankly, unconstitutional.

Of course you do.  You cannot recognize the bright line connecting compulsion of the baker to bake an offensive and obscene cake and the compulsion of the Jew to view and suffer the pig to be sacrificed in the debir to an image of Epiphanes.

The Jew was made voiceless by the oppressor.

You can't recognize the oppressor when you see him:  it's just logical that the circumcised be compelled to undergo surgery so that the goy need not see him in all his Jewishness displayed in the public bath  ...  and it's just logical that the debir be made into a sanctuary to the god on earth.  Compelling State Interest is in the eye of the beholder.

Edited March 29, 2016 by USU78

[Teancum]

4 hours 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.

 

Talk away.  Advocate away.  Set the rules of your own religion as long as it does not harm others.  But don't expect the rest of society to buy into it nor support it just because you think your God says so.  This is fairly clear on the SSM issue.  The Church overall has lost this debate.  It can set its own rules for its own members as it clearly has. Members can seek to change the law within legal bounds.  No problem with that.  But don't cry persecution just because the majority of society disagrees with you and perhaps even ignores you. 

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Of course you do.  You cannot recognize the bright line connecting compulsion of the baker to bake an offensive and obscene cake and the compulsion of the Jew to view and suffer the pig to be sacrificed in the debir to an image of Epiphanes.

The Jew was made voiceless by the oppressor.

You can't recognize the oppressor when you see him:  it's just logical that the circumcised be compelled to undergo surgery so that the goy need not see him in all his Jewishness displayed in the public bath  ...  and it's just logical that the debir be made into a sanctuary to the god on earth.  Compelling State Interest is in the eye of the beholder.

CFR ANY bakes has been compelled to bake an obscene cake.  When you have to make up stuff to support your argument, you only turn more people against your cause.  

Bakes bake cakes.  That is all that is required of them.  They are not compelled to bake OR decorate obscene cakes or write obscene messages on them.  This is exactly why this argument of "religious belief" is loosing in both the courts as well as with the public.  

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

CFR ANY bakes has been compelled to bake an obscene cake.  When you have to make up stuff to support your argument, you only turn more people against your cause.  

Bakes bake cakes.  That is all that is required of them.  They are not compelled to bake OR decorate obscene cakes or write obscene messages on them.  This is exactly why this argument of "religious belief" is loosing in both the courts as well as with the public.  

What makes something obscene?

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I absolutely agree that the church has every right to call gays apostates and not allow their children to be baptized until they are 18 and are willing to condemn their parents in no uncertain terms.  I will defend the right of the church to govern it's members in any way it wishes.  That is a non negational point the church should never give up on.

But church members do not have the right to break the laws of this country because of their religious beliefs.  If they do so, they should expect criminal prosecution just like everyone else.  We can not have religion dictating or over riding secular law.  That is a non negational point the government should never give up on.  That includes laws barring discrimination.  

Emphasis mine.

You quote Scott Lloyd and then reply saying; "church members do not have the right to break the laws of this country because of their religious beliefs." I do not see anywhere in his post where he said that, or even implied that.

You also posted; "That includes laws barring discrimination." We also need to understand that religious discrimination is illegal as well. The First Amendment does not make one fundamental right more powerful or more important than another fundamental right. 

But, to be technical, the Constitution actually does give us a right to be discriminatory. We have the freedom of speech and even though that liberty can be the catalyst for offensive speech, it is still allowed. I for one am thankful for that right (freedom to use offensive speech), because it truly shows that this country puts its citizens thoughts, words, music, poetry, etc., no matter how beautiful, inspiring, uplifting, or ugly, repulsive, or, yes, down right discriminatory, we are allowed that liberty.

Amazing country we live in, Constitutionally yours.                                                                                                                                                                                            James Madison

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

What makes something obscene?

You have to ask?

Obscene:

• : relating to sex in an indecent or offensive way

• : very offensive in usually a shocking way

Edited March 30, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I absolutely agree that the church has every right to call gays apostates and not allow their children to be baptized until they are 18 and are willing to condemn their parents in no uncertain terms.  I will defend the right of the church to govern it's members in any way it wishes.  That is a non negational point the church should never give up on.

But church members do not have the right to break the laws of this country because of their religious beliefs.  If they do so, they should expect criminal prosecution just like everyone else.  We can not have religion dictating or over riding secular law.  That is a non negational point the government should never give up on.  That includes laws barring discrimination.  

I agree that Church members do not have the right to break the law. I haven't yet seen any Church members on this thread advocating such a thing, but if I do, I will be sure to tell them that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Talk away.  Advocate away.  Set the rules of your own religion as long as it does not harm others.  But don't expect the rest of society to buy into it nor support it just because you think your God says so.  This is fairly clear on the SSM issue.  The Church overall has lost this debate.  It can set its own rules for its own members as it clearly has. Members can seek to change the law within legal bounds.  No problem with that.  But don't cry persecution just because the majority of society disagrees with you and perhaps even ignores you. 

CFR that I cried persecution because somebody disagreed with me. 

In fact, I don't think I've used the word "persecution" at all on this thread for any reason.

But perhaps my memory is faulty. Do you have a quote or a link? 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am all for including religious voices in the public debate. I agree with Elder Oaks in this respect. I do not agree that the religious view that he argues is (allegedly) God's view should be given any special preference over any other position.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion <or prohibiting the free exercise thereof>" (emphasis mine). 

That's in the First Amendment. It means the Constitution affords religious liberty special protection. Elder Oaks is right. 

The First Amendment is also the one that protects freedom of speech and of the press. That means that everybody can participate in the public policy debate through speaking or writing, <including people of faith.>

[Anijen]

I'm not one to share too much from social media, but I saw this poem and thought of this thread. Enjoy!

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene..
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all..
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the United States.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks...
Guns are allowed, but Not the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King..
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong..
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles...
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen

[JarMan]

The problem with framing the issue as religious freedom vs anti-discrimination laws is the presumption that anti-discrimination laws are as valuable as religious freedom. As one poster has already pointed out, the constitution allows for discrimination. Isn't freedom of association also the freedom not to associate with some? And where does the constitution give government authority to force one person to do a business transaction with another? My solution is to do away with anti-discrimination laws, in general, and let businesses succeed or fail based on their own merits. 

In my view, the so-called Utah Compromise was a lose-lose because it took freedoms from both private businesses and religious people. That's not the kind of compromise we should be proud of. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Anijen said:

Emphasis mine.

You quote Scott Lloyd and then reply saying; "church members do not have the right to break the laws of this country because of their religious beliefs." I do not see anywhere in his post where he said that, or even implied that.

You also posted; "That includes laws barring discrimination." We also need to understand that religious discrimination is illegal as well. The First Amendment does not make one fundamental right more powerful or more important than another fundamental right. 

But, to be technical, the Constitution actually does give us a right to be discriminatory. We have the freedom of speech and even though that liberty can be the catalyst for offensive speech, it is still allowed. I for one am thankful for that right (freedom to use offensive speech), because it truly shows that this country puts its citizens thoughts, words, music, poetry, etc., no matter how beautiful, inspiring, uplifting, or ugly, repulsive, or, yes, down right discriminatory, we are allowed that liberty.

Amazing country we live in, Constitutionally yours.                                                                                                                                                                                            James Madison

What makes you think I was quoting Scott.  I was stating my opinion.  That is what we do here.  And who is trying to shut down freedom of speech?  Please reread the very beginning of my post.  Hardly the words of someone trying to suppress speech.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree that Church members do not have the right to break the law. I haven't yet seen any Church members on this thread advocating such a thing, but if I do, I will be sure to tell them that. 

See, there is common ground.

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I'm not one to share too much from social media, but I saw this poem and thought of this thread. Enjoy!

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene..
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all..
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the United States.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks...
Guns are allowed, but Not the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King..
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong..
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles...
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen

I could never understand this activism for prayer in school, even when I was a teen.  I always prayed in school, especially before a test.  I just never felt the need to stand on a desk in front of the class.  But then  I am a more "pray in secret" kind of guy. (Matthew 6:6)

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

You have to ask?

Obscene:

• : relating to sex in an indecent or offensive way

• : very offensive in usually a shocking way

Very offensive in usually a shocking way is in the eye of the beholder.  Or is being offensive determined to a single standard?  Who gets to set that standard?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

I agree with most of what Elder Oaks says.  I think the church has ever right to participate in the voting process.  There is nothing the church did wrong in supporting Prop 8.  BUT, when a religion supports a popular vote that takes away the civil rights of any group, they should also expect all the social blowback from that decision.  And that is exactly what the church got.  If you play in the public square, you should expect to be praised or condemned in the public square.  It is a fundamental part of politics.  And it will never change, nor should it.

This is where Elder Oaks goes wrong.

 

The constitution is very clear that the civil rights of the minority are protected by the votes of the majority.  You can not expect a vote for something that is against the basic rights guaranteed in the constitution to not be challenged and over ruled by the courts of this country.  It is the very essence of why the court system is a third of our governing branch.  These federal judge did not disallow Prop 8 because of alleged religious motivations.  These federal judges including some that were Mormon judges ruled against the vote of the people because it violated the constitutional rights of a minority.  Every court in this country has come to that same conclusion.  Why Elder Oaks does not see that is an example of religion completely ignoring the law of the land because it wants others to conform to their religious beliefs even when it violates basic rights guaranteed by the constitution.  And that is when religion is wrong.  It is also these kinds of actions that push people further away from religion.  They don't want to be a part of a group that actively tries to take away someone's civil rights.  And on the same vein, they don't want to be a part of a group that tries to circumvent the discrimination laws of this country.  

 

This is hilarious 9in a sick way). Note the inconsistency here:

1. “basic rights guaranteed in the constitution”: free exercise of religion. How long has this been treated as a specially protected right in relation to marriage?

vs.

2.  “These federal judge did not disallow Prop 8 because of alleged religious motivations.”  If that is the case, that is the very shame in what they did, or perhaps more accurately, the shame in equating motivation (conscience) with exercise and violating others’ rights.

This is a reflection of the very anti-religion mentality we need to shore up against.

[USU78]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

You have to ask?

Obscene:

• : relating to sex in an indecent or offensive way

• : very offensive in usually a shocking way

Actually, we all need to keep asking that question when Babelers are constantly coopting and redefining words

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Very offensive in usually a shocking way is in the eye of the beholder.  Or is being offensive determined to a single standard?  Who gets to set that standard?

A wedding cake is not obscene if it's just a wedding cake.  Most don't even have words on them.