Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[Storm Rider]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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

 

 

Julie, I understand your position and in many respects I agree with you.  I personally do not see a cake as being offensive.  However, the issue of being offensive is a different matter.  

In this country sexual harassment is dependent upon the victim's perception of being harassed, not the perpetrator's.  The victim only has to "feel" harassed to qualify.  This has been the mantra of the feminist movement for decades.  When we begin to evaluate by the feelings of the victim as the primary standard while ignoring the perceptions, intent, and thoughts of the perpetrator there is a standard established for evaluating other situations.  

If I run a bakery shop and sell cakes to the public then all may buy my cakes without qualification.  However, if someone asks me to make a special cake for a purpose I find offensive why should I be forced to make a special cake - one that I would not do make for any other purpose.  In fact, I don't sell tot he public i.e I don't make it and put it out for sale.  To fulfill the order I must make it purposely for the individual ordering the cake.  

On college campuses today we have safe rooms for individuals so that their feelings will not be confronted by thoughts, words, and actions of others that they find offensive.  I suspect if we started to list all of the situations where Progressives support defending the "feelings" of individuals it would be long indeed.  Except for the individual who feels it is obscene to make a cake for a purpose that they personally find offensive.  This individual is not supported.  Why?  For the sole reason that his feelings have to do with her personal religion.  It was not race, sexual preference, or gender, but solely her religious beliefs that served as a foundation for feelings that a specific kind of cake for a specific purpose was offensive.  This is the very definition of hypocrisy, unfairness, and abuse.

If society is going to set a standard for the importance of feelings - which I personally find less than valid for almost all situations - then use the standard fairly and blindly rather than picking and choosing which cause meets the willy-nilly choosing of Progressives. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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

Roasting a pig is not obscene:  it's just a pig; it's just a fire.

A statue of Epiphanes is not obscene:  it's just wood, gold, glue and paint.

It is the placement of the statue in the debir that makes the statue obscene.

It is the roasting of the pig on the Temple altar in full view of the temple worshipers that makes the roasting of the pig obscene.

It is not the baking of the cake that makes the cake obscene.

It is the compulsory baking of the cake specifically to celebrate an obscenity that makes the cake obscene.

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

The duty of government officers is to uphold the constitution, not a popular vote.  We live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.

To the extent that church leaders proclaimed the need to follow the will of the people, over the US Constitution, they were in the wrong.

[rockpond]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

I agree with Elder Oaks's perception:
 

 

So would it be correct to say that the evidence is a few authors and survey respondents indicating their belief that religion doesn't have a place in public discourse.

Can we agree that this is not an actual erosion of religious freedom?

[JulieM]

52 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Julie, I understand your position and in many respects I agree with you.  I personally do not see a cake as being offensive.  However, the issue of being offensive is a different matter.  

.....

If I run a bakery shop and sell cakes to the public then all may buy my cakes without qualification.  However, if someone asks me to make a special cake for a purpose I find offensive why should I be forced to make a special cake - one that I would not do make for any other purpose.  In fact, I don't sell tot he public i.e I don't make it and put it out for sale.  

Is this what has happened?  Has a gay couple tried to force a bakery to make them a wedding cake when this bakery does not offer for sale or make wedding cakes for anyone else?

Edited March 30, 2016 by JulieM

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

 

CF R that ANY of the multitude of court rulings were BASED on religious motivations and NOT equal protection

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

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. 

We already tried that under Jim Crow. It didn't work out well.

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We already tried that under Jim Crow. It didn't work out well.

Who you callin' we?

[Buckeye]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with Elder Oaks's perception:
 

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]

... 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?

Scott, thanks for tracking down this quote (which I reduced a bit from your original in order to focus my comments). Geoff Stone was a professor of mine at the same law school (UChicago) where Oaks once taught, and where Oaks served as interim dean before going to BYU. Stone is very much on the liberal side and is Oaks' equal in intellect. Stone also frequently gives support to conservatives (BYU grads are abundant at the law school) and writes them letters of recommendation.

I agree that this quote reflects the heart of Elder Oaks' concerns. In the Prop 8 case, the district court found that the religiously-motivated voters were bigots and therefore completely discounted their views. Much of the LDS church's amicus briefing in the Obergefell case focused on this issue and argued that religious views are reasonable and not bigoted. In an unusual move, the Supreme Court in Obergefell (Kennedy was the author) went out of its way to address the LDS church's arguments and strongly stated that religious views were not bigoted.

However, despite the Court's statements about religious views, it nonetheless did not find those views to be persuasive and therefore held that SSM is required under the both the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution.

This brings me back to my earlier comment. While most of us (even the SCOTUS liberals) agree that religiously-based views should be heard in the public square, what should be done when such views have nothing to offer other than "God says X"? If the views involve secular arguments with evidence that a decision-maker can look at (e.g., how do children in a SS family fare?) then such arguments can be properly considered and debated. But if the argument is purely religious, then for a legislature or court to really consider it - rather than just smile and pretend - the body would have to make findings of God's will, as well as decide which of the conflicting human voices that claim to reflect God's will are correct. That's a recipe for disaster. If the basis for a law is nothing more than the majority's view that "God said so" then I agree with the 5 justices of the Supreme Court that - while not labeling those voices as bigoted - nonetheless gave the voices no weight. 

If someone disagrees with me, please explain how you would weigh the following arguments if you were a legislator or judge faced with a majority (let's say strong majority) that held such views:

1. God wants the races to remain separate so interracial marriage should not be recognized by the government. (this was actually one of the arguments embraced by the district court in Loving v. Virginia)
2. God commands man to protect His creation so all of Utah south of Manti should be designated a national park.
3. God does not allow for women to be ordained ministers so women should not be allowed to perform civil marriages.

Would you let the majority voice govern in these cases? Again, assume that there are no evidence-based arguments to consider. The only rationale given is that "God said so."

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Who you callin' we?

The US.

[Buckeye]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

CF R that ANY of the multitude of court rulings were BASED on religious motivations and NOT equal protection

I think they're trying to say that some of the SSM decisions rejected religious motivations as a proper consideration. The prime example is Judge Walker's Prop 8 decision: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

For example, these quote from Judge Walker are on point:

Quote

A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 571 (2003); see also Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 US 1, 15 (1947).

...

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The US.

I grew up in the '50s to '60s, in California and Utah.  There were no Jim Crow laws where I lived.

There was, on the other hand, plenty of religious bigotry.  That has not changed 50+ years later.

"We" presumes everybody participated in Jim Crow.  This is demonstrably false.  "We" is, at best, weak in this context.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I grew up in the '50s to '60s, in California and Utah.  There were no Jim Crow laws where I lived.

There was, on the other hand, plenty of religious bigotry.  That has not changed 50+ years later.

"We" presumes everybody participated in Jim Crow.  This is demonstrably false.  "We" is, at best, weak in this context.

Yes even California had Jim Crow laws in the 50's and 60's.

Restrictive covenants barring Jews and blacks from buying property.

SEE https://books.google.com/books?id=oLjYbzkGWk8C&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=Restrictive+covenants+barring+Jews+and+blacks+from+buying+property.&source=bl&ots=_8zzVnMBgv&sig=AvNY24_wYU51sNLur52QRJ5rofo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbve6b5ejLAhVK32MKHRBIAB8Q6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=Restrictive%20covenants%20barring%20Jews%20and%20blacks%20from%20buying%20property.&f=false

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Scott, thanks for tracking down this quote (which I reduced a bit from your original in order to focus my comments). Geoff Stone was a professor of mine at the same law school (UChicago) where Oaks once taught, and where Oaks served as interim dean before going to BYU. Stone is very much on the liberal side and is Oaks' equal in intellect. Stone also frequently gives support to conservatives (BYU grads are abundant at the law school) and writes them letters of recommendation.

I agree that this quote reflects the heart of Elder Oaks' concerns. In the Prop 8 case, the district court found that the religiously-motivated voters were bigots and therefore completely discounted their views. Much of the LDS church's amicus briefing in the Obergefell case focused on this issue and argued that religious views are reasonable and not bigoted. In an unusual move, the Supreme Court in Obergefell (Kennedy was the author) went out of its way to address the LDS church's arguments and strongly stated that religious views were not bigoted.

However, despite the Court's statements about religious views, it nonetheless did not find those views to be persuasive and therefore held that SSM is required under the both the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution.

This brings me back to my earlier comment. While most of us (even the SCOTUS liberals) agree that religiously-based views should be heard in the public square, what should be done when such views have nothing to offer other than "God says X"? If the views involve secular arguments with evidence that a decision-maker can look at (e.g., how do children in a SS family fare?) then such arguments can be properly considered and debated. But if the argument is purely religious, then for a legislature or court to really consider it - rather than just smile and pretend - the body would have to make findings of God's will, as well as decide which of the conflicting human voices that claim to reflect God's will are correct. That's a recipe for disaster. If the basis for a law is nothing more than the majority's view that "God said so" then I agree with the 5 justices of the Supreme Court that - while not labeling those voices as bigoted - nonetheless gave the voices no weight. 

If someone disagrees with me, please explain how you would weigh the following arguments if you were a legislator or judge faced with a majority (let's say strong majority) that held such views:

1. God wants the races to remain separate so interracial marriage should not be recognized by the government. (this was actually one of the arguments embraced by the district court in Loving v. Virginia)
2. God commands man to protect His creation so all of Utah south of Manti should be designated a national park.
3. God does not allow for women to be ordained ministers so women should not be allowed to perform civil marriages.

Would you let the majority voice govern in these cases? Again, assume that there are no evidence-based arguments to consider. The only rationale given is that "God said so."

Elder Oaks addressed this in the portion which, ironically, you left out when you "reduced [it] a bit from [my] original":

Quote

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.

 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes even California had Jim Crow laws in the 50's and 60's.

Restrictive covenants barring Jews and blacks from buying property.

SEE https://books.google.com/books?id=oLjYbzkGWk8C&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=Restrictive+covenants+barring+Jews+and+blacks+from+buying+property.&source=bl&ots=_8zzVnMBgv&sig=AvNY24_wYU51sNLur52QRJ5rofo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbve6b5ejLAhVK32MKHRBIAB8Q6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=Restrictive%20covenants%20barring%20Jews%20and%20blacks%20from%20buying%20property.&f=false

A State's refusal to interfere in a matter of private contract is not a Jim Crow law.

But this is a minor point in this thread.  Perhaps another where we could see how long we could go before getting shut down for politics on a religious discussion thread?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The duty of government officers is to uphold the constitution, not a popular vote.  We live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.

To the extent that church leaders proclaimed the need to follow the will of the people, over the US Constitution, they were in the wrong.

The officers violated the rule of law, the constitutional principle they are bound to uphold, and thus put their personal judgment above it. And inasmuch as they exerted a losing secular voice (voice) over the winning, allegedly religious one, they undermined religious freedom.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

CF R that ANY of the multitude of court rulings were BASED on religious motivations and NOT equal protection

No need for a reference. I’m responding to the inconsistency in your statements, not to any reference (or lack thereof) you brought up to support them. On that basis, I’m making the observation that the Prop 8 discussions took place in a setting where constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion had been around a lot longer than any notion of secular marriage as a constitutionally-guaranteed basic right (if it were, why isn’t everyone guaranteed a marriage? We are guaranteed certain special protections only). In that setting, officials and judges thwarted the free exercise of religion by identifying the outcome of the vote as religiously-biased and then squelching it by their subsequent actions. I’m making the additional observation that identifying the outcome of the vote as religiously-biased is a form of alleging religious motivation, and equating that as a violation of rights is one way to undermine religious freedom.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yes even California had Jim Crow laws in the 50's and 60's.

Restrictive covenants barring Jews and blacks from buying property.

SEE https://books.google.com/books?id=oLjYbzkGWk8C&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=Restrictive+covenants+barring+Jews+and+blacks+from+buying+property.&source=bl&ots=_8zzVnMBgv&sig=AvNY24_wYU51sNLur52QRJ5rofo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbve6b5ejLAhVK32MKHRBIAB8Q6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=Restrictive%20covenants%20barring%20Jews%20and%20blacks%20from%20buying%20property.&f=false

Correct.  Here's a list of Jim Crow laws by state and year (just scroll down to California):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_state

Edited March 30, 2016 by ALarson

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Oaks addressed this in the portion which, ironically, you left out when you "reduced [it] a bit from [my] original":

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.

 

How do you believe this addresses my questions? As a pragmatic point, Elder Oaks is certainly correct that religious bodies will get better mileage by focusing their public arguments on secular grounds (i.e., "terms understandable to and subject to debate with those who do not share their beliefs"). But that does not shed any light on how a legislature or court should consider purely religious arguments such as "God defines marriage this way" or "God says taxes over 50% are unduly burdensome" (citing wicked King Noah) or "God forbids the eating of shellfish so we should ban Red Lobster."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

So would it be correct to say that the evidence is a few authors and survey respondents indicating their belief that religion doesn't have a place in public discourse.

Can we agree that this is not an actual erosion of religious freedom?

You demanded examples. I gave them to you in the form of the quote from Elder Oaks's talk.

Now, you say this is not good enough for you.

You're being argumentative. I'm done with this conversation.

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

How do you believe this addresses my questions?

You answered your own question when you said:

Quote

 

As a pragmatic point, Elder Oaks is certainly correct that religious bodies will get better mileage by focusing their public arguments on secular grounds (i.e., "terms understandable to and subject to debate with those who do not share their beliefs").

 

 

Quote

But that does not shed any light on how a legislature or court should consider purely religious arguments such as "God defines marriage this way" or "God says taxes over 50% are unduly burdensome" (citing wicked King Noah) or "God forbids the eating of shellfish so we should ban Red Lobster."

I don't see that Elder Oaks, or anybody else here, for that matter, is making that argument.

The compelling secular argument is that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion is such that a person of faith ought to be able to hold his beliefs and freely exercise them ipso facto without endeavoring to make a secular case for them.

For example, I ought to be able to participate in the public-policy debate regardless of whether you think my arguments make sense in your secular frame of reference. The constitution protects my right to do so, whether or not my arguments are persuasive and compelling.

What we have seen (and Elder Oaks makes this point well) are instances of people trying to shut out religious individuals and groups from the discussion by the very fact of those individuals and groups being religious, never mind whether their arguments are persuasive on the merits.

Of course, what seems to agitate the anti-religionists the most -- and what they seem to be most afraid of -- is when the arguments from people of faith do make sense and seem to be persuasive.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You demanded examples. I gave them to you in the form of the quote from Elder Oaks's talk.

Now, you say this is not good enough for you.

I'm done with this conversation.

 

I actually didn't demand anything.

But perhaps my question wasn't clear.

You had said that individuals were suggesting/implying/asserting that people of faith need to keep their religious beliefs out of politics & government.

I agree that there are individuals making such assertions.

I had asked if you had any evidence of that happening in a substantial way?

By that I meant:  is there evidence of people not being able to bring their religious beliefs into politics/government.  To me, that would be an actual erosion of religious freedom, but I don't see that happening.

I take it that you interpreted my question differently.  And you gave me Oaks' examples of the suggestions, implications, and assertions that people have made.  Similarly the Church has been vocal about its right to have a say in politics.

 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Is this what has happened?  Has a gay couple tried to force a bakery to make them a wedding cake when this bakery does not offer for sale or make wedding cakes for anyone else?

She, the baker, sold cakes and other items to the public off the shelf.  She also had skills, which she would sell to others by baking a cake.  She determined she did not feel comfortable making a specific kind of cake for a specific kind of event.  Her feelings were based upon her constitutional right to practice her own religion.  

The couple wanting the cake could have gone to numerous other bakeries in the immediate vicinity to order a special cake for their event that did not have a religious objective and felt comfortable accepting their offer.  They specifically chose to offend this baker because of her religious convictions and feelings.  Why?  

Are you saying the the feelings and commitments of this baker are not the equivalent of the woman who feels sexually harassed?  Are you saying that the black person who feels someone is being racist should also be ignored?  I agree with you I think it is absurd, but I suspect that this is not your intention.  If we are going to respect the feelings of the woman and the black person then at least be as fair and respect the feelings of the religious woman who is just as offended as the other two classes of people. 

[Storm Rider]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You demanded examples. I gave them to you in the form of the quote from Elder Oaks's talk.

Now, you say this is not good enough for you.

I'm done with this conversation.

 

I think the definition of a Progressive is one who demands that their wants and desires be met first and everyone else can.....go to hades.  Their wants, their desires, their demands must be superior than and limited to solely their group.  They don't really have a concept of understanding their judgments and beliefs.  They only see what they want and are blind to everything else.  Scary. 

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think the definition of a Progressive is one who demands that their wants and desires be met first and everyone else can.....go to hades.  Their wants, their desires, their demands must be superior than and limited to solely their group.  They don't really have a concept of understanding their judgments and beliefs.  They only see what they want and are blind to everything else.  Scary. 

So in other words, they're just like conservatives (and anything in between)?

Edited March 30, 2016 by Gray

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

She, the baker, sold cakes and other items to the public off the shelf.  She also had skills, which she would sell to others by baking a cake.  She determined she did not feel comfortable making a specific kind of cake for a specific kind of event.  Her feelings were based upon her constitutional right to practice her own religion.

If she baked and sold wedding cakes to other couples, then I believe they weren't asking her to do anything she didn't already do as a service and that wasn't already a part of her business.  

Selling a cake to a gay couple doesn't mean you support SSM.  Aren't there hotels that serve liquor and are owned by active Mormons?  Since they offer that service and sell liquor do you think this means they support or think drinking liquor is a good thing?