Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[Storm Rider]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm not a lawyer either. Thank Goodness.

I don't believe that is a simple matter of hurt feelings. I've had my feelings hurt many times, and unfortunately have hurt other people's feelings too. I don't see the need or desirability for civil or criminal actions in either event.  However I do think that hurting other people's feelings to pursue illegal or immoral actions should be subject to the law.

It is not a question of hurt feelings; that is another area.  The topic addresses an individual feeling sexually harassed.  This is THE fundamental requirement for any allegation to be made.  It is not that she/he feels hurt, but she feels sexually harassed by the actions of another individual.  

What is germane is that "feelings" are paramount in a case of sexual harassment and then completely ignored in a case of an individual being forced to perform an action or service when the action is felt to be offensive (one of those terms used in sexual harassment) or even obscene.  The courts appear to treat the feelings of one individual as superior to the feelings of another.  One is based on sexual harassment and the other is based on religious convictions.  It seems unfair to me.  

Progressives will line up in droves in support of one and bring out pitch forks should someone mention their religious convictions cause them to take a stand in another.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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:

 

True.  But while he rejected the religious argument, he did NOT base his decision on the rejection of the argument. He based his decision on equal protection.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you see what I added later to my post?

No, I'm not going to apologize. One doesn't get a pass for making a snide insinuation and then acting coy about it. Not in my book, anyway.

 

No. I didn't see your later edit. That's okay if you don't want to apologize for misrepresentation. You're in good company.

Quote

"I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them. We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' but we look forward and not backward."

Dallin H Oaks.

Quote

Rockpond- Citing that poem is ironic considering the recent Church statement regarding hate crime legislation.

 

Quote

Scott Lloyd- The Church of Jesus Christ does not uphold hate crimes.

Your response to his statement implies that he was stating the church supported hate crimes. You built a flimsy strawman which is a misrepresentation.

Edited March 30, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I didn't see your later edit. That's okay if you don't want to apologize for misrepresentation. You're in good company.

 

I did not misrepresent. There has been nothing to warrant an apology. That's a false accusation on your part.

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

Ok then if that is your assertion. CFR that gay marriage interferes with religious liberty.  While religious beliefs can and were considered in the Prop 8 judgement. the law ACROSS the country ruled that it was not enough to deny equal protection under the law.  

Look. i know it is hard for you to understand, or maybe accept is a better word, but this has all been played out in case after case after case.  All of the courts have ruled that religious belief alone is not a reason to deny someone the equal protection under the laws of the Constitution.  For you to argue differently is absurd.  It is not like this issue did not have it's day(s) in court.  Your position is simply wrong.  And yes, I have the decisions to back up my assertion.  You do not.  You want your religious beliefs to take prescience over EVERY OTHER piece of law in this country.  It is not going to happen.  It may be considered, but it is not a very persuasive argument in a secular society.  Heck, there is not even any agreement amongst Christians or any other religion on what God's will is.  So how can that possibly be the basis for governing.

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is not a question of hurt feelings; that is another area.  The topic addresses an individual feeling sexually harassed.  This is THE fundamental requirement for any allegation to be made.  It is not that she/he feels hurt, but she feels sexually harassed by the actions of another individual.  

What is germane is that "feelings" are paramount in a case of sexual harassment and then completely ignored in a case of an individual being forced to perform an action or service when the action is felt to be offensive (one of those terms used in sexual harassment) or even obscene.  The courts appear to treat the feelings of one individual as superior to the feelings of another.  One is based on sexual harassment and the other is based on religious convictions.  It seems unfair to me.  

Progressives will line up in droves in support of one and bring out pitch forks should someone mention their religious convictions cause them to take a stand in another.  

"My religious beliefs tell me to have sex with you or I'll fire you", is much more than hurt feelings.

That is the standard Conservative response to a serious violation of law.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I didn't see your later edit. That's okay if you don't want to apologize for misrepresentation. You're in good company.

Your response to his statement implies that he was stating the church supported hate crimes. You built a flimsy strawman which is a misrepresentation.

Responding to content added later to the above post:

If he did not mean to imply that the Church, by opposing the legislation, was upholding hate crimes, why did make the remark about my use of the poem being ironic?

Again, it was a snide insinuation about the position of the Church. All I did, without even making direct reference to rockpond's remark, was to state directly that the Church does not uphold hate crimes. Which it, in fact, does not.

And again, I did not misrepresent him. You are bearing false witness. Stop it.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Ha... No, my comment didn't imply that the Church favors hate crimes.  My comment was that the Church (or at least the church authorities who approved the statement) opposed the hate crime legislation.

Regarding the cases, in our society there are many things brought to the judicial system that are alarming.  Your list of cases that spans multiple decades and covers a country of over 350 million persons doesn't actually seem that long.  AND, more importantly, to my point:  that list includes many cases that were decided in favor of religious liberty.  So, your data dump doesn't actually prove anything about an erosion of freedoms.

 

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you going to apologize to Rockpond for misrepresenting his claim? He clearly stated that the church opposed the Hate Crime legislation and you took that to mean Rockpond claims the church approves of Hate Crimes. You kind of missed the boat on that one.

 

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you see what I added later to my post?

No, I'm not going to apologize. One doesn't get a pass for making a snide insinuation and then acting coy about it. Not in my book, anyway.

 

 

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I didn't see your later edit. That's okay if you don't want to apologize for misrepresentation. You're in good company.

Your response to his statement implies that he was stating the church supported hate crimes. You built a flimsy strawman which is a misrepresentation.

 

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I did not misrepresent. There has been nothing to warrant an apology. That's a false accusation on your part.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Responding to content added later to the above post:

If he did not mean to imply that the Church, by opposing the legislation, was upholding hate crimes, why did make the remark about my use of the poem being ironic?

Again, it was a snide insinuation about the position of the Church. All I did, without even making direct reference to rockpond's remark, was to state directly that the Church does not uphold hate crimes. Which it, in fact, does not.

And again, I did not misrepresent him. You are bearing false witness. Stop it.

 

 

The Dilbert cartoon from this last Sunday seems appropriate here:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-03-27

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But you had earlier remarked that it was "ironic" for me to use the Niemoller poem when the Church had opposed hate crimes legislation -- as though to imply that the Church's opposition to the legislation meant that the Church upholds hate crimes. It seems you are now being coy.

Are you going to ignore the fact that the list includes 20 current cases?

CV75 expressed it well:

By the way, this list is limited to just those specific cases in which the Beckett Fund is/has been involved. The list does not purport to be exhaustive of each and every religious-liberty case that has come along. Presumably there are many more that did not involve the Beckett Fund.

The irony is that the hate crimes legislation was being proposed to protect individuals and groups who are targeted as victims because of their race, beliefs, ideology, or orientation.  Much like the theme of Niemoller's poem.  Your insistence that I was suggesting our Church upholds hate crimes and that I am not being coy is ridiculous.  I clearly referred to their opposition to the hate crime legislation and made not other implication.

I haven't ignored the fact that the list includes 20 current cases.  How many of those are likely to be decided in favor of religious freedom?

You are trying to make a point by throwing out a list of lawsuits without regard to the merits of any given case.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

 

 

 

 

The Dilbert cartoon from this last Sunday seems appropriate here:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-03-27

I agree the Dilbert cartoon seems to be an apt commentary on what rockpond and HJW are doing here.

[ttribe]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree the Dilbert cartoon seems to be an apt commentary on what rockpond and HJW are doing here.

If you say so.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, ttribe said:

If you say so.

I say so.

 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I say so.

 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree the Dilbert cartoon seems to be an apt commentary on what rockpond and HJW are doing here.

Funny.  I thought it was an apt commentary on what you had done.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The irony is that the hate crimes legislation was being proposed to protect individuals and groups who are targeted as victims because of their race, beliefs, ideology, or orientation.  Much like the theme of Niemoller's poem.  Your insistence that I was suggesting our Church upholds hate crimes and that I am not being coy is ridiculous.  I clearly referred to their opposition to the hate crime legislation and made not other implication.

 

Is it your position that the Church's opposition to a specific legislative proposal is tantamount to the Church upholding hate crimes? If not, why even bring it up in the context of the Niemoller poem? It is you who brought up the legislation. It is you who claimed my use of the poem is "ironic" in light of the Church's position toward that legislation.
 

Quote

 

I haven't ignored the fact that the list includes 20 current cases.  How many of those are likely to be decided in favor of religious freedom?

You are trying to make a point by throwing out a list of lawsuits without regard to the merits of any given case.

 

 

 

 

Each item on that list is a hypertext link that can be clicked on to access more information about it. Individual readers can thus draw their own conclusions.

You kept demanding examples; I gave them to you.

Be careful what you ask for.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is it your position that the Church's opposition to a specific legislative proposal is tantamount to the Church upholding hate crimes? If not, why even bring it up in the context of the Niemoller poem? It is you who brought up the legislation. It is you who claimed my use of the poem is "ironic" in light of the Church's position toward that legislation.
 

Each item on that list is a hypertext link that can be clicked on to access more information about it. Individual readers can thus draw their own conclusions.

You kept demanding examples; I gave them to you.

Be careful what you ask for.

No, Scott, that is not my position.  As I've written several times now, the Church opposed the legislation, NOT hate crimes.  Your conclusion is ridiculous and I've explained the irony I was referring to.

Yes, each item is a link.  I read several (randomly chosen) and could find no data to support your assertions.

Again, I have not "demanded" any examples.  Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

In any case, you still haven't provided examples other than a data dump with a bunch of links that may or may not back up your conclusion.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Thanks for the definition.  Tell me, how many times are feelings operative and required to achieve any of the defined actions and responses?

Another definition is:   The definition of Sexual harassment is unwelcome words or conduct of a sexual nature that have the purpose or effect of creating an embarrassing, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment for the victim.

How many times are feelings included, if not required, in any of those actions in order for harassment to be identified?  

Using both definitions requires the feelings of the individual being harassed to be evaluated and used as prima facie evidence to make an allegation.  I am certainly not a lawyer, thank the good Lord, but we are stuck with what it is and how it is defined.  Feelings matter regardless of what others have said or alleged.  In fact, it is foundational for there to be any charge of sexual harassment. 

Feelings however don't matter when it comes to public accommodation laws. 

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

It doesn't matter how you feel about minorities. If you run a business you must serve the public. 

I don't see much similarity there to your example of sexual harassment, though. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

My, my, my.  Religious liberty alive and well in the Unites States of America?  No, the three blind mice were not blind and saw perfectly.  Can you turn the heat up on that frog in the pot; he is getting comfortable again.  

Did you read through every one of those cases and are you sure each one really represents an erosion of religious liberties?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, Scott, that is not my position.  As I've written several times now, the Church opposed the legislation, NOT hate crimes.  Your conclusion is ridiculous and I've explained the irony I was referring to.

Yes, each item is a link.  I read several (randomly chosen) and could find no data to support your assertions.

Again, I have not "demanded" any examples.  Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

In any case, you still haven't provided examples other than a data dump with a bunch of links that may or may not back up your conclusion.

It's clear you don't intend to accept anything I give you. You are being argumentative.

I think you are trying to give the moderators reason to close my thread, and I refuse to be a facilitator of that.

Since it appears that meaningful conversation on this point is impossible with you, I am ending the conversation.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's clear you don't intend to accept anything I give you. You are being argumentative.

I think you are trying to give the moderators reason to close my thread, and I refuse to be a facilitator of that.

Since it appears that meaningful conversation on this point is impossible with you, I am ending the conversation.

I'm actually not being argumentative, I've responded calmly to your comments and I took the time to review links in the long list you provided even though you've provided no substantive information from that list.  You continually respond with conclusions about my statements that are unwarranted.

That said, I have absolutely no interest in having your thread shut down.  I welcome the dialogue.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

Did you read through every one of those cases and are you sure each one really represents an erosion of religious liberties?

Have you read them? Are you certain none of them do?

 

[T-Shirt]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That bakery violated the Public Accommodations Law. She(you) can believe anything you like. She(you) don't have the right to violate the law.

That argument is fallacious on its face. She(you) don't have the right to violate the law, regardless of her(your) religious beliefs.

She(you) can have any feelings she(you) want. She is conducting a business that must comply with the law. She can feel any way she wants. She must follow the law or face the consequences.

My company prints T-Shirts.  Several years ago a Skin Head came to our shop and wanted to print T-Shirts with a picture of a black man nailed to a cross.  As politely as I could, I told him that I would prefer not to print them for him, on religious grounds.  He was not happy about it, but left to find another printer.  Should I have been legally bound to print his shirts?  If he had sued me, how do you think the court would have ruled?  

Edited March 30, 2016 by T-Shirt

[california boy]

I for one am thankful every day that we do not live in a country where religious beliefs trump personal liberties guaranteed in the constitution. If religious beliefs determined law,we would still be burning people at the stake.  Even in the world today, those governments that rule by religious beliefs are beheading, setting on fire and throwing people off of buildings that don't follow their beliefs.  You want religion to have more sway in governing this country?  NO THANKS.

People in this country are leaving organized religion by the millions every year.  I think those who are religious are clueless why that is happening.  I think it is for the very reasons we are talking about in this thread.   A "christian" baker who thinks they have the right to discriminate against a gay couple because they think that couple is sinning.  Yeah, let's not serve the sinners.  That goes against their personal closely held religious beliefs.  When discrimination against gays, blacks, Jews or any other group becomes a "christian" value, then people walk away.  When a church prohibits the baptism of children because it doesn't like what the parents are doing, then people walk away.  When pastors call for the stoning of gays, then people walk away.  When religion tries to pass laws to force others to follow their beliefs, then people walk away.  For millions of people, these kinds of actions just don't seem like the gospel Christ was leading people towards.  

People on this board often state that the world is getting more wicked every day.  Personally I find religion becoming more wicked every day.  When I was growing up, the focus of relgion was on love and compassion for others.  Feeding the poor and taking care of those in need.  They brought people to Christ by example of the life that Christ taught.  Now it is more about exclusion and divisiveness.  Condemning others and spewing hate.  When organized religion started to walk away from the gospel of Jesus Christ, then so did the members.

 

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I for one am thankful every day that we do not live in a country where religious beliefs trump personal liberties [snip to end]

One more vote for Epiphanes.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I for one am thankful every day that we do not live in a country where religious beliefs trump personal liberties guaranteed in the constitution. If religious beliefs determined law,we would still be burning people at the stake.  Even in the world today, those governments that rule by religious beliefs are beheading, setting on fire and throwing people off of buildings that don't follow their beliefs.  You want religion to have more sway in governing this country?  NO THANKS.

To which I would respond with this excerpt from Elder Oaks's Claremont speech:
 

Quote

 

My first point is that religious teachings and the religiously motivated actions of believers are valuable to society and are deserving of special legal protection. This point of course contradicts the contention that religion is mostly a matter of history without significance in modern times, or, more ominously, that religion is irrational and discriminatory and therefore should be diminished in both public expression and influence. Far from relics of the past, religious principles and religious believers are a vital present and future force everywhere.

 

Current media attention to religion often focuses on the atrocities of extremists purportedly acting in the interest of Islam in a few parts of the world. While such perpetrators attempt to justify their actions on religious grounds, I see them as excesses on the fringe of anything that might claim to be “religion.” Many Muslim leaders have also condemned their actions.[1] Their atrocities do not qualify for the religious freedom I treasure. Moreover, those who condemn religion as the source of great atrocities through the ages must face the fact that the bloodiest conflicts in history, including the mass killings of the last century, were not done in the name of religion.[2] The genocide of the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, the Cultural Revolution in China, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, and the ethnic cleansings in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Central Africa have been primarily motivated by secular ideologies and political, ethnic, or tribal differences, not by religious rivalries.[3]

 

Contrary to those who associate religion with human suffering, religion and its practitioners have motivated enormous good in the world. I spoke of this in a lecture at a celebration of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, focusing on the United States. I repeat some of that here.

 

Our country’s robust private sector of charitable works originated with and is still sponsored most significantly by religious organizations and religious impulses. This includes education, hospitals, care for the poor, and countless other charities of great value to our country.

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.[4]

Our society is not held together primarily by law and its enforcement, but most importantly by those who voluntarily obey the unenforceable because of their internalized norms of righteous or correct behavior. Religious belief in right and wrong is a vital influence to produce such voluntary compliance by a large number of our citizens. George Washington spoke of this reality in his farewell address: ‘Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,’ he said. ‘Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.’[5]

Over 200 years later, in 1998, Congress enacted a law that formally declares: ‘The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.’[6] That law formally associates our nation with the truth voiced by Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the [British] Commonwealth:

'[Religion] remains the most powerful community builder the world has known. … Religion is the best antidote to the individualism of the consumer age. The idea that society can do without it flies in the face of history.’[7]

Even the agnostic Oxford-educated British journalist Melanie Phillips admitted that 'one does not have to be a religious believer to grasp that the core values of Western Civilization are grounded in religion, and to be concerned that the erosion of religious observance therefore undermines these values and the “secular ideas” they reflect.'[8]

 

Note that the British journalist referred to the importance of religious observance, not just religious faith or religious conscience. Similarly, the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wisely observed that “the social goods associated with faith flow almost exclusively from religious participation, not from affiliation or nominal belief.”[9]

 

Similarly, Clayton Christensen, who has been hailed as a worldwide “thought leader” on business management and innovation,[10] relies on religion’s role in teaching “obedience to the unenforceable” as the basis for his notable essay “Religion Is the Foundation of Democracy and Prosperity.”[11]

 

Religion’s role as a protector of democracy has been widely noted.[12] Religious organizations stand as a “buffer” or “mediating institution” to protect individual believers and their organizations against the powerful impositions of government.

 

Those who maintain that secular ethics and morality can substitute for religion make academic arguments but lack the evidence to support their theories. As affirmed by the rabbi, the agnostic journalist, the business scholar, and many others, I maintain that the teachings and free practice of religion are essential to a free and prosperous society. I also maintain that religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of religion and religious bodies in our public life without seriously jeopardizing our freedom and prosperity.

 

It follows that religious freedom is not just the concern of religious persons. Others have a strong interest in religious freedom because it is necessary for peace and stability in our pluralistic world. The protection of conscience is a vital ingredient for stability because it helps people from a wide spectrum of beliefs feel assured that their deepest concerns and values are respected and protected.

 

It is also true that the preservation of religious freedom depends upon public understanding of and support for this vital freedom, which in turn depends upon the value the public attaches to the teachings of right and wrong in churches, synagogues, and mosques. All should understand that it is sincere faith in God—however defined—that translates religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits a nation. Moreover, this impact is magnified by the social interaction that occurs within religious organizations. It follows that religions that teach right and wrong and the organizations through which they work make a unique and indispensable contribution to society and should therefore have special legal protections.[13]

 

Quote

People in this country are leaving organized religion by the millions every year.  I think those who are religious are clueless why that is happening.  I think it is for the very reasons we are talking about in this thread. 

To which i would respond with this excerpt from the Oaks speech:
 

Quote

 

Why does religious freedom seem to be weakening?

 

The increasing domain of government is surely one reason. As citizens look to government for more and more and to private initiative for less and less, the unregulated room for religious activity is reduced and the likelihood of government regulation of religious activities increases. Private organizations that pursue actions seen as a challenge to government policies or programs can be made targets for laws or regulations. Boy Scouts of America is an example. Many others will occur to you.

 

I will mention only one other reason—the increasing complexity of our society and diversity of our population. When our population included little more than different Christian and Jewish denominational beliefs in a divine being, the meaning of religious freedom was well understood and widely shared. With the increasing diversity of religious beliefs, including non-Abrahamic denominations, the scope of protection under the Free Exercise Clause began to change. When a constitutional right covers more and more, the scope of its protection is likely to become less and less.