Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

And you're telling me I'm the argumentative one.   

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

No we didn't. Jim Crow laws required business owners to discriminate. Anti-discrimination laws are just the other side of the same rotten coin because they similarly dictate who private citizens must conduct business with. I propose we leave government out of the decision of who must conduct business with whom. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And you're telling me I'm the argumentative one.   

It's a fair question and rejoinder.

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

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

 

Americans disagree with the opinion of Elder Oaks.  While atrocities in countries where religious beliefs determine the law of the country is one reason, the Mormon church has played an important part as well in causing people to leave organized religion. In fact, one of the most sited reasons for leaving organized religion (67%) is because of political involvement of churches.  That would be the Mormon church among others.

And while Elder Oaks makes the claim that churches provide care for those less fortunately, wasn't it noted in one of these threads recently that the church only gives a fraction of it's income to humanitarian causes?  Because churches no longer take up the responsibility to take care of the poor, the government has had to step in to provide these services.  By far, the VAST amount of care for the poor and unfortunate is not coming from churches, but from government.  That is a major shift from churches of my youth.

Quote

 

The theory that appears to have the most support from the recent data is the one called "Political backlash."

"Several leading scholars contend that young adults, in particular, have turned away from organized religion because they perceive it as deeply entangled with conservative politics and do not want to have any association with it," according to the report.

The researchers cite several studies and quote from a recent book American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, by Robert Putnam and David Campbell, who argue that in recent decades "[r]eligiosity and conservative politics became increasingly aligned, and abortion and gay rights became emblematic of the emergent culture wars." Consequently, say Putnam and Campbell, many young Americans came to view religion as "judgmental, homophobic, hypocritical, and too political."

Indeed, the current survey figures bear out some of that thesis. And the Democrats' "God problem" of recent years may be turning into a political and demographic advantage. According to the most recent Pew report, the unaffiliated are "concentrated among younger adults, political liberals and people who take liberal positions on same-sex marriage."

Two thirds of unaffiliated say churches and other religious institutions "are too concerned with money and power (70 percent) and too involved in politics (67 percent)." The unaffiliated also are less likely than the affiliated to be concerned with a president's religious beliefs. While the unaffiliated have increased in both parties, the increase is greater among Democrats.

 

 

People just don't see the gospel of Jesus Christ as political activism.  The church may have the right to get involved in politics, but there is a price to pay for that political involvement.  The church may have the right to not allow children of gay couples to be baptized, but there is a price to pay for that as well.  Americans are walking away in record numbers from all organized religions.  Organized religion has lost its way

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 3/29/2016 at 1:49 PM, 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.

 

 

On 3/29/2016 at 2:04 PM, rockpond said:

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

Even if one grants the proposition that it's not happening "in a substantial way" yet (a proposition that is, I think, highly debatable), as I've pointed out several times before here, all the U.S. Supreme Court majority in Obergefell v. Hodges had to write in order to allay the concerns of religious adherents is, "Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to Free Exercise," but it didn't do that.  Instead, it magnanimously granted believers the rights to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish.  As magnanimous as those grants may be, they are not as expansive as the rights recognized by the Free Exercise clause itself.

The most militant of gay marriage proponents are not likely to content themselves with their victory in Obergefell v. Hodges and leave it at that.  Many of them are on record as saying that this is only the beginning.  Now that gay marriage is legal, many of them smell "blood in the water": opponents of gay marriage must now be tarred with the broadest brush possible; they aren't just mistaken in good faith or misguided, and gay marriage proponents can't simply "agree to disagree"; no, no, gay marriage opponents are wrong, bad, and evil; they must be marginalized and ostracized to the greatest extent possible; they must be denied the very rights the Obergefell majority so magnanimously granted them with respect to belief and teaching; they must be denied the opportunity to be educated in any environment in which gay marriage is not accepted as the norm ("Free BYU," anyone?)  Not only is opposition to gay marriage bigoted, teaching that it is wrong from a religious standpoint is, as well.  No, no, the most militant of gay marriage proponents not only want gay marriage, they want the right to stamp out any disagreement with their position in any forum or context whatsoever.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Even if one grants the proposition that it's not happening "in a substantial way" yet (a proposition that is, I think, highly debatable), as I've pointed out several times before here, all the U.S. Supreme Court majority in Obergefell v. Hodges had to write in order to allay the concerns of religious adherents is, "Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to Free Exercise," but it didn't do that.  Instead, it magnanimously granted believers the rights to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish.  As magnanimous as those grants may be, they are not as expansive as the rights recognized by the Free Exercise clause itself.

The most militant of gay marriage proponents are not likely to content themselves with their victory in Obergefell v. Hodges and leave it at that.  Many of them are on record as saying that this is only the beginning.  Now that gay marriage is legal, many of them smell "blood in the water": opponents of gay marriage must now be tarred with the broadest brush possible; they aren't just mistaken in good faith or misguided, and gay marriage proponents can't simply "agree to disagree"; no, no, gay marriage opponents are wrong, bad, and evil; they must be marginalized and ostracized to the greatest extent possible; they must be denied the very rights the Obergefell majority so magnanimously granted them with respect to belief and teaching; they must be denied the opportunity to be educated in any environment in which gay marriage is not accepted as the norm ("Free BYU," anyone?)  Not only is opposition to gay marriage bigoted, teaching that it is wrong from a religious standpoint is, as well.  No, no, the most militant of gay marriage proponents not only want gay marriage, they want the right to stamp out any disagreement with their position in any forum or context whatsoever.

Likewise, the most militant of anti-gay-marriage religious adherents want to take away constitutional protections from LGBT citizens.  There is a wide spectrum of thought out there.  Let's not lead with the extreme positions (as someone recently advised).

As for the Obergefell decision, based on your response to what the majority DID write, I doubt there is much they could have said that would allay your concerns.  But specific to your comment, I don't think they needed to make a statement upholding free exercise because the decision itself was a confirmation of free exercise:  In 2008 a majority of Californians voted to change the State's legal definition of marriage and restrict it to one man, one woman.  In Obergefell, the Supreme Court said that a majority vote should not prevent free exercise of those who believe, like me, that God also approves of gay marriage.

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's a fair question and rejoinder.

Nothing unfair about your response.  Nor witty.  You flatly ignored the question being asked of you.  I guess the data you provided doesn't say what you hoped it would.

[Anijen]

We must remember that  the Obergefell decision was not based on gay rights. Obergefell was based on marriage itself was a fundamental right to all.

 

Constitutionally yours

Edited March 30, 2016 by Anijen

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Even if one grants the proposition that it's not happening "in a substantial way" yet (a proposition that is, I think, highly debatable), as I've pointed out several times before here, all the U.S. Supreme Court majority in Obergefell v. Hodges had to write in order to allay the concerns of religious adherents is, "Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to Free Exercise," but it didn't do that.  Instead, it magnanimously granted believers the rights to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish.  As magnanimous as those grants may be, they are not as expansive as the rights recognized by the Free Exercise clause itself.

The most militant of gay marriage proponents are not likely to content themselves with their victory in Obergefell v. Hodges and leave it at that.  Many of them are on record as saying that this is only the beginning.  Now that gay marriage is legal, many of them smell "blood in the water": opponents of gay marriage must now be tarred with the broadest brush possible; they aren't just mistaken in good faith or misguided, and gay marriage proponents can't simply "agree to disagree"; no, no, gay marriage opponents are wrong, bad, and evil; they must be marginalized and ostracized to the greatest extent possible; they must be denied the very rights the Obergefell majority so magnanimously granted them with respect to belief and teaching; they must be denied the opportunity to be educated in any environment in which gay marriage is not accepted as the norm ("Free BYU," anyone?)  Not only is opposition to gay marriage bigoted, teaching that it is wrong from a religious standpoint is, as well.  No, no, the most militant of gay marriage proponents not only want gay marriage, they want the right to stamp out any disagreement with their position in any forum or context whatsoever.

I completely agree that gay marriage is not the last battle that gay rights activists plan.  No one ever said it was. There is much work yet to be done.  Discrimination in employment, housing, and legislatures that want to legalized discrimination against gays are all battles that lie before them.  Passing ENDA is a major goal.  It has been for over 10 years, long before the gay marriage ruling.

You are painting the wrong picture however.  I see little push to demonize those that are against gay marriage unless it is a group that is working to overturn that decision.  Can you site examples where such attacks are being made on those that do not support gay marriage??  Or is this all hyperbole.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

I didn’t say that gay marriage interferes with religious freedom. People do, as demonstrated in the examples given. The political process surrounding gay marriage is just one vehicle through which people interfere with constitutionally-protected religious freedom, along with attendant biased legislative, judicial and/or executive decisions and actions. See my other posts as to how this is done, including one example I gave.

Gay marriage interferes with spiritual liberty, but that’s a matter of belief which you allow others to have, and another topic.

This may be hard for you to understand: religious belief alone is sufficient for its exercise to receive special protection in the Constitution, universal for all citizens. This is very different from equal protection, which requires a designated legal status which, as described above, can become embroiled in processes that encourage and enable interference with religious freedom.

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I didn’t say that gay marriage interferes with religious freedom. People do, as demonstrated in the examples given. The political process surrounding gay marriage is just one vehicle through which people interfere with constitutionally-protected religious freedom, along with attendant biased legislative, judicial and/or executive decisions and actions. See my other posts as to how this is done, including one example I gave.

 

 

 

Gay marriage interferes with spiritual liberty, but that’s a matter of belief which you allow others to have, and another topic.

 

This may be hard for you to understand: religious belief alone is sufficient for its exercise to receive special protection in the Constitution, universal for all citizens. This is very different from equal protection, which requires a designated legal status which, as described above, can become embroiled in processes that encourage and enable interference with religious freedom.

 

I can understand how religious beliefs receive special protection.  And I fully support protecting those religious beliefs.  But I think it is the guarding of those religious beliefs and not imposing religious beliefs on others.  That makes all the difference for me.  Denying gay couples to marry is imposing a religious belief on others and not a protection of religious belief.  

Discriminating against gays is also an imposing of religious belief on others.  I don't think there is a single religion that believes serving sinners is against their religious belief.  So the purpose of discriminating against gays is some kind of punishment  rather than a betrayal of religious belief.  I know others see it differently, but I think there is not much legal ground to base their beliefs.  The courts seem to agree with me and not them.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Likewise, the most militant of anti-gay-marriage religious adherents want to take away constitutional protections from LGBT citizens.  There is a wide spectrum of thought out there.  Let's not lead with the extreme positions (as someone recently advised).

 

A fundamental, irreconcilable disagreement as to what marriage is does not constitute "a desire to take away constitutional protections from LGBTQ-yada-yada-yada citizens."

As for the Obergefell decision, based on your response to what the majority DID write, I doubt there is much they could have said that would allay your concerns. ...

Sigh.      With due respect, what part of "All the majority had to write to allay the concerns of the religiously devout is, 'Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to Free Exercise'" do you not understand? 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I completely agree that gay marriage is not the last battle that gay rights activists plan.  ...

 

It's not necessarily the battles they choose to fight: it's how they choose to fight them.  If someone thinks I'm wrong, fine; show me your evidence; persuade me; but nope, the most militant set of the gay lobby doesn't want to be bothered to do that.  I'm bad, wrong, bigoted, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Quote

You are painting the wrong picture however.  I see little push to demonize those that are against gay marriage unless it is a group that is working to overturn that decision.  Can you site examples where such attacks are being made on those that do not support gay marriage??  Or is this all hyperbole.

Dan Cathy, Brendan Eich, Peter Vidmar, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  Nope, you're right.  It's all hyperbole.  My bad.  I don't know what I was thinking! Nothing to see here, folks!  Move along!  

Edited March 30, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

A fundamental, irreconcilable disagreement as to what marriage is does not constitute "a desire to take away constitutional protections from LGBTQ-yada-yada-yada citizens."

 

 

Sigh.      With due respect, what part of "All the majority had to write to allay the concerns of the religiously devout is, 'Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to Free Exercise'" do you not understand? 

The disagreement doesn't take away constitutional protections.  Passing Prop 8 is what took away the constitutional protections.

As for the majority opinion on Obergefell, the decision itself is what supported Free Exercise.  So why would they need to make a separate statement.  Do you not understand?  The problem here is that you are only seeing it from the vantage point of YOUR Free Exercise, not that of those who have sincerely held beliefs regarding the sanctity of gay marriage in addition to one man, one woman marriage.  Deciding to uphold Prop 8 would have been a decision against Free Exercise.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

 

 

 

 

The Dilbert cartoon from this last Sunday seems appropriate here:

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

That cartoon says a lot about people doesn't it?  Good one!

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can understand how religious beliefs receive special protection.  And I fully support protecting those religious beliefs.  But I think it is the guarding of those religious beliefs and not imposing religious beliefs on others.  That makes all the difference for me.  Denying gay couples to marry is imposing a religious belief on others and not a protection of religious belief.

Only when it is an outgrowth of expressing and exercising religious belief in the political process. Such an aim is only an attempt to exercise, and not protect, the belief that is being expressed (that only comes when it is threatened or denied). And what about those who voted to deny it for secular, or any other, reasons? What kinds of impositions of belief were those? At issue is the right to special protection in the proper recognition and exercise of religion and religious freedom while engaged in the political process. If you fully support special protection for religious freedom you would not have said this:

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Discriminating against gays is also an imposing of religious belief on others.  I don't think there is a single religion that believes serving sinners is against their religious belief.  So the purpose of discriminating against gays is some kind of punishment  rather than a betrayal of religious belief.  I know others see it differently, but I think there is not much legal ground to base their beliefs.  The courts seem to agree with me and not them.

Some people are guilty of illegal discrimination of individuals. Some people use the legal system and courts in a way that discriminates against religious freedom. Which camp are you in? I’m in neither. Love the mind-reading, by the way: how does that color your vote?

As you've demonstrated, the system of checks and balances is not always balanced, hence the vigilance to protect religious freedom.

[T-Shirt]

3 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

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?  

Just bumping this because I have not seen anyone attempt to answer my questions.  Should I have been forced, by law, to print these T-Shirts?  If not, how is it different than the bakery situation?

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The woman in Oregon owned her own business.  She was not the only baker in the area or the neighborhood.  She had a conscientious objection based on her religious feelings.  I am aware of no law that requires religious people to ignore their religion.  In fact, the nation has accepted drug use for Indians solely based on religious grounds.  Yeah, it is stupid.  It is the result of a court system that ignores laws and precedence over time in order to create new law and new precedence in order to meet their agenda.  For the most part we can rely on our court system to be fair for minor issues; but heaven forbid that the issue falls within the social objectives of Progressives.  All bets are off and the courts and do anything they want, when they want.  There are no checks and balances on an unfair, expensive court system.   

Thanks for your clarification and your opinion,

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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? 

It is all about the tone and content of what you post and what you say in the posts Scott.

That is the best I can do. I am sure you will reject it. 

The readers can decide for themselves.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

No we didn't. Jim Crow laws required business owners to discriminate. Anti-discrimination laws are just the other side of the same rotten coin because they similarly dictate who private citizens must conduct business with. I propose we leave government out of the decision of who must conduct business with whom. 

We tried that already with Laissez-faire Capitalism it didn't work out well.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"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.>

Uh yea I think I said that.  Religious voices have every right to be heard and not limited.   But they have no special privilege over anyone else. No more. No less.

Based on what I see you advocating for as well as Elder Oaks you and he seem to want some special privilege above everyone else. It does protect religion but it does not give religion special rights to respect any religious position that goes to the public square.  Further laws that grant special tax exemption for religions also restrict the activity of religions from spending a significant amount of a religions resources lobbying for a political candidate or seeking to influence legislation.

The whole point of the First Amendment is to not restrict free speech or the exercise of religion as well as to NOT GIVE ANY ONE OR TWO OR HOWEVER many religions special rights over another.  The government is prohibited from establishing a national religion and it is prohibited from restricting the practice of any religion (as long as such practices do not harm others.  A religion that advocates human sacrifice may be restricted in such a practice). 

But I am not sure why you are arguing with me on this. I am all for religious voices being heard in public debates.  Same for non religious voices.

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Just bumping this because I have not seen anyone attempt to answer my questions.  Should I have been forced, by law, to print these T-Shirts?  If not, how is it different than the bakery situation?

No law is forcing you to print those T-shirts. All the law says if you already sell those printed T-shirts you can't discriminate against those that want to buy them.

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Just bumping this because I have not seen anyone attempt to answer my questions.  Should I have been forced, by law, to print these T-Shirts?  If not, how is it different than the bakery situation?

I don't think you should have been forced to print the shirts.  I'm also not sure if it is really a religious objection or an objection based on common decency.  Either way, my answer is "no".

I haven't followed the bakery example so I'm not sure how your case is different.  But in general, I don't think gay couples should give their business to bakers who believe that baking a cake is a violation of religious principles.  It strikes me as odd.

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Only when it is an outgrowth of expressing and exercising religious belief in the political process. Such an aim is only an attempt to exercise, and not protect, the belief that is being expressed (that only comes when it is threatened or denied). And what about those who voted to deny it for secular, or any other, reasons? What kinds of impositions of belief were those? At issue is the right to special protection in the proper recognition and exercise of religion and religious freedom while engaged in the political process. If you fully support special protection for religious freedom you would not have said this:

 

Some people are guilty of illegal discrimination of individuals. Some people use the legal system and courts in a way that discriminates against religious freedom. Which camp are you in? I’m in neither. Love the mind-reading, by the way: how does that color your vote?

As you've demonstrated, the system of checks and balances is not always balanced, hence the vigilance to protect religious freedom.

 

I have to say I am a bit unclear on what your point is so, I think it is better that I don't comment on something that I can't quite figure out.  I can answer that I am against all discrimination no matter what the reason, even religious discrimination.  If some Evangelic refused to bake a cake for a Mormon wedding, I would be just as condemning of that as well.  Hope that clarifies.

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

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?  

Yes, you would be legally bound to print the shirt for him, (if held to the Colorado Statute that Masterpiece Cake was ordered to obey). I don't disagree with the reasoning behind the statute, because it wanted to eliminate the denial of services for reasons of discrimination. Where I have the problem with it, is being ordered to comply. I find that the concept of being forced to use your artistic skill in a manner you don't approve of to be just simply wrong. The reason you would have to print the shirt is because Offensive Speech holds some protections from the First Amendment. If your speech [the tee-shirt] was a threat, and it incited violence, immediately after putting it on, and you [you're the speaker, and your shirt is the speech] were there face to face, then that would be unprotected and you would not be able to print the shirt. But in the ruling of Masterpiece Cake you would be compelled to make the cake or face punishment. see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Just an FYI, Masterpiece Cake offered to sell the same sex couple different cakes for other celebrations, but they declined. The tone and conversation from both the couple and the baker was very respectful toward each other. They then went and got another baker to make the cake, it wasn't till afterward that the couple sued the cake shop.

It wasn't that the baker had anything against this couple, but being part of a wedding ceremony that he did not believe in under his religious beliefs. yes. the wedding cake maker is considered part of the wedding planning and reception.

Constitutionally yours

Edited March 31, 2016 by Anijen