“Religious freedom is indeed under attack,” Elder Christofferson

[rockpond]

Elder Christofferson was the keynote speaker at the Freedom Festival Patriotic Service in Provo, Utah, Sunday, June 26, 2016.

Article with summary of his address:  http://www.ldsdaily.com/church-lds/elder-christofferson-says-religious-freedom-fire/

A couple of notable quotes from the article:

Quote

He said religious convictions also “set the terms of the national debates over slavery, emancipation and the Civil War.”

I believe this is correct but an interesting choice of examples... wasn't the Bible used to justify slavery?

Quote

Elder Christofferson explained, “There are concerted efforts to shame and intimidate believers who have traditional moral values and to suppress religious viewpoints and practices regarding marriage, family, gender and sexuality. Worst of all, government sometimes joins in these efforts.”

I believe that shaming and intimidation are used on both sides of the issue.  But I am not aware of any LDS practices regarding marriage, family, gender, and sexuality being suppressed.

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe this is correct but an interesting choice of examples... wasn't the Bible used to justify slavery?

---

I believe that shaming and intimidation are used on both sides of the issue.  But I am not aware of any LDS practices regarding marriage, family, gender, and sexuality being suppressed.

Sometimes the same thing is used to support the convictions that justify either side of a debate. The Bible is not a religious conviction in and of itself, but still is used to support conflicting religious convictions all the time.

---

The LDS shares with other faiths many religious viewpoints and practices regarding marriage, family, gender and sexuality.

[Gray]

Did he give any examples of actual threats to religious freedom? Strong rhetoric against gay marriage opponents might be upsetting, but it's hardly a threat to religious freedom. 

I didn't see any examples given in the article. 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe that shaming and intimidation are used on both sides of the issue.  But I am not aware of any LDS practices regarding marriage, family, gender, and sexuality being suppressed.

Whether or not "LDS practices" are being suppressed, the freedoms to express our religion are often met with opposition from people with contrary convictions to our convictions.  And I suppose that could be considered some type of attack on our religion.

I'm not fretting or worried about it any more, though, now that I realize that there must needs be opposition in all things.  If everybody in the world accepted our religion now, though, the way the world is now, then maybe I would be a little worried.

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe that shaming and intimidation are used on both sides of the issue.  But I am not aware of any LDS practices regarding marriage, family, gender, and sexuality being suppressed.

I agree with you.  But I don't think that shaming and intimidation are quite as common as that.  Primarily, the fact that bigotry towards LGBT individuals is being challenged and not just accepted as the status quo, is what bothers many people with prejudiced perspectives.  I think this makes people feel uncomfortable and uneasy to have their long held views challenged intellectually and morally.  

Did you see any conclusions in his talk?  Special laws to exempt religions from equal treatment seems to be the primary solution being advocated, but that won't stop society from challenging bigotry and injustice.  Unless they want to try and shut down free speech.  

[thesometimesaint]

The problem comes in when we use government to impose our religious freedom to limit the religious freedoms of others.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Whether or not "LDS practices" are being suppressed, the freedoms to express our religion are often met with opposition from people with contrary convictions to our convictions.  And I suppose that could be considered some type of attack on our religion.

I'm not fretting or worried about it any more, though, now that I realize that there must needs be opposition in all things.  If everybody in the world accepted our religion now, though, the way the world is now, then maybe I would be a little worried.

Bold/underline added by me...

Likewise, the Church has opposed those with contrary convictions.  This is not evidence of religious freedom being attacked.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Bold/underline added by me...

Likewise, the Church has opposed those with contrary convictions.  This is not evidence of religious freedom being attacked.

I agree in the objective perspective , but I can also see how some could consider it to be on a subjective level.

When any person doesn't feel free to express their own personal religious  perspective to others, perhaps because those others reject that other person's religious perspective as a valid perspective (not good, not true, not ridiculous, not inspired by God, etc), then that person could possibly perceive that rejection as an attack of their own religious freedom to express their own religious perspective.  As if nobody should be doing anything but accepting other's religious perspectives.  As if nobody should be doing any attacking or rejecting.  Which I think is just silly.

We can't have opposition in all things if nobody is doing any attacking.  This is a war and both sides are attacking each other, which is of course as it should be.

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I agree in the objective perspective , but I can also see how some could consider it to be on a subjective level.

When any person doesn't feel free to express their own personal religious  perspective to others, perhaps because those others reject that other person's religious perspective as a valid perspective (not good, not true, not ridiculous, not inspired by God, etc), then that person could possibly perceive that rejection as an attack of their own religious freedom to express their own religious perspective.  As if nobody should be doing anything but accepting other's religious perspectives.  As if nobody should be doing any attacking or rejecting.  Which I think is just silly.

We can't have opposition in all things if nobody is doing any attacking.  This is a war and both sides are attacking each other, which is of course as it should be.

 

I don't see it as a war.  And I'm not sure why our church leaders continue to describe it in those terms.  Disagreement is not an attack.  Demands for one's own equality are not a suppression of our freedoms.  The language used by Elder Christofferson contributes to the problem rather than solving it.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I believe that shaming and intimidation are used on both sides of the issue.  But I am not aware of any LDS practices regarding marriage, family, gender, and sexuality being suppressed.

When (according to one survey) 25% of members are becoming convinced that SSM is ok, this will have more impact on LDS practices than we even realize at the moment.

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see it as a war.  And I'm not sure why our church leaders continue to describe it in those terms.  Disagreement is not an attack.  Demands for one's own equality are not a suppression of our freedoms.  The language used by Elder Christofferson contributes to the problem rather than solving it.

Semantics, then.  But I don't agree that it's not a war or an attack unless it involves physical violence.  A war of world views, as I see it.  A contest over opinions and perspectives with one side being good and the other side being evil, regardless of which side calls itself the good side.

Hopefully the physical violence can be kept to a minimum, as near to zero as possible.

 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

....but that won't stop society from challenging bigotry and injustice.  Unless they want to try and shut down free speech.  

It is not "society", but a certain segment of society that is so vocal about what they consider to be bigotry and injustice.  However, their view only addresses their personal golden calves and nothing else.  A prime example is the number of Left who turn out to harass and belittle Trump campaign meetings.  It is particularly interesting to see how these same people touting tolerance justify violence against the individuals who have done nothing except support Trump at a rally. 

It is hypocrisy at it finest and is why the terms "bigotry" and "injustice" are all defined in the mind of the accuser rather than the actual reality.  

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When (according to one survey) 25% of members are becoming convinced that SSM is ok, this will have more impact on LDS practices than we even realize at the moment.

I'm seeing members agreeing that SSM should be allowed in a civil society but while still seeing SSM as a bad and sinful choice.  As if they are trying to uphold the idea that everybody should have total freedom to do anything they want to do as long,  as it doesn't involve physical violence to another person or taking someone else's property, but while still thinking that things like SSM and porn and adultery are bad and sinful even while being legal.

So I'd be interested in seeing the questions asked in that poll, to see how the questions were phrased.

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When (according to one survey) 25% of members are becoming convinced that SSM is ok, this will have more impact on LDS practices than we even realize at the moment.

Please reference this survey.  That's pretty interesting.

[stemelbow]

It seems to be more of a threat against religious views assuming the moral high ground, to me.  Ideas, beliefs, all of that need to be tested against the ideas of others.  Otherwise we'll lose out.  Making a fuss about losing religious freedom feels silly. 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is not "society", but a certain segment of society that is so vocal about what they consider to be bigotry and injustice.  However, their view only addresses their personal golden calves and nothing else.  A prime example is the number of Left who turn out to harass and belittle Trump campaign meetings.  It is particularly interesting to see how these same people touting tolerance justify violence against the individuals who have done nothing except support Trump at a rally. 

It is hypocrisy at it finest and is why the terms "bigotry" and "injustice" are all defined in the mind of the accuser rather than the actual reality.  

When I said society, I certainly didn't mean 100% of society, you can't get 100% of people to agree on anything.  But I think its safe to say that western society in general has accepted same sex marriage for example, opinion polls would confirm that idea, and its now law in the USA.  

I don't think you should throw out the words bigotry and injustice just because they will change based on someone's POV.  For example, in Antebellum America slavery was not always recognized as unjust by the majority of society, however, the majority of society considers it unjust today.  There might be a small % of the population that would disagree and call slavery just, but I don't think that stands reality on its head per say.  I think it shows that we need to be in constant conversation and evaluation on these topics, and as new insight is obtained we need to be willing to update our perceptions accordingly as a culture.  

 

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is not "society", but a certain segment of society that is so vocal about what they consider to be bigotry and injustice.  However, their view only addresses their personal golden calves and nothing else.  A prime example is the number of Left who turn out to harass and belittle Trump campaign meetings.  It is particularly interesting to see how these same people touting tolerance justify violence against the individuals who have done nothing except support Trump at a rally. 

It is hypocrisy at it finest and is why the terms "bigotry" and "injustice" are all defined in the mind of the accuser rather than the actual reality.  

I agree. Instead of harassing them we should have Trump supporters committed for their own safety.

Edited June 29, 2016 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Did he give any examples of actual threats to religious freedom? Strong rhetoric against gay marriage opponents might be upsetting, but it's hardly a threat to religious freedom. 

I didn't see any examples given in the article. 

I didn't see anything either.  It's more like religious freedom is under attack because people dare question religion.  That seemed to be the general theme reported by LDS daily. 

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Special laws to exempt religions from equal treatment seems to be the primary solution being advocated, but that won't stop society from challenging bigotry and injustice.

As the courts continue to weigh in on whether or not individuals can claim religious exemptions for civil servants or public accommodations requirements, it will be interesting to see the final decision regarding the above possibility.

In the meantime, legal precedent continues to mount that while such exemptions will be available for religions and religious clergy members, they don't appear likely to prevail for individual citizens or public servants, and for such, a license to legally discriminate against gays and lesbians won't rightly be classified as within the realm of "religious liberty."

Case in point, from just yesterday:

Quote

Federal judge: Religion can't block same-sex marriage license

By Kelly Cohen • 6/28/16 3:02 PM

Kelly Cohen Staff Writer The Washington Examiner

 

A federal judge in Mississippi has ruled that state clerks are not allowed to deny people same-sex marriage licenses, despite a state bill seeking to give clerks exemptions based on their religious beliefs.

According to U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, the exemptions on religious grounds granted by the state's recently signed House Bill 1523 violates the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in the Obergefell case, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

"Mississippi's elected officials may disagree with Obergefell, of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit — by advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for example," Reeves wrote in his 16-page ruling Monday. "But the marriage license issue will not be adjudicated anew after each legislative session."

The state's "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" is set to become law Friday. Reeves did not yet rule on other provisions in the legislation that contain a set of religious exemption provisions regarding same-sex couples.

Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves slammed the judge's decision.

"If this opinion by the federal court denies even one Mississippian of their fundamental right to practice their religion, then all Mississippians are denied their First Amendment rights. I hope the state's attorneys will quickly appeal this decision to the 5th Circuit to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of all Mississippians," he said in a statement.

Judge Reeves' ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Campaign for Southern Equality.

"A year after the Supreme Court guaranteed marriage equality in the Obergefell decision, we are delighted that Judge Reeves reaffirmed the power of federal courts to definitively say what the United States Constitution means," said Roberta Kaplan, a New York-based attorney who represents Campaign for Southern Equality.

The Campaign for Southern Equality is also part of another lawsuit challenging H.B. 1523. Kaplan expects that ruling will too go in their favor.

I'm unclear whether or not LDS leadership would consider the above to be "an attack" on or "a violation of religious liberty," or not...

Edited June 29, 2016 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't see anything either.  It's more like religious freedom is under attack because people dare question religion.  That seemed to be the general theme reported by LDS daily. 

I have no problem with shaming (gotta have a great and spacious) but I am concerned it will begin to lean towards intimidation and coercion. Eventually to exclusion from society. Then we have to go build Zion and because they cast out the righteous God burns everyone else. So it is really in everyone's best interest not to go down that road.

[Storm Rider]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

When I said society, I certainly didn't mean 100% of society, you can't get 100% of people to agree on anything.  But I think its safe to say that western society in general has accepted same sex marriage for example, opinion polls would confirm that idea, and its now law in the USA.  

I don't think you should throw out the words bigotry and injustice just because they will change based on someone's POV.  For example, in Antebellum America slavery was not always recognized as unjust by the majority of society, however, the majority of society considers it unjust today.  There might be a small % of the population that would disagree and call slavery just, but I don't think that stands reality on its head per say.  I think it shows that we need to be in constant conversation and evaluation on these topics, and as new insight is obtained we need to be willing to update our perceptions accordingly as a culture.  

 

I was not addressing same sex marriage as being the epitome of a topic where there is bigotry and injustice.  There is bigotry and injustice everywhere and in all nations.  The sacred cow du jour of SSM and all LGBT topics are the least of all of them.  Regardless, it is the the overriding topic and will continue to be so ad nauseaum.  While we whittle away over this sole topic everything else is ignored and nothing else is sacred in relative terms.  

[Storm Rider]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I agree. Instead of harassing them we should have Trump supporters committed for their own safety.

Now that would not be a bad idea.  Of course, then we are left with what to do with those that want to vote for a person that has not yet met an issue she does not prefer to lie about, dodge, and/or prevaricate.  They are both so odious as to make voting for Richard Nixon a joy and a blessing.  

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have no problem with shaming (gotta have a great and spacious) but I am concerned it will begin to lean towards intimidation and coercion. Eventually to exclusion from society. Then we have to go build Zion and because they cast out the righteous God burns everyone else. So it is really in everyone's best interest not to go down that road.

Sure if it went there.  But the problem is intimidation and coercion are religious tactics, historically.  "yes I know we used these tricks to get the majority to just go along with us and not let opposers hold to loud of a voice, but if you guys do it to us, well then, that's just plain taking our religious freedoms away". 

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't see anything either.  It's more like religious freedom is under attack because people dare question religion.  That seemed to be the general theme reported by LDS daily. 

Yes, that seems to be the running theme. Freedom seems to be a code word for "privilege" 

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm unclear whether or not LDS leadership would consider the above to be "an attack" on or "a violation of religious liberty," or not...

Thanks for sharing that current example.  I too wonder if church leadership considers things like that an attack on their religious freedom.