Oaks- Religious Liberty

[HappyJackWagon]

I haven't seen this posted yet. Elder Oaks spoke at a Regional Conference on Religious Liberty and made a couple of statements I feel are over the top.

Quote

"Latter-day Saints are committed to the free exercise of religion because the fulfillment of God’s Plan of Salvation is only possible under the free exercise of religion guaranteed in our God-inspired Constitution," Elder Oaks said. "Thus, for us, the free exercise of religion is not just a basic and cherished principle of our Constitution. It is essential to God’s Plan of Salvation.

1- Is the fulfillment of God's Plan of Salvation dependent upon the exercise of religion guaranteed by the US Constitution? Or is God's plan and Jesus' atonement powerful enough to overcome weakness/error and even loss of religious liberty? While I recognize the principle of agency to be essential to God's plan, I don't see that governmental freedoms are essential. Preferable, yes. Essential, no.

Quote

"As the power­ful emerging right of non-discrimination has been accommodated in the law," he said, "many rank it above the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion, contending that religious freedom must be curtailed wherever it conflicts with non-discrimination...

"These arguments leave me wondering," Elder Oaks said, "why any group of citizens with secular-based views are free to seek to persuade or impose their views on others by a democratic law-making process, but persons or organizations with religious-based views are not free to participate in the same democratic law-making process?"

2- In the US, are religious people prohibited from participating in the democratic law-making process? Has religion lost its voice in public affairs, or is it merely experiencing a reduction of its historical privilege?

 

 

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=41433287&nid=148

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't seen this posted yet. Elder Oaks spoke at a Regional Conference on Religious Liberty and made a couple of statements I feel are over the top.

1- Is the fulfillment of God's Plan of Salvation dependent upon the exercise of religion guaranteed by the US Constitution? Or is God's plan and Jesus' atonement powerful enough to overcome weakness/error and even loss of religious liberty? While I recognize the principle of agency to be essential to God's plan, I don't see that governmental freedoms are essential. Preferable, yes. Essential, no.

2- In the US, are religious people prohibited from participating in the democratic law-making process? Has religion lost its voice in public affairs, or is it merely experiencing a reduction of its historical privilege?

 

 

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=41433287&nid=148

 

That's funny.  I saw this and worried that our regional conference yesterday was going to be about this or a repeat of it.  But it was not and I was very relieved.  I don't want to hear it.  I pretty much agree with your points above and chimed in just to say so. 

[thesometimesaint]

There are strict limits on how religious freedom is exercised in this country.

But, it does me no injury for for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

[Buckeye]

For more on this topic, see the church's new website on protecting religious freedom (https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom) and in particular the FAQ (https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom/faq). Also see Oaks' full remarks here (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/dallas-religious-freedom-conference-oaks).

A few points:

1. The recent push is clearly aimed at protecting actions and behaviors, not just beliefs. For example, the FAQ cited above states: "At its most basic, religious freedom means the right to choose, change, declare, and act upon your faith. It includes freedom to worship but is much more than that. It’s the right to “exercise” or live your religion without interference from government or others, except when necessary to protect health and safety. It includes the right of like-minded individuals to form religious organizations that govern their own affairs."
2. The church has taken a stand on only a few specific actions/behaviors; most subjects are still up in the air. As example of places where the church is clear, the FAQ lists as breaches of the freedom of religion situations where an individual is forced to perform an abortion or provide contraceptive as part of their employment.
3. At the same time, the church has also taken a stand against religious freedom in certain situations. Elder Oaks criticized the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses. And the church supported a Utah statue that provides LGBT protection in employment, housing, and other non-religious areas, even if the business owner's actions are driven by religious motivations. I understand these positions to be more of a compromise than anything. As Elder Wickman explained: "... the most important freedoms to protect are “those that relate to private and ecclesiastical contexts, or are part of the rights of all citizens.” Other freedoms, such as “those that relate to commercial and governmental settings will of necessity require greater pragmatism and compromise.

A few questions:

1. Does the church believe that US v. Reyonds was correctly decided? That case is the famous one upholding the federal actions aimed at ending polygamy (denial of right to vote, denial of service on jury, confiscation of church property, imprisonment of church officers, etc.). It seems that the practice of polygamy by consenting adults would fall squaring in the realm of "exercising your religion without interference from government or others, except when necessary to protect health and safety" - which is how the church's website defines religious freedom. And yet, up till now, I've heard Elder Oaks express support for the decision.
2. Similarly, why does the church continue to support laws in Utah that criminalize adult couples who practice polygamy for religious reasons? This seems like a clear place where the church could support religious freedom and actually have an affect.
3. In weighing particular freedoms to prioritize (as Wickman counseled), should church members give emphasis to "core" protection of others' practices, or "peripheral" protection of LDS practices? For example, there are still situations in the US where local zoning boards deny muslims permits to build mosques. And last year there was a spree of bombings of black churches. Those strike me as "core" protections that deserve much more attention than whether BYU is allowed to join the BIG 12.
4. How should church members apply the principles of tolerance, respect, and meaningful dialogue within church spheres where members disagree. IMO, the biggest conflicts in the future will not be between the church and government/society, but between families who are members of the church. This is particularly true on the issue of SSM. How do we respectfully dialogue on issues where members' convictions take them in a different direction from church teachings?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Buckeye

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- Is the fulfillment of God's Plan of Salvation dependent upon the exercise of religion guaranteed by the US Constitution? Or is God's plan and Jesus' atonement powerful enough to overcome weakness/error and even loss of religious liberty? While I recognize the principle of agency to be essential to God's plan, I don't see that governmental freedoms are essential. Preferable, yes. Essential, no.

2- In the US, are religious people prohibited from participating in the democratic law-making process? Has religion lost its voice in public affairs, or is it merely experiencing a reduction of its historical privilege?

RE: 1-

I think he makes it clear in the quotes you provided that the free exercise of religion is the governing principle. It is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but whether guaranteed or not, it is essential to God’s Plan of Salvation. It is wiser to establish and sustain laws that guarantee it than not.

He is not saying that constitutionally-guaranteed free exercise of religion is the only form in which the governing principle can exist, nor the only form in which its essentiality to God’s Plan of Salvation can be established. But it is wiser to establish and sustain constitutions and laws that guarantee it than not.

RE: 2-

He is pointing out that ranking the accommodation of emerging rights above the guarantee of rights with constitutional special protection is based in a secular viewpoint that contributes to an environment promoting secular-based laws but not religious based laws. He says the arguments for doing so (that the free exercise of religion is but a privilege to worship in protected spaces but not guaranteed in the public process of law-making; intimidation by some public policy advocates, etc.) are woefully faulty, which leaves him wondering about why the mere basis for viewpoint qualifies one for participation in the lawmaking process.

[Buckeye]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't seen this posted yet. Elder Oaks spoke at a Regional Conference on Religious Liberty and made a couple of statements I feel are over the top.

1- Is the fulfillment of God's Plan of Salvation dependent upon the exercise of religion guaranteed by the US Constitution? Or is God's plan and Jesus' atonement powerful enough to overcome weakness/error and even loss of religious liberty? While I recognize the principle of agency to be essential to God's plan, I don't see that governmental freedoms are essential. Preferable, yes. Essential, no.

2- In the US, are religious people prohibited from participating in the democratic law-making process? Has religion lost its voice in public affairs, or is it merely experiencing a reduction of its historical privilege?

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=41433287&nid=148

 

1) I believe the church can function without many of the protections/advantages we enjoy, but that the work will often be slowed. For example, the church doesn't need income tax incentives for the law of tithing to work. But it sure helps.

2) The answer depends on what we mean by participation. Clearly, religious people should be allowed to speak and their views considered. But if the speech is purely religious (i.e., "God says the races should not intermarry") rather than objective and secular (i.e., "our studies show that children in interracial families are impacted in X,Y,Z manner"), what should a legislator or judge do with that viewpoint? This is where Elder Oaks has the toughest work. He wants to present religious voices as "special" in that they provide a separate authority from "we the people." But allowing this would force government bodies to (i) come a conclusion as to God's view and (ii) decide between conflicting voices that claim to speak for God. IMO, that's a dangerous and losing battle, especially for Mormons.

As an example, if the government is considering whether to spend its budget building a bridge or building a school, the government should listen to a local church that argues "education is a blessing for all."  But the government should give no weight to the local church arguing "God revealed to us that the money should be spent on a school." To allow a church to speak with authority based on God's word is by definition to establish that religion above others (Including non-religions) - which is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Thus, the LDS church should be allowed to define marriage within its ceremonies. And it should be heard on public policy when it has objective arguments that impact the SSM decision. But the government should not give any consideration to the church's claim that "God defines marriage as between a man and a woman." 

Edited September 12, 2016 by Buckeye

[Rajah Manchou]

52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"...fulfillment of God’s Plan of Salvation is only possible under the free exercise of religion guaranteed in our God-inspired Constitution," Elder Oaks said. "It is essential to God’s Plan of Salvation.

Look's like there's not much hope for us members living outside the sacred boundaries of the United States.

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Look's like there's not much hope for us members living outside the sacred boundaries of the United States.

Yes...I asked myself some questions when i read that part..Whaat does this do for members outside our own constitution..religious freedom or not..there is kind of an exclusion there.

Quote

I love my quotes..hope you all do too.  Have a great day!!

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- In the US, are religious people prohibited from participating in the democratic law-making process? Has religion lost its voice in public affairs, or is it merely experiencing a reduction of its historical privilege?

Oaks doesn't want to win arguments in a free market of ideas.  He wants religious ideas privileged over secular ideas.  The reality is that any of the arguments that religion makes are already on equal footing in the public arena.  The problem is, that when these ideas lose the debate, Oaks wants appeals to authority to trump any reason and logic that are used.  Maybe someone else can explain it, but this is what i see Oaks saying.  Am I wrong? 

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Look's like there's not much hope for us members living outside the sacred boundaries of the United States.

I believe that if Elder Oaks had been speaking to an audience outside of the United States that he would have chosen different words.  As he was speaking to congregations within the US, his words seem appropriate for that audience.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

RE: 2-

He is pointing out that ranking the accommodation of emerging rights above the guarantee of rights with constitutional special protection is based in a secular viewpoint that contributes to an environment promoting secular-based laws but not religious based laws. He says the arguments for doing so (that the free exercise of religion is but a privilege to worship in protected spaces but not guaranteed in the public process of law-making; intimidation by some public policy advocates, etc.) are woefully faulty, which leaves him wondering about why the mere basis for viewpoint qualifies one for participation in the lawmaking process.

 

It seems to me that the "emerging right of non-discrimination" is foundational to religious liberty. Religious liberty exists because of secularist ideals of plurality. If non-discrimination rights are taken away, so is religious liberty.

IOW religious liberties exist because of rights of non-discrimination. Oaks seems to be placing non-discrimination into silos, some of which are appropriate and some which are not. For Oaks, if non-discrimination of things like LGBT issues butts up against a religious institutions right to discriminate against LGBT, then he seems to side with the institution. Of course not all religious institutions are the same so what he would deem an infringement of his religious liberty is another person's claim on religious liberty.

[thesometimesaint]

While I don't believe for a second Elder Oaks would tolerate raced based religious liberty discrimination. He does need to tread carefully here.

SEEhttp://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems to me that the "emerging right of non-discrimination" is foundational to religious liberty. Religious liberty exists because of secularist ideals of plurality. If non-discrimination rights are taken away, so is religious liberty.

IOW religious liberties exist because of rights of non-discrimination. Oaks seems to be placing non-discrimination into silos, some of which are appropriate and some which are not. For Oaks, if non-discrimination of things like LGBT issues butts up against a religious institutions right to discriminate against LGBT, then he seems to side with the institution. Of course not all religious institutions are the same so what he would deem an infringement of his religious liberty is another person's claim on religious liberty.

Well, a right cannot be both emerging and foundational to the pre-defined, fundamental right(s) that led it its granting… Its origin is in the practice of those basic freedoms added to the original constitution in its first amendment. Hopefully you recognize you have this backwards and can frame your argument better.

The exercise of religious freedom was given special protection in the constitution long before any of the emerging rights of the last century gained prominence. The First Amendment freedoms getting special protection by the constitution led to anything else that evolved into what might be granted as a right today.

But regardless of what came first, what is foundational to what, etc., you seem to have misinterpreted the quotes you culled from the article in your comments 1- and 2- and as a result are not actually addressing the points he's making.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, a right cannot be both emerging and foundational to the pre-defined, fundamental right(s) that led it its granting… Its origin is in the practice of those basic freedoms added to the original constitution in its first amendment. Hopefully you recognize you have this backwards and can frame your argument better.

 

The exercise of religious freedom was given special protection in the constitution long before any of the emerging rights of the last century gained prominence. The First Amendment freedoms getting special protection by the constitution led to anything else that evolved into what might be granted as a right today.

 

But regardless of what came first, what is foundational to what, etc., you seem to have misinterpreted the quotes you culled from the article in your comments 1- and 2- and as a result are not actually addressing the points he's making.

 

This made me chuckle. Yes, I realize that something can't both be foundational and "emerging" which is why Oaks' use of "emerging" is so nonsensical. Like non-discrimination is a new thing. Funny

What is at the foundation of religious freedom? Why was it included in the constitution? I'm claiming that it was largely due to the desire to avoid persecution by others on basis of religion. That sounds an awful lot like this new fandangled "emerging" right of non-discrimination.

If I'm misinterpreting his comments, please correct me. What did he intend to say?

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I believe that if Elder Oaks had been speaking to an audience outside of the United States that he would have chosen different words.  As he was speaking to congregations within the US, his words seem appropriate for that audience.

You may think so, but when we who live outside the US, hear US citizens express themselves about freedoms, or religious rights or laws in other countries, ignorance is more common than incorporation of other points of view. Americans, in general, have been raised indoctrinated that they live in the best country in the world, all categories. That worldview inherently blocks their ability to see how others live or even value where other societies should place values and what is important.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You may think so, but when we who live outside the US, hear US citizens express themselves about freedoms, or religious rights or laws in other countries, ignorance is more common than incorporation of other points of view. Americans, in general, have been raised indoctrinated that they live in the best country in the world, all categories. That worldview inherently blocks their ability to see how others live or even value where other societies should place values and what is important.

He was speaking at a regional conference.  The region was within the United States.  One would expect his remarks to be tailored to that audience. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I believe that if Elder Oaks had been speaking to an audience outside of the United States that he would have chosen different words.  As he was speaking to congregations within the US, his words seem appropriate for that audience.

Imo, in order to maximize religious freedom over the world, each country's members must push (where this is allowed and pray fervently where it is not) for the fullness of what religious freedom is available to them and thus in the US It is appropriate for Elder Oaks to focus on what we need to do here.  

Each country influences others for good or ill.  We need to have the US and other free countries pushing for solid protection of religious freedom so that Russia's version doesn't become the beacon others look to.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Imo, in order to maximize religious freedom over the world, each country's members must push (where this is allowed and pray fervently where it is not) for the fullness of what religious freedom is available to them and thus in the US It is appropriate for Elder Oaks to focus on what we need to do here.  

Each country influences others for good or ill.  We need to have the US and other free countries pushing for solid protection of religious freedom so that Russia's version doesn't become the beacon others look to.

Sure, but Oaks' words are so over the top that he intimates that the success of God's Plan of Salvation rests on religious freedom (as defined by the church) in the US.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Each country influences others for good or ill.  We need to have the US and other free countries pushing for solid protection of religious freedom so that Russia's version doesn't become the beacon others look to.

Or France's!

There are legitimate religious freedom issues in the world, but IMO there are no real threats to religious freedom in the US right now. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This made me chuckle. Yes, I realize that something can't both be foundational and "emerging" which is why Oaks' use of "emerging" is so nonsensical. Like non-discrimination is a new thing. Funny

What is at the foundation of religious freedom? Why was it included in the constitution? I'm claiming that it was largely due to the desire to avoid persecution by others on basis of religion. That sounds an awful lot like this new fandangled "emerging" right of non-discrimination.

If I'm misinterpreting his comments, please correct me. What did he intend to say?

And therein lies your misunderstanding: they aren’t the same thing!  The First Amendment was / is not anti-discrimination law. As part of the constitution, it holds that the federal government cannot establish and police our speech, associations, or religious expressions. Anti-discrimination law, to the contrary, actually grants some latitude to the government to do this for the expressed public interest. That is why such laws are subject to constitutional scrutiny, and why they are sometimes criticized for impinging on the First Amendment. I think you need to learn a bit more about how this all works before running around with scissors and sabotaging the usefulness of your own thread.

I already laid out the intended interpretation of his comments in my first post. What do you not understand about it?

[Duncan]

Elder Oaks just put up a post on FB and comments are welcome

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And therein lies your misunderstanding: they aren’t the same thing!  The First Amendment was / is not anti-discrimination law. As part of the constitution, it holds that the federal government cannot establish and police our speech, associations, or religious expressions. Anti-discrimination law, to the contrary, actually grants some latitude to the government to do this for the expressed public interest. That is why such laws are subject to constitutional scrutiny, and why they are sometimes criticized for impinging on the First Amendment. I think you need to learn a bit more about how this all works before running around with scissors and sabotaging the usefulness of your own thread.

 

I already laid out the intended interpretation of his comments in my first post. What do you not understand about it?

I understand that we disagree but there's no need to be hostile about it.

You make a good point about how non-discrimination laws are sometimes seen as threats to the first amendment. But that's the irony of the whole thing. At it's core, the motivation for the first amendment is to keep people free to worship how they want.  They were afraid of government persecution and discrimination. They were very smart. The "emerging" non-discrimination rights is applying that fear of persecution and discrimination to society, not just government.

What is foundational is that people want the freedom to worship how they choose without suffering severe persecution. They don't want the persecution to come from the government and they don't want it to come from society at large; whether business or other institutions. The problem is that what you view as discrimination against your religion is actually the exercise of someone elses. That's why secularism evolved in a way that the public square can be a zone where people of differing ideas and beliefs can communicate and participate even if they aren't part of the "in" group.

Edited September 12, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Nevo]

7 hours ago, Buckeye said:

For more on this topic, see the church's new website on protecting religious freedom (https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom) and in particular the FAQ (https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom/faq).

I quickly perused the website last night. I'd been wondering what has been driving the Church's recent push on protecting religious freedom. The article, "Why Religious Freedom Matters," answered my question:

Quote

• Churches may be forced to employ people who disagree with or refuse to live core values of their faith, threatening their ability to carry out their religious missions.
• Churches could lose their tax-exempt status by maintaining doctrines, policies, and standards that conflict with secular beliefs regarding marriage, family, gender, and sexuality, resulting in a huge increase in costs to build houses of worship or to purchase and provide goods for humanitarian aid.
• You might lose tax exemptions for charitable donations like tithes and offerings if the Church loses its status as a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization.
• Housing units, such as dorms, at religious colleges could be forced to abandon moral standards that protect privacy, modesty, and morality, denying people the right to room with those who uphold the same standards. 
• Religious schools that maintain honor codes may lose their accreditation and be denied research funds and even federal student loans and grants, diminishing the value of their degrees, undermining the quality of their education, and making it financially impossible for many students to attend. 

I think the leaders are right to worry. The days of tax-exempt status, Church-run schools, and the freedom to proselytize publicly may well be numbered (see, e.g., the recent drawdown of missionaries volunteers in Russia).

Edited September 12, 2016 by Nevo

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand that we disagree but there's no need to be hostile about it.

You make a good point about how non-discrimination laws are sometimes seen as threats to the first amendment. But that's the irony of the whole thing. At it's core, the motivation for the first amendment is to keep people free to worship how they want.  They were afraid of government persecution and discrimination. They were very smart. The "emerging" non-discrimination rights is applying that fear of persecution and discrimination to society, not just government.

What is foundational is that people want the freedom to worship how they choose without suffering severe persecution. They don't want the persecution to come from the government and they don't want it to come from society at large; whether business or other institutions. The problem is that what you view as discrimination against your religion is actually the exercise of someone elses. That's why secularism evolved in a way that the public square can be a zone where people of differing ideas and beliefs can communicate and participate even if they aren't part of the "in" group.

You may read hostility into my remarks, but none is intended any more than the chuckle you shared.

The First Amendment came about because people didn’t want to be persecuted by their government. That was the motivation, mutual respect in a simpler society, as they saw it, was a given. Once that was settled, and over generations the government and the economy became stronger, and with growth in diversity the populace deemed it safe to grant the government power to pass and enforce anti-discrimination laws to ensure that everyone had the same privileges that were easily assumed as recognized in earlier, more homogenous generations. That is a different motivation altogether. But the constitutional check protecting first amendment freedoms in contrast to the power granted the government to make these laws came and should always come first.

You’re conflating expectations from government with expectations from society, but one requires a constitution to control it and the other requires law to manage within it. What you’re describing as “fundamental” seems to be more laid out in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, so you’re conflating those as well.

So your last paragraph is somewhat meaningless to me. Yes, everybody wants to be happy and do what they want (in this case, to worship or not (a) without government interference – the Constitution; or (b) with support from anti-discrimination – the laws). Some just don’t know how to go about it intelligently with respect to the constitutional or legislative processes, which is why they really don’t understand the conversation going on in the public square and resort to unqualified, cartoonish misrepresentations of statements by people like Elder Oaks. This is why they put anti-discrimination laws and their motivation for them on a par with -- meaning before -- the Constitutional protection and a motivation they lack to uphold it, and how this translates into the problem Elder Oaks describes.

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Elder Oaks just put up a post on FB and comments are welcome

Nuts. I deleted my fb account years ago. I never really missed it till now.