Oaks- Religious Liberty

[Buckeye]

58 minutes ago, Nevo said:

 

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).

The key will be his other religious groups evolve. So long as the Catholics, baptists, etc have similar policies to the LDS, the church and its schools will weather the storm. But if others change, then I could federal student aid and tax exemptions become a serious risk. 

Long before that, though, will come pressure from non-government groups. Colleges will boycott BYU sports and visiting faculty. That kind of stuff. It's sad, but I'd bet against BYU getting into the big 12 right now. 

[Bob Crockett]

Jefferson was the key architect of anticlericalism in the U.S., arguing that pastors should be prohibited from public office and that churches should not have free speech in political debate.  As many have argued in published papers, including yours truly, Jefferson's position was likely a response to attacks in the press on Jefferson's immorality (well, his relationship with Hemmings) by clergyman during Jefferson's second presidential campaign.

Free religious speech is at risk in the United States.  The federal judge who struck down California's Proposition 8 cited as a major reason for his decision the fact that major religions backed Proposition 8, with their intolerant attitudes. 

The Hobby Lobby and the LIttle Sisters of the Poor cases are prime examples of the government trying to use something other than tax exemption to compel religions to toe the line on issues fairly antithetical to conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims. The government has sought to compel the provision of medical services these plaintiffs assert are immoral. 

Federal law prohibits religions from endorsing political candidates.  For the life of me I don't see the wisdom in that, as many other non-profits are not so restricted.   

I am not politically conservative.  I tend to favor the positions of the Democratic Party this year.  But it is my observation that the Democrats tend to be unfairly intolerant of religious speech.  Republicans are intolerant of the civil rights of oppressed minorities, which may include certain religions. 

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[James Tunney]

This strikes me as whining that religion is losing a privileged status.  The people and the courts don't think the LGTBQ community is the boogey-man any more.  Maybe it's time to create another one?  Surely there is something else the people can fear that will drive the people into the pews?  Maybe a righteous war like the crusades?

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours 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.

I completely agree. However from the outside America doesn't look like much of a beacon lately. "Extreme Vetting" and "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country" have received a lot of attention out here.  

Maybe this is why Oakes has emphasized the US Constitution in his discussion of religious freedom.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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? 

Yes. Most are willing to concede that religious freedom is good but more and more they want that freedom limited to chapels and churches and they do not want to hear or see anything of it. I see the recent events in Europe where secular societies are banning clothing for anti-religious reasons as a bad step.

Unfortunately we have hyperbole on our side as well with people agitated over forced gay marriages in the temple and other very unlikely things. We recently had a fireside on religious freedom in our stake and they told us not to talk about things like this. Instead we should make friends and work with people in local positions of power so reasonable accomodations can be made so that we and others can practice our faith privately and publicly.

The idea that Oaks wants to privilege his ideas is unfair. It assumes an adversarial position where one is right and the other is wrong and whoever "loses" in the free marketplace of ideas should be shut up and those ideas removed. Oaks wants the right to live ones religion publicly protected. At times that means asking for reasonable accomodations from schools officials, politicians, and the like. We should and often do do similar things to accommodate other cultures and subcultures in our communities. My city has a zombie walk and a public area that once a week is used by a group of LARPers to pretend they are vampires for a few hours. These are weird requests to some but they do little to no harm and they let people live publicly with some weird tastes. Religion should be in a similar position and there is a real danger of losing it.

I do not want to live in a community where being Mormon is something I have to hide to find employment or associate with others. The problem is not primarily political. It is social. It is a question of inclusiveness.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I completely agree. However from the outside America doesn't look like much of a beacon lately. "Extreme Vetting" and "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country" have received a lot of attention out here.  

I am twisted enough that I almost hope that the pit these people dig for their neighbor will be filled with those that dug it. They remind me of lemmings.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Jefferson was the key architect of anticlericalism in the U.S., arguing that pastors should be prohibited from public office and that churches should not have free speech in political debate.  As many have argued in published papers, including yours truly, Jefferson's position was likely a response to attacks in the press on Jefferson's immorality (well, his relationship with Hemmings) by clergyman during Jefferson's second presidential campaign.

Free religious speech is at risk in the United States.  The federal judge who struck down California's Proposition 8 cited as a major reason for his decision the fact that major religions backed Proposition 8, with their intolerant attitudes. 

The Hobby Lobby and the LIttle Sisters of the Poor cases are prime examples of the government trying to use something other than tax exemption to compel religions to toe the line on issues fairly antithetical to conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims. The government has sought to compel the provision of medical services these plaintiffs assert are immoral. 

Federal law prohibits religions from endorsing political candidates.  For the life of me I don't see the wisdom in that, as many other non-profits are not so restricted.   

I am not politically conservative.  I tend to favor the positions of the Democratic Party this year.  But it is my observation that the Democrats tend to be unfairly intolerant of religious speech.  Republicans are intolerant of the civil rights of oppressed minorities, which may include certain religions. 

 

The major reason why the judge struck down peop 8 was because religious tradition and belief is not a reason to deny someone their civil rights. Virtually every court that heard the case concerning gay marriage agreed.  that is a bit different than religion supporting prop 8 as the reason the judge struck it down 

[Shadrak]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that Oaks wants to privilege his ideas is unfair. It assumes an adversarial position where one is right and the other is wrong and whoever "loses" in the free marketplace of ideas should be shut up and those ideas removed.

Perhaps you are giving Oaks too much credit. On numerous occasions over many years he has declared that the free exercise of religion deserves greater protection than almost any other Constitutional rights that are not based on religion. He has also lamented the broadening definition of religion beyond its traditional Judeo/Christian roots as our society has become more pluralistic, indicating that his definition of religion is more valid than others.

He also calls the other side adversaries. He does call for civility but ultimately he does think that if the other side wins his will lose in an unrecoverable way. This is why he now calls for a cease fire in the culture-wars because his side is losing. He wasn't calling for one 10 years ago when his side was winning. He needs time to regroup and try different tactics now that religion is not treated as deferentially as he's used to.

Non-discrimination is the new enemy and biggest threat to his version of religious freedom, which is for his beliefs to be the dominant influence in society. And if not society at large, then at least maintain total control over the bits of territory he has in the name of religious freedom.

Imagine his world where a religious belief trumps almost any other law or value in the Constitution, simply because that value is secular. It's like he doesn't see the irony that religious freedom is a secular value.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Shadrak said:

He has also lamented the broadening definition of religion beyond its traditional Judeo/Christian roots as our society has become more pluralistic, indicating that his definition of religion is more valid than others.

CFR please

[Shadrak]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please

From a lecture Oaks gave at Chapman University in 2011. He doesn't like religions not based on his God.  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-religious-freedom-Chapman-University

"Over a quarter century ago I reviewed the history and predicted the future of church/state law in a lecture at DePaul University in Chicago.18 I took sad notice of the fact that the United States Supreme Court had diminished the significance of free exercise by expanding the definition of religion to include what the Court called “religions" not based on belief in God. I wrote:

“The problem with a definition of religion that includes almost everything is that the practical effect of inclusion comes to mean almost nothing. Free exercise protections become diluted as their scope becomes more diffuse. When religion has no more right to free exercise than irreligion or any other secular philosophy, the whole newly expanded category of ‘religion’ is likely to diminish in significance.”19"

[Calm]

SD, that would depend on what he meant by "God" and if he intended to be any more specific than "deity".  He also did not say "my God" but kept it generic.  At the very least, he appears to be speaking of God as understood by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  

But he could be referring to whatever religious beliefs that incorporate the teaching of a supreme being.  It would appear he may be referring to this ruling in the 60s:. "In a footnote the Court clarified that this principle extended to “religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God … Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”"

If so, I suspect he is simply suggesting that religion should be separated from belief systems that are in many of their forms not religions, but fundamentally philosophies.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/has-the-supreme-court-defined-religion

Edited September 13, 2016 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

The major reason why the judge struck down peop 8 was because religious tradition and belief is not a reason to deny someone their civil rights. Virtually every court that heard the case concerning gay marriage agreed.  that is a bit different than religion supporting prop 8 as the reason the judge struck it down 

 

 

 

 

 

I think reading the decision that way to avoid the religious free speech issue isn't enough to excuse the court for singling out the particular religious beliefs of Catholics, Mormons and Evangelicals.  

From a paper I published in a Rutgers law journal :

Quote

The Court cited a pro-Proposition 8 rally organizer claiming that “God has led the way” for the campaign. The Court pointed to Catholic leaflets condemning, as casuistry and rationalization, attempts to read the Bible to pardon homosexual behavior. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church advanced the position that homosexuality was a distortion of the image of God. Judge Walker found that polling data revealed that persons who voted for Proposition 8 were more likely to also be those who attend church regularly. His opinion singled out the Mormons, Catholic bishops and Evangelical ministers as Proposition 8’s supporters. He found evidence that “[t]he coalition between the Catholic Church and the LDS [Mormon] Church against a minority group was unprecedented.” Religion had impermissibly influenced the contest. The Court observed that moral disapproval of homosexuality “is not a proper basis upon which to legislate.” The religious animus, voiced for months in media reports, was elevated to judicial declaration.

 

 

 

 

1

This was a direct assault upon religious teachings.  There should be no reason to condemn the coalition between the LDS Church and the Mormons.  That isn't "tradition" but it was the lobbying effort of two major religious groups in support of Proposition 8.  Where else can you find argument in a court decision striking down legislation because it had the support of a lobbying effort from a labor union, or the Communist Party?  

As my paper points out, the real reason for Proposition 8's passage was the overwhelming support the black churches gave for Proposition 8 (this was the same election as Obama's first), according to polling data.  But, the fact that religious coalitions lined up to support the Proposition is no reason to strike it down.   The Court in the Prop 8 could have easily found reasons other than the speech of religions to strike down Proposition 8.

I say this coming from the position of one who supports the rights of gays to marry, and who believes that Proposition 8 was, indeed, an infringement upon the civil rights of gays.  But, I also think that free speech trumps basically any other right that isn't clearly and plainly spelled out in the constitution, as the right to marry is not.  Really, what is the harm in letting religious groups have their say in lobbying efforts?   Why can't major religions endorse political candidates?  Unions can; trade groups can.  Elder Oaks' position that there is a current and present threat in the U.S. against the rights of religions to speak out was no better manifested than in the Proposition 8 fight.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Perhaps you are giving Oaks too much credit. On numerous occasions over many years he has declared that the free exercise of religion deserves greater protection than almost any other Constitutional rights that are not based on religion. He has also lamented the broadening definition of religion beyond its traditional Judeo/Christian roots as our society has become more pluralistic, indicating that his definition of religion is more valid than others.

He also calls the other side adversaries. He does call for civility but ultimately he does think that if the other side wins his will lose in an unrecoverable way. This is why he now calls for a cease fire in the culture-wars because his side is losing. He wasn't calling for one 10 years ago when his side was winning. He needs time to regroup and try different tactics now that religion is not treated as deferentially as he's used to.

Non-discrimination is the new enemy and biggest threat to his version of religious freedom, which is for his beliefs to be the dominant influence in society. And if not society at large, then at least maintain total control over the bits of territory he has in the name of religious freedom.

Imagine his world where a religious belief trumps almost any other law or value in the Constitution, simply because that value is secular. It's like he doesn't see the irony that religious freedom is a secular value.

He is not calling for religious freedom to be given greater protection than other constitutional rights, but its continued special protection per the First Amendment. The redefining of religion, like that of marriage, has a tendency to separate the institution from its roots to be co-opted by the corresponding antithesis and then rendered meaningless. A trajectory of meaninglessness does not a society form; it is isolating. And of course strategy and tactics change as the landscape changes.

It is not anti-discrimination law that threatens the First Amendment, it is the backwards prioritization of law (power granted the government) over constitution (power retained by the citizenry). It’s like drilling anchor holes without regard to maintaining the integrity of the foundation. Considering what the First Amendment covers, this hurts everyone in the end.

[Shadrak]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

SD, that would depend on what he meant by "God" and if he intended to be any more specific than "deity".  He also did not say "my God" but kept it generic.  At the very least, he appears to be speaking of God as understood by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  

But he could be referring to whatever religious beliefs that incorporate the teaching of a supreme being.  It would appear he may be referring to this ruling in the 60s:. "In a footnote the Court clarified that this principle extended to “religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God … Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”"

If so, I suspect he is simply suggesting that religion should be separated from belief systems that are in many of their forms not religions, but fundamentally philosophies.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/has-the-supreme-court-defined-religion

Good point, sometimes he says things like, "faith in God-however defined" which leaves open a wide view. But it seems that when God is capitalized he is meaning a biblical Lord God. I do tend to think that his main point is he wants a narrow definition of religion that includes his but excludes belief systems he doesn't think rise to a religion. He is quite hostile to most any kind of secular ethics or moral belief system and places religion well above these.

This quote from a 2016 address at Claremont Graduate University by Oaks makes me think that he means the biblical God and not any type of deity or divine essence and against any secular belief. He seems to be saying that the more religion is broadly defined (especially beyond the biblical God), the less his religion was/is/will be specially protected.

"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."

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/03/a-mormon-perspective-on-religious-freedom

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Nevo said:

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:

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).

I'm not all that convinced.  From what I've seen the only people who really want to see the Church lose it's tax exempt status are ex-LDS and their sway is not that great, at least at this point.  Has it really ever been debated seriously?  I mean I know this piece you linked to said, we could lose it as a Church...I just don't see it happening.  It's just saying that's a worry.  But, in the end, if the Church loses tax exempt status, we'll get by.  We simply won't have the luxury of all the extra spending cash it has now, unless it focuses more on getting moneys through it's business ventures.  I don't see the threat as real concerning religious schools losing accreditation either.  Private religious schools might lose some research and federal funding because of discrimination...that I wouldn't doubt.  But, I don't see that as a negative thing. 

[Shadrak]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

He is not calling for religious freedom to be given greater protection than other constitutional rights, but its continued special protection per the First Amendment. The redefining of religion, like that of marriage, has a tendency to separate the institution from its roots to be co-opted by the corresponding antithesis and then rendered meaningless. A trajectory of meaninglessness does not a society form; it is isolating. And of course strategy and tactics change as the landscape changes.

 

It is not anti-discrimination law that threatens the First Amendment, it is the backwards prioritization of law (power granted the government) over constitution (power retained by the citizenry). It’s like drilling anchor holes without regard to maintaining the integrity of the foundation. Considering what the First Amendment covers, this hurts everyone in the end.

 

On more than one occasion Oaks has called for greater protection for religious action and practice compared to other rights. It is a "pre-eminent" right, the first freedom and deserves special, elevated, and increased consideration above others.

Quote

the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/oaks-religious-freedom

What he seems to have a problem with now, is that over the last few decades the Judeo/Christian God and religion have lost its position as the greatest good and an unquestionable belief. Religious beliefs aren't given the same deference as in times past and don't always win. He's lamenting that religious ideas and secular ideas are now on an equal playing field in the public, and secularism generally makes more sense and is more fair for all. He's fighting to maintain religion's greatest good position, but other than God said so, there is no moral or logical reason to think his approved religions/beliefs are superior to another set of beliefs. You must really think lowly of others when you think a belief system that is different than yours is "a trajectory of meaninglessness." But then again, a secularist generally thinks equally of a religionists view.

I think the question many are now asking is why should religionists have one set of rules/laws and secularists (which is everyone else) have a different set? Wouldn't his call for preferential treatment of a particular belief establish one belief over another, which is the very thing the First Amendment was meant to guard against? 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Shadrak said:

On more than one occasion Oaks has called for greater protection for religious action and practice compared to other rights. It is a "pre-eminent" right, the first freedom and deserves special, elevated, and increased consideration above others.

What he seems to have a problem with now, is that over the last few decades the Judeo/Christian God and religion have lost its position as the greatest good and an unquestionable belief. Religious beliefs aren't given the same deference as in times past and don't always win. He's lamenting that religious ideas and secular ideas are now on an equal playing field in the public, and secularism generally makes more sense and is more fair for all. He's fighting to maintain religion's greatest good position, but other than God said so, there is no moral or logical reason to think his approved religions/beliefs are superior to another set of beliefs. You must really think lowly of others when you think a belief system that is different than yours is "a trajectory of meaninglessness." But then again, a secularist generally thinks equally of a religionists view.

I think the question many are now asking is why should religionists have one set of rules/laws and secularists (which is everyone else) have a different set? Wouldn't his call for preferential treatment of a particular belief establish one belief over another, which is the very thing the First Amendment was meant to guard against? 

Good stuff, Shadrak! Great points.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Perhaps you are giving Oaks too much credit. On numerous occasions over many years he has declared that the free exercise of religion deserves greater protection than almost any other Constitutional rights that are not based on religion. He has also lamented the broadening definition of religion beyond its traditional Judeo/Christian roots as our society has become more pluralistic, indicating that his definition of religion is more valid than others.

He also calls the other side adversaries. He does call for civility but ultimately he does think that if the other side wins his will lose in an unrecoverable way. This is why he now calls for a cease fire in the culture-wars because his side is losing. He wasn't calling for one 10 years ago when his side was winning. He needs time to regroup and try different tactics now that religion is not treated as deferentially as he's used to.

Non-discrimination is the new enemy and biggest threat to his version of religious freedom, which is for his beliefs to be the dominant influence in society. And if not society at large, then at least maintain total control over the bits of territory he has in the name of religious freedom.

Imagine his world where a religious belief trumps almost any other law or value in the Constitution, simply because that value is secular. It's like he doesn't see the irony that religious freedom is a secular value.

And perhaps you are insane if you believe this straw man.

[Gray]

The first amendment covers a range of freedoms:

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Reasonable restrictions have been placed on each and every one of them. There are limits to what the press can do, limits to what we can say without consequences, limits to how we can assemble and where, and limits to how we can practice religion. The only possible cause for legitimate concern might be recent anti-Muslim sentiments from some would-be politicians. 

[thesometimesaint]

Jefferson produced "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," declaring "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."

[Shadrak]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And perhaps you are insane if you believe this straw man.

You'll have to be more specific as there are so many here.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes. Most are willing to concede that religious freedom is good but more and more they want that freedom limited to chapels and churches and they do not want to hear or see anything of it. I see the recent events in Europe where secular societies are banning clothing for anti-religious reasons as a bad step.

Unfortunately we have hyperbole on our side as well with people agitated over forced gay marriages in the temple and other very unlikely things. We recently had a fireside on religious freedom in our stake and they told us not to talk about things like this. Instead we should make friends and work with people in local positions of power so reasonable accomodations can be made so that we and others can practice our faith privately and publicly.

The idea that Oaks wants to privilege his ideas is unfair. It assumes an adversarial position where one is right and the other is wrong and whoever "loses" in the free marketplace of ideas should be shut up and those ideas removed. Oaks wants the right to live ones religion publicly protected. At times that means asking for reasonable accomodations from schools officials, politicians, and the like. We should and often do do similar things to accommodate other cultures and subcultures in our communities. My city has a zombie walk and a public area that once a week is used by a group of LARPers to pretend they are vampires for a few hours. These are weird requests to some but they do little to no harm and they let people live publicly with some weird tastes. Religion should be in a similar position and there is a real danger of losing it.

I do not want to live in a community where being Mormon is something I have to hide to find employment or associate with others. The problem is not primarily political. It is social. It is a question of inclusiveness.

I agree with you about the clothing bans in France, this is a bad step of discrimination.

Interesting that your stake had a fireside on this issue, I would be curious to understand what exactly members were encouraged to work on accommodations about specifically?  When you say practice your faith privately, I'm not aware of any threats to private practice, but when you say practice your faith publicly, what does that mean?  What is it about public practice that is in jeopardy, and what do you think needs to be protected? 

As for Oaks, I'm not saying he should shut up or disengage.  I think he should present his case and where his ideas are not agreed upon, he should negotiate and compromise and continue to have conversations.  That is what I meant by the free marketplace of ideas.  

Quote

 "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?"

Take a look at this quote again.  Oaks is saying that religious-based views are not free to participate in this free market process.  Do you agree with his statement?  Why would they not be just as free to participate as any other interests?  

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with you about the clothing bans in France, this is a bad step of discrimination.

Interesting that your stake had a fireside on this issue, I would be curious to understand what exactly members were encouraged to work on accommodations about specifically?  When you say practice your faith privately, I'm not aware of any threats to private practice, but when you say practice your faith publicly, what does that mean?  What is it about public practice that is in jeopardy, and what do you think needs to be protected? 

As for Oaks, I'm not saying he should shut up or disengage.  I think he should present his case and where his ideas are not agreed upon, he should negotiate and compromise and continue to have conversations.  That is what I meant by the free marketplace of ideas.  

Take a look at this quote again.  Oaks is saying that religious-based views are not free to participate in this free market process.  Do you agree with his statement?  Why would they not be just as free to participate as any other interests?  

I think the concern is that if members (and others with similar beliefs) choose to stop defending the church's teaching against SSM in the public sphere, then the shift in attitudes accepting SSM will proceed more quickly, particularly in LDS communities. I recall during the height of the SSM debate that many supporters of traditional marriage argued that the public's shifting attitudes may stabilize, or even revert back to their view, once the effects of SSM were seen. They analogized the debate to abortion. Others (like myself) who support SSM, argued that a better analogy is interracial marriage. 

From what I'm seeing in my church community, church leaders are correct in their sense that members are ceasing to publicly defend the church's teaching. When the subject comes up in church circles now, few want to talk about it and we move to a different subject. The silence is even more extreme with the youth (where I teach) considering that most of them support SSM (or at least do not oppose it) and many of their leaders hold similar views since the youth leaders tend to skew to younger and mid-age adults.

The real concern is not that the public (or government) is ready to seriously attack the church at this time. The concern is that, if current trends continue, the church will reach the point where there is no longer support within the members, just like what happened with the racial priesthood ban.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Buckeye

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not all that convinced.  From what I've seen the only people who really want to see the Church lose it's tax exempt status are ex-LDS and their sway is not that great, at least at this point.  Has it really ever been debated seriously?  I mean I know this piece you linked to said, we could lose it as a Church...I just don't see it happening. 

It has been discussed. It will likely be discussed more in the coming years. 

Quote

But, in the end, if the Church loses tax exempt status, we'll get by.  We simply won't have the luxury of all the extra spending cash it has now, unless it focuses more on getting moneys through it's business ventures. 

I expect the Church would "get by." But having to pay tax, with less tithing revenue coming in, would definitely impact the Church's ability to carry out its mission. The Church currently spends an enormous amount of money building and maintaining meetinghouses and temples. It also spends a lot on church education and subsidizing church schools. All of those things would be adversely affected.

Quote

I don't see the threat as real concerning religious schools losing accreditation either.  

I think the threat is very real. The process is already well underway in Canada. Here is an excerpt from a recent legal brief filed by the Law Society of British Columbia defending its decision to deny accreditation to a religious university's law school:

Quote

172. The impact on [Trinity Western University]’s ability to create a law school composed entirely of people who adhere to their religious beliefs has to be balanced against the equality rights of LGBTQ people and women.

173. TWU’s admissions policy effectively deprives LGBTQ individuals and women an equal opportunity to access law school, and therefore deprives them of equal access to the profession and the judiciary.

174. Depriving individuals of equal access to law school on the basis of protected characteristics like sexual orientation or gender is a serious incursion upon their autonomy and personhood. The Ontario Divisional Court found that the Covenant is “by its very nature, discriminatory”: In order for persons, who do not hold the beliefs that TWU espouses, to attend TWU, they must openly, and contractually, renounce those beliefs or, at the very least, agree not to practice them. The only other apparent option for prospective students, who do not share TWU’s religious beliefs, but who still desire to obtain one of its coveted law school spots, is to engage in an active deception, in terms of their true beliefs and their true identity, with dire consequences if their deception is discovered… This reality is of particular importance for LGBTQ persons because, in order to attend TWU, they must sign a document in which they agree to essentially bury a crucial component of their very identity, by forsaking any form of intimacy with those persons with whom they would wish to form a relationship TWU v. LSUC, supra at paras 108, 111-112.

175. As was the case in Vriend v. Alberta, the failure of public bodies to condemn the discriminatory admission and enrollment policies of TWU sends the message that “it is permissible, and perhaps even acceptable, to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation”. Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493 at para 102. 176. While TWU is not strictly bound by the Charter, the Law Society is. The Law Society must take into account the equality rights of persons who would be deprived of equal access to the legal profession through the approval of a proposed law school with discriminatory admissions and enrolment policies.

177. Indeed, as the Supreme Court has recently held, religious freedom itself must be understood “in the context of a secular, multicultural and democratic society with a strong interest in protecting dignity and diversity, promoting equality, and ensuring the vitality of a common belief in human rights.” According to the Court, “the state always has a legitimate interest in promoting and protecting” values such as diversity and equality, as the Law Society has done here. Loyola, supra at paras 47-48 (emphasis added). 

178. The Law Society was legally required to strike a reasonable balance between these competing Charter rights and values. Previous cases involving the conflict between religious freedom and equality rights have found that the ability of religious individuals to exclude others did not outweigh the right of LGBTQ persons to participate in society free from discrimination in the provision of benefits or services. See e.g. Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3; Brockie v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2002] OJ No 2375 (QL); Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons, 2010 ONSC 2105; Eadie and Thomas v. Riverbend Bed and Breakfast (No. 2), 2012 BCHRT 247.

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/docs/newsroom/TWU-factum.pdf

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Nevo

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Nevo said:

 

I think that threat is very real and fully expect it to happen within the next decade or two. The process is already well underway in Canada. Here is an excerpt from a recent legal brief filed by the Law Society of British Columbia defending its decision to deny accreditation to a religious university's law school:

 

Decisions made in Canadian courts have no bearing on US law.